PM showing true colours with sedition spree

The recent unleashing of the Sedition Act upon dissenting voices has revealed the prime minister's true authoritarian colours, said an international human rights group. “The Malaysian government is increasingly using the Sedition Act to instill fear and silence in political opponents and critics. “Prime Minister Najib Razak’s (pic) crackdown on free expression has shown his true rights-abusing colours,” said Human Rights Watch deputy Asia director Phil Robertson in a statement today. He said the Act, which prohibited "vague offences" was becoming a convenient tool for the Najib government to clamp down on critics of his administration.

The Malaysian government has apparently decided that its vaguely worded Sedition Act is its new catch-all charge against its most vocal critics. Najib should realize that throwing activists and opposition leaders in jail for what they say is a slippery slope to authoritarian rule. The past months has seen the government revving up the Sedition Act 1948 - an archaic law that the colonial British had used against its local political opponents - to full force against every facet of Malaysian society from politicians to academics and even netizens.

Robertson noted that Malaysiakini journalist Susan Loone has not been spared the sedition crackdown, for reporting the statements of Penang executive councillor Phee Boone Poh. He added the crackdown included the use of other laws such as "sections of the penal code that severely restrict expression", for example that against PKR vice president Rafizi Ramli. Robertson reminded Najib that before the 13th general election the PM had promised to repeal the Sedition Act but had backtracked after BN's dismal election results. "Following the election, in which the ruling coalition the BN retained power despite major losses in the national parliament, he retreated from his pledge," he noted. He called on Najib to repeal the act, "which has repeatedly been used to prosecute people for political purposes in violation of the right to freedom of expression".

Abolish the Sedition Act, Sarawak activists demand

A group of young activists in Sarawak, calling themselves ‘Eastern Theory” has issued a statement with 16 non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in the state, demanding the repeal of the Sedtion Act. The activist groups went on to vehemently denounce the government’s prosecution of NGO members, academicians, activists, politicians and ordinary citizens under the Sedition Act.

So far, no fewer than 14 individuals are being investigated and charged under the Sedition Act. Among those indicted and investigated is Azmi Sharom (pic), an associate professor of law, who has been charged under the Act because of his legal opinion on the political and constitutional crisis that occurred in 2009 in the state of Perak.

“Recently, Victor Wong was investigated only for his statement on the chief of police in the social networking site Twitter, while human rights lawyer Edmund Bon is also being investigated on his statement on the issue fatwa,” the NGOs said.

They said they saw such action by the government as attempts to block the voice of the people, and intimidation by the government against the activists and the people. Expressing their full support for moves to abolish the Sedition Act, the groups called on the government to drop all prosecutions charges under the Sedition Act, to release all those imprisoned under the law and to pledge that a similar law will not be enacted.

“In addition, we, together with other NGOs and activist groups, will hold a campaign throughout the state calling for the repeal of the Sedition Act,” the statement said. The joint statement was signed  by Theory 1 East; Sarawak Youth for Change; Sarawak Student Progressive Front; Books Street Kuching; Voice of the People of Sarawak; Handfuls of Sarawak; Sarawak Dayak Iban Association (Sadia, Clean Sibu, Rise of Sarawak Effort (ROSE); Save Sarawak's River Network (Save Rivers); Borneo Research Institute, Malaysia (Brimas); Native Customary Rights Network Sarawak Indigenous Nations; Socialist Party of Malaysia (PSM) Sarawak; Angkatan Young Justice Sarawak; People's Justice Party (PKR) Sarawak; and Students' Council of Justice Sarawak.

Gobind: Sedition Act is unconstitutional

Azmi Sharom’s legal counsel applies for an order for the High Court to review the constitutionality of the Sedition Act. Gobind Singh Deo (pic, middle), whose legal team is acting on behalf of law professor Azmi Sharom, has applied for an order that the Sessions Court refer to the High Court to determine if the Sedition Act 1948 is constitutional. Speaking to the press at the Malaysian Courts Complex in Kuala Lumpur, Gobind explained that since the Sedition ordinance was enacted in 1948, prior to independence from the British, it was gazetted as law through revision from the Law Revision Commission.

Stressing that since the Sedition Act was not enacted by Parliament, Gobind declared that the Act was unconstitutional and could not be used to restrict the rights of Azmi to freedom of speech. Citing the Federal Constitution, Gobind said, “Article 10 of the Federal Constitution guarantees freedom of speech.

“Article 10 (2) expressly states that only Parliament may by law impose restrictions on the rights conferred under Article 10, which we say guarantees freedom. Gobind also said that the legal team has filed a certificate of urgency to expedite the hearing of this application as Azmi was due back in court on October 2. “We hope the Attorney-General (AG) supports our application for the matter to be referred to the High Court under Section 30 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 for a determination of the constitutional issues raised.”

He also said he hoped the AG would consider staying all other prosecutions of sedition cases until this matter was determined by the High Court. According to Gobind, there was a previous attempt to determine the constitutionality of the Sedition Act when Haris Ibrahim was charged with sedition. That case however was struck out on procedural grounds, as the application should have been made at the Sessions Court instead of the High Court. Azmi Sharom was charged for Sedition on Sept 2 for a piece he wrote on Aug 14 on an online news portal, giving his thoughts about the Selangor Menteri Besar crisis.

Malaysia’s Sedition Debate

As the government continues to wield the colonial-era legislation, opposition is mounting. It came as a surprise when Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak announced in 2012 that he was intending to repeal the Sedition Act, a piece of legislation left over from British colonial rule. People were hopeful, thinking that the abolition of such draconian laws could bring more civil liberties for Malaysians.

Fast-forward two years and hope now seems to be in short supply. Although Najib has again reiterated his intention to repeal the law, the Sedition Act is far from gone. The government has said that it aims to present the National Harmony Act Bill – a piece of replacement legislation to counter religious or racial hatred – to Parliament in 2015.

In the meantime, people are still being charged and investigated for sedition. Four opposition politicians and a law lecturer have been taken to court under the Sedition Act in the past month alone. A student was investigated under the Act for allegedly having “liked” an “I Love Israel” Facebook page, a Malaysiakini journalist was arrested for her interview with an executive councillor in Penang and a former student activist jailed for 10 months for a speech he had given. A law introduced by the British colonial powers in 1948 to combat Communists, the Sedition Act outlaws any action that would “excite disaffection” against any ruler, government or the administration of justice in Malaysia. The maximum penalty for breaching this law is three years’ imprisonment, a RM5,000 (approx. USD1,573) fine, or both.

N Surendran, vice-president of the Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) and one of the lawyers for the beleaguered opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, was charged with sedition on August 18 for his criticism of a court judgment relating to Anwar’s case. He later faced another sedition charge for saying that the sodomy charges against Anwar were politically motivated. “It’s a sedition blitz. This is clearly an attempt to stifle dissent,” he told AFP. “The reason why the Sedition Act is still in place is because it is so easy to use against dissidents,” said Syahredzan Johan, the chair of the National Young Lawyers Committee within the Malaysian Bar Council. “The Act is drafted very wide, so any form of dissent can be drafted in. It has a low threshold: there’s no need to prove intention or that anyone was incited. All you need is to prove that those things were published or uttered and you’ve got your conviction.”

Others also believe that there is an element of opposition within UMNO – part of the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition – itself towards Najib’s attempt at being a “reformer.” “The Najib government is using the easiest tool remaining, now that the [Internal Security Act] has been changed,” Bridget Welsh, Senior Research Associate at the Center for East Asia Democratic Studies of National Taiwan University, wrote in an email to The Diplomat. “It also is part of an effort to taint the opposition as ‘betraying’ the country and potentially removing key leaders from positions. It reflects jockeying for positions and prestige within UMNO.”

Human rights advocates are also concerned about the Act’s impact on freedom of expression in Malaysia. “With so many people under the investigation, arrest and charges of the Sedition Act, and the conviction of student activist Safwan Anang, the Sedition Act is going to have a very serious a chilling effect on freedom of expression of the ordinary Malaysians,” wrote human rights organization SUARAM in response to questions from The Diplomat. With citizens deterred from criticizing the government or state officials, critics worry that politicians and high-ranking officials would no longer be held to account by the people they serve, and allowed to behave with more and more impunity.

The Malaysian Bar Council will not be sitting idle. On September 4 the National Young Lawyers Committee (NYLC) launched #MansuhAktaHasutan (#AbolishSeditionAct in English), a year-long campaign to gather grassroots support across Malaysia for the repeal of the Sedition Act. Although the backlash against the Sedition Act has already gained some momentum, Syahredzan says it’s still necessary to take a year to reach out to more people and conduct public education campaigns on the Sedition Act. “For us to demand repeal now… I don’t think any significant change is going to happen. You need political will, and political will will only come when the government thinks there is a significant number of Malaysians who don’t want the Act,” he said.

To get this significant number, #MansuhAktaHasutan campaigners are prioritizing a push to gain broad-based support across the country. Political campaigns in Malaysia have often been criticized as being too heavily based in the capital of Kuala Lumpur, neglecting more rural areas where political education may be lacking and public opinion very different from that in the urban center. Such KL-centric campaigns, Syahredzan says, allow the government to claim that activists are not reflecting the wider public sentiment, and to dismiss protests. The NYLC will not be the only ones looking at public education. More than a hundred NGOs, including SUARAM, have come together to launch the Abolish Sedition Act Movement. They plan to launch a nationwide roadshow – accompanied with a parallel social media campaign – that will raise awareness about the Sedition Act and the need for repeal.

“What is important is that we need to gain that critical mass of people who are going to say that they don’t want to support the Sedition Act any longer. This is crucial,” Syahredzan said. “After one year we can tell the government that we’ve gone and done this campaign, we’ve gathered the support and we can show them with the signatures we’ve collected.” He continues to say that the NYLC will not shy away from collaborations with political parties. “I’m quite certain that we cannot effectively have this campaign without cooperating with political parties. The Malaysian Bar has a limited reach outside of the urban centers. We are open to working with anyone! Even if there is a person in Barisan Nasional who is against the Sedition Act and wants to work with us, we are open and willing to work with them.”

While SUARAM does not believe that any other piece of legislation would be necessary to replace the Sedition Act, Syahredzan had actually been involved in drafting one of the three replacement bills as part of the National Unity Consultative Council (NUCC). “That bill put the threshold of criminalizing free speech at a much higher threshold. You need to prove that there is an intention to actually incite racial hatred. There must be an element of harm, or actual incitement to physical harm, injuries to persons or damage to property. The replacement bill doesn’t criminalize any criticism of the government or court judgments and so on and so forth,” he said.

The three bills were met with harsh criticism. Detractors said that the bills were against Islam, and would undermine the position of Malay Muslims in the country. Others slammed the NUCC for not carrying out more public engagement. Still others had problems with a clause that prohibited discrimination based on gender. In fact, there are some groups who don’t want to see the Sedition Act to go at all. The National Unity Front – a group formed by Malay rights group Perkasa and 54 other Malay organizations – have launched a pro-Sedition Act campaign in response to #MansuhAktaHasutan. Syahredzan is unsure of what will become of the bills. “The government shelved the bills. They said it would only be presented to Parliament sometime next year. I don’t know if these bills will see the light of day.”

That may yet change if activists from #MansuhAktaHasutan and the Abolish Sedition Act Movement are successful in their push to mobilize grassroots support. As public education campaigns begin to roll out across the length and breadth of Malaysia, the prime minister might find it harder and harder to break his promises.

Are we ready for M'sia without sedition law?

The law of sedition is an old law, as in a very old English law enacted in 1275 as the Slander and Sedition Act or commonly known as seditious libel during the troubled time of King Edward I. The law at that time acts so as to criminalise contempt and incitement of his divine right. According to an American law professor Geoffrey Stone in his book Sedition and Domestic Terrorism, the meaning of sedition evolved and contoured itself since its enactment, hence making it wide and ambiguous.

He argues that due to lack of definition, seditious libel captures criticisms on all forms ranging from the constitution, policies, laws, officers, symbols, or the conduct of government. The rationale behind the sedition law was simply; if government is to govern effectively, it must command the respect and allegiance of the people. The sedition law ever since, were used in all type of scenarios, as it makes it easier and more cost-effective to charge and convict a person in the absence of intention as a proof.

The modus operandi was to instil fear by making an example out of the deviants be it true or false. The Sedition Act is also blind in accessing any significant impact or actual threat to the security of the nation or public to establish seditious tendencies. For an example, recently in another former colony, Uganda, an article that made fun of the canvassing efforts of President Yoweri Museveni’s ministers, “that they would be better off talking to the president’s cow”, landed the journalist in prison for a week. It is not a secret that sedition is an inherently political and politicised offence that often preys on politicians and their operators. The sedition law in Malaysia was enacted through the Sedition Act 1948 with a similar rationale and is used to stifle prejudicial political activities and to punish sensitive remarks and actions.

The Sedition Act in Malaysia mainly covers offences such as inciting disaffection against the government, inciting contempt for the administration of justice and provoking discontent among the people as stated in Section 3 (1) (a) (b) and (c). The scope was primarily to protect the sovereignty of the government, the rulers and the judiciary. The Sedition Act then underwent amendments after the May 13 riots, where Parliament introduced a new Section 3(1) (e) on race relation and against promotion of feelings of ill will and hostility between different races or classes and Section 3(1) (f) on matters of citizenship, Bahasa Malaysia, the special position of the natives in Malaya and Sabah/Sarawak as well as the sovereignty of the Malay rulers were included in 1970. The amendment was widely supported by parties from both side of the August House. The amendment also expands the laws application against any civilians. This provision also grew to add bite to the current world of social media where ‘Now Everyone Can Be Seditious’.

The sedition law ever since became a household name as an effective tool to maintain peace and harmony in a fragile multi-religious and multi-cultural Malaysia. The method of making an example out of the political deviants became a proven method in the utilitarian manner as for the greater good of the nation; it’s justifiable to lock a few deviants up. The formula is also popular with our neighbour, Singapore, which continued to use the law despite the fact that the nation’s founding father was once a victim of this controversial law.

According to a 1999 Amnesty International report titled ‘Malaysia: Human Rights Undermined - Restrictive Laws in a Parliamentary Democracy’, the Sedition Act was allegedly used as a political tool to prosecute law makers and politicians. The allegation was further strengthened with the fact that In 1971, Article 48 of the constitution was amended to extend the application of the Sedition Act to parliamentary privilege where a fine more than RM2,000, or jailed for more than a year would automatically disqualify a MP from Parliament. The report also stated several cases involving DAP Parliamentarians from the 1971 case of Fan Yew Teng and Dr Ooi Kee Saik for publishing an article on racial discrimination; as well as the 1995 case of Lim Guan Eng on the Abdul Rahim Tamby Chik affair, among others.

The long arms of the Sedition Act was also extended to Barisan Nasional MP in the 1982 case of Mark Koding, for remarks in the Dewan Rakyat questioning the government’s policy on allowing vernacular schools, including the use of Chinese and Tamil on road signboards. The Sedition Act is also popular among the opposition parties for a different reason as the rhetoric of sedition becomes a very powerful vote magnet. In December 2008, YB Lim Kit Siang invoked the issue of seditious tendency in a Parliamentary statement that Mukhriz Mahathir committed a seditious offence in urging a single stream school and abolishment of vernacular schools.

In September 2009, he again in an article questioned the PM on why then home minister YB Hishamuddin Hussein was not charged with sedition when he justified the cow-head protest in Shah Alam.  In May 2013, DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng went on record stating that “former education director-general Abdul Rahman Arshad’s urging the abolition of Chinese and Tamil vernacular schools in favour of a single stream school is seditious”. In 2008 DAP MP Tony Pua also invoked the Sedition Act during the Ahmad Ismail (pic) saga when he stated that Chinese are ‘penumpang’ (squatters).

He also invoked sedition against Utusan Malaysia on a few other occasions. In February 2013, Pahang DAP deputy chairperson Zulpuri Shah Raja Puji lodged a police report on an article titled ‘Najib: Vote Barisan for a far better future’, for implying that Pakatan Rakyat would cause Islam’s downfall. It was just in June 2014 that a few DAP lawmakers filed police reports against Ikatan Muslimin Malaysia (Isma) president Abdullah Zaik Abdul Rahman for remarks calling Chinese immigrants to Malaya “intruders”.

The party in many circumstances had taken matters under the seditious framework especially relating to issues of race and religion, including the position of vernacular schools. It is clear that the party is a secret admirer of the Sedition Act, even though many of its leaders were victims of the said law before, more so that DAP is also the state government of Penang that faces regular protests from the Malay right wing groups.

The federal government also invoked the Sedition Act on the feeling of ill will and hostility between the races as seen in the case of the infamous sex bloggers Alvin Lee and Vivian Lee, and David Orok in Sabah. It is to be noted that even though the position of Islam were not expressly stated in the Sedition Act, actions on the subject of religion were justified as per Section 3(1) (e) against promotion of feelings of ill will and hostility between different races or classes. While the Sedition Act was often slapped on those causing religious tension with specific reference to Islam, the law was also extended on Muslim groups for similar reasons. In 2009, 12 individuals were convicted under the Sedition Act for using a cow head during a protest with the tendency to incite and create feelings of unsatisfactory and animosity towards Hindus.

This attempt to punish religiously insensitive comments carries a mixed view; while many supports the notion of non-compromise when it involves religious sensitivity, others allege selectivity in implementation, especially by the non-Muslims. The application of sedition on religious sensitivity is highly controversial as the parameters of sensitivity involving religion is highly subjective and wide. The 2014 case of a teenager who was investigated for clicking ‘like’ on a pro-Israel Facebook post would serve as a reminder of the danger of such subjectivity and fragile sensitivity.

We are actually living in the time and age where people get offended by cat pictures in Facebook that could cause a ruckus in one’s social life including divorce. The notion of hurting the feelings of the others in this Internet era have become religious itself especially when smartphone technology meets the intoxicating culture of ‘Aramaiti’. This section of sedition is also controversial as it extends beyond politicians and to common civilians.

According to James F Stephen’s book ‘A History of the Criminal Law of England’, sedition is an inherently political and politicised offence. The word ‘sedition’ is derived from the Latin word ‘seditio’, which literally means ‘a going aside’ or departing from established authority and norms. The law is not above or outside of society; it is the reflection of society at a given moment in its evolution. As per James Stephen definition, the existence of sedition depends on the socio-political norms of the land and its public attitude towards insensitive comments.

Race-based and religion-based politics and politicisation of insensitive remarks and actions for political mileage continues to create this fragile climate that breeds for such laws. We are a nation that demands for punishment and executive action as a solution instead of engagement over politically incorrect and insensitive remarks and actions. The application of sedition is also due to our lack of intellectual culture and objective debate as the sword becomes mightier than the pen when race and religion becomes the subject. In October 2013, PKR’s sole Member of Parliament in Sabah infamously said that Sabah Mufti Bungsu should pay for calling Kadazans an “invented race”.

The matter was dealt with more hate comments and police reports instead of public education of the communities’ rich culture and history. The incident shows that Malaysians generally view matter of race and religion insensitivity very seriously and as a crime. The other case that falls into this category is of law professor Azmi Sharom, a perfect candidate for a public debate and engagement than a seditious charge. It’s either we lack the capacity or we are just engulfed in hate politics.

The Sedition Act is a double-edged sword, with one side that strips down freedom of expression while on the other a vicious weapon for social harmony and peace. So, are we really ready for a Malaysia without the sedition law?  It’s more than a template campaign to repeal a colonial law as we have fed and raised this law in the interest of our politics and harmony as a norm. The Sedition Act is also unique in comparison with the Penal Code as in Chapter VI (Offences Against The State), Chapter VIII (Offences Against Public Tranquillity) and Chapter XIV(Offences Affecting The Public Health, Safety, Convenience, Decency and Morals). The Penal Code Acts as to punish a crime already committed or in commission or progress and lacks in early preventive bite. The question of a Malaysian quest for harmony as in to act early and prevent a crime of such matters right at its root doesn’t make the Penal Code as the right candidate either.

The other option of the Harmony Act is also viewed with suspicion by certain quarters as in its effectiveness as the proposed law imposed the importance of actual threats and intention to cause harm or in furtherance of violence as its precursor. The position is in-line with international standards but the law misses a key point that Malaysians strive for as in to criminalise insensitive comments especially when it touches on the sensitive subjects of race, religion the rulers or the sovereignty of the state.

We also have a growing trend of racial and religious political groups from Hindraf and Isma to the Council of Churches who are extremely vigilant towards insensitivity, from curry powder to proselytization in the political interest of their race and religion. The question remains to be deliberated. Will the Chinese tolerate an open campaign for the abolishment of vernacular schools? Will the Malays tolerate publication questioning the Al Quran and hadis? Will the indigenous people of Malaya and Borneo tolerate questioning of the special position as an indigenous people and their religious rituals as idolatry? Will the Indians tolerate the exploitation of their sacred animal and insensitive terms used in social media? And will the Christians tolerate a Church of Autobots and Optimus Prime on a crucifix? It’s about time the government set up a parliamentary select committee to review the Sedition Act with a view to allow greater public engagement and debate and for an objective decision on this controversial law as a matured nation. The proposal to replace the Sedition Act with a new law or to remove it outright is just an act of putting the cart before the horse.

The solution to the Sedition Act is beyond its abolishment or replacement, but needs a major blueprint and strategic plan in terms of the country’s socio-political landscape, culture and norms.

Malaysia: Sedition Act Wielded to Silence Opposition

The Malaysian government should cease using the country’s sedition law to arbitrarily arrest opposition lawmakers, activists, and critical academics, Human Rights Watch said lioday. Since 2013, at least 14 people have been charged under the Sedition Act 1948 for criticizing the government or government officials. Those found guilty face up to five years in prison and a fine of RM 5,000 (US$1,600). The government of Prime Minister Najib Razak should repeal the Sedition Act, which has repeatedly been used to prosecute people for political purposes in violation of the right to freedom of expression. “The Malaysian government is increasingly using the Sedition Act to instil fear and silence in political opponents and critics,” said Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director. “Prime Minister Najib’s crackdown on free expression has shown his true rights-abusing colors.”

The Sedition Act prohibits vague offenses such as uttering “any seditious words” without defining what constitutes “sedition” or “seditious words.” It broadly outlaws any “seditious tendency” that would “bring into hatred or contempt or excite disaffection against any Ruler or against any Government.”

In the period before the general election on May 5, 2013, Prime Minister Najib repeatedly said that he would lead an effort to repeal the Sedition Act and replace it with a so-called Harmony Act. However, following the election, in which the ruling coalition the Barisan Nasional retained power despite major losses in the national parliament, he retreated from his pledge. Malaysian authorities have used the vaguely worded act to charge four opposition members of parliament with sedition, including Party Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) Vice President Tian Chua and Democratic Action Party (DAP) Vice President Teresa Kok.

On August 19, 2014, the authorities charged PKR Vice President N. Surendran with sedition in connection with a statement to the media attacking the decision of the appeals court. A second sedition charge was brought against him on August 29 for alleging that the renewed sodomy charges against his client, the parliamentary opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, were “an attempt to jail the opposition leader of Malaysia,” and that Prime Minister Najib was responsible. On August 26, the authorities charged Khalid Samad, a member of parliament from the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS), with sedition for allegedly critical remarks he made regarding the Selangor state sultan and the State Islamic Affairs Council. Khalid had called for reviews of laws after the state council failed to abide by the attorney general’s decision that Iban and Malay-language Bibles seized by the Selangor Islamic Religious Department must be returned to the Bible Society of Malaysia. In June, authorities charged Kok with sedition for her Chinese New Year video “Onederful Malaysia CNY 2014,” which depicts Kok as host of the program with three volunteers playing characters before a small audience. The video makes no mention of any individual or the government.

The DAP Penang State Assemblyman R.S.N. Rayer was charged on August 27 for allegedly saying “celaka celaka UMNO” (“damn, damn UMNO”) to several state assemblymen of the United Malays National Organization (UMNO) during an assembly session in May. On September 3, the authorities brought sedition charges against David Orok, a politician from the state of Sabah, claiming that he defamed Islam and the Prophet on Facebook. He has pleaded not guilty and apologized on his Facebook page, but the authorities confiscated his passport and the court released him on RM 7,000 ($2,200) bail. The authorities charged five activists and Tian Chua with sedition for remarks made on May 13, 2013, at the Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall. The group had accused the government of pervasive voter fraud and suggested that under current election regulations, the opposition coalition could never win an election. On September 5, 2014, a Kuala Lumpur sessions court sentenced Safwan Anang, former chair of Malaysian Students Solidarity, an activist group, to 10 months in prison, although he was released on RM 15,000 ($4,700) bail pending his appeal. Cases are still pending against Tian, the activists Hishamuddin Rais, Haris Ibrahim, and Tamrin bin Abdul Ghafar, and the student leader Adam Adli (pic).

The government is also prosecuting academics and journalists under the Sedition Act. On September 1, Dr. Azmi Sharom, a University of Malaya professor, was charged with sedition for comments related to a political event five years ago. On September 10, a group of academics and students organized a public rally on Azmi’s behalf and to decry the threat the Sedition Act poses to academic freedom. The Attorney General’s Chambers announced that it would review the sedition charge against Azmi and possibly others. On September 4, the authorities arrested Susan Loone, assistant editor at Malaysiakini, an online newspaper critical of the government and ruling coalition, on suspicion of sedition for her article that included statements by Phee Boone Poh, a Penang State executive councilor. Loone was held and interrogated for nine hours before being released on bail. Police had earlier detained Phee because of his role as chairman of the Penang People’s Voluntary Patrol, an auxiliary force connected with the state government that the inspector general of police alleges is illegal. The story reported Phee saying that during four hours of police questioning he was “treated like a criminal.”

The government has also investigated several senior opposition politicians but ultimately charged them with sections of the penal code that severely restrict expression. On August 28, the authorities charged Rafizi Ramli, a senior member of the PKR and member of parliament, with article 504 of the penal code, which criminalizes “intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of the peace.” The charge was based on statements he made in a newspaper article that suggested that UMNO was attempting to undermine and destroy the PKR leadership in Selangor State by using policies emphasizing race and religion.

Similarly, on August 25, authorities charged the former Perak State Governor Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin, from the opposition PAS party, for defaming Prime Minister Najib in remarks he made in Ipoh in April 2012. “The Malaysian government has apparently decided that its vaguely worded Sedition Act is its new catch-all charge against its most vocal critics,” Robertson said. “Prime Minister Najib should realize that throwing activists and opposition leaders in jail for what they say is a slippery slope to authoritarian rule.”

Sedition Act will go, PM promises again

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak (pic) has promised that the Sedition Act will be removed and the government will allow the freedom of speech in the social media. The Prime Minister reiterated today his 2012 pledge to remove the Sedition Act 1948 and replace the controversial law with the proposed National Harmony Act to deal with religious and racial issues, amid growing discontent over its use on dissenters. He also said the government allows freedom of speech on social media, but warned that the authorities will use the existing law on those who abuse that freedom.

“I want to issue a warning that the existing law will be imposed on anyone attempting to jeopardise peace. This is certainly in force,” he was quoted saying by The Star Online while at the Jerlun Umno divisional delegates meeting in Kedah. Najib’s reiteration follows a claim by Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Shahidan Kassim, that the prime minister had only promised to review the Sedition Act and not abolish the 66-year-old law, according to a report earlier today by news portal The Malaysian Insider.

A search of old news reports for Najib’s past remarks on the Sedition Act showed the prime minister did say the law would soon be repealed, not just once but repeatedly. According to a video of Najib’s speech at the July 2012 Attorney-General’s Chambers dinner, the prime minister said: “The government has decided to abolish the Sedition Act 1948 and replace it with a new bill known as the National Harmony Act. The decision to repeal the Sedition Act was made because we wanted to find a mechanism to determine the best balance between the need to ensure freedom of speech for all citizens in accordance with the Federal Constitution, and the need to respect the diversities that exist in the country,” he said in the video that was uploaded on Najib’s YouTube page.

A year later in July 2013, the prime minister reportedly told British broadcaster BBC’s World News programme that the repeal of the Sedition Act was “coming”, pointing out that Putrajaya has already abolished the ISA and the Emergency Ordinance. The Prime Minister’s Office also said in a statement on August 30 this year that the “Sedition Act will be replaced by the National Harmony Bill”. The government spokesman also said the drafting of the new law will take some time as it is being worked on together with civil society and the public.

“The government welcomes feedback from all sections of society, and hopes to present the draft Bill to Parliament by the end of next year,” the spokesman said. The National Unity and Consultative Council, which is an independent body under the purview of the National Unity and Integration Department, has proposed three laws to replace the Sedition Act. The government’s use of the colonial-era law to arrest and prosecute a number of people who hold dissenting views, from opposition lawmakers to student activists and the latest, a reporter and a professor, have spurred Malaysians to band together and demand the Najib administration repeal the law.

“The government must repeal it as soon as possible or people will see the government as not honouring its promise. The recent escalation of the charges under the Act looks like the government is cracking down on dissent,” Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah, who heads the prime minister’s Global Movement of Moderates initiative, told Malay Mail Online today.

Sedition law use shows our leaders don’t trust us, Zaid says

Datuk Zaid Ibrahim (pic) said in his blog post today that the government should use education to persuade Malaysians to trust and respect them, instead of using a sledgehammer approach to force peace. By keeping the Sedition Act, Putrajaya is admitting its belief that there is neither trust nor harmony among Malaysia’s different communities and that the best way to deal with dissenters is by instilling fear, Datuk Zaid Ibrahim said.

He claimed the on-going debate over whether the colonial-era law should be repealed has revealed the existence of a seemingly large group of Malays and Muslims who still believe in what he described as “old solutions” to the country’s problems. “They still want to retain the culture of colonisers, where if they doubt the loyalty of the locals or fail to earn their support, they simply instill fear in them. They use harsh laws to drum them into submission,” Zaid said in his latest blog post.

“If the Prime Minister and his supporters say we need the Sedition Act to maintain harmony and to prevent racial strife, then they are admitting that there is neither trust nor harmony among the country’s various communities. “They are acknowledging that they know of no other way to deal with dissenters (besides throwing 1Malaysia slogans and badges at them),” the former Umno minister said.

But Zaid told the government that this approach is wrong and inconsistent with the ways of modern democracies, which he said utilises education to stop troublemakers from disturbing the peace with “seditious” remarks. The government should use education to persuade Malaysians to trust and respect them, instead of using a sledgehammer approach to force peace, he said.

“We have been an independent country for many decades now, after all, so surely it’s time we follow the practices of other democracies. “It’s time we treat our people with the respect they deserve,” he said. Throwing dissenters behind bars, Zaid said, would only breed more hatred than love. Sowing fear among citizens is an approach used by militants and terrorists and not the work of “smart people”, he added.

“Smart people,” Zaid continued, “...look at the source of the problem and offer solutions.” “They don’t get excited about showing how unafraid they are of Chinese and Christians. ”Putrajaya recently embarked on a sedition crackdown, hauling up at least 20 anti-government dissidents and opposition politicians under the colonial-era law in the space of over a month.

The sudden onslaught of charges has led to renewed calls for the repeal of the Sedition Act 1948, with politicians and activist groups mobilising nationwide campaigns in hopes of pressuring Putrajaya into fulfilling its 2012 pledge to do away with the law. Yesterday, lawyers from the Malaysian Bar resolved during an extraordinary general meeting to take to the streets in a mass peaceful rally against the law.

Critics believe the government is deliberately dithering on the promise due to pressure from strong right wing elements within Umno and its supporters, who want the Act to stay. Defenders of the Sedition Act, primarily pro-establishment conservatives including former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, contend that its removal will open the floodgates of attacks against the Bumiputera, Islam, and the Malay rulers in the absence of the repealed Internal Security Act (ISA). But Zaid insisted today that repealing the act would be “the way forward” for Malaysia.

For Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, he said the move would also help shine his credentials as a reformist. “We all need to grow up before we can have a better Malaysia.”

The Sedition Act shadow play

Former IGP Musa Hassan and former Bukit Aman CID Zaman Khan, former Appeals Court judge Mohd Noor Abdullah are passionate about retaining the Sedition Act as are many UMNO members. There are also roadshows across the nation to drum up support to retain the Sedition Act which many say is being abused to curtail those who speak out. Former law minister Zaid Ibrahim, posted on his blog — The Zaidgeist — that: “Our top leaders, including the Prime Minister, have not understood the rationale for or the significance of repealing the act.

“Roadshows are currently being conducted across the nation to drum up support for retaining the Act, but they need not waste their time. “At this rate, it isn’t going anywhere.” He explained that what was clear from this debate about the Sedition Act was that: there is still a large group of Malays / Muslims who are offering the same old solutions to the country’s problems.

”They still want to retain the culture of colonisers, where if they doubt the loyalty of the locals or fail to earn their support, they simply instil fear in them. They use harsh laws to supress them,” he said.

Zaid called on the government to take a different approach, one that is consistent with a modern way of governing the country. “Malaysia has been an independent country for many decades now, after all, so surely it’s time we follow the practices of other democracies. This means educating the people, persuading them and gaining their trust and respect so that no one would feel the need to utter ‘seditious’ words to create trouble. It’s time we treat our people with the respect they deserve,” he said.

He said if the Prime Minister and his supporters say we need the Sedition Act to maintain harmony and to prevent racial strife, then they are admitting that there is neither trust nor harmony among the country’s various communities. They are acknowledging that they know of no other way to deal with dissenters (besides throwing 1Malaysia slogans and badges at them).

If there is no loyalty, it’s the leaders’ responsibility to find ways to instil love and respect for King and country. Hammering the people with jail sentences breeds more hatred, not love. Sowing fear is not the work of smart people, but of militants and terrorists. Smart people in developed nations look at the source of the problem and offer solutions. They don’t get excited about showing how unafraid they are of Chinese and Christians.

In his blog Zaid said that they say Singapore also has a Sedition Act, so why can’t we? “There is a difference, you see: Singapore’s institutions, be it the Police or the Prosecutors’ office, have always acted professionally. These agencies act on the understanding that the criteria for sedition must be the same whether the alleged offenders are Malay, Indian or Chinese. These agencies take action against any Singaporean, whoever they are. Seditious words uttered by a Malay would still be classified as seditious if they are said by a Chinese PAP branch chairman.

But in Malaysia, things are different. Seditious words uttered by a Malay or Muslim leader are viewed differently, but if a DAP branch chairman or a Christian pastor were to use the same rhetoric that they would be accused of creating “public disorder”, prompting the use of the Sedition Act against them. As our former Attorney-General Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman said, “let there not be selective prosecution and persecution for sedition cases.”

That’s why we need to repeal the Sedition Act. It is to show that our leaders and the country are willing to move to new frontiers. It would show a new level of self-confidence among Malays/Muslims. He said Malaysia had enough laws to take care of the real troublemakers.

“By doing away with it, Malays/Muslims in Umno or Isma can say to other Malaysians: We accept you as citizens of this country and we trust you and your good judgment. “We know that as citizens of this free country, you have the right to be critical and to express your views, but we are confident you will be reasonable and have the best of intentions for the country,” said Zaid.

By repealing the Sedition Act, Malays/Muslim s can say to non-Malays that there are no enemies within, and that no one is more loyal to King and country than anybody else. That’s the significance of repealing the Act. Zaid said: “Our leaders should focus on finding ways to engage with non-Malay Malaysians as fellow travellers in this Malaysian journey. We would all be better off if we collaborated and cooperated with one another. This is the way forward for all of us. I am surprised the Prime Minister could not see how repealing the Sedition Act would bring positive changes to the country. It would affirm his position as a reformer who wants to change the country’s course for the better. We all need to grow up before we can have a better Malaysia,” he said.

Perkasa Forum: Isa Abolition Was A Mistake

The abolition of the Internal Security Act 1960 (ISA) was a mistake and the government could repeat the same mistake if it continued to repeal the Sedition Act 1948, said a former court of appeal judge. "I looked back behind the repeal of the ISA, and I can say it is a big mistake," said Datuk Mohd Noor Abdullah during a forum 'ISA: Is it still relevant?' organised by Pertubuhan Pribumi Perkasa Malaysia (Perkasa).

According to Mohd Noor, one point that caused a setback to the ISA was that the court could not review the Home Minister's decision to detain an individual under the ISA. "That is wrong. Who's going to question the decision of the minister? People bash the ISA because the minister has absolute power and cannot be reviewed by the court. "The solution is not to abolish ISA. The solution is to give power to the court to review the Minister’s decision on whether a person is deemed a security threat," he said at K Club in Taman Melawati here yesterday evening.

Mohd Noor also spoke about the need for the Sedition Act as Malaysia is unique with people of various races, ethnicity and religion. He also pointed out that there were more differences than similarities, and people rarely talked about the similarities, focusing more on differences especially in terms of rights.

"Strict action should be taken to those who attempt to incite unrest between the different ethnic groups. More measures should be added to the Sedition Act in order to strengthen it. A seditious act should be a registered offense under the Prevention of Crime Act," he said. Mohd Noor also noted some individuals might utter seditious statements, only to retract it later and offer an apology. "Do not be gentle and follow the Western democracy on human rights and the right to speak. A mistake is still a mistake. The law should be enforced,” he said.

Former Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan, who also spoke at the forum, said people often criticised ISA in terms of preventive detention. However, ISA was also needed to maintain the peace and security of the country. "It is also designed to prevent crimes such as gangsterism, human smuggling and Ah Long activities," he said.

"When the ISA and the Emergency Ordinance (EO) were repealed, all offenders such as gangsters had to be released. When it was repealed, the right to freedom and the public’s rights are under threat. "There is goodness in every law but people should not abuse that power,” he said. Musa said the laws in Malaysia were created to face many challenges and threats. "The threat that still exists in this country is racial conflict. We are a unique country because we are multi-racial so we need to keep our harmony. To maintain this harmony, there should be a law to prevent any person from making a move that could threaten the country’s national security," he said.

He also disagreed with the government's proposal to repeal the Sedition Act. "The Sedition Act was created to prevent any person from inciting racial tension. This Act must be maintained, if not it could damage the country’s security. "We (security forces) take care of security, not politics," added Musa. Perkasa president Datuk Ibrahim Ali also said the repeal of the ISA was a political act and not made in the best interest of national security.

"After the elections in 2008 and also the period leading up to the 13th General Election (GE13) to win back the desired two-thirds majority, they (Barisan Nasional) might think that abolition of ISA could be a popular move. It was a popular decision to garner the support of the people. Many don't really know about the ISA. They might know it as detention without trial for two years. Nobody cared but some will know that the spirit of ISA is, prevention is better than cure," he said. Ibrahim said laws such as the ISA were not only to protect the interests of certain races. "Those who don't agree with the ISA are originally the opposition parties and certain races that support the opposition. The ISA is actually for the safety of Malaysians, not just the Malays," he said.

He also supports efforts to maintain the Sedition Act. "We have to fight and cannot depend on the government alone. This is in the interest of national security," Ibrahim added.

“Let’s bring back the ISA, too”

Arguments on the need to retain, and not repeal, the Sedition Act 1948 by the 13 lawyers attending the Malaysian Bar Extraordinary General Meeting held on September 19, 2014 have been touched upon at length by my colleague, Aidil Khalid, in his article, “13 voices of dissent in the Malaysian Bar”. In it, he asserts the need to protect the Federal Constitution, in particular certain provisions thereof, from attack by certain unscrupulous quarters. He also quotes me on the need to preserve racial and religious harmony in Malaysia to defend the national development that has been undertaken all these 57 years of Merdeka from becoming undone as a result of the words and actions of these quarters.

In my own speech before the EGM, I highlighted the preventive nature of the Sedition Act 1948 as a crucial element needed to contain racial and religious incidents at their source before they get out of hand, and that existing laws such as the Penal Code, not having this preventive element, do not suffice in containing such incidents. However, I do not believe this to be true merely in the case of the Sedition Act 1948, but also in the case of the now repealed Internal Security Act 1960 as well. The repeal of the Internal Security Act 1960 in 2012 at the urging of various segments of society, including the Malaysian Bar, was an unfortunate mistake. Two years after the repeal we now hear clarion calls by an overwhelming number of the Malaysian public to bring back the ISA.

Why is this so? Some would argue that these individuals have yet to fully grasp the notion that in order for society to progress politically, economically and socially in the 21st century, one should be free from so-called draconian, anachronistic laws such as the ISA which provided for detention without trial. Indeed, if we recall the arguments against the existence of the ISA back then, which are very similar to the arguments against the Sedition Act 1948 now, the right of the accused to be informed of the grounds of his detention under the ISA, and to fight the same in accordance with established rules relating to procedural justice, are denied him. These are valid concerns and they must be addressed satisfactorily to ensure progress in the like mentioned above.

However, the existence of this flaw, as is also the case where the Sedition Act 1948 is concerned, was not an adequate reason for the ISA’s abolition. As has been so aptly encapsulated by Aidil Khalid in his said article, one does not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Threats to national or internal security exist and are as real today as they were in the formative years of our nation, and the need for the ISA to suppress subversive elements then, such as the Communist insurgency, cannot and must not be denied.

Even today, the recent increase in violent crime domestically and the rise of terrorism globally poses a threat to the security of the nation. Nationally, shooting incidents are being frequently reported as a direct consequence of the abolition of the ISA and internationally, nations such as the United States of America with their Patriot Act, the United Kingdom with their Prevention of Terrorism Act and Singapore, which has retained the ISA, point to the need for a law on national security to remain on our statute book.

How then does one balance security with liberty? This is a very old debate, but common sense dictates that both must be reconciled and safety concerns must trump human rights where they collide, for without security, there can be no liberty. The ISA, instead of being repealed, could have been retained with amendments made to improve due process of those detained under that Act. In this respect, the provisions of the Prevention of Crime (Amendment) Act 2014 can be used as a guide. This amending Act was introduced in consequence of the revocation of the Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969 which ceased to have effect as a result of annulling the emergency declared as a result of the aftermath of the 1969 racial riots. The Act amended the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 to retain the effect of the repealed 1969 Ordinance by introducing provision for detention orders, which was still needed to detain without trial those who habitually commit crimes.

To address concerns of abuse, procedural safeguards were put in place in respect of the operation of these detention orders. Section 7B of the Act establishes a Prevention of Crime Board consisting of a legally trained chairman assisted by four other eminent persons in place of the minister in approving detention orders, and anyone detained under the Act may make representations to the board pursuant to Section 11(1) of the Act. Even when detention orders are made against an accused, the accused still has the right to have his detention order reviewed by the High Court in accordance with Section 19A(2) of the Act.

It is postulated that a re-enacted ISA be clothed with similar protections against arbitrary abuse on the part of the authorities. An internal security council could be set up composed of such persons of similar or better capacity than those appointed to the Prevention of Crime Board. An accused detained would have similar right of representation before such a council, and would have similar recourse to the High Court by way of a review should the council proceed to detain him without trial. It is contended that these safeguards are in themselves sufficient for the balance between liberty of the person and the need to address concerns in respect of internal security, much like they are so in the prevention of crime.

As such, and given that grave threats to national security have not abated even in these present times, the repeal of the ISA must be concluded to be wholly erroneous on the part of the authorities and the consequences have given rise to a heightened public temperature that threatens to tear apart the delicate racial and religious fabric of our society, and its reintroduction, together with the safeguards heretofore mentioned, is the right way forward for Malaysia.

Malaysia: UN rights office urges review of colonial-era Sedition Act

The United Nations human rights office today urged Malaysian authorities to immediately stop investigations and prosecutions under a 1948 law that curbed free speech and freedom of expression in the South-east Asian nation. “We are concerned about the recent increase in the use of the 1948 Sedition Act to arrest and prosecute people for their peaceful expression of opinion in Malaysia,” the spokesperson for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Rupert Colville (pic), said in Geneva.

Since the beginning of August, at least 19 people, including religious leaders, civil society actors, political opposition members and activists, a university professor and a journalist have been charged or placed under investigation for sedition, according to the Office of the High Commissioner (OHCHR).

Most recently, an investigation was opened against Edmund Bon, a human rights and constitutional lawyer, for comments in an article on the legal use of the word “Allah,” which were critical of current restrictions on members of the other religious groups using the term. The UN right office said it was also concerned that the authorities in Malaysia are arbitrarily applying the Sedition Act to silence critical voices.

The Act is “overly broad and does not outline well-defined criteria for sedition,” Mr. Colville said speaking on behalf of the OHCHR. “We call on the Government to quickly initiate a promised review of the Act and to repeal or amend it in line with its international human rights obligations.”