Date: Tuesday, 31 July 2012
We, the undersigned civil society delegates from Southeast Asia who
attended and participated in the 2012 Asia-Pacific Regional Internet
Governance Forum (APrIGF) on 18-20 July 2012 in Tokyo, Japan, make this
statement upon the conclusion of the meeting to highlight the concerns
that we raised throughout the forum.
Southeast Asian Civil Society Groups Highlight Increasing Rights
Violations Online, Call for Improvements to Internet Governance
Processes in the Region
We engaged in this meeting with the objective of raising human rights
concerns in relation to the Internet, particularly on issues of freedom
of expression and access to information online, as well as the role of
civil society in Internet governance and policymaking. We organised two
panel discussions, namely “Internet in Asia: Space for Free Expression
and Information” and “Civil Society in Internet Governance/Policymaking”
during the 2012 APrIGF. Through these panel discussions, as well as in
other sessions that we participated in, we raised the following human
rights concerns in relation to the Internet:
Increasing censorship and attacks to online expression
The space for free expression on the Internet is shrinking. Many
governments are extending censorship and control of traditional media to
the Internet. In most cases, censorship measures are implemented in a
nontransparent manner, which makes it difficult to determine whether the
measures taken are in accordance with international laws and standards.
In some countries, citizens who make use of the free space on the
internet as bloggers, citizen journalists or social media users become
targets of attacks, arrest, and/or threats by state security agents.
These actions by state authorities produce a chilling effect on internet
users resulting in widespread self-censorship of social and political
expression for fear of reprisals from the government or its agents.
We thus call upon all governments to ensure that any measure to limit
freedom of expression and the right to information are in accordance
with international human rights laws and standards, particularly Article
19(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR), which allows for limitations only on narrow and clearly-defined
grounds, by passing the “three-part, cumulative test” following the
principles of necessity, proportionality (ensuring that it is the least
restrictive measure) and transparency. Furthermore, any limitation to
freedom of expression, including censorship measures, must be determined
by an independent judicial body, and not left to the arbitrary powers
of governments or intermediaries. These parameters must apply in all
circumstances including during state of emergency and in name of
national security or public order.
New laws and legislative amendments that curb freedom of speech online
We are further alarmed by the growing number of laws and policies in
Southeast Asia that negatively impact freedom of expression on the
Internet. While we recognise the need to address cybercrime and
legitimate national security concerns, we are concerned that such laws
seek to extend media censorship and criminal defamation to the internet,
and are also being used to criminalize individuals or organizations
expressing or sharing legitimate social or political critique.
We reiterate that any restriction to freedom of expression on the
Internet must not risk citizens’ rights to hold opinions without
interference and to freedom of thought, conscience and religion as
stipulated in Article 18 of the ICCPR, and it must not be subject to
lawful derogation as outlined in UN General Comment No. 34. We stress
that any introduction of new laws or legislative amendments,
particularly those that could potentially impact human rights, must
involve extensive, inclusive and meaningful public consultations. We
further urge all governments in Southeast Asia to decriminalise
defamation both online and offline.
Additionally, we emphasize that the rule of law and the independence of
the judiciary remain among the key challenges to democracy in Southeast
Asia. Law-enforcement agencies and justice systems must presume
innocence until defendants are proven guilty, regardless of whether or
not defamation is criminal. Certain legislation, including those laws
that criminalize online speech and expression, are worth noting here as
examples of legislation in Southeast Asia that warrant close monitoring
of their enactment or enforcement:
- Burma – The 2004 Electronic Transactions Act
- Cambodia – The 2012 Draft Cyber-Law, the 1995 Press Law, and the 2010 Penal Code
- Malaysia – The 2012 Amendment to the Evidence Act and the 2011 Computing Professionals Bill
- Indonesia – The 2008 Law on Information and Electronic Transaction and the 2008 Law on Pornography
- The Philippines – The 2012 Data Privacy Act
- Thailand – The 2007 Computer Crimes Act, the Article 112 of the Penal Code, and the 2004 Special Case Investigation Act
- Vietnam – The 1999 Penal
Code, the 2004 Publishing Law, the 2000 State Secrets Protection
Ordinance, and the 2012 Draft Decree on Internet Management
Intermediary liability
We express our deep concern over the increasing pressures by governments
on internet service providers and content hosts to monitor, regulate
and censor online content. Consequently, such intermediaries are
increasingly being held legally and criminally liable for online
content, including content posted by other users.
We reiterate that the regulation of content on the Internet should be
determined by an independent judicial body, and not be left to
intermediaries. We further echo the call by the UN Special Rapporteur on
the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and
expression that intermediaries should not be held liable for online
content.
Violations by non-State actors, including those employed by governments
Finally, we are alarmed at the rise of internet vigilante groups acting
on behalf of governments or powerful institutions to help monitor
sensitive information posted over the Internet through personal websites
and social media. Such groups often target persons expressing unpopular
opinions and subject them to abusive behaviour and threats. In some
cases, such threats have been carried out off-line in the form of
discriminatory treatment, physical attacks and even state prosecution of
these targets. In addition, critical and independent websites are
frequently being targeted for hacking and DDoS attacks.
We strongly remind all governments that it is their primary obligation
to promote and protect human rights, and this includes protecting its
citizens’ exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
from violations by non-state actors online.
Improving the APrIGF Process
While we support and uphold the multi-stakeholder process of the IGF,
and value the opportunity to contribute to the global dialogue around
these crucial issues, several aspects of the APrIGF are in need of
improvement:
- Participation by governments
across Asia was minimal despite the multi-stakeholder framework that
this forum purports to promote. This has inevitably limited the
dialogues between the different stakeholders on Internet governance in
the Asia-Pacific region.
- Similarly, there was also
inadequate civil society participation at the APrIGF 2012. One of the
reasons to this is that there is a perception that the APrIGF is a
largely ineffective forum in making needed efforts to advance human
rights in cyberspace.
- Multi-stakeholder
discussions on and approaches to emerging human rights issues concerning
the Internet were largely limited at the APrIGF 2012.
- Finally, there was a marked
absence or lack of critical assessment of the progress with regard to
the implementation of recommendations made at the previous APrIGF. This
has contributed to the perception of the APrIGF’s ineffectiveness.
Recommendations to the APrIGF Multi-stakeholder Strategy Group
In view of these shortcomings and with the hope of improving upon the
2012 APrIGF, we offer the following recommendations to the APrIGF
Multi-stakeholder Strategy Group for future iterations of this event:
- To facilitate more robust
dialogue and more engagement of those participants who are not speaking
on panels, we recommend a more participatory process for sessions, with
fewer time spent on panel presentations, and more time dedicated to
questions and comments from those in the audience.
- In the interest of more a
diverse dialogue, we recommend that efforts be made to enlarge and
broaden the spectrum of attendees at the event. Special effort should be
made to encourage government and civil society participation,
especially in view of the rare opportunity to discuss such issues within
the host country. Additionally, the affordability of the host city and
the need for financial assistance should be taken into account as a
factor that may make civil society participation more or less likely.
- To encourage broader
participation in session dialogues and bolster engagement of civil
society, we recommend that strong efforts be made to facilitate inbound
remote participation via video conferencing. In addition to the valuable
service of live web-casting, remote participants should be empowered to
ask questions and make comments within a panel. This could be
facilitated with greater integration of social media, within the APrIGF
website.
- To ensure that all issues
are well-represented within the conversations at the APrIGF, we
recommend that at least one plenary session be dedicated to social
issues in internet governance, such as online freedom of expression,
access to information and digital divide.
- To ensure that progress is
made on issues discussed at the APrIGF from one year to another, we
recommend that one plenary session be dedicated to looking back at the
issues raised and recommendations made at the previous APrIGF, and
critically assessing progress made on those issues.
Recommendations to Southeast Asian governments
In addition, we make the following specific recommendations to our respective governments in Southeast Asia:
- ASEAN governments must
ensure that the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration explicitly and
unequivocally protects the right to freedom of expression and freedom of
information in accordance with international human rights laws and
standards.
- ASEAN governments should issue a joint statement to pronounce their commitment to uphold Internet freedom.
- All regional governments
should involve civil society meaningfully and inclusively in Internet
policymaking, especially in drafting laws and policies that potentially
impact human rights, including in regional-policy arena that involve the
issues related to ICT and internet governance, such as:
- Regional economic
integration by 2015 under the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC). The AEC’s
areas of cooperation include a focus on internet governance, such as:
“enhanced infrastructure and communications connectivity”; and
“development of electronic transactions through e-ASEAN”. Currently, the
AEC encourages only business sector participation and not civil
society.
- The ASEAN CIO Forum under
the ASEAN ICT Master Plan 2015 also opens participation only to business
sectors. The forum focuses on CIO16 and its objective is to “Taking
leadership in collaboration and transformation for a competitive, highly
productive and envisage a concrete/positive ASEAN ICT community.” The
master plan aims to minimize digital divide and make ICT in the region
be empowering, transformational, inclusive, vibrant, and integrated for
the people by 2015.
- All regional governments
should attend and engage in regional IGFs to dialogue with other
stakeholders, including civil society, on regional issues concerning the
Internet.
Signed by:
Arthit SURIYAWONGKUL
Coordinator
Thai Netizen Network
Bangkok, Thailand
E-mail: arthit@gmail.com
Tel: +66 87 504 2221
|
Pirongrong RAMASOOTA
Thai Media Policy Center
Bangkok, Thailand
E-mail: pirongrong.r@gmail.com
Tel: +66 89 770 8911
|
Triana DYAH
Head, Information & Documentation Division
The Institute for Policy Research and Advocacy (ELSAM)
Jakarta, Indonesia
E-mail: office@elsam.or.id
Tel: +62 21 7972662, 79192564
Fax: +62 21 79192519
|
Edgardo LEGASPI
Alerts & Communication officer
Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA)
Bangkok, Thailand
E-mail: epl@seapa.org
Tel: +66 8 1116 5137
Fax: +66 2 2448749
|
Sean ANG
Executive Director
Southeast Asian Centre for e-Media (SEACeM)
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
E-mail: sean@seacem.com
Tel: +60 3 2284 3367
Fax: +60 3 2289 2579
|
Victorius (Ndaru) EPS
Jakarta, Indonesia
|
NGETH Moses
Communication Coordinator
Community Legal Education Center (CLEC)
Phnom Penh, Cambodia
E-mail: Moses@clec.org.kh
Tel: (855) 66 777 010
Fax: (855) 23 211 723
|
Sovathana (Nana) NEANG
Phnom Penh, Cambodia; |
YAP Swee Seng
Executive Director
Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUMASIA)
E-mail: yap@forum-asia.org
Tel: +66 81 868 9178
Fax: +66 2 6379128
|
|
Endorsed by:
|
|
ICT Watch (Indonesian ICT Partnership Association)
Jakarta, Indonesia
Email: info@ictwatch.com
Tel: (021) 98495770
Fax: (021) 8280691 | |
Please click here to download the PDF file.
