Court orders Home Ministry to return seized Swatch 'Pride' watches

A Swiss watchmaker has succeeded in getting back its Pride collection timepieces that authorities seized in a crackdown last year.

The Kuala Lumpur High Court today allowed Swatch Group (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd’s judicial review for the return of its watches in various rainbow shades - which is the symbol of the LGBTQ+ community.

Judge Amarjeet Singh ordered the ministry to return all the watches within 14 days from today.

The civil court judge ruled the seizure was illegal as it was done before the prohibition over the items was gazetted.

Amarjeet said while the court would not make any order for damages, the company is at liberty to file a separate bid for that.

This is because every time the authorities conduct a raid and seizure, the seized items tend to get damaged, he added.

The ministry seized the timepieces in nationwide raids between May 13 and 15 last year.

On Aug 10 last year, the government gazetted a ban on any Swatch watches or related material - including boxes - containing LGBTQ+ influences under Section 7 of the Printing Presses and Publications Act (PPPA) 1984.

In an affidavit, Swatch’s country manager Martin Issing pointed out that prior to the raid, the watches were openly sold in Malaysia with no incident.

Seeking reliefs

Via the challenge filed in June last year, Swatch sought several reliefs, among them:

• An order of certiorari to quash the seizure notices for the raids;

• A mandamus order to compel the ministry to return the 172 timepieces within five days of the order date;

• Damages which include those of exemplary and aggravated nature.

In a press statement last year, the ministry stated that Section 8(2) of PPPA carries punishments for selling, distributing, or owning the banned watches, including up to three years in jail, a fine of up to RM20,000, or both.

Counsel Nizam Bashir acted for Swatch, while federal counsel Sallehudin Ali appeared for the ministry.

Affidavit over PM interview

During today's proceedings, Nizam informed the court that Swatch filed an additional affidavit on Oct 11 to support the judicial review.

However, Amarjeet said he “would not look at the affidavit” as it was filed late, adding that his verdict is only confined to previous oral and written submissions made in court.

The affidavit was over Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim's interview with British-American journalist Mehdi Hasan of portal Zeteo on Oct 5.

According to the affidavit, Anwar replied to a question by Mehdi that he disagreed with the raid that resulted in the watch seizure.

"I disagree with the action. We have told them. There was no order. I mean, this is a decision taken by the particular department, and I think they are overreacting," the premier was quoted as saying.

Mehdi had asked why the government carried out the raid and seizure despite Anwar's earlier answer to the journalist.

The journalist said that in 2018, Anwar criticised Malaysia's anti-LGBTQ+ laws which led to the premier's past jail sentence.

"You called them, quote, archaic, and you said they were a legacy of British colonialism, not of Islam.

"You told me that those laws, quote, have to be revised and amended. But since becoming prime minister, you have not done that. Why?" Mehdi asked.

Anwar replied that he had many other priorities.

“I want first security of this country. I want to build this consensus. I want the focus and the fundamentalist economy is quality education.

"That is not my priority. That is the priority of Europe," the premier had said.

Mehdi then asked: “If it is not your priority, why did the government literally raid Swatch stores last year and seize Rainbow Pride?", leading to Anwar's reply "I disagree".

When the journalist prodded further with "Disagree with what?" Anwar gave his answer about disagreeing with the action.

Fadhli retracts praise for govt after PM says Swatch raids 'overreaction'

COMMENT | Anwar calls Swatch seizures 'overreaction' but what's next?

PM: There is public consensus on LGBT but harassment not condoned

Swatch obtains leave to challenge Pride collection watch seizure

LFL: Don't play nanny by banning Swatch watches

Lawyer slams 'illegal' Swatch raids, ban order made three months after

Swatch seeks to amend action over 'Pride Collection' watch seizure