`


THERE IS NO GOD EXCEPT ALLAH
read:
MALAYSIA Tanah Tumpah Darahku

LOVE MALAYSIA!!!


 


Monday, November 17, 2014

Rulers’ consent not necessary to repeal Sedition Act, says Proham

Denison denies that the rulers needed to give their consent to any move to repeal the Sedition Act, as claimed by certain parties, as the Act was not part of the Federal Constitution and is a law enacted by the British prior to the nation's independence. - The Malaysian Insider pic, November 17, 2014.Denison denies that the rulers needed to give their consent to any move to repeal the Sedition Act, as claimed by certain parties, as the Act was not part of the Federal Constitution and is a law enacted by the British prior to the nation's independence. - The Malaysian Insider pic, November 17, 2014.The consent of the Rulers is not needed to abolish the Sedition Act 1948, as claimed by defenders of the colonial-era law, Proham secretary-general Datuk Denison Jayasooria said today.
He said that royal consent was only necessary when amending certain provisions in the Federal Constitution.
"The Sedition Act is a normal act. It is not a constitutional requirement... (But) If you want to remove any provisions from the Federal Constitution, then you cannot (do that without the rulers' consent).
On Saturday, the Malay Consultative Council (MPM) claimed that the Council of Rulers must give its consent before the Act could be abolished, adding that its repeal would lead to the removal of the special rights of the Malays, the sovereignty of the rulers, and the position of the Malay language and Islam.
But Denison said that repealing the Sedition Act would not affect any of the provisions guaranteed under the constitution, and the government could still charge people under the Penal Code for offences committed against the royalty.
"They are deliberately distorting the discussion. The removal of the Sedition Act does not mean you are removing the power of royalty... it is just a sense of fear that the Malay community is having," he said.
During the round-table discussion, organised by Proham and UM's law faculty, former top cop Tan Sri Zaman Khan had argued in favour of the Sedition Act 1948, saying it was necessary to maintain peace and harmony.
"Relationship ties between the races is getting worse, and if you abolish the Sedition Act, it will get worse...
"I don't want to see my children living in a country where there is infighting. We are doing well. We are doing very well... why are we rocking the boat?" he had said.
But another speaker at the round-table, the Bar Council's National Young Lawyers Committee president Syahredzan Johan, argued that harmony cannot be legislated.
"If there are racists out there, we will call them out. This is how society can move forward and mature. But we cannot have discussions when we have this law looming over us.
"You cannot legislate harmony. It is done through tolerance and acceptance. For far too long we think laws are magic wands that we need to wave, then everything will be good. But laws should be the last resort."
Bar Council vice-president Steve Thiru had argued during the round-table that criminalising expression or speech without taking into account intent or harm was oppressive.
"Modern democracies recognise there are extremists. We deal with it not by pandering to them, but engaging with them.
"We recognise that they belong to the minority. But we do not let them legislate or set the agenda for the so-called silent majority," he said.
He said that the National Unity Consultative Council's (NUCC) proposed National Harmony Act, meant to replace the Sedition Act, was a "halfway law" for the nation as it slowly moved towards accepting freedom of expression.
"We say we do not need laws to legislate harmony. We are mature enough to end our discussions by agreeing to differ, not by finding ways to destroy each other.
"That's what we want to reach. But it takes time. There is much engagement that needs to be made. So we put into place halfway laws," said Thiru.
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak has been urged to keep his promise to repeal the Sedition Act that defines sedition broadly and does not require proof of seditious intent.
Its use against opposition politicians, lawyers and law academics, activists and Muslim preachers, as well as students in recent months have led to an outcry that it is being used selectively against the government's critics.
- TMI

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.