KUALA LUMPUR – Legal eagles have questioned the validity of the Home Ministry’s decision to seize Swatch’s Pride-themed watch collection, which was reportedly carried out under the Printing Presses and Publications Act (PPPA) 1984.
Speaking to The Vibes, lawyer Datuk David Gurupatham said that it would be “quite strange” for the ministry’s raids and subsequent product confiscation to be conducted under the act, as the law’s preamble covers publication materials.
“The purpose of the act is to regulate printed materials and the use of printing presses.
“It does not regulate retail (products).
If the ministry wishes to carry out (enforcement activities) like this, it has to think its actions through instead of using a law that, from its very preamble, makes it clear that you cannot do this (against watches),” he said when contacted.
A look at Section 7 of the PPPA shows that the home minister is granted the power to suspend any publication or prevent its importation if the minister is satisfied that it contains elements that are likely to be “prejudicial” to public order, morality, security, or which could alarm public opinion or are contrary to any law.
Referring to how under Section 2, a “publication” is defined under subsection (c) as “anything which by its form, shape or in any manner is capable of suggesting words or ideas”, David stressed that the provision should be read together with the purpose of the act.
As such, David urged the ministry, helmed by its minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution, to clarify what sort of “elements” the watches were potentially promoting and which ostensibly led to their confiscation.
The confiscation of the watches could be justified if, for example, they were encouraging something that is against Malaysian law or a danger to national security.
“We are treading on very dangerous ground. We must look at the matter in a pragmatic and practical way,” he said, noting that while laws should be respected, they should also be enforced in a way that is “judicially right and democratic”.
‘Ministry must explain’
Meanwhile, commenting on the PPPA, lawyer Alex Anton Netto said that it is a “broadly worded” piece of legislation that would have allowed for the ministry’s enforcement actions if the watches were deemed to be “harmful material”.
“Of course, one would ask how a watch with a rainbow design could be harmful. Therein lies the conundrum in the way in which the act is drafted. It’s too wide.
“The Home Ministry acted according to the law, but as to whether their actions were fair…well, they could have gone about it differently,” he said.
Asserting that such enforcement actions could jeopardise the nation’s ability to play on the global economic stage, Alex also highlighted that the seizure notice would have likely been issued by a sitting magistrate, which brings the ministry’s crackdown “squarely under the (PPPA) legislation”.
He noted, however, that it would be best to wait for the ministry’s explanation on the matter before jumping to conclusions.
‘Overstepped, overreacted’
Former Bar president Ragunath Kesavan did not mince his words when expressing his condemnation of the “illogical” raids, saying: “There is no justification in the law whatsoever (for the ministry’s actions).”
“They (ministry) have overstepped and overreacted. It is absurd; such blatant acts of power abuse are being highlighted and mocked all over the world,” he added.
On Thursday, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim briefly said that the ministry’s actions were due to how the products displayed elements related to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender movement.
Stressing that he has not been given specific details on the raids, Anwar, who is also Pakatan Harapan chairman, said that he is leaving it up to the ministry to explain the raids it had conducted on various Swatch outlets nationwide earlier this month.
News of the Swatch raids on May 13 and 14 was first reported on Monday, with Swatch Group chief Nick Hayek Jr saying in a statement that there is “nothing political” behind the brand’s collection of watches “having a message of peace and love”.
Netizens have since taken to social media to voice their thoughts on the issue, with many users expressing their bemusement over how the government appears to have taken offence at the rainbow symbol, while pointing out that the Home Ministry’s resources could have been better used.
Others, however, said that companies operating in Malaysia should adhere to local norms by respecting the country’s cultural sensitivities. – The Vibes, May 27, 2023
