The Sedition Act started life as the 1351 English Statute of Treasons. Hence sedition is closely associated with treason. In the 1500s, King Henry VIII broke away from Rome and established the Church of England with him and not the Pope in Rome as the head of the church and God’s representative on earth. This was, of course, heavily opposed and criticised by the Catholics and this was when the sedition law was heavily used. Those found guilty of sedition were put to death or at the very least imprisoned with their ears cut off.
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
As I write this, thus far student activist Adam Adli has been arrested (and charged plus is now out on bail) for sedition and, today, Haris Ibrahim, Tian Chua and Tamrin Tun Ghafar (ex-Umno MP and ex-MARA Chairman) have also been picked up. I expect Hishamuddin Rais (who spent 20 years in political exile in Manchester) and Cikgu Bard (Badrul Hisham Shahrin) to be added to that list very soon plus probably a few more, Anwar Ibrahim included.
Maybe we shall be seeing a repeat of the ‘Reformasi 10’ roundup that we saw in April 2001. In April 2001 the arrests were under the detention without trial Internal Security Act. This time it is under the Sedition Act, which means they will be given a trial.
But why the Sedition Act and what is so ‘special’ about this law?
The Sedition Act started life as the 1351 English Statute of Treasons. Hence sedition is closely associated with treason. In the 1500s, King Henry VIII broke away from Rome and established the Church of England with him and not the Pope in Rome as the head of the church and God’s representative on earth. This was, of course, heavily opposed and criticised by the Catholics and this was when the sedition law was heavily used. Those found guilty of sedition were put to death or at the very least imprisoned with their ears cut off.
When Queen Mary I took over in July 1553, she restored Roman Catholicism and had over 300 Protestant religious dissenters burned at the stake over five years in the Marian persecutions. In November 1558, Mary’s younger sister, Elizabeth took over as Queen Elizabeth I and she restored Protestantism and did to the Catholics what Mary did to the Protestants.
Then England saw its first Civil War in 1640, a power struggle between King Charles I and Parliament. There were many reasons for this conflict but amongst the key factors was religion. Charles was viewed as ‘Catholic-friendly’ (his wife and mother were both Catholics) while the majority of the Parliamentarians were Puritans who viewed Catholics as heretics and deviants.
Charles I was toppled and executed in 1649 and for 11 years England was ruled as a Republic until Charles II, his son, took the throne in 1660. And that’s when the sedition law was formalised as the Sedition Act (1661) -- to put down any further ideas of turning England into a Republic or of restoring Roman Catholicism. In fact, 100 years earlier, Elizabeth I had already got Parliament to pass a law that forbids a Catholic from sitting on the throne of England. Hence to even talk about it is a crime and punishable by death.
And then the British came to the Malay states. In 1824, the British and Dutch exchanged Bencoolen in Sumatra with Melaka. Earlier, in 1786, the British took Penang and then Singapore in 1819. In 1941, the British lost Malaya to the Japanese, and when the Japanese surrendered at the end of World War II, the British returned to Malaya and created the Malayan Union, which was opposed by the Malays and triggered the formation of Umno. Due to this strong opposition, in 1948, the British abandoned the Malayan Union and created the Federation of Malaya or Persekutuan Tanah Melayu.
Nevertheless, while the nationalist Malays (in particular those in Umno) accepted this, the more radical Malays plus the Socialists and Communists opposed it. To stifle this dissent, the British introduced the Sedition Act (1948) and those opposed to the British and to the formation of the Federation of Malaya took to the jungles to continue their opposition as an armed struggle.
And that is the history of the Sedition Act. It started life as a weapon to clamp down on and punish those aligned to Rome and those who criticised the English Monarch. It was then ‘exported’ to Malaya as a weapon to clamp down on and punish those who opposed the British and the Federation of Malaya.
Now it is a weapon used to stifle dissent or act against those who ‘violently’ oppose the results of the general election or, like in my case, those who criticise and ‘bring hatred’ to the wife of the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia (now wife of the Prime Minister, of course).
**************************************************
The Sedition Act (1661)
The Sedition Act 1661 was an Act of the Parliament of England, although it was extended to Scotland only in 1708. Passed shortly after the Restoration of Charles II to the throne of England (after 11 years as a Republic), it is no longer in force (abolished on 1st January 2010), but some of its provisions continue to survive today in the Treason Act 1695 and the Treason Felony Act 1848. One clause which was included in the Treason Act 1695 was later adapted for the United States Constitution (US Sedition Act 1798 and repealed in 1920).
**************************************************
The Sedition Act (1948)
In 1948, the British colonial government of Malaya enacted the Sedition Act to combat the Communist insurgency. Amendments were made through an Emergency Ordinance 1971, not long after the May 13 riots of 1969, to criminalise any questioning on Part III (on citizenship), Article 152 (on national language), Article 153 (on the special positions of the Malays and the rights of other races) and Article 181 (the Rulers’ sovereignty) of the Federal Constitution.
The Act has a very wide definition of ‘sedition’ and places many limitations on freedom of expression, particularly regarding supposedly sensitive political issues -- and this legal uncertainty very much favours the prosecutor. It also means that what is seditious is not just a legal but also a political issue.
A ‘seditious tendency’ is defined in section 3 as follows:
1. To bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any Ruler or government.
2. To seek alteration other than by lawful means of any matter by law established.
3. To bring hatred or contempt to the administration of justice in the country.
4. To raise discontent or disaffection amongst the subjects.
5. To promote ill will and hostility between races or classes.
6. To question the provisions of the Constitution dealing with language, citizenship, the special privileges of the Malays and of the natives of Sabah and Sarawak and the sovereignty of the Rulers.
**************************************************
Sedition Act (1948) cannot be challenged
(NST, 25 June 2012) - The Sedition Act 1948 is constitutional and its validity cannot be challenged.
The Federal Court today ruled that the act is a good Act in dismissing an appeal by lawyer P. Uthayakumar (HINDRAF) against the decision of the Court of Appeal on Feb this year, which had rejected Uthayakumar's application to declare the Sedition Act unconstitutional.
Uthayakumar, 49, a former Internal Security Act detainee, was charged in the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court on Dec 11, 2007, with publishing a seditious letter on the "Police Watch Malaysia" website, dated Nov 15, 2007, addressed to then prime minister of Britain Gordon Brown.
He made the declaratory application (to declare the Sedition Act unconstitutional), in a bid to have the charge against him under the act to be revoked.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.