Kim Quek's appeal against ban on 'March to Putrajaya' book to be heard on JAN 4

The Court of Appeal will hear the appeal against the seizure and banning of my book “The March to Putrajaya – Malaysia’s New Era is at Hand” on January 4.

The hearing of this appeal, which is against the judgment given by High Court Judge Rohana Yusof (Appellate and Special Power Division) in favour of the Home Minister earlier in July 2011, will be held at 9:00 am at Court of Appeal No.5, Level 1, at the Palace of Justice, Putrajaya.

On 19^th August 2010, the police swooped on bookshops across the country to confiscate my said book, which is a collection of my articles on the local political scenes written and published in various media over the years from 2005 to 2010.  No reason was given for the book seizure.

The Home Ministry finally announced on Sept 30, 2010 via Bernama that the book was banned  through Gazette on Sept 27, which was more than one month after the book was confiscated.  The ground of banning was cited as “prejudicial to public order”.

I applied through my lawyers, Kaneslingam & Co, on 4^th Nov 2010 for leave for judicial review of the banning and seizure of the book.  Leave was granted on 24^th Jan 2011.

Following the High Court hearing of the case on 23^rd June 2011, Judge Rohana Yusof delivered her oral judgment upholding the banning and seizure on 14^th July 2011, followed by her written judgment issued in February 2012.

My lawyers immediately filed the memorandum of appeal, which among others, highlighted the complete lack of evidence of the book being a threat to public order and flawed the judge’s uncritical acceptance of the Minister’s allegations in toto while ignoring the facts and legal argument presented by the applicants.

Such a judgment, unless rectified, is tantamount to handing the Minister the license to ban books at his whims, unsupported by evidence and without accountability. Needless to say, the arbitrary power to suppress legitimate dissent so endowed and endorsed by the court will naturally encourage totalitarianism, apart from wanton breach of an individual’s fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

It is now up to the Court of Appeal to apply the remedy.