The Swiss watchmaker is taking the Malaysian government to court

Two months after what was described as a “raid”, Swatch turns to the Malaysian high court for recourse: To get back watches seized by the home ministry of Malaysia last May, the Swiss watchmaker is seeking a “judicial review”, according to the New Straits Times, so that they are able “to challenge the seizure of 172 watches which purportedly promoted the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community”. The daily reported that the chief secretary of the home ministry, the secretary of the enforcement division, its minister, as well as the government were named as respondents. It is not known why the watches—valued at RM64,795 (or about SGD18,928) in total—could not be returned and Swatch instructed not to sell them. The watchmaker now wants the taken timepieces to be returned within five days of the order.

According to a statement issued by Swatch and widely quoted by the Malaysian media, the company feels that most of the watches do not show any association with the Pride movement or similar. “The watches of the 2023 designs are merely in each of the six colours of the rainbow,” it reads. “Taken individually, rainbow colours are only visible in very small size on the loop. The big hand displays a neutral and very positive message without any political or controversial meaning.” Of the nine watches (presumably seized), Swatch asserted that eight of them did not contain elements that directly align them with the global movement represented by the rainbow flag or its collective colours. As such, “any average person would not consider them as carrying any particular message.” On the Swatch website, it did say: “This year, we are celebrating Pride with a vivid collection of watches inspired by the iconic Pride flag.”

The coloured watches presumably seized by the Malaysian authorities. The rainbow flag could be seen on the loop of the strap. Photo: Swatch

Swatch singled out the seized watches that were in mono tones, without referring to the optics of the watches placed side by side, an arrangement possibly seen in the stores raided or in the communication materials available, as shown in the above photo. They added: “The respondents nevertheless treated all watches in the same way, not making any distinction based on their different designs or date of appearance on the market.” In addition, there is the distinction that “Swatch watches are canvas on the wrist. They are a display of art,” the brand said. It is not clear if the Malaysian authorities would allow themselves to be so enlightened. Many observers felt that if those who initiated the seizure had first considered the implications of drawing attention to the colourful but uncontroversial-looking watches, the timepieces may not have generated that much attention at home, let alone globally.

But the home ministry went ahead with the swift nation-wide confiscation of the merchandise that they found objectionable over three consecutive days, 13 to 15 May. And, as a consequence, accorded Malaysia with the distinction of being the only nation in the world where the Swatch watches were seized, as confirmed by the brand’s marketing manager following the raid. According to local reports at the time, the ministry defended their action by proclaiming that the sale of the timepieces in question breached (or were “suspected to be in breach of”) the nation’s Akta Mesin Cetak dan Penerbitan or Printing Presses and Publications Act (PPPA) of 1984. Swatch’s latest statement proclaims that “the art of the watches does not suggest any words or ideas as they are simply in beautifully arranged colours.” It is possible that the authorities will declare that “art” is not exempt from the Act.

Illustration (top): Just So