No to Nazri, no to Sedition Act

Two wrongs do not make a right.

With his comments this last week on the campaign trail in Semenyih, former minister Nazri Abdul Aziz seems to want to take Malaysia back down a dark road of racism, hate mongering and incitement. 

This represents to me the very worst in Malaysian politics.

However strong my personal feelings against this brand of politicking, I would never condone the use of the Sedition Act 1948 on Nazri. Indeed, I doubt I would condone any sort of criminal prosecution against Nazri at all.

First and foremost is the matter of consistency. We were against the Sedition Act before, we are against the Sedition Act now, and we will be against the Sedition Act as long as it is in place.

The reason for this is highlighted in some detail in this article, which discusses the colonial historical context of the Sedition Act, global comparisons, and how if even BN can repeal the ISA, surely Harapan can repeal the Sedition Act.

This leads to the second matter, which is that Harapan not only can and should repeal the Sedition Act, it has in fact promised to do so, as stated clearly in its GE 14 manifesto.

Somewhat to their credit, Harapan has announced quite a few times since taking power that it will in fact keep this promise and repeal the Sedition Act.

When controversy erupted over the fact that the act was still being used to investigate Malaysians, Harapan responded - again somewhat laudably - by announcing a moratorium on the use of the Sedition Act.

The question obviously is, what has happened to that moratorium? And to the plans to repeal the act completely, for that matter.

Consistently set the right tone

In the first year of Harapan’s rule, one of the most important things to do is to firmly institute the correct precedents - to set the tone for what is at least five years of governance.

What greater precedent can there be than to make keeping promises a cornerstone of one’s administration?

Before even talking about manifesto promises, which were arguably made without a full picture of what Harapan was getting into, there is the issue of promises that were made after Harapan came into power.

Surely there can be no excuses for breaking these promises?

Secondly, there is the issue of consistency. As we are in the defining phase of Harapan’s rule, it would serve them well to demonstrate that they are consistently consistent.

The opposite of this would be, for example, to announce a moratorium on the Sedition Act one day, and then allow the police to continue using it the next.

Is this a matter of someone not getting the memo? Even if it were, the government is ultimately responsible for all policy matters, and for ensuring that they are strictly adhered to by all government agencies.

Nazri ‘merajuk’?

Analyzing Nazri’s comments and their political context may yield some interesting observations.

It wasn’t too long ago that Nazri was waxing lyrical about what a great prime minister Anwar Ibrahim would be and how all of Umno should fall on their knees and welcome their lord and saviour Anwar.

This is an exaggeration of course, but Nazri’s open statements that Umno should unite behind Anwar and support him to become prime minister are on record.

This was obviously an attempt to pit Anwar against Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Bersatu - an attempt which appears thus far to have fallen flat on its face - as Anwar and Mahathir continue to state time and again their commitment to the original transition plan.

One way of looking at Nazri’s latest comments in Semenyih is that they are those of a spurned man, frustrated at how his courtship was rejected, and acting out like a spoiled child by trying to inflict the maximum amount of damage that he can.

After all, there is no way anyone in politics would still be trying to cozy up to Anwar, or anyone in Harapan after making comments as racist as these.

Perhaps this is Nazri’s way of saying “You don’t want me as a friend? See how bad I can be as an enemy.”

Obviously though, it would be folly to fall for such threats - because any potential friend who would do such a thing would never be a true friend at all.

A contest of gentlemen

There are probably some that may want the full force of the law to come crashing down on Nazri, in light of just how odious and insiduous his comments were.

The sentiment is understandable. This is after all, the kind of politicking that we have fought so hard to eliminate.

We cannot forget however, that we also fought so hard to eliminate arbitrary rule by law (eg, via the Sedition Act) - as opposed to rule of law, as former Bersih chairperson Ambiga Sreenevasan often takes the time to remind us.

Are we to just sit meekly then as racists like Nazri run roughshod over us?

I think not. If we are to prevail in the long run over racists and hatemongers like him however, the key is to not become like him.

It was men like him who propped up BN’s repressive government - a government that had no qualms to clamp down with an iron fist on any kind of dissent whatsoever.

This is not the path for us. If we are to realise the ideals of a "New Malaysia", then we must aspire to a higher road.

Ultimately, Nazri is not (yet) taking up arms or calling for violent revolution. He is expressing an opinion - an idea articulated in words.

It falls to us - and to Harapan especially - to meet him on the same battlefield, on the same terms, and to provide a believable and actionable alternative narrative.

Nazri, for all the talk of him having thuggish inclinations, also has a reputation for relishing a fair fight.

Let us not deny him one then, and look to beat him in the free marketplace of ideas. I bet we can, without having to succumb to the dirt-level racist fearmongering he employs. 

---

NATHANIEL TAN is director of media and communications at Emir Research, a think-tank focused on data-driven policy research, centred around principles of engagement, moderation, innovation and rigour. - Mkini