Seditious Statements

Posted on May 20, 2008
Filed Under sedition | 7 Comments

The Star often feature “Articles of Law” by Bhag Singh and today there is an article on Seditious Statements. The following is a brief extract of the local decisions on Sedition from the article.

ARTICLES OF LAW

By BHAG SINGH

“But what is meant by “to question”?

Statements made by a Member of Parliament came for adjudication before the Court in Public Prosecutor v. Mark Koding 25 years ago. The issue in that case was whether Article 152 of the Federal Constitution, which is one of the sensitive issues, had been questioned.

In a speech in Parliament, Koding had argued for disallowing the continuation of Chinese and Tamil schools and suggested that the schools be closed. He also asked for the cessation of the use of road signs in those languages. He went on to say that if Article 152 stood in the way then the Constitution ought to be amended.

In the days that followed, he was promptly charged for touching on a sensitive issue and what arose for consideration before the Court was whether he had questioned one of the sensitive issues as stipulated in Section 3(1)(f) in the Sedition Act 1948.Ten years earlier, a similar assertion had been made, though not in Parliament. Utusan Melayu had published an article entitled, “Hapuskan sekolah-sekolah beraliran Tamil atau Cina di negeri ini”.

It was a report of a talk given by an MP, a then prominent Malay leader, at the National Education Congress in Kuala Lumpur. He, however, did not concede that what he said at the Congress was the message conveyed by the headline of the newspaper report.

In the result, the sub-editor who had decided on and inserted the heading, was convicted, with the heading held to be seditious within the meaning of section 3(1)(f). Ong CJ, who heard the appeal, said that the result and effect of the 1970 amendments made in the 1948 Act could be said to widen the definition of “seditious tendency” by making virtually taboo any topic of public discussion calling into question the provisions of Part III or Articles 152, 153 and 181 of the Federal Constitution.

This case led to the perception that to make such statements was seditious Koding would no doubt have been aware of the view of the law when he made the statements but he presumably did so in the belief that he would be immune to prosecution because he was speaking in Parliament.

However, the court took the view that advocating the closure of Tamil or Chinese schools was not in itself seditious in the context of Article 152 of the Federal Constitution.Mohd Azmi J. had the strictly legal point of view when he acknowledged that “whether or not such closure is advisable or feasible is another matter to be decided elsewhere and not in this court. There is nothing unlawful in allowing Chinese or Tamil schools to continue”.

The Court decided that there had nevertheless been a breach of section 3(1)(f) by suggesting the amendment to the Constitution to allow the abolition or closure of such schools, and for the discontinuance of the use of the languages on road signs.

It is a basic principle that the eventual decision in a case depends on the specific facts that are before the court when a decision has to be made. This is even more so when it comes to sedition.As stated in a study on the Law of Sedition in India, the dimension of freedom of speech as a right is not rigid but a variable one depending upon time, place and circumstances. The extent of the right depends, amongst others, on the following factors: the political situation of the times; the economic prosperity of the society; the audience to which the speech is addressed or amongst whom the writing is circulated; extent of tolerance developed by the people, and the police force available to the State.

It will not be out of place to say that when touching on sensitive issues, it may not be a matter of strict legal interpretation alone. Given that social, cultural and other sensitivities are involved, there is a definite need to exercise a broader kind of wisdom.”

Popularity: 63% [?]

Comments

• 

• Categories

  • CLP
  • Constitutional rights
  • Consumer rights
  • defamation
  • Employment
  • local government
  • MyKad
  • sedition
  • Strange but true
  • Wills

• Tags

  blogging change of religion contempt of court dangers defamation Employment Freedom of speech insulting religion MyKad National Registration Act official secrecy Police Act procedures sedition Wills

• Don’t miss any post, subscribe to this!

  • Seditious Statements
  • What does sedition mean?

• Recent Posts

  • Seditious Statements
  • What does sedition mean?
  • CLP abolished, is this good news?
  • Video: Haris Ibrahim’s views on Sedition law
  • Layman’s guide to Defamation
  • Are permits required for religious use?
  • Dangers in blogging
  • Most unaware of RM250 limited liability
  • Freedom of speech: How qualified is it in Malaysia?
  • How to change your name in MyKad

• Blogroll

  • E-lawyer
  • Eddie Law

• My Blogs

  • Cross Over
  • Joshua3.com