IT’S exhilarating these days to see so much open discussion in cyberspace on so-called “sensitive” issues. Never have we engaged in talking about race, religion and politics with such vigor and interest. For that, we have to thank the online news websites, blogs and social media like Facebook.

The effect of this is that it has sparked more open discussions in other public spheres as well, even in the mainstream media, particularly those in the Malay and Chinese languages. Malaysians have become bolder and franker. They are rejecting the culture of fear.

It’s also scary. We have seen the racist tone emerge from a lot of people, and the number is surprising. But then that’s to be expected because it’s only now we are doing this. In the past, everything was swept under the carpet or suppressed. So now the shock of discovery is to be expected. A lot of people do think in racist terms.

The good thing is, it’s now out in the open. And that’s a whole lot healthier than keeping everything pent-up. It’s also good that we can now engage in discussion and debate with people of other races that we could not do before. There’s a lot to learn from such engagements.

We can disabuse people of the wrong knowledge they have about certain things, like what the Constitution really says about certain key aspects of Malaysian life.

Chief of these are Article 153, which clarifies the “special position” of the Malays; Article 3, which clearly states that Islam is “the religion of the federation”; Article 10, which grants every citizen the freedom of speech, the right to assemble peacefully and the right to form associations; and Article 11, which provides that every person has the right to profess and practice his own religion.

It’s appalling that many Malaysians don’t know at least the key articles of the Constitution. As such, they are not aware when the Government transgresses the provisions of the Constitution and abuses them for its own advantage, or when it fails to follow the rule of law.

Another revelation from the cyberspace debates is that a lot of people are in denial about what’s happening in Malaysia today and why we need reform. They refuse to see reality, even when it’s rationally explained to them, preferring to follow their tribal instincts, and when they run out of argument, they resort to name-calling. Like “traitor to the race” or “shit-stirrer” or worse. They cease to be logical. And that’s the sad thing.

The tendency to be illogical stems from irrational fear. It is like that fear exhibited by the group of young people known as 1Malaysia Graduates Youth Club who made a police report last September against the distribution of MyConstitution Rakyat Guides, part of the Bar Council’s laudable effort to make the Constitution understandable to Malaysians. Their objection to it smacks of classic illogicality. They feared that as more Malaysians were educated about their rights, it would encourage amendments to the Constitution. As such, they considered the effort seditious!

Instead of acknowledging the positive aspect of making Malaysians aware of what the Constitution is all about, they saw ulterior motives that were non-existent. If they had been better-informed, they would have realized that Article 159 states that the Constitution can indeed be amended. And that since Independence, our Parliament has already made about 650 amendments to it.

Sedition! That’s what has become a habitual invocation of late – by individuals and groups for good reason or for wanting to shut someone up for having said or done something they disapprove of.

Recent examples are Perkasa accusing MP Nurul Izzah Anwar of sedition for allegedly questioning the Constitution; National Union of Journalists (NUJ) president Hata Wahari calling for the Sedition Act to be used against Perkasa president Ibrahim Ali for inciting hatred among Malays towards others communities; International Islamic University law professor Abdul Aziz saying Mahathir Mohamad can be charged with sedition for questioning the status of vernacular schools; and the DAP calling for Utusan Malaysia to be probed for sedition for alleging a Christian plot to make Christianity the country’s official religion.

This has transpired because the floodgates of open discussion have been opened. And as it would be unwise to close them now, because it has dispelled erstwhile fears that such discussion could lead to riots, we need instead to remove the impediments that still hold us back. One such is the Sedition Act.

De facto Law Minister Nazri Aziz has just come out to say it should be scrapped, and he deserves support for it. Both sides of the political divide would be helping the country to progress by following this up and campaigning for the Act’s repeal.

Nazri is right in saying the Sedition Act has “no relevance in these modern times”. It was enacted in 1948, when the British ruled Malaya. As one of its features was to preempt “disaffection” against the government, it served to protect British rule. In later years, judging by the cases that have been brought to court, the Act has been wielded for the same purpose, but this time protecting the Barisan Nasional government. Besides, the provisions of the Act are vague and thus vulnerable to the practice of double standards.

An excellent illustration of this is the case brought up by the DAP against the inflammatory rhetoric espoused by Umno delegates at their 2006 general assembly, when words as seditious as these were said: “Umno is willing to risk lives and bathe in blood to defend the race and religion. Don’t play with fire. If they (non-Malays) mess with our rights, we will mess with theirs.” Although the DAP filed a police report on it, no action was taken.

On the other hand, over the years, Opposition politicians and non-BN-friendly bloggers have been the ones charged with sedition. The latest politician charged has been Selangor state assemblyman Shuhaimi Shafiei. And probably the most famous example is that of Lim Guan Eng, over the case of a chief minister alleged to have committed statutory rape on a schoolgirl.

Blogger Raja Petra Kamaruddin was charged with sedition in 2008 for writing an article that allegedly implied that Najib Razak and his wife were involved in the killing of Altantuya. Why that was considered seditious is a question still being asked.

Meanwhile, people like Ibrahim Ali and his Perkasa comrades have not even been ticked off for the blatant remarks they make that could engender “feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races” (Sedition Act wording). The newspaper Utusan Malaysia does the same but is defended by Umno ministers. For its recent false report on the unbelievable Christian plot – seditious by the Act’s provisions – it received a mere tap on the knuckles.

Clearly, the Sedition Act has been abused. And it’s out of place in a time when the Malaysian mind is opening up and the electorate needs maturing to reach the next level. Cyberspace has shown the way by facilitating open discourse; it’s now up to our elected representatives to push to open it wider. We need to speak freely if we want to grow up, and nothing should hold us back now.


*The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the writer.