Selective Prosecution using the Sedition Act 1948?

LibertyThe ruling party in Malaysia, the Barisan National coalition is now back in the public’s scrutiny especially with the recent report that the Prime Minister of Malaysia himself having directed the BackBenchers to lodge police reports against a member of Parliament from the opposition party, Karpal Singh for allegedly uttering seditious remarks. Not only was one police report lodged but a few and they appear to come in an apparent well coordinated wave.

The New Straits Times reported “The Bukit Gelugor MP had said in Parliament on Monday that state governments had the right to move civil servants without consulting heads of state. He had also said that state governments should not feel intimidated by the rulers as they were not answerable in matters concerning civil administration“. So, Karpal says that state government matters (administrative matters such as transferring or termination of service) are under the purview of the state government and not the Rulers.

That, is a legal opinion which may be disputed, depending on how you interpret the state constitution and administrative laws. It may not be different from the statement made by the Prime Minister of Malaysia on 24th March, 2008 that it is unconstitutional to appoint anyone but Datuk Seri Idris Jusoh as Terengganu Mentri Besar (as nominated by him) following the General Elections in reference to Kijal assemblyman Datuk Ahmad Said receiving his letter of appointment as the new Mentri Besar from Regency Advisory Council (MPPR) chief Tengku Sri Panglima Raja Tengku Baderulzaman. In Terengganu, the Regency Advisory Council rejected the PM’s nomination of Datuk Seri Idris Jusoh in favour of Datuk Ahmad Said. Following from that, the Prime Minister was of the opinion that the appointment is unconstitutional.

So, what is the difference between an opinion made by Karpal Singh on the ruler’s power and the Prime Minister’s opinion on the Regency Advisory Council’s powers? I, for one, don’t see the difference. Both questioned the powers of the rulers. In both instances, police reports were lodged against the parties who had questioned the powers of the rulers. In both instances, there were peaceful protests by those who were unhappy with the opinions made which seemed to question the ruler’s powers. In as far as the Terengganu episode is concerned, no further action has been taken by the police todate notwithstanding the Prime Minister’s opinion which was carried out on the front page of national newspapers.

Would the police come down hard on Karpal since this time around, there seems to be a unified effort to get him charged for sedition? Where then do we draw the line between an opinion in the spirit of freedom of speech and a seditious statement? What about the remark made by one politician telling those who opine that Malaysia is a secular country to “get out of Malaysia” because Malaysia is an Islamic country? Bordering on sedition or permissible as freedom of speech and opinion?

It would be interesting to see how far the police will investigate and whether Karpal will indeed be charged under the Sedition Act 1948. For now, the Bar Council has issued a press statement noting “a disturbing trend towards the use of archaic and oppressive legislation such as the Sedition Act as a means of stifling debate and exchange of opinions“. Would this be a selective prosecution using the Sedition Act 1948? We shall see.

Popularity: 5% [?]

May 9, 2008 | Filed Under Legal 

comments

You got something to say?