WHY people who disagree with Sedition law CHEER when Isma chief is charged

The Malaysian civil society has always been against the Sedition Act.

That said, there are times when this unpopular law works. For example, when it is used against Isma president Abdullah Zaik Abd Rahman, people who insult the Islamic Prophet or the Hindu religion. I believe the public will cheer the government's decision to prosecute these people citing the Sedition Act.

Including me, of course.

But, does that I mean I hold double standard?

Not really.

The law is a passive tool.Its functionality lies with how it is being applied by the people. Negative effects could be produced if we don't apply the law in the right place.

For instance, the Sedition Act has been meant to prevent people from hurling insults against other religions and races as well as causing havoc to the constitutional monarchy. These functions are deemed positive in preserving religious and ethnic harmony in a plural society.

The question is the Sedition Act covers a very large area. For example under Article 3 (1), criticisms against the government could constitute a seditious crime, which could be harnessed by the authorities to mute the dissidents.

The Attorney-General's prosecution against Isma president et al is not without its legal basis and judiciary legitimacy.

The Isma president called Chinese Malaysians "trespassers" and that was seen as questioning the citizenship of Chinese Malaysians, instigating confrontation among people of different races.

In the meantime, those insulting Islam and Hindu should also be dealt with as they have triggered distrust and frustration among people embracing different religious beliefs.

If our laws are unable to contain the behaviors of such people, our social harmony will be intimidated and the country will fall into disunity.

Before the National Harmony Act is tabled in the Parliament, it is appropriate that the Sedition Act is used against such irresponsible people to ensure that social harmony is preserved.

However, in the medium to long term, it is still essential for the government to repeal the Sedition Act to make way for a more specifically defined National Harmony Act that meets the needs of modern society.

While making sure that ethnic and religious harmony is not jeopardized, the new act must also provide for some reasonable extent of speech freedom, lest the authorities will abuse the law to restrict the freedom of the public.

Meanwhile, the Sedition Act still has its place during the transitional period. It is hoped that the government's prosecution against these instigators will serve to warn others against committing the same offense. -Mysinchew