From top to toe, the way M’sia is ruled must change starting with BN

Maclean Patrick

In 2009, the government announced it was considering amending several laws that impinged upon freedom of speech, including the controversial Internal Security Act (ISA), which has been used to detain numerous politicians and activists without trial.

Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein, accompanied by Inspector-General of Police Musa Hassan, Attorney General Abdul Gani Patail, Information, Communication, and Culture Minister Rais Yatim, and Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Nazri Aziz, told the press that the ISA, Police Act, Multimedia and Communications Act, the Restrictive Residence Ordinance, and the Emergency Ordinance would be reviewed with an eye to relaxing restrictions on freedom of speech.

Rais also said that the Police Act would include provisions allowing peaceful assembly in certain designated places such as stadiums, without the need to obtain a permit from the police. The government at that time planned to table amendments to these laws during the October sitting of Parliament, and pass them by December.

The proposed amendments were timed with Najib Razak’s ascension to the premiership, whence he had promised sweeping reforms for Malaysia, less corruption, more emphasis on the people and performance, and a greater sense of being Malaysian.

The loophole in fundamental vs absolute right

Well, what a difference two years in the job can do to a person! The various laws have not seen much change, in fact the UMNO-led Barisan Nasional is now even more brutal and creative in using these archaic laws against everyday citizens who choose to voice their opinions.

All the reforms promised by Najib have not taken place. Why? Because it is the same UMNO-BN government that put up such laws in the first place. And it is with these laws that UMNO-BN has been able to maintain its grip on power in Malaysia.

For Malaysia to enjoy democracy, such restrictive laws have to be totally removed and the people given back their rights.

Article 10 of the Constitution of Malaysia guarantees Malaysian citizens the right to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of association. But Article 10 cannot be compared to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Why? Because Article 10 is bound by restrictions that can be made by the government of the day, instead of being an absolute right of a citizen.

Some have argued that although the “fundamental” rights of Article 10 were not entrenched, other portions of the Constitution — namely those related to the Malaysian social contract such as those provisions concerning the national language of Malay, the national religion of Islam, the position of the Malay rulers, the special position of the Malay majority, and citizenship — were entrenched.

Such provisions may only be amended with the consent of the Conference of Rulers — a body comprising the Malay rulers and the Governors of those states without a monarch. So if ever anyone questions your citizenship or request that your citizenship be revoked, tell them to take their case to the Conference of Rulers and not the government of the day.

However, for Article 10 itself, whether it is ‘entrenched’ has to be tested in court.

Bending the Federal Constitution to stay in power

Article 10 is confined to various clauses :

1. Subject to Clauses (2), (3) and (4) —

(a) every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression;

(b) all citizens have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms;

(c) all citizens have the right to form associations.

2. Parliament may by law impose changes to Article 10

(a) on the rights conferred by paragraph (a) of Clause (1), such restrictions as it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof, friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality and restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament or of any Legislative Assembly or to provide against contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to any offence;

(b) on the right conferred by paragraph (b) of Clause (1), such restrictions as it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof, or public order;

(c) on the right conferred by paragraph (c) of Clause (1), such restrictions as it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof, public order or morality.

3. Restrictions on the right to form associations conferred by paragraph (c) of Clause (1) may also be imposed by any law relating to labour or education.

4. In imposing restrictions in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof or public order under Clause (2) (a), Parliament may pass law prohibiting the questioning of any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of Part III, Article 152, Article 153 or Article 181 otherwise than in relation to the implementation thereof as may be specified in such law.

Changes made by UMNO-BN to restrict Article 10

The ISA, Police Act, Multimedia and Communications Act, the Restrictive Residence Ordinance, and the Emergency Ordinance are the laws passed by Parliament to restrict Article 10.

It is these laws that have been used successfully by UMNO-BN to detain without trial many of their political opponents, including citizens deemed having different views from the government’s. These laws are also used to restrict any form of ‘bad’ press levelled at UMNO or BN.

The case of Sin Chew Daily senior reporter Tan Hoon Cheng, who was arrested under the Internal Security Act on 12 September 2008 at her home in Bukit Mertajam, Penang is both puzzling and silly. Then Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar, upon her release, claimed that Tan was detained “for her own good” as police had received information that her life was under threat.

And the sin that Tan Hoon Cheng committed deserving of being accorded ISA protection? A four-paragraph straight reporting of a speech by UMNO Bukit Bendera division chairman Ahmad Ismail during a Permatang Pauh by-election ceramah on August 23, 2008 referring to the Chinese in Malaysia as penumpang or passenger.

Governance must change and UMNO-BN must go

This is the silly state of affairs that Malaysia has fallen to under UMNO-BN. The leaders are given leeway to create, distort and abuse the laws of the land in order to further their cause. And it is not far for them to lie to Malaysians in order to stay in power.

Najib is to be blamed for not keeping his promises but then he is in good company. He was not the first Prime Minister to do so.

The fifth Prime Minister of Malaysia, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, went on the record in 1988 to state “If we want to save Malaysia and UMNO, Dr Mahathir (then still the prime minister) must be removed. He uses draconian laws such as the Internal Security Act to silence his critics.”

The year before, Badawi had also stated “Laws such as the Internal Security Act have no place in modern Malaysia. It is a draconian and barbaric law.”

But in 2003 when he himself became Prime Minister, Abdullah called the ISA “a necessary law,” and argued “We have never misused the Internal Security Act. All those detained under the Internal Security Act are proven threats to society.”

Prior to becoming Prime Minister, Mahathir had also adhered to a critical view of the ISA. In 1966, when Mahathir spoke out as a backbencher in support of the Internal Security (Amendment) Bill 1966, he stated that “no one in his right senses likes the ISA. It is in fact a negation of all the principles of democracy.”

After becoming Prime Minister, however, Mahathir had little if any hesitation in using the ISA to suppress what he termed ‘racialism’, but was seen by many as hiding behind the ISA to nullify his political opponents, the most notable of examples being the infamous Operasi Lalang in 1987.

Reforms are much needed in the governance of Malaysia. Not only must there be a change in the shape, form and structure of the government, UMNO-BN must go.

If UMNO-BN goes, then all the repressive laws and restrictions put in place by them must follow them out. Civil liberties and freedoms must be returned to the people of Malaysia. - Malaysia Chronicle