Putrajaya’s sedition dragnet an attack on freedom of expression, say lawyers

Malay Mail
by JOSEPH SIPALAN, PATHMA SUBRAMANIAM AND BOO SU-LYN

KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 28 — The recent spate of probes and court actions under the controversial Sedition Act 1948 reeks of a government clamp down on dissenting views, lawyers claimed as authorities slapped two separate sedition charges on a Penang state assemblyman yesterday.

 

Legal experts argued that Putrajaya is relying on questionable grounds to charge RSN Rayer for allegedly insulting Umno — the dominant party in the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition — on two separate occasions.

“The government of Malaysia in 2014 is relying on a legislation that was introduced by the colonial government in 1948 to protect itself and to stop people from criticising its policies and governance,” Bar Council human rights committee chairman Andrew Khoo told Malay Mail Online when contacted.

“It is highly regrettable that the government should rely on a colonial mentality and legislation to deny the people the right to be critical either of the government or on the administration of justice,” he added.

Khoo said it was too early to say if the government is indeed actively trying to silence its critics despite the apparent “overuse” of the Act, but stressed that Putrajaya’s actions run counter to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s 2012 promise to repeal the legislation.

Lawyers for Liberty (LFL) executive director Eric Paulsen, however, said that the government has clearly been “misusing” the Sedition Act to persecute opposition politicians and quash public dissent.

 

The use of the Act against the late DAP chairman Karpal Singh, former PKR vice-president N. Surendran and PAS Selangor deputy commissioner Khalid Samad were examples that an individual need not act in a seditious manner to be liable for the offence, he said.

Prior to his death in April, Karpal was found guilty of sedition by the Kuala Lumpur High Court for questioning the Sultan of Perak’s decision to remove Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin as Perak mentri besar in 2009.

Surendran was charged last week for criticising the Court of Appeal’s ruling against PKR de-facto leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim in the latter’s second sodomy appeal, while Khalid was charged yesterday for questioning the powers of the Selangor Islamic Religious Council (Mais) and the Sultan of Selangor.

“In the current climate, the Act is being used to persecute the opposition. Whether what was said or by way of conduct is seditious or not, is irrelevant,” Paulsen said.

Civil liberties lawyer New Sin Yew noted that part of the problem lies with the vague definition of seditious behaviour outlined in the Act, particularly the point on “exciting disaffection” against the aggrieved party.

“The problem is, ‘exciting disaffection’ is quite vague. I may insult you, but insulting you may not bring disaffection. If I say ‘go to hell, the government’, it may not cause many people to be dissatisfied with the government.

“We have the fundamental right to insult our leaders and the government. Insulting and exciting disaffection are different,” he said when met earlier.

New also stressed that Umno and the government are separate entities, noting that the Sedition Act only criminalises incitement against the government, but not political parties.  

Constitutional lawyer Syahredzan Johan stressed that the developments have effectively narrowed public discourse to what the government decides can be said out in the open.

“With sedition looming large in the background, it has really stifled freedom of expression. Even I find myself treading carefully when commenting on the Ruler’s powers... I shouldn’t, but I don’t want to get into trouble either.

“And this is not good. If people are going to be constantly mindful and hold back from saying something, even if it is criticism that is constructive, what you’re doing is stifling the exchange of ideas,” he said.

The Centre for a Better Tomorrow (Cenbet), meanwhile, demanded that the Attorney-General (A-G) explain why it is a criminal offence for an elected representative to criticise a political party in a state assembly.

The organisation said in a statement that the onus falls on the A-G to clearly spell out the terms for using the Act, or end up reinforcing public perception that it is being used arbitrarily or selectively

“Such prosecution would criminalise common conversation among the people in Malaysia and be seen as favouring one political party over the other,” the group said.