Homepage for Lim Kit Siang

Has Malaysia’s rule of law degenerated to the extent that a Deputy Home Minister can usurp and arrogate to himself the judicial function of declaring that the Utusan Malaysia had not committed sedition

Media statement
by Lim Kit Siang

(Penang, Tuesday): Deputy Home Affairs Minister Zainal Abidin Zin said yesterday that the Utusan Malaysia article which questioned the trust and loyalty of Malaysian Chinese as a result of Barisan Nasional's defeat in the Lunas by-election was not seditious.

Malaysiakini yesterday reported Zainal as saying:

"The words ‘Chinese voters cannot be trusted' are not seditious."

Zainal argued that saying somebody could not be trusted was a general term and should not be construed as being seditious.

Zainal said,

"For example, I can say, ‘You cannot be trusted' but that is not seditious."

It is both regrettable and deplorable that Zainal had chosen to make light the gravity of the Utusan article in inciting inter-communal disaffection and hatred in questioning the trust not of one person but of an entire ethnic community in a multi-racial society.

The article by Utusan Malaysia's Rozaman Ismail on Dec 1, referring to the Barisan Alternatif victory in Lunas, had said:

"Is it true that the Chinese voters in the country cannot be trusted anymore? Going by the figures polled by BN and BA, particularly in Chinese-majority areas, the most accurate answer would be ‘yes'."

Would Zainal be so lackadaisical and indifferent if the Barisan Nasional had won on Malay votes in Lunas, and Chinese or Tamil newspapers had carried an article which said that based on the by-election result, the Malay voters in the country cannot be trusted anymore?

I have no doubt that Zainal would have swung into immediate action on being informed of such an article and taken swift action against the Chinese or Tamil newspaper concerned for being insensitive, irresponsible, incendiary and downright seditious - and he would justify such a response as in the national interest of safeguarding inter-racial harmony and mutual respect.
Why then is Zainal adopting double standards now?

Zainal’s public stand in defending the seditious Utusan Malaysia article raises even more serious questions - has Malaysia’s rule of law degenerated to the extent that a Deputy Home Minister can usurp and arrogate to himself the judicial function of declaring that the Utusan Malaysia had not committed sedition in publishing such an offensive, inflammatory, racist and seditious article?

Have we reached a situation where as far as the Barisan Nasional government is concerned, certain newspapers like Utusan Malaysia are incapable of committing sedition although the same type of articles by other language newspapers would have attracted instant government reprisals, whether prosecution for sedition or suspension/withdrawal of printing licence?

Is this an indication that the police and the Attorney-General’s Chambers would not act seriously on any police report that the Utusan Malaysia article is seditious - as the Deputy Home Minister has already made a judicial pronouncement exonerating Utusan Malaysia of the offence of sedition?

The seditious Utusan Malaysia article questioning the trust of the Chinese voters in the country will be an important test case of the independence, impartiality and integrity of the police and the Attorney-General’s Chamber as well as the state of the rule of law in the country when a police report is lodged against it today.

I call on Zainal to openly admit that he had crossed the line of propriety in arrogating to himself the judicial function in pronouncing that the Utusan Malaysia article is not seditious when this should be the sole function of the judiciary and to publicly withdraw and apologise for his indiscretion for encroaching and usurping the powers and functions of the judiciary.

(5/12/2000)

*Lim Kit Siang - DAP National Chairman