The Insidious Charge of Sedition

Raja Petra to be Charged with Sedition Today

The Star

 

KUALA LUMPUR: Raja Petra Kamaruddin, the editor of news portal Malaysia Today, is expected to be charged with sedition at the magistrates’ court in the Kuala Lumpur Court Complex in Jalan Duta today.

He is expected to appear in court at 9.30am.

 

Raja Petra was investigated under section 4 (1) of the Sedition Act 1948 for the article “Let’s send the Altantuya murderers to hell.” The article was posted on his website on April 25.

 

Another blogger, Syed Ali Akbar, was also summoned to court and is expected to be charged under the same Act. He allegedly posted an article on Arabs and Islam on his blog .

 

Raja Petra’s wife, Marina Lee Abdullah, said the police officer who called them did not state what Raja Petra would be charged with. “The police officer told us to just appear in court and we would be informed then,” she said. Marina said once they know what the charges are, they would post bail.

 

To raise bail, they will involve the people. They will put up their bank account number on the website and encourage Netizens to bank in RM1 each.On Friday,

 

Raja Petra was summoned to the Federal Commercial Crimes Investigations Department (CCID) in Bukit Perdana at 4pm and was allowed to leave two hours later.

 

Eight police officers from the CCID visited his house in Sungai Buloh at 9am and seized a laptop and a CPU belonging to him before leaving at 11am.

______________________________________________________________

 

RPK will be charged under Section 4(1) of the Sedition Act 1948. The verbatim wordings of the relevant sections the Act, in Bahasa Melayu, are as follows:-

 

Akta Hasutan 1948

4. (1)       Mana-mana orang yang—

(a) melakukan atau cuba melakukan, atau membuat apaapa persediaan untuk melakukan, atau berkomplot dengan mana-mana orang untuk melakukan, apa-apa perbuatan yang mempunyai kecenderungan menghasut, atau, jika dilakukan, akan mempunyai kecenderungan menghasut;

 

(b) menyebut apa-apa perkataan menghasut;

 

(c) mencetak, menerbitkan, menjual, menawarkan untuk dijual, mengedarkan atau mengeluarkan semula apa-apa penerbitan menghasut; atau

 

(d) mengimport apa-apa penerbitan menghasut, melakukan suatu kesalahan dan, apabila disabitkan, boleh bagi kesalahan kali pertama didenda tidak melebihi lima ribu Ringgit atau dipenjarakan selama tempoh tidak melebihi tiga tahun atau kedua-duanya dan, bagi kesalahan yang kemudian, boleh dipenjarakan selama tempoh tidak melebihi lima tahun; dan apaapa penerbitan menghasut yang didapati dalam milik orang itu atau yang digunakan sebagai keterangan dalam perbicaraannya hendaklah dilucuthakkan dan boleh dimusnahkan atau dilupuskan dengan apa-apa cara lain sebagaimana yang diarahkan oleh mahkamah.

 

2.             “menghasut” apabila dipakai bagi atau digunakan berkenaandengan apa-apa perbuatan, ucapan, perkataan, penerbitan atauapa-apa benda lain menjadikan perbuatan, ucapan, perkataan,penerbitan atau benda lain itu sebagai yang mempunyai kecenderungan menghasut;

 

3. (1)       Sesuatu “kecenderungan menghasut” ialah kecenderungan—

(a) bagi mendatangkan kebencian atau penghinaan atau bagi membangkitkan perasaan tidak setia terhadap mana-mana Raja atau Kerajaan;

 

(b) bagi membangkitkan rakyat mana-mana Raja atau penduduk mana-mana wilayah yang diperintah oleh mana-mana Kerajaan supaya cuba mendapatkan perubahan, dengan apa-apa cara selain cara yang sah, apa-apa jua yang wujud menurut undang-undang di dalam wilayah Raja itu atau wilayah yang diperintah oleh Kerajaan itu;

 

(c) bagi mendatangkan kebencian atau penghinaan atau bagi membangkitkan perasaan tidak setia terhadap pentadbiran keadilan di Malaysia atau di mana-mana Negeri;

 

(d) bagi menimbulkan perasaan tidak puas hati atau tidak setia di kalangan rakyat Yang di-Pertuan Agong atau rakyat Raja mana-mana Negeri atau di kalangan penduduk Malaysia atau penduduk mana-mana Negeri;

 

(e) bagi mengembangkan perasaan niat jahat dan permusuhan antara kaum atau golongan penduduk yang berlainan di Malaysia; atau

 

(f) bagi mempersoalkan apa-apa perkara, hak, taraf, kedudukan, keistimewaan, kedaulatan atau prerogatif yang ditetapkan atau dilindungi oleh peruntukan Bahagian III Perlembagaan Persekutuan atau Perkara 152, 153 atau 181 Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

________________________________________________________

 

Comment:

The news reported that the investigation, thus perhaps later the charge, is made due to the implicatory nature of RPK’s article. In the light of the sections and the news report above stated, It is in my opinion that this action made against Raja Petra by the government seems to be done in the wrong cause of action.

 

Reading through the sections above I tend to find that the parliament’s intention in promulgating the act is to protect the Malay Sultanates and the Malaysian Government from any seditious act that will cause the Rakyat to go against them.

 

I wish to ask… Are the implicatees be looked upon and treated by the law as an institution which is The Government, rather than individuals? Should not all men regardless of their position, status and lineage be subjected to the law and be subservient to the Government as an institution? Only monarchs and despots enjoy self institution-ship. A king is by himself an institution different from an officer who is just a person who is given that office. It is just that simple. Individuals should remain individuals, as mere mortals we are, separated from the Government true to the notion of democracy.

 

So, within the context of the said RPK’s article, what will be the basis or subject matter of this allegation of sedition? Sedition against individuals or sedition against the government. If the charge is made based on the former then I believe that this is a wrong interpretation and application of the law and if a conviction follow suit it can be regarded as an abuse of the law.

 

Under these circumstances I believe that the best cause of action would be through the law of torts of defamation under libel together with the application of The Defamation Act 1957. Through this legal action persons implicated by writings of others can restore the good will of their names provided that they can establish the ingredients of defamation.

 

An actionable defamatory statement has three ingredients:

1. it must be published,
2. it must refer to the complainant and
3. it must be false.

According to the facts available, the first and second ingredients can be easily established. It’s the third element that will be the bone of contention and the burden of showing that the statements are a lie will be borne by the complainant i.e. the persons implicated.

 

All these are actually simple matter of interpretation of the law. A wrongful application of the Sedition Act, which is already considered by many quarters of the public as draconian will only make things worse for the government and the judiciary under the current situation of Malaysian socio-politics. The government should re-think its cause of action so that true justice can be done and be given to those who deserve it.

 

This sedition case will be one of the most interesting court cases this year. If this continues I believe that many issues will be brought up before the court thus the public. Let us all follow the white rabbit and see how far this thing goes.