KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 12 — Proponents of laws such as the Sedition Act are capitalising on the Charlie Hebdo massacre to justify its retention and advance calls for yet more preventive security legislation, civil society groups have said.

The critics argue that the demand and support for these laws ostensibly to curb home-grown terrorism will come at the cost of freedom of speech as well as invite abuse, adding that authorities have not objectively shown how such laws would prevent such incidents here.

“The problem is some people do not seem to understand the point of freedom and keep harping on the point of sedition only.

“So, every time something like the Paris incident occurs, they will use it as an excuse to again revisit (laws such as) the ISA (Internal Security Act),” National Unity Consultative Council (NUCC) member Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah told Malay Mail Online via text message.

Saifuddin, who also heads the Global Movement of Moderates (GMM), stressed that the NUCC’s proposed National Harmony Bill was superior to the Sedition Act in tackling extremism, and that there must be a balance between outlawing hate speech and upholding freedom of expression.

“I am consistently against [criminalising] speech or sedition,” the former deputy minister said.

Following Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s annoucement last year that the Sedition Act will be retained and strengthened with additional provisions, the government added that it may discontinue earlier plans to introduce the National Harmony Bill.

Another NUCC member, Dr Mujahid Yusof Rawa argued that while terrorism must be condemned, the rule of law must never be compromised.

“To curb terrorism at the cost of public freedom and freedom of speech (makes the laws) prone to exploitation and abuse of state power,” the PAS MP told Malay Mail Online when contacted.

Have existing laws failed?

Former Malaysian Bar president Lim Chee Wee said the government has failed to explain why existing laws such as Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (SOSMA) are inadequate to prevent a scenario like the Paris slayings from occurring here.

SOSMA was introduced to replaced the ISA, a colonial era law that had been designed to counter a communist insurgency in the 1960s but was later used against all walks of society including opposition politicians.

“The perennial problem in Malaysia is that positions and statements are made without any or detailed assessment of what exactly is wrong with status quo or existing laws which require reform so as to solve a contemplated problem/difficulty.

“In this instance, the IGP (Inspector-General of Police) suggested more restrictive laws or return of ISA, thinking it will prevent a massacre on Malaysian soil if terrorists were to have access to firearms,” he told Malay Mail Online when contacted.

Lim, who is co-president of civil society group Centre For A Better Tomorrow (Cenbet), also said that the Sedition Act is nothing more than a tool for an “insecure” government to suppress its critics and pointed out that most of those being probed for sedition are activists and opposition leaders.

Yesterday, Perkasa president Datuk Ibrahim Ali claimed the Charlie Hebdo attacks justified the call to retain security laws such as the ISA. – Picture by Choo Choy May

Assurances needed over new preventive laws

Political analyst Ibrahim Suffian said that Malaysians would be more supportive of preventive security laws if their proponents could provide assurances that such legislation would not be used to stifle dissent or jail political opponents of the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition.

“That was the whole reason the ISA was opposed by civil society. If it is construed that enactment of such laws is a kind of ‘back door’ way of reintroducing detention without trial, then it is the ruling party that will pay the costs in the next election,” the Merdeka Centre director told Malay Mail Online.

Human rights lawyer Latheefa Koya pointed out that countries with laws similar to the ISA have not succeeded in eliminating terrorism.

“So far, ISA-like laws have not prevented or stopped real terrorism danger and even US, UK and Australia does have have domestic ISA-like laws. It very different. This is just a backdoor way to bring back detention without trial to threaten and suppress civil liberties,” she said when contacted by Malay Mail Online.

Yesterday, Perkasa president Datuk Ibrahim Ali claimed the Charlie Hebdo attacks justified the call to retain security laws such as the ISA.

Ibrahim said while such an incident has yet to take place in Malaysia, the absence of preventive security laws could allow similar attacks, when claiming of unnamed sections of the country that have a tendency to exploit the situation to insult Islam and the Malays.

Three suspected Islamists descended on the office of satirical French weekly Charlie Hebdo on January 7 and gunned down 12 people including the magazine’s staff and police officers over its depictions of Prophet Muhammad.

Altogether 17 victims have died along with the three hostage-takers since Wednesday.

IGP Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar said yesterday the Sedition Act was necessary as it empowers authorities to tackle the type of provocation that triggered the attacks.

The New Straits Times also reported unnamed Bukit Aman officials as saying that the Charlie Hebdo incident demonstrated the urgent need to introduce the Prevention of Terrorism Act that would provide police with “pre-emptive” powers to tackle such incidents.

The ISA was repealed in 2012 as part of PM Najib’s pledge to afford Malaysians greater civil liberty. But its abolition prompted rightist groups to demand the retention of the Sedition Act.

In November, Najib declared that the Sedition Act will remain, in an about-turn from his earlier pledge in 2012 to repeal the colonial era law.

Najib also said the Act will be reinforced with two additional provisions governing the sanctity of Islam and outlawing secessionists in Sabah and Sarawak.