By NHChan
Prelude – please read it before reading the article
I write this article so as to apprise the people who, in the mind of the general public, have taken the law into their own hands through the harassment of law abiding citizens of this country with the threat of using the Sedition Act 1948 on them. They should not have done it without first taking expert legal advice on the technical and difficult law of sedition under the Act.
After you have read this article, I am sure you will agree with me that the law of sedition is not easy for a layman to understand. Even lawyers and judges have found great difficulty in understanding it – let alone an uninitiated policeman. If the police are not careful, one of these days they will find themselves at the receiving end of a suit for malicious prosecution, false arrest or whatever the victims of their harassment would throw at them.
I hope you will bear with me if this time I am not able to explain difficult law in simple language as much as I would like to. It is at a time like this that I really appreciate the great ability of the late Lord Denning who was so adept at explaining difficult law to us ordinary folk.
Historical background of how the law of sedition in 1870 India had migrated to Peninsular Malaya in 1948 (Sabah in 1964 and Sarawak in 1969) where this archaic law has been implanted in modern 2l century Malaysia
In 19861 was the judge who tried Mr Param Cumaraswamy for sedition under s 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act 1948. At the end of the trial, I acquitted him. But first, a little bit of history – it is necessary to understand the historical development of how this bit of archaic legislation came to be the law of modem Malaysia. While other countries of the Commonwealth, of which Malaysia is a member, have advanced into the modem age, in this country time has stood still to the time of Sir James Stephen in 1870 British India. This was pointed out by Sinha CJ in Kedar Nath v State of Bihar [1962] AIR, SC 955:
Section 124A was not placed on the Statute Book until 1870, by Act XXVII of 1870. There was a considerable amount of discussion at the time the amendment was introduced by Sir James Stephen ………
The result of my research into the law of sedition is embodied in the judgment of P P v
Param Cumaraswamy [1986] CU (Rep) 606.1 am sorry for not being able to give you the MU citation – it happened so long ago and I do not have access to a law library. At p 6191 said:
Sir James Stephen, you will remember, was the Judge whose definition of sedition appeared as article 93 of the Digest of the Criminal Law. In facts 124A which Sinha CJ had reproduced in the passage which I have just read was the work of Stephen J. Nowhere ins 124A of the Indian Penal Code did Sir James include the flirther qualification of incitement to violence or inciting others to public disorders as an ingredient of the offence. As I have said earlier (see my decision when I called on Mr Cumaraswamy to enter on his defence), “Although it may appear to be the position in English case law that incitement to violence or inciting others to public disorders is an essential ingredient of sedition, it is not so in a criminal code which has as its model Stephen’s definition.”
Incitement to violence or inciting others to public disorder k not an ingredient of sedition
Sir James Stephen was the author of s 1 24A of the Indian Penal Code. He did not in drafting that section make incitement to violence or the tendency or the intention to create public disorders the gist of the offence of sedition. Nor did he make them the gist of the crime in his defmition in article 93 of the Digest. And article 93 of the Digest was used as the model for the crime of sedition in the Criminal Code of the Gold Coast. So that when we look at s 124A of the Indian Penal Code or at the Criminal Code of the Gold Coast on sedition or our own Sedition Act (which I have previously said was modeled on Stephen’s definition), we are merely looking at the definition of sedition as apprehended by Sir James Stephen, and not at English case law … which had developed separately from Stephen’s definition. Stephen’s defmition has been codified as the law of the Gold Coast and of this country. And Wallace-Johnson v The King [1940] AC 231 has laid down that since the law is contained in a code, “the Court must look for the ingredients of the offence from the codified law and not import principles which have been established by English case law, and that, accordingly there cannot be imported into the offence (as created under the codified law) the additional ingredient of incitement to violence or inciting others to public disorder.”
The view expressed by Sinha CJ in the Indian Supreme Court in Kedar Nath cannot by any means be supported. In my judgment, the correct view is that as laid down by the Privy Council in Wallace-Johnson.
Therefore, as I have explained above, incitement to violence or inciting others to public disorder is not an ingredient of the offence of sedition in this country.
Nor is intention an ingredient of the crime of sedition
Having got that off my chest, the next thing I need to explain is why mens rea is not a necessary ingredient of the crime of sedition under our Sedition Act 1948. As every law student knows mens rea is Latin for “intention”. Here is how I explained it in PP v Param Cumaraswamy. I said at p 612:
I have shown that the model for subsection 8 of s 326 of the Criminal Code of the Gold Coast was Stephen’s definition of sedition in Article 93 of the Digest. In Wallace-Johnson the Privy Council has laid down that incitement to violence is not a necessary ingredient of the crime of sedition under the Criminal Code of the Gold Coast. A fortiori, inciting others to public disorders is not a necessary ingredient of sedition.
In Stephen’s definition and as well as the Criminal Code of the Gold Coast, a seditious intention is an essential ingredient, but Stephen in Article 94 of the Digest had expressed the view that intention is no more than the natural consequence of the words, and the Privy Council in Wallace-Johnson has held that it is not necessary to prove actual intention. It is enough if the words are seditious by reason of their expression of a seditious intention as defined in the section.
It looks as if it was with hindsight that the Sedition Act came to be drafted. If intention requires no more mens rea than an intention to publish the words which were published; if it is not necessary to prove actual intention because seditious words are words which are “expressive of a seditious intention” as defined in the section, then the gravamen or an essential ingredient of sedition is not mens rea (intention) but an actus reus. That is, the words must have a tendency (a seditious tendency) to achieve one or more of the objects specified.
Instead, all that the prosecutor need to prove is a seditious tendency
This is what I said in Param Cumaraswamy, p 611:
In both the Stephen and the Criminal Code of the Gold Coast definitions an intention to achieve one or more of the objects specified in the definition is an essential ingredient of the crime of sedition. The important question is whether the “intention” must be proved. In Article 94 of the Digest (4th edn) Stephen put it thus:
“In determining whether the intention with which any words were spoken, any document was published, or any agreement was made, was or was not seditious, every person must be deemed to intend the consequences which would naturally follow from his conduct at the time and under the
circumstances in which he so conducted himself.”
Stephen’s view did not require any more mens rea than an intention to publish the words which were published. It would not be necessary to prove an actual intention to achieve any one of the objects specified.
In the Privy Council case of Wallace-Johnson v R [1940] AC 231, it was argued on behalf of the appellant Wallace-Johnson, seep 234:
(a) that both in English common law and in the Criminal Code in question there must be some evidence of intention outside the mere words of the instrument before a seditious intention can be said to exist; and (b) that in the present case, when the document is read, there cannot be found in it any seditious intention at all; and therefore before the appellant can be convicted there must be some evidence of seditious intention extrinsically, and, there being none, this conviction cannot stand on any ground.
The judgment of the Privy Council was read by the Lord Chancellor, at p 240, in which he said:
“Seditious words,” in the terms of sub-s 8, “are words expressive of a seditious intention”.
Then he went on to say, at p 241:
The submission that there must be some extrinsic evidence of intention, outside the words themselves, before seditious intention can exist, must … fail … If the words are seditious by reason of their expression of a seditious intention as defined in the section, the seditious intention appears without any extrinsic evidence. The Legislature of the Colony might have defined “seditious words” by reference to an intention proved by evidence of other words or overt acts. It is sufficient to say they have not done so.
The headnote in the report of Wallace-Johnson has summarized accurately what was said by the Lord Chancellor. It reads, at p231, thus:
If the words complained of are themselves “expressive of a seditious intention” as defmed in the section they are “seditious words”. It is not necessary to produce any extrinsic evidence on intention, outside the words themselves, before seditious intention can exist. If the words are seditious by reason of their expression of a seditious intention as defined in the section the seditious intention appears without any extrinsic evidence.
So that in this country, instead of saying “seditious words” are words which are “expressive of a seditious intention ‘ in our Sedition Act we say they are words with a “seditious tendency”
This is how s 30) of the Sedition Act 1948 of this country states it:
3. (1) A “seditious tendency” is a tendency –
(a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any Ruler or against any Government;
(b) to excite the subjects of any Ruler or the inhabitants of any territory governed by any Government to attempt to procure in the territory of the Ruler or governed by the Government, the alteration, otherwise than by lawfhl means, of any matter as by law established;
(c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against thc administration ofjustice in Malaysia or in any State;
(d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the subjects of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or of the Ruler of any State or amongst the inhabitants of Malaysia or of any State;
(e) to promote feelings of ill will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Malaysia; or
(f) to question any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of Part III of the Federal Constitution or Article 152, 153 or 181 of the Federal Constitution. (This paragraph did not appear in the original form of the sub-section)
As can be seen from the provisions of s 3 (1) of the Sedition Act, above, intention is not an ingredient of the crime of sedition, and all that need be proved by the prosecution is a seditious tendency as defined ins 3(1). This is established by s 3(3) which says:
3. (3) For the purpose of proving the commission of any offence against this Act the intention of the person charged at the time he did or attempted to do or made any preparation to do or conspired with any person to do any act or uttered any seditious words or printed, published, sold, offered for sale, distributed, reproduced or imported any publication or did any other thing shall be deemed to be irrelevant if in fact the act had, or would, if done, have had, or the words, publication or thing had a seditious tendency. (I have supplied the emphasis which is in bold type)
Then, how are we to decide whether the words have a seditious tendency
Although it is unnecessary to prove “intention”: see s 3(3) of the Act above, it is necessary to prove that the words have a tendency to achieve one or more of the objects specified ins 3(1) of the Act. In deciding whether the words have this tendency, it is proper, and here I would like to use the words of Coleridge J in R v Aidred (1909) 22 Cox CC 1, p 3,:
…..to look at all the circumstances surrounding the publication with the view of seeing whether the language used is calculated to produce the results imputed; that is to say, you are entitled to look at the audience addressed, because language which would be innocuous, practically speaking, if used to an assembly of professors or divines, might produce a different result if used before an excited audience of young and uneducated men.
On the other hand, here I would like to use the language of Cave J in R v Burns (1886) 16 Cox CC 355, p 365,:
A man cannot escape from the consequences of uttering words with a [seditious tendency] solely because the persons to whom they are addressed may be too wise or too temperate to be seduced [by those words].
Therefore, the words are seditious (1) if they are likely to incite or influence the audience actually addressed or (2) if they are likely to incite or influence ordinary people even though the audience addressed was unaffected by the words.
What is not seditious
Stephen in Article 93 of the Digest gave the definition of what is not seditious. Almost identical provisions are to be found in the Criminal Code of the Gold Coast. With regard to the Gold Coast provisions, this is what the Privy Council said in Wallace-Johnson, at p 240:
Question will necessarily arise in every case, as in this case, as to the facts to which it is sought to apply these definitions. Fine distinctions may have to be drawn between facts which justif’ the conclusion that the intention of the person charged was to “bring into hatred or contempt .. the Government of the Gold Coast,” and facts which are consistent only with the view that the intention was no more than, in the words of a later part of sub-s 8, “to point out errors or defects in the Government … of the Gold Coast.”
In the Sedition Act of this country, we have s 3(2). The subsection specifies the circumstances or situations which are not seditious. Fine distinctions may have to be drawn between facts which justify the conclusion that there was a tendency to achieve one or more of the objects specified in s 3(1), and facts which are consistent only with the view that the tendency was no more than to do the acts or things mentioned in s 3(2). Provided that in doing any of the acts or things mentioned in s 3(2), the words used do not have the effect of achieving any of the objects specified ins 30).
There is a similar provision to ours 3(2) in the Criminal Code of the Gold Coast: see the proviso to subsection 8 of s 326 of the Gold Coast Code. While in this country it is s 3(2) of the Sedition Act 1948 which reads:
3. (2) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (1) an act. Speech, words, publication or other ting shall not be deemed to be seditious by reason only that it has a tendency –
(a) to show that any Ruler has been misled or mistaken in any of his measures;
(b) to point out errors or defects in any Government or constitution as by law established (except in respect of any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative referred to in paragraph (1)0 otherwise than in relation to the implementation of any provision relating thereto) or in legislation or in the administration ofjustice with a view to the remedying of the errors or defects;
(c) except in respect of any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative referred to in paragraph
(1)(f) –(i) to persuade the subjects of any Ruler or the inhabitants of any terntory governed by any Government to attempt to procure by lawfiil means the alteration of any matter in the territory of such Government as by law established; or
(ii) to point out, with a view to their removal, any matters producing or having a tendency to produce feelings of ill will and enmity between different races or classes of the population of the Federation,
If the act, speech, words, publication or other thing has not otherwise in fact a seditious tendency.
(I have put the words in bold type to show that they were not found in the original text of sub-section (2))
Did Lim Kit Siang commit sedition?
Now that you know the law of sedition as much as any expert on the subject, we shall examine the law to find out if Lim Kit Siang has, in fact, committed the crime. As I have understood from the internet, all that he did was to point out that the biggest mistake that Naj ib made in the so-called Perak debacle was to approach the sultan for the appointment of Zambry as Mentri Besar – that step, as we all know, started the political and constitutional impasse in Perak.
Had Najib not seen the Ruler, but instead had he advised the Barisan Nasional assemblymen to obtain a vote of no confidence against Nizar at the time, he would have succeeded and there would have been no constitutional crisis in Perak. By his rash action to have Zambry appointed Mentri Besar when Nizar is still holding the office of Mentri Besar, he had caused the impasse in Perak. Najib had actually committed a serious political misjudgment. Since then he had been unable to extricate himself out of the political quagmire which he had orchestrated.
Since Lim Kit Siang’ s criticism was only directed at Naj ib for his personal misjudgment in the whole episode, it would not be possible for any prosecutor to establish a “seditious tendency” under s 3(1) of the Sedition Act. This is because paragraphs (a) and (b) of the subsection concern a seditious tendency against a Ruler or Government – so these provisions do not apply to a personal criticism of Naj ib in his handling of the affair. Paragraph (c ) concerns a seditious tendency against the administration ofjustice – definitely this does not apply to a criticism ofNajib’s handling of the matter. In paragraph (d) the seditious tendency is to raise discontent and disaffection among the people – so it does not apply. Paragraph (e) deals with race and class, and paragraph (I) deals with privileges, sovereignty etc – so they too do not apply to a personal criticism of Naj ib’ s miscalculation of the situation in Perak.
Therefore, since it is impossible, based on the above circumstances, to establish a “seditious tendency” against Lim Kit Siang for his criticism of Naj ib’ s conduct in the Perak debacle, Lim Kit Siang has not committed any offence under the Sedition Act. As such, what the police did to him was unwarranted and an inexcusable harassment of a respected politician. Such bullying methods by the police should be frowned upon by all right thinking people. By their bad behaviour in the matter, the police have done a great disservice to the Government of the day which eventually may reflect adversely against them in the next election. As a consequence of such outrageous act of harassment which the police have perpetrated against the people, the police were, in fact, promoting feelings of ill will against the Barisan Nasional government which is the government of the day. I wonder if they could have brought themselves within the meaning of “seditious tendency” under s 3(l’)(e) which says “(1) A ‘seditious tendency’ is a tendency (e) to promote feelings of ill will … between different … classes of the population of Malaysia” – i.e. between the people and the Barisan Nasional government? Perish the thought. But then, why were they doing this to the government? Were they trying to ensure a change of government at the next general election? Your Guess is as good as mine.
I remember when I was a serving judge, we would never dream of doing anything that would jeopardize the standing of our employer, the Government of Malaysia. Sometimes we would take a member of the executive government, like a minister or a public official, to task if they have done wrong but it must be done in a judgment. As a serving judge, it is taboo to criticize the government of the day out of court. But nowadays we find the police jeopardizing the position of their employer, the government of the day, by their overt action of harassing some members of the general public. Don’t these people realize that such actions would have an adverse effect on the government come next election? I suppose there are some people who think that it is all right for such an undesirable trend to continue like a cancer among the law enforcement agencies.
And what about poor Karpal Singh?
All that Karpal Singh said was that the sultan can be sued. And the next thing we hear is that he has been charged for the crime of sedition. We all know that Karpal Singh was speaking as a lawyer. And why is it wrong for a lawyer to say someone can be sued? All of us know that a ruler can be sued in the Special Court, albeit with leave of the court, for certain things, such as in an action in contract or tort, and also he could be prosecuted for certain crimes. There is no provision in s 3(1) of the Sedition Act which says that for saying that a sultan can be sued is a seditious tendency.
Moreover s 3 (2)(a) totally absolves Karpal Singh of any wrongdoing under the Sedition Act for his remark. Section 3 (2)(a) says:
3. (2) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (1) an act, speech, words, publication or other thing shall not be deemed to be seditious by reason only that it has a tendency –
(a) to show that any Ruler has been misled or mistaken in any of his measures;
Rightly or wrongly Karpal Singh thought that the ruler could be sued by way of a judicial review for what was perceived by him as the unconstitutional appointment of Zambry as Mentri Besar. Judicial review was thought by many lawyers at the time to be the proper course to take to correct the mistaken step taken by the ruler in the appointment of a new Mentri Besar when the incumbent Mentri Besar is still in office.
So that by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of section 3 of the Sedition Act 1948, what Karpal Singh had said about suing the sultan would not be treated as seditious even though the words spoken by him would show that the ruler was mistaken in his measure to appoint another Menteri Besar when the incumbent is still in office.
PP v Param Cumaraswamy is still the law on the Sedition Act 1948
The law of sedition which I have referred to in this article is taken from my judgment in PP v Param Cumaraswamy [1986] CU (Rep) 606 which was decided almost twenty three years ago. Cumaraswamy is authority for the statement of the statute law of sedition as it stands. It is also useful for its concise treatment of the Sedition Act 1948. To this day it is still the law of the land as it has not been overruled by any higher court.
New definition of sedition: To oppose umno
New definition of patriotism: To support umno
New definition of treason: To wear black
Hiya, so complex n complicated n in Bahasa England too
How lah 2 expect mata-mata 2 faham
Mata-mata no eye 4 your high IQ discourse
Mata-mata obey order saja
Nab dia under sedition act, nab lah
What me worry
Judges n others under same same order will fix dia lah
In other words, the Attorney General, Minister Of Police and the IGP must be first well verse with the definition “sedition”.
‘Sedition’ means words or actions intended to make people rebel against authority or disobey the government.
This was taken from an Oxford English dictionary.
Of course, it seems the law, in the hands of UMNO’s BN, also has its own intepretation of ‘sedition’.
We know that the lion MP & YB LKS had made their point pretty clear about the political situation in Perak, that the monarch basically has no constitutional power to dismiss the head of the state government. As a result, the lion MP gets charged with sedition & YB LKS gets investigated for sedition.
However, the old doctor had said the same thing and got away ‘scot free’.
Ah yes, have to remember that the old doctor is regarded as a ‘hero’ within UMNO’s BN…
In this land of plenty
it’s not what you say n what you know
it’s who you know
which affects what you said
“Did Kit Siang and Karpal commit sedition? … the law of sedition is not easy for a layman to understand. ”
Actually, the answer is most likely yes. In … Malaysia, if you are in the opposition, you commit sedition, but if you are in the Barisan, you can get away with murder.
Mr Lim and Karpal are being investigated for sedition. It does not mean that they will be charged with sedition.
We all know that these investigations are merely to frighten them, to harrass them and to make their lives more difficult. That’s about all. So what is the law on harrassment?
The police are “only doing their job” so what’s wrong with this blank cheque? What can you do? Complain to IGP?
“If the police are not careful, one of these days they will find themselves at the receiving end of a suit for malicious prosecution, false arrest or whatever the victims of their harassment would throw at them.” (Retired Judge NH Chan)
I strongly suggest that YB Kit be responding steadfastly by lodging a police report on allegedly making a false accusation against YB Kit by the Chief Inspector (CJ) whom earlier on had lodged a police report against YB Kit for the allegation of committing seditious offence, even without a strong proof of seditious tendency but simply based on the instruction from the CJ’s superior, a senior police officer who carried a designation of ACP.
Sometimes the senior police officer himself will initiate a false accusation on the popular politician simply for the purpose of wanting to please his political master in order to get a quick job promotion. To stop the proliferation of such an unheathy apple-polishing culture in the Police Force, YB Kit should lodge a police report or a MACC report against the police officer on the police officer’s inappropriate behaviour and the alleged misuse of power. If no action has been seen to have been taken by either the Police or the MACC on YB Kit’s proposed police report lodge, the deterrent force will still be created from such an act of lodging a police report.
The alleged police officer will still need to defense himself in court for an alleged criminal offence of misuse of official power when someday in the future Pakatan Rakyat is able to form the Federal Government! The Police Officer should not be tolerated by anyone of us when he has committed the offence of misuse of power. This is because there is a great danger of pampering the Police Officer to become a tyrant sooner or later in view of the arrogance cultivated by the gun being held in his hand if no one is willing to take the initiative to impose certain form of checks-and-balances system upon the human-rights-despising and power-hungry police officer! The best form of checks-and-balances on the Police Officer for preventing his further behaviour of misuse of power is to take him to court for a fair trial when he is alleged to have committed an offence of misuse of power!
A chinese says ” I hate malays who wants to dominate the civil service”.A malays says “I hate chinese pandatang ,an Indian says “I hate malays extremist ,an Iban says “I hate all west malaysians and a Kadazan says he hates malays islamic fanatic. Now do all these statement say make in a public place /forum consider a seditiouss offence?.
Dear Ekans, for your kind information….the Wise Old Doctor has a very sharp analytical mind and can still walk without any assistance….. he doesn’t need a wheelchair …
MR. PATHETIC CINTAN NEGARA AKA ONE OF 3 STOOGES,
“# cintanegara Says:
Today at 01: 46.47 (39 minutes ago)
Dear Ekans, for your kind information….the Wise Old Doctor has a very sharp analytical mind and can still walk without any assistance….. he doesn’t need a wheelchair …” – I DIDN’T SEE ANY MENTION AT ALL AT MR. EKANS’S COMMENT OF THE OLD DOCTOR NEED A WHEEL CHAIR. YOU SAW IT? ARE YOU SURE? WHERE? HEY, SERIOUSLY, YOU NEED A DOCTOR! GO NOW BEFORE IT GET WORST! ELSE THE NEXT TIME YOU’LL SAY THE DOCTOR NEED CINTAN MEE! HA HA
Let’s apply some of Master of the Rolls, Lord Denning’s methods in arriving at some conclusions when faced with complicated, convoluted and diahoerrhiac language in framing legislation like the Sedition Act which lawyers, judges and laymen have difficulty with:
Q: Was the SA enacted to safeguard national security and peace or stifle free speech and legitimate criticism against the Government as guaranteed under the Constitution?
A: To stifle free speech and legitimate criticism against the Government.
Judge’s Decision: Dump the SA!
Q: Is it likely that more than 5 citizens understood the import of the words as spoken in English?
A: Given the pathetic state of England as she is spoke in our country, that is unlikely!
Judge’s Decision: Case dismissed!
Q: Did the words cause any citizen to run amok and threaten to overthrow the Government (UMNO related NGOS’s which suddenly spring up by the millions out of thin air and Police Officers are disqualified for the purpose of determining citizens who run amok and/or make police reports).
A: No!
Judge’s Action: Case dismissed!
See how simple it is when you keep it simple.
KISS UMNO/BN Ministers!!!
Q.
N H Chan says public criticism directed at Najib for his personal misjudgment in Perak episode is no sedition as it is not directed against “against a Ruler or Government” since Najib, as a person is neither Ruler or Government. However how does one really draw a line (in Perak episode) between what Najib did in his personal capacity and what he did as PM, representative of the BN government???? Can one believe he went to see Sultan in personal capacity as Najib the individual and not as either PM (head of govt) or chairman (head) of coalition (BN) that formed the government?
The fact is the Sedition Act is an archaic law.
This notion that it is crime (sedition) to incite by words or writings disaffection/ill will towards the state, ruler, government or any constituted authority – never mind whether there is an intent to incite or that anyone was actually eventually incited – started in old England in the the Elizabethan Era (c. 1590). It was to protect vested interest of those in power. It was conveniently used in the colonies (during colonial era) to suppress the natives from rebelling against the Orang Putih colonial masters.
It is archaic in this 21st Century where not only the “letter” (if not spirit) of freedom of Expression/Speech is embedded in many a commonwealth constitution but also, more importantly, the fact that the world has become wired via the Internet that defies governmental control, means Sedition and the precepts underpinning it have become obsolescent. Yet in ex colonies in which democratic traditions (Freedom of Speech/Expression) have not taken root, this legislative dinosaur has been unleashed occasionally to intimidate and harrass people who represent a threat to those in power.
Frankly, how can there be a functional adversarial system of a government and an opposition checking the government by public criticism (in the best of democratic tradition) when every criticism against the government of the day will necessarily constitute or can be construed as constituting words or writings that incite disaffection and will towards the government or any constituted authority of the day?
What does one expect in such a system – that the Opposition to praise and inspire love amongst the people towards the government that the Opposition supposed to check and oppose? :)
How absurd this notion because applied zealously by police/prosecutors/not so independent courts to its logical conclusion, there can be no opposition speech that is not seditious by the Sedition Act!
And the wordings of the Act are, as Judge NH Chan furthermore said “not easy for a layman to understand” and that “even lawyers and judges have found great difficulty in understanding it”.
If wordings of the law are more obfuscating than clarifying, then this is bad law – bad because its obsecurity of language permits all kinds of little Napoleons to use their discretionary power of interpretation to harrass, intimidate, charge Opposition leaders in preservation of vested interest and derogation of democratic tradition!
Because the law is archaic – and obsecure – then, acting within these constraints to defend against its misuse, one, sometimes at the risk of straining credulity, is compelled to devise ingenious arguments, drawing rarefied and tenuous distinction/difference in law between what (in relation to Najib’s acts in Perak) is supposedly personal capacity and what, on the other hand, is supposedly official capacity (for the government) – that the less gifted amogst us, cannot so easily discern.
DAP should moot for repeal or if not the amendment of the Sedition Act if Pakatan Rakyat comes to power.
Typo omissions in 5th para from top – ” Frankly, how can…that incite disaffection and ILL- WILL towards the government or any constituted authority of the day…??”
9th & 10th para – obscure, obscurity – not obsEcure.
Sorry.
Laws like sedition and isa are the precise instruments used by umno to mould voters’ “smile, handshake and vote opposition” attitude and mentality. I am sure umno did not intend this result when they misapply the two laws in large and generous doses for the last 50 yrs. So it must be a completely unforseen by-product of the years of misapplication of those laws. Would they learn anything from the misapplication? Sadly they do not. The recent charge is a good example.
In UK, the opposition in parliament is known as Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. This is because the opposition is an important component of the parliament and their position is therefore worthy of formal recognition. And they are there in parliament because of democracy. They are there because a section of the people wants them to be there. They are there because that section of the people disagrees with the policies of the ruling party and wants the acts of the ruling party checked and controlled and where possible to take over. In other words they are there for a reason and with a purpose. In other words, they are there to serve that section of the people.
This is democracy. And sedition should not be used to stiffle democracy by silencing the opposition. Silencing the opposition is precisely what umno is doing. That is so obvious to all intelligent men and women.
I think the best way to avoid sedition is not just to smile, shake hand and vote opposition but to smile, kiss hand, minta maaf and vote opposition.
but implied in his statement was the conduct of the sultan. the sultan, being a former judge, should have known better than to entertain najib’s request.
no mens rea. yes. but it appears to have enough of the ‘seditious tendency’ called for under the Act.
Perhaps our Home ministry/PDRM should learn from their Singapore counterpart on handling the sedition case, especially if the complaint is from the minority group and it will be thoroughly investigated and those found infringing the act will be charged in court with all the evidences and this is done without any interferences from politicians.
http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC090611-0000079/8-weeks-jail-each
8 weeks’ jail each Couple committed ‘serious offences capable of eroding racial and religious harmony’
by Teo Xuanwei Updated 09:37 AM Jun 11, 2009
TODAY, Singapore
FOR two decades, the couple spread their faith by handing out religious pamphlets, and then by dropping tracts into random HDB letterboxes.
From around 1998, however, Ong Kian Cheong and Dorothy Chan Hien Leng, both Protestant Christians, mailed them to addresses picked out from the telephone directory – those of Muslims included.
They “clearly did so with the intent of convincing the Muslim reader to convert to Christianity”, a district court found yesterday.
For distributing and possessing seditious and objectionable publications, husband and wife were sentenced to eight weeks’ jail each yesterday.
Such “intolerance, insensitivity and ignorance of delicate issues concerning race and religion” in Singapore “clearly warranted” a custodial sentence, said District Judge Roy Neighbour.
In the first full trial heard under the Sedition Act, the married couple of 24 years was found guilty on May 28 of the charges.
In 2007, Mr Irwan Ariffin, 32, and Madam Farhati Ahmad, 36, received an evangelistic comic-style booklet titled The Little Bride through the mail while Mr Isa Raffee, 35, was sent Who Is Allah?.
After a complaint to the police, an ambush was laid and the pair was arrested on Jan 30 last year. Found in their condominium in Bukit Timah were 439 copies of 11 seditious tracts.
During the 11-day trial, it emerged that the SingTel technical officer and his wife, a UBS associate director, sent out about 20,000 publications in seven years.
Produced by an American firm called Chick Publications, the fundamentalist Protestant materials were “not only offensive for religious content but also have a tendency to promote feelings of ill-will or hostility between Muslims and Christians in Singapore”, said Judge Neighbour.
By distributing tracts with “callous, denigratory, offensive and insensitive statements on religion with aspersions on race”, the pair had committed “serious” offences that “have the capacity to undermine and erode the delicate fabric of racial and religious harmony in Singapore”.
Common sense, he said, dictated that religious fervor to spread the faith, “in our society, must be constrained by sensitivity, tolerance and mutual respect for another’s faith and religious beliefs”.
Ong, 50, and Chan, 46, were expressionless when sentenced. Their lawyer Selva K Naidu told the court that they had filed a notice of appeal against the conviction last Friday. He was awaiting instructions to proceed.
The pair faced two charges of distributing seditious publications each, and one each of distributing an objectionable publication and possession of seditious tracts.
They got four weeks’ jail for each charge – two of them running consecutively and the remaining to run concurrently. They could have been fined up to $5,000 and/or jailed for up to three years for each of the two charges.
The possession charge carries a maximum fine of $2,000 and/or jail for up to 18 months. Distributing objectionable publications is punishable with a fine not exceeding $5,000 and/or up to one year behind bars.
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_386244.html
Singapore Straits Times
June 5, 2009
Couple deserve jail: DPP
A strong message needs to be sent for the sake of harmony, court told
By Elena Chong
SEND a strong message to those whose actions can create disharmony and discord in Singapore.
This call was made by the prosecution on Thursday when it pushed for jail sentences of between two and six months for a Christian couple convicted of distributing and possessing seditious publications.
Calling the offences of Ong Kian Cheong, 50, and his 46-year-old wife, Dorothy Chan Hien Leng, calculated, meticulous and methodical, deputy public prosecutors Anandan Bala and Sharmila Sripathy-Shanaz said it was imperative that an ‘unequivocal message be sent’.
DPP Bala said the couple’s distribution of highly offensive and insulting comic tracts to Muslims and other non-Christians bore all the hallmarks of grossly irresponsible and callous evangelisation, and had the potential to seriously undermine and threaten Singapore’s multi-religious society.
Sending them to jail, he added, would also ‘deter others from behaving in a manner that can create disharmony and discord between the different classes of people living in Singapore’.
Ong, a SingTel technical officer, and Chan, an associate director of Swiss bank UBS, were found guilty last week of four charges of sedition after an 11-day trial.
They had distributed two publications, The Little Bride and Who Is Allah?, to two Muslims.
Both publications tended to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between Christians and Muslims in Singapore.
They were also found to have distributed The Little Bride to another Muslim in 2007, even though they knew the publication was likely to cause feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between the two religious groups.
The couple were also found to have had 439 copies of 11 seditious tracts at their Maplewoods condominium in Bukit Timah on Jan 30 last year, the day of their arrest.
Over two decades, Ong and Chan, who had attended the Berean Christian Church in Havelock Road, distributed over 20,000 evangelistic tracts to the public.
Read the full story in Friday’s edition of the Straits Times.
What the hell is TomDum talking about?
Ekin….that cintanegara idiot is always carrying balls of Mahathir…the established… devil reincarnated PM for 22 years….famous for twisting…cheating and telling lies.
Now..you tell me.. what is cintanegara?
Glad frank and ekin came out and put those stooges.. back where they belong.
On 11th June 2009 at 01:46.47, cintanegara said:
Dear Ekans, for your kind information….the Wise Old Doctor has a very sharp analytical mind and can still walk without any assistance….. he doesn’t need a wheelchair …
Dear cintanegara,
For your kind information, the old doctor is wise enough to know when to show off his sharp analytical mind and when not to do so. For example, at the Lingam video inquiry, the old doctor’s mind seemed to have sharply analysed & anticipated that he would encounter a rather difficult situation, and thus, switched into selective memory loss mode…
And of course, he doesn’t need a wheelchair… He already has a Porsche Cayenne, which is quick enough for his ‘scot free’ getaways, while he expect us rakyat to support his ‘brainchild’ called Proton…
Now back to the subject..useless to talk laws and orders in Malaysia…where UMNO dares to even insult Allah…by doing all against HIS wishes.
UMNO must be vote out….for real democracy and freedom of rights…then talk law and order…after that. End of story.
When a man can go to jail for 6 years …based on a book…which UMNO considered the most dangerous to their future…doing same act again……now…what law is that? I thought when one is freed…proven not guilty..one cannot be caged with the same crime again?
This law that law will not change UMNO.
Lets wait… 13th GE…do UMNO dare to play dirty like Marcos in Philippines.
One step at the time.
Right now…non violence with disobedience doing fine.
That’s great respond….ekans
These idiots must be gunned down…as soon as they come out.
Noticed one …changed for the better and another dare not post?
MR. MONSTERBALL,
MR. PATHETIC CINTAN NEGARA AKA ONE OF 3 STOOGES, IS ONLY CINTAN MEE, CURLS HERE AND THERE, JUST LIKE THE OLD WITCH DOCTOR. HA HA
“# TomThumb Says:
Today at 09: 44.24 (5 hours ago)
but implied in his statement was the conduct of the sultan. the sultan, being a former judge, should have known better than to entertain najib’s request.
no mens rea. yes. but it appears to have enough of the ’seditious tendency’ called for under the Act.” – A DUMB TRYING NOT TO BE DUMB, THAT’S ALL I CAN SEE.
THAT’S THE THING. UMNO INSULTED ALLAH AND NOW WANTED TO WORK WITH PAS. HOW IRONIC..OR I SHOULD SAY, THEY ARE MORE SEDITIOUS THAN THE ENTIRE WORLD. ONLY THONG THONG DUMBBELL AND CINTAN MEE AS WELL AS LAKSAMANA(DISGUISED) CHENG HO AKA THE 3 STOOGES WILL BE FOOLED. OUR EYES CLEARED ENOUGH TO SEE THESE SEDITIOUS ACTS BY UMNO BN.
Useful to know the details BUT Malaysians don’t need to know the law in order to decide if Sdr. Lim is seditious. Sdr. Lim is a patriot, a national treasure even. There is no question of his patriotism and heroics in Malaysian history and those that challenge that is more likely to be seditious, a clear and present danger, an enemy of the state…
The PM is that the government, but the Cabinet comprising the members is. So when Najibed talk to the Sultan in whatever capacity, the reference made of him does not relate to the government.
Justice NH Chan,
you are simply great. Every one knows that Karpal and Lim kit Siang do not commit any thing seditious.
But I am sad to say that in this boleh land, the judiciary is in shamble and pathetic state.
When the color is black, they can insist that it is white and vice versa. Recent judgements proves that
An example is Ahmad Ismail: A kerbau also know that he had made a very seditious statement. Why wasn’t he charged? In fact he is scott free.
What about the Utusan Malaysia recent seditious stetement? The police are blind to it.
Only GOD can help us!!!
Ekin…….PAS will never work with UMNO.
It’s all political chess games.
Their leaders are loggerheads…….but carry not much weight .
Majority PAS Supreme Council members hate UMNO.
PAS needs to fight UMNO with race and religion politics to win muslims votes and muslims know PAS is totally different from UMNO.
PAS is treated equal partner in PR.
With UMNO….for awhile…maybe…..but when UMNO sees everything OK…they will make sure PAS is another puppet.
First.. they must make sure PAS leaders are corrupted…no way out.
Proton is a good example of UMNO characters.
Need Mitsubishi….30%…allow Japanese so much power.
Do not need them…pumped in hundreds…30% become 10$ or out.
That’s how they force foreign partners out.
And any foreign company do well..like B.Braun..where they cannot be 30% partner…they will create an UMNO buyer B.Braun must sell all medical products..to that company..to get into government hospitals…..making it more expensive for patients to pay….and using our money to buy.
This way….UMNO is ripping out tax payers.. to make profit from Malaysians…selling it back to us. Third party get rich…seller get rich…..all using and getting Malaysian money….not one sen investmets by UMNO crooks.They will have all sorts of ideas to enrich themselves..cheating tax payers….left ..right and center.
They think the are very smart…to so call cheat legally……..when these are out-dated crooked formulas …used by others.
I KNOW PAS WILL NOT WORK WITH UMNO. JUST UMNO THOUGHT THEY COULD. YEAH, THOSE CROOKED WAYS, I’D HAD ENOUGH OF THEM. PUT IT THIS WAY, IF THEY DON’T DO THIS WAY, THEY WILL NEVER GET ANY FROM THE CAKE.
REMEMBER HOW CHILDREN FIGHT FOR FOOD LIKE CAKES? “I MUST HAVE A BIGGER PIECE THAN YOURS, ELSE, SMASH IT, BOTH GET NONE, EAT NOTHING”. THAT’S THEM…
ANOTHER EXAMPLE I COULD SEE..HAVE YOU SEEN 3 DOGS HUNGERED FOR A WEEK? WHEN GIVEN FOOD, THEY SNATCH LIKE NOBODY’S BUSINESS. SHEDDING BLOOD EVEN!…THAT’S THEM…
right. and you’re that dog that licks up all the poo left behind by the three dogs.
MR. PATHETIC TOMTHUMB AKA ONE OF 3 STOOGES,
“# TomThumb Says:
Today at 20: 34.14 (40 minutes ago)
right. and you’re that dog that licks up all the poo left behind by the three dogs.” – I’M REFERRING YOU AND EVERYONE AGREES WITH ME THAT YOU’RE ONE OF THE DOGS. POOR DUMBBELL TOM…
Hmm..let’s make it simple
If you are vocal because Naji or the Lion committed a misjudgement, it is not sedition else it’s.
Obviously the Acts needed to be tabled and amended so lay-dumb like us could understand except smart asses like tommyDick and cinanegara ..oh0h sorry… cintanegara
Could not blame the police since they are neither law-expert not laymen. Like bull, they will charge at anything “RED”
“Since Lim Kit Siang’ s criticism was only directed at Naj ib for his personal misjudgment in the whole episode, it would not be possible for any prosecutor to establish a “seditious tendency” under s 3(1) of the Sedition Act. This is because paragraphs (a) and (b) of the subsection concern a seditious tendency against a Ruler or Government – so these provisions do not apply to a personal criticism of Naj ib in his handling of the affair” retired justice nh chan
that would be the defence but what do the facts reveal. law is clear. application of the facts to the law may produce something else.
Commit sedition ….. NO
Commit “adultery” ….. May Be
one must put their words carefully so that not to hurt others feelings or emotions. better still knowing when to shut up is also important la.. u hear that aahh karpal?
visit my blog at http://gk666.blogspot.com
MR. PATHETIC TOMTHUMB AKA ONE OF 3 STOOGES,
“# TomThumb Says:
Yesterday at 23: 33.37
“Since Lim Kit Siang’ s criticism was only directed at Naj ib for his personal misjudgment in the whole episode, it would not be possible for any prosecutor to establish a “seditious tendency” under s 3(1) of the Sedition Act. This is because paragraphs (a) and (b) of the subsection concern a seditious tendency against a Ruler or Government – so these provisions do not apply to a personal criticism of Naj ib in his handling of the affair” retired justice nh chan
that would be the defence but what do the facts reveal. law is clear. application of the facts to the law may produce something else.” – DON’T TALK ABOUT LAW IF YOU DO NOT KNOW ABOUT IT. YOU’RE ONE OF THE LAW BREAKERS AS WELL.
HA HA HA STOP BEING SO DUMB, I’M REALLY LAUGHING SO LOUD HERE BECAUSE OF YOUR STUPIDITY OF COMMENTS. WILL YOU RESPECT YOURSELF A LITTLE BIT TO STOP ME CALLING YOU DUMB BY NOT ACTING AS ONE? HA HA HA