A learned man once wrote a book entitled Freedom Under Executive Power in Malaysia: A Study of Executive Supremacy . In that scholarly work, he argued that in Malaysia, we suffer because a "standard of reasonableness" has been "missing in all the sedition cases arising from freedom of expression cases in Malaysia".

Due to the ambiguity on what constitutes 'sedition', "freedom of expression is thus seen to be heavily restricted by the 1948 [Sedition] Act" (pg 166). How noble and true.

A lordly man on Tuesday said that "we do not like to use threats, but if the minority groups continue to harp on seditious matters, then the Sedition Act will be used against them". How menacing and hollow.

The learned man wrote a few other prudent and reasoned sentences:

"The strictness with which the courts interpreted provisions of the Sedition Act 1948 as amended in 1970 is in retrospect understandable in view of the adverse preceding state of affairs of inter-ethnic group relations in the country but to continue having such strictures in operation at this point in time of the country's history is anachronistic, to say the least" (pg 167).

In other words, after the riots of 1969, some restriction on speech and publication was warranted in view of inter-ethnic friction which could still flare and combust. Now, however, things are different and sedition as defined in the Act is outdated. The book was published in 1995. Could the Sedition Act in 2002, being further from 1969, be even more anachronistic than it was in 1995? But the lordly man cherishes the Act today.

The learned man also wrote, "It is plain that the government may have the opportunity of hiding behind the 'convenience' afforded by section 3(1) of the Sedition Act 1948 in that the line between 'criticism' and 'sedition' vis- he is blind to the fact that there are individuals and multi-ethnic organisations and political parties that are concerned about the possible adverse consequences of this project on standards of all three subjects involved, English, Mathematics and Science.

The last words of the learned man's book give us an exhortation: "Let us hope that Malaysians will rise to the occasion lest it would be fittingly said later that each people get the government they deserve. Freedom will not ascend to people. People must ascend to freedom." Hmm.

As you surely know, the learned man was Dr Rais Yatim; the lordly man is Yang Berhormat Datuk Seri Rais Yatim. Malaysia's foremost practitioner in denial. We know of his metamorphosis, but it is much plainer to see in writing — his writing — and much more disappointing, if not nauseating (it would be entertaining, but the issues and implications are too serious for our nation). It really is a good book, diligently researched and carefully presented.

But times change: 2002 is not 1995. The learned book is an anachronism to the lordly man.

What occasion has Rais risen to? Rather, having risen to a position up there (but not high enough still), what depths has he descended to!