Public debate of ideas best defence against intolerance, says US in Sedition Act caution

Wednesday April 15, 2015
11:08 AM GMT+8

KUALA LUMPUR, April 15 — The US today cautioned Putrajaya over its amendments to the Sedition Act 1948, saying that new provisions in the colonial-era law could end up criminalising public debate.

The US Department of State said it was “particularly worrying” that the new provisions would increase penalties, especially for first-time offenders, and could also make it illegal to share allegedly seditious material on social media.

“The public debate of ideas can be among the best protections against intolerance and can play a positive role in strengthening democracy and combating hatred,” it said in a brief statement.

“We welcome the decision to remove provisions outlawing criticism of the government and the judiciary, and we hope the government of Malaysia will therefore reconsider recent sedition charges brought under those now-defunct sections of the law,” the statement added.

Last week, Parliament passed amendments to the Act that effectively provide the authorities wider jurisdiction to act on speech or activities that are seen as seditious in nature.

Putrajaya’s amendments will allow for criticism of the government in a bid to “create transparent and accountable administration” amid widespread opprobrium over the use of the Act on political dissenters if passed by Parliament.

However, they also made it an offence to excite “ill will, hostility or hatred” on grounds of religion and race as well as to demand the secession of a state from Malaysia, while maintaining prohibitions towards exciting disaffection against the rulers or questioning issues such as Bumiputera privileges.

The Bill also added a new section that imposes a penalty of between five and 20 years jail for sedition crimes that cause bodily harm or property damage, while it increases the jail term for general sedition crimes to between three and seven years.

Prior to the amendments, the colonial era law imposed a maximum three-year jail term or maximum RM5,000 fine on first time offenders, and a maximum five-year jail term for repeat offenders.

Another new section states that a judge shall order the prevention of access to an online publication deemed to be seditious.

Up to 150 opposition leaders and activists have been hauled up under the Sedition Act recently.

Putrajaya previously pledged to repeal the Sedition Act that critics say is used to stifle political opposition and dissent, but later announced in November last year that it will be retained and expanded instead.

Source: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/public-debate-of-ideas-best-defence-against-intolerance-says-US-in-Seditio

International law experts say Karpal’s conviction violates freedom of speech

BY V. ANBALAGAN, ASSISTANT NEWS EDITOR
FEBRUARY 22, 2014
LATEST UPDATE: FEBRUARY 22, 2014 05:58 PM

The ICJ, together with other Malaysian legal bodies, disapprove of the High Court's decision in convicting Karpal of sedition. – The Malaysia Insider pic, February 22, 2014.The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) has joined the Malaysian legal fraternity in disapproving the High Court's decision in convicting lawyer Karpal Singh of sedition, saying the conviction was inconsistent with international law and standards on the free expression of opinion by lawyers.

ICJ's International Legal Advisor on Southeast Asia Emerlynne Gil said this conviction sends out a message that lawyers in Malaysia are not free to express their opinions about legal issues.

Gil said Karpal's conviction was based on the fact that during a press conference in early 2009, he had allegedly uttered "seditious words" when he questioned whether Sultan Azlan Shah had the legal authority to remove the then Perak Menteri Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin.

"This case is another sign of the lack of respect of the Malaysian government for the principle of free expression," said Gil in a statement.

She said Karpal acted in fulfilment of a core function of the legal profession, which is to contribute to the public discourse on matters of law.

The United Nations basic principles on the role of lawyers specifically provide that lawyers, like ordinary citizens, are entitled to freedom of opinion and expression.

She said lawyers have the right "to take part in public discussion of matters concerning the law, the administration of justice and the promotion and protection of human rights" without fear of suffering professional restrictions or repercussions due to their lawful action.

Meanwhile, the Malaysian Bar said the right of a citizen, and in this case, a senior and experienced lawyer to voice an opinion on a constitutional point of law, was clearly within the scope of the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under the Federal Constitution.

"That constitutional right must be interpreted liberally while any limits on it should be interpreted narrowly," Bar vice-president Steven Thiru said in a statement.

He said the constitution allowed Putrajaya to make laws, including the Sedition Act, that limited the right to free speech; but stressed that such laws "must be interpreted restrictively to ensure that the fundamental right was not rendered meaningless".

Steven said the sedition law enacted in 1948 was an "affront to the rule of law" and designed to suppress and persecute the citizens.

"The Act is antithetical to democratic principles and ideals as it stifles and criminalises genuine, temperate and reasonable discussions of important national issues," said Thiru, whose organisation represents about 13,000 lawyers in the peninsula.

Lawyers for Liberty (LFL) executive director Eric Paulsen said Karpal's conviction reaffirms the return of authoritarianism and political persecution.

Paulsen said this was apparent following the dismissal earlier this week of P. Uthayakumar's appeal, also for sedition.

He said the return of authoritarianism and political persecution followed a brief lull during which Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak made a series of democratic reforms which turned out to be a rebranding exercise and ultimately – false.

Yesterday, High Court judge Datuk Paduka Azman Abdullah found Karpal guilty of uttering seditious words against the Sultan of Perak at the height of the constitutional crisis in 2009.

The sentence has been deferred to March 7 for Karpal's defence team to prepare mitigation to obtain a lighter sentence.

Under section 4(1) of the 1948 Sedition Act, Karpal now faces a fine of up to RM 3,000 or imprisonment of up to three years.

The conviction may force Karpal to give up his seat as a member of the Malaysian parliament as the constitution stated that an elected representative was disqualified from office if fined more than RM 2,000 or jailed for a term exceeding one year.

Karpal, 73, has provided legal defence in several high profile cases, including that of opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, whose trial on charges of sodomy had drawn heavy criticism in Malaysia and internationally. – February 22, 2014.

Source: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/karpals-conviction-shows-lawyers-arent-free-to-express-opinions-on-law-say

梁文道现身马章武莫挺李凯伦，“人民无惧国阵去投票就赢了”

梁文道现身马章武莫挺李凯伦
“人民无惧国阵去投票就赢了”

刘嘉銘 2013年5月2日 上午10点59分

距离投票日不到72小时，民联与国阵的政权攻守战胜负难料之际，著名香港时评人梁文道昨晚现身槟城大山脚的马章武莫（Machang Bubuk），公开为公正党候选人李凯伦及对抗威权统治的人民打气，宣称无论选举结果如何，他们已取得胜利。

反观，他说，诉诸镇压手段、挂满一马旗帜及免费请客来争取选票的国阵早未战先败。

笑称主动请缨帮忙

梁文道否认，本身专程到槟城为李凯伦站台拉票。但他不讳言，获知后者参选后，主动请缨贡献绵力。

“有人说李凯伦很有面子啊，把我请来。其实，这种说法是错误的。事实的真相是，我这一次来到马来西亚，听说李凯伦要在大山脚出选。我是主动报名，问我有什么可以帮忙的吗？”

他说，首次来马来西亚时就认识李凯伦。当时，他接触两群不一样的人，即马华公会与李凯伦的动力青年（Y4C），而看到马来西亚的两种未来。

“那个时候，我就开始观察马来西亚会往什么方向走。认识凯伦多年来，我非常了解他的为人、信念和立场。因此，这就是为何我这一次来听说他要选举，问他能否给我一点机会？”

是非对错一目了然

生于香港，少年长于台湾的梁文道头戴多顶帽子，如香港文化教父、凤凰卫视《开卷八分钟》主持人及香港牛棚书院院长等。他昨晚在阿尔马动力空间与李凯伦对谈“步向民主化的马来西亚”时，向在场的300名群众分享他对大马选举的观察与分析。

“这一次我来马来西亚很感动。我们大部分人都相信，这个世界上有是非对错、有真理，公正必须得到伸张。但是大部分时候，这个世界的现实黑白不是那么分明，是非如此混淆，通常是灰色的。”

“我自己从来不敢说，什么大是大非的话，我觉得这种话不能随便讲。但是在这次选举里面，马来西亚走到今天这个地步，我的确看到一些是非对错，真理与公义的问题。”

“是那么的清晰，那么的简单地呈现在眼前，根本不用去问。”

撒钱请吃饭做错了

梁文道举例，大约4年前在著名时事评论人杨白杨家里，一起通过电视收看示威的新闻。但是，转了几个电视台都看不到。

“直到看到美国有线电视新闻网（CNN），终于看到了。就在吉隆坡双峰塔下面，警方用水炮撞开所有示威的群众。然后CNN的记者拿着镜头被水炮冲走了。镜头对着他，他说：这就是大马式的民主（This is democracy in Malaysia style）。”

梁文道说，他在那一刻就知道，国阵政府已经输了。

“它好像很强大，其实它已经输了。昨天晚上，我去过槟城（岛）。我看到满街挂着那么多一号的蓝色旗，有那么多的免费的请吃饭。”

“它那么有钱，请那么多人去吃饭。我就知道，它已经错了。”

“公正不需要恐吓”

梁文道表示，当一个政权来到了动用水炮镇压示威者，花钱请饭叫人投票给它的地步，它就已经输掉了。

“当它告诉这个国家的人，你们投公正党一票就是在投回教党一票，用这种恐吓的方法来警告自己的选民时，它就已经输了。”

“真理不需要请客，公正不需要恐吓。”

他说，李凯伦的父亲李添霖也已经是一名赢家，因为从当年担心儿子参与烈火莫熄运动被逮捕，至今却公然拿着麦克风助选。

投下一票就已经赢了

梁文道表示，一些华人家庭以前从不问政，因为觉得政治很肮脏和残酷。但渐渐的，一家人吃完饭后却各自上面子书论政。

“他们这家人已经赢了。”

他说，在场者若从未参加过任何政治集会，曾担心被记录与对付，如今居然走出家门，头也不回地赴会就已经赢了。

“真理、公正跟正义是这么的清楚，是非是如此判然，谁对谁错太清楚了。在这个时候不论选举是什么结果。再过几天，当你们去到票站开始投下一票的那一刻，你们已经赢了。”

民主化需有坚定信念

尽管如此，梁文道（左图）在问答环节受询时坦承，一旦未如预期中推翻威权统治，民众或陷入沮丧或愤怒的局面。

“沮丧会带来相当一段时间的政治低气压与冷感，觉得付出那么大的努力，曾经有那么大的期望，到最后还是输了。而且，安华说过这一届再败就退出政坛，其他最重要的反对派领袖的年纪则都很大了。”

“另一个是会愤怒，会觉得一定是选举有问题，一定是造假。也许会有激烈的街头行动，甚至是冲突。”

但他希望，两种状况都不会发生。

即使反对阵营最终败选，他说，其实已在某程度上推动了改革与两线制的议程，因为国阵组成的弱势政府最终需让步，与在野党合作。

他提醒，支撑民主化过程的不是一时一刻的情绪，而是坚定的信念。

为维护霸权分裂各族

针对另一名民众表示，担心属于少数群体的华裔权益在民主化中被削弱，梁文道表示，不曾听到任何美国华人提出类似担忧。而事实上，大马政府虚构的种族分裂，是为了捍卫自身的霸权。

“它让每个族群都在为自己的未来担忧，马来人怕华人、华人怕马来人、印度人怕外劳，大家互相害怕。它利用这种害怕，它才能长久执政。

“这个政权是建立在老百姓互相恐惧的基础之上，你说这是个正义的政权吗？”

“在正常的民主国家里，不只是少数尊重多数，而且是多数尊重少数。哪有一个国家，一天到晚让自己的国民感到害怕？”

来源：http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/228759

Time for a regime change?

 Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad
is a member of the PAS
central working committee
and MP of Kuala Selangor.

July 14, 2012

JULY 14 — Whether you call it a Freudian slip or not, Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s admission that he repealed the Internal Security Act (ISA) because “it did not benefit BN politically” couldn’t come at worse time.

With the general election looming so close, the prime minister has indeed laid bare his “real self” to the entire nation.

With that unsolicited confession, Najib has in fact committed the greatest blunder of his political career. Faced with such a predicament, political leaders — especially heads of state — can always resort to blaming others, not the least on misreporting by the media. With this one, he has been checkmated because he was heard and quoted verbatim.

But what is so wrong about it, you might wonder.

Well, there is hardly anything right about that statement. As to its wrongs, that will make up an endless list.

Firstly, the draconian nature of the ISA needs no further elaboration. The antiquated law has always been looked upon with scorn and utter disdain. The untold agony it has inflicted on all its victims will never go away and shall remain for eternity.

Despite its selective and blatant abuse, the power-that-be have always insisted that this obsolete piece of legislation was never used to secure or advance the political interest of the ruling party.

But, alas and behold, it takes none other than the sixth premier, the one who has spoken so much about reform and democracy, to speak the truth!

All efforts at dressing up Najib and his administration by highly-paid, big-name consultants have come to almost naught, now.

To commit to saying that the ISA was repealed because “it did not benefit BN politically” but in fact benefited more of those detained, is both deplorable and uncalled for. That this statement is suicidal to Najib could only be proven in due time.

But more importantly for now, Najib’s gaffe seems to amply vindicate the accusation by Mark MacKinnon who, in an article for the Canadian Globe and Mail magazine, included the prime minister in a list of the new autocrats of the 21st century.

MacKinnon also labelled Najib a “false democrat”, the definition being leaders who “hold elections but have no intention of giving up power” and their “serious political rivals are jailed and their parties are outlawed on legal technicalities.”

With those parameters clearly spelt out, one is reminded as to why Najib repealed the ISA. Is his litany of legislative reforms meant to increase civil liberties? Regrettably, no!

One wishes that Najib at least invoked and paid lip-service to the very notion of universal justice and fundamentally liberty, as the underpinning of his repealing the ISA.

Najib’s infamous statement about defending Putrajaya at all cost “even if our bodies are crushed and our lives lost” now flies in the face of all that. The very many instances of Najib’s paradoxes, double-speak and flip-flops amply demonstrate the trait of a “false democrat.”

One is immediately reminded of his Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 that replaces the ISA, which is now ready to be gazetted after being bulldozed through Parliament. The SOA arguably is lot more repressive and draconian, in some respects, than the original ISA.

Similarly, one recalls the Peaceful Assembly Act is in actual fact a law that disallows peaceful assembly. The opposition leader and other Pakatan leaders have been charged by invoking the provisions of this assembly law after the Bersih 3.0

Najib’s commitment to a new political landscape should be a visible one. Sure and convincing evidence of his earnestness for reform will be truly in the class of a true democrat.

In the midst of all the protests, Najib should have shown a willingness to engage and the ability to accommodate legitimate dissent.

Najib, unfortunately, does not have what it takes to undertake genuine change. Najib’s intention to repeal the Sedition Act has been met with contempt and derision by many, not the least by opposition and civil society groups. Their revulsion is understandable.

Similarly, his performance in the field of economic reform and good governance has been equally dismal.

The Land Transport Commission has announced that up to RM160 billion could be spent on railway infrastructure projects in the country, making Malaysia a tempting destination for international engineering firms.

But would a leadership plagued with crony practices and rent-seeking behaviour augur well with international bidders? For that matter, would change ever be possible if the leaders themselves are the stumbling blocks for change? Leaders whose only concern is clinging to power at all cost.

Is a regime change the only way forward to rid Malaysia of corrupt leaders who have brought a systemic rot into our beloved country?

Time will tell and the dissolution of Parliament is surely the first step of a cascade of events that will bring about a regime change worthy of Malaysia!

Hidup Rakyat! Hidup Malaysia!

* The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the columnist

Source: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/opinion/article/time-for-a-regime-change/

'False Democrat' Najib put on International Rogues Gallery: Malaysia on WORLD WATCH as GE looms

Written by  Wong Choon Mei, Malaysia Chronicle

If Prime Minister Najib Razak thought he had succeeded in pulling wool over the eyes of the Malaysian people and the international community with a slew of reforms that have been described by critics as "whitewash", "insincere" and "sinister", he is terribly wrong.

And just like the mythical Emperor who wore no clothes, the 58-year old Malaysian leader is now being peeled and exposed for hypocrisy and accused of harboring dark intentions to retain power by force as have many of the world's disgraced despots.

Just months ago, Najib was crowned co-champion of "double-talk" by the influential Washington Post which is read by the likes of President Obama and other top US leaders. The Washington Post lashed out in a stinging editorial after Najib controversially deported Saudi journalist Hamza Kashgari home to face certain torture and perhaps even death. The blunt language used by the US paper raised eyebrows and caused many to cough nervously in the corridors of power in Putrajaya, the Malaysian administrative capital.

But no, Najib and his advisers would not take the hint and clean up their act. Stubbornly, they clung to the belief that because they controlled the local mainstream media, they held the upper hand. If they told a lie often enough, the people and the world would believe them!

However, it did not work. Not only have Najib's attempts to pass glib sleight-of-hand laws that strengthen his own grip on power under the guise of 'reforms' been seen through, he has been slammed locally whilst a reputable Canadian newspaper has now categorized him as being a "false democrat".

"False democracies give the impression of being freer than they really are, which means they rarely face the kind of international pressure that the ally nasty regimes get," said the article published on June 8 by The Globe and Mail.

Like Mubarak & Co, Najib will use all ways to cling on

Entitled 'A 21st-century checklist of the new autocrats', the article also places Najib in the same league as the world's worst autocrats. The author Mark Mackinnon had categorised autocrats into four groups - false democrats, mad egotists, violent populists and callous capitalists.

Najib was put into the first category, along with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika, Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi and Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen. The 'ex-members' of the club are former Yugoslavia president Slobodan Milosevic and former Egypt president Hosni Mubarak.

Mackinnon said such leaders "hold elections but have no intention of giving up power" and their "serious political rivals are jailed and their parties are outlawed on legal technicalities".

According to Opposition stalwart Lim Kit Siang, Najib was clearly very upset by the article. But no denial would hold any traction unless Najib issued a public pledge that he and his Umno party would pass over power peacefully if they lost at the ballot boxes, Lim said in response to news that the Malaysian Foreign Affairs Ministry had challenged the Canadian article.

"A week ago, I had asked Najib to declare publicly whether he is prepared to accept the verdict of the electorate to ensure a peaceful transition of federal government if Pakatan Rakyat wins the next general election," said Kit Siang, who also the MP for Ipoh Timur.

"It is significant that at the post-UMNO Supreme Council press conference last Friday, Najib studiously avoided answering this question when it was posed by the press. Hence, the question Malaysians and the world are asking is whether Najib is a false democrat who holds elections but has no intention of giving up power."

Najib now in int'l rogues gallery: GE-13 promises to be "interesting"

To Mackinnon, there is reason for hope in countries governed by such leaders as the "false democracies" they practiced also created the possibility of change.

"Mr Milosevic and Mr Mubarak were ousted because citizens used the political space allowed them in a false democracy... The next election in Malaysia promises to be interesting," said Mackinnon.

However, in a rebuttal published today, the Malaysian Foreign Affairs Ministry detailed a list of reforms initiated by Najib over the past three years, describing these as "an impressive track record by anyone's standards".

The reforms included the abolition of Internal Security Act, ending of a 60-year state of emergency, measures to increase media freedom, amendment to the Universities and University Colleges Act, the enactment of the Peaceful Assembly Act, announcement to review the Sedition Act, repeal of the Banishment Act and the Restricted Residences Act, as well as the implementation of electoral reforms.

"This view does not tally with the fact that the opposition won an unprecedented number of seats in the last election.Next time round, Malaysians will again be free to choose who they want to lead their country - and while the prime minister takes nothing for granted, he hopes he will be given a mandate to continue Malaysia's transformation," fumed foreign ministry under-secretary Ahmad Rozian in his letter.

Source: http://www.malaysia-chronicle.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=35519:najib-undressed-by-the-intl-press-from-champion-of-double-talk-to-false-democrat&Itemid=2

Also read:

A 21st-century checklist of the new autocrats

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/a-21st-century-checklist-of-the-new-autocrats/article4243069/#gallery_4048=slide_4243172

The meaning of a word and the measure of a man

By Dennis Ignatius

May 28, 2012

MAY 28 — “The measure of a man is what he does with power” ~ Plato

By all counts, Prime Minister Najib Razak gave a sterling performance when he spoke to the Malaysian community in London a few weeks ago. He said all the right things about democracy and his own commitment to making Malaysia a better country. As the most articulate and erudite prime minister we have ever had, he can be impressive and inspiring.

He said, for example, that what mattered most in a democracy was the choice of the people and agreed that the people should have the choice to choose their own government. He also said his government wants to engage the people, listen to the people and do what is best for them while acknowledging that the era of “the government knows best is over.”

It’s always thrilling to hear a Malaysian prime minister articulate such powerful sentiments, sentiments that speak to our deepest hopes; not surprisingly, many cheered him on.

But what is the meaning of democracy and what is the measure of the man?

Democracy is a much abused word. Political leaders everywhere tend to bend it to their own purpose. And so we have even the North Koreans calling themselves a democratic republic.

Abraham Lincoln said that democracy is “government of the people, by the people and for the people.” Such a political system is premised upon determining the true will of the people through free and fair elections. As well, it is reflected in a system of governance that is transparent and accountable and that respects the rights and dignity of the people. Such a government is not master of the people but servant.

Is this Najib’s vision of democracy?

Do we have a system of free and fair elections? Do we have an elections commission that has integrity and impartiality? Is each vote equally weighted? Are all political parties on a level playing field with fair access to the media and an equal opportunity to present their case to the people? Are there clear checks and balances to ensure political parties do not manipulate the vote through corruption and money politics?

The answer to all these questions can only be a resounding “No”! This is not the ranting of a few Malaysians living abroad or George Soros junkies or Zionist conspirators; it is the view of the overwhelming majority of the people of Malaysia as a recent Merdeka Center poll indicates. The poll found that Malaysians have no confidence in the electoral process, with nearly 92 per cent of them wanting to see the electoral rolls cleaned up before the next elections.

Simply put, the electoral system in Malaysia today is heavily slanted in favour of the government. The will of the people cannot be adequately ascertained under such a system. In fact, the system has been manipulated to thwart the will of the people instead of giving expression to it.

And, when tens of thousands of ordinary people gathered together to press for free and fair elections, they were met with razor wire, tear-gas, chemical spray and all the power of the state. And not content with that, the government subsequently demonized the demonstrators and their leaders as communists, coup plotters and hooligans bent on violence.

Bersih leaders have since been harassed and intimidated by pro-government goon squads and now face criminal charges as well. And whether or not it was appropriate for the leader of the Opposition to participate in the Bersih rally, he should not face criminal charges for doing do so.

And then we have senior Barisan National leaders warning that there would be violence and chaos if the opposition wins. Such kinds of threats and innuendo are shocking and completely incompatible with democracy. The government, however, allows such threats to stand by its failure to rebuke them and reassure the people that their choice will be respected and honoured whatever happens.

Is this the measure of Najib’s democracy?

In his London speech, Najib also made much about the responsibilities of citizens in a democracy but judging from all that we are seeing, it is clear that what the government demands is the unquestioning support and blind loyalty of the people. To differ or disagree is to be counted a traitor, an agitator, an extremist, a racist or an agent of some foreign power. The term for this is not democracy but servitude.

And that brings me to the measure of the man.

Time and again, Najib has given great speeches promising reform, transformation and change. He talked about making Malaysia the best democracy in the world, about ending the abuse of power, about reforming our national institutions, about tackling corruption and mismanagement, about confronting racial and religious intolerance.

What do we have for all the rhetoric over all these years but a bunch of meaningless acronyms, a few worthless committees and commissions, a clutch of empty gestures and Orwellian sleights of hand. What we are left with is a man who abuses the word democracy and who does not measure up to the challenges he has set for himself.

A man without the courage of his own convictions is a man with neither courage nor conviction.

Najib ended his London speech by calling on all Malaysians to speak up against those who abuse their positions, who seek to impose their views on the majority. Let us all respond to his call and send him a resounding message that enough is enough.

* Dennis Ignatius is a retired Malaysian diplomat

Source: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/the-meaning-of-a-word-and-the-measure-of-a-man-dennis-ignatius/