COMMENT Merdeka Day this year was going to be about pulling together. It was more sombre than most other celebrations, but we expected that so close after the first victims of MH17 started coming home.
 
Two telco companies hit the nail on the head when they focused on how Malaysians are already one big family with many of us referring to one another as brother, sister, aunty, uncle and even brother-in-law. This was going to be a Merdeka day of quiet contemplation, of pulling together to move the nation forward like in a Petronas advertisement.
 
Instead, all our attention focused upon how we were pulled apart. So many members of parliament have been charged with sedition that there would have to be at least 10 by-elections if they were all convicted. Some 150 individuals were arrested in Penang, snatched out of a Merdeka parade and sent directly to a police station.
 
An academic, a law lecturer, was charged with sedition on Tuesday for offering his legal opinion. In Sabah, another elected representative was charged with sedition for allegedly "insulting Islam". Yesterday, a journalist was also probe for sedition for reporting and quoting a politician who was among those arrested in Penang on Merdeka day.
 
At the risk of raising the ire of the authorities, one's mind boggles at this recent spate of police and legal action against dissenting views. Using the Sedition Act as a "catch all" is doubly ironic because the prime minister had promised to do away with the law.
 
It is therefore rather baffling that we have heard nothing from the prime minister regarding the matter. Are we to conclude that the actions of the home minister, the attorney-general and the inspector-general of police reflect the collective opinion of the cabinet and the prime minister?
 
What can we say and what can't we say? If all citizens are equal under the law, one would expect the same treatment meted out to all those whose opinions and actions caused "disharmony" and "disturbs the peace". Here is where the Sedition Act is so open to abuse.
 
As a law that allows the government to take preventive steps, even though one's comments do not lead to disharmony or any public disturbance, it is up to the authorities to make that evaluation.
 
So, the logic goes that if comments are made against liberals, who are generally regarded to be better educated and therefore less prone to violence, one does not have to arrest the commentator because the comments are not likely to cause "disharmony" or "disturbs the peace".
 
However, if comments are made on issues that the authorities judge to be likely to cause great distress, disharmony and disturbs the peace because those offended are less educated then it is only logical that action be taken against the commentator. This risk assessment can be measured by the number of police reports made against the said commentator.
 
An obsolete law
 
One other aspect of preventive measures like the Sedition Act is that intention is not very important. So long as the said comment is judged seditious, the commentator can be prosecuted and disposed of by legal means. The reality is that one can expect very little justice as the courts do not have to power to impose heavy fines for the bad judgement of the authorities.
 
Who is the best judge of the "security risks" than the officer on the ground. Former IGP Hanif Omar made that very clear when he assumed responsibility for the mass arrests carried out during Operasi Lalang. Whilst Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who was then the PM, could fire the IGP, he could not overrule the IGP's assessment of the "situation".
 
There is of course one startling difference between 1987 and 2014. Thirty years ago, there was no internet and Malaysia was a very different country. Today, all the fiery talk by politicians and their pundits are circulated via Twitter, Facebook and other social networking devices. It is known instantly and at a very fast rate.
 
If these comments that are deemed "seditious" have yet to cause mass unrest and "disturbance", it is obviously confined to those who lodge police reports and not many else. The PM is therefore correct in his original assessment that the Sedition Act has truly outlived its usefulness and that other laws need to be put in place to ensure ethnic and religious harmony.
 
Youth and Sports Minister Khairy Jamaluddin said the other day that the Sedition Act had to be applied because other laws have yet to be enacted. If that is the case, surely it is unjust to use the Sedition Act as a dragnet to deal with dissenting views, 90 percent of which just so happen to be expressed by members of the opposition.
 
Whilst all right-thinking Malaysians know about the struggles to capture the soul of Malaysia, we need to fight ideas with better ones. The attempted use of the sledgehammer does not bode well with a reformist government.
 
If the authorities want to ensure a peaceful and forward thinking Malaysia, it must start by quickly pushing through the reforms that it promised Malaysians. The government should be reminded that it was the BN politicians who put forth concepts like Vision 2020, Bangsa Malaysia and 1Malaysia.
 
Some of these policies are not well articulated but they all point to a progressive and developed nation where ethnicity, religion and economic achievement will not divide us. Unfortunately, we are further away from this fact than ever before.
 
It is really quite ironic that on the 57th year of Merdeka and on the eve of Malaysia Day, when Malaysia needs the healing power of unity more than ever, we mar the celebrations with actions that continue to give the impression that we are breaking apart the bonds that have made us successful and resilient.

The Sedition Act and laws of its ilk have very little place in a country that is supposed to be a developed nation in six years’ time. Our fear is that we are drifting further from Tunku Abdul Rahman's vision of a happy Malaysia and ever closer to the guided democracy of our southern neighbour.
 
Challenging ideas, insensitive comments and downright provocative statements must be evaluated for what they are: criticism, rudeness and hate speech respectively. They cannot be lumped together and used as an excuse to do away with those we consider "in the way".
 
That would really deny the vision and contributions of all our founding fathers and mothers; a peace that is not worth keeping like the colonial state our ancestors threw out.
 

NEIL KHOR completed his PhD at Cambridge University and now writes occasionally on matters that he thinks require better historical treatment. He is quietly optimistic about Malaysia's future.