Web site. Thus, Thailand has secured the cooperation of the world’s dominant video
aggregator site in implementing selective geolocational filtering on its behalf, without
having to resort to a formal or transparent legal process. Its experience could also signal
further public-private transnational cooperation between governments and private
technology companies that result in selective filtering: a Vietnamese information ministry official stated in 2008 that the government would ask transnational gatekeepers
such as Google and Yahoo to help regulate the Vietnamese blogosphere. 125
Ultimately, there continues to be no single or uniform approach to filtering in Asia.
In August 2008, in contravention of its own policy, Malaysia joined the growing collection of countries that filter the Internet. On August 27, media reported Malaysia Today
blocked by order of the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission
(MCMC) for violating Articles 211 and 233(1) of the Communications and Multimedia
Act of 1998 (CMA). 126 Malaysia Today was alleged to have published offensive, false,
and indecent content, especially ‘‘comments relating to Islam and how Muslims practice it.’’ 127 The blocking order was labeled a preventative action under Section 263 of
the CMA, requiring the cooperation of licensees such as ISPs to cooperate in enforcing
the laws of Malaysia. 128 Former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad criticized this
‘‘reneging of a promise’’ not to censor the Internet as loss of credibility and the public’s
respect. 129 Although a government official later clarified that MCMC did not receive a
direct order to block Malaysia Today but had exercised its discretion under the CMA,
Communications Minister Datuk Shaziman Abu Mansor disclosed that over 100 Web
sites and blogs, including Malaysia Today, were blocked for violating various sections
of the CMA. 130 On September 11, the Malaysian cabinet ordered the MCMC to
unblock all Web sites, stating that existing laws would be used to prosecute blogs and
Web sites in violation of the CMA, which would be monitored by an MCMC committee comprising police officials, officials from the Attorney General’s Chambers, and the
Home Ministry. 131
Conclusion
Filtering conducted by Asian governments followed the same broad trajectories in
2007–2008 as it had previously with some incremental changes, and continues to be
most clearly demarcated along national lines and by local language and content rather
than according to any regional or categorical formula. Increased scrutiny of filtering
practices worldwide has contributed to greater awareness about escalated filtering taking place during political events like elections and political emergencies, with at least
six Asian countries reported to have blocked YouTube between 2007 and early 2009.
Most of the governments in Asia where the OpenNet Initiative conducted in-country
testing are expanding their legal mandate and authority to filter and regulate content,
especially in targeting online defamation. As social media platforms such as video
Asia Overview
421
aggregator site in implementing selective geolocational filtering on its behalf, without
having to resort to a formal or transparent legal process. Its experience could also signal
further public-private transnational cooperation between governments and private
technology companies that result in selective filtering: a Vietnamese information ministry official stated in 2008 that the government would ask transnational gatekeepers
such as Google and Yahoo to help regulate the Vietnamese blogosphere. 125
Ultimately, there continues to be no single or uniform approach to filtering in Asia.
In August 2008, in contravention of its own policy, Malaysia joined the growing collection of countries that filter the Internet. On August 27, media reported Malaysia Today
blocked by order of the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission
(MCMC) for violating Articles 211 and 233(1) of the Communications and Multimedia
Act of 1998 (CMA). 126 Malaysia Today was alleged to have published offensive, false,
and indecent content, especially ‘‘comments relating to Islam and how Muslims practice it.’’ 127 The blocking order was labeled a preventative action under Section 263 of
the CMA, requiring the cooperation of licensees such as ISPs to cooperate in enforcing
the laws of Malaysia. 128 Former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad criticized this
‘‘reneging of a promise’’ not to censor the Internet as loss of credibility and the public’s
respect. 129 Although a government official later clarified that MCMC did not receive a
direct order to block Malaysia Today but had exercised its discretion under the CMA,
Communications Minister Datuk Shaziman Abu Mansor disclosed that over 100 Web
sites and blogs, including Malaysia Today, were blocked for violating various sections
of the CMA. 130 On September 11, the Malaysian cabinet ordered the MCMC to
unblock all Web sites, stating that existing laws would be used to prosecute blogs and
Web sites in violation of the CMA, which would be monitored by an MCMC committee comprising police officials, officials from the Attorney General’s Chambers, and the
Home Ministry. 131
Conclusion
Filtering conducted by Asian governments followed the same broad trajectories in
2007–2008 as it had previously with some incremental changes, and continues to be
most clearly demarcated along national lines and by local language and content rather
than according to any regional or categorical formula. Increased scrutiny of filtering
practices worldwide has contributed to greater awareness about escalated filtering taking place during political events like elections and political emergencies, with at least
six Asian countries reported to have blocked YouTube between 2007 and early 2009.
Most of the governments in Asia where the OpenNet Initiative conducted in-country
testing are expanding their legal mandate and authority to filter and regulate content,
especially in targeting online defamation. As social media platforms such as video
Asia Overview
421