PETALING JAYA: The arrest and subsequent release of journalist Rex Tan following a Sedition Act 1948 probe has raised fresh concerns about the boundaries of press freedom and the treatment of reporters who ask questions at public events.
National Union of Journalists (NUJ) secretary-general Teh Athira Yusof said the union views Tan’s arrest as unfortunate, particularly the timing of the police action.
“NUJ’s stand is that it is unfortunate that Tan was arrested by police so late at night. Such treatment has given the impression that any reporters asking questions that are slightly different could be interpreted as ‘wrong’.”
NUJ stressed that journalists must continue to be given the space to ask questions as part of their professional duties, without fear of being misinterpreted or unfairly treated.
Communications and Multimedia Content Forum CEO Mediha Mahmood said while authorities have a duty to investigate issues that could inflame racial or social tensions, enforcement must be carried out in a proportionate manner.
“If someone has already apologised publicly, resigned and is cooperating, then the question is, did it really need to reach the level of arrest and overnight detention?
“When enforcement looks harsh, people start feeling like the process itself is the punishment, even before the courts decide anything through due process.”
She added that cases such as this could have a wider chilling effect on freedom of expression, particularly for journalists.
“Sometimes a journalist asks a difficult question not because they agree with it, but because it reflects public sentiment that needs to be surfaced or challenged.”
From a legal standpoint, lawyer and former Selangor Bar chairman Kokila Vaani Vadiveloo said the invocation of the Act in Tan’s case raises concerns over legal thresholds, clarity and proportionality.
“Under the Act, criminal liability arises only if the impugned words possess a ‘seditious tendency’ as defined in Section 3(1).
“Malaysian courts have repeatedly emphasised that the prosecution must identify which limb of Section 3(1) is engaged and demonstrate, objectively and in context, that the words complained of fall within it.
“Criticism aimed at reform or debate does not become seditious unless it clearly stirs hatred, contempt or disaffection.”
Kokila said Tan’s statement arose from a question at a public lecture, not a call to incite hostility or disorder.
“There is no indication that authorities have articulated which limb of the law is relied upon, or how the words objectively possess a seditious tendency.”
She added that Malaysia already has more targeted provisions, such as Section 505(c) of the Penal Code, which criminalises statements made with intent to incite, or likely to incite, hostility or offences between communities, making them a more proportionate response to harmful speech.
Tan was released on police bail on Jan 17 after being detained overnight over a probe linked to a question he raised at the public lecture.
No formal charges have been filed, although investigations are ongoing under the Sedition Act 1948, Section 505(c) of the Penal Code and Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 for improper use of network services.
