Improve our Understanding on Seditious acts

Many friends have asked for more information on Seditious acts. Hopefully the below article by Bhag Singh will enriched our knowledge on the subject to help us create a peaceful Malaysia.

Articles of Law: By BHAG SINGH

OF LATE there have been gatherings and street demonstrations by various groups, prompting the police to act to disperse the crowd.

The Home Affairs Minister has invoked the provisions of the Internal Security Act 1960 to detain certain individuals. It is reported that sedition charges have also being laid against certain individuals.

Is it necessary to involve different laws over one incident?
A reader wants to know why different laws are being invoked because a group of people have demonstrated on a particular issue, and whether it is necessary to involve different laws over one incident. Even though only one event may have taken place, different offences may occur which could be committed by the same or different people.

Demonstrations and processions
Demonstrations and processions are not bad things by themselves. The Federal Constitution provides for freedom of assembly subject to specified restrictions. Where demonstrations are concerned, these are adequately provided for under the provisions of the Penal Code and the Police Act 1967.

However, the situation can take a different turn when seditious statements are made at or in connection with such gatherings. When this happens, the Sedition Act 1948 has often been relied upon if what is said or published has a seditious tendency.

What is sedition?
What is sedition has been described by judge J. Stephens as, “Words or writing used or written for the purpose of bringing into contempt the Crown or the Constitution of the Country, or administration of Justice, or to excite her Majesty’s subjects to alter existing laws otherwise than by lawful and constitutional means as well as to incite feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of Her Majesty’s subjects.”

Sensitive issues
Traditionally sedition has been seen as an offence closely connected to being involved in a rebellion and described as “disloyalty in action”. However, the offence in Malaysia has acquired an additional feature in sub paragraph (f) of the Sedition Act which makes it seditious to touch upon what in our context are referred to as sensitive issues.

Under the Act, the intention of the person uttering the words is not a relevant factor in constituting an offence. Section 3(3) of the Sedition Act 1948 specifically provides that the intention of the person is irrelevant.

Another question that often arises is whether words ought to be regarded as seditious if there is no effect produced on the audience to whom they are addressed.

Is the language used calculated to produce the results imputed?
Even in England, the views expressed are not entirely consistent. In Rex v. Aldred, Coleridge J. said that it is necessary “… to look at all the circumstances surrounding the publication with the view of seeing whether the language used is calculated to produce the results imputed; that is to say, you are entitled to look at the audience addressed, because language which would be innocuous, practically speaking, if used in an assembly of professors or divines, might produce a different result if they were used before an excited audience of young and uneducated men.”

A different and opposing view
A different and opposing view was expressed by Cave J. in Reg v. Burns who in the course of deciding whether the words had such a tendency went on to say: “A man cannot escape from the consequences of uttering words (with a seditious tendency) solely because the persons to whom they are addressed may be too wise or too temperate to be seduced (by those words).”

Rumour mongering of “racial conflict”
Another characteristic of our society is that whenever sensitive issues are touched upon, rumours will circulate of possible racial conflict.

Many do not realise that passing such messages can amount to an offence. Section 28 of the Internal Security Act 1960 provides that “any person who, by word of mouth or in writing or in any newspaper, periodical, book, circular or other printed publication or by any other means spreads false reports or makes false statements likely to cause public alarm, shall be guilty of an offence”.

Message in E-mail and SMS is included
If anyone thinks that he is immune when using e-mail or sms, it should be noted that the Act is all encompassing and covers everyone. Even more relevant is Section 211(1) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 which stipulates that it is an offence for a content application service provider or other person using a content application service to provide content that is false.

Penalty upon conviction
Section 8(1) of the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 states that: “Where in any publication there is maliciously published any false news, the printer, publisher, editor and the writer thereof shall be guilty of an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to a fine not exceeding twenty thousand ringgit or both.”

Although this provision is meant to be used against those involved in the publishing business, it is a provision that needs to be kept in mind. In view of this, it may be asked whether it is necessary to exercise detention powers under the Internal Security Act 1960.

The nature of Internal security Act
Unlike other laws where an offender is punished after committing the offence, the Internal Security Act is pre-emptive in nature when security is otherwise likely to be breached.

However, because preventive detention does not allow a person the same liberty and privileges that are otherwise available, it is subject to criticism.

Popularity: 6% [?]

Related posts:

  1. Dayakbaru – we can improve our posting Posted by: Meramat Tajak Observations I have a few interesting...
  2. Understanding SCORE effect on Dayak Posted by Meramat Tajak SCORE is good on paper. The...
  3. Dayak initiatives to improve their economic standing Written by Dr. John Brian Antony Be Independent – depend...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

July 23, 2008 · Filed Under General

Comments

One Response to “Improve our Understanding on Seditious acts”

  1. Henry Anak Joseph on August 25th, 2008 9:44 am

    This of piece writing reminds me of the year 1970. I was in primary three in that year studying in a rural school with only four classrooms. The intake of pupils was done alternately. Thus in 1970 in that school we had primary one, primary three and primary five classes. The primary six class of 1969 had completed its common entrance examination and some of the pupils in that batch who passed the examination were then studying in form one class in a secondary school in a small town down river.

    At that age many of us including myself were aspiring to becoming soldiers. Somehow we never thought of honour, glory or monetary reward. All that was in our mind was to fight and defend the country from enemies. Very often we played the “soldier-communist” game with mud as our weapon. Like many other boys, I never liked to play the communist role. But luck was not always with me. Whether you played the soldier or the communist role in that game was not a choice but depended on luck. We had to cast lots. The winner had the priority to choose which side he preferred. Either one fought on the soldier’s or communist’s side, there was one thing that I knew that was very clear, we fought with our hearts, courages and gallantry. We fought to win. We fought with sincererity. Recently I learnt that the mark of a brave man is that he fights to win and the mark of a coward is he fights so as not too lose. I thought this was just a matter of semantic. No, it is not just semantic or pure linguistic construction. The real man, he fights to win. Kanang, Kaya and Likau are symbols of Iban true spirit and trait and they had fought to win. Not to win for themselves but to win for the country against agression and threat.

    Measured against that standard, our current Iban political leaders in the ruling coalition is something of an ebarrassment and a great disappointment. If for Kanang, Kaya, Likau and Awang Anak Rawang it was not glory and honour or monetary reward that had made them what they are, our Iban political leaders in the ruling coalition are just the opposite.

    I must somehow acknowledge that when recognition is due it ought to be given. But in the first place recognistion should not have been the hankering motivation. Yes, money is indeed very important and without it we are almost nothing. But then it is not everything.

    To the younger Iban males, my message is: don’t bury that spirit of Kanang, Kaya and Likau. That is what distiguished the Iban and the others.

Leave a Reply




Bad Behavior has blocked 957 access attempts in the last 7 days.