Anwar's false and misleading statement defending sedition charges against rival Sanusi

Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim has defended the use of the Sedition Act against Kedah Menteri Besar Muhammad Sanusi Md Nor as necessary as it relates "to the position and dignity of the rulers".

This appears to be a deliberately false and misleading statement about what is contained in the charges against Sanusi. A scrutiny of the second charge reveals that it does not relate to any criticism of a ruler or the Agong; it is in fact criticism of Anwar in relation to the formation of the coalition government, questioning the claims he made at the time.

Therefore, Anwar's claim that the Sedition Act was used only because it involved the "position and dignity of the rulers" is false. The second charge was related to criticism and mockery of Anwar himself. In short, in the second charge, the Sedition Act was used against Sanusi, a vocal political rival, for nothing more than criticising the prime minister. This is an abuse of power and oppression, plain and simple.

The colonial-era Sedition Act 1948 unequivocally violates freedom of speech. The overly broad terms used in the act provide any government of the day with excessive powers to decide what constitutes sedition, which ultimately severely curtails free speech and political freedoms in Malaysia. It has long been used for exactly that, which is why many, including Anwar himself and those in Pakatan Harapan (PH), have called for its repeal.

Anwar is now defending this law by suddenly altering his position on the use of the Sedition Act by claiming that it is acceptable to use it, purportedly to safeguard the royal institution. The call for its repeal by Anwar and PH when in opposition never had any such qualifications, and it is deceptive and dishonest to suggest that a distinction should now be made.

It is a constitutional fact that our royal institution plays a part in certain key aspects of governance, such as the election of a menteri besar and the prime minister. Any question or criticism that arises on this issue would naturally directly and indirectly touch on their role in such decisions. 

It is a slippery slope to allow the Sedition Act to be used under the guise of protecting the sanctity of the royal institution, as the government can extend this same type of argument to other matters, including race or religion. This new, sly, convoluted Anwar-style qualification will only lead to untrammelled use of the Sedition Act.

The Sedition Act 1948 is an unjust law in principle and must be repealed. No unjust law can be made fair, no matter which party is in government, regardless of the reasons.

The government must institute a moratorium on the use of the Sedition Act and repeal it outright in the next parliamentary session.
 
Zaid Malek is the director of Lawyers for Liberty. 

The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of MalaysiaNow.