The government should not criminalise the
recent statements by activist lawyer Eric Paulsen regarding the Islamic
Development Department (Jakim), said the Malaysian Bar.
The Bar Council president Christopher Leong said this is because his comments are not insulting to Islam as some had alleged, but is directed at a government agency.
“It must be emphasised that an allegedly adverse statement directed at a government authority or agency, such as Jakim, should never be criminalised.
“A government authority or agency is not beyond public scrutiny or comment, nor can it be immune from criticism. This is part and parcel of the nature of accountability of public authorities in democratic societies,” he said in a statement today.
Paulsen, who is the executive director of Lawyers for Liberty, had made a tweet accusing Jakim of “promoting extremism” every Friday, likely referring to its Friday sermons. The tweet has since been deleted.
He was arrested on Monday night to facilitate investigations under the Sedition Act 1948, and was released on police bail yesterday.
The inspector-general of police Khalid Abdul Bakar said the arrest was made to “ensure harmony in this multiracial society”, while Paulsen has insisted that his comments are within legal boundaries.
Leong (left) also drew parallels between the case and an earlier incident in January 2013, where Perkasa chief Ibrahim Ali called for Malay language bibles containing the word “Allah” to be burnt, following allegations that copies of it were distributed to students outside a school including Muslim students.
The Attorney-General’s Chambers later decided not to prosecute Ibrahim, as it was meant to defend the sanctity of Islam and not intended to cause religious disharmony.
Consistency needed
Leong said the government needs to be consistent in applying the law in Ibrahim’s case and in Paulsen’s case by taking the context of their statements into account.
“In its ordinary and natural meaning, the tweet was an expression of concern directed at the government to look into the actions of a government agency.
“Whether the concern as expressed is borne out is a matter for enquiry and rebuttal. There cannot be anything seditious about such comments,” he said.
Leong also slammed Khalid (left)
tweets in response to Paulsen’s tweet accusing the latter as being
rude, arrogant, and trying to incite Malaysians into disunity.
He said such comments are not in line with the level of independence, neutrality, and professionalism expected of the police.
He added that the case is also an example of how the Sedition Act is detrimental to nation-building, by punishing people simply because there may be others who take offence to their comments.
“The Sedition Act 1948 encourages people who threaten violence, and who are not open to adverse comments or ideas.
“It endorses and nurtures a culture of aggression, intemperance and intolerance that does not engender the growth and maturity of this nation and its peoples, and provides an environment for extremism to thrive,” he asserted.
The Bar Council president Christopher Leong said this is because his comments are not insulting to Islam as some had alleged, but is directed at a government agency.
“It must be emphasised that an allegedly adverse statement directed at a government authority or agency, such as Jakim, should never be criminalised.
“A government authority or agency is not beyond public scrutiny or comment, nor can it be immune from criticism. This is part and parcel of the nature of accountability of public authorities in democratic societies,” he said in a statement today.
Paulsen, who is the executive director of Lawyers for Liberty, had made a tweet accusing Jakim of “promoting extremism” every Friday, likely referring to its Friday sermons. The tweet has since been deleted.
He was arrested on Monday night to facilitate investigations under the Sedition Act 1948, and was released on police bail yesterday.
The inspector-general of police Khalid Abdul Bakar said the arrest was made to “ensure harmony in this multiracial society”, while Paulsen has insisted that his comments are within legal boundaries.Leong (left) also drew parallels between the case and an earlier incident in January 2013, where Perkasa chief Ibrahim Ali called for Malay language bibles containing the word “Allah” to be burnt, following allegations that copies of it were distributed to students outside a school including Muslim students.
The Attorney-General’s Chambers later decided not to prosecute Ibrahim, as it was meant to defend the sanctity of Islam and not intended to cause religious disharmony.
Consistency needed
Leong said the government needs to be consistent in applying the law in Ibrahim’s case and in Paulsen’s case by taking the context of their statements into account.
“In its ordinary and natural meaning, the tweet was an expression of concern directed at the government to look into the actions of a government agency.
“Whether the concern as expressed is borne out is a matter for enquiry and rebuttal. There cannot be anything seditious about such comments,” he said.
Leong also slammed Khalid (left)
tweets in response to Paulsen’s tweet accusing the latter as being
rude, arrogant, and trying to incite Malaysians into disunity.He said such comments are not in line with the level of independence, neutrality, and professionalism expected of the police.
He added that the case is also an example of how the Sedition Act is detrimental to nation-building, by punishing people simply because there may be others who take offence to their comments.
“The Sedition Act 1948 encourages people who threaten violence, and who are not open to adverse comments or ideas.
“It endorses and nurtures a culture of aggression, intemperance and intolerance that does not engender the growth and maturity of this nation and its peoples, and provides an environment for extremism to thrive,” he asserted.
No comments:
Post a Comment