ON the very day of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s arrival, Sin Chew Daily published a front-page advertisement promoting an article bearing Xi’s byline. Ironically the accompanying image contained a glaring error: the crescent on the Malaysian national flag was missing. Due to such faux pas, Sin Chew Daily has now found itself in hot water. The media reported that the investigation papers relating to aforesaid Sin Chew Daily’s gaffe have been submitted to the Attorney-General’s Chambers ( AGC ) for necessary actions.
Hitherto the police have received 40 reports on the issue and the investigation is currently made pursuant to Section 3(1)(c) of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act 1963 as well as Section 4(1)(b) of the Printing Presses and Publication Act (PPPA) 1984.
The police even detained Sin Chew Daily’s editor-in-chief and deputy chief sub-editor after the said blunder.
Given the inflammatory nature of the issue it is expected for some parties to react on this matter. In fact the knee jerk reactions have emerged from every nook and cranny in Malaysia. On social media, even numerous Chinese netizens have jumped onto the bandwagon criticising Sin Chew Daily, with some even echoing calls for legal actions.
As usual we should have also expected disproportionate reactions from some quarters despite Sin Chew’s apology. To its credit, Sin Chew Daily took rather swift action by taking disciplinary actions against the duo pending the outcome of the investigation. They have been duly suspended.
In the meantime Perkasa and eight others flatly rejected Sin Chew’s apology and in turn urged the Home Ministry to consider the suspension of the newspaper’s license. It is not clear whether they would have done the same assuming the alleged “crime” was committed by any Malay-based media.
On the issue of this kind it would be relatively easy to play race card.
Unfortunately that seems to be the trend in Malaysia. Anyway I tend to agree with the Prime Minister when he reminded us all that the issue of the ‘Jalur Gemilang’ being wrongly portrayed on the
front page of a Chinese-language daily is “not a trivial matter”.
He correctly states that the national flag is an important symbol in any country, including Malaysia. He is definitely right in urging all quarters to exercise care when using the national flag as an image or illustration.
His measured tones representing calm and cool-headed reactions deserve high compliments particularly when he said “ let’s give room to Sin Chew Daily to explain its mistake and apologise”
It is enthralling to note here that preliminary investigations by the police have found that among the reasons given by the paper is that there was a technical error in publishing the illustration. It is also believed that such an error was either caused by the use of artificial intelligence (AI) (which
is highly likely) or due to the tight turnaround times typical of the newsroom.
If that truly represents the actual scenario it signifies a “crime” which is bereft of any criminal intent or mens rea. The only problem criminal law also recognises a crime without the presence of mens rea which is termed as a strict liability offence.
As the police have launched an investigation under two separate laws namely Emblems and Names ( Prevention of Improper Use ) Act 1963 and Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 respectively it would be advisable, perhaps, to know little bit about these two legislations.
The Emblems and Names ( Prevention of Improper Use ) Act 1963 is a law which deals with the prohibition of improper use of emblems, names and pictorial representations.
Any offender who violates this law – for instance a violation of section 3 (1) (c) of the Act 1963- shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding one thousand ringgit.
Under criminal law offences are generally categorised into two distinct categories -misdemeanours and felonies.
It seems that the punishment of any offence under the Act 1963 is not strictly hefty. Ergo, we may say that an offence under section 3 (1) (c) of the Act 1963 is merely a misdemeanor offence.
Perhaps it is high time for the government to relook into this law as the punishment for an offence under this law does not reflect the seriousness of the offence.
The second law namely the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 (PPPA) is an Act to regulate the use of printing presses and the printing, importation, production, reproduction, publishing and distribution of publications and for matters connected therewith.
By virtue of section 4(1)(b) of PPPA a person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall on conviction be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to a fine not exceeding twenty thousand ringgit or to both.
The PPPA 1984 – via section 8C (1)- also allows the court upon the application of the Public Prosecutor to order the suspension of such publication pending the determination of any proceedings for the
prosecution of a printer, publisher, editor or writer before any court for any offence in respect of anything published in any publication.
Since Sin Chew Daily has swiftly taken the necessary internal actions against their editors it would be unwise – at least in my view- to resort to the aforesaid section 8C in this case.
The doctrine of the “rule of law” entails, inter alia, the principle of equality before the law, hence all are equal before the law, and no one, regardless of status or power, is above it.
It is hoped that the rule of law would prevail on this issue irrespective of the inflammatory nature and the corresponding disproportionate reactions to it. – April 20, 2025
***Mohamed Hanipa Maidin is a former deputy minister of law.