Published by Malaysiakini, images from Malaysiakini.
The statement of lawyer Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahman that it is seditious to move for the abolition of the Sedition Act 1948 is, to say the least, a little farcical.
Indeed, it highlights perfectly the arbitrary and oppressive nature of this anachronistic law.
If questioning the Sedition Act is a criminal offence under the Sedition Act, we have here a law that will be in place, literally, until kingdom come.
What kind of fascist, authoritarian police-state would allow such an ‘invincible’ law – a man-made thing deemed as untouchable as things in the realm of the sacred?
Surely any law that is made by men can be unmade by men (or women, of course).
In Malaysia, the rhetoric that is often used to justify these laws has historically been something like: “The government needs some super-strong, unchallengeable laws to protect Malay power.”
This was precisely the type of reasoning used to justify the Internal Security Act 1960.
It was repeated time and time again by conservative hardliners that repealing the ISA would result in the country being plunged into utter chaos, and anarchists being given free rein to let slip the dogs of discord.
Needless to say, many argued that this would not be the case.
Even the most eloquent arguments, however, were not as effective as the manner in which the country did not, in fact, descend into any type of chaos whatsoever when the ISA was repealed in 2012.
Life went on, and most Malaysians were none the wiser. The evidence seems to suggest that the exact same scenario will play out when we repeal the Sedition Act.
A comparative history
The first version of a sedition law in England was enacted as far back as 1661. Sections of this version of the Sedition Act were repealed as early as 1863.
The last prosecution for sedition in the United Kingdom was in 1972, and in 2009, sedition and seditious libel were abolished.
Sedition laws in New Zealand were repealed in 2008, while sedition laws in Australia were altered in 2011, in which the language surrounding ‘sedition’ was changed to “urging violence.”
As many are likely aware, Malaysia’s Sedition Act is a colonial-era law, enacted by the British in 1948.
This was no doubt an act designed to strengthen British rule over Malaya and Malayans, and legalise brutal oppression.
The British left, and they left their cruel laws behind; back in their own home, they decided to leave them behind as well.
How very Animal Farm of us to want to pick up these weapons, and use them on Malaysians in exactly the same way the colonial powers did.
Laws like the Sedition Act and the ISA are particularly odious because they do not really serve any unique purpose, except to arbitrarily perpetuate the rule of those in power.
Needless to say, I am all for laws to deter people from instigating violence or committing acts of terrorism.
The thing is, if we use unjust ‘laws’ to do so, then perhaps it is us who are the terrorists.
Existing laws more than amply provide for the proper prevention and persecution of these crimes. Let us rely on those.
If BN can do it, so can Harapan
The good news is, the Harapan government has stated quite a few times that they intend to repeal the Sedition Act, along with many other bad laws.
Surely they can understand, however, if the delays in doing so, as well as the back and forth as far as the moratoriums go, cause a certain amount of anxiety and eyebrow-raising among activists.
It may be that they are looking to do more groundwork among the more conservative elements of society before pushing the repeal through.
That is not an unforgivable offence, but if even BN can repeal the ISA, there really is little reason to delay repealing the Sedition Act for much longer.
No reasonable person is for letting anyone freely instigate violence or excessive hate against anyone else. In working to prevent this, however, we must always take care to not turn into the things we are fighting against.
Nathaniel Tan is Director of Media & Communications at EMIR Research, an independent think-tank focused on strategic policy recommendations based upon rigorous research.
