While reading Wikipedia on Sedition, came across this: worth reading and informative.
By BHAG SINGH
The Star
SPEECHES made by some speakers at the recently concluded Umno General Assembly have come under scrutiny for their content that has been viewed by many as capable of causing discord and disrupting racial harmony.
People do think in different ways. Some say that this is mere rhetoric at the assembly to play to the gallery and should not be taken seriously. Others, of course, view such statements with grave concern and take the view that some such statements border on, if not, constitute sedition.
Our Prime Minister is on record prior to the assembly as asking the delegates “to be fair, just and careful and not to hurt the feelings of component party members when raising issues”.
However after the assembly, in response to public unhappiness with speakers who touched on racial and religious issues, he reminded everyone that race and religious issues are still very sensitive matters.
Whether any of the statements were seditious would no doubt depend on what was actually said and the effect of those words. But many readers are curious to know whether if what was said was seditious, is it permitted just because it was said at such an assembly?
A statement becomes seditious if it has a seditious tendency. And the Sedition Act 1948 says that it is such a tendency if it promotes feelings of ill will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Malaysia. It is also seditious to touch on the sensitive issues namely citizenship, the national language and the languages of other communities, the special position and privileges of the Malays as well as the natives of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interest of the other communities in Malaysia and the sovereignty of the rulers.
Whilst many parts of the Sedition Act 1948 are inherited from the British legislation, the provisions above referred to are unique to Malaysia and are intended to curb and prohibit public discussion of sensitive issues after the events of May 13, 1969.
At the time this was done, the late Tun Abdul Razak, our then Prime Minister, referred to this event as marking “the darkest period in our national history” and went on to say that the purpose of the legislation was to remove “certain sensitive issues from the realm of public discussion so as to ensure the smooth and continuing function of Parliamentary democracy in this country”.
Therefore, it is relevant to remember the often restated reminder by the Courts that the light of freedom of speech recedes where the darkness of sedition begins. The line is drawn as was said by Raja Azlan Shah J (as he then was) in the following words: “The right to free speech ceases at the point where it comes within the mischief of the Sedition Act”.
It is not open for a person making seditious statements to say that such words are only for the consumption of the assembly and that there was no intention to promote feelings of ill will and hostility because Section 3(3) of the Sedition Act 1948 states: “For the purpose of proving the commission of any offence against this Act the intention of the person charged at the time he …. uttered any seditious words …., …. 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.”
It is in the light of this when sitting in judgment in a prosecution instituted under the Sedition Act that Raja Azlan Shah J said more than 30 years ago that: “It is impossible to spell out any requirement of intention to incite violence, tumult or public disorder in order to constitute sedition under the Sedition Act.”
Almost 35 years ago when the Utusan Melayu in its issue of April 6, 1971 published an article based on a speech given by member of Parliament Musa Hitam (now Tun) at the National Education Congress, a successful prosecution followed against the sub-editor of the newspaper for creating a sub-heading which read “Abolish Tamil or Chinese medium school in the Country”.
Most statements made in Parliament at least enjoy immunity from prosecution or civil suit. This allows statements to be made in Parliament which would not be permissible elsewhere. No doubt there are Parliamentary rules and regulations to regulate inappropriate language and conduct within the House. But even in Parliament there is no immunity against seditious words or statements.
Thus when Mark Koding in his speech in Parliament on Oct 11, 1978 advocated that Chinese and Tamil schools should be closed and to prohibit the use of Chinese and Tamil words in road signs and if necessary to achieve this to amend Article 152 of the Federal Constitution, he was prosecuted and convicted for breaching the Sedition Act.
It will therefore be appreciated that our Sedition law has been worded and modified with particular regard to the circumstances and conditions prevailing in the country with a view to ensuring inter racial and inter religious harmony.
