In a statement, Sangeet said there have been no updates or confirmation from the cops on Jorjet’s reported arrest and three-day remand, which expires today.
She said the case showed that the Sedition Act was “alive and kicking” in Malaysia despite Pakatan Harapan’s fierce opposition towards the controversial law in the past.
The daughter of the late DAP veteran Karpal Singh added that this contradicted the Madani government’s previous stand that the Sedition Act would be applied solely in cases involving insults to royalty or threats to national sovereignty.
“Has the Madani government forgotten its once fierce critique of this piece of legislation, especially in the context of criticism directed at the prime minister, who, as a public office holder, is subject to public scrutiny and criticism?
“The use of the Sedition Act in relation to online criticism of government officials is troubling and starkly inconsistent with the prime minister’s previous public stand, that the Sedition Act should not be used against those who criticise the prime minister and the government.
“Jorjet’s arrest is condemned, and this government is urged to provide an immediate explanation of its position in relation to the use of the Sedition Act in this case,” the Wanita DAP legal bureau chief said in a statement.
Jorjet was reportedly arrested under the Sedition Act and remanded for three days for allegedly posting a video critical of the prime minister, drawing criticism from opposition MPs.
Attempts by the press to get Bukit Aman’s comments on the arrest have been unsuccessful.
FMT has also reached out to the home ministry for comment.
‘Sedition Act amendments gazetted but not enforced’
Separately, Sangeet said checks on the Attorney-General’s Chambers found that amendments made in 2015 to the Sedition Act have yet to be enforced despite being gazetted 11 years ago.
This includes amendments to Section 3(1)(a) that remove the words “or against any government” from the definition of “seditious tendency”, thereby limiting its meaning to “a tendency to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any ruler”.
Sangeet said the government’s refusal to enforce this amendment, and continued use of it against its critics was proof that the Act was being applied selectively and inconsistently.
“Were the commitments to amend and/or repeal this law, and the representations made to the public as to how this law would be used, ever intended to be honoured?
“In a democratic society, the right to express views, including those that are critical, unpopular or uncomfortable, must be protected. The use of criminal sanctions in response to such expression cannot be a tool to curb dissent or intimidate the public.
“This government is reminded that the repeal of the Sedition Act was a stated part of the Madani reform agenda. Commitments to uphold fundamental liberties were central to the mandate it secured, and it must now be held to account for what appears to be an unexplained reversal of that position.”