This past weekend police violently broke up an opposition rally in the streets of Kuala Lumpur, highlighting once again the lack of certain freedoms in Malaysia. The rally was called to protest a security law that allows the government to preventatively detain certain defendants indefinitely without charges. The Internal Security Act of 1960 has been consistently used by the Malaysian government to silence critics and human rights activists. It is a remnant of a far more oppressive Malaysia, but one that the government has been wary of abolishing.
Though formally a multiparty democracy modeled after the Westminster system, most of the political power in Malaysia is controlled by the executive branch where the National Front coalition has held power since independence. The coalition is made up of three race based parties representing the three largest ethnic groups – Malay, Chinese, and Indian – and is a reflection of Malaysia’s troubled past. Following the devastating race riots of 1969 that led to a declaration of national emergency that has never been lifted, the Malaysia government has sought to balance racial tensions through affirmative action programs like the New Economic Policy to help majority Malays compete with the minority Chinese who dominate the business sector. However, many within Malaysia believe that such policies reduces non-Malays to second class status and have been a major point of criticism, both inside and outside the country. Laws such as the Internal Security Act helped the government silence such criticism in the name of racial harmony, and its continued existence has been justified in recent years as necessary to combat terrorism and Islamic militants.
When he came to power four months ago, Prime Minister Najib Razak committed himself to liberalizing Malaysia’s political and economic system. Though a conservative politician whose father was the architect of Malaysia’s New Economic Policy, he did abolish some of the racial preferences that have defined Malaysian politics and economics since the 1960s and released some political prisoners that had been held without trial under the Internal Security Act. But the suspicious death of a Chinese opposition legislative aide, whose body was found outside the Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission’s office after a night-long interrogation in early July, has reignited public debate over government policies and actions. Later in July, Chua Jui Meng, a high profile member of the ruling coalition defected to the opposition citing concerns about abuse of power. Then, a former ethnic Indian political prisoner applied to register a new political party to look after the interests of ethnic Indians in Malaysia, who he claimed were often marginalized by the ruling Malays. With this backdrop, the opposition staged their rally and the government responded with its usual ways of arrest and oppression.
News outlets estimate that 15,000 to 20,000 people participated in the protest, which was quickly shut down by 5,000 police officers using tear gas and water cannons. Almost 600 people were arrested, and while most have been released, at least 59 were still being held as of Sunday.
The events of the past weekend are not surprising to anyone familiar with Malaysian political history, but have still renewed fears that Najib is not serious in his stated commitment to civil liberties. The Malaysian Bar Council condemned the government’s response to the rally, which was peaceful until the police intervened. Opposition leaders such as Lim Kit Siang have pointed out that such reactions are exactly why laws such as the Internal Security Act need to be abolished. But Najib is publically supporting the crackdown, and while agreeing to review the law, has stated that it may be amended but will not be abolished.
Meanwhile, the trial of an Indian opposition politician charged with sedition for participating in an opposition protest in 2007, and held for two years under the Internal Security Act before being released earlier this year as a sign of conciliation, was scheduled to start today but was postponed until later this month because the defendant was not in court. However, the continuation of that trial demonstrates that even after the criticism it received over the weekend from all around the world, when choosing between freedom and political security in Malaysia, the government sees no place for freedom.
