Ignored in the public protest and uproar over the latest casualties of the Barisan Nasional government's cynical use of the Sedition Act to punish activists and others exercising their freedom of expression and right to political, religious and racial views different from those of government's is the political incarceration of P. Uthayakumar.
Our country's most prominent (but largely ignored and unrecognized by the public and media) prisoner of conscience has languished in Kajang prison since 5 June 2013 for basically the same sedition charge for which he had earlier been detained under the ISA in December 2007, following the Hindraf street rally of 25 Nov 2007.
In his first stint in prison on what is referred to as “preventive detention” Uthaya was held in Kamunting under the ISA for 514 days. In May 2009 he was given unconditional release.
The government had wanted to impose a gag order on political statements by the ISA detainees as a condition of release. Uthaya refused to accept the condition - which his fellow Hindraf detainees accepted. Ultimately the government dispensed with the imposition on him.
But his continued vociferous political opposition to the government and efforts to highlight the plight of the Indian poor and victimized meant that he would be a marked man.
On 5 June 2013, Uthaya was sentenced to 30 months (2-and-1/2 years) jail by the Sessions Court for sedition. This amounts to unacceptable ‘double jeopardy’ in meting out punishment twice for the same offence. The maximum sentence for a first-time sedition offender is three years. The sentence on Uthaya can be considered to be severe considering the one-and-1/2 years earlier already spent in Kamunting.
The sedition charge against him is with reference to the letter written to the then British Prime Minister Gordon Brown in Uthaya’s capacity as Hindraf legal advisor and as part of the movement’s international human rights campaign.
The letter contained the words "ethnic cleansing" within quotation marks with regard to government policies that have relegated the displaced estate workers, among others, to the urban underclass and margins of society as well as the words "mini genocide" over the Kg. Medan clash between Malays/Indonesians and Indians.
Those acquainted with the rules of grammar in the English language know that the use of quotation marks for “ethnic cleansing” denotes material that represents a rhetorical device and the phrase is not necessarily meant in its literal sense. It appears that this important caveat has not been taken into account by the authorities in adjudicating on the case.
It is also important to note that the sedition charge dated 11 December 2007 overlaps with seven of the nine ISA charges dated 13 December 2007. Hence the questionable legality of the sedition case brought against him.
More important is that by no stretch of imagination can the letter which Uthaya wrote be deemed an seditious offence or the action of a potential terrorist or someone who could be construed to be a threat to national security. Foolhardy; reckless; intemperate; inflammatory; etc. in his choice of words - yes; but that charge can be levelled against thousands of other Malaysians, including those from within the ranks of the highest level of leadership in the BN.
What Uthaya was guilty of was for being an outspoken critic of the ruling party and for challenging – what is described in his own words - Umno Malaysia's “institutional racist policies victimizing in particular the Indian poor” in terms which left no room for ambiguity or for political correctness.
What the government should have done
The allegation of Uthaya and the Hindraf community condemning Umno for its racist policies can be disputed and shown to be incorrect or untrue.
The BN government has the entire machinery of the state as well as its allies in the media, academia, and in the other commanding heights of society to refute it. Instead of responding with facts, figures and other evidence to prove that Umno and the authorities have not pursued racist policies that have discriminated against the Indian poor, it has chosen to silence Uthaya by resorting to a repressive law used during the British colonial period to stifle dissent and criminalize peaceful activists and opposition.
Prime Minister Najib Razak in 2012 described the Act as representing a “bygone era”. The best way to show that that he means his words and is a just and fair leader, who abides by democratic, and not repressive norms, is for the government to take immediate action to redress the grievous wrong inflicted on Uthaya and to have him released from prison at the earliest possible date.
Meanwhile Uthaya has been subject to abusive and inhumane prison conditions requiring him to write an open letter addressed to the Home Minister and Prime Minister on 13 August 2013
No prisoner in our country deserves brutal and abusive treatment. Uthaya’s plight is little known to most Malaysians with the mainstream media complicit in erecting a wall of silence on his case and refusing to share with the public the various appeals made by Hindraf; his family and Uthaya himself.
Hopefully, the current campaign against the sedition law will finally put the spotlight on Malaysia's forgotten prisoner of conscience – P. Uthayakumar – and set him free.
