HU Editor
ALERT as at 1.10am Malaysian Time on 7 Jan 2011: Abun Sui Anyit, activist and native land rights lawyer was stopped by police at Miri airport upon arrival from Kuching at around 8.30pm. He was said to be carrying CDs and VCDs containing recordings of TV Sarawak Bebas (Sarawak Free TV) and Radio Free Sarawak. Police told Abun that they suspected the content of CDs and VCDs were seditious.
Abun had since been taken to the Miri Central Police Station.
Meanwhile in Kuching, 6 Ministry of Home Affairs (KDN) officials and unknown number of Malaysia’s Special Branch Police went to SADIA office just past midnight and confiscated CDs and VCDs. SADIA secretary and activist Nicholas Mujah had been taken by police to the Satok Police Station in Kuching.
Something is bothering the government to such an extent that they are going after its critics at such odd hours?
Updates at 5.30am Malaysian Time:
In Miri, Abun posted bail with one surety about 3am and went home. His statement was taken under the Sedition Act and he had to present himself in court today, 7 Jan morning.
In Kuching, three people were actually brought to one police station with Nicholas Mujah. The other two were social activist BK Ong and SADIA Staff, Nikodemus Singgai. However, the KDN officers recorded statement only from Nicholas Mujah. Mujah’s statement was recorded at the KDN office which is in another location from the first police station.
Mujah was informed that he was being investigated under the Film Censorship Act. After this statement was taken, he was released on bail with one surety and sent to another police station to execute bail. He is not charged but he is required to report back to the police station in one month’s time.
All together, about 1400 CDs/VCDs were confiscated in Kuching (1200) and Miri (200). Two disc burners were also confiscated in Kuching, together with some 70+ disc promotional leaflets. Recorded materials are from the sites below. Seditious? The public be the judge.
Mujah is finally out of the police station, but not before having to wait for a senior police officer to get to the station when there was no senior officer at the station when Mujah arrived to post bail.
TV Sarawak Bebas http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xQGa8daiIw
Radio Free Sarawak http://radiofreesarawak.org
Just insist that they have no case because the materials by any human rights panel are not seditious at all. March to the police station and tell them to release the 4, until a proper case is made, this is subject to interpretation after all. Come on police, just let them go otherwise. Don’t be on the side of wrong, or greed.
Comment by AgreeToDisagree — January 8, 2011 @ 5:44 PM |
An out of the box thought, before I head for the week end, isn’t this just splendid ? Bring it on, so to speak. As long as the activity is lawful, but sufficiently edgy – to rile the rattle snake(s), why not ? Let there be video evidence of all the proceedings … step by step… in slow mo.
Hope it doesn’t come down to that “three years in jail, a RM5,000 fine, or both” thing (RM 5,000 – no big deal, can raise fund but 3 years is damn stiff price for anyone) No doubt, at the risk of uttering a seditious statement by 3(1)C – there will be judges, clamoring for the chance at promotion from a “guilty to the max” verdict.
On a serious note, it does look like Nicholas Mujah and Abun Sui are one of the contemporary Sarawak heroes for democracy, which folk History should not forget. A beautiful “prideful” day – who dare say Dayaks are mindless “BN fixed deposit” zombies – ah ?
Comment by MERAMAT TAJAK — January 7, 2011 @ 6:11 PM |
In the court of law on the issue of “sedition”, the punishment must surely relate to how grave was the “seditious act”
Since the law allows for a fine and or imprisonment, it implies that there are varying degrees of “sedition”.
Perhaps only the most severe cases deserve a jail sentence and a fine. In less severe case may be a fine?
Under section 3(1), those acts defined as having a seditious tendency are acts with a tendency:
“ (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”
Without need to launch into major legal discourse, the above section is in Plain English. It says if you do any of those things you have committed ‘sedition”.
Such a broad law is purely an instrument enacted by UMNO to shut up its critics.
Now in most “democracies” every citizen has the right to criticise the government as much as they like without fear of being jailed as long as you do not advocate armed violence to overthrow the government. You can always say “vote them out” and that is not “seditious”.
Each of the offence listed are capable fo VERY broad interpretation and can be used against your political enemy in any way.
For example S. 3(a) say very simply “to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any Ruler or against any Government”
Now the reasonable man in the street would think there is no need to say or do anything “to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection” against the UMNO BN government
Almost everyone excepting UMNO members etc like Ridhuan Tee probably hates or hold UMNO in contempt and are highly dissatisified with UMNO BN.
So whatever a critic may say or do is to confirm the existing sentiment. Is hat sedition?
Comment by Undang-undang hal — January 7, 2011 @ 7:33 PM |
Meramat may be Pakatan is be contemplating some reprisals against UMNO and since the Sedition Act is so broad a number of charges may be brought against the UMNO leadership.
The corruption by Mahathir, Pak Lah, Najib and Taib could constitute “sedition” as it has brought into effect Section 3(1) (a) (b) and (c)?
S. 3(1) (b) is a peculiar clause:
“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;”
It does not seem to say anything. Can some legal eagle explain?
Does it mean “to incite the overthrow of colonial occupation of the territories of Sabah and Sarawak?”
Comment by setansadvokat — January 7, 2011 @ 7:45 PM |
Are we not nailing on a single man issue? Surely we have the democratic rights to draw attention him the extreme abuse of his position when administering to our State. How the Seditious Acts applies in this context is like a cow jumping over the moon. Even the anti corruption agency appears unperturbed over the lodged reports. Uphold True Justice in Fair Land Sarawak.
Comment by miaowkia — January 7, 2011 @ 10:27 PM |
Undang-undang,
This sounds more like treason which is generally valid among countries. But treason is principally in pursuit with a foreign, external power. All things being equal sedition in the context of what you’re saying is fascism which in more ways than one what the present condition is. Then no rules apply. And if very often when no rules apply in our country the situation speaks for itself.
The condition is similar to China. They pick and choose who they want to hassle.
The conclusion is Malaysia is still a vassal state of China!
Sorry Hang Tuah !
Comment by Wayang Kulit — January 7, 2011 @ 11:40 PM |
Wayang Kulit you are right.
We live in a “no rule” state where the rulers can do as they please. The only rule is they are the ones free to oppress and suppress anyone who oppose them!
Is this not fascism?
Do you not agree that the UMNO BN government is 95% authoritarian ?
They may allow you 5% freedom to speak out but after you have done that they clamp down on you!
Treason is betrayal of one’s country.
In this context Taib and all his cabinet could be charged for treason because they betrayed and sold out Sarawak to foreign Malayan colonial rule!
Comment by Undang-undang hal — January 8, 2011 @ 7:36 AM |
Be a silent fighter….We know that they will do anything to keep them in power. The question is : Are we intimidate by this arrest? A big NO..!!! I would not be surprise such incident will reoccurred in near future. Therefore, this is the time we as the people of Sarawak show them “People Power” in this coming state election…We live once and die once, same goes to them.
Comment by Rentap — January 7, 2011 @ 2:40 PM |
SO CAN SOMEONE COME-UP WITH A GOOD ‘PIECES’ NOW? YES…THE FIRST BLOOD IS DRAWN….LET GO AHEAD WITH IT HH!!!!!!!
Comment by Headhunter2million — January 7, 2011 @ 1:20 PM |
Tsk Tsk HH2M you are quite hot headed!
Blood has been drawn for 50 over years.
We need a considered response since you have to face the mighty state suppression machinery.
There is no more people’s armed forces as before so how are you going to get anywhere?
Form your own army?
As they say “keep your powder dry”.
When the time comes things will be done in an organised way.
We are not talking about elections!
Comment by Headhunter1million — January 7, 2011 @ 2:34 PM |
I dont need an army to take them down…just take one and the others will go down themselves.
If the ‘organise’ way doenst goes anyway…then we goes the other way! Otherwise it same old shit for another 30 years.
Comment by Headhunter2million — January 7, 2011 @ 5:04 PM |
It’s a sign that CM Taib is feeling the heat and let’s keep on turning up fire.
Meanwhile, let’s pray for Abun Sui Anyit, Nicholas Mujar and other activists that justice shall prevail for the righteous.
God bless Abun Sui Anyit, Nicholas Mujar and the other activists.
Comment by PH Chin — January 7, 2011 @ 1:09 PM |
Silly thing to do. But what else is there for them to do?
Plenty …other things like keeping a close eye on traffic movements and congestion. It could make lives easier for mothers, fathers of school children, workers to do carry out their work and allow business to flow in these hard times! :sigh:
Comment by Watcha — January 7, 2011 @ 12:34 PM |
THE REPRESSION HAS COMMENCED.
CONDEMN THE ARREST OF SARAWAK ACTIVISTS BY FASCIST SECRET POLICE!
We strongly condemn the arrests and detention of 4 social activists in Sarawak under the Sedition Act and Film Censorship Act .
We demand the release of all those detained!
Readers, it is not surprising that what we have been saying has happened and that it is being done before the coming general and state elections. The arrests of the 4 activists are politically motivated and not because they exceeded their legal rights to pursue their activities.
One of the authorities’ objectives are clear- suppression of any opposition before the elections. Who else will they arrest and detain next?
It has been forewarned by some bloggers a number of times on the Internet about the authorities’ crack down on the opposition. Opposition does not mean only the political parties but the NGOs and activists and anyone who may oppose the fascist regime.
One HU blogger said “By the way the “free press” may be in for a hard time with all these ministers’ follies blow ups!” at 12.38 am 7th Jan 2011. The words were almost prophetic. Not long after HU published news of the arrests with this “ALERT as at 1.10am Malaysian Time on 7 Jan 2011”
We await details of the charges and under which sections of the Sedition Act and Film Censorship Act the activists have been charged.
THE REPRESSION HAS COMMENCED- OPERATION LALLANG2.
The alarms were raised after Taib and his Kuala Lumpur masters spoke openly and implied action to be taken against a small vocal group of people whom they did not like. This issue was raise by Aljazeerah in its series 101 East “The Fighting for Power” on the Taib regime’s sensitiveness to critcisms of its widespread corruption.
All readers can view the TV Sarawak Bebas and see that the news items are what any “free” press can publish. These are factual reporting on government corruption and its consequences on the people.
TV operators of TV AlJazeerah and TV presenter Fawziah Ibrahim involved in the broadcast of similar articles like 101 East “The Fighting for Power” (starring James Masing and his government) should be arrested too! The VCDs found on the activists may include this Aljazeerah’s earth shaking 101 East broadcast.
VideoPart1:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RX8in2voMl0
VideoPart2:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzm5BwNH8xM
So is Radio Free Sarawak reporting the facts with comments by various individuals. Radio Free Sarawak is operating freely from the UK and they must have obtained proper broadcasting licence or permission from the English authorities.
The UMNO BN government will put pressure on the UK government to take RFS off the air. Will the UK government continue to be a party to suppression of freedom under the Sedition Act which its created in 1948? They must realise in hindsight that they have acted regrettably and they are also responsible for creating the monster what “Malaysia” is today.
The arrests of activists again underlines the reality that those in power will never tolerate any form of opposition and it means that the activists’ work are having effect with the oppressed people.
The group arrested is small in number. But let us all assure the fascist authorities that their action will ignite more resistance. It is no longer the days when the opposition can be bludgeoned into long silence. They should know that we all are one huge group of very angry people including all the oppressed ulu people all over Sarawak who no longer tolerate them and their fascism. So can they arrest all of us?
We support the call for action- mass demonstrations is still our right and in Sarawak we must not be afraid to organise and get out there to demonstrate.
This is the challenge to our determination to see change in Sarawak and one which we must respond to.
Therefore we call on all headhunters and non-headhunters who believe in defending their democratic and basic human right of freedom of expression to organise demonstrations to oppose the use of repressive laws and free all political detainees.
Fair land Sarawak
We will never cease to honour thee
Our loyal sons and daughters will rise
and fight to the death for your liberty
From your high forest hills,
Down to the open sea
We will fight till freedom will ever reign
and we all Live in Unity
Proudly our Flag flies high
above our Country Strong and Free
Long may our Peoples live
in Peace and harmony”
OPPOSE AND RESIST THE NEW WAVE OF FASCIST SECRET POLICE REPRESSION!
FREE ALL POLITICAL DETAINEES!
Comment by Sarawakbaru — January 7, 2011 @ 12:04 PM |
[...] Police crack down on Sarawak activists [...]
Pingback by 10th Sarawak State Election – The Crackdown begins | Change We Must — January 7, 2011 @ 11:24 AM |
hahahaha…I don’t need to say anything…padan muka..sapa suruh buat CD / VCD cetak rompak..kan dah kena rompak dek polis….hahaha
Comment by Miscelines — January 7, 2011 @ 11:03 AM |
Miscelines – your comment is an act of cowardice, just like the arrest of these Sarawakian activists.
Comment by analist — January 7, 2011 @ 11:21 PM |
Even though CM is oversea ,there is always contingence plans in place and somebody to do the dirty work.
First blood has been drawn, let the game begin….
Comment by sam — January 7, 2011 @ 9:57 AM |
See also
* Internal Security Act (Malaysia)
* May 13 Incident
* Sedition Act (Singapore)
[edit] Notes and references
1. ^ a b c d e f Article 19 Global Campaign for Free Expression (2003). “Memorandum on Malaysian Sedition Act 1948″. Retrieved November 25, 2006.
2. ^ a b Khoo, Boo Teik (1995). Paradoxes of Mahathirism, pp. 104–106. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-967-65-3094-3.
3. ^ Emery, Fred (Nov. 8, 1969). “Malaysia unity call against a background of fear”, p. 7. The Times.
4. ^ Singh, Bhag (Dec. 12, 2006). Seditious speeches. Malaysia Today.
5. ^ Lopez, Leslie (Nov. 17, 2006). Race rhetoric is part of Umno politics. Malaysia Today.
6. ^ DAP proves Sedition Act still relevant: Zam. (Nov. 28, 2006). Malaysia Today.
[edit] External links
* Full text, the Sedition Act 1948
Comment by Sarawakfreeinfoservice — January 7, 2011 @ 9:51 AM |
FOR YOUR INFORMATION- “MALAYSIAN SEDITION ACT”
Readers below is a discussion on the “Sedition Act” so that everyone can understand the law which is now being used (again) in Sarawak.
It is different from the ISA and is even more serious and a total suppression of citizens’ basic human rights of freedom of the press, speech, expression and association. It expressly and impliedly prohibit any action whether peaceful or otherwise against the government in power.
For your information this law has been used often in the past to suppress opposition deemed “seditious” that is opposing those in power. It is a very loosely defined law so the authorities has WIDE effective dictatorial and arbitrary powers of arrest and detention.
The biggest series of mass arrests of thousands of Sarawak activists by the British colonial authorities took place in 1962 just prior to the Brunei Uprising to oppose the “Malaysia Scheme” being the annexation of Sabah and Sarawak under Malayan rule. It has been used often in Sarawak in secret arrests of independence freedom fighters and supporters. The public in general has been unaware of the secret war in Sarawak from 1960s to 1990s.
The comments below that there were 200 deaths from the May 13th 1969 massacre is of course inaccurate.
The UMNO government has never revealled the real numbers but an estimate in the thousands is generally agreed on by observers. The irony of using the Sedition Act in 1969 was that PM Najib’s father Tun Razak and UMNO instigated and organised the massacre and was not charged under the Act.
Marina Yusoff a former vice president of the National Justice Party (Parti Keadilan Nasional) was charged with sedition for alleging that the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO)
The Wikipedia commentary has been posted without any editing to the contents.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“The allegations of a political conspiracy against former Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia Anwar Ibrahim led to charges of sedition under the Sedition Act against his lead counsel, Karpal Singh”.
The Sedition Act in Malaysia is a law prohibiting discourse deemed as seditious. The act was originally enacted by the colonial authorities of British Malaya in 1948.
The act criminalises speech with “seditious tendency”, including that which would “bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against” the government or engender “feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races”.
The latter provision includes the questioning of certain portions of the Constitution of Malaysia, namely those pertaining to the Malaysian social contract, such as Article 153, which deals with special rights for the bumiputra (Malays and other indigenous peoples, who comprise over half the Malaysian population).
Contents
* 1 History
* 2 Provisions
* 3 Implementation
* 4 See also
* 5 Notes and references
* 6 External links
[edit] History
The law was introduced by the British in 1948, the same year that the autonomous Federation of Malaya came into being, with the intent of curbing opposition to colonial rule.[1] The law remained on the statute books through independence in 1957, and the merger with Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore that formed Malaysia.
The Federal Constitution of Malaya and later Malaysia permitted Parliament to impose restrictions on the freedom of speech granted by the Constitution. After the May 13 Incident, when racial riots in the capital of Kuala Lumpur led to at least 200 deaths, the government amended the Constitution to expand the scope of limitations on freedom of speech. The Constitution (Amendment) Act 1971 named Articles 152, 153, and 181, and also Part III of the Constitution as specially protected, permitting Parliament to pass legislation that would limit dissent with regard to these provisions pertaining to the social contract.
(The social contract is essentially a quid pro quo agreement between the Malay and non-Malay citizens of Malaysia; in return for granting the non-Malays citizenship at independence, symbols of Malay authority such as the Malay monarchy became national symbols, and the Malays were granted special economic privileges.)
With this new power, Parliament then amended the Sedition Act accordingly. The new restrictions also applied to Members of Parliament, overruling Parliamentary immunity; at the same time, Article 159, which governs Constitutional amendments, was amended to entrench the “sensitive” Constitutional provisions; in addition to the consent of Parliament, any changes to the “sensitive” portions of the Constitution would now have to pass the Conference of Rulers, a body comprising the monarchs of the Malay states.[2]
These later amendments were harshly criticised by the opposition parties in Parliament, who had campaigned for greater political equality for non-Malays in the 1969 general election. Despite their opposition, the ruling Alliance (later Barisan Nasional) coalition government passed the amendments, having maintained the necessary two-thirds Parliamentary majority.[2]
In Britain, the laws were condemned, with The Times of London stating they would “preserve as immutable the feudal system dominating Malay society” by “giving this archaic body of petty constitutional monarchs incredible blocking power”; the move was cast as hypocritical, given that Deputy Prime Minister Tun Abdul Razak had spoken of “the full realization that important matters must no longer be swept under the carpet…”[3]
[edit] Provisions
The Sedition Act would be unconstitutional, as the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, without Article 10(2) of the Constitution, which permits Parliament to enact “such restrictions as it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof, friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality and restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament or of any Legislative Assembly or to provide against contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to any offence”.
Article 10(4) also states that “Parliament may pass law prohibiting the questioning of any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of Part III, article 152, 153 or 181 otherwise than in relation to the implementation thereof as may be specified in such law”.
These portions of the Constitution have been criticised by human rights advocates, who charge that “under the Malaysian Constitution, the test is not whether or not the restriction is necessarily but the much lower standard of whether or not Parliament deems the restrictions necessary or even expedient. There is no objective requirement that the restriction actually is necessary or expedient and the latter standard is much lower than that of necessity.”[1]
Section 4 of the Sedition Act specifies that anyone who “does or attempts to do, or makes any preparation to do, or conspires with any person to do” an act with seditious tendency, such as uttering seditious words, or printing, publishing or importing seditious literature, is guilty of sedition. It is also a crime to possess a seditious publication without a “lawful excuse”. The act defines sedition itself as anything which “when applied or used in respect of any act, speech, words, publication or other thing qualifies the act, speech, words, publication or other thing as having a seditious tendency”.
Under section 3(1), those acts defined as having a seditious tendency are acts with a tendency:
“ (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.
”
Section 3(2) provides certain exceptions, providing examples of speech which cannot be deemed seditious. It is not seditious to “show that any Ruler has been misled or mistaken in any of his measures”, nor is it seditious “to point out errors or defects in the Government or Constitution as by law established”. It is also not seditious “to attempt to procure by lawful means the alteration of any matter in the territory of such Government as by law established” or “to point out, with a view to their removal, any matters producing or having a tendency to produce feelings of ill-will and enmity between different races or classes of the population of the Federation”. However, the act explicitly states that any matter covered by subsection (1)(f), namely those matters pertaining to the Malaysian social contract, cannot have these exceptions applied to it.
Section 3(3) goes on to state that “the intention of the person charged at the time he did or attempted (a seditious act) … shall be deemed to be irrelevant if in fact the act had, or would, if done, have had, or the words, publication or thing had a seditious tendency”. This latter provision has been criticised for overruling mens rea, a legal principle stating that a person cannot be guilty of a crime if he did not have the intent to commit a crime.[1]
A person found guilty of sedition may be sentenced to three years in jail, a RM5,000 fine, or both.
[edit] Implementation
In 2003, then Deputy Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi threatened to charge opponents of a change in educational policy with sedition.
In recent times, the law has invoked to quell political opposition to the government. Famously in 2000, Marina Yusoff, a former vice president of the National Justice Party (Parti Keadilan Nasional) was charged with sedition for alleging that the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO), the leading party in the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition, had provoked the massacres of Chinese in the May 13 Incident.
The editor of an opposition organ was charged with sedition for alleging a government conspiracy against Anwar Ibrahim, a former Deputy Prime Minister, had led to his political downfall; Anwar’s lead counsel, Karpal Singh, who was also deputy chairman of the opposition Democratic Action Party (DAP), had also been charged with sedition after claiming Anwar had been poisoned by “people in high places”.
Lim Guan Eng, a former Member of Parliament from the DAP, had likewise been found guilty of sedition in 1998 for accusing the Attorney General of failing to properly handle a case where the Chief Minister of Malacca had been charged with statutory rape of a schoolgirl.[1]
In 2003, the act was also invoked by then Deputy Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi (who succeeded Mahathir bin Mohamad as Prime Minister of Malaysia later that year); Abdullah stated that the government would charge those who opposed the change in educational policy emphasising the teaching of science and mathematics in English with sedition.
That same year, the online publication Malaysiakini was temporarily shut down under the Sedition Act after it published a letter criticising Malay special rights and compared the Youth wing of a government party to the Ku Klux Klan.[1] Previously in 1978, the Sedition Act had been invoked in another case of educational policy, when Mark Koding argued in Parliament that the government ought to close down Chinese and Tamil vernacular schools.[4]
Human rights advocates have alleged that the Sedition Act has an “excessively vague” definition of sedition. These critics charge that this vagueness constitutes “an invitation to abuse and authorities may seek to apply them in situations which bear no relation to the original purpose of the law”.
Although they concede that the act provides exceptions that would “clarify and narrow the scope of the offence”, they allege that “Any rule which needs an exception in favour of pointing out that the rulers are misled is quite obviously unacceptably vague.” It is also claimed that the Malaysian judiciary has “given an extremely wide interpretation to the crime of sedition”, with the result of a chilling effect on open dissent to government policies.[1]
In 2006, the DAP, which had been a vocal opponent of the Sedition Act and the Internal Security Act (ISA), filed a police report against UMNO, whose annual general assembly had been noted for its heated rhetoric, with delegates making statements such as “Umno is willing to risk lives and bathe in blood to defend the race and religion. Don’t play with fire. If they (non-Malays) messed with our rights, we will mess with theirs.”[5]
In response, Information Minister Zainuddin Maidin said that this indicated that the Sedition Act continued to remain relevant to Malaysian society. He also denied that the government intentionally used the act to silence dissent or to advance particular political interests.[6]
end ______________________________________________________
posted by FREE SARAWAK INFORMATION SERVICE- in the service of a free and independent Sarawak
Comment by Sarawakfreeinfoservice — January 7, 2011 @ 9:47 AM |
Human rights advocates have alleged that the Sedition Act has an “excessively vague” definition of sedition ………..
So why Pakatan Rakyat did not include the abolition of the Sedition Act,in addition to the Internal Security Act … in the 100-day plan ?
Comment by MERAMAT TAJAK — January 7, 2011 @ 11:40 AM |
Good question!
The Sedition Act is broader and more repressive than the ISA but then it is pointless to compare.
The government can use any reason to arrest and detain people and doesn’t need to explain itself.
We all have to bear the burden of not just a corrupt government plus the oppression under their laws which enable them to plunder the country at will.
Comment by Sarawakbaru — January 7, 2011 @ 12:17 PM |
“…The Sedition Act is broader and more repressive…”
Does it come with lengthy Detention Without Trial?
There are laws in some countries which have become obsolete and never adhered to, though they should be repealed. The ISA, as people come to understand it, is you disappear and nobody knows what happens to you. Usually they use it also to shut cronies up from talking, those who might have a change of heart.
Comment by Wayang Street — January 7, 2011 @ 5:05 PM |
Wayang Street,
Even if the motive to abolish ISA (in 100-day plan) is due to “lengthy detention without trial”, and Sedition Act may not have such feature – won’t it make sense to abolish the Sedition Act as well for “excesively vague definition”, since it can also lead to arbitrary arrest, as a form of political intimidation ?
Why ISA only, and not SA – i’m still curious to know the rationale.
Comment by MERAMAT TAJAK — January 7, 2011 @ 5:36 PM |
Good question.
The furor over Selangor highlights some of the worms planted or left in the Constitution. Interestingly, Penang, Malacca, Sabah and Sarawak have slightly different flavors in the laws.
If PR have greater foresight, it’s a lot of work and may take time.
Comment by Wayang Street — January 7, 2011 @ 6:41 PM |
CHAI THYE POH- DETAINED 32 YEARS AS LEE KUAN YEW’S POLITICAL PRISONER UNDER ISA
excerpts posted from Wikipedia on Chia Thye Poh
The ISA allows for indefinite detention as the detention can be renewed at the end of every 2 years.
The following case illustrates the extreme vindictiveness of the Lee Kuan Yew gov’t. It was so cruel as to continuing detaining the man long after the allegations associated with the Communist Party of Malaya had lapsed with the surrender of the CPM 1989.
The longest imprisoned political prisoner in the world was Chai Thye Poh (unsung hero)- jailed for 32 years (1966 to 1998)- 5 years more than Nelson Mandela’s 27 years.
“Chia Thye Poh (simplified Chinese: 谢太宝; traditional Chinese: 謝太寶, born 1941[2]) was the longest-serving political prisoner in the history of Singapore and perhaps the longest-serving prisoner of conscience of the 20th century, if not one of its longest-serving political prisoners.”
“Detained under the Internal Security Act of Singapore for allegedly conducting pro-communist activities against the government, he was imprisoned for 23 years without charge or trial and subsequently placed under conditions of house arrest for another nine years — in which he was first confined to the island of Sentosa and then subject to restrictions on his place of abode, employment, travel, and exercise of political rights.
On 29 October 1966,[9] he and 22 other Barisan Sosialis leaders were arrested pursuant to powers afforded by the Internal Security Act.[6] The official statement released by the Government alleged that Barisan’s attempt to arouse a mass struggle outside of parliament was prejudicial to the stability of Singapore. The round of arrests was the second one conducted by the government, including those occurring as part of Operation Coldstore in 1963. Chia was specifically detained for his role in organising and leading the 8 October street procession.[7]
The other detainees were released eventually after they each signed a document promising to renounce violence and sever ties with the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM).[7] However, he refused as he felt that signing such a document would imply that he was affiliated with the CPM and, in his own words: “to renounce violence is to imply you advocated violence before. If I had signed that statement I would not have lived in peace.”[3] Thus, in time, and without ever being the subject of an indictment or a criminal trial, he became one of the longest serving political prisoners in the world – with some consequent restrictions upon his civil rights remaining in place for a total of more than 32 years subsequent to his initial arrest.
The length of his detention has been compared to that of Nelson Mandela, who was imprisoned for a total period longer than 27 years subsequent to his arrest, trial and convictions for treason, sabotage and other political crimes.[2]“
Comment by Sarawakfreeinfoservice — January 7, 2011 @ 6:56 PM |
Contrary to what UMNO’s BN said about their political deposits, Sarawak and Sabah have always been the Predator’s preys since a large population of its rural voters remain uneducated. Government agencies or BN YBs who brokered NCR land for development under the “new development scheme” had secretly sold the NCR land to private plantation companies in many instances. Never before had the rural Dayaks from Sarawak been so bold as to sue the government or resort to blocking plantation operators from entering their land when their complaints had fallen on deaf ears of BN YBs or the police.
With the police acting on the thief minister’s instruction to crack down on the NCR land activists, it is time for the Dayaks to revolt and hold massive demonstration and protest. Regardless of our political affiliations and parties, Dayaks must be strongly united now more than ever to fight for our rights as these activists and some landowners have not committed any crimes at all. We must not let the thief minister trampled upon us, intimidate us into total submission and rob us of our NCR lands which are our life time assets.
It is a BLACK DAY for Sarawak politic. Wear black and or red to protest against Taib Mahmud. Send him a coffin for his wedding present on January 15 2011.
Comment by Mata Kuching — January 7, 2011 @ 5:40 AM |
Guess its time to activate the HH underground movement………
Comment by Headhunter2million — January 7, 2011 @ 3:45 AM |