INTERVIEW Repealing  the Sedition Act or not may be the internal affair of Malaysia when it is debated. However, if human rights are likely to be infringed, no country is an island, says the United States Ambassador to Malaysia Joseph Y Yun.

Yun said this when speaking on the much debated move to repeal Malaysia’s Sedition Act, in an exclusive interview with Malaysiakini to mark the year end.

“This is something really an internal affair in this country. And I mean, clearly for the government to have this change of position on an issue that is important to basic freedom, freedom of speech and dealing with the very plural society of Malaysia, there must be a good reason.”

He said Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s U-turn on his promise to repeal the Sedition Act at the recent Umno annual general meeting is of concern to the US because Sedition Act, if wielded “too far”, would infringe on human rights.

“Clearly if it goes too far, of course it will (infringe on human rights). And again, you must have a balance for the need for protecting speech, protecting expression, protecting dissent, protecting all positions, against the needs of safeguarding the society.

“So, what is the line? It is a very fine line. So, I do believe it is the job of the leaders to define that line and justify the line: at what point do you use extraordinary powers and at what point do you strengthen the sedition law or other laws?

“And how do you justify, and on what basis do you justify - that is clearly the job of the leader.”

Asked about the “moderate” label with which US President Barack Obama described Najib, during the former’s visit to Malaysia earlier this year, Yun said it is not for him to opine whether Najib’s Sedition Act stance at the Umno AGM was a regression of his moderation.

“All I can say really is that we are somewhat puzzled by his change in position on Sedition Act - that this  is something that we are going to have think about - because really, again, there will be a time lag because Parliament will only be in session in March, so we look forward to a lively debate on this issue.”

Respect all, regardless of race, religion

Yun also said that just as how Malaysia was a leading voice in the fight against apartheid in South Africa in the past, the same tendencies should prevail at home to allow for respect for all irregardless of race, religion and political opinion.

He agreed that the US may be told to ‘mind their own business’ but he insists the US, due to the trade and diplomatic relations it values with Malaysia, will speak up on human rights.

“These are global issues now - what you do on your environment, what you do on your labour right, they affect trade and goods and services - more than that, now we live in a bigger international community.

“I would say this concern we have on human rights and so on, there is now a very strong UN - the UN human rights commission and so no country is an island.

“This has been the case for many many years. For example, Malaysia led the charge against the apartheid practised in South Africa - a very strong voice in seeking boycott and seeking sanctions. And now, you are a very strong voice for the Rohingyas in Myanmar and so, these are not issues that are isolated.

“I admit we have had a particularly strong voice on human rights and so on - we open others to criticise us too. Clearly, there has been severe criticisms of US practices as well.

“I do believe that as a country, you should have an open debate, so these are issues the international community has a right to talk about as well,” Yun said.

Need to protect dissent

He said that even if there is a dissent of opinions, the laws must be there to protect the people’s freedom of speech and expression, especially when one is in a pluralistic society, such as that of US and Malaysia.

Yun, who is from the minority Asian American community, admitted that the US has gone through much in history with regard to battling racism and hate and agreed that there are still pockets of the same issue, such as during the recent riots in Ferguson.

However, he said, it is every government’s role to know when to intervene and contain these matters and to put them down.

“We would be worried about hate speech and heightened racism everywhere, clearly that is not a good development. I myself belong to a minority group, of course in the US being an Asian American.

“We have had a very very tough history and for outsiders, it is difficult to understand the struggle that we have gone through and are still going through - you have seen even recently in Fergusons and elsewhere.

“At what point does the government come in and put this down - that is a tough call. And each society must have its own line and that line has to be based on consensus with real respect for the independence of judiciary and respect for all religions and freedom of dissent.

“We live in Malaysia, I am privy to seeing it much more than if I were living in America. You have a challenging system, that is why it is doubly incumbent to have an open debate and to see where the consensus is.”

Sedition Act vs libel laws a no-no

Yun also said that he could not imagine a US president calling for anyone who criticises him to be charged in court.

“I cannot imagine the exact situation where anyone critical is going to be charged - I find that hard to imagine,” he said.

However, he defended Najib, saying that the Malaysian prime minister must have been talking of revising the line for the Sedition Act.

“Have a debate on that and see where the line should be and my government’s position is that we very much welcome the repeal, as said in 2012, and we are watching with great interest why that position changed.”

On those who may point to US libel laws and liken them to the Malaysian Sedition Act, Yun said the two are very different.

“I think it is quite different - let me preface my remarks that I am not a lawyer - so my understanding is quite rudimentary.

“I would say that Sedition Act or acts like libel laws - what you are trying to do is number one: the freedom of speech. Second, there has to be balanced the pluralistic needs of our society, protecting minorities, protecting those who are different, protecting dissent of opinion, protecting different religions - those have to be balanced.

“In our case, we had a Sedition Law 1918, I think, and I think that was the outcome of the war - the World War I - at that time, with the war raging and it may have been an extension of the espionage law, where you could not say anything that was deemed disloyal against the war efforts.

“That again was very much criticised even when it was introduced during the war, and soon after 1920, it was challenged and I think Congress abolished it.

“That is how we dealt with it. Libel laws are supposed to protect your privacy and also what is not true. There are very specific and libel laws that I don’t think should be confused with seditious laws,” said Yun.

Tomorrow: Part 2: Yun on the necessity of the judiciary's independence in a democracy.