Lawyer 'amazed' at DAP MP's defence of Fuziah and her fake news

Malaysiakini:

Lawyer 'amazed' at DAP MP's defence of Fuziah and her fake news

by Susan Loone

An outspoken Penang lawyer has expressed his "amazement" at a DAP leader coming to the defence of PKR Kuantan MP Fuziah Salleh for "spreading fake news" on her Facebook account.

Lawyer Shamsher Singh Thind (above) said posting fake news without verification is an "irresponsible" act for an MP.

"Laws should be tightened for those who are irresponsible at spreading fake news and creating public panic or chaos," Shamser told Malaysiakini.

"As an MP, Fuziah should do the necessary verification before posting (such news) on her Facebook," he added.

"If an MP is lazy to check, what hope do we have for common people? As an MP, Fuziah is supposed to lead and not follow the herd mentality," he stressed.

"Saying sorry is pointless when the damage has been done".

Shamsher was responding to a statement by Beruas MP Ngeh Koo Ham that Perikatan Nasional should not abuse its powers against Fuziah as no offences have been committed.

"Errors should be pointed out and corrections made," said Ngeh in defence of his Pakatan Harapan ally.

Ngeh (below), who is also Perak DAP leader, said Fuziah and the media have a duty to keep citizens informed of the latest events.

He added, the law protects them from any criminal prosecution should there be an error due to a mistake of facts.

"Under our criminal law, mens rea (intention to commit a crime) is essential before any act can be said to be criminal.

"A mistake of facts is a complete defence under common law and under our Penal Code (Sections 76 and 79)," Ngeh had remarked.

Police had begun a probe on Fuziah after a video clip was uploaded on her Facebook on Thursday night allegedly depicting the Sultan Iskandar Building (CIQ Complex) in Johor Bahru turning chaotic after large crowds of Malaysians returned home from Singapore.

The Facebook page later carried a note where the page's "administrator" apologised for posting an old video clip.

She has since deleted the post.

But retractions and apologies won't deter authorities from going after those who have posted "fake news" on social media, said Defence Minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob.

Shamsher is puzzled over why Ngeh feels the law should now forgive those who spread fake news when Harapan was also against fake news.

Shamsher said Section 76 of the Penal Code is a defence of "superior order".

He cited examples where it was not a mistake when:

• Someone was legally bound to do so (for example, an army member was ordered to shoot at enemies during the war); or
• He would, in spite of the fact, believe that he was legally bound to do so (for example, a police officer was ordered to arrest A but he arrested B, a twin of A, after assuming B was A).

"Since no one ordered Fuziah to make the post, this section does not apply," Shamsher said.

He pointed out Section 79 provides that it shall not be a criminal offence for any person when:

• His actions are justified by law; or
• The act was not justified by law but he in good faith, despite the fact, believed his actions were justified by law. (For example, A saw B flee after beating C. A, as a responsible citizen, arrested B and handed him over to the police. A did nothing wrong. Even if C is actually trying to rob B and B is only exercising his right to escape, A is innocent even if A is mistaken in fact, as long as A acts in good faith).

"It is true that Fuziah's post is incorrect (factual error). But I want to ask, did Fuziah (below) act in good faith?" Shamsher said.

"According to Section 52 of the Penal Code, 'nothing is said to be done or believed in good faith which is done or believed without due care and attention.'

"That is, if we do something recklessly without proper attention, then we cannot say we are acting in good faith.

"If there is no purity, then the defence of Section 79 does not apply. Do you understand, Ngeh?" Shamsher asked.

Meanwhile, Section 105 of the Evidence Act 1950 clearly states that "when a person is charged with any offence, the burden of proving the existence of the circumstances which render the case included in any of the general exceptions of the Penal Code lies with it, and the court should regard such circumstances as non-existent."

The defence of Section 79 is one of the general exceptions.

"In other words, Fuziah must prove her defence under Section 79, and the prosecution (as well as the police) should consider that the defence does not exist as long as Fuziah does not (prove it)," Shamsher argued.

BTW, wakakaka, Shamsher Singh Thind was once a LIFE MEMBER of the DAP. He resigned in December 2016 after giving one month's notice to the party.

The NST reported:

Law lecturer Shamsher Singh Thind said he had given a one month’s notice in writing to DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng, which was delivered to the DAP headquarters by hand on Nov 11.

“The reason for my resignation is that I have lost my faith in the party leadership, especially Lim Kit Siang,” he said in a statement issued today.

Citing a few excerpts from Kit Siang’s and Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s blogs, Shamsher said he could write a thesis on the nature and extent of the allegations that Kit Siang and other prominent opposition leaders have made against Mahathir and Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin in the past.

The hypocrisy and deceit of Lim KHAT Siang
He has ALSO failed to deliver on his promise to resign if Mahathir did not hand over the PM post to Anwar Ibrahim 

“From what I see, either Kit Siang lied about Dr Mahathir and Muhyiddin, or he has no problem working hand-in-hand with those who abused their powers and who were corrupt in the past. Whichever view is adopted, the point that I want to prove is that Kit Siang has lost his credibility,” he said.

Shamsher has been critical of the party leadership and their decisions to hold hands with Mahathir, going as far as labelling Mahathir a ‘snake’ and a ‘pimp’.

It seems most of DAP members who dislike, even rebel against, the dodgy alliance of the DAP with PRIBUMI (Mahathir's racist PPBM or UMNO III) have been Indians, though admittedly there are Chinese members who have been infuriated by Lim KHAT Siang's dictatorial path down the political gutter, away from the Rocket Party's once noble objectives and struggle.

I can remember in April 2015 reading Ramkarpal's opinion on working with Mahathir in the now-defunct TMI (extracts):

“The question of working with Dr Mahathir is an unimaginable disaster waiting to happen."

“There can be no doubt that Malaysia needs to be saved. While I agree that Najib ought to go, I cannot agree with the means by which Dr Mahathir proposes to do so” ...

Extracts of my December 2016 post Two grumpy old men, wakakaka, follows:

There wasn't any doubt about Ramkarpal's extremely poor opinion of Mahathir, but alas, LKS has pressed on heedlessly.

And that has compelled Ramkarpal's sister, Sangeet Kaur Deo, to state during debates at the DAP national conference (via MM Online):

“I want to clarify at this stage that it was interesting to see Tun Mahathir in support of Maria’s [Maria Chin] release when it was him that was instrumental in the cruel enforcement of the ISA.” Hasn't she been delightfully sarcastic about Mahathir's all-too-apparent hypocrisy? She ought to know how evil Mahathir had been when it was his regime that incarcerated her father Karpal Singh three times, in 1987, 1989 and 2000.

In the 2000 arrest, Wikipedia states Karpal Singh ...

... was charged for making seditious remarks in court during Anwar's first corruption trial. This was the only known charge of sedition in any country in the Commonwealth of nations brought against a lawyer for remarks made in court in defence of a client.

T'was a period in time when Malaysia was ruled by the iron fist of a PM named Mahathir. And ironically LKS was also detained in Ops Lalang, thanks to that same Mahathir draconian regime.

SIRIM should grade Mahathir's current hypocrisy as 101% bullshit with the potential to metamorphose into anti Chinese venom.

Continuing with Sangeet's statement, “Now I strongly urge the leaders of DAP to be very mindful when we choose our allies. Yes, there are no permanent friends, there are no permanent enemies, but there must be permanent principles. And when we choose our allies, we must be sure that their principles are genuinely in line with ours.”

What Sangeet Kaur said, obviously referring to Mahathir, has been exactly in line with her brother Ramkarpal, namely, that Mahathir's principles (or lack of) aren't those of the DAP.

And may I add in conclusion, nor those of LKS, given his current nyanyok mentality and heedless rush into an unholy alliance with Mahathir, which has turned him sadly from being my hero to being a big bloody zero.

Shamsher, Ramkarpal, Sangeet and many silent DAP members have been vindicated in their courageous opposition to DAP Dictator Lim KHAT Siang's foolhardy and selfish rush into bed with an already KNOWN very evil old man.