Mahathir Said We Must First Decide What Constitutes An Insult

The British adopted the Sedition Act in Malaya in 1948 when the Malayan Emergency erupted and Chin Peng and his Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) wanted to grab power and turn the country into a vassal of Communist China.

NO HOLDS BARRED 

Raja Petra Kamarudin

(Channel News Asia) – Malaysia’s laws must properly define what is considered insulting to the monarchy, said Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad on Thursday (Jan 10). His remarks came as Putrajaya said it will enact new legislation to protect the sanctity of the monarchy from being humiliated and attacked.

“At the moment, our enforcement officers do not understand what is considered insult, so we need to spell out what sort of actions or words can be construed as insults,” Mahathir was quoted as saying by The Star during a press conference.

He said Malaysia now practises freedom of speech and people cannot be prosecuted if they make factual statements. “(But) if we shut the mouths of everyone until people cannot even speak up against acts of crime, then there will be injustice in the country,” said the prime minister.

Is the Sedition Act about censoring free speech or about stopping hate speech?

********************************************************

Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad says before we punish anyone under the sedition laws we must first determine what constitutes an insult. Maybe we need to take a step backwards and first decide what is sedition and whether Malaysia still needs the Sedition Act. After all, the UK, which gave Malaya the Sedition Act in 1948, already abolished their own Sedition Act on 1st January 2010.

Sedition Act 1661 and Restoration of the Monarchy in England

England adopted the Sedition Act in 1661 after King Charles II was invited back from France to take the throne. At that time England had just reverted to a monarchy after 12 years as a republic and the anti-monarchy and anti-Catholic sentiments was very strong.

Hence if you say or write something that incites hatred towards the crown (such as accuse the King of being a heretic or papist) that would be regarded as a crime under the Sedition Act.

Former DPM Tun Abdul Ghafar Baba said it is okay to ‘tegur’ the rulers but asking for the monarchy to be abolished is a crime under the Sedition Act

So, the crime of sedition is not merely to insult someone. It is intentions to incite hate with an objective to trigger dissent, rebellion, violence, bloodshed, etc.

King Charles I had just been executed by beheading 12 years before that and Charles II had led an attack on England in 1651 (but was defeated by Oliver Cromwell at the Battle of Worcester). Hence the King was hated, as were Catholics, and many would like to see his head chopped off as well.

So, all those who spread ‘hate speech’ against the King would be considered as having committed the crime of sedition.

Sedition Act 1948 and the Malayan Emergency 1948-1960

The British adopted the Sedition Act in Malaya in 1948 when the Malayan Emergency erupted and Chin Peng and his Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) wanted to grab power and turn the country into a vassal of Communist China.

BRITISH FORCES IN THE MALAYAN EMERGENCY 1948-1960 (DM 149) Sergeant R Beaumont of the King’s Own Yorkshire Light Infantry, attached to the Malay Regiment, instructs a Dyak tracker in the use of modern firearms. Copyright: © IWM. Original Source: http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205212640

So, while England’s Sedition Act was meant to stop all ‘hate speech’ against the King, Malaya’s Sedition Act was to stop the mainly Chinese CPM from spreading ‘hate speech’ against the government.

And this hate speech was predominantly in the Chinese schools (which was why Lee Kuan Yew did not allow Chinese schools and also why DAP will never support the abolishment of Chinese schools — because this is where they teach the Chinese to hate the ‘Malay government’).

Hence Mahathir is not quite right when he talks about first determining what constitutes an insult before enforcing the law. This is not just about insults. Insults are subjective. Hate speech, however, is more serious and comes with intent to incite.

Is making fun of Amar Singh’s turban a crime?

For example, when I said in 2018 that Amar Singh Ishar Singh’s turban is too tight it is restricting the flow of blood to the brain, is that seditious? Is it even an insult? And if so who have I insulted, Amar Singh or the Sikh religion? Did I say that with intentions to make Muslims hate Sikhs so that they riot on the streets and murder Sikhs?

What about when I said ten years before that in 2008 that the Mufti of Perak’s skullcap is too tight it restricts the flow of blood to his brain, is that seditious? Is it even an insult? And if so who have I insulted, Harussani Zakaria or Islam? Did I say that with intentions to make non-Muslims hate Muslims so that they riot on the streets and murder Muslims?

Yes, Sikhs get upset when we talk about their turbans and they will threaten to harm you, rape your family, etc. They will even organise Sikh bikers from Canada to ride their Harleys all the way to Manchester to attack your restaurant, plus more.

The Perak Mufti has been the brunt of many jokes and insults

So maybe joking about a Sikh’s turban should be a crime under the Sedition Act since Sikhs get very violent with that joke. But joking about a Muslim’s skullcap attracts no reaction whatsoever. So, making fun of a Muslim’s skullcap or turban should not be a crime.

That is how probably Mahathir should look at things to decide which insult is a crime under the Sedition Act and which insults are allowed and are not crimes.