Bring scare mongers to book

Posted on 21 June 2011 - 07:40pm
Last updated on 22 June 2011 - 01:49pm

R. Nadeswaran

IN EARLY 1972, M Mahalingam, the president of the Harbour Workers Union in Port Klang, was reading the Tamil Nesan on reports from India that the Indian nawabs and maharajas had been stripped of their rights and privileges. He had allegedly told a few of the union members in his office that it was a matter of time before sultans, kings and other monarchs would lose their positions.
Six months later, he was hauled up to face charges of sedition. Dominic Puthucheary who appeared for the defence applied to have the entire proceedings in Bahasa Melayu, long before it was decreed as the official language of the judicial system. Sessions court president (as they were then called) Rahmah Hussain (who went on to become a Federal Court judge) allowed the application following representation that the alleged seditious words were uttered in Bahasa Melayu and that the complainant and key witnesses were not well-versed in the English Language.
Puthucheary eloquently submitted that discussing an issue with a small group of friends or members did not constitute “publication” and that such words were not addressed to the public at large or communicated to third parties. The trial took a full three days before Mahalingam was acquitted without his defence being called. How do I know and remember this? It was the first time I had covered an important trial in Bahasa Melayu and more importantly, during the course of the trial, I was ticked off by Rahmah for not being “appropriately dressed” in her court.
The proceedings had ingrained in my mind the various provisions of the Sedition Act. In the years that followed, I “lectured” scores of journalism students and wannabe journalists on the boundaries within which they can operate. “Even if someone utters seditious words, we as journalists and our newspapers are equally liable if we publish those remarks,” is the often-repeated statement. They are often reminded to read the case of Public Prosecutor v Melan Abdullah which outlines journalistic responsibilities and those of editors. Also on the “must read” list are cases involving two MPs, the late Fan Yew Teng and the late Mark Koding who were convicted, and former Bar Council vice- president Param Coomaraswamy.
While it is always advocated that freedom of speech and freedom of expression are cornerstones of a democratic society, such freedom must come with responsibility so as not to incite violence or create or encourage public disorder or disturbance. Over the past week, so much has been published in blogs and newspapers that is fanning the fires of hatred in our multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-cultural society.
Politicians who see race and religion in everything through their blinkered eyes are causing unnecessary panic and threatening the peace and quiet which we have been so used to.
All kinds of statements and threats have been made with impunity, with no regard for the laws of the land and common sense. The prime minister’s 1Malaysia and his stand on moderation are being threatened by selfish individuals trying to destroy what has been painstakingly built over the years. One rash act is going to devastate what has been conscientiously carved out by rational and right-thinking leaders – past and present.
Already, there is a growing chorus of realistic and judicious voices from both sides of the political divide calling for restraint and indulgence. They have fallen on deaf ears. The scare-mongering and threats go on unabated. The people at the attorney-general’s office should already be burning the midnight oil to bring the perpetrators to book. However, nothing has been forthcoming.
Let’s not wait anymore. Let’s not wait for the inevitable before action is taken. Prevention, it is said, is better than cure.
The after-effects of such craze and madness are preventable. Those making irresponsible statements should not be treated with velvet gloves. If the law does not provide protection or immunity against seditious words uttered in Parliament, why have a selected few been allowed to say them outside the House and continue to enjoy privilege? The Sedition Act has previously been used in far less serious cases and the careers of many a politician have been cut short by the long arm of the law. Even if he is the “special one” as Jose Mourinho calls himself, there’s no place for people who sow seeds of abhorrence, detestation and hate among the people of our blessed country.
R. Nadeswaran abhors people who hijack the principle of freedom of speech and use it for hate-speech and promoting violence. He is theSun’s UK correspondent based in London and can be reached at: citizen-nades@thesundaily.com