Murray Hunter
Madani’s favourite weapon: the Sedition Act
Intimidation, selective prosecution, political persecution, and lawfare
Aug 28, 2024
Pakatan Harapan once staunchly fought against the Sedition Act because it has always been used by the government as a tool for intimidation, selective prosecution and political persecution. Even I have not been immune from it as the video below shows:
Aug 28, 2024
Pakatan Harapan once staunchly fought against the Sedition Act because it has always been used by the government as a tool for intimidation, selective prosecution and political persecution. Even I have not been immune from it as the video below shows:
In my case, people inside the government are misusing the Sedition Act to cover up business dealings they don’t want the public to know about. This is a misuse and abuse of the law.
The arrest and charging of Muhyiddin Yassin is just another example. It was used against Karpal Singh, who was only cleared out it, after his passing, under a Pakatan Harapan government.
The Sedition Act was also used by a Barisan Nasional government against Marina Yusoff back in 2001.
At the time the Pakatan people were irate over the above issues. Below is an editorial written by Mohamed Hanipa Maidin on the Sedition Act, published in Malaysiakini today.
COMMENT | High time for govt to review or repeal Sedition Act
Mohamed Hanipa Maidin
Published: Aug 28, 2024 8:00 AM
COMMENT | We should congratulate the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) for its unholy haste in prosecuting Perikatan Nasional chief Muhyiddin Yassin for sedition.
Unfortunately, the AGC’s speedy prosecution of any alleged offender of the law seems to be consistently inconsistent.
Yes, Muhyiddin was speedily slapped with a criminal charge but a culprit who allegedly assaulted a deaf e-hailing driver has not been framed hitherto with any criminal charge.
Perhaps the AG has to explain such a bewildering inconsistency.
While the AG being the public prosecutor - under Article 145 of the Federal Constitution - has full discretion to charge any alleged criminal offender under any law, his decision to prefer a charge against Muhyiddin under the Sedition Act 1948, in my view, is a bit questionable.
Attorney-General’s Chambers
Why? For once, the AG is not representing a BN/Umno government. He is an AG in the coalition government in which Pakatan Harapan is in the majority and most importantly the premiership is held by a Harapan politician namely Anwar Ibrahim.
Like it or not the prime minister has been declaring to the whole world - especially to all the voters who supported Harapan in the last general election - that he wanted to bring major reforms to the country.
Ergo people - especially Harapan voters - have legitimate expectations for Harapan to fulfil its solemn promises.
Charging any person under obnoxious legislation such as the Sedition Act would be definitely construed as breaking such sacrosanct promises.
No to Sedition Act
Recently radio station BFM 89.9 contacted me to get my views on this issue. Perhaps my response is worth repeating here.
“As a lawyer, I always believe in freedom of speech. And I always advocate the same. As far as I am concerned freedom of speech which is duly enshrined in our apex law would be meaningless and illusory if it is punishable.
“That is my personal view. And I might be wrong on this point. Truth be told, I disagree with the alleged contents of Muhyiddin’s speech. Some people believe his speech was against the law. In other words, he has allegedly committed a crime.
“Assuming the people are right, shall he be investigated or charged under the Sedition Act? With the greatest respect, I totally disagree with him being subjected to the Sedition Act.
Why? For once, the AG is not representing a BN/Umno government. He is an AG in the coalition government in which Pakatan Harapan is in the majority and most importantly the premiership is held by a Harapan politician namely Anwar Ibrahim.
Like it or not the prime minister has been declaring to the whole world - especially to all the voters who supported Harapan in the last general election - that he wanted to bring major reforms to the country.
Ergo people - especially Harapan voters - have legitimate expectations for Harapan to fulfil its solemn promises.
Charging any person under obnoxious legislation such as the Sedition Act would be definitely construed as breaking such sacrosanct promises.
No to Sedition Act
Recently radio station BFM 89.9 contacted me to get my views on this issue. Perhaps my response is worth repeating here.
“As a lawyer, I always believe in freedom of speech. And I always advocate the same. As far as I am concerned freedom of speech which is duly enshrined in our apex law would be meaningless and illusory if it is punishable.
“That is my personal view. And I might be wrong on this point. Truth be told, I disagree with the alleged contents of Muhyiddin’s speech. Some people believe his speech was against the law. In other words, he has allegedly committed a crime.
“Assuming the people are right, shall he be investigated or charged under the Sedition Act? With the greatest respect, I totally disagree with him being subjected to the Sedition Act.
Muhyiddin Yassin
“As far as I am concerned, the act is a bit problematic as there are many obnoxious elements therein.
“Unfortunately I have no time to explain why. Anyway as a lawyer I used to defend the former Shah Alam MP - Khalid Samad - who was charged under the act. Fortunately, we won the case. In fact, I was also investigated under the same act. Alhamdulillah, I was not charged.
“To conclude, assuming the AG still wants to prosecute Muhyiddin, please don’t use the Sedition Act against him.”
Oppressive law
It is an open secret that my party - Amanah - and Harapan have been opposing the act. As far as I know, the decision by Harapan to reject the act remains intact.
After all, the oppressiveness of the act remains unchanged too. When the act was amended in Parliament to tighten its grip, Harapan strongly opposed it. I remember debating and opposing such amendments in Parliament.
Unfortunately, to date, we have not heard any comment let alone opposition from Harapan leaders such as Mohamad Sabu or Khalid (Amanah) or from Karpal Singh’s sons (DAP) though their late father was charged, tried, convicted and punished under the Sedition Act.
Truth be told, it is very sad.
Kudos however to PKR lawmaker Hassan Abdul Karim for being a lone ranger in voicing his vehement opposition to the Sedition Act being used against anyone including Muhyiddin. It seems that his conscience is extremely clear.
“As far as I am concerned, the act is a bit problematic as there are many obnoxious elements therein.
“Unfortunately I have no time to explain why. Anyway as a lawyer I used to defend the former Shah Alam MP - Khalid Samad - who was charged under the act. Fortunately, we won the case. In fact, I was also investigated under the same act. Alhamdulillah, I was not charged.
“To conclude, assuming the AG still wants to prosecute Muhyiddin, please don’t use the Sedition Act against him.”
Oppressive law
It is an open secret that my party - Amanah - and Harapan have been opposing the act. As far as I know, the decision by Harapan to reject the act remains intact.
After all, the oppressiveness of the act remains unchanged too. When the act was amended in Parliament to tighten its grip, Harapan strongly opposed it. I remember debating and opposing such amendments in Parliament.
Unfortunately, to date, we have not heard any comment let alone opposition from Harapan leaders such as Mohamad Sabu or Khalid (Amanah) or from Karpal Singh’s sons (DAP) though their late father was charged, tried, convicted and punished under the Sedition Act.
Truth be told, it is very sad.
Kudos however to PKR lawmaker Hassan Abdul Karim for being a lone ranger in voicing his vehement opposition to the Sedition Act being used against anyone including Muhyiddin. It seems that his conscience is extremely clear.
PKR MP Hassan Abdul Karim
I have written many articles in the past voicing my objections to the act. I had also represented clients in court who were charged under this harsh law. In fact, I was also investigated under the act before this.
Be that as it may, I am fully aware of the oppressiveness and harshness of the act.
To cite some oppressive elements of the act, the law, for instance, does not recognise the truth as a defence.
While mens rea (intention to commit a crime) is an important ingredient to constitute a crime, the prosecution is not required to prove such an essential element under the said law.
And the law only demands the prosecution to prove seditious tendency only to constitute an actionable crime. That is why the British who introduced this law were extremely happy to use the law against many of our freedom fighters in the past.
Obsolete
In the UK, the law was repealed in 2009. In justifying the abolition of the law on sedition in 2009, the UK government argued:
“Sedition and seditious and defamatory libel are arcane offences - from a bygone era when freedom of expression wasn’t seen as the right it is today... the existence of these obsolete offences in this country had been used by other countries as justification for the retention of similar laws which have been actively used to suppress political dissent and restrict freedom.”
While the Sedition Act may be properly described to be prosecution-friendly, the law is definitely a nightmarish experience for any accused person or his lawyer.
To conclude, let me reiterate here as of now Malaysia still has sufficient laws to protect, for instance, the dignity, nobility and regality of our constitutional monarch.
Hence the fear that any attempt to review or repeal the Sedition Act may produce undesirable results, with due respect, is not evidence-based.
It is only a preconceived and unfounded fear.
MOHAMED HANIPA MAIDIN is a former deputy minister in the Prime Minister’s Department.
I have written many articles in the past voicing my objections to the act. I had also represented clients in court who were charged under this harsh law. In fact, I was also investigated under the act before this.
Be that as it may, I am fully aware of the oppressiveness and harshness of the act.
To cite some oppressive elements of the act, the law, for instance, does not recognise the truth as a defence.
While mens rea (intention to commit a crime) is an important ingredient to constitute a crime, the prosecution is not required to prove such an essential element under the said law.
And the law only demands the prosecution to prove seditious tendency only to constitute an actionable crime. That is why the British who introduced this law were extremely happy to use the law against many of our freedom fighters in the past.
Obsolete
In the UK, the law was repealed in 2009. In justifying the abolition of the law on sedition in 2009, the UK government argued:
“Sedition and seditious and defamatory libel are arcane offences - from a bygone era when freedom of expression wasn’t seen as the right it is today... the existence of these obsolete offences in this country had been used by other countries as justification for the retention of similar laws which have been actively used to suppress political dissent and restrict freedom.”
While the Sedition Act may be properly described to be prosecution-friendly, the law is definitely a nightmarish experience for any accused person or his lawyer.
To conclude, let me reiterate here as of now Malaysia still has sufficient laws to protect, for instance, the dignity, nobility and regality of our constitutional monarch.
Hence the fear that any attempt to review or repeal the Sedition Act may produce undesirable results, with due respect, is not evidence-based.
It is only a preconceived and unfounded fear.
MOHAMED HANIPA MAIDIN is a former deputy minister in the Prime Minister’s Department.
Madani... worst Prime Minister In Malaysian history
ReplyDeleteGeorge Orwell"s animal farm is alive and prospering in Ass man
ReplyDeletegovernance