"Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition,
it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures."
Harry S. Truman, 33rd President of the United States
The University of Malaya Law Society (UMLS) would like to express our grave concerns over the recent sedition charge brought against opposition politician, Razali Idris (ADUN Kijal) on 24 November 2023 after he allegedly made a seditious statement about the judiciary and the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) during the launch of Perikatan Nasional’s election machinery for the Kemaman by-election on 2 December 2023.
This alarming development has garnered considerable public opposition due to its huge repercussions towards the Malaysian political and legal sphere. In view of this, the University of Malaya Law Society (UMLS) wishes to provide our view on this issue from an academic legal perspective. UMLS would like to urge the Government to accelerate the proposed reforms in their manifesto by abolishing the Sedition Act 1948 to protect free speech.
Overview
Datuk Razali Idris, a Member of the State Legislative Assembly (ADUN) for Kijal, has pleaded not guilty in a sessions court to charges of making seditious statements concerning the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC).
During his speech at the launch of Perikatan Nasional’s election machinery, Datuk Razali allegedly made reference to an unnamed individual facing 47 charges, presumably referring to Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, who reportedly received a conditional discharge. He then drew a contrast with the recent conviction of the President of MUDA, YB Syed Saddiq Abdul Rahman who was found guilty of criminal breach of trust (CBT), misappropriation and money laundering. Juxtaposing both these events together, Datuk Razali drew an inference that the government wields influence over both MACC and the judiciary.
The charge against Datuk Razali is framed under Section 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act 1948, which carries the potential for a fine of up to RM5,000 or imprisonment for up to three years, or both, upon conviction. Judge N Priscilla Hemamalini granted Datuk Razali bail of RM6,000 in one surety. Additionally, she issued an order for the accused to refrain from making public comments or postings on social media concerning the case pending the outcome of the trial. The case is scheduled for mention on December 8, during which the prosecution is expected to submit relevant documents for use in the trial.
The Controversy
The sedition charge against opposition politician, Datuk Razali Idris has generated considerable controversy, reflecting the complex interplay of legal, political, and social issues in Malaysia. However, the crux of the issue lies in the manner in which the Sedition Act has been employed to suppress political dissent and curtail freedom of speech under Article 10(1) of the Federal Constitution. This is due to the overly expansive and vague provisions that could label almost any controversial expression as seditious.
The prevailing interpretation as evidenced in Wan Ji bin Wan Hussin v Public Prosecutor [2023] MLJU 2383 is that the prosecution merely has to show that there is a risk of an adverse reaction rather than an actual risk of violence. This sets a notably low threshold for initiating criminal prosecution and imposing penalties. In contrast, numerous international, regional, and national entities maintain the stance that the prosecution of speech-related offences requires a clear and imminent risk of violence, a criterion the Sedition Act conspicuously fails to meet.
In a democratic society, disagreements on various issues, even contentious ones, should be subject to open debate and discussion rather than coercion into silence. A mature and democratic government responds to criticism openly rather than resorting to the imprisonment of critics. Given the repeated assurances by the unity government that the oppressive Sedition Act would be abolished, the prosecution of Razali Idris under this Act by the AGC is deemed questionable.
Our Stance
During the previous election, Pakatan Harapan (PH) repeatedly promised to ensure the abolishment of the oppressive and draconian Sedition Act once they were in office. However, the Attorney General's Chambers' decision to prosecute Razali Idris under this Act blatantly contradicts the government's own assurances. Utilising the Sedition Act as a political tool against Perikatan Nasional and their supporters, mirroring its previous use against PH and political opponents, is unacceptable. The principles should not shift simply because a different political party leads the current government.
Ironically, many opposition leaders who now occupy government positions were victims of the previous administration. It is disheartening that Deputy Law and Institutional Reforms Minister, Ramkarpal Singh, clarified in a recent BFM interview in March that there are presently no plans to abolish the Sedition Act, although the possibility has not been entirely ruled out. In the words of Lord Neuberger, the former President of the UK Supreme Court, as stated in his 2013 Tom Sargant Memorial Lecture, “The more power a government possesses, the more likely abuses and excesses leading to injustice occur. Therefore, it becomes crucial for the rule of law that such abuses and excesses can be brought before an impartial and experienced judge who can address them openly, dispassionately, and fairly.”
While we recognise that this legislation may be deemed necessary to address the escalating issue of racially and religiously seditious statements, its overly broad language leaves room for abuse, given its inherent ambiguity. Immediate rectification through repeal is essential.
During the repeal process, the government should institute a moratorium on all investigations and prosecutions under the Sedition Act. This would uphold justice, prevent perceptions of double standards, and demonstrate the government's commitment to maintaining integrity and adhering to its stated principles.
It is imperative for the legislation to undergo adjustments aligning it with international human rights standards, a recommendation long advocated by independent experts from the UN Human Rights Council. The government must exhibit maturity by being open to dissent and dialogue for the collective benefit, fostering better governance. The abolition of the Sedition Act in 1948 will contribute to the advancement and cultivation of a more resilient and pluralistic political landscape.
In short, we echo the words of former Chief Justice, Raja Tun Azlan Shah, “Every legal power must have legal limits, otherwise, there is dictatorship.”
Disclaimer:
The views and opinions expressed in this press statement do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Faculty of Law, Universiti Malaya and Universiti Malaya respectively. For the sake of conciseness, the UM Law Society has only selected a few issues to elaborate on, which may not represent the whole picture of the incident. The UM Law Society only intends to provide our collective view on this issue from an academic legal perspective.
UM Law Society (UMLS) 23/24
28 November 2023
Email: lawsocietyum@gmail.com
Website: www.umlawsociety.com
Comments