Malaysianisms : Yesterday, I engaged with some comments about the role of language in national identity, and the lenses that different demographics of Malaysia apply to this debate.
A very brief metaphysical overview ( ontological question : what exists, to be discussed? ) of this is :
** Under the Law / Formally **
1. The national Constitution differentiates 'classes of citizen' by certain 'traits', such as the use of a particular language.
2. Each class of citizen is subsequently attached to differentiated sets of rights.
3. There is no legal requirement to obtain knowledge of any language, unless one wishes to gain admittance to certain classes. The use of specific languages is necessary, but insufficient, for admissions to a class, based on the given class definitions.
** Under the Law / Less Formally **
4. Under the Constitution, but subsequently nuanced under subsidiary legislation, and at the whim of by executive policy, both drawn up over the years, there have existed ( and expired ) a number of policies with varying degrees of controversy. Some policies embedded specific structures into the the economic history of the nation, and in hindsight may or may not have been the best way to do things. These continue to be be an interesting class of contemporary debates.
** Above the Law / Informally **
5. There is a great discourse about national identity, and whether a certain language is necessary for informal assignment of national identity. ( Basically some believe that if you don't know language X, it makes you less Y. )
6. There remains room for (5.) to feedback to (4.), and even in the distant future maybe to (1-3.)
** Meta-philosophical Concern : Act 15, The Sedition Act 1948 ( Amended 2015 ) **
7. Most recently, the 2015 amendment to this law was "approved by the King on May 28, 2015 and published in the Gazette on June 4, 2015," thus forming the most recent official copy of the law.
8. As recently as 2023-SEP-08, officials such as the Inspector General of Police have called into question the citability of the correct law, as recent amendments may or may not have been included by recent publishers. ( https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2023/09/08/books-on-sedition-law-should-include-2015-amendment-to-prevent-public-confusion-on-3r-offences-says-ex-igp-musa-hassan/89637 ) An updated PDF could not be found under site:agc.gov.my via Google as of 2024-DEC-10. A Malay version updated to 2006 may be found here ( https://mediamalaysia.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Akta-15-Akta-Hasutan-1948.pdf ).
9. The legality of discussions ** about ** items (1-6.) should be given due consideration in light of (7, 8.).
10. Paraphrased, the Sedition Act, forbids causing :
- 10.1. ... { dissatisfaction, hated, contempt, disaffection/disloyalty } to any { ruler, government, administration of justice } ;
- 10.2. ... incitement of attempts to do anything illegal ;
- 10.3. ... incitement of ill-will or hostility between any groups ;
- 10.4. ... the calling into question ( Malay : "mempersoalkan", defined extrinsically by the Dewan Bahasa & Pustaka as "raising as a question, turning into a question, analysing, discussing, debating" ), matters discussed in Articles 152, 153 or 181 of the Constitution. ( Act 15, Section 3, Subsection 1,f ... which I shall find amusing to hashtag : #1531f ) ;
- 10.5. ... the (creation or distribution) of any (content with a tendency to be seditious), regardless of any intention or absence of intention ( 'actus reus', without 'mens rea' ) ... thus making it possible to be guilty by accident.
11. Therefore, in the BROADEST interpretation the stated topics are strictly taboo, not even to be discussed, which cannot possibly be the correct interpretation. However a NARROWER interpretation of "calling into question" may allow for statements to be made, as long as they comply with the rest of the Sedition Act.
12. So, in the discussion of (1-6.) it may be then be inferred, you DO NOT want to :
- 12.1. ... phrase any (sensitive matter) as a question ;
- 12.2. ... say that any (sensitive matter) should not be the case ; that it is the case in law should be taken as a given, if the law is clear ; however since the purpose of any law is to be read, interpreted, and enforced, it appears that interpreting the law must be allowed to allow the law to fulfill its own purpose ; this will probably have to go to court if you challenge it, and there may not be bail while you wait ;
- 12.3. ... incite any attempts to illegally modify (sensitive matter) ;
13. Finally, what does that leave us with allowances to DO in the discussion of (1-6.) ? Perhaps :
- 13.1. ... stating ( without question ) that something that is stated in law, any subsidiary legislation, and related executive policies, are facts ;
- 13.2. .... stating ( without question ) the observation that any items of (13.1) have had specific consequences, physical or mental, with evidences provided ; phrased in an arbitrarily non-seditious fashion.
That is probably hard!
14. The main concern I had across (1-13.) was, am I allowed by law to say some of the things I have said? For example, that the Constitution and its subsidiary executive policies over the years have caused division among Malaysians, that this is a fact, and that it is a grievous fact, of national proportions?
15. I have just said it anyway. But I grew up in this country assuming that I would be powerless to stop myself from being locked-up at anytime, so generally I am prepared for that.
Good evening!
- ... Printing Presses and Publications Act ( Act 301 )
- ... Communications and Multimedia Act ( Act 555 )
- ... Official Secrets Act ( Act 88 )
No comments :
Post a Comment