There has been no known calamity, moral or otherwise since Election Day first appeared in the Malaysian theatre scene. The play, written in English in 1999 by Huzir Sulaiman was also staged in that year. In 2003, Silverfish Books published it in a collection of eight plays by the playwright, known for his inventive language and dark humour.

It was recently reported that Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) refused a permit for the re-staging of the play. The script, submitted by Five Arts Centre was alleged to have contravened six of DBKL's eight guidelines for staged productions. However, contrary to sound administrative law principles, DBKL did not specify which of the guidelines were contravened and claimed when pressured by the press that they are not able to comment as the mayor is out of town. Nevertheless, the letter to Five Arts Centre in all its defective glory was received on Jan 31.

We learned that what our City officials found offensive were marked by a highlighter in the returned script. That was all. It was only in a meeting initiated by Five Arts Centre on Thursday, Feb 5 that they were told that the script was "not appropriate", although we are not made privy to which of the DBKL guidelines were contravened.

DBKL highlighted the words, "Guardian Pharmacy", "Anwar Ibrahim", "Sivarasa Rasiah", "Shahrizat Jalil" and terms such as "Hidup Mahathir".

Marion D'Cruz, the executive director of Five Arts Centre remains magnanimous when she remarked that it was encouraging to see the openness to dialogue at the Feb 5 meeting. Five Arts Centre relented and a permit was issued to the revised script, although Marion voiced reservations about staging a revised script which leaves the issue of censorship still unanswered.

George Bernard Shaw once wrote that a censor has nothing but his own opinion, the writer is at the personal mercy of the censor. This appears to be so true for Election Day .

Pitfall of censorship

Censorship purports to restrict the expression of ideas that is misleading or false or are dangerous and have a tendency to harm. The major pitfall that censors face is that they cannot demonstrate that the material they suppress actually poses a danger to society.

Censors target opinions that they find offensive and for that reason alone they assume to be false and dangerous. They suppress these opinions because they are unable to convincingly demonstrate to others that these opinions which offend them are indeed truly false or dangerous.

Thus, how do the words highlighted by DBKL, which were in existence in 1999, published in 2003, pose a danger to our society? What is the justification for this censorship?

The 2003 guidelines by itself do not provide the justification as the argument that the guidelines cannot demonstrate that the material DBKL seeks to suppress poses a danger to society, still holds. DBKL censors primarily because it cannot demonstrate what it contends about the material or words, are in fact true. Unless justified, the powers thus exercised may constitute bad faith and an abuse of power under administrative law.

It is all the more unfortunate that there was no feedback from the arts community, writers and human rights defenders in the making of the guidelines. The guidelines came close on the heels of an instant hit, a political satire staged by the Instant Caf Theatre, The 2nd First Annual Bolehwood Awards . DBKL had threatened a ban of that play but gave in to intense public pressure condemning the proposed ban.

Out of step

In 2003, some 242 individuals condemned the guidelines as being "out of step" as they leave performers with no room to engage with issues of the day. A public petition was signed in this regard.

Under these guidelines, artistes are among others, forbidden from lampooning politicians or any of the policies made by those in power. They are not to "ridicule, put in contempt, disrepute or shame heads of states". They are not allowed to impinge "on policy and administration of (the) nation."

Indeed DBKL and its guideline makers are out of step in its understanding of representative democracy of which Malaysia purports to enjoy under her constitution.

In a representative democracy, public participation in political discussion is a central element of the political process. Freedom of communication is an indispensable element of representative government. The raison d'etre of freedom of communication is to enhance the political process thus making representative government more efficacious.

Given this understanding, expression about politician "heads of states" or their policies and administration will help make our government processes work. It ensures open and informed discussion of political issues and it checks our government when it gets out of bounds.

Malaysian democracy does not, and most would agree, presuppose an unrestrained majority rule, assuming that our first-past- the-post system actually returns majority rule.

It is more probable that a ban on political participation and discussion serves to legitimise the existing social, political and economic arrangements of those who are in power rather than for the protection of society. To question (even in good humor), could lead to social change, a redistribution of resources and benefits and a re-alignment of political power.

Restrictive laws

The censorship in the performing arts is the most recent attack on free speech and expression.

The press is already muzzled by the myriad of restrictive laws. We have overarching laws like the Internal Security Act and the Sedition Act to take care of anything that falls between the cracks. The ban on political rallies is effective through laws on illegal assemblies under the Penal Code and the Police Act.

Theatre in Malaysia draws a very different crowd of people than lets say, 'reformasi' or even political party rallies. Heaven forbid, if the allegedly complacent, English-educated middle class electorate, presumably the majority of patrons of Five Arts and Instant Caf Theatre, are politicised!

I recall an incident which happened last year. I was at an acara baca puisi (poetry reciting session) at Universiti Bangsar Utama or UBU, a tuition and drop in centre for young people in Kuala Lumpur. A special guest, poet laurete, A Samad Said, read from his collection of poems, written in the Malay language, Suara Dari Dinding Dewan (2003, Utusan Publications and Distributions). I was later told that the 68-year-old poet was trailed by Special Branch officers that same evening, accosted and questioned about the session.

The arts are proving to be a new and exciting media of communication in the city. Ideas are being communicated to a whole new class or a whole new generation of young, educated Malaysians, perhaps the majority of new voters in 2004. One mulls if this could be one of the reasons for the current move to enforce or reinforce the muzzling of the arts community.

Free speech and expression is not on the wish-list of those in power, the change in premiership not withstanding.