Sedition Act more effective than ISA!

Kee Thuan Chye

Sedition. We have of late seen numerous Malaysians being charged with sedition and wondered whether the charges were justified. Do the people responsible for making the charges really know what sedition means, as it is defined in Malaysian law?

Similarly, we have seen numerous cases of the police investigating Malaysians for sedition. AndMalaysiakini has just reported that its journalist Susan Loone has been arrested for sedition because of an article she wrote. Do the police know what sedition means?

What is really going on? Is the Sedition Act being abused? For what reasons? Let’s call a spade a spade – is it being abused for political reasons?

Our Sedition Act was introduced as long ago as 1948 by the British colonial administration to criminalise any act, speech, words, etc, that would “bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against” the Government or engender “feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes”. After the May 13 racial riots, the Act was amended in 1970 to add citizenship, language, the special position of Bumiputeras and the sovereignty of the Malay rulers to the list of seditious matters.

Section 3(1) of the Act spells out the definition of “seditious tendency”, but 3(2) provides exceptions. It is important to note that it is NOT seditious for anyone to point out that a ruler “has been misled or mistaken in any of his measures”. It is also not seditious “to point out errors or defects in the Government or Constitution as by law established”.

In this regard, consider law lecturer Azmi Sharom’s remark reported in a Malay Mail Online article regarding Barisan Nasional’s takeover of the Perak state government from Pakatan Rakyat in 2009, which he opined was “legally wrong”. How can it be said to be seditious? Where is the “seditious tendency”? And yet he was charged with sedition on September 2.

On the same issue, the late lawyer and Opposition politician Karpal Singh was convicted of sedition last March for having said that the Perak sultan’s act of removing the Pakatan menteri besar and appointing a BN assemblyman as his successor could be challenged in court. Wasn’t Karpal protected by Section 3(2)? Do we just consider that part of 3(1) which discourages exciting disaffection against any ruler and forget about 3(2), even if Karpal had legal ground for saying what he said?

On that score, may we ask if the authorities are not getting overawed whenever royalty is involved? Just consider the case of Johor PKR Vice-Chairman Hassan Karim. The police hauled him in for questioning on August 29 because he had sent out a tweet asking if the Selangor sultan was doing the right thing in the Selangor menteri besar crisis. He was probed for sedition because his tweet was considered insulting.

But then it couldn’t have been half as insulting as what was done by Umno members when they protested in 2008 against the Terengganu sultan’s appointment of Ahmad Said as MB over Umno’s choice of Idris Jusoh. They carried banners humiliating the sultan with the word “natang” (animal in Terengganu dialect). And yet, strangely, no action was taken against them. The police didn’t even haul them up for questioning. Perhaps the police didn’t think there was anything seditious in that. Perhaps rightly so.

And yet why are Susan Loone, a journalist doing her job, and the news website she works for,Malaysiakini, now being investigated for sedition for an interview she did with Penang executive councillor Phee Boon Poh about his experience while in police custody a few days ago?

Yes, Phee said in the interview that when the police called him in for questioning regarding his role in the state’s Voluntary Patrol Unit (PPS), “They asked me all sorts of questions, snapped my photographs and took my fingerprints, just as they would do to a criminal.” And he also said, “I do not blame the police, they were very nice to me. They are victims of circumstances.” But there is nothing seditious in the content of the interview.

And why arrest the journalist, who was merely providing a straightforward report, not offering opinion? This reminds me of the detention of journalist Tan Hoon Cheng under the Internal Security Act (ISA) in 2008 for merely reporting a racist remark made by an Umno politician. She was released soon enough after a huge public outcry, and the then home minister Syed Hamid Albar gave the most ludicrous reason for her detention – that the police believed her life was “under threat” and she was detained for her own protection!

There is no ludicrous reason given this time for Loone’s arrest – not yet, anyway – but it’s nonetheless ridiculous to arrest her for sedition. Are the police considering this a sedition case because the people who made the report against the article are members of Perkasa? Why should Perkasa have so much clout? But then Perkasa merely accused Loone and Malaysiakini of defaming the police; surely, that doesn’t constitute sedition? What’s the matter with the police?

Yes, what is the matter with them? Last month, they announced that a 17-year-old boy was being investigated for sedition for allegedly clicking “like” on the ‘I Love Israel’ page on Facebook! That is seditious? Is that kind of action covered by Section 3(1) of the Sedition Act? Do the police have nothing better to do than to frighten a teenager with a serious threat like that? Even if the teenager did click “like” on that page, would it have brought disastrous consequences to Malaysian society?

This fixation with sedition is clearly getting out of hand. Late last month, three people were charged with sedition in quick succession.

On August 27, State assemblyman R.S.N. Rayer was charged with sedition for having made the “Umno celaka” (damn Umno) remark. Since when has making a rude remark about a political party become seditious? Where is it covered in Section 3(1)?

The next day, Member of Parliament Khalid Samad was charged with sedition for having called for state enactments to be reviewed to curb the powers of the Selangor State Islamic Religious Council (Mais) after it had refused to return the seized Iban- and Malay-language Bibles to their rightful owners, the Bible Society of Malaysia. Why is that seditious? Because the sultan censured Khalid for his “insolent” remarks and considered them akin to challenging his powers?

The same day, MP N. Surendran faced his second sedition charge in a week – the first, on August 19, was for criticising the Court of Appeal’s overturn of the High Court’s acquittal of Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim for alleged sodomy; the second was for saying that the Sodomy II appeal was a political conspiracy involving the Government. What is seditious in both cases?

Ah, but what do these three people have in common? They are Pakatan politicians. If they are convicted and slapped with a fine exceeding RM2,000 or a jail term of more than a year, they will lose their seats. And after serving their sentence, they cannot contest in elections or assume positions in political parties for five years.

The trio join other Pakatan politicians in the sedition dock, i.e. MPs Tian Chua and Teresa Kok who were charged earlier in the year. Then there are those who have been charged with other offences, like Rafizi Ramli, Nizar Jamaluddin and Mohamad Sabu. They all risk losing their seats and political rights.

Has it therefore come to pass that the ruling BN has found an effective way to get rid of some Opposition representatives in Parliament and state assemblies and disrupting their political careers, especially if they are considered to be too vocal or influential?

Taken in this sense, might the Sedition Act not be even more effective than the ISA, the use of which was seen as inhumane because it involved detention without trial? Besides, those who were released from ISA detention afterwards tended to be lionised, and they could still continue their political careers and stand in elections with even a good chance of winning.

Is this why Prime Minister Najib Razak is stalling on his promise made two years ago to repeal the Sedition Act and replace it with the National Harmony Act? Has he now become enamoured of the archaic law because of the new value it promises? Why, the Sedition Act can now even be used to shackle young minds and condition them into not expressing their own views. How handy.

It looks like we’re going back to 1984! Down with thoughtcrime. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Imagine a boot stamping on a human face.

* Kee Thuan Chye is the author of the new bestselling book Can We Save Malaysia, Please!, now available in bookstores.