Usage of Sedition Act To ‘Threaten’, Investigate Or Charge People Must End As It can DETER Public Participation Crucial For A Democracy - Repeal Sedition Act 1948

 

Media Statement – 16/11/2023

Usage of Sedition Act To ‘Threaten’, Investigate Or Charge People Must End As It can DETER Public Participation Crucial For A Democracy - Repeal Sedition Act 1948

960 cases where persons were investigated using Sedition Act in the last 13 years and only 19 charged, and the rest could still be charged anytime in the future.

The fact that only 19 of the 960 cases investigated under the Sedition Act 1948 (Act 15) between 2010 and September 2023 were charged in court, as disclosed by the Deputy Home Minister Datuk Seri Shamsul Anuar Nasarah on 14/11/2023, does in no way justify the continued existence  of this draconian law that criminalizes ‘seditious tendencies’ that amongst others, creates disaffection with the government of the day or excite disaffection against the administration of justice.

It is an Act that is totally unacceptable in any democracy. Are people meant to simply praise government or be silent, and not be able to say otherwise or anything which may result in a loss of support for Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s Pakatan Harapan-led coalition government? Then, it would be no longer a true democracy but an authoritarian state that wants people to not participate in building a better and more just Malaysia.

Sedition Act Can Suppress Truth, And Is Not Bothered About Intention.

What was your intention when you said or did that caused a ‘seditious tendency’ is irrelevant for offences under Sedition Act. Section 3(3) says, ‘ (3) For the purpose of proving the commission of any offence against this Act the intention of the person charged… 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.’ Truth or reasonable suspicion is generally not a defence.

For any crime, there must be certainty of what exactly constitutes the elements of the crime, and what was the intention of the criminal when he did what he did that constituted the crime.

A crime should never be VAGUE – and neither should it criminalize difference in opinions, ‘reasonable suspicions’, or the highlighting of wrongs in government or even the administration of justice.

Now, anyone expressed unhappiness with the Public Prosecutor’s decision to suddenly stop the criminal trial of Zahid Hamidi may also be at risk of being investigated or charged under Sedition Act. This yet another reason why the British Colonial government created law in 1948, before independence must be repealed.

960 Cases – Only 19 Charged Raises The Possibility of ABUSE including also to eliminate Dissent

The Deputy Minister talks about ‘960 cases’, which means maybe the number of persons investigated may be much higher. How many of these were arrested and detained during the investigations? How many were tortured or threatened? How many persons income generation ability was affected? Even the calling in to be investigated under Sedition Act is a mental torture.

In 2016, for the tabling of now a Bar Resolution which was adopted by an overwhelming majority entitled ‘Resolution on the Attorney General, Public Prosecutor and Improvement of Public Perspective of Administration of Justice in Malaysia’, the 3 lawyers who moved the Resolution, being Charles Hector, Francis Pereira and Shanmugam a/l Ramasamy and the then Bar Secretary Karen Cheah(now Bar President) were called in for investigation under the Sedition Act. The Resolution, amongst others, raised issues concerning the Attorney General/Public Prosecutor actions in the 1MDB/SRC – demanding an independent Public Prosecutor and needed reforms.

The lawyers investigated remained strong and came out after investigation, and also was reported saying “We are still committed in upholding the cause of justice…. We have the right to seek change so that our country can become better…This is not just the obligations of lawyers, but the duty of each and every one in Malaysia,’(FMT, 31/3/2023).

Investigated – Could Still Be Charged? Sword of Damocles That Undermines Human Rights.

Remember, that at any time, the government has the power to charge anyone from those 960 cases investigated for crimes against Sedition Act, and as such for those still not charged, It is akin to having a sword of Damocles hanging over you/your head, for they can still be charged anytime in the future. you.

There is no limitation for crime, and so anytime one can be charged. No one tells us that the investigation revealed that we were innocent or that we will never be charged in the future, unlike an Acquittal by court, which means that thereafter one shall ‘…not be liable to be tried again for the same offence nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge…’ (Sec. 3012(1) Criminal Procedure Code)

As such, the use of the draconian Sedition Act even for purposes of investigation may be an abuse of powers of the State to, maybe, keep silent critics and those with a different view from the government of the day.

To remedy this defect in a democratic society, the Sedition Act must be repealed, and pending repeal should be not be used anymore.

Is PH-led government no different from the pre GE14 BN regime?

Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim and this Pakatan-led Coalition government, who earlier promised reforms and even the abolition of the Sedition Act if they came into power should no longer delay, but immediately repeal the Sedition Act, and impose a moratorium on the use of this draconian Act pending abolition.

After GE14, Pakatan Harapan’s ‘excuse’ was before they could repeal bad laws as promised, they were ousted early from government because of the ‘Sheraton Move’. What then will the excuse of PH now that they have a second chance to govern?

MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) urges Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim and/or the Malaysian government to immediately ‘walk the talk’ about reforms as the people expected, and forthwith repeal Sedition Act 1948.

MADPET also reiterates its call for the repeal of draconian Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 and all other draconian legislations. Like the Sedition Act, Section 233 is vague and easily abused, and in Malaysia, it has been seen to be used together with the Sedition Act on internet users, maybe to prevent alternative views, freedom of expression and even sharing information/views of another with friends over the internet.  

It is hoped that the desire to remain in power does not lead to actions/omissions designed to suppress the democratic rights of the people of Malaysia.

Bad unjust laws must be repealed, and not simply maintained since now one is power, so that it could be, if needed, used or abused against political opponents and ordinary people who do not agree with or support government actions or views.

Charles Hector

For and on behalf of MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) 

See also earlier statement - 

End U-Turns and Apologetics to justify not repealing Sedition Act 1948 and Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998

Sedition Act: Action taken in accordance with existing law, says deputy home minister

Deputy Home Minister Datuk Seri Shamsul Anuar Nasarah says the government will not act arbitrarily against any party, and all actions will be taken in accordance with existing laws. — Bernama pic

Tuesday, 14 Nov 2023 3:46 PM MYT

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 14 ― The government will not act arbitrarily against any party, and all actions will be taken in accordance with existing laws, said Deputy Home Minister Datuk Seri Shamsul Anuar Nasarah.

According to him, only 19 of the 960 cases investigated under the Sedition Act 1948 (Act 15) between 2010 and September this year were charged in court.

“This shows that we are transparent and do not take action against any party indiscriminately. Actions were taken according to the laws,” he said during the question and answer session in the Dewan Rakyat today.

He said this in reply to a question from Datuk Seri Takiyuddin Hassan (PN-Kota Baru) on the scope and level used by the government to determine whether or not certain issues belong to race, religion and royalty, or 3R issues.

Meanwhile, Shamsul Anuar said 60 out of 104 cases related to 3R had been resolved, while the rest were still being investigated.

Of the total, he said 47 cases involved royal institution, religion (30) and race (27).

However, Shamsul Anuar said the government has no plans to enact laws to be used specifically in 3R cases, as the existing laws were sufficient to deal with the issues. ― Bernama, Malay Mail, 14/11/2023

Lawyers questioned under Sedition Act to keep on talking

Former Bar Council President S Ambiga says unprecedented move to call in lawyers over AGM motion has set a dangerous precedent.

Radzi Razak - 31 Mar 2016,

KUALA LUMPUR: The three lawyers summoned by police over their motion to seek the Attorney-General’s resignation are determined not to stop talking even after being investigated under the Sedition Act.

Charles Hector, one of the trio, said the three of them were questioned for about one hour under Section 4 (1) (a) of the Sedition Act about what had transpired at the Malaysian Bar Annual General Meeting on March 19.

This came after a police report was lodged against them.

“We are still committed in upholding the cause of justice.

“Ultimately, our position is that as lawyers and members of the Malaysian Bar, we have the right to uphold justice in Malaysia. We have the right to seek change so that our country can become better.

“This is not just the obligations of lawyers, but the duty of each and everyone in Malaysia,” he told reporters in front of Bukit Aman police headquarters here today.

Charles, along with R. Shanmugam and Francis Pereira, submitted a motion calling for the resignation of Attorney-General Mohamed Apandi Ali, which were passed by the Malaysian Bar during its AGM.

The three entered the police headquarters at 2.40 pm and came out at 3.50 pm.

Some 40 lawyers and activists were present to give support for the three legal practitioners.

They included Malaysian Bar President Steven Thiru, former President S Ambiga, Bersih Chairman Maria Chin Abdullah, DAP Puchong MP Gobind Singh Deo and DAP Segambut MP Lim Lip Eng.

Earlier today, Malaysian Bar Secretary Karen Cheah was questioned under the same act at the Malaysian Bar headquarters at 11 am.

She said the four of them were informed of the matter by Bukit Aman last week.

Meanwhile, Ambiga said the unprecedented move to call lawyers over the motion passed at the AGM was “a dangerous precedent” and showed that the government had something to hide.

“What is of great concern is there are no boundaries and they (government) don’t respect the rights of lawyers. They think they can barge into our territory and tell us what to do,” she said.

Meanwhile, Malaysian Bar Vice-President George Varughese said police should agree after the investigation that no offence was committed.

“To question our right to move a motion definitely wouldn’t be right.

“They are merely exercising their statutory right. They should not be questioned unless there is abuse, but I don’t see any abuse here.” - FMT, 31/3/2016

 

Malaysian Bar calls on Mohamed Apandi Ali to immediately resign as Attorney General, for the good of Malaysia..

Malaysian Bar’s 70th Annual General Meeting (“AGM”), held on 19 Mar 2016 at Renaissance Kuala Lumpur Hotel saw the attendance of a  total of 1,110 Members 

 

(A) That the Malaysian Bar calls on Mohamed Apandi Ali to immediately resign as Attorney General, for the good of Malaysia, to restore public confidence and perception of the rule of law, in particular the administration of criminal justice in Malaysia.

 

One of the 5 Resolution that were adopted is as follows:- 

Malaysian Bar Resolution on the Attorney General, Public Prosecutor and Improvement of Public Perspective of Administration of Justice in Malaysia

WHEREAS:

(1) It is important that the Attorney General, who is also the Public Prosecutor, is both independent, and perceived to be independent, especially when it comes to prosecuting persons and entities that have broken Malaysian laws, irrespective of whether they are currently Ministers, holding senior position in public service and/or legal entities owned by the government.

(2) It is the Attorney General, as Public Prosecutor, who is vested with the power to prosecute persons and/or entities that have acted against the laws of Malaysia, including criminal laws. 

(3) Of late, there has been several allegations of corruption and/or other breaches of the law made against Najib Tun Razak, who is also the current Prime Minister of Malaysia and Minister of Finance, in connection with large amounts of monies, amounting to more than RM2 billion, that was found in the personal bank account of Najib Tun Razak.

(4) There have been allegations of wrongdoings with regard to Malaysian government-owned company, 1MDB, SRC International and/or other related companies, where Najib Tun Razak also sits as the Chairman of the Board of Advisors of the said 1MDB.

(5) Investigations have been commenced by the relevant authorities including the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC).

(6) In the midst of investigations about these alleged offences, Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail's services as Attorney-General was suddenly terminated as of about 27/7/2015, and Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali was appointed new Attorney-General effective 27/7/2015.

(7) Our Federal Constitution states that it is ‘on the advice of the Prime Minister’ that the Yang Di-Pertuan Agung appoints the Attorney General. In practice, this means that the Prime Minister decides on the appointment and removal of the Attorney General.

(8) Now, given the fact that this happens when there was an ongoing investigation of Najib Tun Razak personally, and also matters that concern the Minister of Finance, who is also Najib Tun Razak, there are concerns about the appointment of the new Attorney General.

(9) In early December 2015, Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak was scheduled to provide an explanation to Parliament about all these allegations. However, he did not do so, apparently on the advice of the Attorney General.

(10) The Malay Mail report dated 3/12/2015 stated, amongst others, that ‘Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak was only acting on the Attorney-General’s (AG) advice in declining explaining personally in Parliament the RM2.6 billion donation he received, Datuk Seri Azalina Othman[Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department] said today’…. ‘the federal government made a collective decision to issue a ministerial statement in their response to questions after AG Tan Sri Apandi Ali said Najib may be risking “subjudice” if he attempted to answer in person with investigations into the surrounding controversy still ongoing. “The AG is the government's lawyer. We are guided by his advice.”

(11) The Attorney General, whilst also acting as Public Prosecutor involved in the on-going investigation which may lead to the prosecution of Najib Tun Razak, Government of Malaysia, Government-Owned Companies and/or GLCs, should not also be providing legal advice to those being investigated?

(12) The results of the investigations of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) was submitted to the Public Prosecutor to consider commencement of trial, but as reported on 26/1/2016 in News Straits Times which stated amongst others, ‘Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali said their investigation had showed that the prime minister had committed no wrongdoing in the cases. “I am satisfied that there was no evidence to show that the donation was a form of gratification given corruptly. “The evidence showed that the donation was not an inducement or reward for doing or forbearing in relation to his capacity as a prime minister,” he said. He said that investigation also showed that in Aug 2013, a sum of USD620 million (RM2.03 billion) was returned by Najib to the Saudi royal family, as the sum was not utilised...’ No mention was made about what the monies were for, and for what were some of the monies utilised.

(13) The report also stated: ‘The Attorney-General’s Chambers today cleared Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak of any criminal wrongdoing in the case involving a donation from the Middle East, as well as that involving SRC International. The AG’s Chambers will also return the three investigation papers on the cases, and has instructed the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) to close the IPs.’

(14) The pronouncement of the Attorney General about the guilt/innocence of parties being investigated, may be contrary to the United Nations Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors, in particular Article 10, which states that, ‘The office of prosecutors shall be strictly separated from judicial functions’. The determination of guilt or innocence is a function of the Judiciary, not the Attorney General.

(15) The power to commence investigations and discontinue investigations rests with the relevant investigative authorities, and not with the Attorney General/Public Prosecutor. The duty of the Public Prosecutor is merely to determine the sufficiency or insufficiency of evidence for the purpose of prosecution, and if it is determined that the evidence is insufficient, then Investigation papers are returned to the investigating authorities to do further investigation.  

(16) On 24/2/2016, the MACC issued a statement on the advice of their Operation Review Panel concerning the case involving SRC International and allegations regarding the RM2.6 billion (‘berhubung kes membabitkan SRC International dan dakwaan wang derma RM2.6 bilion’)

(17) The Operation Review Panel agreed that MACC should re-submit the Investigation papers concerning SRC International to the Attorney General for his consideration. With regard to the matter of the investigation concerning the RM2.6 billion, it acknowledges that the investigation is yet to be completed, and urges the MACC to apply to the Attorney General to issue the required permission for Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) to enable MACC to get evidence and documents from financial institutions in other countries in connection with the RM2.6 billion investigation. The relevant text from the MACC Statement (which was in Bahasa Malaysia) is as follows:

…PPO bersetuju bahawa SPRM perlu mengemukakan kembali kertas siasatan berhubung SRC International kepada Peguam Negara untuk pertimbangan. Memandangkan siasatan SPRM berhubung dakwaan wang derma RM2.6 bilion masih belum lengkap, Panel telah mengesyorkan agar SPRM meneruskan siasatannya dan memohon Peguam Negara agar mengeluarkan kebenaran Bantuan Undang-undang Bersama (MLA) bagi SPRM memperoleh bukti dan dokumen-dokumen daripada institusi kewangan di luar negara sebagai sebahagian daripada siasatan ke atas isu RM2.6 bilion…

(18) The MACC request for the necessary action by the Attorney General for Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) is not new. It was also made before in December 2015, as reported in Bloomberg Business. Despite efforts made, the said MACC statement could not be accessed from the MACC website.

…The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission said it made several proposals and recommendations for action in the case, according to a statement Thursday. While it has completed investigations involving witnesses in the country, the MACC said it still needs permission from the attorney general to get documents and evidence from overseas financial institutions. "This evidence can only be taken by the Mutual Legal Assistance process because it is tied to the provision of banking legislation of the country concerned," the agency said. "MACC has made an application under the MLA to attorney general to obtain documents and evidence. - Bloomberg Business, 31/12/2015, Malaysian Anti-Graft Agency Submits Probe Results of Najib Funds

(19) On the face of it, it looks like the Attorney General has procrastinated in providing the necessary permission for Mutual Legal Assistance, which was essential for the completion of investigation, and this could be perceived as an act ‘obstructing’ criminal investigations. 

(20) It is now revealed that Mohamed Apandi Ali is a Director of the Lembaga Urusan Tabung Haji (LUTH), whereby the date of appointment is uncertain.

(21) An Attorney General, also the Public Prosecutor, should not be Director of any legal entity, as this would compromise his independence.

(22) The Federal Constitution, in Article 143, amongst others stipulate as follows: 

(1) The Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall, on the advice of the Prime Minister, appoint a person who is qualified to be a judge of the Federal Court to be the Attorney General for the Federation.

(2) It shall be the duty of the Attorney General to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or the Cabinet or any Minister upon such legal matters, and to perform such other duties of a legal character, as may from time to time be referred or assigned to him by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or the Cabinet, and to discharge the functions conferred on him by or under this Constitution or any other written law.

(3) The Attorney General shall have power, exercisable at his discretion, to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for an offence, other than proceedings before a Syariah court, a native court or a court-martial…

(23) The Attorney General, as such, has many roles and responsibilities, and some of these are competing obligations, if exercised at the same time is impossible. It is absurd when the Attorney General considering instituting criminal proceedings, and at the same time is also seen to be personally providing legal advice to the suspect/s or the potential accused.

(24) The Federal Constitution, in Article 8, states that, ‘All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.’ As such, it can be said that no one is above the law, even the Prime Minister or a government-owned legal entity.  When a person and/or legal entity commits an offence, it is the Attorney General, without any other special consideration or treatment, do the needful to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for an offence.

(25) Article 12 of the UN Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors stipulate that ‘Prosecutors shall, in accordance with the law, perform their duties fairly, consistently and expeditiously, and respect and protect human dignity and uphold human rights, thus contributing to ensuring due process and the smooth functioning of the criminal justice system.’

(26) Article 13(a) of the said Guidelines states that ‘In the performance of their duties, prosecutors shall carry out their functions impartially and avoid all political, social, religious, racial, cultural, sexual or any other kinds of discrimination’.

(27) Prosecutors shall perform their duties without fear, favour or prejudice. Public Prosecutors’ powers should be exercised independently and be free from political interference.

(28) If the Attorney General is unable to act as Public Prosecutor, then rightly he should not. Malaysian laws, in Section 376(2) Criminal Procedure Code (Act 593) states that, ‘The Solicitor-General shall have all powers of a Deputy Public Prosecutor and shall act as Public Prosecutor in case of the absence or inability to act of the Attorney General.’

(29) As such, in this case involving Najib Tun Razak, the Prime Minister and Finance Minister of Malaysia, and government-owned companies, Mohamed Apandi Ali clearly is unable to act as Public Prosecutor, and the Solicitor General should act as Public Prosecutor.

(30) With reference to the abovementioned and other matters, the following points of concern, amongst others, have arisen concerning Attorney General Mohamed Apandi Ali:

(a) The manner and timing of his appointment raises the perception that Mohamed Apandi Ali may have been appointed to speedily replaced a Public Prosecutor who may have proceeded to institute criminal proceedings against Najib Tun Razak (the current Prime Ministers) and/or against legal entities owned and/or controlled by the government;

(b) That there may exist a perception that Mohamed Apandi Ali may have acted to derail or delay investigations against the Najib Tun Razak (the current Prime Minister) /or against legal entities owned and/or controlled by the government. The fact that the MACC, who have been asking for the required Attorney General’s permission since December 2015 for usage of the Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) that is required to obtain evidence and documents from financial institutions in other countries, have yet to be given the relevant authorisation required to complete investigation, is a matter of concern.

(c) That Mohamed Apandi Ali may have failed to have acted professionally as a Public Prosecutor when it was alleged that he had advised the Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak, the suspect and possible future accused in an ongoing criminal investigation, to not provide an explanation to Parliament. 

(d) That Mohamed Apandi Ali allegedly attempted to speedily clear Najib Tun Razak and SRC International of alleged crimes, including corruptions and/or other breaches of law, and to stop investigations. 

(e) The failure of Mohamed Apandi Ali to acknowledge that in these circumstances when the Prime Minister and Government were the subject of investigations, he would be unable to perform the duties of the Public Prosecutor as required by law, and thereby should have disqualified himself, enabling the Solicitor General to carry out the duties and obligations of the Public Prosecutor, while he as Attorney General continued to carry on his role as adviser and ‘government lawyer’ to the Prime Minister, Cabinet and government.

(f) The fact that he still is a Director of LUTH, and maybe also other companies and/or legal entities, raises the question of his independence, and his ability to carry out the duties of the Attorney General impartially without fear and favour.

(31) As such, even if Mohamed Apandi Ali may personally not be guilty of any wrongdoing or dereliction of duties, for the good of Malaysia and for the improvement of public perception of the administration of justice, we may have to take drastic actions including the appointment of a new Attorney General.

(32) The public need to have confidence in the integrity of the criminal justice system, whereby prosecutors play a crucial role in the administration of criminal justice, and as such prosecutorial discretion, should be exercised independently and be free from political interference.

(33) Events of the recent past, especially concerning RM2.6 billion, has eroded the confidence in the integrity of the criminal justice system, and immediate and even drastic steps need to be taken to restore confidence in the administration of criminal justice, for the good of Malaysia.

THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved:

(A) That the Malaysian Bar calls on Mohamed Apandi Ali to immediately resign as Attorney General, for the good of Malaysia, to restore public confidence and perception of the rule of law, in particular the administration of criminal justice in Malaysia.

(B) That the Malaysian Bar calls for the Solicitor General, pursuant to section 376(2) Criminal Procedure Code, to assume the role and responsibilities of Public Prosecutor in the cases involving Najib Tun Razak, 1MDB, SRC International and the RM2.6 billion, considering the disability of the Attorney General to continue to act as Public Prosecutor for these cases, by reason of past conduct and the existing competing and conflicting roles of the Attorney General.

(C) That the Malaysian Bar also calls on Attorney General Mohamed Apandi Ali to immediately resign as Director in Lembaga Urusan Tabung Haji, and any positions held in companies, statutory body and/or legal entities save those positions that the law specifically requires.

(D) That the Public Prosecutor and prosecutors should always not only be independent but also be seen to be independent. They should not be receiving any other income, ‘donations’ or benefits from any other sources. They should also not be Directors of companies, or holding any other positions in legal entities, save those specifically provided for in law.

(E) That the Malaysian Bar promote and work towards the adoption and application of the principles contained in the UN Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors, and such international standards in Malaysia.

(F) That the Malaysian Bar promote the establishment of an independent commission or committee for the purposes of the selection and recommendation to the Yang Di Pertuan Agong for the appointment of the Attorney General.

(G) That the Malaysian Bar continue doing all that is necessary to promote the rule of law, and a just administration of justice in Malaysia.

 

Source: Malaysian Bar Website