`


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

LOVE MALAYSIA!!!


 


Tuesday, December 9, 2014

Haniza Talha’s case proves Sedition Act used against Putrajaya’s critics, say activists

Taman Medan assemblyman Haniza Talha had questioned the government's spending on the Permata programme. – The Malaysian Insider file pic, December 9, 2014.Taman Medan assemblyman Haniza Talha had questioned the government's spending on the Permata programme. – The Malaysian Insider file pic, December 9, 2014.
The latest sedition probe against a Selangor lawmaker proves that Putrajaya is going after its critics and it is a warning to anyone who criticises the government, said activists fighting the Sedition Act.
It is no longer only about insulting the Malay rulers and Islam despite earlier assurances by the Cabinet that the Act will not be used against those who question government policy.
Activists warned that the broad and loose nature of the Act means that intent is an irrelevant defence and those who only criticised policies can still be found guilty.
Yap Swee Seng of human rights group, Suaram, was not surprised that Haniza Talha, who is Taman Medan state assemblyman, is being investigated.
“The law is so broadly framed that it can be used against anyone they want to silence,” said Yap, who is a coordinator for the Abolish Sedition Act movement (GHAH).
This is even if a person did not intend to incite hatred or violence towards a certain group or community, or if their statements had absolutely no impact, said Yap.
“We’ve had people who said something two years ago and they are being charged even when what they said had no impact.”
Lawyers for Liberty executive director Eric Paulsen says intent or impact does not matter under the present Sedition Act. – The Malaysian Insider file pic, December 9, 2014.Lawyers for Liberty executive director Eric Paulsen says intent or impact does not matter under the present Sedition Act. – The Malaysian Insider file pic, December 9, 2014.Intent or impact does not matter, said Lawyers for Liberty executive director Eric Paulsen, another group that is part of the GHAH coalition.
“Haniza was just doing her job as a lawmaker. But under the law, it is irrelevant if your intention was to expose corruption or to question government spending or wastage.”
Haniza was doing just that in an article published by a PKR newspaper, where she questioned why RM771 million had been allocated to the Permata pre-school programme for talented children.
The programme is the brainchild of Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor, wife of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak.
Haniza was called in for questioning by the police in Petaling Jaya yesterday after two police reports were made against her. She was told that the probe was being conducted under the Sedition Act.
She was the first to be investigated under the Act after Najib announced on November 27 that he would retain the Act despite an earlier pledge to repeal it.
Najib had said the Act would also include two specific sections to prohibit questioning the Malay rulers or to talk about Sabah and Sarawak seceding from Malaysia.
However, Najib gave assurances that it would be fairly enforced and that it would protect all communities.
The prime minister had also said the Act would “not obstruct democracy or oppress the opposition”.
His U-turn has prompted a storm of criticism and allegations that Najib is trying to silence political dissent.
The latest to question Najib’s decision was United States vice-president Joe Biden who on December 5, expressed concern that the law would be used to stifle opposition.
"Amid growing US-Malaysia ties, Malaysian government’s use of legal system & Sedition Act to stifle opposition raises rule of law concerns," he had said in a tweet.
Paulsen of LFL, said that Haniza’s case had shown that the decision to retain the law was not to preserve inter-communal harmony as Najib had claimed.
“It is politically motivated. If Haniza was incorrect, the government could have come out with a statement or a reply, but they decided to use the Act.”
Haniza is the latest in a long line of Pakatan Rakyat politicians, lawyers, lecturers and preachers who have been charged with sedition.
Tough road ahead
Yap, of Suaram, said now that the law is being retained and strengthened, GHAH would have to tweak its campaign.
“Since the law is going to be amended, we would have to try and see if we can influence that process.”
Lawyer Andrew Khoo says there should be a clause in the Sedition Act that specifies intent to incite feelings of ill will or violence. – The Malaysian Insider file pic, December 9, 2014.Lawyer Andrew Khoo says there should be a clause in the Sedition Act that specifies intent to incite feelings of ill will or violence. – The Malaysian Insider file pic, December 9, 2014.Lawyer Andrew Khoo believes that one method is to pressure the government to introduce a clause that specifies intent to incite feelings of ill will or violence.
“This would remove the element of subjectivity in the law and introduce an objective assessment of intention,” said Khoo, who has pursued human rights cases.
Najib should also be persuaded to rethink his decision to retain the Act, said Khoo.
“Retaining a law like this is not the best going forward especially since we are going to be the chairman of Asean and the country is going to sit on the United Nations Security Council.”
Yap said GHAH would intensify its roadshows nationwide to spread public awareness on the dangers of the Act and how it threatens to erode freedom of expression.
The movement would also have to seek more public funds to bear the legal costs of aiding those who actually get charged with sedition, said Yap.
One of the biggest costs is bail which can range from RM5,000 to as high as RM8,000 when a person is charged with sedition.
“Hiring a lawyer to represent you can drive costs up to RM20,000.”
Paulsen of LFL said even though the group helps victims by looking for pro-bono lawyers, there were still travelling costs that had to be paid.
He also said another strategy was to get the courts to declare the Act as unconstitutional.
This tact is being pursued in the case of Universiti Malaya law lecturer Dr Azmi Sharom, whose lawyers are arguing that the Act was never passed by Parliament.
Khoo believes that if Najib was really sincere in not using the Act to stifle political dissent, he would need to include a section stating that government criticism would not be liable for prosecution.
- TMI

No comments:

Post a Comment

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