Ramkarpal: Wield Sedition Act without fear or favour

It cannot be applied selectively against Opposition members only.

KUALA LUMPUR: Any amended Sedition Act 1948 must be wielded without fear or favour if the changes are aimed at acting against those who allegedly stir up racial sentiments.

It cannot be applied selectively against Opposition members only.

Bukit Gelugor MP Ramkarpal Singh was referring to a written reply where Home Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi claimed that the “enhancements” to the colonial ordinance was aimed at curbing racism in the country. Zahid added that the amendments would be tabled during the next session of Parliament.

“The government must show that it’s serious, based on Zahid’s written reply, on acting against racism,” said Ramkarpal. “The Inspector General of Police, for example, cannot use his tweets to drag only Opposition members to Court on sedition charges.”

The MP went on to name several Umno leaders who had consistently made racist remarks but no action was taken against them. Some of the remarks were so serious like alleging that doctors at government hospitals in Penang refused to treat Malay patients.

Another racist remark was that the Chinese in Penang had gained political power by using money obtained from vice activities and gambling.

A third racist remark was about a Chinese man in Kedah allegedly burning the Quran.

The icing on the cake was a racist remark by an Umno mouthpiece, “Apa lagi orang Cina mahu” (What more do the Chinese want?), a reference to the informal Opposition alliance sweeping through urban seats during the 13th General Election in 2013.

Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak told the Umno General Assembly last year that the Sedition Act would not be repealed, as he had earlier pledged , but would instead be retained and strengthened in two areas, against those seeking the secession of Sabah and Sarawak from the Federation with Malaysia and against insults to Islam.

The Sedition Act is in the constitutional court, at the Federal Court, on the grounds that it’s unconstitutional, circumvents the Federal Constitution, strips the right to free speech and makes a mockery of the rule of law.

It criminalizes criticism of the government – as represented at its inception by the colonial administration — if it pits the people against it but allows legitimate criticism, under a second prong, of mistakes made by the government. The Act, being a colonial ordinance, makes no provision for criticism of any ruling party.