Judges the last hope when dealing with sedition cases, forum told

Former Court of Appeals Datuk Mahadev Shankar believes judges are the last line of hope in dealing with sedition cases. – The Malaysian Insider pic by Hasnoor Hussain, April 18, 2015. 

As lawyers painted a gloomy picture of what was to come with the amendments to the Sedition Act 1948, a former Court of Appeals judge said hope was not lost and in the hands of judges.

Datuk Mahadev Shankar said if sedition cases were brought to court, the judges must tell the deputy public prosecutors to convince them that what was said by the accused was seditious.

The lawyer had a “philosophical” take on the Sedition Act controversy, which he presented at “The Karpal Singh Forum 2015” today.

"What is the definition of sedition? That is the problem with this act. People don't know if they have said something seditious. They could have been motivated by sentiments or a sense of public interest.

"They will only know (that what they said was seditious) when someone taps them on the shoulder or knock on their doors, preferably on a Friday night so they can't go to court for a remand order until Monday," he said at the forum today in George Town.

Mahadev, a former Suhakam commissioner and a member of two Royal Commission of Inquiry, said there were small groups of power brokers everywhere in the world that made laws controlling the lives and destiny of the people, and Malaysia was not unique.

"What drives them to come up such harsh laws? It is all rooted in fear, the need for survival in this money culture. The more money you have, the more you want to protect it.. it is all due to desire to hold on to position.

"This government is mine, yours and everyone's government. The people there have to serve every one of us. We are all the government's concern. What is their concern in this situation?

"I am not sure we know, and we have to guess, speculate and attribute motives, even sinister motives. Is that the way to go?" he said.

Mahadev said people should be able to talk about what was making them unhappy but with the act, they could not since nobody was sure what was seditious.

"If you don't know what is wrong and what is right, how do you cope in such a situation? There is one option. 'Diam la semua orang' (everybody shut up). I don't know if that will get you anywhere but this is the thing."

Mahadev said despite all this, he remained optimistic, believing that people were generally good and well-meaning and hoping that when judges found themselves dealing with sedition cases, they would tell the deputy public prosecutors to convince them.

Lawyer and activist Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan, who was also a former president of the Malaysian Bar, said that the judiciary could make the difference.

She related the manner how individuals were arrested by the police and remands were requested. She said human rights lawyer Eric Paulsen was recently detained by 10 policemen as if he was heading some terrorist organisation, and the same happened with Parti Sosialis Malaysia's S. Arutchelvan.

Earlier, president of the Malaysian Bar Steven Thiru, another member of the panel at the forum, spoke about the amendments the government wanted to make on the Sedition Act, a law that has been repealed in many countries, including the United Kingdom where it had originated.

He said the minimal three to seven years jail punishment, or up to 20 years if bodily harm also resulted from the alleged offence; the abolishing of the fine, the removal of the need for corroboration to prove the offence, the prohibition of access to electronic media for those who allegedly made seditious remarks online, banning a person's right to travel overseas over the alleged offence were among the amendments that had "mutated" the act.

He said such "mutation" was unseen before in the civilised world. He also said when he spoke of the matter at the Commonwealth lawyers conference in Glasgow last week, he heard a gasp of horror in the crowd.

During the question-and-answer session the panellists, who also included Queen's Counsel Mark Trowell (pic, right), also argued that exceptionalism could not be used as an excuse to keep the Sedition Act.

Ambiga said the argument could not be used continuously when it involved an oppressive law, and noted how the explanatory note in the act stating that the government was very concerned with the increase in racist statements made.

Trowell said as an observer he could not see the threat in Malaysia that warranted the need for the Sedition Act.

The forum moderated by another former president of the Malaysian Bar, Christopher Leong, was organised as a tribute to renowned Penang lawyer and opposition veteran Karpal Singh, who was killed in an accident on April 17 last year.

Trowell, in his keynote address, he said first heard of the name Karpal Singh 30 years ago as a young lawyer who was just starting out when he was defending Kevin Barlow, one of two Australians caught for drug trafficking in Penang.

He met Karpal 16 years later when he was an international observer at his first sedition trial in 2002 and later his second trial last year.

"He just loved being a troublemaker. But there was a sound reason for that. It was because he had the courage and determination to fight for justice and no one was going to deflect him from that cause," he said.

Trowell also spoke about Karpal's sedition cases, the old stories from the Dewan Rakyat thatbwere shared with him, and Karpal's defence of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim of his sodomy charge.

Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng, who launched the forum, said in his speech that Karpal's death had left a void especially during the present "troubling and challenging" times, namely when the Sedition Act was amended into a "juggernaut that tramples on human rights, assaults the senses and curtails citizens' freedom in every way possible".

- TMI