Are Malaysians Allowed To Express An Opinion

---

 
What do a group of students, an actor and a politician have in common? Like us, these people expressed an opinion, and were later threatened with a charge of sedition, for their comments about royalty.
The students are part of the University of Malaya Association of New Youth (Umany), the actor is Patrick Teoh, and the politician is the DAP assemblyman for Sungai Pelek, Ronnie Liu.
The students had published a treatise which questioned the role of the monarchy in the Federal Constitution, after Muhyiddin Yassin’s request to implement an emergency had been rejected by the King, who then advised all MPs to support the government’s budget.
If university students, who may one day become national leaders, are not allowed to discuss, dissect and analyse the arguments they put forward to support their views, then why do we bother having an institution of higher learning?
Instead of applauding the students’ initiative in promoting academic discussion of an important topic, police reports were lodged against Umany. Its president and vice-president were quizzed for several hours at the police station, threats were issued on social media, and its members were accused of treason and of belonging to a communist organisation.
Meanwhile, the university said that it would carry out an investigation into the Umany members. How silly is that? A university is supposed to encourage intelligent discourse. The students have more sense than to insult or denigrate the King.
What has happened then to the freedom of expression of university students which is guaranteed under Article 10 of the Federal Constitution and also stipulated in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
In June, Teoh was charged with allegedly insulting the Johor crown prince, and the royal institution.
In comparison, the heir to the British throne, Prince Charles, is often criticised for meddling in politics. His brother Andrew, who once had friendly ties with a convicted paedophile, has been removed by the British government from the post of special trade envoy. Spanish citizens often criticise their former king, Juan Carlos 1, for his adultery, allegations of corruption and his love of hunting, despite being an honorary president for the World Wide Fund for Nature.
Why would a nation prevent its citizens from commenting on issues which affect their lives, and the reputation of their country?
Assemblyman Liu had published a post on his Facebook page, which showed a photo of the recent demonstrations in Thailand calling for a reform of the Thai monarchy. Only a deaf and blind person would fail to notice what is happening in neighbouring countries. What if that person happens to visit that country or has personal or business links there?
Over-reaction to valid observations
Why did the Malaysian authorities over-react to these valid observations? Are we an island, cut off from civilization?
At school, pupils who dare to question a teacher would usually be punished or humiliated in front of the class. When the pupil becomes an adult, the tyrannical teacher might become his only role model for acting in public.
At home, the child who dares to answer his parents and elders may be severely scolded, so he learns to keep quiet, even when he sees something wrong. As an adult, he will have learnt that to speak out will invite a thrashing. He has learnt bad behaviour from bad parenting and schooling.
The child is not allowed to be intellectually challenged by verbal discourse. As an adult, he may dish out the same treatment he received at school, or at home, when he disagrees with people who contradict him.
Today, many responsible journalists, columnists and cartoonists face the same hurdles as those people, who have been threatened with a charge of sedition. They would like to get their message across, but editorial censorship will dilute their messages, or remove them altogether.
When a newspaper publisher reaches the big league, corporate bodies and advertisers breathing down the editor’s neck may force the drawing or article to be pulled. Should it be published, government watchdogs and state-sponsored bigots (cybertroopers) are the next obstacle. Many newspapers are forced to self-censor before they get to this stage.
Today, many of us are gagged because the bigots disagree with our views. The authorities use the power of a sedition charge to stop citizens from conducting a mature, intelligent discussion about major issues which affect our lives.
The threat of a sedition charge is a cowardly way of controlling and manipulating public behaviour. It is a sign of insecurity.
How much longer before the state and its agents start to censure people who disagree with them on minor issues? - FMT
The views expressed by the author may not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.

---