sunday, may 11, 2008
Why Sedition Charge for Raja Petra?
Soon Li Tsin May 9, 08 3:59pm [Malaysiakini]
Popular political blogger and editor of Malaysia Today Raja Petra Kamarudin (RPK) was charged in the Petaling Jaya sessions court on Tuesday for sedition. While most people are focusing on justice for the brutal murder of Mongolian national Altantuya Shaariibuu, RPK’s fate and the speculated connection between the murder and Deputy Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak and his wife Rosmah Mansor, I'm going to focus on the legal aspects. The question I have is: Why is sedition being used to charge RPK especially over a matter that is not quite new or exclusively seditious?Let's go back to basics.Under Section 3(1) of the Sedition Act those acts defined as having a seditious tendency are acts:(a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any ruler or against any government;(b) to excite the subjects of the ruler or the inhabitants of any territory governed by any government to attempt to procure in the territory of the ruler or governed by the government, the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter as by law established;(c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Malaysia or in any state;(d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the subjects of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or of the ruler of any state or amongst the inhabitants of Malaysia or of any state;(e) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Malaysia; or(f) to question any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of part III of the Federal Constitution or Article 152, 153 or 181 of the Federal Constitution.'Draconian, arbitrary'It appears that RPK will most probably fall under (c) that is to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Malaysia or in any state over his article 'Let's send the Altantuya murderers to hell' dated April 25 which implicated Najib and Rosmah in the case.It has also been reported that the chief behind the cybercrime operations is DSP Victor Sanjos.According to him, the police are investigating Petra under the Sedition Act 1948 for incitement and also because he "commented on a case before the court made its decision."Sanjos added that the police report was lodged by Supt Gan Teck Guan - the investigating officer of the Altantuya murder case.So look, to comment about the merits of the case is considered sub judice and/or contempt and that is a decision for the courts under the Rules of the High Court 1980 Order 52.And if this boils down to the reputation of Najib and his wife, it should fall under the Defamation Act. This begets the questions as to why the Sedition Act was decided as the attorney-general's 'weapon of choice'. Perhaps it is best to look at the laws first.Words like 'draconian' and 'arbitrary' have been used to describe the Sedition Act due to its wide-ranging interpretation as to what actions fall under Section 4 of the Act which lists the offences and sentences as:(1) Any person who -(a) does or attempts to do, or makes any preparation to do, or conspires with any person to do, any act which has or which would, if done, have a seditious tendency;(b) utters any seditious words;(c) prints, publishes, sells, offers for sale, distributes or reproduces any seditious publication; or(d) imports any seditious publication,shall be guilty of an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable for a first offence to a fine not exceeding RM5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or both, and, for a subsequent offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; and any seditious publication found in the possession of the person or used in evidence at his trial shall be forfeited and may be destroyed or otherwise disposed of as the court directs. Looking at the country's recent history of people charged for sedition, one cannot help but maintain a skeptical outlook after seeing how these cases were dealt. This is especially so with allegations of high handedness and mischief during the prosecution procedures.Cases like Lim Guan Eng's arrest for publishing allegations that Rahim Thamby Chik had committed statutory rape, Karpal Singh for statements he had made in court about the alleged poisoning of his client, Anwar Ibrahim during the sodomy trial, ex-PKR vice-president Marina Yusoff who said Umno staged the May 13 riots and the most recent sedition charges against the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) lawyers for statements made accusing Umno of committing systematic ethnic cleansing in a letter to British head of state, Gordon Brown at a Commonwealth meeting - all carried the same red-flag as to whether the so-called seditious statements were proven justly in court or not.One might think the rakyat would be matured enough to hear all the details in open court, but too often, we read of witnesses being pressured to retract their statements, cases being postponed until they are struck out for losing direction and an abundance of conspiracy theories.Based on the concept of precedent, this observation could bode badly for the fate for RPK. We can surely expect various irregularities in his trial, but what exactly - we will have to wait and see.While sedition does not allow for detention without trial, unlike its sister legislation the Internal Security Act, what this sedition charge effectively does is bar RPK from ever writing on the Altantuya case or risk contempt - much like Sarawak Chief Minister Taib Mahmud's defamation suit against Malaysiakini as well as New Straits Times Press' suit against bloggers Jeff Ooi and Ahiruddin 'Rocky' Atan. This silencing effect is powerful and that would truly render a blogger - who uses speech and words as communication media - useless.Another blogger Nathaniel Tan - first ever to be arrested - was also investigated under the Official Secrets Act and was remanded for four days only for the state to go silent after his release. There were no charges and no apology.It was evident that the Commercial Crimes Department had nothing on Tan. The blog comment in which Tan got in trouble for concerning former internal security minister Johari Baharum allegedly being given RM5.5 million to let three underworld kingpins go was investigated as an 'official secret'. However, Johari denied the claims and was cleared of any wrongdoings by the attorney-general. Based on this, Tan himself suspected that he was being taken is as a mere pawn between Johari and Inspector General of Police Musa Hassan in a bigger political chessboard conspiracy.Perhaps Tan is luckier than RPK who appeared to have stepped on Najib's toes that are arguably bigger than Johari and Musa's. Scaring the monkeys Silencing RPK is in line with the upper political echelon's intentions of scaring the blogging 'monkeys'. The government keeps forgetting that bloggers are not going to scurry away back to their trees. In fact, they will continue to invade the computer screens and people's homes and minds. If King Kong is caged, I will bet my bottom dollar that a revolt is going to happen. Comments over Najib-Altantuya as well their connection with premier Abdullah Ahmad Badawi have been circling around the Internet since news of Altantuya being blown up became public. Questions over how the media knew that C4 was involved at the outset when the court now can barely differentiate one explosive from another already indicated the shocking lack of information available surrounding the killing. If identifying explosives were difficult why did the police say Defence Ministry-commissioned explosives C4 were used? Why didn't the DPP subpoena Najib as a witness so he can clear his name when it was raised in court? Why did the judge fail to act when Najib's name was implicated? Why were the Mongolians' travel records erased from the immigration database as claimed? Why are we asking more questions instead of getting more answers? Why do we believe in rumours so much?DAP leader Lim Kit Siang has already began the tirade of criticisms against Najib for using the system for his own means. RPK himself had admitted that all his postings are seditious, so why wasn't he charged much earlier? Again, more questions - why now?The government forgets that while laws can stifle words, it can't stifle ideas. Once the word is out, there is no taking them back. Even more so if RPK's trial pans out into proving or disproving RPK, more worms in the can of dark conspiracies will be opened as to whether Najib lied about Altantuya or not.Remember, Najib said he has never met Altantuya during the Ijok by-election two years ago. Fighters for Altantuya's justice continue to hold the minister accountable for these words.Legal prosecution using sedition law can only mean that someone fears RPK enough to subject him to a criminal charge on rather shaky grounds.Who knows if this is Abdullah's way of telling Najib not to wrestle him for the Umno presidency? Who knows if Najib realises that expert witnesses will be called and that photo of Altantuya, Abdul Razak and a mystery "Najib Razak" might actually surface just as Brenden Pereira's alleged plagiarism in the Jeff/Rocky-NSTP suit will reveal itself in open court one day?
The law is the legal way of doing the most unlawful and undemocratic things in the country. Whilst we always think about detention without trial, systematic discrimination, limiting of freedoms are 'evil' acts without giving much thought that such actions are in fact sanctioned by the law."Unjust law is not law at all," said St Augustine. It's time we let the supporters of such laws know how much we disagree with them.
Popular political blogger and editor of Malaysia Today Raja Petra Kamarudin (RPK) was charged in the Petaling Jaya sessions court on Tuesday for sedition. While most people are focusing on justice for the brutal murder of Mongolian national Altantuya Shaariibuu, RPK’s fate and the speculated connection between the murder and Deputy Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak and his wife Rosmah Mansor, I'm going to focus on the legal aspects. The question I have is: Why is sedition being used to charge RPK especially over a matter that is not quite new or exclusively seditious?Let's go back to basics.Under Section 3(1) of the Sedition Act those acts defined as having a seditious tendency are acts:(a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any ruler or against any government;(b) to excite the subjects of the ruler or the inhabitants of any territory governed by any government to attempt to procure in the territory of the ruler or governed by the government, the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter as by law established;(c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Malaysia or in any state;(d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the subjects of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or of the ruler of any state or amongst the inhabitants of Malaysia or of any state;(e) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Malaysia; or(f) to question any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of part III of the Federal Constitution or Article 152, 153 or 181 of the Federal Constitution.'Draconian, arbitrary'It appears that RPK will most probably fall under (c) that is to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Malaysia or in any state over his article 'Let's send the Altantuya murderers to hell' dated April 25 which implicated Najib and Rosmah in the case.It has also been reported that the chief behind the cybercrime operations is DSP Victor Sanjos.According to him, the police are investigating Petra under the Sedition Act 1948 for incitement and also because he "commented on a case before the court made its decision."Sanjos added that the police report was lodged by Supt Gan Teck Guan - the investigating officer of the Altantuya murder case.So look, to comment about the merits of the case is considered sub judice and/or contempt and that is a decision for the courts under the Rules of the High Court 1980 Order 52.And if this boils down to the reputation of Najib and his wife, it should fall under the Defamation Act. This begets the questions as to why the Sedition Act was decided as the attorney-general's 'weapon of choice'. Perhaps it is best to look at the laws first.Words like 'draconian' and 'arbitrary' have been used to describe the Sedition Act due to its wide-ranging interpretation as to what actions fall under Section 4 of the Act which lists the offences and sentences as:(1) Any person who -(a) does or attempts to do, or makes any preparation to do, or conspires with any person to do, any act which has or which would, if done, have a seditious tendency;(b) utters any seditious words;(c) prints, publishes, sells, offers for sale, distributes or reproduces any seditious publication; or(d) imports any seditious publication,shall be guilty of an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable for a first offence to a fine not exceeding RM5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or both, and, for a subsequent offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; and any seditious publication found in the possession of the person or used in evidence at his trial shall be forfeited and may be destroyed or otherwise disposed of as the court directs. Looking at the country's recent history of people charged for sedition, one cannot help but maintain a skeptical outlook after seeing how these cases were dealt. This is especially so with allegations of high handedness and mischief during the prosecution procedures.Cases like Lim Guan Eng's arrest for publishing allegations that Rahim Thamby Chik had committed statutory rape, Karpal Singh for statements he had made in court about the alleged poisoning of his client, Anwar Ibrahim during the sodomy trial, ex-PKR vice-president Marina Yusoff who said Umno staged the May 13 riots and the most recent sedition charges against the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) lawyers for statements made accusing Umno of committing systematic ethnic cleansing in a letter to British head of state, Gordon Brown at a Commonwealth meeting - all carried the same red-flag as to whether the so-called seditious statements were proven justly in court or not.One might think the rakyat would be matured enough to hear all the details in open court, but too often, we read of witnesses being pressured to retract their statements, cases being postponed until they are struck out for losing direction and an abundance of conspiracy theories.Based on the concept of precedent, this observation could bode badly for the fate for RPK. We can surely expect various irregularities in his trial, but what exactly - we will have to wait and see.While sedition does not allow for detention without trial, unlike its sister legislation the Internal Security Act, what this sedition charge effectively does is bar RPK from ever writing on the Altantuya case or risk contempt - much like Sarawak Chief Minister Taib Mahmud's defamation suit against Malaysiakini as well as New Straits Times Press' suit against bloggers Jeff Ooi and Ahiruddin 'Rocky' Atan. This silencing effect is powerful and that would truly render a blogger - who uses speech and words as communication media - useless.Another blogger Nathaniel Tan - first ever to be arrested - was also investigated under the Official Secrets Act and was remanded for four days only for the state to go silent after his release. There were no charges and no apology.It was evident that the Commercial Crimes Department had nothing on Tan. The blog comment in which Tan got in trouble for concerning former internal security minister Johari Baharum allegedly being given RM5.5 million to let three underworld kingpins go was investigated as an 'official secret'. However, Johari denied the claims and was cleared of any wrongdoings by the attorney-general. Based on this, Tan himself suspected that he was being taken is as a mere pawn between Johari and Inspector General of Police Musa Hassan in a bigger political chessboard conspiracy.Perhaps Tan is luckier than RPK who appeared to have stepped on Najib's toes that are arguably bigger than Johari and Musa's. Scaring the monkeys Silencing RPK is in line with the upper political echelon's intentions of scaring the blogging 'monkeys'. The government keeps forgetting that bloggers are not going to scurry away back to their trees. In fact, they will continue to invade the computer screens and people's homes and minds. If King Kong is caged, I will bet my bottom dollar that a revolt is going to happen. Comments over Najib-Altantuya as well their connection with premier Abdullah Ahmad Badawi have been circling around the Internet since news of Altantuya being blown up became public. Questions over how the media knew that C4 was involved at the outset when the court now can barely differentiate one explosive from another already indicated the shocking lack of information available surrounding the killing. If identifying explosives were difficult why did the police say Defence Ministry-commissioned explosives C4 were used? Why didn't the DPP subpoena Najib as a witness so he can clear his name when it was raised in court? Why did the judge fail to act when Najib's name was implicated? Why were the Mongolians' travel records erased from the immigration database as claimed? Why are we asking more questions instead of getting more answers? Why do we believe in rumours so much?DAP leader Lim Kit Siang has already began the tirade of criticisms against Najib for using the system for his own means. RPK himself had admitted that all his postings are seditious, so why wasn't he charged much earlier? Again, more questions - why now?The government forgets that while laws can stifle words, it can't stifle ideas. Once the word is out, there is no taking them back. Even more so if RPK's trial pans out into proving or disproving RPK, more worms in the can of dark conspiracies will be opened as to whether Najib lied about Altantuya or not.Remember, Najib said he has never met Altantuya during the Ijok by-election two years ago. Fighters for Altantuya's justice continue to hold the minister accountable for these words.Legal prosecution using sedition law can only mean that someone fears RPK enough to subject him to a criminal charge on rather shaky grounds.Who knows if this is Abdullah's way of telling Najib not to wrestle him for the Umno presidency? Who knows if Najib realises that expert witnesses will be called and that photo of Altantuya, Abdul Razak and a mystery "Najib Razak" might actually surface just as Brenden Pereira's alleged plagiarism in the Jeff/Rocky-NSTP suit will reveal itself in open court one day?
The law is the legal way of doing the most unlawful and undemocratic things in the country. Whilst we always think about detention without trial, systematic discrimination, limiting of freedoms are 'evil' acts without giving much thought that such actions are in fact sanctioned by the law."Unjust law is not law at all," said St Augustine. It's time we let the supporters of such laws know how much we disagree with them.
SOON LI TSIN
No comments:
Post a Comment