Asia Pacific Censorship News

Thailand's military junta, the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), announced on 25 June that it is creating panels to control media content and to prevent the media from being use to spread false information that could incite hatred and violence against the monarchy.

The junta said each media sector: radio, TV, print media, online media, social networks and foreign media, will be monitored by a different panel and each panel will have representatives from the police, army, navy, air force, foreign ministry, prime minister's office, public relations department and other state bodies.

Criminal proceedings may be brought against media that broadcast content that the junta does not like. The panels will prepare regular reports for Gen. Prayuth Chan-ocha, the head of the junta, while reporting cases of false information to him immediately.

Benjamin Ismael, the head of the Reporters Without Borders Asia-Pacific desk said:

The creation of these panels constitutes a new stage in the gagging of news and information by the Thai military junta. Is the junta in the process of creating a system of censorship based on the former Burmese model?

The composition of the panels and complete absence of media representatives suggest a level of freedom approaching zero. No details have been given on how the panels will operate. Reporters Without Borders urges the NCPO to abandon this plan altogether as it could introduce an unprecedented degree of censorship in Thailand.

Police have filed an obscenity charge against the author of a new novel.

Author Aung Yin Nyein has sparked a storm of controversy with his sexually explicit novel, Romanbot , which has since been withdrawn from the market.

Police in Thingangyun township said they had filed a charge against the author under section 292 of the Penal Code, which relates to the sale, hire or distribution of an obscene book.

While hard copies of the book are no longer available, PDF versions were quickly made available online for curious readers.

Japan's government is considering allowing late-night dancing in public establishments, potentially ending police raids that have blighted nightclubs across the country.

Dancing at public venues is technically illegal in Japan and is only permitted until midnight in clubs with a special licence, a vestige of morality laws passed in 1948.

The police has renewed enforcement of the law in recent years and raids invoking the law have spread to other cities, with police breaking up parties and closing some clubs. No dancing signs have even become a common sight at many venues.

However, a public backlash against the law has spurred debate in parliament. Of course government interest in relaxing the laws is nothing to do with making life more enjoyable for the people, its more that big businesses are looking to cash in on an increase in tourism ahead of the 2020 Tokyo Olympics. Committee secretary general Tsukasa Akimoto, of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party, told AFP:

This law is unnecessary. Why should dancing be illegal? Obviously the Olympics are a factor. It's realistic to expect the law to be changed by the end of this year. I think politicians and authorities are feeling pressure as they don't want Japan to be seen as a boring place by foreign tourists,

Takahiro Saito, a Tokyo-based lawyer who has spearheaded a movement against the law called Let's Dance, organised a petition which was signed by 150,000 people. This prompted a group of nonpartisan lawmakers to urge reassessment of the law and in April the Osaka District Court exonerated a club owner charged for violating the dance ban, setting a legal precedent.

This week the prime minister will submit for government approval a deregulation bill which proposes removing the anti-dancing clause.

Filmmakers and importers will soon have to dip deeper into their pockets to have their film certified by the Malaysian Film Censorship Board.

Home Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi said the censorship fee would be reviewed after 30 years. He said the current rate was based on the Film Censorship Regulations 1984 that had not been amended since it came into force. He said:

The number of local and imported films have been on the rise, thus increasing the burden on the board. Industry players must accept the reality that changes require a high cost and the costs borne by the Government is no longer fair. We have to charge a reasonable fee to those who produce and import films,

He also urged industry players to understand the board's responsibility in ensuring that creative works by filmmakers were censored to the satisfaction of the Board moralists:

Don't just look to making a profit by producing films based on superstitions, toyol and ghost stories as we must balance art with social responsibility.

Thailand's Ministry of Information and Communication Technology (MICT) officials called for greater support in their efforts to censor supposedly inappropriate online content.

Piyakhun Nopphakhun, of the Crime Suppression Division of MICT claimed that:

Even though the military has taken over, they have not commanded us about what to do.

This rather begs the question as to why then is the group looking to ratchet up internet censorship.

Since the coup began, the Royal Thai Army has ordered ISPs to monitor online content that might lead to unrest, asked social media companies to prevent the spread of provocative messages and barred media from presenting news critical of the junta.

Piyakhun then ludicrously claimed that he believed that recent efforts by the Ministry to curb online content were not political in nature. But then he acknowledged that efforts to curb online content could be seen to violate rights.

This is not because of the coup, it is very normal practice. But I agree that the coup will have some effect. They (the Royal Thai Army) will put more people into helping fight the websites. Some people may ask about freedom of expression. I have to say that it will actually affect (this).

Piyakhun is keen to speed up the censorship process. He explained:

It takes about a week to block a website. One or two days to gather evidence. One or two days to get permission from MICT. One or two days to go to court. One or two days to distribute court orders to ISPs. One week is too slow.

At the moment everything is on paper. You have to print it out, present the evidence to the Ministers and the courts, and you have to present papers to the ISPs. If documents are not signed, we have to wait even longer. Computer officials have to physically travel to the courts to receive court orders.

At the moment we are in the process of getting approval to distribute court orders to the ISPs electronically. We are going to appoint one representative ISP to distribute these court orders to the other ISPs, because that representative would know which ISPs are active.

Technically, it is going to be very easy. But legally, is the only question. Are there any laws, regulations that allow us to do this legally? Do we really need to be present in court to present evidence?

Update: Attempted block of Facebook

16th June 2014. See article from bangkokpost.com

The National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) has condemned the Norway-based mobile operator Total Access Communication (DTAC) and asked it to clarify a company statement regarding an order by the internet censor to block Facebook.

Telenor of Norway, which owns DTAC, this week claimed online that Telenor Group confirmed that on May 28, DTAC received notification from the NBTC at 3pm that it must temporarily restrict access to Facebook. The restriction, which was implemented at 3.35pm, affected DTAC's 10 million Facebook-using customers. Telenor said it believed in open communication and regretted any consequences this might have had for the people of Thailand. Access to Facebook was restored at about 4.30pm, according to Telenor's statement.

But the Thai authorities weakly claimed the Facebook blackout was due to technical glitches and not purposely blocked. Colonel Settapong Malisuwan, chairman of the NBTC's telecom committee flannelled:

DTAC's statement has caused extensive damage to the regulator's image. We want the company to take responsibility by clarifying exactly who ordered Facebook to be blocked.

Censors in China have banned online video sites from showing popular American TV shows as repressive censorship rules are extended to streaming services.

The Big Bang Theory, The Good Wife, NCIS and The Practice have all been removed from sites including Youku.com and letv.com.

A spokeswoman for Youku said that the State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television (SAPPRFT) did not give a reason for the censorship.

Broadcasters in China have had repressive rules about showing Western content, but until recently the rules were not as strict for online streaming sites.