Zakir Naik's speech ban : An example of Rule of Law vs. Rule by Law

Zakir Naik's speech ban : An example of Rule of Law vs. Rule by Law


26 Feb 2025 • 4:30 PM MYT


TheRealNehruism
Writer. Seeker. Teacher

Image credit: Al Jazeera


Zakir Naik gave a speech in Perlis recently, and not only did the content of his speech raise eyebrows, the fact that he could give a speech at all was questioned.

For context, in 2019, Zakir was issued a ban by the police from giving public speeches in Malaysia.

When asked whether this ban still applies on Zakir, the Home minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail has curiously replied that the ban was in place in 2019, but it no longer applies today.


Was there any documentation involved or procedures followed in the banning and the lifting of the ban? Your guess is as good as mine.


You would think there will be some documentation to state why there is a ban instituted on Zakir, how long will the ban last or under what conditions the ban will be lifted, but you only think that because you are assuming that our country is one where the rule of law applies.


In a country where it is the the rule by law instead of the rule of law that applies however, or in country that sees the governing authority as somehow being above the law and having the power to create and execute law where they find it to be convenient, despite the effect it has on larger freedoms that people enjoy, such documentations or adherence to procedure and process might not be necessary.


In this sort of country, whether there is a ban doesn't depend on reason or due process at all – instead, it simply depends on the discretion and convenience of the authority – when it is convenient for the authorities, for all intent and purpose, you should assume there is a ban, and when it is not, then you should assume that the ban is lifted, and this ban can be instituted and lifted simply by the discretion of the authorities, without there necessarily being any reason or justification behind it at all.


Anyway, I am not really surprised that the speech ban on Zakir Naik has been lifted. I will be surprised whether the speech ban was ever formally in place, but I am not surprised that it was lifted, even if there is no formal speech ban in the first place.


I am not surprised, because I never thought that Malaysia was a country that fully operated by the rule of law in the first place.


While officially, we might believe that we are a country that is governed “of the people, by the people and for the people,” effectively, we might actually still be a semi-feudal country that is governed by the elites, who have one law for themselves and one law for the plebs.


As plebs, we can expect the rule of law to be applied, if we are merely in dispute with another pleb, but if you ever find ourselves in dispute with an elite, or if one elite is in dispute with another elite, then the rule of law will flee through the window as the rule by law knocks on the door.


In such a semi-feudal country that is ruled by law, such questions as why Zakir Naik can give a speech although he has been banned from doing so or why should Najib be prematurely released from jail when no one else is given such a privilege, will not arise.


Rather, it is the question who is in power, what do they want, how much power do they wield and what is to their convenience, that will determine what the reality will be.