Illustration: Liu Rui/GT

According to Malaysian media, Alias Ahmad, director-general of the Malaysian Immigration Department, has put more than 6,500 Malaysians on a blacklist. Their passports will be cancelled for "tarnishing Malaysia's image abroad." Revoking passports blocks overseas Malaysians from returning to their own country, while those who have already come back will be forbidden from leaving for the next three to five years.

This new policy has kicked up a row in Malaysia, prompting opposition politicians, scholars and ordinary people to clamor for a legal interpretation.

Lim Guan Eng, secretary-general of Democratic Action Party (DAP), one of the major opposition parties in Malaysia, denounced this policy by saying that the "DAP will not stand idly by and watch Malaysians persecuted and victimized merely for exercising their fundamental human rights of expressing their political beliefs."

It seems that this new contradictory policy follows the messy conclusion to the Malaysian elections, intensifying the antagonism between the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) government and opposition parties.

The major point of contention is by what standard a Malaysian's behavior can be regarded as "shaming the country."

According to a Berita Harian report on May 27, Ahmad was quoted as saying that his department has been tracking Malaysians overseas including students who attempted to overturn the government and tarnish the country's image, and they would face stern actions, such as having their passports cancelled for a period of three to five years, under section eight of the Immigration Act 1959/1963.

But this report soon became the target of ridicule among Malaysians, since the so-called section eight has nothing to do with canceling passports.

However, Ahmad did not give a timely and clear correction until six days later when he officially told Malaysiakini that he had been misquoted. Not only was he criticized for professional negligence, but his clarification magnified the murky legal foundation of the policy.

Ahmad explained that this new policy was put forward based on advice from the police and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and was supported by case law which empowers the government to cancel passports.

However, Syahredzan Johan, a Malaysian lawyer, disagreed with Ahmad's explanation, saying that "as far as I can find, there is nothing to allow the cancellation of passports."

Although the new policy is aimed at curbing the negative impact caused by "those convicted overseas," such as "drug-related criminals and the lawbreaker of immigration," according to Ahmad's interpretation, it also includes those who participate in demonstrations overseas.

After the recent dramatic elections, Pakatan Rakyat, a Malaysian political coalition formed by three opposition parties, came close to gaining national power as it had won more votes overall, but was defeated by the BN in terms of the number of seats. This outcome fueled the enthusiasm of many Malaysian dissenters, especially overseas students, to fight for an end to corruption and abuse of power.

It was reported that some Malaysian dissenters, especially overseas students, held the Malaysian flag upside down and issued agitating statements on social media calling for the Malaysian government to be overthrown. Some even called for the murder of Malaysian public figures.

There is no doubt that seditious statements sometimes have bloody consequences if they are accepted by extremists. Blacklisting its own citizens who have different political claims and canceling their passports might be effective in suppressing radical voices in the short term, but in the long term, it will prove unwise.

On the one hand, this policy will likely backfire. Although wars of words never recede in Malaysian politics, few extreme incidents have happened. But if the mouths of Malaysian dissenters are shut and their channels of expression blocked, it is possible that some of them will be enraged and engage in extreme actions.

On the other hand, this policy, though strict, lacks an unclear definition of what constitutes "tarnishing Malaysia's image." The ambiguity is very likely to cause concerns and fears among Malaysians. The Malaysian government should realize that excessive restrictions on people's rights of expression will create mistrust of the government.

Laws cannot be abused just for the prevention of possible crimes. Facing opposing voices, some of which are illegal, Malaysia should make sure justice is done, but would be better off devising a more specific mechanism which is legitimately able to focus on real violations and avoid causing panic.

The author is a reporter with the Global Times. liuzhun@globaltimes.com.cn