Someone might actually be committing sedition without knowing it because the definition of sedition in the act is broad and vague.
The Sedition Act of today is the updated form of the Sedition Ordinance 1948, a law designed to silence critics of the British colonial government. In 1948, the biggest threat to colonialism in Malaysia was Communism, and its embodiment in the form of the Communist Party of Malaysia. The Sedition Act is the sibling of the Internal Security Act (ISA).
In a nutshell or non-legal speak, it is a law which allows its enforcers to put someone away for saying or publishing anything deemed to be seditious. Someone might actually be committing sedition without knowing it because the definition of sedition in the act is broad and vague.
Rest assured you are safe complaining about the terrible nasi lemak you had, but you would be walking a fine line when you grumble about the unfairness of GST. Anything beyond that and you might be facing a three-year jail sentence or a RM5,000 fine or both. The saving grace about this in comparison to the ISA is that it limits the punishment and allows you your day in court.
The terrifying downside is that you might have committed a crime without intending to do so because you didn’t even know it was a crime. A case in point is the Form 5 lad who is being investigated under this law for clicking the Like button while surfing the “I love Israel” page on Facebook.
The now repealed ISA was its bigger brother, in that it gave its enforcers the right to lock-up any individual whom the enforcers believed would commit, cause, or incite a security breach, without any recourse to trial, for an indefinite period. It is preventive in its action because it seeks to pre-empt the alleged security breach. However in practice it is also used after the fact.
Just imagine going to jail for something you haven’t done but because someone believes you would. No proof, no courts, no dice roll, straight to jail without passing Go. That is the gist of the ISA.
Last Tuesday, N Surendran was charged under the Sedition Act at the Sessions Court for allegedly making false statements in connection with Anwar Ibrahim’s sodomy trial. Surendran is Anwar’s defence lawyer in that trial, as well as a PKR member of parliament for Padang Serai.
200 police reports
According to Surendran, he was discussing with the media the substance of a defence argument used in the Court of Appeal and how that could be relevant in the upcoming Federal Court hearing, and the Prime Minister’s name was brought up. The next thing you know 200 or so police reports are lodged against Surendran by Umno members accusing him of spreading falsehoods about Najib. The Public Prosecutor pressed charges.
Former Federal Court judge Gopal Sri Ram seems to think it valid for a defence attorney to discuss the merits of a judgement, or even disagree, so long as no disparaging remarks are directed at the judges themselves.
Human Rights Watch (Asia) says that this is “another blatant example of a draconian law being used to violate freedom of expression and silence critics” of Najib’s government.
In the legal profession, lawyers often have to walk that fine line if they are to represent their clients to the best of their abilities. Surendran was walking that fine line in the exercise of his duties as Anwar’s counsel.
Although not facing anything as serious, so was Edmund Bon in his defence of Khalid Ibrahim, as Bon was subjected to a Twitter campaign of hate by others in the legal fraternity, very much like the Form 5 boy who faced hate and resentment from teachers and schoolmates for simply being naïve.
This boy faces both the threat of the Sedition Act as well the hate from school and on Facebook.
This tool of convenience has been used frequently by the authorities in what seems a very arbitrary manner. It is a law no longer in step with the times and often abused as the catch all since the repeal of the ISA.
In a nutshell or non-legal speak, it is a law which allows its enforcers to put someone away for saying or publishing anything deemed to be seditious. Someone might actually be committing sedition without knowing it because the definition of sedition in the act is broad and vague.
Rest assured you are safe complaining about the terrible nasi lemak you had, but you would be walking a fine line when you grumble about the unfairness of GST. Anything beyond that and you might be facing a three-year jail sentence or a RM5,000 fine or both. The saving grace about this in comparison to the ISA is that it limits the punishment and allows you your day in court.
The terrifying downside is that you might have committed a crime without intending to do so because you didn’t even know it was a crime. A case in point is the Form 5 lad who is being investigated under this law for clicking the Like button while surfing the “I love Israel” page on Facebook.
The now repealed ISA was its bigger brother, in that it gave its enforcers the right to lock-up any individual whom the enforcers believed would commit, cause, or incite a security breach, without any recourse to trial, for an indefinite period. It is preventive in its action because it seeks to pre-empt the alleged security breach. However in practice it is also used after the fact.
Just imagine going to jail for something you haven’t done but because someone believes you would. No proof, no courts, no dice roll, straight to jail without passing Go. That is the gist of the ISA.
Last Tuesday, N Surendran was charged under the Sedition Act at the Sessions Court for allegedly making false statements in connection with Anwar Ibrahim’s sodomy trial. Surendran is Anwar’s defence lawyer in that trial, as well as a PKR member of parliament for Padang Serai.
200 police reports
According to Surendran, he was discussing with the media the substance of a defence argument used in the Court of Appeal and how that could be relevant in the upcoming Federal Court hearing, and the Prime Minister’s name was brought up. The next thing you know 200 or so police reports are lodged against Surendran by Umno members accusing him of spreading falsehoods about Najib. The Public Prosecutor pressed charges.
Former Federal Court judge Gopal Sri Ram seems to think it valid for a defence attorney to discuss the merits of a judgement, or even disagree, so long as no disparaging remarks are directed at the judges themselves.
Human Rights Watch (Asia) says that this is “another blatant example of a draconian law being used to violate freedom of expression and silence critics” of Najib’s government.
In the legal profession, lawyers often have to walk that fine line if they are to represent their clients to the best of their abilities. Surendran was walking that fine line in the exercise of his duties as Anwar’s counsel.
Although not facing anything as serious, so was Edmund Bon in his defence of Khalid Ibrahim, as Bon was subjected to a Twitter campaign of hate by others in the legal fraternity, very much like the Form 5 boy who faced hate and resentment from teachers and schoolmates for simply being naïve.
This boy faces both the threat of the Sedition Act as well the hate from school and on Facebook.
This tool of convenience has been used frequently by the authorities in what seems a very arbitrary manner. It is a law no longer in step with the times and often abused as the catch all since the repeal of the ISA.
No comments:
Post a Comment