No place for Sedition Act if we are to be a progressive democracy, say lawyers

The Sedition Act must be removed from the statute book as it unfairly punishes individuals whose thoughts are against the views of the establishment, lawyers said.

The law is also the anti-thesis of democracy, rule of law, justice and human rights, they said in response to Umno supreme council member Datuk Seri Mukhriz Mahathir’s statement yesterday that those who were for repeal of the Sedition Act had yet to explain its weaknesses.

The lawyers said freedom of speech and expression was a manifestation of one's thought process and it was irrational to use the sedition law to mete out harsh sentences, like a jail term.

They said the law was used as an instrument of oppression, and is archaic and repressive.

Lawyer Amer Hamzah Arshad said the late Karpal Singh was convicted for sedition merely for explaining the law during the 2009 Perak constitutional crisis.

"Karpal only gave his opinion that the ruler can be taken to court because the constitution is supreme. That statement did not incite violence or tension in society and yet he was charged and convicted," Amer said.

Karpal, a respectable constitutional lawyer, had called for a press conference in February 2009 when the Sultan of Perak appointed Datuk Seri Zambry Abdul Kadir as menteri besar after the incumbent Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin lost majority support.

In March this year, the High Court fined him RM4,000 after finding him guilty of sedition against the Sultan.

"Karpal ran foul of the law because for sedition the best of good intentions is irrelevant," he said.

Yesterday, Mukhriz, who is also the Kedah Menteri Besar, said it was best for the Sedition Act 1948 to be retained to ensure security, solidarity and racial harmony in the country.

"So far, I have not heard of anyone giving an explanation on the act that is seen as weak, bias and not in line with the current environment... where is the weakness of this Sedition Act?" he said.

Amer said even Universiti Malaya law professor Dr Azmi Sharom was prosecuted under the law for merely applying the law to the facts of the Selangor Menteri Besar impasse.

"There must be exchange of ideas for the country and the people to move forward. Suppression of views will only retard our society," Amer said.

Lawyers for Liberty executive director Eric Paulsen (pic), taking a swipe at Mukhriz, saying the menteri besar was either feigning ignorance or being obtuse.

"Most democracies, especially in the Commonwealth, have put the law to little use or had abolished them," he said.

He said it was a myth to suggest that the law was justified because it was sensitive to speak or debate issues in order to maintain harmony and unity.

"The law has instead prevented important issues from being properly and genuinely addressed," he added.

Paulsen said there was also a perception that the Sedition Act was used as a political tool or weapon dressed up as legislation to go after opposition leaders and activists who were against the Barisan Nasional government.

Lawyer Jayaseelan Anthony said the sedition law which originated from England in the 12th century was extended to British colonies to quell dissent against the monarch and the colonial government.

"In England, the offender is guilty only if the prosecution proves there was violence and public disorder as a result of uttering or publishing seditious remarks," he said.

However, he said the British and their judicial officers modified the law to make it more oppresive to check their subjects in the colonies.

"They wanted to stay in power and this had to be done through rule by fear," said Anthony who is author of a book "Seditious Tendency?"

In the then Malaya, he said the British who returned after the Japanese Occupation passed three laws in one day - the Sedition, Trade Union and Printing Ordinances in 1948 to control the communist propoganda.

"The then Communist Party of Malaya was making inroads among the masses and workers, and the British needed the legislation to check their influence," he said.

He said the political and social landscape in Malaysia had changed for the better but yet the sedition law was made more repressive following an amendment in 1970.

"This primitive law must go if we are going to join the ranks of other progressive democratic societies," he said. – September 28, 2014.