Use the Sedition Act fairly or not at all, says DAP

GEORGE TOWN, May 11 — Called hypocrites for demanding action against Islamist group Ikatan Muslimin Malaysia (Isma) for sedition, DAP leaders yesterday asserted that the call was intended to highlight the selective use of the Sedition Act against the opposition.

The DAP lawmakers contend that the police reports made against Isma president Abdullah Zaik Abd Rahman for allegedly “threatening national harmony” was also meant as a challenge for Putrajaya to demonstrate it was not abusing the colonial era law to stifle political dissent.

“Prove this or else abolish it, because the Act is an abuse of human rights,” DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng said yesterday.

“The Sedition Act should not be used at all on anyone as there are other laws in the Penal Code that can be used, but they have abused and misused the Act to prosecute their political opponents,” Lim added.

Despite the reports lodged by party members in Kuala Lumpur and Penang, Puchong MP Gobind Singh stressed that the DAP is still adamant that the Act must be abolished over the allegations that it was being used to silence Barisan Nasional’s (BN) political opponents, especially leaders for the rival Pakatan Rakyat (PR) pact.

“When we ask them to charge Isma, it was a challenge to them to show that they are not using the Act exclusively to prosecute their political opponents,” he said.

He pointed out that the colonial era law was an outdated piece of legislation that was intended to suppress any opposition against British rule.

“Looking at how things are moving now, we can see that PR leaders who spoke up against the government are being charged under the Act while there are many others who have run afoul of the Act and yet, no actions were taken against them,” Gobind said.

A commonly cited example of authorities’ apparent inaction is the threat made by Datuk Ibrahim Ali, the president of Malay rights group Perkasa, last January to burn copies of the Malay-language bible containing the word “Allah”, the Arabic word for God.

No charges were filed against him despite the uproar then.

Penang Deputy Chief Minister II Prof P. Ramasamy yesterday echoed the call for the law to be repealed, but added that authorities must apply it fairly for as long as it remains in existence.

“We want it to be abolished, but since they are not going to abolish it and continue using it, then they should not abuse it by only using it against PR leaders,” he said.

Numerous PR leaders have fallen foul of the Sedition Act, including the late Fan Yew Teng and Karpal Singh, Lim and the latest being Seputeh MP Teresa Kok.

Kok was charged with sedition last Tuesday over a satirical video clip that allegedly mocked the education system and the country’s armed forces.

The late Karpal, then the national chairman of DAP, was also convicted with sedition last February for saying that the Perak Sultan’s actions in the 2009 state constitutional crisis could be questioned in a court of law.

On Tuesday, Abdullah Zaik said the influx of Chinese migrants into peninsular Malay had been “a mistake” that must be rectified, but stopped short of saying how this could be achieved.

He said that the ethnic group were considered intruders into Malay land, and had been brought by British colonialists to oppress Malays.

This prompted DAP members to lodge reports against him in Kuala Lumpur and Penang.

In a public reversal yesterday, Segambut MP Lim Lip Eng — who had accompanied Kampung Tunku representative Lau Weng San to lodge a report against Abdullah Zaik at the Dang Wangi police station here — said it was wrong to pursue Isma for sedition.

Two years ago, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, in his 2011 Malaysia Day address, pledged to afford Malaysians more civil liberties through a series of legal reforms.

Since then, the Internal Security Act was repealed, three Emergency declarations lifted and a Peaceful Assembly Act was introduced.

But the Sedition Act remains effective and continues to be applied nearly two years after the prime minister said it would be abolished.

Lawyers have urged for the new law replacing the Act, if it comes to pass, to provide greater leeway towards freedom of expression.

They contend that anti-government and even racist views must be protected under provisions for free speech as long as they do not incite violence.