Malaysia’s government should scrap repressive laws while it still can

THERE ARE many ways this editorial could fall foul of Malaysian law. If it is too critical of Malaysia’s government, or of its courts, or of its system of racial preferences for Malays (the biggest ethnic group), or of its pampered and prickly sultans, it could be deemed seditious. If it contradicts the government’s account of any given event or circumstance, it could be in breach of the Anti-Fake News Act, adopted last year. Then there is a series of restrictive laws about who can publish what and who can give offence to whom (it is essential to steer clear of anything that might be construed by a paranoid prosecutor as an insult to Islam, in particular). These rules give the police an excuse to arrest irksome journalists and hand censors the authority to ban and seize offending material. If all else fails, a trio of laws that allow long periods of detention without trial can be used to lock up activists, opposition politicians or anyone else.

Happily, Malaysia is currently run by a coalition that is not inclined to use these sweeping powers. In part, that is because many senior figures from the Pakatan Harapan (PH) government were themselves tormented by the same laws while in opposition. The party in charge until elections last year, the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO), built an elaborately repressive edifice to keep itself in power. In addition to all the restrictions on freedom of speech, UMNO manipulated the electoral system, curbed public protests and prosecuted opponents on trumped-up charges. In the run-up to the vote, PH promised that, if it won, it would repeal or amend the laws that were being used to hobble it. But PH has been in office for over a year now, and the abusive rules remain on the books (see Asia section).

To be fair, when it comes to civil liberties, PH is streets ahead of UMNO. Journalists and opposition politicians regularly take the new government to task, without ending up in prison. It has called a halt to most—but not quite all—prosecutions under the laws it criticised while it was in opposition. It has appointed as attorney-general a man who has spent his career fighting against the manipulation of the law for political purposes. It is in the process of amending one of the laws at issue, to make it easier to hold public protests. And its failure to do more stems from trouble setting priorities (its manifesto contained 464 different initiatives), as well as opposition from UMNO and its allies which still control the upper house, rather than from any hidden authoritarian impulses.

Yet doing away with the government’s critic-cudgelling arsenal should be a much higher priority. Although many senior members of the government have been victims of UMNO’s repression, the prime minister, Mahathir Mohamad, himself a defector from UMNO, eagerly and frequently abused the government’s authority during a previous stint in power from 1981 until 2003. At one point he had over 100 critics detained without charge, in theory to preserve public order. Dr Mahathir (pictured) does genuinely seem to have turned over a new leaf, but it is only natural that defenders of civil liberties are not inclined to take his word for it when he promises that the law on sedition, for example, will soon be replaced by something more palatable.

Moreover, restoring political freedoms is not just one item on a long to-do list. It is the reform that underpins all others. The laws in question helped keep UMNO in power for 61 years without interruption, even when it was palpably unpopular. This is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to make politics fairer and more competitive. If PH does not get the economy going, it may wind up in opposition for a few years; if it does not refurbish Malaysia’s democracy, it may be out of office for a generation.

Try freedom

More important still, if Malaysians are not confident that they can voice their opinions and debate public policy without repercussion, then PH cannot hope to fulfil their aspirations, because it will not know what they are. Civil liberties are not a hindrance that fair-minded politicians must put up with. They are a tool to help them do their jobs well. UMNO ended up losing power because it did not have an accurate sense of just how unpopular it was. If it had not been so busy silencing its critics, it might have found better ways to answer them. ■