Flags, Errors, and the Boundaries of Legitimate Protest

 

Over the past few months, several incidents involving the Malaysian flag (Jalur Gemilang) have surfaced, some due to misprints in the flag's design, others to incorrect hoisting procedures. These have occurred across a range of settings, from newspapers to police stations, and reflect no coordinated intent or communal orchestration within Malaysia’s multiethnic society.

As Merdeka Day approaches, flags are displayed widely as a gesture of national pride. In the enthusiasm, errors are bound to happen. These should be recognised for what they are: innocent mistakes. A simple correction or polite notice suffices. No individual, regardless of motive, would deliberately choose such a conspicuous and self-defeating method to express dissent.

Yet, despite this context, a hardware shop in Penang became the target of a public demonstration on August 14 after mistakenly displaying the Malaysian flag upside down (https://mothership.sg/2025/08/malaysia-protest-upside-down-flag/).  The shop owner was arrested despite correcting the error and issuing an apology (The Edge, 10 August 2025). Nevertheless, a crowd assembled outside the premises—waving flags, chanting slogans, and brandishing placards that read “Rise to Defend the Nation’s Dignity” and “Reject Treachery.” The organisers claimed to be defending sovereignty. But what unfolded was not a patriotic rally. It was a public shaming, cloaked in the language of national pride.

This incident raises a deeper concern: when does protest cross the line into harassment? Under Malaysia’s newly amended Penal Code (Act A1750), harassment is no longer a vague or discretionary concept. Sections 507B to 507G now criminalise conduct that includes threatening or abusive language (s.507B), intimidation (s.507C), sustained psychological provocation (s.507D), and doxxing or misuse of personal information (s.507E–F). The legal threshold is clear: harassment involves a persistent and deliberate course of unreasonable and oppressive conduct that causes alarm, fear, or distress.

The demonstration in Penang, despite its patriotic claims, meets several of these criteria. It was targeted, sustained, and emotionally coercive. The shop owner had already acknowledged the mistake and taken corrective action. The continued mobilisation, complete with slogans and placards, served no corrective purpose. It inflicted reputational harm and emotional distress. Under the law, such conduct must now warrant criminal investigation.

More troubling is the selective nature of such mobilisation. Errors involving the national flag have occurred in government institutions, including police stations and media outlets. Yet these did not provoke similar demonstrations. The disproportionate response in Penang hints at a deeper pattern: one where outrage is selectively deployed, often against vulnerable or politically unaffiliated targets. This undermines the credibility of the protest and risks turning civic vigilance into a tool of intimidation.

It is also worth noting the ethnic undertones that can accompany such demonstrations. While the slogans may be nationalistic, the subtext often carries communal implications, especially when the target is a non-Malay business owner. This is not to accuse the demonstrators of racism, but to highlight the structural bias that can emerge when public mobilisation lacks thoughtful restraint. In a plural society, the framing of protest matters as much as its content. Targeted harassment is not an expression of constitutional rights.

To be clear, the national flag deserves respect. It is a symbol of shared identity and constitutional order. But respect for the flag must not come at the expense of respect for fellow citizens. Patriotism is not performative outrage. It is the quiet, consistent commitment to fairness, proportionality, and unity. In moments like these, the most dignified response is not to escalate, but to educate, to correct the error, affirm the shared values, and move forward.

And where protest becomes harassment, the law must intervene. The new legal thresholds are not symbolic. They are actionable. If we are serious about protecting the dignity of both nation and citizen, then false demonstrations must be met not with applause, but with accountability.