Amendments to Sedition Act - removal of judicial discretion? sentencing, bail, bail conditions?

The whole Sedition Act should be repealed.

Looking at the amendments that the government is trying to bring in through Sedition (Amendment) Act 2015, a few MAJOR concerns:-

Judicial Discretion In Sentencing 

A judge will normally consider the circumstances of the case and other factors before imposing a sentence. The problem with Sedition is that very easily any person can be convicted for Sedition - for after all, truth is not a defence.

Now, the amendment is trying to fix the mandatory minimum sentence - this is very wrong. Parliament should fix maximum sentences and leave the sentencing to the judges. Absurd for a young girl of 22 to be sent to jail for 5 years for Sedition - and this may be her first offence. FIVE years in jail? The previous wordings were better (marked in blue) - but the new wordings(in red) is really bad.

(ii) by substituting for the words “for a first offence to a fine not exceeding five thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both, and, for a subsequent offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years” the words “to imprisonment for a term of not less than three years but not exceeding seven years”; and

No Bail?- Power of the Courts taken away - now no more discretion

Remember a person is presumed innocent until he is proven guilty - so this is not right. Even now for serious offences, even murder in some circumstances, bail will be granted. No bail for Sedition is absurd. [Note subsection 4(1a) offences is where the Sedition also brings about property damage or bodily injury >>>not clear whether the person accussed of sedition must have personally caused this ....or some third party did it?]

Here again, the power whether to grant bail or not is taken away from the courts - Judges have no choice but deny bail if there is that certificate in writing. 

This also means taking away a very fundamental right that is available to an accused person - and guess what, in Malaysia cases can drag on for a very long time ....

No bail to be granted

5 a. When a person is charged with an offence under subsection 4(1 a) and there is a certificate in writing by the Public Prosecutor stating that it is not in the public interest to grant bail to the person charged, the person shall not be released on bail.

Cannot leave Malaysia if granted bail - Power of the Courts taken away - now no more discretion 

There is no need for even this section because when a court allows a bail application, the courts can also impose conditions including not to leave Malaysia - so there is no need for this section.

But wait, here there is a difference, courts have NO choice - if the Public Prosecutor applies, the court shall >>> so judges have no choice in the matter. Hence, no need for submissions from lawyers, etc... This is draconian, and this section applies to all Sedition cases...

"> Power of court to prevent person from leaving Malaysia
5 b. (1) When a person is charged with an offence under section 4 and released on bail, the court shall, on the application of the Public Prosecutor—
(a) order the person to surrender his travel documents within such period specified in the order until all
proceedings in relation to the charge against the person have been concluded; or
(b) in cases where the person has no travel documents and he is a citizen or permanent resident, order the
Director General of Immigration not to issue any travel document to the person until all proceedings
in relation to the charge against the person have been concluded.

(2) Any person who fails to comply with an order made under paragraph (1)(a), shall be guilty of an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding five thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both, and his bail shall be revoked by the court.

SECESSION?

Para (b) reads as follows:-  (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 lawful means, of any matter as by law established;

And now the Bill intends to add:-  (ii) by inserting after paragraph (b) the following illustration:
“ILLUSTRATIONA excites a person or a group of persons to demand for the secession of State B from Malaysia. Such act is seditious.”;

Why are we in Malaysia denied even the right to discuss secession or promote secession? The illustration is inconsistent with the wordings of paragraph (b) -  which says it is all OK if it is done by 'lawful means'. So, by the illustration, they are trying to make any talk or discussion about secession an offence? We are forgetting that we are a Democracy - and we are also forgetting that Malaysia is a Federation of States - hence, discussing, promoting or even campaigning for secession should all be permissible. Many countries of the world in recent past have had to decide whether to split up, etc... so, what is the big deal? 

This proposal must be removed.