How the British scrapped their Sedition laws

Malaysia currently is actively debating the amendments to the Sedition Act which many will agree is draconian. And today, Malaysiakini has again published a free article so even non-subscribers can read. The article is How the British scrapped their Sedition laws

Extract: This was where it was first established that for the crime of sedition, truth was no defence and intention was irrelevant as was whether there was any actual harm done, which is still the cornerstone of the principles of sedition in modern day Malaysia 409 years later today.

The Sedition Act is worded so vaguely that almost anything can be termed seditous. The person accused of sedition may be stating the truth as you can see in the extract above. No harm may have been done, but that too is irrelevant.

Group of 93 says Hudud must be rationally discussed by all Malaysians

It is not often that Malaysiakini the subscription based online newspaper published its articles for all to read. So avail yourself this rare opportunity and surf over to Malaysiakini: Hudud must be debated rationally by all M'sians.

They issued a joint statement listing among many others
. Non-Muslims are involved if victim
. East Malaysians didn't sign up for syariah when they joined Malaysia
. All have rights to discuss Hudud
. Might is not right

This joint statement is endorsed by an impressive list of 93 organizations:

The joint statement is endorsed by the following organisations:

1. All Women's Action Society (AWAM)
2. Anak Muda Harapan Malaysia (AMHM)
3. Angkatan Warga Aman Malaysia (WargaAMAN)
4. Archdiocesan Human Development Commission (AHDC) Kota Kinabalu, Sabah
5. Baramkini (Sarawak)
6. Belia Saint Aloysius Limbanak, Sabah
7. Borneo's Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiM)
8. Borneo Resources Institute Malaysia, Sarawak (BRIMAS) ,
9. Consumer Association And Protection Sabah (CAPS)
10. Cornerstone Resources Berhad, Sabah
11. Damn the Dams, Sarawak
12. ENGAGE
13. Federation of Malaysian Indian Organisation (PRIMA)
14. Friends of Kota Damansara
15. Gerakan Anak Sarawak (GASAK)
16. Green Friends Sabah
17. Group of Concerned Citizens
18. Institute for Development of Alternative Living (IDEAL)
19. Islamic Renaissance Front (IRF)
20. Japan Graduates Association, Malaysia (JAGAM)
21. Jaringan Orang Asal SeMalaysia (JOAS)
22. Jaringan Tanah Hak Adat Bangsa Asal Sarawak (TAHABAS)
23. Jawatankuasa Bertindak Kuala Lumpur Tak Nak Insinerator
24. JIHAD for JUSTICE
25. Johor persahabatan Semparuthi
26. Kill The Bill
27. Komiti Belia Perlaksana Child of Jesus, Sabah
28. Komiti Belia Perlaksana Minintod, Sabah
29. Kumpulan Aktivis Mahasiswa Independen (KAMI)
30. Land, Empowerment, Animal, People (LEAP), Sabah
31. LLG Cultural Development Centre
32. Lingkarn Islam Traditional (LIT)
33. Maljis Perundingan Malaysian Agama Buddha, Kristian, Hindu, Sikh dan Tao (MCCBCHST)
34. Malaysia Christian Youth Association (MCYA)
35. Malaysia Trade Union Congress (MTUC), Sabah Division,
36. Malaysian Indians Progressive Association (MIPAS)
37. Malaysian Indians Transformation Action Team (MITRA)
38. Malaysian Students for Liverty
39. Malaysian Youth Care Association (PRIHATIN)
40. Monitoring Sustainable Globalisation (MSN)
41. National Indian Rights Action Team (NIAT)
42. Negeri Sembilan Chinese Assembly Hall (NSCAH)
43. Northern Green Youths, Sarawak
44. Oriental Hearts and Mind Study Institute (OHMSI)
45. Sabah Partners in Community Organising (Pacos Trust)
46. Peoples Green Coalition, Sarawak
47. People Welfare and Rights Organisation (POWER)
48. Penang Chinese Town Hall (PCTH)
49. Perak Women for Women Society (PWW)
50. Persatuan Alumni PBTUSM Kuala Lumpur dan Selangor
51. Persatuan Bekas Siswazah Univesiti dan Kolej di China, Malaysia (LiuHua)
52. Persatuan Kesedaran Komuniti Selangor (EMPOWER)
53. Persatuan Komuniti Prihatin Selangor Dan Kuala Lumpur (PRIHATIN)
54. Persatuan Masyarakat Selangor dan Wilayah Persekutuan (PERMAS)
55. Persatuan Promosi Hak Asasi Manusia (PROHAM)
56. Persatuan Rapat Malaysia (RAPAT)
57. Persatuan Sahabat Wanita, Selangor (PSWS)
58. Projek Dialog (PD)
59. Pusat Komunikasi Masyarakt (KOMAS)
60. Pusat Sumber Adat dan Mediasi Kaum Anak Negeri Sabah (PUSAKA)
61. Rise. Of. Sarawak. Efforts (ROSE)
62. Sabah Banking Employees' Union (SBEU)
63. Sabah Environmental Protection Association (SEPA)
64. Sabah Women’s Action Resource Group (SAWO)
65. Saccess Sarawak
66. Sahabat Rakyat
67. SALT Movement SALT
68. Sarawak Dayak Indigenous Association (SADIA)
69. Sarawak Women for Women Society (SWWS)
70. SAVE Rivers
71. Saya Anak Bangsa Malaysia (SABM)
72. Saya Anak Bangsa Malaysia in Australia
73. Selangor and Kuala Lumpur Hokkien Association Youth Section
74. Sembang-Sembang Forum, Sarawak
75. Sisters in Islam (SIS)
76. Solidarity for Civil Rights in China (SCRC)
77. Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM)
78. St. Marcellinus Church, Minintod, Sabah
79. St. Theresa Child of Jesus Church, Sabah
80. Tamil Foundation (TF)
81. Tamilar Action Force (TAF)
82. Tenaganita Women’s Force
83. Teoh Beng Hock Trust for Democracy
84. The Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall
85. Tim Pelayanan Belia Paroki Penampang, Sabah (TPBP)
86. Tindak Malaysia
87. United Chinese School Alumni Associations of Malaysia (UCSAAM)
88. We Are Malaysians
89. We Are One Race- Human Race-
90. Women’s Aid Organisation (WAO)
91. Women’s Centre for Change (WCC) Penang
92. Women Development Organisation of Malaysia
93. Writer Alliance for Media Independence (WAMI)

Election Offences Act amendments - BN attempt to steal GE 13

Last Thursday, the BN government and their cohorts the SPR clearly demonstrated in unequivocal terms their intent to steal GE 13. They presented a bill to amend the Election Offences Act 1954 to further restrict scrutiny of the voting process by representatives of political parties and make the system more amenable to manipulation.

The original changes proposed included the following: a. removing the right of political parties to set up booths to assist voters establish their names on the electoral roll and saluran numbers identity of voters before going into polling stations (called "pondok panas") [section (26)(1)(e)]

b. removing the right of political parties to have representatives observing the process in the SPR booths inside polling stations ( Barung SPR ) where voters check their names and get their saluran numbers etc [section 26A] c. amending section 14 (1A) so that the SPR would dictate the time of arrival and departure of polling and counting agents of candidates at polling stations. The current law provided for polling and counting agents to arrive at the time decided by the political parties as long as they stayed at the polling stations for at least 2 hours. The net effect of these changes would have been to greatly reduce the current scrutiny of the voting process.

Pakatan Rakyat MPs put up strenuous objections to the amendments. Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim warned the BN in the closing words of his speech on Thursday morning that these new provisions would be defied by the opposition even if passed by the BN. He said that Pakatan Rakyat would not give up the established rights under the law which aided transparency in the process. The BN in the afternoon of Thursday then presented fresh amendments to the Bill backing down on (a) and (c) above restoring the status quo. However they used their brute majority in the House to ram through the amendment removing party representatives observing the process in the SPR Barung.

Opposition MPs argued to no avail that the SPR Barung was initiated by the BN by amendments in 2003 to assist voters to get their electoral and saluran numbers and had been implemented in the 2004 and 2008 elections without any issues. The lame justification put forward by the BN and the SPR was that "this causes difficulties to the election workers". When asked for reports of such "difficulties" none were cited.

Another controversial amendment pushed through was the removal of section 11(1)(c) requiring all printed material during campaign to bear the name of the publisher and printer. Removal of the onerous requirement of naming the printer all the time would have improved the provision as was argued by PR MPs. However removing it all together has opened the door to a dirtier election where all sorts of defamatory or inflammatory material could be put out without anyone taking responsibility for them.

What was apparent was that the BN and SPR were not interested in presenting the necessary amendments to the law to implement KEY recommendations by the Parliamentary Select Committee on Electoral Reform. Nothing had been done for example on key issues such as access to the media and the question of how a caretaker government. Even the regulations to implement "early voting" which was to replace the so-called postal voting system for army personnel, their spouses and police personnel were not presented to Parliament by the last day of the sitting leaving open the question of whether the BN and SPR were going to implement this key change for GE 13.

These legislative moves by the BN and SPR on Thursday made it clear that their real intent was to make the electoral process less transparent and easier to manipulateIt is clear that BERSIH 3.0 is needed even more than before. BERSIH's demand that the key recommendations of the PSC report must be implemented before GE 13 is central to a free and fair election. The Election Commission must resign for the legislative fiasco they caused in Parliament on Thursday and for their intransigence in implementing the PSC report and BERSIH demands. Sivarasa Rasiah Ahli Parlimen Subang Majlis Pimpinan Pusat dan Biro Politik Parti Keadilan Rakyat

Federal court judge says public have to live with wrong judgement

And another judge thought that a bridging loan was a loan to construct a bridge. (A bridge loan  also known in some applications as a swing loan is a type of short-term loan, typically taken out for a period of 2 weeks to 3 years pending the arrangement of larger or longer-term financing).

Former High Court judge Syed Ahmad Idid Syed Abdullah said this when revealing glimpses of a forthcoming book about miscues (improper, unlawful or incorrect use) in Malaysian courts for which he wrote the forward.

Read the rest of what he has to say in the article below, Book on court miscues to hit the shelves after polls, courtesy of Malaysiakini:

Book on court miscues to hit the shelves after polls

Hafiz Yatim
2:11PM Apr 23, 2012

A book about miscues in Malaysian courts, and confounding and fallacy judgments is in the works and is expected to be out after the 13th general election.
The book, which yet to be titled, will only be published after the upcoming election to ensure politicians do not misuse or abuse its contents.
Former High Court judge Syed Ahmad Idid Syed Abdullah (left) said he was writing the foreword to the book.
Giving some glimpses of the contents, Syed Ahmad Idid said he was informed of a statement made by a judge in the country’s highest court.
“We are the Federal Court, even if we hand you a wrong decision, you have to live with it,” he quoted the judge’s statement and described such statements from the bench as “terror”.
“I can sense that you are keen to know who that judge is and in which case this occurred.

"This book will be published after the 13th general election, in which the authors will offer incorrect statements made in the various courts.

“They (the authors) do not want the politicians to misuse, abuse or use the contents in their confrontation with the opposing parties. It will be about vendetta and abuse of power.
“How do I know about the book? I was invited to write the foreword,” he said.
Syed Ahmad Idid who has authored the 'Writing of Judgments - a Practical Guide for Courts and Tribunals' revealed this in his speech at Universiti Malaya’s ‘Legal Night’ over the weekend.
He also mentioned a case cited in the book where the witnesses had given testimony of land measurement in hectares, but when the judge pronounced the court’s decision the land measurement was in acres.
Art of advocacy 'diminishing'

Syed Ahmad voiced concern that the art of advocacy in courts is diminishing.
“I am saddened ... Many among you who have trained to be advocates or wish in your dreams to appear as successful or famous advocates are disappointed.
“It seems our courts are so crammed with cases that the judges now resort to ‘quickies’ and written submissions.You do not have sufficient time to make your claims or put up your clients’ defence properly."

Syed Ahmad Idid also offered some words of wisdom: “One huge challenge is the negative perception of lawyers and the (present) justice system.
“It is our duty to improve the quality of court-life and judgments. By so doing we can change the perception.”
He advised students to keep themselves up to date with the law.
“It is a necessity and may soon become mandatory! Please prepare your own way and discover as much as possible as to what you must know to facilitate your journey.
“There was no Internet before. We did not know of the galaxy which now makes our earth look like a dot on a piece of paper.
“The present situation requires all of us, myself included, to keep abreast of developments in many fields.
“Of course, we need to be ahead particularly in law and justice. We cannot be like the judge in a matter where he did not know that a bridging loan (or 'swing loan') is a short-term financing arrangement.
“He thought the loan was for the construction of bridges."

Syed Ahmad Idid noted the interesting debate in Kedah following the passage of the Mufti and Fatwa Enactment 2012 last week.
“The former Perlis mufti (Asri Zainul Abidin) had stated that such an enactment was “unIslamic”.
“The exchange of views coming from these two Muslims has invited the MCA to judge whether the fatwa is acceptable or not. I hope you will write an article on this argument.

"You can connect it to other fatwas like those against (Indian author) Salman Rushdie and (Bangladeshi author) Taslima Nasreen and discuss the effect of the fatwa, with one of the longest judgments ever written,” he said without naming the case.
The Kedah legislative assembly passed an amendment to the enactment barring challenges of fatwas in the civil and Syariah Courts.

Isn’t a peaceful assembly within the law?

This is a response to a speech by Perak Raja Muda Raja Nazrin Shah’s speech urging Malaysians to respect law and order. It was in regards to the provision in the Malaysian Constitution for free speech, free expression and free assembly, and a further clause that says any law or regulation that goes against the spirit of the Constitution is invalid. So is the requirement to get a police permit to hold a peace assembly valid or not valid? The response was an attempt to get an answer. Here is the response to Perak Raja Muda Raja Nazrin Shah’s speech in theSun:

Isn’t a peaceful assembly within the law?

I refer to your report on Perak Raja Muda Raja Nazrin Shah’s speech (front page, Dec 30) urging Malaysians to respect law and order. However, I would like to ask this question which has troubled me for a long time, and I fervently hope that Raja Nazrin and his father Sultan Azlan read this.

Both Raja Nazrin and Sultan Azlan are highly qualified lawyers and are highly respected (Sultan Azlan was a former Lord President), so would be eminently qualified to clarify the issues I hope to raise.

The Constitution provides for free speech, free expression, free assembly and any law or act which goes against the spirit of the Constitution is invalid. I had the opportunity to ask former Lord President Tun Salleh Abas if the requirement for a police permit for any assembly of five or more is valid.

His response was "it is dicey". He cited some amendments and some clause in the amended Constitution. Asked for Tun’s opinion: "The police have the right to regulate, but not to prevent."

Now, when Malaysians participate in a peaceful assembly, are they respecting or not respecting the law?

I hope to get some answers through your now highly respected newspaper. If not from the royalty, then hopefully from the Malaysian Bar or its members or any lawyer.

Malaysians have to resort to peaceful assemblies and protests because numerous attempts to change things and right wrongs have not met with the desired action.

by
Loyal but concerned Malaysian, PJ

Malaysia at 50: Sedition Act and the Nationhood Forum

Forum: Malaysia at 50: Sedition Act and the nationhood

Organizers

Writers Alliance for Media Independence (WAMI)
Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ)
Institute of Policy Research/ Institut Kajian Dasar (IKD)
KL-Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall Civil Rights Committee (CRC)

Date
24th August 2007

Time
8:30pm

Venue: Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall, Jalan Maharajalela (opposite
monorail station- Maharajalela stop)

Speakers:
Haris Ibrahim- human rights lawyer; initiator, People's Parliament project
Khalid Jaafar- Executive Director, Institute of Policy Research (IKD)
Dr. Dzulkifli Ahmad- Director, PAS Research Centre central working committee
Yasmin Ahmad- Filmmaker, Advertising Film Creative Director, blogger

Chairperson and Moderator: Gayathry Venkiteswaran, CIJ Executive Director

Brief on Sedition Act 1948

Lately, Sedition Act 1948 has been central in the controversies involving blogger Raja Petra Kamaruddin and student musician Wee Meng Chee, or "Namewee", who produced a rap video featuring the national anthem. The broad power vested under the Sedition law inevitably raises questionabout the protection for freedom of expression and whether such stringent limit could limit healthy
dialogue among different communities. Do we need the Sedition Act, a product of the postwar Emergency Period, to protect our nationhood and social harmony after fifty years of independence? Has it made our nation stronger or weaker? Is it time for Malaysians to think out of box for something else? We invite an eloquent human rights
lawyer, an internationally- acclaimed movie director and two articulate political think-tankers to share their thoughts.

Centre for Independent Journalism
27-C, Jalan Sarikei, off Jalan Pahang,
53000 Kuala Lumpur
T : 03 4023 0772
F : 03 4023 0769
Center for Independent Journalism, Malaysia

Contact Person:
Yip Wai Fong CIJ Advocacy Officer.
03 4023 0772, 012-6986662