Lawyers For Liberty (LFL) refers to news reports that the police are investigating the University of Malaya Association of New Youths (Umany) under Section 505(b) of the Penal Code and Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 over its statement calling for the abolishment of the matriculation system and only having STPM (Year 13 school certificate) as the sole criterion for entry into public universities.
The police in their statement said the investigation [was needed] due to “the potential to create negative perceptions of the national education system, incite public dissatisfaction and cause public anxiety”.
The statement by Umany does not warrant a criminal investigation; the probe is high-handed, unlawful and an abuse of police powers.
There is nothing wrong or criminal for anyone to participate in public discourse regarding the administration of the education system, which is a matter of public interest. The discussion is obviously protected under Article 10(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression.
It is absurd to justify this investigation [as needed due to the] inciting of “public dissatisfaction” or “public anxiety”. What is the metric being measured to justify this?
- Sign up for Aliran's free daily email updates or weekly newsletters or both
- Make a one-off donation to Persatuan Aliran Kesedaran Negara (ALIRAN), Maybank a/c 507246118995 or CIMB a/c 8004240948
- Make a pledge or schedule an auto donation to Aliran every month or every quarter
- Become an Aliran member
Disagreements are inherent in public discourse, and do not justify criminal investigation, what more if it pertains to matters of public policy. This shoddy reasoning would give carte blanche power to enforcement authorities to clamp down on any public discussion, negating the constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech in this country.
It is outrageous that “painting the national education system in a bad light” is being used as justification for a criminal probe. The very idea is nonsensical as members of the public are free to criticise the education system or any other aspect of government administration. It is what is expected in a democracy.
How is this an offence? Only dictatorships silence criticism of government policy.
On the other hand, Umno has repeatedly called for the abolishment of vernacular schools with no similar repercussions. Why the double standards? Are only those from the ‘unity government’ allowed the right to free speech? The selective persecution is obvious when we compare it with this farcical investigation against Umany.
The national education system is a subject that concerns all, and as such, all should be free to participate in that discourse. The government must not be selective on who may do so, as freedom of speech is guaranteed under the Federal Constitution.
The “Madani” (civil and trustworthy) government must therefore direct that all investigation against Umany be halted and ensure that the police are educated on the basic legal concept that freedom of speech is a constitutional right. This is a policy decision which the government can take.
However, should the government allow the investigation to continue, it will indicate a direct approval by the government of the violation of freedom of speech by the police. It would be proof we are subject to a tyranny. – LFL
Zaid Malek is the director of Lawyers For Liberty.
AGENDA RAKYAT - Lima perkara utama
- Tegakkan maruah serta kualiti kehidupan rakyat
- Galakkan pembangunan saksama, lestari serta tangani krisis alam sekitar
- Raikan kerencaman dan keterangkuman
- Selamatkan demokrasi dan angkatkan keluhuran undang-undang
- Lawan rasuah dan kronisme
