Press Release | The Bar is Pro-Rule of Law and Justice, Not Pro-Opposition or Government

Much has been said of the prosecution of Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim, and there appears to be some obfuscation.   Those who are misconstruing or distorting the Malaysian Bar’s press release of 11 February 2015, which was plainly and clearly only in respect of the prosecutorial process, should cease doing so.  

Without recapping the issues raised therein, the Malaysian Bar wishes to address some issues that have arisen in the past week.

The prosecutor-by-fiat in the Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim case has been reported to have been giving interviews, attending roadshows purportedly organised by a political party in Government, and with his name used in suggestions for debates.   It was subsequently reported that the roadshows were not at the behest of or sanctioned by that political party.

Is such conduct befitting or compatible with the dignity of a prosecutor or the office of the Public Prosecutor?  Is it appropriate or proper for a prosecutor to replay the prosecution by way of roadshows or public debates?  Does a fiat given to a prosecutor to conduct a prosecution confer a licence to embark on a public tirade against a convicted and incarcerated person, or has the prosecutor-by-fiat been nevertheless authorised by the Public Prosecutor to undertake these activities?

A former Attorney General is reported to have said that such conduct is unprecedented.

The “Standards of professional responsibility and statement of the essential duties and rights of prosecutors” adopted by the International Association of Prosecutors on 23 April 1999 provide, amongst others, that prosecutors shall:

(1) at all times maintain the honour and dignity of their profession;

(2) always conduct themselves professionally in accordance with the law and the rules and ethics of their profession;

(3) at all times exercise the highest standards of integrity and care;

(4) strive to be, and to be seen to be, consistent, independent and impartial;

(5) always serve and protect the public interest; respect, protect and uphold the universal concept of human dignity and human rights;

(6) remain unaffected by sectional interests and public or media pressures and shall have regard only to the public interest; act with objectivity; and 

(7) preserve professional confidentiality.

 

Furthermore, the “Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors” adopted by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders in 1990 provide, amongst others, that prosecutors shall:

(1) as essential agents of the administration of justice, at all times maintain the honour and dignity of their profession;

(2) in accordance with the law, perform their duties fairly, consistently, and expeditiously, and respect and protect human dignity and uphold human rights, thus contributing to ensuring due process and the smooth functioning of the criminal justice system; 

(3) carry out their functions impartially and avoid all political, social, religious, racial, cultural, sexual or any other kind of discrimination; 

(4) protect the public interest and act with objectivity; and

(5) keep matters in their possession confidential, unless the performance of duty or the needs of justice require otherwise.

Are prosecutors governed by a set of practice and etiquette rules established by the Public Prosecutor, who is also the Attorney General, in a similar vein to the standards and guidelines referred to above, or the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978 that govern advocates and solicitors?

The Public Prosecutor should perhaps shed light on these matters.

The prosecutorial discretion pursuant to Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution is vested in the Attorney General.  However, as the late Sultan Azlan Shah once said, there is no such thing as an unfettered discretion, as every discretion has its legal limits.  Thus, although the exercise of discretion may be vested in an office, the exercise of it is accountable and is not beyond scrutiny.

There may thus be occasions when the Public Prosecutor or his office may be required to render an account of the exercise or non-exercise of the prosecutorial discretion or conduct on certain matters raised by the public.  We ought to bear in mind that, in any criminal prosecution, the Public Prosecutor’s office represents the public interest, and not the Government.  Criminal prosecutions are thus in the name of the Public Prosecutor, and not in the name of the Government of Malaysia.

The account or clarification would usually be done in a clinical, measured and dispassionate manner, mindful that the office is a public office acting in furtherance of the public trust.

 

There certainly should be no place for roadshows or debates.

Any roadshow or public debate by a prosecutor with respect to a prosecution he had conducted, culminating in a conviction, would add nothing to the conduct of the prosecution, proceedings or conviction, but may potentially embarrass, or affect the public confidence in or perception of, the office of the Public Prosecutor.

It was also reported that the prosecutor-by-fiat had referred to, and revealed in public, matters or details of proceedings expressly held in camera.

Proceedings held in camera are proceedings that are not conducted in open court, and are without the presence of the public.  The court would usually make directions or set terms as to the ambit of the restriction in terms of any revelation or publication of the matters heard in camera.  Whether it is improper or a contempt of court for a prosecutor (or a prosecutor-by-fiat) or any party to reveal or publish matters and evidence heard in proceedings held in camera would depend on the directions made or terms set, if any, by the court, and whether those directions or terms have been breached.   

The directions or terms made with regard to any particular proceedings held in camera could only be ascertained from the notes of court proceedings on the matter, if available, and any breach thereof would be a matter for the parties involved in the criminal trial or the court itself to take up.

The media release dated 12 February 2015 by the Attorney General is an example of an account or response by the office of the Public Prosecutor in a clinical, measured and dispassionate manner.

We thank the Attorney General for the statistics provided with regard to prosecutions undertaken between 2010 and 2014 pursuant to section 377B of the Penal Code.  It would be informative to have the statistics, if any, for such prosecutions under section 377B from the 1990s to 2009. 

The law is only as good and fair as if it is consistently and equally applied and enforced.  Section 377B, read with section 377A, criminalises both sodomy and oral sex (fellatio).  Section 377D has in the past been used to prosecute a participant or abettor in consensual sodomy.  The offences apply to heterosexuals and homosexuals.  It would be instructive to see what the statistics are for prosecutions for consensual oral sex under section 377B, read with section 377A, and under section 377D.

An analogy was drawn in the Attorney General’s media release with a prosecution for a corruption offence, to explain why the complainant was not charged as a participant for abetment in the prosecution for consensual sodomy against Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

Is it a matter of policy, in the overall and long-term public interest, to grant immunity to those who are participants in an offence in order to prosecute other participants, instead of plea bargaining for an admission and lesser sentence, except where the participant is an agent provocateur acting with or emplaced by the authorities in a sting operation?   

In line with the analogy drawn in the said media release, it is to be noted that section 11 of the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 provides that a participant in an offence cannot enjoy protection under the said Act, including the removal of any immunity from criminal action.  Although this Act came into force subsequent to the charge against Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim and is largely concerned with corruption, it may said that section 11 of the said Act is a statutory codification or reflection of the public interest policy with respect to there being no immunity for participants in offences.

The Bar raises these issues and asks questions because it is pro-rule of law and pro-justice.  The Bar is neither pro-Opposition nor pro-Government.  

Christopher Leong

President

Malaysian Bar

Group wants second legal body

The Star
BY MAZWIN NIK ANIS

PETALING JAYA: Disappointed with the Bar Council for its criticism against the judiciary, legal volunteer group SukaGuam wants to hold roadshows to gather feedback from the legal fraternity on the prospect of forming another legal body.

SukaGuam chairman Datuk Khairul Anwar Rahmat said having a second body would give lawyers the freedom of choosing the entity which they want to belong to instead of forcing theminto a situation where they are implicated along with the negative actions of the Bar Council.

“We will meet not only practising lawyers but also law graduates to get their views on the possibility of setting up another body for the legal fraternity,” he said.

On Saturday, some 100 members said they would seek the resignation and ask that the Attorney-General initiate contempt proceeding against Bar Council president Christopher Leong if he does not retract his statement on the Federal Court’s decision to uphold Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s sodomy conviction.

Senior lawyer Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahman who spoke on behalf of the lawyers said they were concerned that the Bar president made such remarks about the judicial system and the courts “in the name of representing the Malaysian Bar”.

Leong, in response to the group’s demand, had welcomed their views and encouraged them to attend the Malaysian Bar annual general meeting on March 14 to raise the matter. The Bar Council has almost 16,000 members.

Yesterday, the 100 practising lawyers, known as G100 said they were not associated with SukaGuam and had not mandated anyone or group other than its official spokesman to issue statements on their behalf.

“As much as G100 as a group of concerned, independent, individual members of the Bar is calling for fellow members to support of the petition regardless of their political leanings or beliefs, this effort and exercise is not headed or arranged by any organisation, political or otherwise,” the group said in a statement.

Press Release | Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim: Prosecuted or Persecuted?

The Malaysian Bar refers to the decision of the Federal Court on 10 February 2015 with respect to the appeal by Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim against his conviction and sentence to five years’ imprisonment by the Court of Appeal for a charge under section 377B, read together with section 377A, of the Penal Code. 

The parties in the appeal were previously given a full hearing before the Federal Court between 28 October 2014 and 7 November 2014.  Having listened to both parties and considered their arguments and submissions, the Federal Court had adjourned the matter for consideration and deliberation.  On the morning of 10 February 2015, the Federal Court delivered an extensive judgment and affirmed the conviction and sentence of five years’ imprisonment of Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

 

The Malaysian Bar has not yet had the opportunity to peruse the extensive written grounds of judgment of the Federal Court, and makes no comment at present as to the grounds for the affirmation by the Federal Court of the conviction and sentence of Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim, save to say that in a criminal trial and any appeals arising therefrom, the accused need only raise a reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case.  Where there is any such reasonable doubt, the accused must be acquitted. The hearing of Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s appeal was extensively reported in the media, and thus the decision of the Federal Court has come as a surprise to many.

Sections 377A and 377B of the Penal Code criminalise sodomy and oral sex (fellatio).  Section 377B provides that whosoever voluntarily commits the acts described in section 377A shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to twenty years, and shall also be liable to whipping. However, section 289 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that no male above the age of 50 years shall be punishable with whipping.

It is notable that Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim was not charged under section 377C of the Penal Code for forced sodomy or sodomy rape, although there may appear to have been some allegation of coercion made in the proceedings.  Section 377C provides for essentially the offence of sodomy rape, and states that whoever voluntarily commits sodomy “on another person without the consent, or against the will, of the other person, or by putting the other person in fear of death or hurt to the person or any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of not less than five years and not more than twenty years, and shall also be liable to whipping”.

It may be said that Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim has been convicted of an offence, sentenced to five years’ imprisonment, and will be disqualified from being a Member of Parliament with respect to a charge that seems, on its face, to be a victimless offence. 

 

This has also given rise to questions or concerns as to why the complainant, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, who was alleged to have been a participant in the act of sodomy, was not charged for abetment under sections 377A and 377B, read together with section 109, of the Penal Code.

Further, the charge against Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim is based on a provision of the Penal Code that has rarely been used.  Given this, it is remarkable that Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim has been prosecuted and convicted twice for an alleged offence of sexual acts between adults wherein the charge does not contain elements of coercion.

It is a strange world that we live in.

These glaring anomalies fuel a perception that Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim has been persecuted, and not prosecuted.

Christopher Leong

President

Malaysian Bar

 

11 February 2015

Review whistleblower Act, says Bar Council

By Benedict Ng (benng@mmail.com.my)

PETALING JAYA – The Malaysian Bar Council has called for a review of the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 because it is not achieving its goals.

Vice-president Steven Thiruneelakandan said Section 6(1) of the Act does not allow disclosure of information specifically prohibited by any written law.

“What is ‘prohibited by any written law’ includes disclosure of information protected under the Official Secrets Act 1972 and the Banking and Financial Institutions Act 1989 (Bafia),” he said.

“This prohibition should be lifted to encourage whistleblowers to come forward and disclose information on improprieties without fear of facing criminal sanctions.”

He said the Act should also provide disclosure to independent bodies such as the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) as there is no such provision at present.

“The Act does not achieve the desired level of protection for whistleblowers and it is not as effective as it should be in promoting the disclosure of wrongdoings,” he said.

Steven felt the court martial of Mej Zaidi Ahmad for bringing to light the inefficacy of indelible ink during elections last year was unacceptable.

“The allegation suggests a pre-determination of the case against Mej Zaidi and is a breach of procedural fairness,” he said.

“The court martial had proceeded in haste and had compromised the integrity of its proceedings.”

Transparency International Malaysia (TI-M) president Datuk Akhbar Satar said the Act did not protect whistleblowers.

He said if individuals were to release statements on improper conduct to the public or press, the Act would automatically be not applicable.

“The said law requires the whistleblowers to only report directly to the designated agencies to be protected,” he said.

“One may file a report with the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) to investigate before proceeding further.”

Akhbar said if Mej Zaidi had followed standard operating procedures and filed a report with the MACC, he would not have been prosecuted.

In 2010, the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 came into effect on Dec 15 to curb corruption and encourage informers to expose corrupt practises and other misconducts.

It was also formulated to provide immunity to informers from civil or criminal charges if applied accordingly.

Malaysian Bar denounces Eric Paulsen's arrest as abuse of Sedition Act

The Sun Daily 

PETALING JAYA: The Malaysian Bar today said it is perturbed by the arrest of Lawyers for Liberty executive director and co-founder Eric Paulsen under the Sedition Act 1948, for reportedly having tweeted that "Jakim is promoting extremism every Friday".

Its president Christopher Leong said Eric Paulsen's arrest is the latest case in the unabated use of the Sedition Act 1948.

He said it would appear that Jakim is a reference to Jabatan Kemajuan Islam Malaysia, which is a Federal government authority or agency.

"A comment, including an adverse one, directed at such an agency cannot be construed as an insult to the religion. There does not appear to be anything in the tweet or comment reportedly made by Eric Paulsen that insults Islam as alleged," he said in a statement.

"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.," said Leong.

Further, he added as in a previous case concerning alleged comments regarding the burning of Bibles, the authorities should be consistent in the application of the law.

"If the authorities were to be consistent, the context of the tweet or comment and the intention of the maker should therefore be taken 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.

He said it was also disconcerting and worrying to note that the Inspector General of Police had, in his tweets, reportedly described Eric Paulsen as "biadap" (meaning rude), "angkuh" (meaning arrogant), as well as "… ingat dia akan berjaya menghasut Rakyat Malaysia supaya menghancurkan semangat mesyarakat 1M'sia kita".

"This does not accord with the level of professionalism expected of the police, who are obliged to conduct an independent, neutral and objective investigation of the matter without any personal views or preconception," pointed out Leong.

This case, he said, is another example of the disadvantage to nation-building that is presented by laws such as the Sedition Act 1948.

"It seeks to cow, intimidate and punish because there are people who may be offended or angered by what is said. 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. Instead of fostering moderation and understanding, or safeguarding national harmony, the effect of the Sedition Act 1948 is to ensure that people perpetually walk on eggshells," he added.

The Malaysian Bar has called on the authorities to cease their use of the Sedition Act 1948, and to recognise the right to freedom of speech and expression.

Leong said the authorities must not use an abhorrent piece of legislation to protect themselves from fair comment and criticism.

Bar Council: Why can't Paulsen criticise Jakim?

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.

Press Release | Repeal of Sedition Act 1948: A Promise Unfulfilled

The Malaysian Bar is very disappointed that the Prime Minister is reported in the news media as having said that the Sedition Act 1948 will not be repealed, and therefore he would not be keeping his promise in this regard.  As we ordinarily understand it, a promise is a commitment to carry through a matter despite difficult circumstances, and not only when it is convenient to do so.

The Malaysian Bar is further appalled that the Prime Minister is not only reneging on the promise he made two years ago to repeal the Sedition Act 1948, but that he intends to “strengthen” it.  It is ludicrous that Malaysians would not only be prohibited from discussing and debating issues of public and national interest, or constitutional matters, but would be criminally punished for doing so.  This is highly oppressive, and represents a lurch towards authoritarianism.  It is delusional to imagine that such draconian legislation would foster national peace and harmony.

It is folly to think that the Sedition Act 1948 is our answer to maintaining and promoting peace and harmony. There is nothing in the history of the Sedition Act 1948 and its use — either previously or currently — that supports any such notion.  This is unsurprising, because the Sedition Act 1948 was not designed nor intended to achieve true peace and harmony.  Its sole purpose was to entrench power and control by denying democratic rights and space through suppression and punishment.  Far from promoting a culture of meaningful, frank and robust discourse, the Sedition Act 1948 criminalises questions, criticisms and expressions of thought.  In our pursuit for peace and harmony, we must accept that questions, criticisms and disagreements are integral to the learning and maturing process.

In genuinely wanting peace and harmony, we should be honest with ourselves as to what the real causes of disharmony are in Malaysia.

In many instances, disharmony in Malaysia arises from insecurity, the exploitation of such insecurity, and the inability or unwillingness to deal with questions, criticisms or differing views in a mature manner.

There are quarters in Malaysia who have created an environment of disharmony — misinterpreting and abusing the Federal Constitution, distorting our history, exploiting insecurities, and resorting to scare-mongering and threats of, or incitement to, violence against property or persons, as a response to questions, criticisms or differing views.  These people are not brought to account by the law.  Instead, the Sedition Act 1948 is used against the persons who raise questions, concerns or criticisms.

In maintaining the Sedition Act 1948, we would be playing into the hands of, and caving to, pressure by these irresponsible quarters.  It is not peace and harmony that would be achieved through the maintenance of the Sedition Act 1948, but a perpetuation of disharmony.  Recent events, the abuse of the Sedition Act 1948, and the current disharmony in Malaysia directly inform us of this.

Achieving real and lasting peace and harmony requires commitment and hard work, and not the criminalisation of criticisms and expressions of thought.  Will our other national leaders also renege on their publicly stated stance against the Sedition Act 1948?  Will they take the easy option or do the right thing instead?

The Malaysian Bar calls upon the Government to abide by and put into effect its promise to repeal the Sedition Act 1948, and to propose new national harmony legislation that would serve to promote and achieve genuine peace and harmony.

 

Christopher Leong

President

Malaysian Bar

Bar Council: Not for us to conduct prosecutions, AG’s fiat for individual lawyers only

Malay Mail
BY IDA LIM

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 21 — Despite a suggestion that it take over the role of prosecutor to haul controversial politician Datuk Ibrahim Ali to court for his bible-burning call, the Bar Council said it is not in a position to carry out such action.

Its chief Christopher Leong clarified with Malay Mail Online that no organisation can act on any fiat from the Attorney-General (AG) for non-government lawyers to act on his behalf in court, adding that the authority can only be granted to an individual.

“It would not be the function of the Bar Council as an organisation to undertake any criminal prosecution. Any fiat to be issued by the AG would be to an individual lawyer,” he said in a text message when contacted yesterday.

Leong added that such authorisation of private lawyers to conduct criminal proceedings would only be granted when the AG himself felt that charges should be pressed.

“Fiats are only issued in cases where the AG as the Public Prosecutor wish to commence prosecution but is either constrained by time, resources or expertise.

“Hence, the PP would only issue a fiat if in the first place he is of the view that a particular matter warrants prosecution. This is because a person holding the fiat is representing and prosecuting on behalf of the PP,” he said, using the initials for public prosecutor.

He also said that only the AG can issue any fiat.

Yesterday, PKR MP Gooi Hsiao Leong called on the Bar Council to apply for a fiat from the AG to allow itself to initiate criminal proceedings against Ibrahim, adding that the AG risks being seen as lacking impartiality he does not issue the fiat.

The awarding of such a “fiat” is not new or unprecedented, Gooi said, pointing to the AG's previous appointment of private lawyer Tan Sri Shafee Abdullah to prosecute Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim on behalf of the government in a criminal case involving a sodomy charge.

He also asked if the AG could have said that Ibrahim's statement was seditious if if it was clearly “intended to be an appeal to stop the propagation of a religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam as provided under Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution, and not merely a call to burn Bibles” when read as a whole.

Over the past few weeks, Abdul Gani and his office has been under pressure to explain his controversial decision not to press charges against Ibrahim.

Abdul Gani also acknowledged that a sedition charge would not hinge on an individual's intention, but noted that there was also a court case saying that the alleged seditious action must be viewed in context.

In Ibrahim's case, the Perkasa leader issued the bible-burning call after a police report on the distribution of bibles to students, including Muslim students, in front of a Penang school, he said.

Abdul Gani cited Ibrahim's own clarification that he had not intended to create religious strife but had wanted to defend the sanctity of Islam, as well as his qualification that his call to burn bibles was directed at the group distributing them to students.

The government’s top lawyer also said Ibrahim had never called for the burning of “all bibles” which would be seditious, but had pointing to the edition of the bible that allegedly had Malay words with the word “Allah” and Jawi script that could “confuse”.

Statement by Organisers of the Regional Conference on Media and Internet Freedom, in Support of the Malaysian Bar

As we convene a regional conference to discuss challenges to Media and Internet Freedom around Asia, we recognize and express solidarity with the ongoing movement in Malaysia for the repeal of the Sedition Act. We are deeply concerned about the recent rise of sedition cases and threats against those in the academe, civil society and journalism.

We view this issue to be fundamentally about protection of the fundamental right of every person to freedom of expression, in this particular case to speak critically about her or his government and/or its officials, without fear of physical or legal reprisal.

We find through our discussions that the Sedition Act exists in various forms in different countries. It also exists under various names to restrict critical speech about government, policies, political parties, certain social classes and institutions, or religious or cultural practices.

The Sedition Act and similar laws are also outdated. It might have been necessary for colonial governments to supress speech of people occupied by a foreign power against their will. However, even in modern countries which have rejected the yoke of occupation, many of these laws remain or are being revived.

There is also a serious problem about how these various laws are being implemented, purportedly to keep society safe, but effectively to instil fear and self-restraint on the discussion of legitimate issues – even placing those who dare to speak out at risk.

We therefore stand with Malaysian citizens and civil society in calling for the repeal of the Sedition Act

Lawyers march against Sedition Act

 

Almost 1,000 protesters, mostly lawyers, marched to Parliament today against the Sedition Act 1948.

The protesters were seen milling about Padang Merbuk in the Kuala Lumpur city centre as early as 9.30am, and started their march at 11.40am after chanting slogans and hearing speeches by Bar Council representatives.

Among the prominent personalities present were Bar Council president Christopher Leong (right), former Bersih co-chairperson Ambiga Sreenevasan, her successor Maria Chin Abdullah, Parti Sosialis Malaysia secretary-general S Arulchelvan, Himpunan Hijau chief Wong Tack, and opposition parliamentarians Teo Nie Ching, Nga Kor Ming, R Sivarasa, Ong Kian Ming and Gobind Singh Deo.

The protest was organised by the Bar Council, with the support of the Malaysian Bar, which overwhelmingly voted in favour of holding the protest during an emergency general meeting on Sept 19.

However, according to the Malaysian Bar's estimate 2,500 people joined the march.

Dubbed “Walk for Peace and Freedom”, it is the fourth such protest held by the Bar Council in its 67-year history.

The last was in 2011 to oppose a bill that is now known that the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012.
 
A group of Orang Asli, dressed in traditional garments, and university students chanting for academic freedom, were also seen marching with the lawyers.

A small band – with guitar, didgeridoo, tambourine, and a small hand drum – played music while marching and at the sidewalk outside Parliament.

Police presence at the protest was light, mostly to direct traffic, with the help of Kuala Lumpur City Hall enforcement officers and the Bar Council’s own rally marshals.

Rally and counter-rally

Upon reaching the parliament, 10 Bar Council representatives led by Leong met with Minister in Prime Minister’s Department Mah Siew Keong, who received a memorandum from the protesters on behalf of Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak

The temperature was a scorching 30 degrees Celsius, with little wind and scattered clouds.

Despite the heat, most of the lawyers were dressed in black jackets – their full court attire – and chanted slogans outside the parliament while waiting for their leaders to return.
 
“Long live the people! Abolish the Sedition Act!”, the protesters chanted, while carrying anti-Sedition Act banners and placards.

One particularly good-humoured placard read: “Bloody hell it’s hot. Abolish the Sedition Act and let’s go for ice cream.”

Representatives from journalist group Gerakan Media Marah (Geramm) were at the protest, along with a handful of off-duty journalists, following a call by the group to walk in solidarity with the lawyers.

Meanwhile a group of about 10 youths held a counter rally at the Bank Negara roundabout at the same time.

The group, with some wearing face masks, held placards with messages like 'Preserve Sedition Act'.

Protest is public feedback

At about 1pm, about an hour after entering Parliament, Leong emerged with his entourage to announce the protest a success.

“We have achieved what we have set out to do today, which is to convey our views on your behalf to the prime minister, via Minister Mah (Siew Keong),” he said, before thanking the participants for coming and the police for facilitating the protest.

Nevertheless, he vowed that the Bar Council will continue its campaign against the Sedition Act until it is abolished.

Leong repeated his speech at least three times, each time moving from one part of the crowd to another to address them via a megaphone.

Speaking to reporters later, Leong claimed that the number of lawyers who attended the protest number between 1,000 and 1,500, but is unsure how many non-lawyers participated.

Leong said that this walk is in response to the effort initiated by the prime minister to obtain public feedback on the abolition of the Sedition Act and its replacement.

He hoped the leader would remain steadfast and committed to his pledge and promise.

“As they say, ‘Janji Ditepati’ (Promise Fulfilled), so we hope that would be the case in this occasion,” he added.

The protesters dispersed peacefully at 1.15pm.

We'll back you against extremists, lawyers tell PM

 

The Malaysian Bar has urged Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak not to bow to extremists and continue with his political transformation programme.

It said that on contrary to its purported purpose, the Sedition Act 1948 is what encourages extremist by clamping down on the freedom of expression.

"There are extremist and irresponsible elements in our society. They spread misinformation, use intimidation and divisiveness. They exploit fear and insecurities.

"They seek to drive a wedge between Malaysians and polarise us. Do not allow them to succeed," it said its memorandum to call for the repeal of the Sedition Act.

It told Najib to continue with his political transformation programme, including his pledge to repeal the Act.

"The Malaysian Bar therefore urges the prime minister and the Malaysian government to continue to commit to and promote the building of a fair, just, harmonious, unified, moderate and progressive Malaysia, and reject all forms of bigotry, racist and religious extremism; to stay the course and to abide by its original and oft-repeated public pledge and promise to repeal the Sedition Act 1948," it said.

The memorandum was handed over to the government by a delegation led by Bar Council president Christopher Leong (right), during the 'Walk for Peace and Freedom' protest.

It was received by Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Mah Siew Keong  on Najib’s behalf. The seven-page document can be viewed at the Bar Council website.

The Malaysian Bar, which a statutory body representing all lawyers in Peninsula Malaysia, said the Sedition Act had prevented important issues from being discussed and allowed it to fester, and impeded the development of a more mature, considerate, and accepting Malaysian psyche.

"This legislation serves to perpetuate and entrench the racial, religious and other fault lines in our nation.

"It thus undermines and is counter-productive to efforts to build lasting peace and harmony, strong bonds of unity and real mutual respect in Malaysia," it said.

Race, religion and royalty

Earlier today, after submitting the memorandum, Leong also told reporters that any laws replacing the Sedition Act should be limited to criminalising the incitement and acts of religious and racial violence, and bringing the royal institution into contempt.

"We know that in multi-racial, multi-religious Malaysia there are some fault lines, but those fault lines must be managed not by vague and oppressive laws like the Sedition Act," he said.

He said any law that replaces the Act needs to encourage greater interaction and dialogue amongst Malaysians, which would in turn ensure peace, unity and harmony.

The law, he pointed out, should ensure that people would not be intimidated or threatened while participating in discourse.

Sedition Act is a legal issue, not political

Malaysia Bar only stands up against a particular legislation when it was against the rule of law.

KUALA LUMPUR: About 600 members of the Malaysian Bar Council and other Bar associations marched to Parliament House today, sending a strong signal to the government to abolish the Sedition Act.

Penang State Assembly member and lawyer RSN Rayer said the “Walk for Peace and Freedom 2014” was to show that the issue was a legal one, not political. “People will realise that when the lawyers walk, something is really wrong.

“The Sedition Act should not be used in our time. It is a colonial law used against those who opposed British law,” he said.

Negara-ku co-founder Ambiga Seenevasan said lawyers only stood up against a particular legislation when it was against the rule of law.

“There is something very wrong with this legislation. We have already pointed out what’s wrong and the Bar president has said enough about it.

“To have an odious piece of legislation like this is not good for Malaysia,” she said.

Puchong MP Gobind Singh Deo demanded that Prime Minister Najib Razak explain the “U-turn”
after having made his pledge to repeal the Sedition Act in 2012.

“I’m sure the prime minister had studied the position of the Sedition Act before making such a statement back in 2012. And suddenly, there is this U-turn, and people are looking for an explanation.

“So we are here today so that the government can see the lawyers unite and voice their displeasure against the manner in which this Act has been used, if not abused.

“If lawyers stand up and say that something is wrong with this Act, then something must be wrong,” said Gobind.

Law lecturer Azmi Shahrom, who also showed his support, said it was a good initiative to make the point clear that the Act was opposed not only by the people but also by the legal fraternity.

“It does not matter if the government will pay attention to the movement, but the people need to know that this is a bad law.

“I have no control on what the government does, so I’m hoping that the message gets through not just to them, but to everyone,” he added.

Bar president Christopher Leong, in addressing the 600 lawyers present at 9.40am, said the misuse of the Sedition Act “is an unprecedented abuse against lawyers, students, journalists and civil society.

“We are here to claim back the democratic public place. As much as you may try, you cannot stop our freedom of expression, our thoughts,” he said.

Open memorandum to the Prime Minister of Malaysia — Malaysian Bar

1. The Malaysian Bar has walked to Parliament today as part of our on-going campaign for the repeal of the Sedition Act 1948. It is in order to rid ourselves of an unjust law and unneeded crutch, and for the realisation of a better Malaysia.

2. The Malaysian Bar’s walk today is called the “Walk for Peace and Freedom” because we wish to promote a peace anchored by bonds of unity, lasting harmony and true mutual respect amongst Malaysians. We walk for the freedom from fear and intimidation; freedom from extremism; freedom from divisiveness; freedom from exploitation for personal, sectarian and selfish gains; freedom to question, criticise, discuss and debate; freedom to learn; and freedom to grow and mature.

3. The Sedition Act 1948 is inherently flawed. It is designed to subjugate, suppress and oppress. It is NOT designed to promote peace, harmony and unity. As a piece of criminal legislation, it is repugnant to the rule of law because it punishes freedom of speech and expression of thought by the use of imprecise and ill-defined offences. It does not require any proof of ill intention or intention to create disorder. Truth is not a defense. Hence, the Sedition Act 1948 in fact criminalises the truth.

4. The Walk for Peace and Freedom is part of the Malaysian Bar’s response to Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Najib Razak’s call for all right thinking and moderate Malaysians to stand up and speak out. The Malaysian Bar walks so as to give voice to such Malaysians.

Malaysia’s Transformation

5. On 3 April 2009, when Dato’ Sri Najib Razak became Prime Minister, he announced a series of freedom-enlarging measures. He removed the temporary ban on two news publications. He released 13 detainees from detention under the Internal Security Act 1960. He announced the conducting of a comprehensive review of the Internal Security Act 1960. He declared that “[t]hese decisions are timely as we move to enhance the confidence of our citizens in those entrusted with maintaining peace, law and order, while recognizing the need to remain vigilant of the very real security threats we continue to face as a young nation.”1

6. On the eve of Malaysia Day 2011, 15 September 2011, Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Najib Razak took the bold step of announcing that the Internal Security Act 1960 and three Emergency Declarations would be repealed at the next sitting of the Dewan Rakyat and Dewan Negara. The Banishment Act 1959 and the Restricted Residence Act 1933 would also be repealed. He also announced that the government would amend the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 to do away with annual printing and publishing permits. The Police Act 1967 would be amended to allow for freedom of assembly, wherein the requirement for a permit or permission to assemble in public would be repealed. These announcements were implemented.

7. Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Najib Razak had in April 2012 also introduced amendments to the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 to allow for a broader measure of freedom of expression and association by university students. These came into force in August 2012.

8. Following on from these significant developments, Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Najib Razak had on 11 July 2012 announced that the government would repeal the Sedition Act 1948 and replace it with a National Harmony Act. He stated the following in his speech delivered at the “Majlis Makan Malam Jabatan Peguam Negara Bersama YAB Perdana Menteri”:

“Kerajaan telah membuat keputusan agar Akta Hasutan 1948 dimansuhkan dan digantikan dengan suatu rang undang undang yang dikenali sebagai Akta Keharmonian Nasional. Keputusan menggantikan Akta Hasutan dibuat kerana kita mahu mencari mekanisme yang dapat menentukan keseimbangan terbaik diantara keperluan menjamin kebebasan bersuara setiap warganegara sesuai dan selaras dengan peruntukan dan jaminan yang terkandung di dalam Perlembangan Pesekutuan dan keperluan untuk menangani kompleksiti kemajmukan yang wujud dinegara ini. With this new Act we would be better equipped to manage our national fault lines. It would also help to strengthen national cohesion by protecting national unity and nurturing religious harmony….

Kerajaan sedar bahawa umum menganggap Akta Hasutan 1948 sebagai alat kerajaan untuk merencatkan tindakan dan pandangan yang tidak sealiran dengan kerajaan. Walaupun anggapan sedemikian adalah tidak berasas sama sekali, kita perlu menghapuskan persepsi tersebut. Lantaran itu, peruntukan-peruntukan baru ini tidak akan menghalang rakyat untuk mengkritik kerajaan dan pentadbiran keadilan….

Pada analisis akhirnya saya teringat kepada pendapat ahli falsafah tersohor Britain, John Locke: “The end of law is, not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom”. Second Treatise Of Civil Government (1690)….

Melalui pemansuhan dan penggubalan undang-undang yang sedang berjalan, kerajaan mahu memastikan ruang demokratik yang mencukupi disediakan untuk perbezaan pendapat serta persaingan idea. Pucuk pangkalnya, kita mahu mencipta sebuah Malaysia di mana prinsip hak asasi manusia dijunjung, kebebasan individu untuk menyatakan pendapat secara terbuka diraikan, seraya kepentingan individu dan komuniti diimbangi.”

9. The Malaysian Bar supports Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Najib Razak’s programme of progressive and systematic reform and political transformation as set out above. His thinking and instincts are correct, and we call upon Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Najib Razak to remain steadfast and to persevere and continue with them.

Evils of the Sedition Act 1948

10. In this regard, we would point out that the Sedition Act 1948, as with its predecessor the Sedition Ordinance, was conceived by our then colonial masters and used as an instrument of oppression. It is an archaic and repressive law, and is the antithesis of democracy, rule of law, justice and human rights.

11. The Sedition Act 1948 has been used to stifle speech and expression, to shut out contrary views and voices, to quell dissent and opposition, to constrict and deny democratic space, and to oppress and suppress Malaysians.

12. The Sedition Act 1948 has been justified on the premise that there are matters that are too sensitive to address, speak about or debate; and that this particular legislation is therefore required to ensure and maintain harmony, unity and public order. Our 57 years of “Merdeka” has clearly shown this to be a myth.

13. The Sedition Act 1948 has instead served to deter or prevent important issues from being properly and genuinely addressed. Some of these issues are effectively “swept under the carpet” and allowed to fester. This legislation serves to perpetuate and entrench the racial, religious and other fault lines in our nation. It thus undermines and is counter-productive to efforts to build lasting peace and harmony, strong bonds of unity and real mutual respect in Malaysia.

14. It is no answer to say that we could improve on its use and implementation to avoid abuse. Our history of such oppressive laws, including the Internal Security Act 1960 (since repealed), has shown us that such laws are frequently abused irrespective of their stated purpose. The recent “sedition blitz” where the Sedition Act 1948 has been used to probe and/or prosecute students, law academics, lawyers, a journalist, members of civil society, Members of Parliament and State Assemblypersons is a glaring example of such abuse. To compound the problem, there are clear instances of selective prosecution. The lesson we learn is that the justness in the use of such laws cannot be dependent on the good faith of the authorities. Laws must in themselves be good and just. The Sedition Act 1948 is not such a law.

15. The statements of Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Najib Razak on his 1Malaysia blog dated 7 August 2012 and 4 April 2013 are to the Malaysian Bar an express recognition by the Malaysian Government that the Sedition Act 1948 is indeed an obsolete and antiquated law that is no longer suitable, relevant or consonant with the times.

An Inclusive Malaysia

16. The Malaysian Bar further recalls the speech of Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Najib Razak at the United Nations General Assembly in New York City on 26 September 2014 where he said:

“[W]e must pursue a different kind of politics…We must break the cycle where one group gains power only to wield it against the other. Where marginalisation leads to radicalisation, as people lose confidence in the state’s ability to provide both security and co-existence. Individuals and ethnic and religious groups need to feel they have a stake in a nation’s success, not its failure. So we should commit to more inclusive politics.”

17. In the same speech, Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Najib Razak also said that, “By demonstrating moderation in the political process, we can ensure no-one is left outside society.”

18. The Malaysian Bar could not agree more with Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Najib Razak’s words on “inclusive politics”. The fundamental freedoms of speech and expression, giving voice to thoughts and ideas, as well as the right to information, are fundamental attributes of a vibrant and thriving democracy, and that are essential for the development, progress and growth of a nation. It is robust debate, diversity of opinion and education that would ultimately promote, inculcate and maintain true and enduring unity, goodwill and mutual respect amongst Malaysians.

19. In the same speech at the United Nations, Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Najib Razak said that, “Malaysia stands ready to share its experience of marginalising extremism, maintaining a multi-religious country, where different faiths coexist and prosper.”

20. It cannot be that Malaysia’s sharing of its experience in fostering moderation is that of restricting freedom of speech and expression, arresting, investigating, intimidating and charging individuals under the Sedition Act 1948. It is precisely the clamping down on views, discourse and expression, and restricting democratic space, under the guise of the Sedition Act 1948, that has the effect of pandering to and encouraging extremist elements, and fomenting disunity and disharmony. 21. It is the use and abuse of the Sedition Act 1948 that has further served to impede the development of a mature, considerate and accepting Malaysian psyche; and perpetuates immaturity; lack of understanding; confusion and ignorance amongst Malaysians; and exploits insecurities, anxieties and fears.

22. The Sedition Act 1948 has no place in our nation, which aspires to be a modern, moderate and progressive democratic society that seeks to respect the rule of law and to engender lasting harmony and unity. The continued existence and use of this legislation only serves to prolong an addiction to a reliance on its draconian provisions as a knee-jerk reaction to expressions of purportedly sensitive issues and dissenting views.

23. We should instead be providing and promoting an environment where Malaysians engage one another in discourse and debate, questions and queries are answered, and criticisms are met with explanations; an environment where we can learn to transform into an inclusive, moderate, harmonious and unified Malaysia.

24. As the Sultan of Perak, His Royal Highness Sultan Nazrin Muizzudin Shah said in his speech at the University Malaya 53rd Convocation held on 13 October 2014,

“… Minda terbuka dapat memerdekakan jiwa individu daripada sebarang prejudis dan buruk sangka. Minda terbuka akan mengupayakan seseorang memahami malah menghormati pandangan pihak lain betapa berlainan sekalipun. Minda terbuka akan menyuburkan perasaan sabar dan toleransi untuk bersedia mendengar hujah yang berbeza betapa sekali tidak dipersetujui. Minda terbuka akan memberikan ruang untuk membolehkan lahir dan tumbuhnya idea baru, menyemarakkan budaya inovasi dan menyuburkan minda kreatif. Minda terbuka adalah komponen amat penting untuk membantu mengukuhkan amalan demokrasi di dalam sesebuah negara…

…Malah minda terbuka adalah faktor yang telah memungkinkan tertubuhnya sebuah negara bangsa melalui kejayaan mencantumkan rakyat daripada pelbagai agama, negeri, kaum, budaya dan bahasa menjadi satu warga kepada sebuah negara Malaysia yang merdeka; minda terbuka juga berjaya menyatukan matlamat di kalangan sembilan Raja yang bersemayam

di istana dengan rakyat jelata di serata kota dan desa. Nyatalah minda terbuka adalah aset sementara minda tertutup adalah liabiliti.”

(Our translation: “…Open-mindedness liberates the spirit of an individual from any form of prejudice or ill-will. Open-mindedness enables one to understand and respect the views of others no matter how contrarian they may be. Open-mindedness enables patience and tolerance to be able to listen to dissenting views no matter how disagreeable they may be…

…Open-mindedness is the factor that has made possible the establishment of a nation by the successful union of people of diverse religions, states, ethnicities, culture and language to form an independent country called Malaysia; open-mindedness also achieved unity of purpose among nine Rajas who reside in the palace with the citizens of all the cities and the countryside. Clearly, open-mindedness is an asset whereas close- mindedness is a liability.”)

Towards a Peaceful, United and Harmonious Malaysia

25. Lasting harmony and unity requires a lot of hard work, patience, understanding and education; not suppression, prosecution and punishment. Yes, the process could be long and would be painful; we will fumble and make mistakes, even serious mistakes, but we will learn and move forward. It is folly to think and believe that the Sedition Act 1948 or laws similar to it are the answers to promote, inculcate and maintain true lasting harmony and unity. How wrong and misconceived can we be to believe that force and punishment would engender respect and goodwill. It instead impedes learning, discourse, growth and maturity.

26. We therefore have grave concerns that the intended National Harmony Act should not seek to recast the Sedition Act 1948 either in whole or in part. We recognise that no freedom is without limits. Thus, incitements to, threats of or acts of racial or religious violence, and bringing into hatred the Royal Institution, are not acceptable in Malaysia.

27. These could, however, be dealt with by other legislation. The intended National Harmony Act or any replacement legislation by any other name should not seek to criminalise thought, speech and expression. It should instead provide a framework that recognises and encourages interaction, discourse, debate and learning. If there is to be a need for some measure of criminal penalties, then such measures must be limited – unlike the provisions of the Sedition Act 1948 that are imprecise and, also unlike other criminal offences, the Sedition Act 1948 does not require mens rea, that is the element of intent – the scope of the new offences must be narrowly defined and confined, and the threshold for breach must be set higher. Only threats of or incitement to, and actual ethnic or religious violence to persons or property should be criminalised, and the element of intention must be present.

28. A copy of the Resolution of the Malaysian Bar calling on the Malaysian Government to abolish the Sedition Act 1948 that was passed at its Extraordinary General Meeting on 19 September 2014 is attached for further information and reference. The Resolution was passed by an overwhelming majority of those who attended the Extraordinary General Meeting. The Resolution sets out in detail the way in which the Sedition Act 1948 has been abused, recounts the recent and unprecedented wave of arrests, investigations and charges, calls for the immediate repeal of the Sedition Act 1948 and the dropping of all action thereunder, and supports the proposed National Harmony legislation.

29. The Malaysian Bar recognises that Islam is the religion of the Federation and other religions may be practised in peace and harmony; the special positions of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interests of other communities; and the sovereignty of the Rulers — these are clearly set out in the Federal Constitution. The Malaysian Bar upholds the Federal Constitution as the supreme law of the land. The call to repeal the Sedition Act 1948 is not a challenge to those provisions.

30. The Royal Institution, for example, is an integral and important part of our nation-building. Malaysians look to the Rulers to be Rulers and champions for all Malaysians, and not only for a segment of Malaysians.

31. There are extremist and irresponsible elements in our society. They spread misinformation, use intimidation and divisiness. They exploit fear and insecuritites. They seek to drive a wedge between Malaysians and polarise us. Do not allow them to succeed.

32. The Malaysian Bar recalls the preamble to the Rukun Negara: we are a nation dedicated to achieving a greater unity of all her peoples; seeking to maintain a democratic way of life; creating a just society; ensuring a liberal approach to Malaysia’s rich and diverse cultural traditions; and building a progressive society and nation.

33. The Malaysian Bar therefore urges Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Najib Razak and the Malaysian Government to continue to commit to and promote the building of a fair, just, harmonious, unified, moderate and progressive Malaysia, and reject all forms of bigotry, racist and religious extremism; to stay the course and to abide by its original and oft-repeated public pledge and promise to repeal the Sedition Act 1948.

* Christopher Leong is the President of the Malaysian Bar Council.

Explain inaction on racial, religious provocation cases, Bar asks police, A-G

Ahead of its peaceful walk to protest the Sedition Act tomorrow, the Malaysian Bar has a list of at least a dozen cases of provocative racial and religious remarks since 2012, and wants the police and Attorney-General to explain the status of each to the public.

The list of cases was appended in a document when the Bar passed a resolution at its extraordinary general meeting (EGM) on September 19 that the Sedition Act should be repealed and a protest march be held.

Its president Christopher Leong said it was not for de facto Law Minister Datuk Nancy Shukri to speak of these matters that came under the responsibility of these agencies.

"It is for the police to explain their non-actIon while the Attorney-General's Chambers on why it refused to prosecute certain cases," Leong told The Malaysian Insider.

He said this in response to the barrage of criticism against Nancy, who last week replied on behalf of the public prosecutor that no charges would be framed against Perkasa president Datuk Ibrahim Ali for his statement last year that Malay Bibles should be burnt.

In a written reply to Bagan MP Lim Guan Eng on October 7, Nancy said Ibrahim's remark was made in defence of Islam as the constitution provided for the state and federal laws to control and restrict the propagation of other religions to Muslims.

Leong said police investigations and prosecution were not under her purview.

Former Attorney-General Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman in a recent interview with The Malaysian Insider also said that only the public prosecutor had the absolute discretion whether to frame or drop charges against accused persons.

Leong said the list of cases with unknown status were raised at the Bar EGM to show how the Sedition Act was being used selectively.

"The cases were referred to highlight the injustice of the situation and that the sedition law is open to abuse," he said.

Among the notable cases in the Bar's list were that of controversial lecturer Ridhuan Tee Abdullah and former Perkasa vice-president Datuk Zulkifli Noordin for allegedly disparaging the Hindu religion and insulting adherents of the faith in February and March last year.

Ridhuan also allegedly made inflammatory remarks in an article "Kesabaran Umat Islam ada had" (There is a limit to the patience of Muslims) on February 18 last year.

There were also police reports made after Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak said the results of the 2013 general election was a "Chinese tsunami" on May 6 last year, and also after Utusan Malaysia published a front-page article entitled "Apa lagi orang Cina mahu? (What more do the Chinese want?) the following day.

The document presented at the Bar EGM also questioned the status of reports made against retired Court of Appeal judge Datuk Mohd Noor Abdullah for allegedly accusing an ethnic group of treason and then warning of retribution by another ethnic group on May 22 last year.

It also asked about the status of investigations against retired chief justice Tun Abdul Hamid Mohammad for allegedly stating in early September that only Malays truly fought for independence while the other races were consumed by self-interest.

Other major cases on the Bar's list are:

* The bloodletting of chickens in a street of Kuala Lumpur, allegedly by some members of Pertubuhan Permuafakatan Majlis Ayahanda Malaysia (Permas) and an overt reference to the racial riot of May 13 as an implied threat.

* The person involved in the burning of an effigy of Father Lawrence Andrew, a Christian priest, in January.

* A speech at a seminar entitled "Seminar Kalimah Allah dan Kristologi Nusantara" at Universiti Teknologi Mara on May 6.

* Segambut Umno division chief and Senator Datuk Kamruddin Ambok for allegedly stating that non-Bumiputeras were "biadap and kurang ajar" (uncouth and impolite) early last month.

* Former Perak state executive councillor Datuk Hamidah Osman for allegedly stating, "Bila nampak ular dan seorang India, pukul India dulu" (When you see a snake and an Indian, hit the Indian first) on Twitter on September 18, 2012.

The Sedition Act has been used against several politicians from Pakatan Rakyat, student activists, lawyers and even academicians who have been hauled up by the police since August, either for investigation or prosecution.

Among the big names are opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and law professors Dr Azmi Sharom and Dr Abdul Aziz Bari.

Leong said the Sedition Act was a bad and unjust law and must be repealed because it criminalised speech and expression of thought.

He said some people claimed that sedition was not a bad law but the Bar's stand was that a legislation could not depend on the good faith of men.

"Our experience and history had shown that the repealed Internal Security Act and the Printing Presses and Publications Act had been abused," he added.

He said there were others spreading false information that those who wanted the Sedition Act repealed also wanted to remove provisions that protected the position of Islam, the Malays and the Rulers.

"The Malaysian Bar abides by the constitution as these are integral and important parts of nation building," he said.

The Bar will hold a peaceful walk in protest against the Sedition Act tomorrow from Padang Merbok to Parliament.

Leong said at the end of the walk at Parliament, the lawyers will present relevant documents to the prime minister or his representative.

He said the Bar had given notice under the Peaceful Assembly Act to the police to facilitate the event.

"There is no pre-registration (for the walk) but the support from members is very encouraging based on queries about the event," he said. – October 15, 2014.

- See more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/explain-inaction-on-racial-religious-provocation-cases-bar-asks-police-a-g#sthash.mlGV1dz6.dpuf

Law Society raises concerns over Malaysian Sedition Act

10 October 2014

The Law Society has expressed concern over Malaysia's continuing use of the 1948 Sedition Act. The act, which was made law during the British colonial era, criminalises speech uttered 'to excite disaffection' against the government. The act has been used to intimidate and silence political opponents including lawyers.

The Act is a contradiction of the UN's fundamental principles of human rights, as set out in the General Assembly's Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognised Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Principles which as a UN member state Malaysia is subject to.

The Law Society has written to the Malaysian prime minister expressing concern over the recent opening of an investigation by police in Malaysia against Mr Edmund Bon, an advocate at Bon Advocates in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The arrest of Mr Bon is one of many and highlights the continuing use of the act in Malaysia despite promises from the prime minister to repeal the act.

President of the Law Society Andrew Caplen said:  

'We support the Malaysian Bar Council's decision to organise a Walk for Peace and Justice to Parliament on 16 October. We hope that all parties in Malaysia will make use of this unique moment to come together and address the valid concerns of the Malaysian legal profession about the use of the sedition act and the Rule of Law in Malaysia. The walk's culmination of handing over of a memorandum or open letter to the prime minister of Malaysia (or his representative) at parliament would be an excellent starting point for a sincere dialogue between government and civil society in Malaysia.'

Please click 

​

here to read the letter by The Law Society to the Prime Minister of Malaysia.

Press Release | Malaysian Bar’s Walk for Peace and Freedom 2014

This item has been updated since initial publication.

16 October 2014 (Thursday)

Padang Merbok Car Park, Kuala Lumpur

The Malaysian Bar is walking for peace and freedom tomorrow (16 October 2014) as part of its campaign to repeal the Sedition Act 1948 (“Act”), and for a moratorium on the use of the Act pending its repeal.  The Walk for Peace and Freedom 2014 is a public show of support for the Prime Minister’s call for inclusiveness and for the voices of the moderates to be heard.

No freedom is without limits.  Incitements to, threats of or acts of racial or religious violence, and bringing into hatred the Royal Institution, are not acceptable in Malaysia.

These should, however, be dealt with by other legislation.  There are, for instance, existing provisions in the Penal Code that provide for the crimes of causing disharmony, disunity and feelings of enmity and hatred on the grounds of religion, criminal intimidation, insulting with the intent to provoke a breach of peace, making statements conducive to public mischief, and offences against the Rulers.  New legislation and policies to foster unity and harmony should be considered.

The Malaysian Bar recognises that Islam is the religion of the Federation and other religions may be practised in peace and harmony; the special positions of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interests of other communities; and the sovereignty of the Rulers — these are clearly set out in the Federal Constitution.  The Malaysian Bar upholds the Federal Constitution as the supreme law of the land.  The call to repeal the Act is not a challenge to those provisions.

The Royal Institution, for example, is an integral and important part of our nation-building.  There are extremist elements that seek to drive a wedge between Malaysians and polarise our society.  Do not allow them to succeed.  Malaysians look to the Rulers to be Rulers and champions for all Malaysians, and not only for a segment of Malaysians.

The Malaysian Bar recalls the preamble to the Rukun Negara: we are a nation dedicated to achieving a greater unity of all her peoples; seeking to maintain a democratic way of life; creating a just society; ensuring a liberal approach to Malaysia’s rich and diverse cultural traditions; and building a progressive society and nation.

In furtherance of the aspirations and values inherent in the Rukun Negara, the Malaysian Bar supports lively debates and frank discourse, and welcomes differences in opinions.  Freedom of speech and expression of thought help build and develop a nation seeking to nurture and maintain long-term peace, bonds of unity, real mutual respect and lasting harmony.  The Act undermines these aspirations of right-thinking and moderate Malaysians.  An inclusive approach, as stated by the Prime Minister, is the way forward as Malaysia aspires to be of developed status by 2020. 

 

Christopher Leong

President

Malaysian Bar

15 October 2014

LAWASIA Support for Malaysian Bar’s Walk for Peace and Freedom

LAWASIA, the Law Association for Asia and the Pacific, notes the resolution of the Malaysian Bar at its Extraordinary General Meeting of 19 September to arrange a peaceful public protest by its members against the continued use of the Sedition Act 1948. 

It is strongly supportive of this and other ongoing efforts of Malaysian Bar members to advocate for the repeal of this Act, and to call for the immediate withdrawal of criminal charges against all persons currently facing prosecutions. 

LAWASIA expresses its deep concern that the use of the Sedition Act by the authorities in Malaysia has become a tool to suppress legitimate dissent and to curtail universal human rights, especially that of freedom of speech. It is further concerned at allegations that the Act is being used in a discriminatory way, so that only those who are viewed as critical of the government are subject to investigation and prosecution under its powers.

In expressing its support of the forthcoming Walk for Peace and Freedom by Malaysian Bar members, LAWASIA observes that Malaysian Bar action is in complete synergy with requirements of lawyers under the Legal Profession Act 1976 :

to uphold the cause of justice without regard to its own interests or that of its members, uninfluenced by fear or favour;

where requested to do so, to express its view on matters affecting legislation and the administration and practice of law in Malaysia;

to protect and assist the public in all matters ancilliary or incidental to the law

It notes further that Article 23 of the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, as settled by the United Nations, provides:

Freedom of expression and association

23. Lawyers like other citizens are entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association and assembly. In particular, they shall have the right to take part in public discussion of matters concerning the law, the administration of justice and the promotion and protection of human rights and to join or form local, national or international organizations and attend their meetings, without suffering professional restrictions by reason of their lawful action or their membership in a lawful organization. In exercising these rights, lawyers shall always conduct themselves in accordance with the law and the recognized standards and ethics of the legal profession.

In view of the fact that a number of those who have been prosecuted under the Sedition Act are members of the Malaysian legal community, it calls on the Malaysian government to respect this principle and not to proceed with unwarranted charges against them. 

It further calls on Malaysian authorities to ensure that Malaysian lawyers are able to carry out their mandated duty through actions including the forthcoming "Walk for Peace and Freedom 2014", without fear of reprisals from those elements of Malaysian society who oppose their views.

Isomi Suzuki

PRESIDENT

10 October 2014

Lawyers to march against Sedition Act on October 16

Malay Mail
by BOO SU-LYN

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 2 — The Malaysian Bar is set to rally against the Sedition Act 1948 on October 16 in the city centre here after passing resolutions at an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) demanding a repeal of the law.

The Bar Council’s National Young Lawyers Committee chair Syahredzan Johan said the circular on the protest scheduled at the Padang Merbok car park, called “Walk for Peace and Freedom”, was issued to Malaysian Bar members this afternoon.

“The Bar before this has only walked three times,” Syahredzan told Malay Mail Online today.

“This will be the fourth time. Each time the Bar has walked, it’s a serious issue. This shows how serious the Malaysian Bar sees the Sedition Act and the current abuse of the Act,” the lawyer added.

Syahredzan said the Malaysian Bar previously demonstrated against the Peaceful Assembly Act in 2011, corruption in the judiciary in 2007 and attempted amendments to the Societies Act in the 1980s.

In the circular posted on the Malaysian Bar website, its president Christopher Leong said Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak had pledged in 2012 to abolish the Sedition Act and that the replacement law would “strengthen national cohesion by protecting national unity and nurturing religious harmony”.

“The Sedition Act 1948 is antithetical and counter-productive to these values, and to our aspirations for a better Malaysia,” said Leong.

“I call on all members and pupils in chambers to please attend the Walk and express your aspirations and support for a better Malaysia premised on peace, harmony, unity, understanding and freedom from fear, intimidation, exploitation, oppression and extremism,” he added.

The Malaysian Bar voted at its September 19 EGM to hold a peaceful protest against the Sedition Act, amid a government crackdown under the colonial-era law against lawyers, opposition lawmakers and academics, among others.

The legal profession body also passed resolutions calling for the abolition of the Sedition Act, the withdrawal of all charges that are pending, a suspension of the use of the law and for the Act not to be recast into a new law.

At least 20 people have been investigated or charged under the Sedition Act in the space of one month recently, sparking criticisms that the government was abusing the law to quell dissent.

With growing pressure from conservatives within his own party, Umno, Najib said recently that the government may not repeal the Sedition Act after all if replacement laws were inferior.