PAS MP alleges 'double standards' in opposing Sedition Act use

 

PARLIAMENT | Che Zulkifly Jusoh (PN-Besut) today questioned government lawmakers over an alleged “double standard” in their reactions to cases linked to race, religion and royalty (3R), including those probed under the Sedition Act 1948.

The former magistrate claimed that while many on the government bench had described the British-era law as “draconian”, they now condoned its use against opposition-linked activists.

“I want to touch on the clear difference in treatment (on cases) that has occurred,” he said in his debate of the royal address.

Specifically, Zulkifly (above) pointed out that public outcry, as well as pressure from MPs, in the case against three Era FM radio announcers last year, accused of mocking the Thaipusam kavadi ritual, had led the MCMC to issue a RM250,000 compound against the station operator.

“When a Muslim commits the offence, as I observed in the Era FM case, the action taken was extremely firm.

“The radio operator was fined RM250,000. Several members of this House also strongly condemned the announcers’ mistake, even though they had apologised,” he said.

However, Zulkifly today claimed the same level of condemnation was not directed towards former FMT journalist Rex Tan, who was arrested and probed for sedition over his question, which was said to carry racial overtones, posed during a public forum in Kuala Lumpur featuring UK politician George Galloway.

“In fact, he (Tan) was defended, and his detention under the Sedition Act was questioned as restricting freedom of speech.

“The question is, where was this defence when other activists such as Chegubard (Badrul Hisham Shaharin) and others were detained under the same Act?

“Is the Act that was once opposed by government MPs as draconian no longer considered draconian when it is used against the other side? That is the question,” said the PAS lawmaker.

In a parliamentary written reply dated Jan 21, Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail reiterated the government’s commitment to review the Act and said it is now used only for cases involving insults to the royal institution and instances that threaten national sovereignty. - Mkini