THE signs of this government losing the plot is now very apparent when even the most ardent Pakatan Harapan (PH) supporters are staying silent on the use of the Sedition Act 1948 against the Kedah caretaker menteri besar. 

But keeping mum is perhaps the least damaging approach considering how the act was vehemently opposed when PH was in opposition.

No amount of explaining of how “seditious” Muhammad Sanusi Md Nor’s statement was would absolve the fact that PH has reneged on its promises of abolishing the draconian law.

PH may argue this is a charge that was above politics since police purportedly took actions after the report made by the Selangor Council of the Royal Court, whose loyalty lies with the state sultan and independent of the executive.

However, it is inescapable from the eyes of the public that many PH operators were incensed by Sanusi’s remarks and made individual police reports on the grounds he had committed a lèse-majesté against the Selangor sultan.

It is also worth noting PH has been banging on punitive action against Sanusi’s remarks, only to push the responsibility on others when police finally acted.

The Sedition Act 1948 was crafted during the colonial era to shield the state from political uprising and rebellion.

Its design was to intimidate, silence and penalise political dissent and has led to countless violations of freedom of expression – something PH has borne the brunt of and never failed to remind us of when it was in opposition.

And since successive governments have not mustered the political will to abolish nor define what may be construed as seditious, the act continues to be a potent tool for the government to exert control and muzzle political critics.

Thus, the application of the act has always been political in nature and this idea that the government acted in good faith and merely enforced the rules would not have convinced even those most sceptical of Sanusi.

The truth is, Sanusi’s rhetoric and campaigning for the state elections rattled PH to a point the government responded politically. 

PH must have understood invoking the act would not sit well with its supporters, but equally, Sanusi has become a political threat it cannot ignore.

Ideally, a government should have a clear advantage over the opposition, which could only, at most, dissent and dispute the sitting government.

As opposed to rhetoric and empty talk, a well-crafted policy or a government vision promoted by the government machinery and funded by national coffers should be more persuasive in winning over voters.

However, the current government is stalling on reforms, offering very little in the nation’s economic recovery and thus far failing to convince the public with its Madani vision.

The opposition is bound to benefit electorally and if the government continues to falter, moderates might even be tempted to vote for a Trumpian figure like Sanusi as a sign of protest.

Speaking of Sanusi, I have previously said arresting and charging this populist will not have the chilling effect that the government wants.

Instead, making him a martyr would only make him more popular and embolden his supporters.

As a struggling federal government facing state elections in less than a month, the last thing you need is a national populist crying political persecution with an energised base.

The outcome of the state elections may have already been decided when the police decided to arrest Sanusi in such a heavy-handed manner.

Historically, the Sedition Act 1948 was used most widely when the government suffered from a trust deficit or under certain political pressure.

The act was most used under the Najib administration when it was engulfed in the 1Malaysia Development Bhd scandal; and the same could be said for the first PH government when it decided to suspend the moratorium on the act in the face of escalating racial tensions due to the 2018 Sri Maha Mariamman temple riots. 

To be using the act in such a way against PN’s “poster boy” is nothing but a political manoeuvre. 

It is a clearest sign that PH would value political survival over delivering reforms. Crucially, it is also a sign of a weak government that is running out of ideas. – July 23, 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”.