'Retrogressive': Sedition Act and feudalism

Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, who rode to power on the "Reformasi" bandwagon, now justifies using the Sedition Act against his political rival, Kedah Menteri Besar Muhammad Sanusi Md Nor because the latter had "touched on the rulers".

His Pakatan Harapan (PH) colleagues and many former human rights champions are silent, even though they have reneged again on another election promise.

In the reformist programme of any professed progressive and democratic government, the backward colonial-era Sedition Act has no place in upholding the values of liberty, equality and justice.

The persistence of such antiquated laws hinders true progress. The other important issue is the suppression of the freedom of expression entrenched in the constitution as our fundamental liberty within the context of our constitutional monarchy.

Sedition Act: An antiquated colonial law

The Sedition Act, inherited from colonial times, is a repressive and archaic law that suppresses freedom of speech and expression.

The late Karpal Singh, a victim of this dreadful law, would never condone its use by any government. He was a highly principled man, unlike his opportunistic former colleagues.

This act, while designed to protect the state from dissent, is frequently misused by those in power to silence political opponents and stifle legitimate criticism. In doing so, it violates the very essence of democratic principles, inhibiting the development of a free and open society.

The act's ambiguity in defining "seditious" content allows authorities to subjectively interpret and apply it, leading to arbitrary arrests and undue restrictions on citizens' rights. This lack of clarity breeds a culture of fear, wherein individuals are hesitant to express their opinions and ideas, resulting in a chilling effect on free speech.

In a constitutional monarchy where the protection of citizens' rights and the rule of law should be paramount, the continued use of the Sedition Act is a clear violation of democratic ideals.

Feudalistic obeisance to royalty: A contradiction to constitutional monarchy

The prime minister and his PH colleagues should know that in a constitutional monarchy, the role of the monarch is largely ceremonial, with real political power vested in an elected parliament.

However, the persistence of feudalistic obeisance to the monarchy undermines the principles of democratic governance. The idea that the monarch is inherently superior to the citizens and must be obeyed without question is deeply ingrained in feudalistic thinking and perpetuates an unequal power dynamic.

Feudalistic obeisance perpetuates a culture where the actions and decisions of the monarchy are immune to criticism or scrutiny, making it difficult to hold them accountable for any potential abuses of power. Such blind reverence for the monarchy contradicts the principles of constitutional monarchy, which are founded on transparency, accountability, and the rule of law.

Additionally, feudalistic practises can exacerbate societal divisions and reinforce class hierarchies. The notion of inherited status based on birthright rather than merit undermines social mobility and equal opportunities for all citizens.

In a modern constitutional monarchy, where meritocracy and equal rights should be upheld, such feudalistic tendencies are incompatible and counterproductive.

In conclusion, the use of the Sedition Act and the perpetuation of feudalistic obeisance to royalty are severe contradictions to the principles of our constitutional monarchy. These outdated practises hinder the progression of democratic ideals and stifle the growth of a fair and just society.

For a constitutional monarchy to thrive and truly represent the values of its citizens, it must embrace the spirit of democracy, discard antiquated laws like the Sedition Act, and foster a culture of critical thinking, accountability and equal rights for all.

Only then can a constitutional monarchy fulfil its potential as a beacon of progress and unity in the modern world.

Kua Kia Soong is a human rights activist.

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