Why National Harmony Bill provokes scepticism

COMMENT Is the National Harmony Bill scheduled to replace the draconian Sedition Act 1948 yet another cosmetic change?

Can we look forward to the Sedition Act's being repealed as part of Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak's political transformation or will this be another dud, too?

Looking at past experiences with Peaceful Assembly Act, Security Offences (Special Measures) Act, and other legislation relating to human rights one cannot help but feel sceptical or cynical.

Twitter has been abuzz on the topic since last night following Najib's announcement at the Attorney General's Chambers dinner.

Najib's cousin and Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein in a twitter message termed it "political transformation" when asked by someone for his description of the move to the repeal the 64-year-old Sedition Act.

Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin's take was that the move reflects substantive transformation and is not superficial.

Suaram's executive director Cynthia Gabriel waved away the new Acts as having nice sounding names, but questioned if they comply with human rights standards or are they pretty draconian too?

Even Loyarburoker Edmund Bon urged the people not to forget their struggle against the Sedition Act.

History of Sedition Act

The Sedition Act 1948 is among the few British laws Malaysia inherited, aimed at curbing the spread of Communism.

Under the Act, a seditious tendency is defined in its section 3 as:

• To incite  hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any Ruler or government;

• To seek alteration other than by lawful means of any matter  established by law;

• To bring hatred or contempt to the administration of justice in the country;

• To  stir up discontent or disaffection among the subjects;

• To promote ill-will and hostility between races or classes and;

• To question the provisions of the constitution dealing with language, citizenship, the special privileges of the Malays and of the natives of Sabah and Sarawak and the sovereignty of the Rulers.

However as the Centre for Independent Journalism Malaysia (CIJ) noted, the legislation had been used increasingly over time against critics of the present government, including legislators or MPs

"Under the Act, members of parliament can have their parliamentary immunity suspended, if found guilty of sedition. Over the years, many have been charged and found guilty under the Act.

"Since 2009, the law has been one of the main instruments used to arrest those opposed to the BN takeover of the Perak state government," it reported.

Selective prosecution?

Among several prominent persons charged were former UN Special rapporteur Param Cumaraswamy, Hindu Rights Action Force leader P Utahyakumar, blogger Raja Petra Kamaruddin, DAP chairperson and senior lawyer Karpal Singh who was charged with questioning the prerogative of the Perak ruler during the 2009 constitutional crisis.

Several people were charged for their postings regarding the Perak political fiasco, with most being acquitted.

Even Malaysiakini was not spared when it was investigated for sedition in 2003 for posting a letter criticising the government favouring the Malays over Chinese and Indians.

It was also last month that Uthayakumar failed in his attempt to mount a constitutional challenge against the Sedition Act at the Federal Court as it was found to be a valid law.

Recently former Perak menteri besar Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin found himself being investigated for sedition for his twitter postings  regarding the WWW1 licence plate bid by the Johor ruler.

Nizar (left) in filing his defamation suit on Tuesday, had questioned why he was being investigated and the Umno-owned Utusan Malaysia which also publishes Kosmo were not being subjected to a similar probe for their cynical remarks on the bid earlier.

The CIJ rightly pointed out that the authorities had used the Sedition Act against those critical or opposed the national government.

Most constituted opposition politicians or people aligned to them.

This brings into question whether the proposed National Harmony bill would be the same where the authorities would use a new legislation like the Peaceful Assembly Act on the opposition like it did against Anwar Ibrahim and the Bersih steering committee for the April 28 rally.

Public consultation a mere gimmick

One also cannot help but think that Najib's announcement last night that the attorney-general will hold full public consultations before drawing up the bill to replace the Sedition Act, will also be viewed cynically.

The Bar Council was consulted in drawing up the Peaceful Assembly Act, however, the attorney-general had hidden the proposal of barring assemblies in motion.

This triggered lawyers and the Bar Council itself to take to the streets and march to the parliament to oppose the bill.

The Bar also went a step further by writing an open letter to the senators in Dewan Negara, urging them to oppose the bill's passing as it was against international norms.

Despite this, the controversial legislation was adopted and enforced just before the mammoth Bersih 3.0 rally.

Certainly, Najib's announcement last night provides another opportunity for the PM to make good on his reform calls as with his Sept 16, 2011 address.

Or will he be continuously be viewed and enhance his reputation as a false democrat as highlighted by the national Canadian newspaper Globe and Mail if the National Harmony bill falls short of expectations.