Opinion

The coexistence of government repression and state weakness

If you type “Malaysia human rights” in Google News, these are some of the headings you will find: “Malaysia uses specious terrorism threat to regress on human rights”, “Malaysia’s anti-terror and sedition laws ‘curtail’ human rights, warns UN rights chief” and so on.

The point is, there is almost nothing positive about the country’s human rights affairs.

We were once “delighted” when the controversial Internal Security Act (ISA) was repealed. In 2012, we were given the “promise” that the Sedition Act would also be repealed. But after two years or so, the Sedition Act is back and now with some “extra power”.

Let us again recall Malaysia’s 2013 pledge in its second cycle of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) in the United Nations Human Rights Council, and compare it with what we are facing today.

Below are some excerpts that I extracted from Malaysia’s national report in its second UPR.

I quote: “Following Malaysia’s first UPR in 2009, the government recognised that the development of civil and political rights in the country should keep pace with the significant progress made in economic, social and cultural rights…

“Among the most drastic measures taken by the government that underscores its serious efforts and commitment to protect human rights in Malaysia is the repeal of the much-criticised ISA. The ISA, which was enacted as a preventive law for curbing acts such as subversion and action prejudicial to public order was repealed with effect from July 2012.

“With the repeal of ISA, the practice of preventive detention was effectively ended. The discretionary power of the home minister to detain a person without court order had been removed. Sosma also guarantees necessary safeguards to detainee consistent with international human rights norms and standards such as right to counsel and notification to family members.”

What’s more interesting is the report’s conclusion.

This is how the first paragraph is written: “Malaysia’s unique and diverse society has long been characterised by tolerance, acceptance as well as moderation in terms of the political and religious convictions of its people.

“That said, the country’s inexorable march forward, particularly in expanding the space for freedom of expression, including of dissent and peaceful assembly necessarily means that the government must exercise utmost sensibility and sensitivity in upholding peace, stability and security of the country in accordance with the law.”

As the above excerpts show, we announced to the world that preventive detention was effectively dead.

Last week, however, detention without trial was revived.

It was revived through the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Pota). Pota allows the detention of people at the discretion of police for up to 59 days.

What’s more, it also allows the authorities to detain suspects without bringing them to court for renewable periods of two years for an unlimited amount of time, depending on the decisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Board.

Tougher amendments to the Sedition Act were also approved. In the name of maintaining stability, the maximum jail term was extended to 20 years from three years and a minimum three-year jail term was established for certain cases.

American academic and peace activist professor Michael Nagler said: “Once a state commits itself to a repressive posture, it’s going to have to intensify the violence and repression in order to uphold it, and at some point the repression will reach an intolerable level.”

As noted by Smithey and Kurtz in their 1995 argument on the paradox of repression, the repression of dissidence is always risky. Very often, it backfires and in return creates more opposition and commonly costs the regime legitimacy and, to some extent, even defections from its institutions of power.

What recently took place has proven that any battle between Putrajaya and its political opponents is unequal, since the state brings an overpowering superiority to any form of dissent.

But it misses a point: once repression becomes so oppressive that it arrives at the paradox, the use of repression can actually contribute to the instability of the regime that advocates it. Eventually, provocation will increase resistance against it. – April 13, 2015.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.

Comments

Please refrain from nicknames or comments of a racist, sexist, personal, vulgar or derogatory nature, or you may risk being blocked from commenting in our website. We encourage commenters to use their real names as their username. As comments are moderated, they may not appear immediately or even on the same day you posted them. We also reserve the right to delete off-topic comments