The sound of free speech cracking in Malaysia


Kenneth Cheng Chee Kin

Siti Nuramira Abdullah is led away by police following her performance of a comedy skit deemed insulting to Islam. No authority should arrest people for a speech or expression, regardless of how unpopular, wrong, stupid or distasteful it is. – The Malaysian Insight file pic, July 17, 2022.

WITH regard to the Crackhouse Comedy Club fiasco, I, as a liberal, have struggled over the question of whether to fully subscribe to the ideals of free speech.

The scenario I often conjure up in my head is whether I would have the capacity to tolerate and stay calm when another person abuses my family and friends in the foulest language.

Fundamentally, free speech means freedom to express oneself without censorship, interference, and restraint.

And the best way to safeguard free speech is to speak freely without rebuke or repression.

No authority should arrest people for a speech or expression, regardless of how unpopular, wrong, stupid or distasteful it is.

If the state is allowed to be the arbiter of what is deemed appropriate speech, then every speech under the sun is subject to censorship at the convenience of the government.

I am in no way defending Siti Nuramira Abdullah and her boyfriend, but the right to free speech is sacrosanct as enshrined in our Federal Constitution.

Malaysians must understand that no one should be subjected to criminal investigation and punishment for exercising their right to free speech.

We can be offended by someone’s speech but that should not translate into encouraging the government or police to act against the offender.

It is disheartening to see how Malaysians have reacted to Siti Nuramira’s actions – by calling for her arrest.

The most disappointing aspect of the affair is that it has shown up the people who are only agreeable to the ideals of free speech so long as they work for them.

Free speech is the lifeblood of the comedy business because the acts are built on provocation and insult with the aim of raising a laugh.

The guarantee of free speech is imperative for any comedian to perform to his fullest potential.

Instead, the Crackhouse Comedy Club has proceeded to make a police report against Siti Nuramira.

Established comedians like Jason Leong, Douglas Lim and Harith Iskandar have also been quick to  condemn Siti Nuramira, accusing her of sabotaging the industry.  

The club and comedians have done themselves and the their industry a disservice in selling Siti Numara down the river in the name of “protecting” their calling.

It is fair to criticise Siti Nuramira for disobeying the ground rules and bar her from Crackhouse, but to report her performance to police is excessive. This encourages the authorities to behave in an even more heavyhanded manner.  By not standing up for the woman’s right to free speech, the comedy club is contributing to the repression of basic human freedoms.

In any case, the club’s attempt to distance itself from the show has proved to be an abysmal failure because its licence remains suspended. One of its owners has even been arrested for a previous comedy performance deemed an affront to race and religion.

This is the dangerous line that comedians and the industry are forced to walk because of their failure to defend free speech.

Regardless of how inappropriate Siti’s performance was, it had not led to injuries or damage to property.

There is absolutely no need for Crackhouse to make a police report to provide the authorities with more ammo to crack down on free speech.

As for those comedians sympathetic to Crackhouse, some of them have found fame by making fun of those in power with jokes that could be easily interpreted as provocation and insult.

What are the guarantees that the authorities will not punish those who insult politicians in the future now that you have effectively allowed the state to tell you what is and is not funny?

Jokes about Tajuddin Rahman’s “Jangan cuba nak probok-probok” and Adham Baba’s “Spanish fly” comments could be easily perceived as having the intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass another person under section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act.

Crackhouse and those comedians have helped to set a dangerous precedent. – July 17, 2022.

* Kenneth Cheng has always been interested in the interplay between human rights and government but more importantly he is a father of two cats, Tangyuan and Toufu. When he is not attending to his feline matters, he is most likely reading books about politics and human rights or playing video games. He is a firm believer in the dictum “power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will”.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.



Sign up or sign in here to comment.


Comments


  • I agree with Kenneth. The jokes some of the comedians can easily be charged under the same section. Are they opening the flood gates of action by the authorities? The Club has definitely over reacted by making a police report. Its all to protect themselves preemptively. Shame on the Crackhouse for its cowardice in protecting free speech and I think we should all boycott that place for this stupid action, unless it comes out with an apology. To err is human, to forgive is divine

    Posted 1 year ago by Brave Malaysian · Reply