COMMENT Yet again yesterday, heavy handed Malaysian “justice” was brought to bear on two Malaysians, both of whom have dedicated the better part of their lives to defending Malaysia and Malaysians.

Major Zaidi Ahmad of the Royal Malaysian Air Force was convicted by a military court yesterday for exposing the fact that the indelible ink used in the 13th general election was in fact not indelible.

Then, last night, lawyer Eric Paulsen was arrested for sedition on account of having tweeted: “Jakim is promoting extremism every Friday. Government needs to address that if serious about extremism in Malaysia.”

The two cases are different in many regards. In my view, however, they are similar in that two men who have contributed a great deal to Malaysia and Malaysians are being disproportionately targeted by the powers that be for reasons that are not entirely honourable.

Zaidi had a choice. He could have kept his head down, and remained quiet despite the fact that democracy crumbled around him.

The issue of indelible ink is not a small one. The function of indelible ink is to prevent individuals from voting more than once. Without such a marker, there is little to stop an individual from using different identity cards to vote multiple times.

Should this occur, then the most fundamental right of citizens in a democracy becomes compromised - the right to choose their own government in a free and fair election.

Zaidi chose to speak up this, as did countless other Malaysians. The difference, of course, was that he was a member of the Armed Forces, a demographic long considered a BN vote bank - in no small part because it is a demographic with curtailed rights that is by nature run authoritatively.

One such curtailed right, as we have seen in Zaidi’s case, is the right to speak freely in defence of democracy.

We learn from TV that American soldiers take an oath to defend their Constitution and the democracy it represents. I don’t know exactly what oath our soldiers take, but I’m fairly sure it’s not one to defend the government of the day at all costs.

It is not as if Zaidi was out there campaigning publicly for Pakatan Rakyat or anything. He simply said that a fundamental safeguard of democracy was not safe and it completely failed to guard.

To my mind, that is exactly what defending our country means.

Defending the most oppressed

Eric Paulsen had a choice too. He could have chosen any number of careers, and within the legal profession, any number of types of law to practise.

He chose to defend oppressed Malaysians for free.

I suppose by now most will know him as some anti-Jakim firebrand. I have known him for many years as an activist and a crusader for human rights.

Paulsen does a great deal of work on deaths in custody. I remember sitting in during the inquest into the death of D Dinesh, who was shot to death by the police in 2012. Paulsen represented the family.

Paulsen and his colleagues in the NGO Lawyers for Liberty, have represented the families of countless other such victims, as well as taken up a number of other public interest cases - quite a few recently involving sedition.

As it happens, even as Paulsen’s remand hearing was being held in the Dang Wangi police station lock-up (where he was represented by R Sivarasa), his Lawyers for Liberty colleagues were in Shah Alam on the first day of trial for a civil suit being brought by the family of Aminulrasyid Amzah against the government. Aminulrasyid was 15 years old when he was shot to death for allegedly running through a police roadblock.

While Paulsen’s resume may or may not have a direct bearing on whether he was right or not to write what he did, I personally feel that this is not the kind of Malaysian we need to spend our time and energy prosecuting.

I don’t know why Inspector-General of Police Khalid Abdu Bakar himself saw it fit to take time to report Paulsen’s arrest on Twitter, as if he had nabbed one of Malaysia’s biggest criminal masterminds.

Could Paulsen’s work in seeking justice for individuals and families who have suffered so much at the hands of the police made him a target?

Sedition Act still the core problem

Ultimately, the core issue in Paulsen’s case continues to be the Sedition Act. I continue to find the use of this law arbitrary and inconsistent, and the Act itself archaic and oppressive. Were it to be applied uniformly, with the utmost strictness, I’m sure half of Malaysia would be in jail right now.

This is not to say that I agree with all of the things said by everyone who has been charged with sedition. There is no doubt that some of it is racist, bigoted, ignorant or downright idiotic.

The only problem is, if it were lawful and just to throw everyone who uttered such statements at one point or another into jail, we would pretty much have to throw in the remaining half of Malaysians.

Some feel that people should be allowed to say absolutely whatever they want, no matter what the circumstances. Empirically, few - if any - countries allow for this. Most have hate speech laws of one kind or another.

Fair enough, perhaps, but the question rises: where do we draw the line? Some argue, wisely in my opinion, that as long as no incitement to violence is involved, arrests and legal prosecution are not necessary. We trust instead in the free marketplace of ideas.

Ultimately, I admit it’s not an easy line to draw. Nevertheless, I think it is absolutely safe to say that in Malaysia, we have drawn it in the wrong place, and that the line is not applied equally and fairly across the board. I don’t think I’ll flog the dead horse in asking why so many others have not been arrested for sedition.

20 cops to hold one lawyer?

I have had many disagreements with Paulsen and with others in Lawyers for Liberty, many times in public. I sometimes find their approach as disagreeable as, say, Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons.

Nonetheless, it has  never once crossed my mind that anything Paulsen might say would necessitate 20 police officers descending upon him in the dead of night. He is not some highly trained assassin a la Leon the Professional (as can be watched on YouTube)... Paulsen is an average-built, bespectacled officer of the court who probably wouldn’t hurt a fly.

It seems to me an injustice that he was detained and remanded for another two days, while the Paul Phuas of the world are treated as ‘national security assets’, and convicted murderers (whether justly or unjustly) can disappear.

I have no issue with those who feel that Paulsen was wrong to say what he did, but I think if we can all learn to rely on discourse rather than force - Malaysia will be far better for it.

Paulsen and Major Zaidi have stood up for us - even when they had nothing to gain from it, and even when it came at great personal cost. I think it’s time the rest of us stood up for them.


NATHANIEL TAN was once detained in the Dang Wangi lock-up. He takes the fact that they only sent a half dozen or so officers for him as a sign that he probably needs to exercise. R Sivarasa also represented him at his remand hearing, and also managed to get the magistrate to lower the number of days the police wanted him remanded. He is grateful to all who helped secure his release.

Related stories
 
IGP: Don't politicise Paulsen's arrest

Paulsen remanded over 'seditious' tweet

'IGP, arrest Mashitah and Ibrahim Ali, too'

Isma warns of 'ultra liberals' igniting discord