`


THERE IS NO GOD EXCEPT ALLAH
read:
MALAYSIA Tanah Tumpah Darahku

LOVE MALAYSIA!!!


 


Thursday, July 11, 2013

‘Sedition and democracy do not jive’

Political analysts offer contrasting views on the Cabinet's proposal to repeal the Sedition Act.
PETALING JAYA: Political scientists have expressed differing views over Cabinet’s proposal to repeal the controversial Sedition Act 1948.
Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (Unimas) Associate Professor Andrew Aeria said the Sedition Act “must go” as it “has no place in democracy”.
“Maintaining it is only to imitate colonial methods of governance. There should also not be any replacement law because sedition and democracy don’t go together,” he told FMT.
On criticisms that the repeal of the Act would lead to widespread abuse of freedom of speech, Andrew said: “Don’t always take the lowest common denominator (to support your opinions)”.
“There are enough laws in the books in terms of liable, that can be used,” he said.
“If these politicians took time to look at the definition of sedition in the dictionary, it means words or actions to encourage people to oppose the government.
“In a democracy, it is your right to oppose the government. That is why sedition and democracy don’t jive,” he added.
Andrew reiterated that there was no need for a law on sedition as Malaysia was a democratic country.
“We don’t need the sedition law, as it will only allow the government to abuse its powers.”
International Movement for a Just World (JUST) president, Chandra Muzaffar shared the same sentiments as Andrew and lauded the Cabinet’s proposal. He disclosed two reasons for the Act to be repealed.
“Firstly, the scope and concepts of the Act is very wide, and so are their implications. For that reason, I have always felt it is not a good law,” he said.

Clear parameters needed
Chandra explained that the Act was formulated immediately after the underground communist movement emerged following World War Two and is no longer applicable in today’s day and age.
“The implications are so wide ranging that the various concepts within the law itself will lead to disaffection among the people. This also makes it easy to abuse,” he said.
“I think the law should be repealed but when it is replaced by a new law, we have to take into account the realistic situation of Malaysian society,” he added.
Chandra said the new law must ensure that “parameters are established” and are “clear”.
“The (Federal) Constitution should be the framework for that law. The new Act should incorporate balance and be guided by the Rukun Negara,” he said.
He acknowledged the views of certain politicians that the repeal would lead to “abuse”, and said that if a new law was formulated based on the constitution, every individual’s interests would be respected.
“We cannot use this Act to deny people their right to talk about the abuse of special positions. Those things should be allowed because the Constitution itself allows that freedom.”
However, UUM vice chancellor Mohamed Mustafa Ishak disagreed with his colleagues and highlighted the importance of the Sedition Act.
“The Act was established when we were facing with a serious situation in regards to ethnic tensions, which still prevails in our country,” he said.
“We need to remember that by removing every important Act, the public will feel there is nothing that will result if they crossed the line.
“They will begin to questions things that would cause ethnic tensions and friction and as a result, the authorities would not be able to curb or control (their actions),” he added.
Act must stay
Mohamed Mustafa said there was a “danger” if the Act was removed now, as there is no replacement law in place.
“There are some things that should not be questioned in public. This Act is meant for that purpose,” he explained, referring to religion, race and ethnic cultures.
“We have other laws but we need this Act for matters related to religion and race. If we want to change the Act, then we are questioning certain things that are written in the constitution,” he claimed.
Mohamed Mustafa said the “new generation” does not understand the importance of the Act in maintaining peace and stability in the country.
“They don’t understand why we need it. Malaysians have experienced turbulent times throughout our history,” he said.
“If they had gone through the difficulties that we have been through, it would be easier for them to understand the need for the Sedition Act,” he added.
National Defence University Senior Fellow, Aruna Gopinath, said the implications following the Act’s repeal depended on how it is going to be replaced.
“If it is going to be a disadvantage to the people, then there is no need for a repeal,” she said.
“If it is repealed to bring changes and less harsh stipulations, then of course there is more freedom of speech. Otherwise, I don’t see any difference at all (if the Act is repealed or not),” she added.
Aruna said the act of repealing serves to bring about “better Acts than what it was before”.
“Its stipulations have to change. It must give enough courage to an individual to say what he wants,” she said.
However, she stressed that it was important for laws to govern society to prevent the public from “defaming the nation.”
“Whatever laws we have in the country, the individual must respect those laws. The individual must speak in respect to those laws and not go overboard, which is unaccepted in any country,” she said.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.