Respect student activism and judicial independence

 

YOURSAY | ‘This is how democracy works.’

Govts change but authoritarian legalism stays, activist says after court defeat

BrownJaguar5869: We can respect the court’s authority and still question whether a peaceful protest should result in a criminal conviction.

But blaming Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim for this verdict is another matter.

Judicial independence cannot mean “independent when I win, government-controlled when I lose”.

If you believe the prime minister influenced the court, show the evidence.

Disagreeing with a judgment does not prove political interference, and expecting the prime minister to secure a favourable verdict is unacceptable.

What is wrong with some activists these days? We fought for the government to stay out of the courts, yet some responses seem to expect intervention while insinuating, without evidence, that this was the outcome the prime minister wanted.

You cannot demand judicial independence only when it suits you.

BrownGoose2785: If the prime minister interferes in court cases, it would be viewed as judicial interference.

Judges render their verdicts based on the provisions of the law, not on their personal judgment.

Recently, the prime minister has also decided to repeal the Universities and University Colleges Act (UUCA) to grant university students greater freedom and autonomy.

Do not say the new government has failed to implement reforms; everyone must take legal responsibility for their own misconduct.

Goks: The court did not disagree with your right to dissent or rebel, but you were convicted for the manner in which you did it.

You should be happy you were not sued personally for defamation.

Yes, everyone knows the person in question displayed questionable character, but you need more experience in how to rebel and get away with it. Grow up and learn.

GreenFalcon2290: Perhaps all those here jumping over themselves to defend the system may wish to examine what a democracy understands and allows as essential freedoms.

Oh, there are a few examples around, starting with the Scandinavian countries, then moving south, then going west across the waters.

It might also be instructional to learn how the courts respond to a charge.

The charge is made by the administration. Holding up a placard with a few anodyne words is how many places would describe it. Clearly, not here.

Happy weekend, Happy education.

Exile: Activist Wong Yan Ke is correct: governments change, but authoritarian legalism survives because developmental authoritarianism is too convenient a tool for those who govern to surrender willingly.

Parties that once opposed its methods can become comfortable using them once in office.

Its justification has always been that restricted freedoms are the price of development.

But when corruption and cronyism concentrate the rewards among a privileged few, that bargain loses credibility.

Ordinary people are left with neither a fair share of prosperity nor the democratic power to demand it.

Development becomes an excuse for preserving power.

Such a system may endure, but it cannot indefinitely draw legitimacy from promises it fails to fulfil.

Elections alone cannot resolve this contradiction if each incoming government inherits and retains the same machinery of control.

It falls on Wong’s generation to achieve what the baby boomer generation could not: make democratic rights part of everyday governance.

Our generation owes them support. They should not have to spend their youth defending the right to question authority while those in power postpone reforms they once promised.

Apanama is back: Reading the dismissal of Wong's appeal brings to mind a similar case that happened in India.

In the case, the Supreme Court of India stood with the student.

In a high-profile August 2026 case involving Nalsar University of Law, graduating students expressed dissent over the chosen chief guest for their convocation.

When the Bar Council of India (BCI) threatened to bar the graduating batch from enrolling as advocates, a Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant quashed the BCI's orders.

The Supreme Court explicitly stated that it "would not allow students to be stopped from raising their voices through peaceful protests".

It clarified that the BCI holds no disciplinary jurisdiction over university students.

The keyword here is "peaceful protests”. In February 2026, the Allahabad High Court struck down an order forcing a university student to hold a placard publicly, labelling forced placard displays as "unjustified" and "humiliating" public shaming.

While universities often have internal guidelines or codes of conduct on behaviour during official ceremonies, Indian courts have historically intervened to protect students from degrading placard-based punishments.

As Wong voiced in his statement, it is a black day for student activism. Malaysian courts have a long way to go to protect students.

We haven't reached the level of courts in India that think outside the box and know the boundary between freedom of expression and peaceful protest.

Usually, they will hide behind that so-called "freedom of expression comes with responsibility" when a student holds a peaceful protest responsibly.

Even if the legislation is authoritarian, the court should be able to distinguish between the right to peaceful protest and merely punishing people under the law.

The court should balance democratic dissent with statutory compliance.

In Wong's case, instead of regulating a peaceful protest, the state seems to be trying to prohibit it. It looks like the state is trying hard to use those regulations as a tool to silence dissent completely.

GP2025: A student protester convicted of a criminal case?

Just uncontrolled use of power by an insecure government that doesn’t know how to manage a minor student protest. Poor leadership and governance.

Koel: So in summary, he protested against racism in higher education in one of the "premier" institutions in the country and lost. Is that the lesson from universities, courts, and the country?

OrangeCat19: There are judgments that people agree with, and there are many.

When it favours them, they say, this proves their innocence! The court and the judges are independent!

However, when it does not favour them, they blame the government or the prime minister.

GunnerForever: Hello Wong - fully support your continued struggle, but you got defeated in the courts. This is how democracy works.

May the rule of law always prevail. - Mkini