Malaysia Today has no respect for religion: Syed Hamid?

Link here - http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/8/30/nation/20080830182005&sec=nation

My question is - is this the best that they can come up with? A general reason that says "No respect for religion"?

Let me quote Syed Hamid & SKMM in italics red, so that you can form your own opinion whether the government's explanation to censor Malaysia Today website is adequate or not.

"The Malaysia Today news portal has no respect at all for religion even though the topic is very sensitive and the "fire of religion" could cause chaos and havoc"

Too general. Presumptive. Which article? Which date? Which paragraph?

"this did not mean it could be used to disparage, defame, libel and circulate untruths without boundaries and restraint, and that the Government has a responsibility to act in the name of public interest."

Too general. Presumptive. Which article? Which date? Which paragraph?

"you must not create public fear, or send a message that would cause uncertainty and a lot of damage to the country in terms of public confidence and investor confidence,"

Too general. Presumptive. Which article? Which date? Which paragraph?

"The SKMM head Mohamed Shahril Mohamed Tarmizi told Utusan that the ban against Malaysia Today was because an article in the website had tried to draw parallels of the Holy Prophet to the former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda's Osama bin Laden."

Too general. Presumptive. Which article? Which date? Which paragraph?

As a general comment, I am a daily MT reader, and quote a lot of articles in MT in my blog here. Everyday, I try to make it a point to read every single article in MT. If for some reason I could not read it today, I will try to catch up the next day, if not the day after.

Since last year, my conservative estimate is that I must have read at least 3,000 MT articles, or very conservatively say 10 a day over the last 300 days.

And not even once have I come across this article that "draw parallels of the Holy Prophet to the former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda's Osama bin Laden.". If I did, I certainly don't remember it. And I certainly did not felt fear. And I would not run around creating chaos and havoc as Syed Hamid claims.

In fact, logically speaking, if it did create chaos and havoc, wouldn't you and I already know? I mean if it doesn't create chaos and havoc today, yesterday, 2 days ago, 3 days ago, then, how old exactly is this article? And why censor MT at 6 PM on August 26?

As for creating public fear, if RPK's article did it, I expect the root cause to be the participants in the message and not the messenger.

So, I repeat - Which article? Which date? Which paragraph?

""I thought personally when they (SKMM) took action - under current developments - that we were very slow to take action even though we are hurt very badly so often," he added."

Too general. Presumptive. Which article? Which date? Which paragraph?

Other comments:

I have been extremely patient with the government, but from what I've seen so far, despite the numerous newspaper articles and despite the numerous explanations by Syed Hamid, I remain unconvinced, despite trying to keep an extremely open mind to the possibility.

But to date, they have not yet even mentioned the specific article, the specific date, nor even quote the specific paragraph!

I must therefore now come to this conclusion:

Is the government publicly lying to us?

Syed Hamid tells why Malaysia Today was blocked

As with every right thinking Malaysian, I was initially shocked when I first discovered that the highly popular Malaysia Today website was blocked under the orders of the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (SKMM).

However, I was even more shocked by the government response here - http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/11945/84/. Original article in italics red, my thoughts in brackets:

(The Star) - The controversial Malaysia Today news portal was blocked by the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (SKMM) because its editor ignored many warning letters, Home Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar said.

[Seng: Ok. This is interesting. Who sent the warning letters? SKMM?

What were the nature of the warning letters?

Warn the editor of what?

How many letters were sent altogether?

What were the dates of these letters?]

“When they publish things that are libellous, slanderous or defamatory, it is natural for the SKMM to act against these websites whenever necessary,” he told a a press conference at Parliament lobby yesterday.

[Seng: This is extremely puzzling.

On what basis did SKMM decide that MT contents were "libellous, slanderous or defamatory"?

Does SKMM have the same power, authority and competency as the legal courts to be able to define, decide and determine what is "libellous, slanderous or defamatory"?

Can SKMM make this decision alone and independently, to the extent of censoring Malaysia Today on the same day as the Permatang Pauh by-election day?

Or was SKMM merely following the orders of its superiors?

But then, shouldn't the SKMM - Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission - be guided by its own mandate and law especially the COMMUNICATIONS AND MULTIMEDIA ACT - http://www.msc.com.my/cyberlaws/act_communications.asp? ]

Syed Hamid said SKMM was only exercising its powers.

[Seng: Again, I am puzzled SKMM can exercise its powers on the same day as PP by-election date.

Why not exercise earlier?

What caused SKMM to suddenly feel that MT articles at approximately 6 PM, 26 August, is suddenly "libellous, slanderous or defamatory?]

“We do not intend to curtail people’s freedom or right to express themselves. Everyone is subjected to the law, even websites and blogs,” he added.

On Wednesday, Malaysia Today editor Raja Petra Kamarudin lashed out against the blocking of the online portal, saying it was a breach of the Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC) charter.
Under the MSC Malaysia 10-Point Bill of Guarantees, the Government promised to “ensure no Internet censorship”.

It was reported that all 21 Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in the country had been ordered by SKMM to block the controversial website.

The notices were sent out on Tuesday in accordance with Section 263 of the Communications and Multimedia Act.

[Seng: Now, Section 263 of the Act is mentioned in this Star Article, but is this the complete truth?

Apparently, a more important Section of the Act is NOT MENTIONED by The Star in this article. Which Section is that?

Section 3 (3):

(3) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as permitting the censorship of the Internet.

So, do you think SKMM has misinterpreted the Act?

You may read the Act in its entirity here - http://www.msc.com.my/cyberlaws/act_communications.asp]

Datuk Joseph Salang Gandum, the Deputy Minister of Energy, Water and Communications, said he was not aware that SKMM had ordered ISPs to block the website.

[Wow! The Minister of Communications can be NOT AWARE of such censorship?

Tai Chi Master? (push shit away before it hits him) ]

“I do not read Malaysia Today. Media practitioners must be sensitive to culture and religion,” he said.

Information Minister Datuk Ahmad Shabery Cheek declined comment as it was not under his jurisdiction.

[Wow! Information Minister can also claim that this is outside his jurisdiction?

So, whose jurisdiction is it then? No Minister?

Or shall we put the blame squarely on SKMM?

Certainly, Shabery Cheek exhibited good Tai Chi skills as well.]

SKMM chief operating officer Mohamed Sharil Mohamed Tarmizi, who is overseas, declined to elaborate, saying a press conference would be held to explain why such action was taken.

[Seng: Ahh ... away overseas ....

Nice. That should buy time to explain (or concoct up a "suitable" explanation) ...

Also implies that since he is overseas, it is not him who decided ...

After all, if it was him who decided, then, surely, he could have explained the decision to ban isn't it?

But then, who made the decision to censor it, if it's not him?

Nice Tai Chi moves by the SKMM COO.]

It is understood that this is not the first time SKMM has ordered a website to be blocked.
Malaysia Today remains accessible through its mirror website.

Other Comments: I'm not a lawyer, but it seems clear to me that - to paraphrase Syed Hamid - "that some laws must be broken somewhere by SKMM or a Minister who ordered SKMM to do so".

Why?

Well, Section 3 (3) seems pretty damning.

And then, there is the most immediate question which is why the timing? Why censor at 6 PM on the same day as the PP by-election, before the result is announced?

Why not censor before?

Also, did SKMM acted independently in censoring this?

Or did SKMM acted under orders from someone else?

Who was the person who ordered it since many Tai Chi masters have pushed these problems to "someone else", without defining who that "someone else" should be ?

Does SKMM have the authority to decide what is "libellous, slanderous or defamatory"?

Does SKMM have the authority to override Section 3 (3)?

What do you think?