Resolution 2
Motion regarding the Sedition Act 1948, proposed by Ambiga Sreenevasan and seconded by Ragunath Kesavan, dated 6 Mar 2015
WHEREAS:
(1) The
Resolution adopted at the Extraordinary General Meeting of the
Malaysian Bar held at Wisma MCA, Kuala Lumpur on 19 September 2014 (‘the
September 2014 Resolution’) amongst others called for:
(a) the repeal of the Sedition Act 1948 (‘the Act’);(b) the withdrawal of all pending charges, cases and appeals under the Act; and(c) a moratorium on the use of the Act.
(2) Six
months have passed since the passage of the September 2014 Resolution.
Far from a repeal of the Act, on 27 November 2014, the Prime Minister
was widely reported as declaring that the Act will not be repealed but
will instead be strengthened.
(3) Instead
of withdrawing the charges, cases and appeals that were pending under
the Act, the Attorney General has actively pursued them:
(a) Since 2013, at least 21 persons have been charged under the Sedition Act 1948, and most of the instances have been listed in Appendix A to the September 2014 Resolutionl; and(b) Among the cases that have gone to full trial, activist Adam Adli was convicted and sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment, activist Safwan Anang was convicted and sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment and activist and former ISA detainee Hishamuddin Rais was fined RM5,000. The Attorney General has appealed to increase the sentences in all these cases.
(4) Furthermore,
instead of a moratorium on the use of the Act, since the beginning of
2015, the Attorney General and the Inspector General of Police have
additionally investigated, arrested, remanded or charged several elected
representatives, activists, students, a lawyer and even a cartoonist
under the Act, including lawyer Eric Paulsen, cartoonist Zulkiflee Anwar
Haque (Zunar), Member of Parliament Rafizi Ramli, Member of Parliament
Nga Kor Ming, Parti Sosialis Malaysia Secretary General S. Arutchelvan,
State Assemblyman Dr Afif Bahardin, activist Lawrence Jeyaraj, 2
students for posting on Facebook a “firecracker poster” and at least 14
activists from pro-secession group Sabah Sarawak Keluar Malaysia
(SSKM).
(5) While
the Malaysian Bar does not advocate the use of the Act against any
person, it nevertheless condemns the apparent bias with which the Act
has been wielded to predominantly suppress the voices of dissent
against the government of the day, but not against those whose hate
speech and incendiary actions target the minorities in the country. A
list of instances of selective non-prosecution by the Attorney-General
is set out in Appendix C of the September 2014 Resolution. To that list,
the following instances are added:
(a) On 5 October 2014, Petaling Jaya Utara Umno deputy division chief Mohamad Azli Mohemed Saad reportedly called for the abolishment of vernacular schools.(b) On 26 November 2014, Baling Wanita Umno chief Datuk Mashitah Ibrahim reportedly alleged falsely that a Chinese in Kedah had burnt the Quran in a prayer ritual.(c) On 2 February 2015, Minister of Agriculture and Agro-Based Industry Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaakob reportedly wrote in a Facebook post that Chinese-owned businesses were raising prices indiscriminately and called for a boycott of Chinese businesses.
(6) Far
more disquieting is the manner in which the Inspector General of Police
has employed the powers granted his office under the Act and other
laws. The act of arrest and the manner of detention seem to have become
the tools to punish those who speak and express political dissent; while
those who stoke racial and religious discord are accorded deference:
(a) Activist Ali Abdul Jalil had 3 charges levelled against him under the Act. Over the course of approximately 22 days, Ali was repeatedly charged and remanded under the Act and once he posted bail under one charge, he was re-arrested and remanded again under a fresh sedition charge in what can arguably be viewed as a bid to keep him remanded for as long as possible. The ordeal he experienced exemplifies the abject abuse of the Act by the authorities and how it is used as an instrument of oppression against dissenting voices. Ali has since fled the country seeking political asylum in Sweden, saying, “Malaysia is not safe for me”. He has been declared a prisoner of conscience by Amnesty International.(b) On 12 January 2015, about 20 police officers were deployed to arrest Eric Paulsen under the Act, and his mobile phone and laptop were seized. He was remanded for 2 days during which time the police took him to his house to search for additional laptops.(c) On 10 February 2015, about 5 police officers were deployed to Zulkiflee Anwar Haque (Zunar)’s house to arrest him under the Act, and he was remanded for 3 days.(d) On 19 February 2015, about 10 police officers were deployed to S. Arutchelvan’s home to arrest him under the Act, and also seized his computer, modem and mobile phone.(e) In contrast, Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaakob was not investigated under the Sedition Act but under the Penal Code. Unlike the others who were arrested in order for statements to be taken, and who would in all likelihood have attended at the police station voluntarily, the police negotiated the setting up of a meeting with Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaakob in order to take his statement.
(7) The
conduct of the Inspector General of Police and those under his command
demonstrates that powers granted to them under oppressive laws are being
utilised indiscriminately and to intimidate the public. The abuse of
the remand process as a means of punishment and the manner of arrest and
seizure of property outlined above are a gross abuse of process and the
law.
(8) The
sum totality of the matters that have occurred since the September 2014
Resolution demonstrates that the Malaysian Government has not heeded
the call of the Malaysian Bar, but has instead doubled down on its use
of the Act to “quell dissent… constrict and deny democratic space, and
…oppress and suppress Malaysians”.
THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved that:
(A) The Malaysian Bar condemns the continued use of the Sedition Act 1948, in particular its excessive and selective use.
(B)
The Malaysian Bar condemns the abuse of process by the IGP and those
under his command in using their powers to intimidate and punish rather
than investigate.
(C)
The Malaysian Bar calls upon the Malaysian Government to abide by the
Prime Minister’s pledge of 11 July 2012 to repeal the Sedition Act
1948, and to forthwith repeal the Sedition Act 1948.
(D)
The Malaysian Bar calls on the Attorney General to forthwith withdraw
all pending charges, cases and appeals, and to concede to all pending
appeals, under the Sedition Act 1948.
(E) The
Malaysian Bar calls upon the Judiciary to prevent the systematic abuse
of the Sedition Act 1948, and to prevent an abuse of the process of
investigation and remand by the police.
(F)
The Malaysian Bar calls upon the Attorney General to impose a
moratorium on the use of the Sedition Act 1948 pending its repeal, and
for the police to cease all investigations pursuant to the Sedition Act
1948.
(G) The Malaysian Bar calls upon the
Attorney General and the Inspector-General of Police to respect the
liberty of an individual and the people’s right to legitimate dissent
and criticism.
(H) The Malaysian Bar calls
upon the Attorney General to be a professional, impartial and competent
AG by leading the Attorney General’s Chambers in upholding the
Constitution and the laws of Malaysia in a fair and equitable manner.
(I)
The Malaysian Bar calls upon the Inspector-General of Police to be a
professional, impartial and competent IGP by leading the police force in
maintaining law and order, preventing and detecting crimes and
apprehending criminals rather than policing social media or speech.
(J)
The Malaysian Bar calls upon the Bar Council to monitor the use of the
Sedition Act 1948 and to consider comprehensive measures to oppose the
Sedition Act 1948.
No comments:
Post a Comment