Sometimes Sorry is Irrelevant
Pondering why the Attorney General Chambers of 1Malaysia (1AG) has not yet charged Datuk Nasir Safar under the Sedition Act 1948 and its relevance to the Federal Court decision of Lim Guan Eng v PP [2000] 2 CLJ 541.
By Fahri Azzat
No less than the special officer for our 1PM (1Prime Minister) of 1Malaysia (that’s right people, it’s not Malaysia anymore, you’re in 1Malaysia now), had the gall to remark “Indians came to Malaysia as beggars and Chinese especially the women came to sell their bodies“, in public, at an event ironically titled, ‘Rapat 1 Malaysia‘ held in Malacca on 2 February 2010. This, of course, during the 1PM’s no doubt expensive marketing campaign that is 1Malaysia, which personally is humourous, because the use of the number 1 implies that there is also a 2 and 3 then 4 and so forth. So we are actually being sold a 1Malaysia whilst we actually remain stuck around the 4Malaysia mark.
So now Datuk Safir Nasar has purportedly apologised for his remarks.
Before we consider that, it needs no pointing out that for 1PM to have something like a 1RacialBigotz as his special officer begs the question of firstly how racial bigots like him could work in such high office is startling. Secondly, that he has the audacity to declare his closely held views so nakedly at a public event is disturbing. You can bet his mouths off far more offensive remarks in private. Thirdly, you cannot help but wonder how many more of Datuk Nasir Safar’s ilk are there working in 1PM’s 1Office. This instance should provide sufficient reason for a witch hunt to be carried out in his 1Office of such rebels to the 1Malaysia marketing campaign.
Now let’s consider what he said from a legal perspective. The most appropriate act would be the Sedition Act 1948. We can start with section 3(1) of the Act. This provision defines what a ’seditious tendency’ is. The relevant parts are as follows:
3. Seditious tendency.
(1) A “seditious tendency” is a tendency –
…
(d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the subjects of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or of the Ruler of any State or amongst the inhabitants of Malaysia or of any State;
(e) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Malaysia; or
Does the remark “Indians came to Malaysia as beggars and Chinese especially the women came to sell their bodies” satisfy that criteria? Of course, and you don’t need to be as clever as the Attorney General to think so.
Firstly, what he said is according to our own history books completely untrue. What we were taught was that the British brought the Indians to work in the estates, as labour, and in security and the Chinese to work on the tin mines. Secondly, there was no necessity under any circumstance to make such an untrue and offensive remark. It is offensive because it is so blatantly untrue. Third and relatedly, that remark was specifically crafted to denigrate our Malaysian brothers and sisters racial heritage. It is not necessary to press how suitably those remarks fit the criteria of a ’seditious tendency’. It also clearly does not fulfil the exceptions contained in section 3(2) of the Act.
Section 3(3) is of importance to what Datuk Safir Nasir said when he ‘apologized’. Let us listen to his magnanimous apology again:
“I would like to again openly apologise to all Malaysians for the remarks that are seen as racist. I really did not intend it that way..”
I don’t know what other way he could have intended it. As a compliment? As a friendly pat on the back? As a ‘Hey, you my brother forevah?’ As part of fostering closer and harmonious relations? By disparaging against other Malaysian’s racial heritage? Did he have in mind MCA (Malaysian Chinese Association) President Dato’ Sri Ong Tee Keat’s Chinese maternal lineage or MIC President Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu’s Indian heritage when he made those remarks? In what way did Datuk Nasir Safar intend his words to be taken? If he thinks those very words had no racial element, then Datuk Nasir Safar is so racist to the extent he cannot even tell when he is being so. That statement is normal for someone like him and his company. He, of course, does not explain because there can be no other explanation. So is his intention of any relevance?
Read more at: Sometimes Sorry is Irrelevant
