Censorship by harassment

"... there is a widespread belief that doctrinal uniformity is essential to national strength," Bertrand Russell wrote in his treatise on power in 1938. But he also said, "... the most successful nations, throughout modern times, have been those least addicted to the persecution of heretics."

I remember reading these years ago when I was in school, and I wondered if Russell's views can somehow be proven wrong, without anyone noticing, that is. In Malaysia, 'book police' are back in the news after a short absence. Interestingly, this has happened very soon after Sister in Islam (SIS) won its court battle over the 'banning' of one of its books. Sorry for the cynicism, but one cannot help but wonder. It could be a coincidence, of course, but Malaysia does have a pretty long track record for 'censorship by harassment'.

Censorship is probably as old as writing itself, but it took on a whole new dimension from the 12th to the 16th century in Europe. Basically, reading was outlawed to all but the clerics since they were the only ones allowed to interpret the Bible. Lay people were lay people, sheep, or rakyat, not endowed with enough intelligence to make any decision for themselves. With the invention of the Gutenberg press and the printing of the Gutenberg Bible, things really came to a head. In theory, any lay person who could read, or was suspected of being able to do so, or, god forbid, be in possession of a Bible, was arrested, imprisoned, tortured and/or killed by various methods including being burnt at the stake, hanged, drawn and quartered, pulled apart by horses, drowned, impaled, and several other creative means. In reality, many were political opponents, or those who had gone out of favour, or merely casualties of random victimisation. By some estimates, 9 million people lost their lives, and many more -- presumably those who repented -- were left lame.

We all know how that ended. 'Censorship through terror' did not work then, and never has. Throughout history, 'book police' have always lost. But that does not seem to stop them.

Certainly, our own home grown variety of 'book police' are not quite that crude. Some years ago, we put up a list of so-called banned books on our website, 'so-called' because many were not actually banned by the Ministry. We do not know what actually happened in the background after that, but we can guess. All of a sudden there was a deafening silence from every direction; book distributors refused talk to us, especially about that dreaded 'b' list. It was as if omerta, a code of silence, had come into force. Many books we wanted to order became unavailable. Many distributors refused to import books for us, even if we paid them in advance, particularly if it had a 'banned' word in the title, or on the possibility that cover design could offend one ultra-sensitive individual living in Batang Berjuntai, or somewhere. (No prizes for guessing the words.)

The recent confiscation of multiple copies of several titles from bookshops around the country is interesting. Firstly these books have been in the market for over a year and anyone who wants one has already bought it. It could be another case of closing the stable doors after the horses have gone, something we do have a track record for. Or, it could be something more sinister.

Why do enforcement officers -- what an ostentatious name, indeed -- need to take multiple copies of a book if they only want to 'read them' for anything prejudicial to the security of the country, even if they say please. Wouldn't one copy do? Couldn't they get one from the publishers?

Recently, several copies of the first two titles were taken from one outlet of a chain stores on grounds that the books might have 'suspicious content'. A memo went out to its other outlets to have them all to be removed from the shelves. Diabolical, but effective. The bookstore will get a credit note from the distributor, who will in turn get one from the publisher. And the bookstore will, in future, be very hesitant to sell other titles by the same authors, or from the 'offending' publisher. (Remember the Salman Rushdie incident: although only one title is officially banned, all others have become endangered species in the country.) Why bother to ban books and have that gazette challenged in court, when this is so much more effective?

Inquiries are probabley a waste of time, omerta might already be in force.