Singapore daily says Najib’s 1Malaysia in tatters

What matters is the control the Prime Minister exercises over prosecutions pursued under the revised Sedition Act.

KUALA LUMPUR: An international perspective of the outcome of the just-concluded Umno General Assembly, aired by The Economist magazine, was that “to many Malaysians… (the) campaigning slogan of ’1Malaysia’, emphasizing racial harmony, now rings hollow”.

The Singapore Straits Times (SST) led an editorial, dated Friday, on the just-concluded Umno meet with this opening paragraph.

“Amid the hardline bluster and theatre of the United Malays National Organisation’s General Assembly, there were not enough voices within or outside to reflect realpolitik concerns over national interests,” goes the SST editorial.

“Fractious politics and the troubled economics of change in Malaysia should be prompting minds to focus on ‘we are all in this together’ approaches.”

Instead, notes the editorial, what emerged was the inevitable angst over Umno’s decision to strengthen the Sedition Act instead of scrapping it, as Prime Minister Najib Razak had pledged earlier.

“Though pitched as a safety measure to forestall airing of prickly issues relating to race, religion or Malay royalty, tougher sedition laws were seen as oppressive and retrogressive by opposition parties, civil rights groups and the Malaysian Bar Council.”

But the reality on the ground is likely to be more nuanced, the SST thinks. “Given the nature of race-based politics in Malaysia and the rallying impulses of Umno meetings, Malaysians would expect narrow party interests to dominate.”

“They would also concede that Najib’s reversal was a tactical one, forced upon him by the confluence of events.”

What would matter ultimately is the control he exercises over prosecutions pursued under the revised Act, writes the SST, in order to “be fair to everyone”, as he promised.

Therein lies the nub of a matter that is troubling many nations, pointed out the SST.

How should one balance the need to curb particularly harmful hate speech against the preservation of free speech in democratic settings?

With the larger interest in mind, there is cause to act against opinions that incite hatred and violence, all the more when these are based on distorted or untrue information, the SST agrees.

“Rather than a balance metaphor that weighs one against another, it would be better to see it as a pyramid of obligations, with national interests ranking above group interests.”