Printing and publishing permits are granted as a privilege and not as of right, the government said in response to recommendations on the promotion of media freedom, made by the Human Rights Commission (Suhakam).

Noting that the freedom of expression is guaranteed under Article 10 of the Federal Constitution, the government said that Parliament can still impose any sanction or modification on grounds of national security.

"In this context, a licence under the Printing Presses and Publications Act (PPPA) is a privilege given to printers and publishers, not their right," stated the official reply reproduced in Suhakam's 2003 annual report, tabled in Parliament on Monday and made available to the media yesterday.

The use of the word 'grant' in the relevant provisions, said the government, further strengthens the argument, giving the home minister the ultimate power over applications. The law does not provide for judicial review of his decisions.

Suhakam had recommended a review of several provisions of the PPPA, including automatic renewal of permits, judicial review of ministerial decisions affecting media freedom, and review of the minister's power to grant, reject, suspend and revoke a licence.

To promote journalistic standards, it had asked for the Official Secrets Act (OSA) to be reviewed, for the creation of a media council with a code of ethics, Freedom of Information legislation (FoIA) and to issue accreditation tags to all media.

For the first time, Suhakam reproduced the official responses to its recommendations contained in the last three annual reports.

There were no references to the specific government department or agency that had compiled the responses. These were forwarded to Suhakam by the Foreign Affairs Ministry acting as co-ordinator then (jurisdiction over the commission has since been transferred to the Prime Minister's Department).

'No jeopardy'

On the review of the PPPA provisions, the government felt these are "still relevant and necessary in the present socio-political climate which is greatly influenced by advances in IT and globalisation".

The power to approve, reject or revoke licences under the PPPA 1984 (Amendment 1987) lies solely with the home affairs minister.

In rejecting Suhakam's call for a review of this wide power, the government said the minister can cancel or suspend a printer's or publisher's permit if the publication is considered "prejudicial" to public order and national security.

"(However), the present approval process is effective and does not jeopardise the people's opportunity to venture into the printing and publishing fields," it added.

It also rejected the proposal for automatic renewal of permits, saying that the existing system is satisfactory and the relevant provisions are adequate, including those used to reprimand errant printers and publishers.

"(The minister's power in) Section 13 must be retained as only the executive holds the power to determine, without any interference by others, if (an application) involves (issues of) national security and public order."

Suhakam's recommendation for judicial review and a right to be heard under the PPPA were flatly rejected on grounds that if the type of information given to the minister is released to the public, it would pose a threat to the security and interest of the country.

"If the minister abuses the power given to him/her, citizens would ensure that action is taken against him/her by way of the democratic channels practices in Malaysia," the government said.

Secrecy to prevail

The suggestion for a review of the OSA was thrown out on the basis that the executive has the ultimate power to determine which type of document or information can be classified as 'top secret', 'secret', 'confidential' and 'restricted'.

Also rejected was the suggestion that a media council should be formed. The government described the proposal as being "too wide and general" to include all types of media.

The suggestion to enact FoIA did not get anywhere either. The government said the provisions may overlap with those of the Communication and Multimedia Act (CMA) 1998.

It said that a detailed study should be done from the legal, administrative and enforcement perspective in ascertaining the need for a FoIA, and to ensure that nothing contradicts existing laws.

The government named the OSA, the Film Censorship Act and CMA among the laws that currently control the dissemination of information.