The SEDITION ACT 1948 must be abolished, and Anwar's Pakatan Harapan(DAP,PKR and Amanah) were of this position too - but then when they came into power after GE15 under PM Anwar Ibrahim, things changed. They seem to have done a U-turn on many things that made us to vote for them in GE15. The delay in speedy REFORMs after being in power for 22 months, resulted in some loss of support in GE15 compared to results in GE14.Now, under PM Anwar Ibrahim, the continued use of draconian laws and/or provisions in law rather than repealing may result in even more loss of peoples' support.
Recently, we have the case of the election director for the Malaysian opposition alliance The Perikatan Nasional (PN) for the upcoming 6 States' Elections being charged in 2 courts for 2 charges under this draconian Sedition Act. [Unfortunately, I have yet to see the wordings of the charges - which no media apparently have reported]
Muhammad Sanusi Md Noor, the caretaker Menteri Besar (Chief Minister) of Kedah state, was arrested by the police at 3 am on Tuesday (18 Jul). ...It is understood that the arrest took place at a hotel in Mont Kiara, Kuala Lumpur, and Sanusi was later taken to the Gombak District Police Headquarters (IPD) for investigation under Section 4(1)(A) of the Sedition Act 1948...He was subsequently brought to court the same morning to face charges of making seditious remarks against the Sultan of Selangor.
Why was he arrested at 3 am? If they asked him to turn up in court, I believe this politician would have done so...Why not arrest him in court or maybe at about 8am, a more reasonable time. Why charge him now - the caretaker Menteri Besar of Kedah, as he could be charged even later after the State elections.
Media report said that he was charged for something he said about the Sultan of Selangor, Selangor being one of the States facing elections soon.
But, then, based on media report, the 2nd charge allegedly had nothing to do about the Selangor Sultan ...but was allegedly something about Anwar's statement about unity government..
Meanwhile, before Judge Osman Affendi, Sanusi faced charges for a similar offence when he allegedly uttered seditious remarks questioning Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s statement on the King’s decree regarding the establishment of a unity government.He was charged for committing an offence under Section 4(1)(a) of the Sedition Act 1948 - so, was it against the RULER or was it against the GOVERNMENT?
(1) Any person who-
(a) does or attempts to do, or makes any preparation to do, or conspires with any person to do, any act which has or which would, if done, have a seditious tendency;
So Seditious tendency against Ruler or government or ... reading media reports, it is not very clear...
If we have sight of the EXACT wordings of the Charges - at least we can understand better. Hope some media will report the 2 charges.
Sanusi was charged before 2 different judges in 2 courts> So, the 1st court may have released him on bail of RM5,000. So, did the 2nd court release him on bail or not?
Anwar came out ON THE SAME day
“Yes, fundamentally, we avoid the use of the Sedition Act. However, when it comes to matters concerning the positions of the rulers … when it comes to the position and dignity of the rulers … this is something we should uphold and prevent from turning into unhealthy political discourse,” he said after officiating the Sentuhan Agro Madani programme at MSekin Wonderland here today.But was the 2nd charge not concerning the government, and not specifically any Ruler? So, did Anwar mislead?
The leadership tussle in Malaysia remained deadlocked after Perikatan Nasional (PN) chief Muhyiddin Yassin rejected the prospect of working with rival Pakatan Harapan (PH) in a cross-coalition unity government as requested by Malaysia’s King on Tuesday.
While PH leader Anwar Ibrahim said he “accepted the spirit of a unity government”, Tan Sri Muhyiddin ruled out working with PH out of hand, insisting he had sufficient support on his own to become prime minister.
The monarch, Sultan Abdullah Ahmad Shah, made the request after he held a one-hour audience at the palace with Datuk Seri Anwar and Mr Muhyiddin.- Straits Times, 23/11/2022
Because of the deadlock then, the King allegedly proposed to Muhyiddin and Anwar to form a 'unity government' - Was it an ORDER? No, it was, in my opinion, a reasonable proposal..an opinion. Malaysia is no more a FEUDAL country - but a constitutional democracy. Rulers can express opinions which we do value - but at the end of the day, their powers today has been much limited - they no longer can even prevent the passing of a law by refusing to grant royal assent. After a time, royal assent will be deemed given.
.In its manifesto for last year’s general election, Pakatan Harapan (PH) said it would review and repeal draconian provisions of Acts that can be abused to restrict free speech such as the Sedition Act, the Communications and Multimedia Act, and the Printing Presses and Publications Act. - FMT
We now recall why the Sedition Act should be repealed, with reference to a Resolution adopted in the Malaysian Bar EGM in 2014
Resolution against the Sedition Act, other laws and actions taken which stifle speech and expression, and matters in connection therewithWHEREAS:(1) The Sedition Act 1948, as with its predecessor the Sedition Ordinance, was conceived and used as an instrument of oppression. It is an archaic and repressive law, and is the antithesis of democracy, rule of law, justice and human rights.(2) The Sedition Act 1948 has been used to stifle speech and expression, to shut out contrary views and voices, to quell dissent and opposition, to constrict and deny democratic space, and to oppress and suppress Malaysians.(3) The Sedition Act 1948 has been justified on the premise that there are matters that are too sensitive to address, speak about or debate; and the Act is therefore required to ensure and maintain harmony, unity and public order. Our 57 years of “Merdeka” has clearly shown this to be a myth.(4) The Sedition Act 1948 has instead served to deter or prevent important issues from being properly and genuinely addressed. Some of these issues are effectively “swept under the carpet” and allowed to fester. The Act serves to perpetuate and entrench the racial, religious and other fault lines in our nation.(5) The fundamental freedoms of speech and expression, giving voice to thoughts and ideas, as well as the right to information, are fundamental attributes of a vibrant and thriving democracy, and which are essential for the development, progress and growth of a nation. It is robust debate, diversity of opinion and education that would ultimately promote, inculcate and maintain true and enduring unity, goodwill and mutual respect amongst Malaysians.(6) The Sedition Act 1948 is unacceptable and repugnant to the rule of law for the further reasons that it creates offences arising from an act, speech, words, publication or other thing that are defined as having “seditious tendencies” which are imprecise and without clear boundaries. Unlike other criminal offences, the offence of sedition does not require mens rea or the element of intent; the correctness of what is done, or the truth of what is said, printed or published is disregarded and not a defence to the offence.(7) It is wholly unacceptable that a criminal offence with grave and dire consequences is made akin to a strict liability offence.(8) The Prime Minister had on 11 July 2012 announced that the government will repeal the Sedition Act and replace it with a National Harmony Act. He stated...Revisiting the Malaysian Bar Resolution on the Sedition Act...passed on 2014?
(C) The Malaysian Bar condemns the use and continued use of the Sedition Act 1948, in particular its selective use, and the excessive sentences meted out by the Judiciary.(D) The Malaysian Bar calls upon the Malaysian Government to abide by its pledge to repeal the Sedition Act 1948, and to forthwith repeal the Sedition Act 1948.
Even truth is not a DEFENCE when it comes to Sedition Act... and intention does not matter..
What is appalling this time is that someone has been charged in Court for committing offenses against the Sedition Act - Do not blame the police and the prosecutors as they have to enforce the law > noting there is even NO MORATORIUM by the government with regard the usage.
Worse, that DAP Deputy Minister said no plans now to repeal the Act, and now the Prime Minister supports usage in this recent case, Sadly no MPs and political parties in PH(DAP,PKR,Amanah) has voiced their opposition to the usage of the Sedition Act or called for the repeal of this draconian Act...
Deputy law and institutional reforms minister Ramkarpal Singh says the government has no plans to abolish the Sedition Act at the moment. FMT, 21/3/2023
Have the Sedition Act been used, and people charged? Yes, there is but unfortunately it received little or no media coverage - hence, not knowing means no protest of the continued usage of this Act..
Meanwhile in a written parliamentary reply today, home minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail said 255 suspects were investigated under the Sedition Act between 2020 and 2022 with only four cases charged in court.- FMT, 21/3/2023Was this usage of the Sedition Act connected with the upcoming State elections? Is this against FREE and FAIR Elections..
To preserve Anwar Ibrahim's unity government until GE16 ... this is certainly not a matter of national security. Any Prime Minister will fall as soon as he/she loses the confidence of the majority of the MPs - and when this happens, a new PM is appointed by the King or Parliament is dissolved to make way for a GE.
After GE14, 2 Prime Ministers 'fell' and were replaced - as such, Anwar Ibrahim also can be removed as and when the majority of MPs lose confidence in him. Did the change of PMs adversely affect Malaysia - not really, in my opinion.
Remember, the post GE14 government fell because MPs of PH itself 'lost confidence' in the PM and left in numbers and even one component party(BERSATU).
Now, we have a 'UNITY government', which is certainly much more precarious, taking into account that the support for PH came from those who opposed the BN. The PH-BN coalition is most RISKY - and may cost significant loss of support from previous supporters of PH and previous supporters of BN.
People remember that PAS was in Pakatan Rakyat with DAP and PKR, as BERSATU was in PH with DAP, PKR and Amanah >>> so many parties and politicians, at one time says support this party and now says don't >>> People are wise.
Hence, ethnic or religious concerns and worries may not be enough to convince the people to vote for them come State elections.
It is time for political parties and even voters to MATURE and look at the fundamental issues > position on Local Council Elections, position on free universal healthcare, position on employment - will they ensure all workers regular employment and abolish short-term contracts, contractor for labour etc, are they going to set up a National Pension Scheme for all so every Malaysians will be guaranteed a monthly pension until they die,...
Hence, if the use of Sedition Act and other laws for the purpose of politics or to influence voters in upcoming elections - STOP IT.
4 Offences - SEDITION ACT 1948
(1) Any person who-
(a) does or attempts to do, or makes any preparation to do, or conspires with any person to do, any act which has or which would, if done, have a seditious tendency;
(b) utters any seditious words;
(c) prints, publishes, sells, offers for sale, distributes or reproduces any seditious publication; or
(d) imports any seditious publication,
shall be guilty of an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable 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; and any seditious publication found in the possession of the person or used in evidence at his trial shall be forfeited and may be destroyed or otherwise disposed of as the court directs.
3 Seditious tendency
(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 lawful means, of any matter as by law established;
(c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice 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.
(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;
(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)(f) otherwise than in relation to the implementation of any provision relating thereto) or in legislation or in the administration of justice 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 territory governed by any Government to attempt to procure by lawful 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.
Kedah Chief Minister Sanusi arrested and charged for seditious remarks against Selangor King
KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA — Muhammad Sanusi Md Noor, the caretaker Menteri Besar (Chief Minister) of Kedah state, was arrested by the police at 3 am on Tuesday (18 Jul).
He was subsequently brought to court the same morning to face charges of making seditious remarks against the Sultan of Selangor.
The arrest was captured in a video shared by Helmi Khalid, Sanusi’s assistant, which went viral on social media.
It is understood that the arrest took place at a hotel in Mont Kiara, Kuala Lumpur, and Sanusi was later taken to the Gombak District Police Headquarters (IPD) for investigation under Section 4(1)(A) of the Sedition Act 1948.
Helmi mentioned that Sanusi, who also serves as the election director for the Malaysian opposition alliance The Perikatan Nasional (PN), returned from the PN Supreme Council meeting around 11:40 pm on Monday (17 Jul).
According to Helmi, Sanusi was taken out of the hotel room at 3 am and instructed to get into an MPV, which then headed to the Gombak District Police Headquarters for the investigation.
The same video was also shared by Muhammad Sanusi, who is also the incumbent Jeneri State Assemblyman on his Facebook.
In the post’s description, possibly posted by one of Sanusi’s official Facebook page admin, asked for supporter’s prayer for him, and advised them not to gather in large numbers at the courthouse.
“There are fears that some parties might try to provoke and plan something unpleasant, ” the post wrote.
Sanusi was brought to Selayang court on Tuesday morning
On Tuesday morning at 9 am, Sanusi was brought to the Selayang court to face charges related to his political speech, which allegedly touched on the sensitive 3R (race, religion, royalty) issue.
As reported by the Malaysian media outlet, the New Straits Times, Sanusi pleaded not guilty to two counts of uttering seditious remarks that could incite disloyalty toward the Rulers.
His plea was made separately before two Sessions Court Judges, Nor Rajiah Mat Zin and Osman Affendi Mohd Salleh.
Sanusi was alleged to have made seditious and insulting remarks concerning the Sultan of Selangor, Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah, near Taman Selayang Mutiara at about 11 pm on 11 July.
Meanwhile, before Judge Osman Affendi, Sanusi faced charges for a similar offence when he allegedly uttered seditious remarks questioning Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s statement on the King’s decree regarding the establishment of a unity government.
These charges fall under Section 4(1)(a) of the Sedition Act, which carries a maximum penalty of three years imprisonment or an RM5,000 fine, or both.
The courts set bail at RM5,000 for each charge and scheduled the mention for 4 October.
Additionally, the courts issued a gag order, prohibiting Sanusi from making any statements regarding the case.
The Selangor Royal Office issued a statement, considering Sanusi’s remarks in one of the political rallies held in Selangor recently as an insult to the Selangor Royal Institution.
In his speech, Sanusi drew comparisons between the Sultan of Kedah (Al-Aminul Karim Sultan Sallehuddin Sultan Badlishah) and the Sultan of Selangor, referring to Sultan Sharafuddin’s choice as “cokia” (substandard).
Following public backlash and the lodging of 57 police reports
against him, Sanusi sent a warkah (letter) to Sultan Sharafuddin,
explaining his remarks, and apologized to the Sultan.- TOC, 18/7/2023
Sedition Act needed in cases involving rulers, says Anwar
Perikatan Nasional’s Sanusi Nor was charged today with two counts of making seditious statements against royalty.
SEKINCHAN: Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim has defended the need for the Sedition Act after Sanusi Nor was charged with two counts of making seditious statements against royalty.
Both charges against the caretaker Kedah menteri besar were brought under Section 4(1)(a) of the Sedition Act 1948, which provides for a fine of up to RM5,000 or imprisonment for up to three years, or both, upon conviction.
“Yes, fundamentally, we avoid the use of the Sedition Act. However, when it comes to matters concerning the positions of the rulers … when it comes to the position and dignity of the rulers … this is something we should uphold and prevent from turning into unhealthy political discourse,” he said after officiating the Sentuhan Agro Madani programme at MSekin Wonderland here today.
Sanusi pleaded not guilty to the two charges which relate to his speech at a ceramah in Gombak on July 11.
Anwar said he does not want to interfere in the Sanusi case.
“Let them follow the process, the police will do the investigation and the attorney-general will make a decision.
“I do not want to interfere, and let’s respect the court process,” he said.
Meanwhile, Lawyers for Liberty repeated its call for the immediate suspension of the Sedition Act, pending repeal at the next parliamentary meeting.
It said the Act is a remnant of a “notorious colonial law” that most Commonwealth countries have already scrapped. - FMT, 18/7/2023
No plans to abolish Sedition Act just yet, says Ramkarpal
However, he says the government has not ruled out the possibility of abolishing the Sedition Act.
Share
Tweet
Share
Email
PETALING JAYA: Deputy law and institutional reforms minister Ramkarpal Singh says the government has no plans to abolish the Sedition Act at the moment.
“Not at this point in time,” he said on BFM’s The Breakfast Grille show this morning.
“We’ve not excluded the possibility, but it’s something that is perhaps further down the pipeline.”
In its manifesto for last year’s general election, Pakatan Harapan (PH) said it would review and repeal draconian provisions of Acts that can be abused to restrict free speech such as the Sedition Act, the Communications and Multimedia Act, and the Printing Presses and Publications Act.
The Sedition Act’s critics say it is too broadly worded and used to stifle dialogue and silence critical voices.
Meanwhile in a written parliamentary reply today, home minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail said 255 suspects were investigated under the Sedition Act between 2020 and 2022 with only four cases charged in court.
Touching on the controversial Security Offences (Special Measures) Act (Sosma), Ramkarpal said discussions are under way with the police, NGOs and lawyers as to how the law can be fine-tuned.
“We have many more engagement rounds to go, and I hope we can complete them in the next few months and come up with recommendations on how the law can be improved,” he said.
“I was in practice before as a criminal lawyer, and I’ve done Sosma cases where I’ve seen the weaknesses (in Sosma). I think it’s important to discuss this with all stakeholders, even those who are pro-Sosma, to find solutions.”
PH promised to repeal draconian provisions under Sosma, which provides the authorities with broad powers against subversion, threats to public order, and acts of terrorism, sabotage and espionage, in its 2018 election manifesto.
Sosma’s critics have pointed out that a police officer may arrest and detain an individual without a warrant if they believe the person to be involved in security offences.
Police are also allowed to detain a person suspected of
being involved in acts of terrorism for a period not exceeding 28 days
for investigation without a court order. - FMT, 21/3/2023
No comments:
Post a Comment