THE recent rejection of independent Muslim preacher Wan Ji Wan Hussin’s appeal against his sentence for making seditious remarks against the Sultan of Selangor has reignited questions around the present-day relevance of the Sedition Act 1948: Whether the government is serious about revising the law and the extent to which freedom of speech covers the Malaysian institutional monarchy’s affairs being made public.
(Wan Ji was, however, granted a stay of the one-year jail sentence by the Shah Alam High Court on July 12 pending appeal.)
While Malaysia does not have lèse majesté laws that criminalise defaming, insulting or threatening the king and its regency, Malaysia’s sultanate affairs are governed by and protected under the Federal Constitution.
Matters regarding the co-existence of Malays, the sultan and Islam are mainly administrated under Article 153 of the Federal Constitution, which refers to Malay rulers’ responsibility for “safeguard(ing) the special position of the Islamic religion, national language, special position of the Malays and Bumiputeras and the legitimate interests of other races”.
Questioning this policy, the privileges, position and powers of the sultans, and the position of the Malays are also prohibited under the Constitution (Article 10(2)) and the Sedition Act. These issues need to be carefully handled to avoid national instability.
The Yang di-Pertuan Agong’s provision of support for the government to rule and promote democracy is entrenched under various Articles in the Federal Constitution. It covers the king’s responsibility as the symbol of a united Malaysian society comprising diverse ethnicities (Article 153), and as having executive roles as head of state, head of the Islamic religion (Article 3) and supreme commander of the armed forces (Articles 38, 39 and 40(1)).
The Yang di-Pertuan Agong also appoints certain important positions at the legislative and executive level, such as the prime minister and attorney-general (Article 40), as advised by the cabinet.
THE CONCEPT OF WA-ULIL AMRI MINKUM (AND THOSE ENTRUSTED WITH AUTHORITY AMONGST YOU)
Are the sultans immune from criticism under the law and to what extent can sultans’ matters be made public (excluding those mentioned in Article 153)? To answer this question, we need to consider first, the legislative aspect and second, what Islam says about obeying the ruler.
Prior to the 1993 amendments limiting the king’s power on the executive level, a Hansard record of Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s speech before Malaysia’s Dewan Rakyat on Feb 14, 1993, stated that Parliament passed a motion to permit commoners to criticise the sultans, even the king, without fear of the Sedition Act, except on matters questioning the legitimacy of the monarchy itself.
Whereas, in Surah An-Nisaa verse 59, Islamic scholars unanimously agree that while there is unconditional obedience to the Prophet and God, the obedience to Ulil Amr (those in authority) should be parallel in matters that align with clear commands from Allah and His Messenger.
Wan Ji reportedly questioned the status of the sultan as the head of Islam, claiming most of the sultan’s actions were not in line with Islamic teachings. Likewise, associating the sultan with derogatory words is also not recommended in Islam.
Because if God could still ask Prophet Musa A.S. to speak to the pharaoh via a gentle, soft and delicate speech (so that it might soften his heart), (Quran, 20:44), why could not Wan Ji use the same approach?
After all, the sultan is not as bad as the pharaoh; but we are also not in a position to decide if the sentence is harsher than Wan Ji’s crime. Nonetheless, based on the parliamentary official record (Hansard) noted above, by questioning the existence of the constitutional monarchy and the sultan’s position, Wan Ji has gone beyond what the Hansard allows.
However, from a social justice and humanitarian standpoint, the sentence was unprecedented, as previous cases tried under the Sedition Act have resulted
in fines rather than imprisonment.
This exception needs to be justified, especially when the government continues to mention reforming freedom of speech in Malaysia to meet international human rights standards as has been recently reaffirmed by the prime minister prior to this case.
It is clear the sultan is not immune to criticism provided it does not question his status.
As Wan Ji’s ambitions are rather impractical and farfetched, clear proof that his actions might constitute a threat to national security is needed to justify his sentence.
In terms of the ethno-religious cultural sensitivity that encircles freedom of speech, perhaps the central issue at the moment is to resolve how the public can exercise their freedom of speech without sidelining Asian values or falling foul of the Sedition Act.
This model should also consider its performance under a variety of political, historical, cultural and geographical conditions that differ from the Western setting.
Yet, such a model would be futile and won’t guarantee press freedom and responsibility if much of the media remains under restrictive laws, like the Sedition Act 1948 and the Official Secrets Act 1972.
The writer, a Muslim feminist and researcher and a believer in biophilia, is working on her PhD project, “Understanding Islam and Asian values within social responsibility context in Malaysian journalistic practices: a critical ethnography”.