This item has been updated since initial publication.
By Andrew Khoo
Reprising a role that she played in 2010, Dato’ Ambiga Sreenevasan, a past President of the Malaysian Bar, moderated another “Hard Talk on Human Rights” session with a focus on “Freedom from Fear —
Normal
0
false
false
false
EN–US
X–NONE
X–NONE
Normal
0
false
false
false
EN–US
JA
X–NONE
Normal
0
false
false
false
EN–US
JA
X–NONE
Is It a Human Right?” On this occasion, her guests were Senator Datuk Paul Low, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department responsible for Integrity and Governance; Datin Paduka Marina Mahathir, a human rights activist and self–proclaimed occasional television producer; Jahabar Sadiq, Chief Executive Officer of online news portal The Malaysian Insider; politician Gan Ping Sieu; and senior lawyer Tommy Thomas.
As expected, questions surrounding the many recent prosecutions and investigations under the Sedition Act 1948 ("Act") dominated this session, with many questions posed both by the moderator and members of the audience on why this was happening.
Ping Sieu suggested the development of a culture of fear. As an active politician for 15 years, what he saw was the fear by political leaders of losing power. In turn, they sought to instil fear in others by way of witchhunts and selective prosecution. This had compromised the office of the Attorney General and damaged the integrity of the Government. Jahabar, however, was of the view that there was not a climate of fear among journalists, who were contrarian by nature. He pointed out that journalists had gone through similar seasons before. However, he did feel that it was weird to charge people months after an alleged incident of sedition. He said the bar had been so lowered that one wouldn’t know it had been tripped until so much later.
In posing the question to Tommy, Ambiga mentioned that the organisation PERKASA had recently called for a member of the opposition to be charged for sedition for calling for the Selangor state constitution to be reviewed after the recent chief minister crisis. Tommy said that this was yet another abuse of the Act. He felt that people had forgotten the original limited scope of the Act. He reminded the audience that the Act had been passed in 1948 on the event of a declaration of emergency by the British. However, it had been strengthened in 1971 by the Malaysian Government after the 1969 racial riots. The Act protected certain classes of people, namely the Malay Rulers and the governors, and the federal and state governments. It certainly did not protect political parties. His assessment was that whenever UMNO as a political party went through bouts of internal conflict or paranoia, it would give rise in a public climate of fear. He also asked how it was wrong to suggest reform of laws in general.
Marina suggested that the recent climate of fear was the result of the “end times”. What we were witnessing were the death throes of certain people trying to hold on to power; it was the only way they knew how to react. However, she did not feel that people, especially the young, were scared by what was happening.
Paul began his response by alluding that he felt like Daniel entering the lion’s den. He suggested that in the context of Malaysia, the prime purpose of the Act or any other law was the preservation of peace and harmony in the country. Amidst the different interest groups, some insecure, some aggressive, there was an overall need to maintain peace and harmony. The situation in the last two years had become too heated up. Lawyers might feel that it is alright, but the ordinary person want the Government to do something about it. In implementing and maintaining this harmony, there had to be some boundaries, to prevent things that if it were said could cause problems or chaos. He did not believe the Government was trying to stifle the public or civil society but the line had to be drawn in respect of things that could possibly cause chaos, hatred and violence, or which touched on real sensitive issues. He was also of the view that the institution of Attorney General, the judiciary, the police, the Malaysian Anti–Corruption Commission ("MACC") and the auditor general should be absolutely independent. The Attorney General would have to prove the case against anyone charged. There should be no witchhunt, but neither should there be impunity for any party if they were to cause riots. If a person called for the overthrow of a democratically–elected government, that could not be tolerated. If a person called for states to secede, that could cross the boundary of what was acceptable. Laws had to be fairly and justly implemented to ensure law and order.
Ping Sieu admitted that he was no longer in Government, but was still a member of a government political party. He felt that some form of amnesty had to be given. If we kept digging up old wounds, we would never move forward. He called for all charges to be dropped, and for the replacement legislation to come into effect immediately. He felt the provisions of the Penal Code were sufficient. If the Act was to be invoked, it had to be in accordance with the criteria of today, not the 1940s.
Tommy responded to Paul’s views by speaking about lawful and unlawful changes of government. He felt that was precisely what the Act was about. It was against armed violence, the alteration of laws otherwise than by lawful means. A distinction was drawn between lawful and unlawful means. Change by the ballot box was allowed, and indeed had happened several times with state governments. Perhaps one day the Federal Government would change too. But he asked whether the Public Prosecutor could point to any talk of violent revolutionary change.
Jahabar pointed out that we had laws that limited what we could do. But in the case of the Act, some of these words were uttered three or four years ago, and nothing had happened. He did not like laws that restricted what we could say or think. He felt we should work to protect freedom of expression and speech, and advocated abolishing it completely.
Paul, however, said he did not agree with absolute freedom. Freedom comes with responsibility. He felt that the freedom from fear to the ordinary person meant having a peaceful life, and not the fear that tensions in society were heating up. Ambiga asked what chaos had there been in the country and whether this was all made up. Paul responded that just because chaos had not occurred, it did not mean that chaos would not have occurred. This had to be prevented.
When Ambiga asked Paul to convey to the Cabinet that the Act had to be abolished, Paul suggested that the reason he was present was precisely because he believed that the Government of the day had to engage more with the people. He committed to arranging more dialogues with the Government.
Marina felt that the only entity that appeared to have freedom of speech was Utusan Malaysia; the rest of us did not. Utusan Malaysia appeared to have the complete freedom to stir up fear. What the Government seemed to be doing was to pre–emptively strike against those that would respond to this climate of fear. However, she questioned whether people would respond with violence. She pointed out that when Metro Tabernacle Church was burnt in January 2010 and after the High Court decision in the “Allah” case, we did not have riots. Malaysians were worried, but they refused to be provoked. She questioned why the Government was so quick to think the worst of people, that they were ready to riot at the slightest thing. She felt that whatever fear of chaos there was, was manufactured. Jahabar agreed, saying that the Government was fashioning monsters out of shadows and figments of their imagination.
Turning to a different topic, Ambiga raised the issue of the approximately 150 members of the Penang Volunteer Patrol Unit ("PPS") that were arrested. She expressed shock at the way the police went after them, mainly senior citizens, who were just helping to keep the peace. The Inspector General of Police ("IGP") had threatened to r