Seditious Statements
Posted on May 20, 2008
Filed Under sedition | 2 Comments
The Star often feature “Articles of Law” by Bhag Singh and today there is an article on Seditious Statements. The following is a brief extract of the local decisions on Sedition from the article.
By BHAG SINGH
“But what is meant by “to question”?
Statements made by a Member of Parliament came for adjudication before the Court in Public Prosecutor v. Mark Koding 25 years ago. The issue in that case was whether Article 152 of the Federal Constitution, which is one of the sensitive issues, had been questioned.
In a speech in Parliament, Koding had argued for disallowing the continuation of Chinese and Tamil schools and suggested that the schools be closed. He also asked for the cessation of the use of road signs in those languages. He went on to say that if Article 152 stood in the way then the Constitution ought to be amended.
In the days that followed, he was promptly charged for touching on a sensitive issue and what arose for consideration before the Court was whether he had questioned one of the sensitive issues as stipulated in Section 3(1)(f) in the Sedition Act 1948.Ten years earlier, a similar assertion had been made, though not in Parliament. Utusan Melayu had published an article entitled, “Hapuskan sekolah-sekolah beraliran Tamil atau Cina di negeri ini”.
It was a report of a talk given by an MP, a then prominent Malay leader, at the National Education Congress in Kuala Lumpur. He, however, did not concede that what he said at the Congress was the message conveyed by the headline of the newspaper report.
In the result, the sub-editor who had decided on and inserted the heading, was convicted, with the heading held to be seditious within the meaning of section 3(1)(f). Ong CJ, who heard the appeal, said that the result and effect of the 1970 amendments made in the 1948 Act could be said to widen the definition of “seditious tendency” by making virtually taboo any topic of public discussion calling into question the provisions of Part III or Articles 152, 153 and 181 of the Federal Constitution.
This case led to the perception that to make such statements was seditious Koding would no doubt have been aware of the view of the law when he made the statements but he presumably did so in the belief that he would be immune to prosecution because he was speaking in Parliament.
However, the court took the view that advocating the closure of Tamil or Chinese schools was not in itself seditious in the context of Article 152 of the Federal Constitution.Mohd Azmi J. had the strictly legal point of view when he acknowledged that “whether or not such closure is advisable or feasible is another matter to be decided elsewhere and not in this court. There is nothing unlawful in allowing Chinese or Tamil schools to continue”.
The Court decided that there had nevertheless been a breach of section 3(1)(f) by suggesting the amendment to the Constitution to allow the abolition or closure of such schools, and for the discontinuance of the use of the languages on road signs.
It is a basic principle that the eventual decision in a case depends on the specific facts that are before the court when a decision has to be made. This is even more so when it comes to sedition.As stated in a study on the Law of Sedition in India, the dimension of freedom of speech as a right is not rigid but a variable one depending upon time, place and circumstances. The extent of the right depends, amongst others, on the following factors: the political situation of the times; the economic prosperity of the society; the audience to which the speech is addressed or amongst whom the writing is circulated; extent of tolerance developed by the people, and the police force available to the State.
It will not be out of place to say that when touching on sensitive issues, it may not be a matter of strict legal interpretation alone. Given that social, cultural and other sensitivities are involved, there is a definite need to exercise a broader kind of wisdom.”
Popularity: 37% [?]
Sphere: Related ContentWhat does sedition mean?
Posted on May 16, 2008
Filed Under sedition | Leave a Comment
Excerpt from BRAVE NEW WORLD WITH AZMI SHAROM
SEDITION! What does it mean? The word has been floating around for the past couple of weeks. Raja Petra the (in) famous blogger of Malaysia Today is being charged with sedition and Karpal Singh the (in)famous MP is being threatened with the charge of sedition.
Raja Petra’s charge is based on an article he wrote about the Altantuya murder and Karpal was supposedly being seditious when he questioned the limits of the Sultan of Perak’s constitutional powers.
Their so-called sedition is not dependent on the definition of the Oxford Paperback Dictionary. Instead, we must look to the Sedition Act 1948 (revised in 1969). Well, 1948. That’s a long time ago. We were not independent then. The Brits were in control. So what we have here is a Brit-made law used initially to control the teeming masses of Malaya from rebelling against the colonial masters.
Anyway, the Act gives a much more detailed definition than my dictionary. It’s not much clearer, mind you, just more detailed. Since I am lazy, I’ll just paraphrase the relevant parts of the act here.
Sedition means:
(a) To make people hate or feel contempt or disaffection against any ruler or government;
(b) To excite people into changing any legally established matter other than by lawful means;
(c) To make people hate, feel contempt for or feel disaffection against the administration of justice in the country;
(d) To raise discontent or disaffection among the people of the country;
(e) To promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Malaysia; or
(f) To question the provisions in the Constitution regarding citizenship, Bahasa Malaysia as the national language, the special position of Malays and the sovereignty of the rulers.
However, your words and actions are not seditious if they were:
(a) Intended to show that a ruler has made a mistake;
(b) To constructively show that the government has made mistakes or is in some way defective in law-making and the administration of justice (with the exception of the listed matters in paragraph (f) above);
(c) To make changes in the country through lawful means (with the exception of the listed matters in paragraph (f) above) and to identify, with the intention of removing, any matter that will raise feeling of ill will between the various ethnic groups.
This is the law as it stands. It is not a verbatim reproduction of the Act because, believe me, if you think what I wrote is boring, the actual Act will drive you to tears. Arguments will be made on both sides to determine if sedition has occurred, and if the case goes to court, then it is up to the wisdom of the judge to decide.
Meanwhile, since we are all intelligent citizens of a democratic country, I see no harm in examining the so-called seditious acts of these two fellows, and seeing if they fit into the definition provided for by this old colonial law.
While you are at it, you may want to see if anyone else has been uttering seditious words. It could be fun. For example, the next time someone questions your citizenship, you can always scream: “Sedition! Sedition!”
The law is very open-ended and perhaps it should be done away with. Just what sedition is appears to be in the eye of the beholder, and this is not a particularly ideal situation. After all, one person’s sedition is another person’s practice of the democratic right of free speech.
Dr Azmi Sharom is a law teacher. The views expressed here are entirely his own.
Popularity: 37% [?]
Sphere: Related ContentCLP abolished, is this good news?
Posted on May 15, 2008
Filed Under CLP | 2 Comments
According to Malaysiakini today:
“De facto law minister Zaid Ibrahim today announced that the Certificate of Legal Practice (CLP) will be abolished and replaced with Common Bar Course (CBC). He added that details of implementation will be revealed in two months. CLP is a compulsory requirement for law students with Bachelor of Laws (LLB) degrees conferred by the universities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and certain universities in Australia and New Zealand before they can practice law. The CLP examination will be replaced by the Common Bar Examination.”
Is this good news to you?If you are the unfortunate one who took the CLP exams a few times, this news may be bitter sweet to you since it means all your previous experience gained from studying and sitting for the exams has been a waste, at the same time a relief that you don’t have to sit for the dreaded exams again and mix it with a sense of uncertainty of what will be the proposed new replacement.Will the new replacement be more transparent? That is student actually get back their marked papers and know where they go wrong and learn where they can improve? I guess we have to wait a few weeks to know the actual implementation of this.
Popularity: 43% [?]
Sphere: Related Contentkeep looking »
