`


THERE IS NO GOD EXCEPT ALLAH
read:
MALAYSIA Tanah Tumpah Darahku

LOVE MALAYSIA!!!


 


Thursday, April 23, 2015

Cross incident highlights ‘subjective’ Sedition Act

The question is what’s seditious and who decides on the Sedition Act.
sedition-act-taman-medan
KUALA LUMPUR: The ambiguity of the Sedition Act has been perhaps best illustrated by the cross incident at the Community of Praise Church in Taman Medan, Petaling Jaya, on Sunday.
This is the consensus of opinions in the media, including the social media, following the Inspector General of Police Khalid Abu Bakar contradicting Home Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, his immediate superior, on the incident. Zahid declared the incident was seditious and vowed that action would be taken. His views were echoed by Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak.
Khalid, at the same time, dismissed the incident as not seditious. He claimed that it was not about religion and that there was no violence in the incident. He made the statement after reportedly speaking to Abdullah, his elder brother who was also at the scene, and getting his explanation.
None of the views expressed saw a role for the Court in interpreting the intention of Parliament in framing the Sedition Act in its amended form. No one touched on the rule of law i.e. the law decides, not men (rule by law).
The Pastor of the Church in the area brought down the cross displayed high up outside its premises after he felt reportedly intimidated in the face of threats by a crowd of 50 protesters. They interrupted his Sunday service at about 10 am, roundly condemned and criticized as a rude intrusion, and reportedly told him that the cross being on display was a challenge to their faith, Islam.
Human rights advocate Eric Paulsen, who heads Lawyers for Liberty and faces sedition charges, has ventured that the people are now expected to tiptoe around the Sedition Act. Malaysians, he said in remarks carried by online news portal Malay Mail Online, have been reduced to self-censoring when debating in public on any issue.
“Citizens will not know until they get into trouble with the authorities under the Sedition Action,” said Paulsen who also acts as a Spokesman for Gerakan Hapus Akta Hasutan (GHAH), which opposes the Act and wants it abolished. “This does not help. It smacks of double standards.”
The Sedition Act 1948 which was recently amended and strengthened, warned Paulsen, was vague and arbitrary. The amendments are meant to cover insults to religion and criminalize actions seen as promoting the secession of Sabah and Sarawak from their Federation with Malaysia.
The interpretation of the Act, he added, was subject to the whims and fancies of the IGP and the Attorney General. Paulsen was charged last February with sedition after his alleged criticism of Friday sermons prepared by a religious body.
Paulsen’s views have won support among others who have chipped in on the cross incident.
Syahredzan Johan, who co-chairs the Bar Council’s National Young Lawyers Committee (NYLC), agrees the cross incident highlights the “vague, arbitrary and subjective” nature of the Act. “Laws that restrict freedoms must be precise and clear.”
“Otherwise, they could be abused by the authorities.”
Syahredzan, who is also leading a campaign to abolish the Act, said that it should not be used against anyone. That includes, he added, the 50 protesters in the Taman Medan incident. He did not say whether the protesters should be charged under any other law or even whether they had broken any law.
Who decides what’s seditious?
That’s what Adrian Lim of Mahasiswa Ganyang Akta Hasutan wants to know. “It’s back to the primary question.”
“The Prime Minister, Home Minister, Attorney General, the IGP?”
The Act, he continued, creates a climate of fear. “It does not help preserve peace. There must be discourse.” He foresees people of different religions being confined to their respective faiths and not engaging in dialogue when differences arise between them.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.