KUALA LUMPUR: The detention of former FMT reporter Rex Tan is too harsh and an overkill, says Human Rights Commission (Suhakam).
In a statement on Wednesday (Jan 21), Suhakam said such an approach reflected an outdated and intolerant mindset that prioritises punitive measures over engagement, dialogue and rights-based responses.
The statement comes in response to Tan’s recent arrest and investigation under Section 4(1) of the Sedition Act 1948, Section 505(c) of the Penal Code, and Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act (CMA) 1998.
The arrest followed a sensitive question, alleged to contain racial elements, that was raised during a public lecture in Kuala Lumpur.
Suhakam stressed that there was an urgent need for a shift in mindset on the part of enforcement agencies towards approaches that are proportionate, measured and consistent with democratic values and fundamental liberties.
"The actions taken raise serious questions of compatibility with the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 10 of the Federal Constitution.
"Suhakam wishes to highlight that Section 233 of the CMA 1998 is intended to address the misuse of network facilities or services for improper online communications," it said.
It added that the former journalist’s question was asked verbally during a physical public forum and was not transmitted online by Tan.
Suhakam said that Section 233 applies only to communications initiated or transmitted via network services, and any recording or online dissemination by a third party does not attract liability to the speaker.
"In the absence of evidence that the journalist initiated or participated in the online transmission, Section 233 is inapplicable.
"Section 505(c) of the Penal Code criminalises statements that may incite fear or alarm among the public or disturb public tranquillity," it said.
Suhakam added that it is consistent with its longstanding position that the Sedition Act 1948 is overly broad and susceptible to arbitrary application, creating a chilling effect on legitimate discourse, especially on issues of public importance.
"Its preventive nature, which does not require proof of actual harm, poses significant risks to fundamental freedoms in a democratic and plural society," it said.
Suhakam wishes to emphasise that criminal proceedings against journalists should be used only as a measure of last resort.
"Matters relating to journalistic ethics or professional conduct should primarily be addressed through robust and effective self-regulatory mechanisms, consistent with democratic principles and international best practices in the protection of media freedom," it said.
