Push for free speech
By Onn Yeoh, The Sun
Guidelines and amendments are not enough. The public should push for more freedom of speech and for the abolishment of any acts that hamper such freedom. They should do so through voicing their opinions in a civil manner and by being consistent in their opposition to outdated laws.
WHEN I read the comments by Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, the de facto law minister, about why the government should not act against Utusan Malaysia or Perkasa chief Ibrahim Ali for what they’ve said that has upset so many Malaysians, I couldn’t help but wonder if he has been reading my column.
In my opinion piece last week, “Malaysians not easily incited” I said that I was against sedition laws and the dreaded Internal Security Act. I don’t believe they should be used against anybody.
Give the people and the media freedom of speech. Malaysian society has progressed sufficiently that people are not going to riot in the streets just because someone says something inflammatory.
Now listen to what Nazri said, “Controversial issues that were once considered taboo are now discussed openly and frankly in public without the fear of causing racial tension.” He went on to describe the Sedition Act as having “no relevance in these modern times” and claims that the government was merely giving people like Ibrahim the same freedom of speech it gives the online media.
Civil society’s initial reaction to Nazri’s surprising stance on the matter was negative. “The situation he is describing is hell let loose,” said Kuala Selangor MP Dzulkefly Ahmad, one of the more progressive and liberal members of PAS. “He is opening the floodgates to chaos. We are talking about the complete breakdown of the rule of law, utter lawlessness.”
More than one commentator on online news sites like Malaysiakini referred to Nazri’s rationale as “perverse logic”. But is it? Read further Nazri’s rationale: “We cannot have double standards, one for the alternative media and another for Utusan Malaysia and Ibrahim Ali.”
He is right. If we are to champion the abolition of the Sedition Act and the ISA, we must be consistent and not ask for it to be applied to people we don’t agree with, however inflammatory or offensive.
Otherwise, it would be a classic case of that old saying “It depends on whose ox is being gored”, which refers to how people tend to take a position or stance not based on principles but on whether it’s in their interest or not.
Take the case of being supportive or critical of the royalty being involved in political action. When there was friction between the royalty in Terengganu and Barisan Nasional, opposition supporters were delighted the royalty was being politically active there. The same people would decry the royalty’s activism in Perak when it acted against the interest of Pakatan Rakyat. But the opposition does not have a monopoly on hypocrisy. Government supporters who cried “derhaka” in the Perak case were unsurprisingly silent in the Terengganu case.
To embattled opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s credit, he said the right thing with regard to calls for use of sedition laws and the ISA against someone like Ibrahim. “People who are angry with Ibrahim asked for him to be charged with sedition or ISA – I don’t,” Anwar said. “As a matter of principle, I don’t support ISA or the Sedition Act and therefore I do not condone the use of these (laws), even as a temporary measure.”
Nazri had said in January that the government was setting up guidelines for the Sedition Act 1948, Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) Act 1998 and the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984. Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein had said in August 2009 that the ISA might be amended.
Guidelines and amendments are not enough. The public should push for more freedom of speech and for the abolishment of any acts that hamper such freedom. They should do so through voicing their opinions in a civil manner and by being consistent in their opposition to outdated laws.
