'Secrecy clause should be called Rafizi or cow clause'

Section 203A in the Penal Code Amendment Bill might as well be called the ‘Rafizi clause’ or better yet the ‘cow clause’ as it was the National Feedlot Corporation (NFC) leaks which appeared to have prompted it.

“We can name it ‘Rafizi clause’ or ‘Shahrizat clause’ or ‘cow clause’ because  it is the fear of such leaks which led to the NFC (saga) which led to this clause...

“We cannot blame people if they say this,” Hanipa Maidin (Sepang-PAS) said during the committee stage debate for the Bill.

Hanipa was referring to now Pandan MP Rafizi Ramli, who spearheaded the expose on the NFC project, which was run by the family of then-cabinet minister Shahrizat Abdul Jalil.

Earlier, while winding up the second reading, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Nancy Shukri said that the proposed section is to safeguard national security and stop the government from being smeared.

Nancy (right) said this followed incidents where information was leaked to electronic media.

"Lately there have been many incidences where information and official secrets were leaked.

"Information has been leaked to electronic media with false embellishments which smear the government, and this must be dealt with seriously," she said.

She said that that the proposed Section 203A only effects information relating to "national security" and not to cover up corruption.

She said whistleblowers are protected under the Whistleblower's Protection Act and the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Act.

This explanation, however, did not satisfy dissenting parliamentarians, all from Pakatan Rakyat, who said that the Bill as it stands, does not clearly state this.

Your answer is not the law, this (pointing to the Bill) is the law," Hanipa Maidin (PAS-Sepang) said. 

The MPs, mostly seasoned lawyers, called for the Bill to be withdrawn in toto so it can be improved to be more specific, but this suggestion was rejected by the minister.

"The enforcement can be delayed so we can fine-tune (the law) but withdrawing it is impossible," she said.

'Plea bargains rendered useless'

The minister, a lawyer, said that the amendment needs to be read with "the rest of the Act" and "other laws" including the recently amended Prevention of Crime Act.

"But the offence is stated here (in the Penal Code), so you can't say 'look at other laws'. I'm sorry to say this but even a first year law student knows this," R Sivarasa (PKR-Subang) (left) responded.

Hanipa and N Surendran (PKR-Padang Serai) also questioned the mandatory sentences, which restricts judicial discretion and defeats the purpose of plea bargains.

The minister, however, said that there is still judicial discretion as there is still a minimum and maximum sentence.

She added that the government is introducing these tough laws to defend victims of crime but Surendran is siding with the accused.

This explanation was rejected by Hanipa , who said his 20 years experience as a criminal lawyer tells him that no lawyer will advise his/her client to plead guilty if there is already a mandatory sentence.

"It (renders plea bargains) meaningless, toothless and useless...so why would we include such a thing?" he asked.

The arguments raised by the MPs were also brought up by Azalina Othman (BN-Pengerang) yesterday but she did not speak today.

Sim Tze Tsin (left) (PKR-Bayan Baru) had proposed that the Bill be brought to a parliamentary select committee, but the motion was rejected in a voice vote.

The Bill was passed without amendment at 8.21pm by voice vote.