The decision to charge lawyer and Opposition leader Karpal Singh for uttering seditious words against Sultan Azlan Shah of Perak in 2009 was not surprising, although I doubt Karpal would have been charged if he were a Malay and an UMNO leader. The Court of Appeal’s ruling to set aside the Kuala Lumpur High Court’s 2010 decision to acquit and discharge Karpal from the sedition charge was also not unexpected. When a case involves a Ruler, not many judges dare to be on the wrong side.
What exactly did Karpal say during that 2009 Press conference that landed him in so much trouble? He said that under Article 160 of the Federal Constitution, a Ruler may be sued or be subject to judicial review because he is a part of the “public authority”. Karpal was alluding to the fact that a Ruler is part of government, and if a government can be criticised, so can a Ruler.
Yesterday, the Court of Appeal ruled that the rights and freedom of speech enshrined in the Federal Constitution are not absolute. As a result, Karpal’s statements about Sultan Azlan Shah – which were made in relation to Perak’s leadership crisis at the time – exceeded the boundaries permitted by the law and amounted to sedition. Justice Datuk Ahmad Ma’arop added that this was despite the fact that Karpal, as a Member of Parliament and lawyer, has the right to political commentary and can express his views on the Constitution and the law.
If a lawyer who is also a Parliamentarian is prohibited from saying something as innocuous as that, then God save this country. I say “innocuous” because the expression “public authority” is not something that every lawyer agrees on. Even the judges in the famous 1982 Merdeka University case could not agree over whether a university is considered a public authority. Is a Ruler part of government and a public authority? Let the lawyers argue about it. Karpal’s statement, meanwhile, is absolutely legitimate and protected under the Constitution.
I have heard UMNO leaders make far more “inflammatory and seditious statements” way back in the 1990’s, but there were no charges of sedition against any one of them, including the then head honcho. They ridiculed the Rulers unashamedly yet they got immunity. This is the sort of hypocrisy and double standard that will topple the Barisan Nasional Government. If everything the Government does not like to hear is deemed “seditious” (and their definition of this word is ridiculously wide), then they should apply this standard to all and sundry. At least we would then be regarded as consistently stupid, which is arguably better than being accused of political persecution and the selective harassment of Opposition politicians.
The judges’ reasoning is painful to listen to and plainly annoying. They never want to address the crux of the matter, and instead toss out meaningless statements such as there is no absolute freedom under the Constitution. Who is asking them to make a ruling about freedom in the absolute sense? Karpal was merely saying that the Constitution promised us some freedom of speech – limited by law, of course. But any law that permits no freedom at all is bad law. If these judges are sincere, they should give examples of when a criticism or comment about a Ruler is permitted under the Sedition Act. If I say, for example, that the Malay Rulers’ tradition of using yellow adornments in their ceremonies is a throwback to Hindu culture, am I being seditious? According to these judges, probably yes, if there is a complaint about my statement. If there are no circumstances under which such criticisms or comments are allowed under the law, then just say so. Why go through the rigmarole of talking about absolute freedom when the truth is there is no freedom at all – not a bit.
Pakatan Rakyat leaders must repeal the Sedition Act when they come to power, which will be soon. Let the people of this country say what they feel about their leaders, whether elected or hereditary, because the Constitution permits us that much freedom. It is also the core of our religion, which is submission to God. It means that we must not fear any authority more than we fear God. So I write this post with no fear, although it is probably seditious according to the Attorney-General and the judges.
Zaid Ibrahim
No comments:
Post a Comment