People have said far worse and got away with it. Indeed, even when the state cracked down on them, it was met with bravado and the knowledge that their speech was enabled and thus, their sanctioning inconsequential.

From reportage, police Criminal Investigation Department director M Kumar said that social media has become a hotspot “… to spread seditious posts or comments, as well as provocative debates regarding government policies and current issues.”

Which is a bizarre statement to make, considering that every day, people post all sorts of comments and provocations about the government, each other, and the state of the world.

Singled out

No, what we are dealing with is the fact that the Madani state has chosen to take action against this particular social media user.

The fact is that the Madani state has not given the rakyat a reason why her comments were sanction-worthy, but more importantly, the state is fuelling an atmosphere where people are speculating about what exactly was wrong about this housewife’s speech, with many never having seen her TikTok videos.

Referencing Section 3(1)(a) of the Sedition Act, Kumar said, as reported in the press, “… a ‘seditious tendency’ as a tendency to bring into hatred or contempt, or to excite disaffection against any ruler or government.”

Keep in mind how successive regimes have defined the tendency and harm to the community.

In 2014, Perkasa president Ibrahim Ali’s threats to burn Bibles were not sanctioned by the state  because, in the words of the attorney-general, “This is not a sentiment or intention to cause religious disharmony, but this is defending the sanctity of Islam that is clearly defined in laws.”

Indeed, the Attorney-General’s Chambers, when touching on the Bible-burning issue, said, as reported by The Edge - “As decided by the court, before a statement is said to have seditious tendencies, the statement must be viewed in the context it was made... When studied in its entire context, Ibrahim’s statement is not categorised as having seditious tendencies.”

“It was clear Ibrahim had no intention to create religious tensions but was only defending the purity of Islam.”

So rational Malaysians have to ask, what exactly was seditious about the speech of this housewife? How exactly is criticising the prime minister by a housewife rising to the level of sedition?

Just a few years ago, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim said, “Criticism against the prime minister or leaders is necessary, and leaders should not be alarmed or have fear (of media criticising them).

“I am saying this now because I am confident with what we are doing, and I am ready to fight with facts. And if indeed there are shortcomings on our side, then we are ready to apologise and make the necessary changes.

So what happened to being ready to fight with facts and confidence about what Madani is doing?

Harapan’s lie

Going after minorities for causing disruptions within mainstream politics is normal, but what the state fears is when folks from the majority community cause disruptions.

Under Pakatan Harapan, a women’s march was investigated under sedition laws, then there was the independent preacher Wan Ji Wan Hussin, and of course, who could forget the persecution of activist Fadiah Nadwa Fikri.

The Harapan state was also considering laws that would make news portals responsible for readers’ comments, which would take stifling freedom of speech to a whole new level.

Syahredzan Johan, who is now a political operative in Madani, said in 2015: “We are saying that we have certain principles that we adhere to as a democracy. Freedom of speech and expression is part of our DNA, so we hold on to these values.

“If we don’t say something because we are afraid they will come after us, then we are saying that these values are not that important to us.

“Do we want to be the kind of society that allows the authorities to do as they please because we fear getting into trouble?”

Jorjet learned the hard way that this is not true.