As the Malaysian prime minister implements change and moves to create a “functional and inclusive democracy,” the future of freedom of speech in the country looks brighter. But Malik Imtiaz Sarwar believes it’s still too soon to celebrate
The Malaysian prime minister, Najib Razak, recently announced the government’s intention of repealing the Internal Security Act, a controversial law that allows for detention without trial for indefinite periods at the subjective discretion of the Home Minister. Declaring also that the government would do away with the requirement of permits for newspapers and review the need for a police permits for public assemblies as well as see to the revocation of several proclamations of Emergency that have allowed for the continued use of draconian emergency laws, Mr Najib explained that the step was aimed at creating a functional and inclusive democracy.
Though welcome, the announcement has been met with some skepticism. Malaysians have grown accustomed to electioneering and the imminence of the next, and crucial general elections, is seen as having prompted the besieged prime minister and government to embark on a populist campaign aimed at persuading a beleaguered electorate to allow them to remain in power. Put simply, Malaysians are not convinced that words will translate into action.
While this is in part due to the lack of concrete details as to how and when the proposed steps are to be taken, it is the track record of Mr Najib and his two immediate predecessors, Dr Mahathir and Adullah Badawi, on the matter of civil political rights that fuels disquiet and suspicion. All three administrations are known for having used the laws under consideration, along with a range of other anti-democratic laws, and their influence over the key institutions of state for political purposes. In the minds of many, the subjugation of the Rule of Law has been so extensive so that there is no longer a line between politics and governance where the incumbent government is concerned.
It is this context that has given rise to suspicions as to the government’s sincerity. Mr Najib’s case has not been assisted by his declaration that two new security laws will be introduced, laws which according to Mr Najib’s colleagues will still allow for preventive detention so as to allow the state to deal with terrorism, and racial and religious extremism. How this will free Malaysians to think progressively, as Abdullah Badawi suggests the step will allow, is not apparent and concern has been raised that the new security laws will merely repackage the worst of the allegedly outgoing laws and permit abuses to continue. Details of the proposed replacement laws are yet to be made public.
Even if Mr Najib is to be given the benefit of the doubt, and his stated aspiration of having Malaysia evolve into a more functional democracy taken as being sincere, there is concern that Mr Najib may not have the backing he needs to see the move through. For one, it appears that Mr Najib’s cabinet may have been surprised by the prime minsiter’s stance. Just a day or so before the announcement, the home minister denied any move on the part of the government to have the Internal Security Act repealed.
In the same vein, though Mr Najib declared that the matter would be taken up in parliament as early as October, the minister having oversight of parliamentary affairs informed the media that the new security laws would only be tabled next year, even as he emphasised the continued need for preventive detention laws.
Equally worrying are expressions of discontent and reservations about the wisdom of the intended step by conservative and hardliner elements within Mr Najib’s political party, the United Malay National Organisation (UMNO), and the network of organisations that support the party. Amidst talk of there being infighting within UMNO, it is possible that Mr Najib may be forced to back down or risk being defeated on a vote in parliament. His immediate predecessor, Abdullah Badawi, has recently confirmed how he faced strong opposition within the party in his own efforts to push for reform during his tenure.
It is perhaps significant that even as Mr Najib speaks of embracing a more progressive democracy, a leader of the opposition has been charged with criminal defamation for having offered a perspective, albeit an unpopular one, on guerillas affiliated with the Malayan Communist Party prior to independence. The suggestion by Mr Mat Sabu that the guerillas involved in a particular incident, which resulted in the deaths of a number of Malayan police officers were, were freedom fighters and heroes was deemed by the Public Prosecutor to have smeared the reputations of the police officers concerned and their families. How so has become the subject of debate to the detriment of Mr Najib.
It is as such too soon to celebrate. Satisfaction can however be taken in the fact that there is now official recognition that laws such as the Internal Security Act no longer have a place. For civil society this comes as vindication and proof that the years of activism on the subject have not been in vain. And if there is any more campaigning to be done, it will be staged with the renewed vigour that this has allowed for.
Malik Imtiaz Sarwar is a lawyer in Kuala Lumpur and the President of the Malaysian National Human Rights Society (HAKAM). He was the recipient of the 2009 Index on Censorship, Freedom of Expression Award for Law and Campaigning
