Civil liberties must blossom sooner or later

History teaches us that repressive governments everywhere will eventually fail, so it is a real wonder that people in power continue to ignore the lessons of past empires that have succumbed to the folly of stifling the fundamental liberties of the people.

This scenario has taken on a new relevance for the country in recent weeks, with the tangential use of the Sedition Act 1948 against a laundry list of opposition leaders, an academic and a journalist.

The flurry of cases raises fears that the democratic space in the country is under threat and is a signal that the government is abandoning its avowed aim of embracing change to reflect the new mood for better governance.

Unsurprisingly, a number of campaigns have sprung up to pressure the government into repealing the offensive piece of legislation that leaves too much room for the authorities to silence dissent.

A key objection is that the law can be used to suppress legitimate discussion of issues that involve public interest.

The case against Universiti Malaya professor of law Dr Azmi Sharom illustrates the real danger of that happening.

Azmi’s alleged offence was to caution Selangor Pakatan Rakyat not to resort to the steps taken in the Perak constitutional crisis of 2009, which he said were “legally wrong”.

The purportedly seditious statements had appeared in an article in the Malay Mail Online on August 14.

In it, Azmi had advised PR against taking any action outside the Selangor assembly to resolve the impasse over the Selangor menteri besar’s post. Instead, he recommended that the matter be addressed through a vote of confidence in the next assembly sitting.

Referring to the Perak crisis, Azmi’s allegedly seditious words were: “You don’t want a repeat of that, where a secret meeting took place.”

Azmi had also said: “I think what happened in Perak was legally wrong. The best thing to do is do it as legally and transparently as possible.”

The strong reaction to the charge against Azmi reflects the general sense of outrage at the assault on academic dialogue that is signalled by the decision to prosecute him.

Expressing shock at the government’s action, Bar Council president Christopher Leong affirmed that Azmi’s comments are “wholly within the purview of academic freedom and public discourse”.

"This cannot by any stretch of the imagination constitute sedition,” he said.

The inappropriateness of charging a law lecturer for expressing an opinion on a legal issue that is under intense public scrutiny was driven home by the criticism of the government by the International Commission of Jurists, which pointedly noted that:

“Laws that criminalise free expression have no place in a modern Malaysia and are incompatible with international human rights standards.”

The message is driven home by Azmi’s colleague, Professor Gurdial Singh Nijar, who said in an open letter to the Attorney-General: “It (the Sedition Act) is reserved for those who intend to break up the fabric of society and its institutions. And not for those who have spent their lifetime teaching students the value of law in society.”

If the vocal and immediate opposition to the odious act that has been generated among lawyers, academics and civil society organisations is any indication, the government has stepped into a minefield with this latest assault on civil liberties.

A further indication that the use of the Sedition Act is a wrong judgment call by the government is that its arrest of the Malaysiakini journalist Susan Loone has generated, as expected, strong protests from journalists, civil society organisations and political leaders.

Loone was detained after being questioned over her phone interview with Phee, who is the exco member in charge of the Penang government’s voluntary patrol unit, which has been branded as illegal by the Registrar of Societies.

In the September 1 report, Phee was quoted as saying that he had been “treated like a criminal” while being interrogated for four hours in detention.

It was reported that 10 police reports had been lodged against the online news portal and Loone over the news report which was said to have defamed the police.

Many have expressed disbelief at the criminalising of Loone and Malaysiakini for merely reporting on a developing situation, noting that the spate of cases puts all and sundry at risk of running afoul of the sedition law.

The case highlights the ever-present danger that the broad scope of sedition under the act lends it to being egregiously applied to silence critics.

Speaking at the launch of a nationwide campaign by the Bar Council for the repeal of the Sedition Act, former Bar president Datuk S. Ambiga wryly commented that there was a saying going around that “With the Sedition Act, everyone can fry.”

While the threat of being charged under the Sedition Act could be expected to discourage dissenting opinions in the public domain, the current round of prosecutions has certainly had the opposite effect.

It is apparent that proponents of civil liberties and opposition groups have been galvanised to canvass for the abolition of the act instead.

Rather than waging a war of attrition on the opposition and civil society groups, the government can recognise the political maturing of Malaysians and embrace the reform agenda that it had ambitiously announced after Datuk Seri Najib Razak became prime minister.

By doing so, the country can cleanse itself of the debilitating culture of divisive politics that is preventing its people from achieving their full potential.

Failing to ride the tide at this critical juncture in the nation’s history will surely drag the country into an extended period of conflict before a new era of democracy can dawn. – September 6, 2014.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.