I've been called 'PENDATANG' & 'CINA BABI' all my life but Sedition Act is still irrelevant to me - so what's Ibrahim Ali's grouse?

I come from a Chinese Christian family. I have been labeled "pendatang" and "Cina Babi" all my life, but the Sedition Act is still irrelevant to me.

Well, many have said that Ibrahim Ali should be charged under the Sedition Act for threatening to burn the Christian bible. There are also racists and even principals who have labeled the Chinese as 'pendatang' or even 'Cina Babi'.

Technically, these people have committed an offence under the Sedition Act for "promoting feelings of ill will and hostility between different races" -Section 3(1)(e) of the Sedition Act 1948.

Safeguards for protecting the majority against the minority - does it make sense?

Yesterday, Khairy Jamaluddin claimed that the walk against sedition has not made an impact because most Malaysians want safeguards against racially or religiously offensive speech.

Is that so? Do we not have safeguards in place?

In fact, I do not need the Sedition Act to protect me. I do not need the Sedition Act to criminalise people like Abdullah Zaik, Ridhuan Tee, Zulkifli Nordin or the infamous Ibrahim Ali.

Why? Firstly, it is stupid to try preventing stupid people from saying stupid things.

I believe as a maturing democracy, what we can do to embrace such unintelligent comments, is to simply ignore them. It is akin to wind that carries a rotten smell. It does not hurt to ignore them.

But where do we draw the line?

Also there are alternative laws

In cases where threats to burn mosques, churches or temples, Section 295 of the Penal Code is there for you. It is a statutory offence to 'destroy or damage places of worship with intent to insult other religion.

What if someone says something of your religion that hurts your feeling? Well, Section 298 of the Penal Code makes it an offence to intentionally hurt the religion feelings of another. S298 is similar to the Sedition Act in a sense that it criminalizes offensive speech against other religion. The only demarcation being the need to prove the intention under s298, to which the Sedition Act does not require so.

How does the Penal Code deal with speeches that offend one's religion, resulting in disharmony, disunity, feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will? In Ibrahim Ali's case where he threatened to burn the Christian bible, he would have fallen under S298A of the Penal Code.

Anything & everything now an offense so long as Umno deems it - what happened to law & order?

Nowadays, anything and everything on the royalty is an offence. One cannot speak or criticise constructively, because it has seditious tendencies. There was a brief Twitter sensation with the hashtag ‪#‎SultanBukanTuhan‬ a while ago. People were being questioned and charged for comments made against the royalty.

Those comments in my opinion, were uncalled for and ridiculous, but then again, stupid and unintelligent comments are all over the net, most of the time with anonymous Facebook or Twitter accounts. So the question- is it a crime to be stupid?

Freedom of expression? I would say it is pertinent, but such freedom is not an absolute freedom. So a line has to be drawn. Now where is the line? Section 121 of the Penal Code protects the Agong, Sultans and di-Pertuan Negeris. It is an offence to "hurt, cause the death, imprison or restrain" the rulers. It is vital to note here, that this section protects the physical security of the rulers. That's the demarcation.

So how do we deal with people who incites racial disunity that causes physical hurt to another? For example, if a racist incites a repetition of May 13, or a call to bath a knife with a certain race's blood.? Section 504 and Section 505 would be the answer. It is an offence to "insult with an intention to provoke a breach of peace" (Section 504) and also a crime to "make statements that incites public mischief" (Section 505).

These are some basic examples and there are plenty more in the Penal Code to safeguard racially or religiously offensive speech. All in all, the distinction between these provisions illustrated above and the Sedition Act is the very presence of an intention. The intention to cause physical hurt, death, public unrest and so on.

The problem with the Sedition Act is the disregard for such intentions. The presence of a seditious remark is all that is needed. This includes, someone hacking your Facebook or Twitter account by saying something 'seditious'. See the dangers now?

Adrian Lim Chee En thinks the Penal Code is sufficient to safeguard religiously and racially offensive speech