SECTION 124(B) MALAYSIAN PENAL CODE – PAR FOR THE COURSE

[1] “Whoever, by any means, directly or indirectly, commits any activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to twenty years.” screams Section 124(B) which, by its own design and definition, was originally intended for violent acts like coups or armed insurgency but is now politically designed and proactively destined to go after journalists, activists and others linked to political controversies. This vexatious Section outrages the due process of the law and the presumption of innocence.

[2] Mind you, the Malaysian Penal Code was imported from India in 1936 which had a population of 300 million souls during the time Thomas Babington Macaulay drafted it in the 1850s. Indian and Malayan adat are a bad fit, yet it was shoehorned into our collective psyches. Macaulay remains a heavily criticized and often hated figure in India, largely because he is viewed as the architect of a colonial education system that aimed to diminish Indian culture and languages. But the “colonial sahibs” in 1936 agreed to import and include their colonial mindsets into our nascent and inchoate democracy.

[3] Section 124(B) forces us back to basics: The phrase “parliamentary democracy” is not enumerated or defined in the Federal Constitution even under Article 160 (Interpretation). So, where do we turn to for a proper and adequate definition or explanation to determine, decide and declare what this phrase means for the purposes of the rule of law? However, “political party” is awkwardly defined which pits and puts the Opposition under the glare of Section 124(B).

[4] The word “indirectly” in Section 124(B) seems to suggest that even if you thought about toppling or overthrowing the government or invited a foreign government to aid and assist in this enterprise, you can be charged, tried, and punished. In GE-15, Malaysian voters toppled and overthrew Barisan Nasional. Does this count as a violation of Section 124(B)? After all, “parliamentary democracy” under Barisan Nasional was directly rejected and ejected with intent to displace and replace a rogue system of governance since Merdeka!

[5] “Any activity” under Section 124(B) would be a distinct disadvantage to the Opposition if it intends to replace “parliamentary democracy” with, say, a theocracy. So, will the entire Opposition be questioned, remanded, charged, tried and punished? Ludicrous proposition, right? What about a rogue government that threatens economic stability resulting in uncontrollable and unstoppable inflation and reducing the ringgit’s purchasing power that causes public unrest? Isn’t that any activity that is directly or indirectly detrimental to parliamentary democracy? Shouldn’t the government serve twenty years in prison if charged and found guilty in a court of law or in the court of public opinion for breaching Section 124(B)?

[6] “Parliamentary democracy” is defined in Political Science treatises thus: “a system of government in which citizens elect representatives to a legislature to make the necessary laws and decisions for the country. This parliament directly represents the people.” This definition begs a simple question: Are voting citizens consulted priorto their elected representatives making the necessary laws and decisions for the country? Are the elected representatives of the exact same mindset of their trusting constituents? Does every elected representative know the names of at least 50% of their constituents? Are elected representatives sharing the pains and gains of their constituents?

[7] Another definition of “democracy” that I found distasteful and reprehensible: “Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” A whole different ball game erupts into existence the moment you appoint and anoint some entity to design and structure a government for the people. YAB Rakyat must sign up for courses in Political Science which this author’s College in Switzerland offers for enthused students.

[8] Who does the Malaysian government serve? That is the key question that YAB Rakyat demands an honest answer to. The Federal Constitution does not address this pivotal question being that it is the supreme law of the land. So, where do we turn to for answers? The government courts, RCI, the court of public opinion. Or to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong who has constitutional power and authority to summon the Special Court under Article 182 Federal Constitution?

[9] Article 124(B) is also applicable to any rogue government running amok with applied fictions of the rule of law that met its inevitable fate on 9 May 2018 when GE-15 ousted Barisan Nasional. Therefore, any government including the Madani government, better be aware what it means to directly or indirectly, commit any activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy. You desecrate parliamentary democracy when you use Section 124(B) to go after the whistleblower, the truth seeker, or fact exposer.

[10] Going after Bloomberg or any other person that dares to show up, stand up, speak up, and shake up things is not violating Section 124(B) unless investigative journalism is a crime despite the constitutional freedom of the press. Parliament, reportedly, is tabling a few Bills, one of which is limiting the prime minister to two terms in office. Nobody thought about this in 1981 when the Machiavellian centurion ruled, reigned, raged and razed freedoms, reined in dissidents, and rained terror until 2003 being the incorrigible recalcitrant that he was.

[11] Parliamentary democracy is defined by the peoples’ will, wishes, expectations, aspirations and willingness, so why even limit through constitutional amendment the prime minister to two terms regardless whether he or she is approved, selected and elected by YAB Rakyat? I am not suggesting we hang on to PMX, but merely seeking an explanation to the meaning of “parliamentary democracy” when YAB Rakyat can be sidelined because of Article 159 (Amendment) Federal Constitution which does not impliedly or expressly limit ministerial terms of office.

[12] Isn’t parliamentary democracy being threatened by proven kleptocracy and evident kakistocracy where a theocracy is being birthed with experienced midwives’ conscious of the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion? Why is Section 124(B) not thrust upon these perpetrators who are directly or indirectly committing detrimental acts to parliamentary democracy? Come on, PMX, even stupidity and apathy have sustainable definition and description. What, why, and when is your “Reformasi” philosophy relevant to this current status quo? Are you serving YAB Rakyat or some other clarion call to a government of elitists? Fascist Section 124(B) must be repealed to evidence political maturity.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////