GRAPHIC-ACTIVIST Fahmi Reza was arrested last Friday evening, and is being probed under the Sedition Act and Communications and Multimedia Act, over the satirical music playlist inspired by Raja Permaisuri Agong Tunku Azizah Aminah Maimunah Iskandaria’s Instagram comment, which went viral last week. There are divided views on Fahmi’s creative work – while many see it as an “insult” to the queen, still there are those who appreciate the satire.

Satire has been around since the early ages of ancient Greek. It’s a specific creative genre that is used to poke fun at people, ideas, customs or institutions, usually through humour.

However, satire is not just entertainment. Good satirical art should be able to provide the audience with a different perspective on understanding the society that we live in, promoting healthy national discourse that leads to improvement of the society. Thus, when viewing satirical work, it’s important to read it in the context from which the work is inspired.

Though not always required, satire typically uses humour, irony, parody or sarcasm to highlight issues worth debating. It is widely used in the world of politics, and some might even consider it as a form of alternative journalism. It needs to be built on facts for it to work, but presented in a way that is easier to digest as compared to hard news.

In some countries, satirical television shows exist and these tackle various difficult political and social issues, notable examples being The Daily Show with Trevor Noah and The Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, among many others. Satirical TV has established itself as a medium to examine American politics and media, promoting accountability and responsibility among people and institutions of power.

Even those who don’t keep close tabs on political news, too, turn into these kinds of shows to get their dose of current issues concerning them, making the genre an integral part of the country’s democracy.

Beyond the comedic front of a work of satire, it should be valued as what it is – a positive addition to a democratic society. By dismissing it to a mere insult is a kind of backward thinking mentality, which brings us to the oppressive laws, such as the Sedition Act 1948 in this particular case.

The Sedition Act, enacted during the British colonial era, sugarcoated its existence as a need to promote harmony, and it is almost always a slippery slope towards speech censorship and oppression. Back then it was used to strengthen their colonial rule over Malaya through the stifling of expression.

We inherited it and kept it in place for over seven decades, even though we have a federal constitution that guarantees our right to freedom of speech and expression.

Over the years our lawmakers have shown a lack of political will to abolish the act. The closest we’ve gotten to repealing the act was when Pakatan Harapan (PH) was in power, but even towards the end of the coalition, it was shown that even within, there was no consensus to table amendments or to repeal the act from a bygone era.

It’s very disappointing as the coalition rode on a platform that championed the abolishment of oppressive laws during the last general election but fell short and turned to politicking and power wrestling towards the end of its tenure.

Both Barisan Nasional and PH lawmakers expressed intention to repeal (or replace) the act, but the efforts were halted presumably from pressure from within the party itself, especially on how to deal with the issues related to the three rs – race, religion and royalty.

I believe that after over 60 years of independence, our nation is mature enough to maintain harmony with regard to the three sensitive areas without a colonial era law telling us how to do it.

In addition, there is the Communications and Multimedia Act, which the controversial provision section 233 makes it an offence when any internet user makes any communication which is “obscene, indecent, false, menacing or offensive in character with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass another person”. The terms above are so vague that it opens up to selective interpretation by those who are in power.

These two combined means that any Tom, Dick and Harry on the internet could fall prey to any person who wishes to invoke the law against you. It is so broad that any person can lodge a police report if they feel “annoyed” despite the fact that said person need not be the subject or intended recipient of the publication.

That being said, it doesn’t matter if you agree on the person or artist of a satirical piece, we should all agree that the laws that restrict free speech must go.

With oppressive laws dangling over our heads, there’s no question as to why there’s no established satirical content widely available in our country. Even the press often needs to tiptoe around “sensitive issues” to avoid being prosecuted.

The oppressive law sends a chilling effect that even news institutions have to operate under some sort of self-censorship to avoid punitive consequences. Needless to say, the majority of the internet users also choose to remain silent or cautious in their publications to avoid being targeted, which doesn’t suit the nature of the World Wide Web, a tool that was designed to promote the flow of information and discourse beyond barriers.

We’ve seen an increase in the use of draconian laws to silence dissent when it’s deemed unfavourable to the institution. Malaysian political cartoonist Zunar at one point faced nine counts of sedition charges but was cleared of his charges in July 2018.

It’s worth pointing out that he almost landed himself in trouble again early this year when his cartoon on the cancelled Thaipusam holiday in Kedah, which Kedah PAS Youth filed a police report calling for a probe against Zunar under the Sedition Act, once again proves that the Sedition Act is the go-to when one wishes to silence another.

Satire is not to be confused with publications that directly incite violence, which is clearly defined, and is punishable under different laws.

There will always be a place for satire to exist. It’s part and parcel of freedom of expression, an effective way to prompt people to think and understand the complex world that we live in, or at the very least provide a little humour and comfort.

After all, “you can’t make up anything anymore, the world itself is a satire, all you’re doing is recording it” – as told by American humourist and columnist Art Buchwald.

Therefore, satire should not be treated as a crime, and should not be made punishable by the law. – April 26, 2021.

* Kelvin Lee is a member of Agora Society. Both a dreamer and realist, he is constantly figuring out ways to balance the two. He believes that by defying the norm, one can pave the way for a better future.