JUSTIFIED THE UNJUSTIFY

How sad and disappointing it is for a nation when a political leader make a seditious statement.

The grievousness increases when other political parties indirectly justified the existence of the Sedition Act 1948.

As far as I am concerned, DAP, MCA and Gerakan have lodged police reports against the insensitive and racist politician based on the Section 4(1)(b) of the Act.

Let me reproduce Section 4.

(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.

So, what mean by “seditious“? Let we look at Section 2 who define the word.

“seditious”  when applied to or used in respect of any act, speech, words, publication or other thing qualifies the act, speech, words, publication or other thing as one having a seditious tendency;

What amounts to “seditious tendency“? Let we look at Section 3 of the Act.

(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.

Just read the above sections and we will come to realize that almost every discourse made by a citizen can be classified as being  “seditious“.

So, to me, the Sedition Act is a repressive law.

In Wikipedia, it is stated.

Human rights advocates have alleged that the Sedition Act has an “excessively vague” definition of sedition. These critics charge that this vagueness constitutes “an invitation to abuse and authorities may seek to apply them in situations which bear no relation to the original purpose of the law“. Although they concede that the act provides exceptions that would “clarify and narrow the scope of the offence”, they allege that “Any rule which needs an exception in favour of pointing out that the rulers are misled is quite obviously unacceptably vague.” It is also claimed that the Malaysian judiciary has “given an extremely wide interpretation to the crime of sedition“, with the result of a chilling effect on open dissent to government policies.

In the past, the Sedition Act has applied in the following cases, as cited in Wikipedia.

Famously in 2000, Marina Yusoff, a former vice president of the National Justice Party (Parti Keadilan Nasional) was charged with sedition for alleging that the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO), the leading party in the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition, had provoked the massacres of Chinese in the May 13 Incident. The editor of an opposition organ was charged with sedition for alleging a government conspiracy against Anwar Ibrahim, a former Deputy Prime Minister, had led to his political downfall.

Anwar’s lead counsel, Karpal Singh, who was also deputy chairman of the opposition Democratic Action Party (DAP), had also been charged with sedition after claiming Anwar had been poisoned by “people in high places”.

Lim Guan Eng, a former Member of Parliament from the DAP, had likewise been found guilty of sedition in 1998 for accusing the Attorney General of failing to properly handle a case where the Chief Minister of Malacca had been charged with statutory rape of a schoolgirl.

In 2003, the act was also invoked by then Deputy Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi (who succeeded Mahathir bin Mohamad as Prime Minister of Malaysia later that year); Abdullah stated that the government would charge those who opposed the change in educational policy emphasising the teaching of science and mathematics in English with sedition.

That same year, the online publication Malaysiakini was temporarily shut down under the Sedition Act after it published a letter criticising Malay special rights and compared the Youth wing of a government party to the Ku Klux Klan.

Previously in 1978, the Sedition Act had been invoked in another case of educational policy, when Mark Koding argued in Parliament that the government ought to close down Chinese and Tamil vernacular schools.

Surprisingly, when Lim Guan Eng was jailed under the same Act, DAP claimed the Act is bad law. But now, they want the government to exercise the “bad law” to punish another? How strange.

And what say Gerakan and MCA? Are they justifying  these bad laws by lodging a police report?