COMMENT I come from a Chinese Christian family. I have been labelled "pendatang" and "Cina babi" all my life, but the Sedition Act is still irrelevant to me.
 
Well, many have said that Ibrahim Ali should be charged under the Sedition Act for threatening to burn the Bible. There are also racists and even principals who have labelled the Chinese as 'pendatang', or even 'Cina babi'.
 
Technically, these people have committed an offence under the Sedition Act for "promoting feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races" - Section 3(1)(e) of the Sedition Act 1948.
 
Yesterday, Khairy Jamaluddin claimed that the Bar Council walk against sedition has not made an impact because most Malaysians want safeguards against racially or religiously offensive speech.
 
Is that so? Do we not have safeguards in place?
 
In fact, I do not need the Sedition Act to protect me. I do not need the Sedition Act to criminalise people like Abdullah Zaik Abdul Rahman (left, in suit), Ridhuan Tee, Zulkifli Nordin or the infamous Ibrahim Ali.
 
Why? Firstly, it is stupid to try preventing stupid people from saying stupid things.
 
I believe that as a maturing democracy, what we can do about such unintelligent comments is to simply ignore them. It is akin to wind that carries a rotten smell. It does not hurt to ignore them.
 
But where do we draw the line?

Penal Code does the job
 
In cases where threats to burn mosques, churches or temples, Section 295 of the Penal Code is there for you. It is a statutory offence to 'destroy or damage places of worship with intent to insult other religion.
 
What if someone says something of your religion that hurts your feeling? Well, Section 298 of the Penal Code states it is an offence to intentionally hurt the physical feelings of another. 
 
Section 298 of the Penal Code is similar to the Sedition Act in a sense that it criminalises offensive speech against another religion. The only demarcation being the need to prove the intention under Section 298, to which the Sedition Act does not require so.
 
How does the Penal Code deal with speeches that offend one's religion, resulting in disharmony, disunity, feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will?

In Ibrahim Ali's case, where he threatened to burn the Bible in he Malay language, he would have fallen under Section 298A of the Penal Code.
 
Nowadays, anything and everything on the royalty is an offence. One cannot speak or criticise constructively, because it has seditious tendencies. 
 
There was a brief Twitter sensation with the hashtag #‎SultanBukanTuhan a while ago. People were being questioned and charged for comments made against the royalty.
 
Those comments, in my opinion, were uncalled for and ridiculous, but then again, stupid and unintelligent comments are all over theInternet, most of the time from anonymous Facebook or Twitter accounts. 
 
So the question arises - is it a crime to be stupid?

Boundaries to free speech
 
Freedom of expression? I would say it is pertinent, but such freedom is not an absolute freedom. So a line has to be drawn. 
 
Now, where is the line? Section 121 of the Penal Code protects the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, sultans and the Yang di-Pertua Negeri. 
 
It is an offence to "hurt, cause the death, imprison or restrain" the rulers. 
 
It is vital to note here that this section protects the physical security of the rulers. That's the demarcation.
 
So how do we deal with people who incites racial disunity that causes physical hurt to another? 
 
For example, if a racist incites a repetition of May 13, or a call to bathe the knife in he blood of a certain race? Sections 504 and 505 would be the answer. 
 
It is an offence to "insult with an intention to provoke a breach of peace" (Section 504) and also a crime to "make statements that incite public mischief" (Section 505).
 
These are some basic examples and there are plenty more in the Penal Code to safeguard racially or religiously offensive speech. 
 
All in all, the distinction between these provisions illustrated above and the Sedition Act is the very presence of an intention. The intention to cause physical hurt, death, public unrest and so on.
 
The problem with the Sedition Act is the disregard for such intentions. 
 
The presence of a seditious remark is all that is needed. This includes, someone hacking your Facebook or Twitter account by saying something 'seditious'. See the dangers now?


ADRIAN LIM CHEE EN is a Sabahan with Lawyers for Liberty. He tweets at @adrianlimcheeen.