Repeal of Sedition Act: a promise unfulfilled

In July 12, 2012, Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin was quoted by Bernama as saying that repealing the Sedition Act 1948 was not just empty talk in bringing about political transformation.

"We don't just talk or make announcements (on transformation), we act. Some of the laws we introduced we have enforced, this (repealing of the Sedition Act) is the latest step to show the government is in tune with the people," he said.

To date, since Muhyiddin's statement, the National Harmony Act has still not been tabled in Parliament and Sedition Act 1948 has not been repealed as promised. All the talk by Muhyiddin that “we just don’t talk or make announcements, we act” has gone down the drain and remains nothing but pure rhetoric.

Any right thinking Malaysian would expect that once a law is declared archaic and up for repeal, the authorities will refrain from using such a law. However the opposite has been the case here: more and more people are being charged and convicted under the Sedition Act particularly after the 13th general elections.

The late Karpal Singh was convicted by the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court in March this year, the state assemblyman for Sri Muda, Mat Shuhaimi Shafiei, was charged for sedtion and his case is still pending in court, while Hindraf leader, P. Uthayakumar was convicted for sedition and is serving a one year prison sentence in Kajang Prison.

The latest victim of the Sedition Act is the Seputeh MP Teresa Kok, who was charged for publishing seditious words in her “Onederful Malaysia CNY 2014” video clip.

From this latest episode, i.e., the charging of Teresa Kok, an elected representative who had the biggest vote majority in Malaysia's history, it is proof that the government has not kept its word and does not intend to keep its promise to repeal the Sedition Act. 

One would expect that after an announcement is made by the Prime Minister himself that the Sedition Act would be repealed, all pending charges under the act will be immediately withdrawn.

However, no such action has been forthcoming by the Attorney-General, hence the A-G has failed in his duties as the country’s top legal adviser to exercise his discretion under Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution.

The A-G's Chambers also rejected a petition initiated by Malaysian Centre for Constitutional Research and Education (MCRC), endorsed by 33 Malaysian NGOs, calling for the immediate withdrawal of sedition charges against the late Karpal and many others.

The A-G's Chambers, in a letter, said that they had no reason to withdraw the charge against Karpal. I acknowledge that the A-G is under no legal duty to do so as the Sedition Act is still in force, but his office must surely be guided by good conscience and morality to do the right thing. 

Even if the A-G argues that he has a duty to enforce the law as it exists currently, that argument falls flat as his office has failed to enforce the law against people like Ibrahim Ali and Zulkifli Noordin, even after several police reports were lodged against these racial bigots. I myself had lodged a report against Ibrahim Ali at the Petaling Jaya police station last year, when he made the call on Muslims to burn the Al-Kitab, but no action has been taken.

The last time I checked the Penal Code and the Sedition Act, all the infamous statements by these bigots fall squarely under these laws, yet no charge has been brought against them.

Are they above the law or is the A-G's Chambers powerless to act against them or just plain biased? The A-G must be reminded that under Article 8 of the Federal Constitution, all persons are equal before the law, and this means no person should be subjected to selective prosecution by the A-G.

The A-G must take cognisance of the decision of the Privy Council in Teh Cheng Poh v Public Prosecutor, in which Lord Diplock said in his speech:

“All that equality before the law requires, is that the case of all potential defendants to criminal charges shall be given unbiased consideration by the prosecuting authority and that decisions whether or not to prosecute in a particular case for a particular offence should not be dictated by some irrelevant consideration.”

It is quite clear that the prosecution of Teresa Kok for sedition and others charged and convicted under the Sedition Act 1948 lately, were motivated by some irrelevant consideration or reasons best known to the A-G himself. Otherwise, why didn’t he charge Ibrahim Ali and Zulkifli Nordin under the Penal Code, despite police reports lodged against them? This is the lingering question in the minds of most right thinking Malaysians and I think they deserve an answer from the A-G. – May 13, 2014.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.