ONE can’t help but laugh at Muhyiddin Yassin and Wan Saiful Wan Jan’s cries of power abuse over the government’s methods of dealing with dissent and criticism.

However legitimate the concerns raised by the opposition – and they are by no means trivial – freedom to dissent was heavily suppressed by the Muhyiddin administration. This was done for the sole reason of preventing the collapse of his government, who had lost the majority.

Muhyiddin was furious at the government’s alleged attempt to restrict the voice of the young people on TikTok; what he did not tell you was that the young people was defending were Perikatan Nasional supporters.

This was classic case of freedom of speech for me but not for thee. Freedom of expression is allowed so long as it serves your own purpose or to slander and discredit your political opponents.

People who called for Muhyiddin to step down during the punishing Covid lockdowns were not only ignored but harassed by police. 

If you’re unconvinced, look at the case of young Sarah Irdina, another victim of the Muhyiddin administration.

The 20-year-old was arrested under the Sedition Act 1948 over a “seditious” tweet asking the then prime minister to resign. She had demanded an end to the emergency and urged parliament to reconvene as soon as possible.

Sarah’s tweet was deemed so dangerous that she was questioned by the police for 10 hours.

Malaysians, in particular first-time voters, should not see Muhyiddin as a paragon of free speech.

The government does not have the power to force social media platforms such as TikTok to take down content. That is the prerogative of the company.

As Muhyiddin continues to throw tantrums over the regulation of his TikTok supporters, perhaps he should ask himself why it is so. Is it because their videos promote hate and violence?

Wan Saiful, the self-declared libertarian who once ran a reputable think-tank, must be aware of his hypocrisy when he spoke about the Pakatan Harapan government muzzling dissenters.

Clearly, the Tasek Gelugor MP does not grasp the concept of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.

He kept a dignified silence when countless social activists were arrested and charged when his party was in government. But like Muhyiddin, he now suddenly deems free speech to be a cause worth championing.

Lest I am accused of being partisan, I condemn the harassment of Perikatan Nasional MPs and activists for speaking up against nepotism. I am also wary of the government’s statement that free speech is allowed provided one does not spread lies and false information because what is true and false is decided by those in power.

However, it is clear that Muhyiddin and Wan Saiful are only giving lip service to free speech. They were never believers in the universality of free speech; it is not free speech if it is not accorded to all.

To the first-time voters whose right to free speech Muhyiddin is presumably defending, you should ask yourself whether Perikatan Nasional would be respond any differently to dissent if it was in power.

Do you believe in the universalism of free speech or Muhyiddin and Wan Saiful’s version of free speech? – February 19, 2023.

* 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.