On Oct 5, member of parliament for Parit Buntar and Amanah vice-president Datuk Dr Mujahid Yusof wrote to the secretary of the Dewan Rakyat, applying to submit three private bills: Racial and Religious Hate Crime Bill, Equality Bill, and National Harmony Commission Bill. At the time of writing, we have yet to hear of any response from the secretary.

Mujahid, together with 30 others and myself, were members of the National Unity Consultative Council (NUCC) established by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak in 2013. In 2015, the NUCC presented its report to Najib. But until today, we have not heard anything about the report.

In the report was a proposal to enact three bills: Racial and Religious Hate Crimes, National Harmony and Reconciliation and National Harmony and Reconciliation Commission.

Mujahid was the chairman of the NUCC committee that drafted the bills. He was assisted, among others, by another NUCC member and the committee’s deputy chairman Datuk Lim Chee Wee and me. So, what Mujahid is doing now is simply revisiting the proposal and bringing it to its rightful platform — Parliament.

This time, Mujahid made a few amendments to the proposals but the philosophy, aim and objectives remain intact.

The Racial and Religious Hate Crimes Bill seeks to make religious and racial hate speech a crime. The bill criminalises incitement based on racial and religious hatred. The Equality Bill seeks to ensure equality and to prevent unfair discrimination based on grounds of religion, race, descent, place of birth, gender or disability. The National Harmony Commission Bill provides a private law remedy for unfair discrimination through the establishment of a National Harmony Commission.

The aim of legislation on national harmony is very clear and is a part of the bigger picture — comprehensive initiatives that include the role of politicians, educationists, civil society and the media — in strengthening unity, national integration, equality and preventing unfair discrimination.

Fundamentals — such as the Federal Constitution, Rukunegara, the social contract, history and culture, freedom of speech and expression — are taken into consideration, together with the new realities of today, such as the internet and social media platforms, new social consciousness/movements, the third phase (period) of democracy, a more educated citizenry, urbanisation and the expansion of the middle class.

In a way, these laws are able to replace the draconian Sedition Act. At the same time, I am aware of the debate that should we abolish the Sedition Act, we do not really need these new laws as there are already sufficient laws that can govern this matter. I am also aware of the findings of studies that imply that the addition of such laws need not necessarily make things better, but rather, can actually make things worse.

The national harmony laws are not a magic wand. But in the current situation, with the heightened inter and intra-racial and religious intolerance, as reported, for example, by Pusat Komas, and with the latest issues, for example, the detaining of Mustafa Akyol, banning of books and the Islamic launderette issue, we must give the laws the needful attention, debate and support.

Mujahid’s proposal discusses hate speech too, specifically, “the vilification of a group’s identity in order to oppress its members and deny them equal rights”. But our problem is not limited to hate speech. According to Hong Kong academician Cherian George, there is this thing called “hate spin”, a term that encompasses both hate speech (offence-giving) and its 180°-flipped cousin — the provoked victim (offence-taking). Hate speech can also be “manufactured vilification or indignation, used as a political strategy that exploits group identities to mobilise supporters and coerce opponents”.

The term “manufactured” is used because, contrary to most assumptions, outbreaks of racial and religious intolerance are not always visceral and spontaneous. They often involve sophisticated campaigns manufactured by political opportunists orchestrating the giving of offence and the taking of offence as instruments of identity politics, thereby exploiting the democratic space to promote agendas that undermine democratic values and unity.

According to George, hate spin has negative impacts that are electoral (fearmongering as a winning campaigning strategy), social (marginalisation of religious minorities) and ideological (banning of books and artworks that challenge dominant narratives).

But the laws proposed must be appropriate, for example, laws on religious freedom, equality and anti-discrimination. For a start we should give the national harmony laws a chance.

Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah is chief secretary of Pakatan Harapan and director (strategic and social development) of Institut Darul Ehsan

Save by subscribing to us for your print and/or digital copy.

P/S: The Edge is also available on Apple's AppStore and Androids' Google Play.