Govt should explain what counts as 3R, lawyer says amid pre-polls warnings

A lawyer has called for clear guidelines from the government on the definition of 3R issues – topics that touch on race, religion and royalty – amid repeated warnings of action to be taken against those who raise such matters ahead of the elections to be held in six states next month. 

Speaking to MalaysiaNow, Rafique Rashid said some statements that might fall within the 3R ambit would in fact be legal. 

For example, he said, labelling Malaysia as a Malay country rather than a multiracial nation would be consistent with the Federal Constitution.

He added that speaking about race and religion from a knowledge point of view would also be allowed under the law. 

"As long as we argue and debate in a healthy, open, and good manner without any violence, it is allowed," he said. 

Fahmi Fadzil, the communications and digital minister, has warned multiple times against raising 3R issues, saying online statements related to these subjects are constantly monitored by the authorities through the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission. 

Top cop Razarurin Husain meanwhile said on July 4 that stern action would be taken against political parties that touch on issues involving religion, royalty and race in the upcoming state elections in Selangor, Penang, Kedah, Negeri Sembilan, Terengganu and Kelantan. 

Rafique acknowledged that such issues would often be raised during election season. 

He said it was important to differentiate between what is allowed under the constitution, and the misuse of issues for political gain or to the point of them becoming hate speech. 

"If someone says that the Malays have privileges along with the Bumiputeras and Orang Asli in Sabah and Sarawak, as stated in the Federal Constitution, this is not wrong," he said. 

He said it would likewise be legally permitted for a person to say that Malaysia's constitution is not secular in nature as it recognises Islam as the official religion of the federation. 

As for remarks concerning the royal institution, he said, these often involve incitement, slander and swearing for no apparent reason which would be considered as an insult.

"If we are talking about the history of the royal institution, we might be aware of various related matters that might be categorised as unsuitable for debate," he said. 

"But if it is based on arguments and historical facts, then if you want to explain something, then it should be allowed, and is not wrong in terms of the law." 

If an individual is charged under the Sedition Act for bringing up 3R issues, he said, but it is later discovered that it was to discuss something based on the law and the constitution, this could be made into a defence. 

Commenting on the current situation, he said many who were being called up appeared to have criticised the government although they had only spoken of issues pertaining to Malay rights and Islam. 

He added that Article 10 of the constitution clearly provides for the freedom of expression for all citizens, even if that right can be blocked or limited by other legal provisions. 

"Should merely speaking be made cause for a police investigation? Even criticism can be constructive criticism. 

"So there must be a balance," he said.