Sedition Act changes breed intolerance, legal bodies say

The three Malaysian Bars have denounced the amendments to the Sedition Act, saying the changes were antithetical to democracy. – The Malaysian Insider pic, April 17, 2015. 

The three Bars of Malaysia have jointly denounced the passing of amendments to the Sedition Act at the Dewak Rakyat last week, calling the colonial era-law the antithesis of democracy and warning that the revised law will breed further intolerance.

The Malaysian Bar, Advocates Association of Sarawak and the Sabah Law Association said the amendments delivered  a crippling blow to the rule of law in Malaysia, and only served to give weight to public perception that Malaysia was becoming an "intolerant authoritarian state".

The statement was signed by the chiefs of the three bars, respectively, Steven Thiru, Leonard Shim and Datuk Nandy Gaanesh.

They said Putrajaya must stop the amendments from being passed in the Dewan Negara or Senate, and to instead keep its promise to repeal the act.

"The Sedition Act 1948 is inherently flawed, and the amendments serve to expose and exacerbate its weaknesses. 

"It is a law that undermines genuine unity and harmony, and is counterproductive to lasting peace, strong bonds of unity and real mutual respect in Malaysia," they said, adding that it had no place in modern Malaysia.

The amendments, they said, reinforced concerns that the limits to freedom of speech and expression were being determined by those who were not open to adverse comments or contrary ideas, or who were easily offended or angered. 

"This nurtures an environment of intemperance and intolerance.

The amendments will also result in a false sense of unity and harmony that is actually created by intimidation and a climate of fear," the statement said, adding that this would perpetuate insecurity and suspicion among citizens.

This resulted in the "criminalising of truth", where, if the words deemed seditious were in fact the truth, it would not hold as defence to the sedition charge, they said.

While they said it was notable that criticism of the government and the courts was no longer grounds for sedition and had been removed in the amendments, adverse statements against the government should never have been criminalised in the first place.

"We remain concerned that such speech could still be prosecuted under other legislation. 

"If the government is to recognise the right of freedom of expression, it must do so consistently across all legislation," the chiefs of the three Bars said.

They also expressed concern about the amendment to Section 4 (1), where the jail sentence upon conviction had been enhanced, with a new minimum of three years stipulated and a maximum of seven years.

The sanction of a fine in lieu of imprisonment has been removed. 

"The imposition of mandatory imprisonment for sedition is harsh and disproportionate to the purported offence, in the case of a Member of Parliament, it will result in automatic disqualification," they said, adding that it also curtained the discretion of the judiciary in sentencing.

The three chiefs also took issue with the inclusion of the new Section 4 (1A), calling it an "obnoxious" amendment that provides for what they described as “aggravated sedition”. 

The section provides for a person who commits sedition which causes “bodily harm or damage to property” to be liable to a minimum three-year jail term and a maximum of 20 years.

Saying that this provision could be easily abused, they pointed out that all that was needed was for an agent provocateur to provoke an unsuspecting person to utter or publish allegedly seditious words, and for another person to cause “bodily harm or damage to property” purportedly as a result of those words. 

"The former would be liable and would face imprisonment due to the purported conduct of the latter," they added.

- TMI