Asking Prime Minister Najib to resign is our duty, Not a Crime

by Ho Kit Yen

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com

The Malaysian Bar called on Putrajaya to cease its use of Section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (CMA) and to repeal Section 233 of the Act. “The chilling effect on the freedom of speech and expression that was created by their use must be eliminated,” said Bar Council President Steven Thiru in a statement.

“The continuous use of Section 233(1)(a) of the CMA to clamp down on views, discourse and expression, and to restrict democratic space, creates a climate of fear that threatens to silence Malaysians.”

Section 233 (1)(a) suffocates not only freedom of expression and freedom of speech in Malaysia, but more critically, freedom of thought, he warned. “In this age of connectivity, where the exchange of ideas and information was rife, no nation that aspires to be recognized and accepted as a world leader in ideas and intellectualism can afford to raise an unquestioning and non-discerning population.”

Since when are we told that we cannot ask this national joker to resign? The day we became meek and mute

In any event, he stressed, there can certainly be no basis for Section 233(1)(a) to be invoked against any person who calls for the Prime Minister to step down.

“It was absurd to criminalize the exercise of such a legitimate democratic right.Peaceful change to the executive leadership of a nation is part and parcel of democracy.”Steven urged the Prime Minister to accept that the price for being in office includes constant scrutiny and criticism, and this can include calls for him to resign.

The Malaysian Bar was expressing its deep concern over the use of Section 233(1)(a) of the CMA which, among others, criminalizes the use of network facilities or network services by a person to transmit any communication that is deemed to be offensive and could cause annoyance to another person.

Section 233(1)(a) of the CMA was a serious encroachment on the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 10(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution, continued Steven. “While Parliament may impose restrictions on this fundamental constitutional liberty, such restrictions must be reasonable and proportionate.”

He argued that the extremely wide and draconian effect of Section 233(1)(a) renders it an impermissible restriction, inasmuch as it unduly negates the exercise of the right to speech and expression.

Section 233(1)(a) of the CMA was also repugnant to the rule of law, as it was broad in scope, vague and ambiguous, with entirely subjective terms such as “offensive” and “annoy”, he pointed out. “It can easily be misused to stifle speech and expression, to shut out contrary views, to quash dissent, to deny democratic space, and to suppress Malaysians.”

“It is this imprecision that gives rise to the perception that the provision is yet another dressed-up political weapon in the armoury of the government.”

Section 233(3) of the CMA stipulates, upon conviction, the imposition of a maximum fine of RM50,000 or a maximum one-year jail term or both, as well as a further fine of RM1,000 for every day the offence is continued after conviction.

Section 233(1)(a) has been frequently used, and recently against people from various walks of life besides opposition politicians.