ABOUT MALAYSIA’S SEDITION ACT

As I said, many of you hate history. But unless we learn about history we would not be able to deliberate such issues. Maybe we still do need a Sedition Act to maintain peace and stability in Malaysia. That would be like saying we need to arm the police with guns for their safety. But that does not mean a policeman can shoot me dead just because he does not like my hairstyle.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

I find that young Malaysians have absolutely no interest in history. Whenever I write articles about history many do not bother to read them and they post comments such as: who cares about what happened in the past; we only care about the future.

If I write articles titled ‘The Malays are stupid’, ‘The Chinese are ungrateful’ or ‘Islam is nonsense’ then the hits shoot up, sometimes double or triple the normal articles. That more or less tells us what Malaysians want to talk about.

Renowned and well-respected history professor, Khoo Kay Kim, testified at PAS leader Mat Sabu’s trial and he said something very interesting, which, in fact, he has said so a few times before, even on a TV talk show. But I bet very few Malaysians caught this or even if they read it would have not done a double take and would have missed the significance of this statement.

Just to digress a bit, about two decades ago I wrote the genealogy of the Selangor Royal Family from its founding to the present. I also wrote a short synopsis of the various Sultans, which had to be done in Bahasa Malaysia, of course.

It took me three years to complete that book and I then submitted it to HRH the Sultan of Selangor for approval. Everything except for just one sentence regarding Sultan Abdul Samad was approved. HRH felt that that sentence should be deleted.

The Sultan then sent the draft to Professor Khoo Kay Kim for vetting and the professor agreed with my version. HRH the Sultan then allowed that sentence to remain. Hence the professor more or less became our arbitrator in the difference of opinion the Sultan and I had on just one aspect of Sultan Abdul Samad.

In short, even though the Sultan did not agree with my opinion, he respected the professor’s opinion. And if the professor says I am right then I am right. So the sentence remains unedited.

Anyway, back to Mat Sabu’s sedition trial. What Professor Khoo Kay Kim said at that trial was that Malaya was not colonised by the British. Now that is very interesting because then what are we doing celebrating Independence Day (Hari Merdeka) on 31st August of every year?

If we were not colonised then we never obtained independence and that means all this while we have been celebrating something that never happened. And if we were never colonised then what were the British doing in Malaya and who, then, was actually running the country?

I will stop there and allow you all to figure that one out, if you can. However, since most of you hate history…good luck. When most Christians do not even know the history of the Gospels and think that the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written by the Apostles rather than by anonymous authors I doubt you can analyse what Professor Khoo Kay Kim said.

What I want to talk about, though, is the crime that Mat Sabu has been charged for — under the Sedition Act 1948.

1948 was when the Communist insurgency started in Malaya, just three years after the end of WWII. Actually, it was the British who had armed the Communist Terrorists (CTs) during WWII and the British knew that once the war ends the CTs would turn those guns on the British. But they armed the CTs anyway — but that is another story for another time and is related to Force 136.

The Sedition Act was first introduced in Britain 300 years earlier in 1661 soon after Charles II took the throne. His father, Charles I, had earlier been ousted and executed after which Britain became a republic for a brief period. When the republic failed to prove a better alternative to a monarchy, they restored the monarchy and invited Charles II, who was in exile in France, to return to England to take the throne.

They then introduced the Sedition Act, which mainly deals with treason and it was treasonous to:

within the realm, or without, compass, imagine, invent, devise or intend death or destruction or any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maim or wounding, imprisonment or restraint of the person of the King;

or within the realm or without, compass, imagine, invent, devise or intend:

to deprive the King of his crown,

to levy war against the King, within this realm, or without, or

to move or stir any foreigner to invade England or any other country belonging to the King.

In other words, it is treasonous to try to topple the King and that would be an act of sedition.

And that, basically, was also why the Sedition Act was introduced in Malaya in 1948. The Communists were trying to topple the monarchy and replace it with a Communist republic. So there were grounds for a Sedition Act.

Today, however, in Malaysia, you can be charged for sedition for saying something against the Deputy Prime Minister’s wife — which was what happened to me. How can that be considered sedition when there is no threat against the monarchy or the government?

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and those around him, such as A. Kadir Jasin and many more, are trying to topple the Prime Minister. Would that not also be considered sedition if criticising the Deputy Prime Minister’s wife is considered sedition? Why have they not been arrested and charged?

And what exactly did Mat Sabu say that could be interpreted as trying to topple the Agong? Malaysians need to be told this so that it would not be perceived that Mat Sabu is a victim of a false charge.

I know what Mat Sabu said. But most Malaysians do not know. And even those who do know cannot understand why it is considered sedition.

The 1661 law in England was very specific. And it was to address a problem they had earlier faced. Charles I was toppled and executed. England then became a republic. And it was during this time that the problems between the Catholics and Protestants became worse and Ireland erupted into a most bloody civil war that lasted for more than 300 years at a great loss of life.

Eventually, the turmoil was so great that they abolished the republic and brought Charles II back from France and gave him the throne. And to avoid yet another civil war, they introduced the Sedition Act so that Charles II would not also be toppled and executed.

The nine-year English Civil War (1642–1651) was one very bloody period in ‘modern’ English history. This was followed by another nine years of a bloody republic until 1660. So, after 18 years of death and destruction where neighbour killed neighbour and brother fought against brother, the English decided that they had had enough.

No doubt England restored the monarchy under Charles II but it was transformed into a constitutional monarchy where Parliament and not the Palace actually ruled. So England was 200 years ahead of the rest of Europe. It was not until the 1800s that Europe also abolished their various absolute monarchies and turned their countries into republics or constitutional monarchies, France being the first in 1789.

But the First French Revolution of 1789 actually failed. It was not until the Second French Revolution in 1848 that France really became a true republic. But not many realise this and most think that the 1789 revolution rather than the 1848 revolution brought democracy to France.

So there you have it. That was why England introduced the Sedition Act in 1661 and also why the British did the same in Malaya in 1948.

But England abolished its Sedition Act on 1st January 2010 while Malaysia has not done the same, yet. The crucial question we need to ask is: while Malaysia still has its Sedition Act, is it now being used for the wrong purpose?

As I said, many of you hate history. But unless we learn about history we would not be able to deliberate such issues. Maybe we still do need a Sedition Act to maintain peace and stability in Malaysia. That would be like saying we need to arm the police with guns for their safety. But that does not mean a policeman can shoot me dead just because he does not like my hairstyle.