The charging of Lena Hendry in September 2013 by the Malaysia government is seen as an effort to limit access to information and alternative views particularly those highlighting human rights violations and alternative perspectives. This violates individual, civil society and public rights to information, opinion and expression.
The constitution stands as the highest law in the country and any law or act in the country cannot superceed the constitution. However, by using the censorship act to supress the voices of human rights defenders in the country and prevent them from showing and telling people about human rights violations is against the constitution. As the saying by Benjamin Cardoza, “Freedom of Expression is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom”, hence it is very important that we protect our constitutional right for freedom of expression.
The Home Ministry and the Attorney General Chamber (AGC) filed a charge against Ms. Lena Hendry on September 19, 2013 under the Film Censorship Act 2002, in connection with the screening of a video which was not vetted and approved by the Film Censorship Board of Malaysia. If convicted, she faces the sentence of a ‘…fine of not less than five thousand ringgit and not more than thirty thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both…’ She is charged under Section 6 of the Act that makes it an offence to, amongst others, to produce, manufacture, have in one’s possession, circulate, distribute and display such film or film-publicity material which has not been approved by the Board.
Although three members of KOMAS were arrested the night of the screening, only Ms. Lena Hendry was charged almost two months later. She filed an application to the high court to strike out the case on the basis that the charges is against article 10 of the Federal Constitution, however the charges was dismissed on the grounds that that the Film Censorship Act 2002 is a reasonable and proportionate restriction to the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed in Article 10 of the Federal Constitution. Her lawyers have now filed an application in Court of Appeal to strike out the charges; however they have failed to get a stay in the magistrate court pending the appeal.
Remember, the Public Prosecutor can drop the charges…. and time is short..for if the trial starts, it would not last very long … and best if the charges are dropped before the commencement of the trial
