Using Sedition Act on TikToker unwarranted, oppressive

 

Public confidence in the Madani government’s reform agenda seems to have been greatly shaken by the arrest of a 38-year-old woman on April 13.

She uses TikTok under the username "Jorjet Myla". The reported use of the Sedition Act 1948 - a tool long criticised by reformers - has aggravated the controversy.

The issue has also reignited debate over the Madani government’s commitment to genuine, real and meaningful reform. What is clear is that Monday's arrest has cast doubt on the government's reformist credentials.

Viral social media reports allege she was remanded for three days without legal representation - sparking further outcry regarding due process.

It is also deeply concerning that a three-day remand could be easily granted in the absence of legal representation, as this appears to undermine the fundamental right to counsel guaranteed under Article 5 of the Federal Constitution.

What happened to constitutional protection?

In any ordinary remand proceeding, which is governed by Section 117 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), any suspect is constitutionally and legally entitled to be represented by a lawyer of his or choice. There are few courts’ judgements affirming such a fundamental and embedded right.

Anyway, a three-day detention without legal oversight is a troubling departure from standard judicial procedures, suggesting a potential erosion of the due process required to protect personal liberty.

The incident has further fuelled public speculation regarding the specific legal framework under which she was held. Questions remain as to whether she was really remanded under the CPC or if she was instead detained under the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma).

This distinction is critical, as Sosma provisions frequently result in the denial of immediate legal representation and allow the police to bypass the standard judicial requirement for a magistrate's remand order for further detention after the expiry of 24-hour detention.

In an era where institutional transparency is duly expected, the authorities' refusal to provide a detailed account or confirm the specifics of her arrest is a startling disregard for public accountability.

The lack of official confirmation regarding the grounds for the arrest is deeply concerning in a modern democracy, where such opacity directly contradicts the government's purported commitment to reform and transparency.

Silence from cops

Worse, police had been tight-lipped on the arrest, with Malaysiakini’s queries since Tuesday going unanswered. The silence was highly deafening and it merely intensified unwarranted speculations.

I had watched and listened to her posts on TikTok. I totally disagree with her abusive language but I equally disagree for her to be allegedly investigated under repressive legislation such as the Sedition Act.

I also hold the view that there was no need to remand her, let alone a three-day remand. The measures taken were, with due respect, wholly unwarranted and could be characterised as oppressive.

Yes, one may find her rhetoric was distasteful. While the vitriolic and abusive nature of the TikTok content in question might be reprehensible, the use of Sedition Act to address such speech is equally objectionable.

Furthermore, a three-day remand for a non-violent, speech-related offence appears disproportionate and unnecessarily punitive, bordering on a form of state-sanctioned intimidation.

For a government that rose to power on a platform of institutional change, the continuation of such practices merely undermines its credibility and invites intense scrutiny of its commitment to reform.

May sanity prevail. - Mkini

---

HANIPA MAIDIN is a former deputy minister of law.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.