An online interview done in late 2009

 

I was recently asked ten questions on various issues concerning Malaysia. One of the questions was what would be the first thing I would do if I were the Prime Minister of Malaysia. I would like to share these views with you, which is mostly what I have already said before anyway.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

1. What is your general opinion on freedom of speech in Malaysia? As we all know, not everyone knows your stand on this issue.  Are these restrictions really necessary?

I always joke that Malaysia allows freedom of speech. There are no restrictions on freedom of speech. It is freedom AFTER speech that we don’t have. You are free to speech but you will go to jail and will not be free after you do.

Freedom of speech is subjective and varies from country to country. For example, in the west, like in the US or UK, racial slurs are not allowed and are punishable by law. Some complain that the west is a bit too ‘politically correct’ and they classify even ‘genuine’ complaints as racial slurs. They feel freedom of speech in the west is being stifled in the interest of being politically correct.

So, one man’s freedom of speech is another man’s racial slur and one man’s political correctness is another man’s stifling of freedom of speech. It all depends on which side of the fence you are standing.

Malaysia has laws such as the Sedition Act, just to name but one, which is used against those who speak out. It does not matter whether what you say is true or false. Even if what you say is true you can still be arrested and charged for sedition.

But then who determines what constitutes sedition? If someone makes a police report against you and accuses you of sedition, then the police will launch an investigation and haul you in for interrogation. Sometimes it is the police themselves who make that police report against you.

The police will then establish whether you did or did not make that statement or write that article that they regard as seditious. But was your act really seditious, never mind whether you did or did not commit it? Who decides if you have acted with seditious tendencies? To you this may be freedom of speech. To the government it is seditious.

Just one man, the police officer interrogating you, will decide on the matter. And if in his or her opinion you did act in a seditious manner, then they will send the investigation papers to the Attorney-General’s Chambers and the AG will decide whether to charge you or not.

The truth of the matter is not material to the charge. Even if you told the truth you are still guilty. The issue here is whether the truth you told will ‘hurt somebody’s feelings’ or not. That is what will constitute your crime.

For example, let’s say you read in the newspapers that so-and-so lost ten million Ringgit while gambling in a casino in another country. And this so-and-so happens to be a ‘big shot’. You then repeat what you read in the newspapers. Because what you said involves a ‘big shot’ and what you said might (not sure if it will but ‘might’ is good enough) make Malaysians hate that ‘big shot’, then you have committed sedition.

But you just repeated what was in the newspapers and what the newspapers reported was true. You did not lie or create that story. It was a story reported by a newspaper. Nevertheless, if the government is of the view that by repeating that factual report it tantamount to sedition, then they can charge you if they can prove that you did in fact repeat the story.

So, in that sense, the Sedition Act stifles free speech. The truth does not set you free, as the popular saying goes. The truth can get you sent to jail. And whether it is seditious or not would merely be the personal opinion of just one man who is investigating your alleged ‘crime’. Even if the judge feels you made a harmless statement and in fact did not lie but told the truth, it is still the judge’s duty to send you to jail, as long as the prosecutor can prove you did say or write what they accuse you of. The judge has no business looking beyond that even if he or she feels your act wasn’t really damaging at all.

Are these restrictions necessary, as you asked? I would say no!

2. How have these restrictions on freedom of speech affected you?

I think that has already been answered in the many trials I am facing plus the Internal Security Act that has been used against me twice so far. Furthermore, the police have raided my house at least five or six times and have confiscated documents, books, CDs and my computers each time. I have also been summoned to the police station so many times that I have lost count how many times it was.

It is no longer possible for me to surface and write, both at the same time. If I wish to continue writing then I must go ‘underground’, as what I am now doing. I can, of course, make a deal with the government by declaring that I shall stop writing. Then they will leave me alone. But I choose to write over being able to resurface.

3. Knowing how much power the government wields in controlling the people’s freedom and you, yourself who has also been a victim of the ISA. Will you still continue voicing out your views ‘no holds barred’ like what is stated on your Blog? Are you going to still be a strong advocate of this issue despite what has been done to you by the government?

I suppose this question needs no reply since I am still writing right up to now, and with ‘no holds barred’ on top of that.

4. What made you start such a controversial Blog?

I have already written about this in my book ‘The Silent Roar’. Malaysia is a country with first world infrastructure but third world mentality. For Malaysia to come into the ‘first world’ there must first be freedom to express oneself. Malaysia Today is propagating open and lively debate with no holds barred. There should be no sacred cows. And Malaysians must learn how to tolerate criticism, even against race and religion, without taking to the streets and killing each other like on 13 May 1969.

If you don’t agree with what has been said then reply and rebut in an intelligent and matured manner. But don’t stop the other person from talking or by resorting to violence as a form of retaliation. If someone criticises your race or religion then debate them in defence of your race and religion. And if you are not capable of doing this then maybe the other person has a point.

5. Do you think that you are serving the people by publishing such content on the web?

I suppose if Malaysia Today can help develop a new generation of tolerant Malaysians who do not fear criticism and are matured enough to either ignore criticism or reply to it intelligently then we would have served the country.

I always use this example. A TV show in the US did a satire where people were asked whether America is ready for a black president. This was in the run-up to Obama’s campaign. The reply was: no, because then the White House would have to change its name to the Black House.

Everyone, even African-Americans, thought that was hilarious. In Malaysia, such jokes would not be tolerated and you might even find yourself in trouble with the law.

Can Malaysia become like that? And can Malaysia Today assist in teaching Malaysians to be more tolerant? If I can then I would say I have served the people.

6. How do you see Malaysia’s stand on democracy after ten years? Will there be any improvement?

Malaysians do not really understand what democracy means, even Cabinet Ministers. They argue that Malaysia is already a democracy because we have elections once every five years. To them, holding elections every five years means Malaysia has already achieved the status of a democracy. So, until Malaysians fully understand the meaning of the word, how do we strive to become more democratic?

They must first allow freedom for students to get involved in politics. Currently, the law does not allow this. They must abolish the requirement for publication permits. Anyone who wishes to publish a newspaper, magazine or periodical should be allowed to do so without first having to apply for a permit.

More importantly, they must abolish the Official Secrets Act and replace it with a Freedom of Information Act, except for matters involving defence and national security — but only in cases where the nation’s defence and security would be compromised though.

For example, how much the military pays to buy Maggie Mee should not be an ‘official secret’. If the taxpayers were told how their money is being spent on Maggie Mee at five times the cost on the open market this will certainly not threaten and compromise the security of this country.

The Internal Security Act, which allows for detention without trial, must go. The Federal Constitution of Malaysia, in fact, forbids detention without trial — as anyone who is detained must be told his or her crime, must be allowed legal representation, and must be brought before a court of law within 24 hours. The ISA waives all these requirements, which is a constitutional right of all Malaysians.

Malaysia has a long way to go before it can declare itself a democratic country.

7. What is your advice to the public to help with the current situation (media & press) in Malaysia? Because, obviously, these restrictions (Article 149, ISA, OSA, PPPA, etc.) are barriers for our country’s progression.

I think I have already replied to most of this. The only thing left to do is for all Malaysians who are eligible to vote to register as voters. Currently, only about two-thirds of eligible voters are registered to vote. Next, they must all come out to vote. Normally, only about 75% of registered voters come out to vote.

This means, in a nutshell, only half the people who are eligible to vote actually vote. So how are we going to see changes when only 8 million out of 27-28 million Malaysian vote whereas 15 million or so should be voting?

We complain about this and that but we do not do anything about it other than complain. If we want to see changes then we must vote for change. Then, when the government of the day sees that the people are clamouring for change, they will introduce changes.

My advice is simple. Vote for change.

8. How do you think your views are impacting the younger generation?

I really don’t know. The fact that many young people don’t vote or don’t register as a voter means we have a long way to go. Probably the younger generation has other things on their minds. But until they realise that the destiny of this country is in their hands then we would have failed in our objective.

9. Your name is synonymous with “democracy” and “freedom of speech” in Malaysia. What do you think about this statement?

I don’t think it is me alone. There are many Bloggers as well as those in the civil society movements who are doing their bit for the country. I am just one of the so many.

10. If you were the new Prime Minister of Malaysia, what would you do first?

Again, I always joke that my first duty as Prime Minister would be to ban same race marriages. If you want to get married then you must marry someone from another race. Within 20 years Malaysians would become one ‘race’ and will no longer look at each other as Malays, Chinese, Indians or whatnot.

But the truth is, we can’t legislate conduct. People will be racists whatever you may do. As long as racial based parties exist that is how long racism will prevail in Malaysia.

I suppose my first act as Prime Minister would be to set up an Ombudsman with very wide powers. It would even have the power to summon the Prime Minister to answer to whatever charges made against him. And the Ombudsman would have executive powers. It would be able to refer cases for prosecution. Even the Attorney-General will have to listen to it and act accordingly.

From there will emerge the Police Force Commission, Judicial Commission, Parliamentary Commission, Public Interest Commission, and so on, which decides on appointments and promotions, listen to grievances and grouses of the public and taxpayers, and whatnot. These Commissions should be set up through Acts of Parliament but must be independent of Parliament.

Then we need to redraw the electoral boundaries. For example, a parliament constituency must have, say, 60,000 voters, while a state constituency, say, 20,000 voters. Then the variation between constituencies should not be more than 20%.

This would eliminate the current gerrymandering in the Malaysian election system. And of course, the army/police postal voting system has to go — except for Malaysians overseas who will be allowed to vote at the Malaysian Embassies or High Commissions in whatever country they happen to be in. But this will have to be properly managed and monitored to avoid fraud.

There are of course much more that needs to be done — such as local council elections must be reintroduced — but this would be a good start for any Prime Minister on the first few days he takes office. Nevertheless, I have absolutely no interest in holding political office, let alone that of the Prime Minister.