Swatch Wins Court Case Against Malaysian Government Over Pride Watches Seizure

Swatch Group AG has emerged victorious in its lawsuit against the Malaysian government regarding the controversial seizure of its Pride-themed watches. The case, which has significant implications for the treatment of LGBTQ+ rights in Malaysia, saw the High Court ruling in favour of the Swiss watchmaker on 25 November 2024.

Judgment Details

The Kuala Lumpur High Court judge, Amarjeet Singh, stated that the seizure was illegal as it occurred without a warrant, declaring that all 172 watches must be returned within 14 days. The watches, which are valued at over RM64,795 (approximately S$19,560), had been seized during raids conducted by the Home Ministry between 13 and 15 May 2023.

Background of the Seizure

  • The watches were part of Swatch’s Pride collection, featuring rainbow wristbands.
  • Authorities claimed the watches promoted LGBTQ+ values, which sparked considerable controversy.
  • The formal ban on these watches was gazetted only in August 2023, following the raids.

Government Response

Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution acknowledged the court’s decision but indicated he would need to review the judgment report before implementing it. He stressed the importance of respecting court rulings, noting failure to do so could imply contempt of court.

Legal Implications

Although the judge did not order the government to pay damages, he mentioned that Swatch could seek compensation if the watches were damaged during the seizure process. This could open the door for further legal actions from Swatch in the future.

Political Context

In the context of Malaysian politics, the watch seizure has been perceived by some as an effort to align with conservative ideals ahead of the state elections in August 2023. Swatch claimed that the actions of the Home Ministry were politically motivated, aiming to showcase adherence to Islamic values.

Next Steps

As Swatch waits to reclaim its watches, the Ministry is under scrutiny regarding potential further legal actions or appeals against the High Court ruling. This case has highlighted the ongoing tensions surrounding LGBTQ+ rights and the government’s stance in a predominantly Muslim country.