Who Does The Sedition Act Really Protect?

by | Sep 28, 2014 | Law, Politics

“Who Does The Sedition Act Protect?”

That is an important question that Perkasa president (Datuk Ibrahim Ali) and Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Datuk Paul Low Seng Kuan) have attempted to address in the past week or so.

Datuk Ibrahim Ali in all his wisdom articulated that the Sedition Act was enacted protect the non-malays. He was quoted as saying, “The Malays are the majority group, if there is any conflict, it would not affect them but affect the minority groups.”

It appears as though as Datuk Ibrahim Ali has found how to ameliorate decades of unresolved racial tension! However, his statement is oversimplifying everything.

What he’s trying to say is that, with all the troublemakers locked up, there wouldn’t be any conflict between the races. We will see below why this isn’t true

Moving on to Datuk Paul Low Seng Kuan, the former Transparency International has drawn a lot of flak for insisting that the Sedition Act is needed to preserve peace and harmony in a multiracial society.

What he said bears some resemblance to what was said by Datuk Ibrahim Ali. Basically, the Sedition Act will be used “to stop anyone from making remarks that incite violence and hatred in our society”

A quick reflection of the use (or misuse) of the Sedition Act will clearly reveal to us who it really protects.

As we all know, anti-islam and anti-malay comments are treated as seditious. No argument there as the Attorney General has been very consistent on this issue. Apparently now, anti-umno statements would be regarded as seditious (as per RSN Rayer’s “UMNO celaka” remark)

The latest additions to the list of seditious issues include legal opinion (the late Karpal Singh, Edmund Bon), liking an Israel related Facebook page (unnamed 17 year old schoolboy), publishing an article regarding an interview on police treatment (Susan Loone), and academic opinion (Azmi Sharom)

Will there come a time when everything under the sun is seditious? Nah!

1. Anti-Hindu statements are not seditious.

(i) Dr Ridhuan Tee Abdullah:

“Pernahkah kita bersungut ketika perayaan Thaipusam? Seminggu sebelum perayaan, seluruh kawasan sekitar Batu Caves sesak. Kenderaan diparkir sesuka hati. Lautan manusia satu warna berhimpun, seolah-olah tidak ada warna lain lagi di negara ini.”

Translation:
Have we (the Muslims) ever complained during Thaipusam? A week before the festival, the entire area surrounding Batu Caves experiences traffic jam. Cars are parked everywhere. There is an ocean of similar coloured humans gathered, as if no other colour exists in this country

(ii) Datuk Zulkifli Noordin

“I have been to Sungai Ganga before. How can you (the Hindus) say it’s pure? There are chicken carcasses and small sticks floating,”

2. Anti-Christian statements are not seditious

(i) Anti-christian seminar at UiTM

“Every Jesus follower should enter Islam. If not, it would be a betrayal to Jesus” (Insan LS Mokoginta)

“The Christian gospel is a fake gospel.” (Masyud SM)

(ii) Datuk Ibrahim Ali

“Muslims must unite to protect their religion. They must seize those Bibles, including the Malay editions, which contained the term Allah and other Arabic religious terms, and burn them”

(iii) Dr Ridhuan Tee Abdullah

“Unfortunately Muslims do not go to churches to see how they (Christians) condemn Muslims. We are accused of oppression and cruelty towards Christians”
– such claims are baseless as churches do not preach hatred towards other religions

3. Selangor ‘darul babi’ is not  seditious

(i) Dr Ridhuan Tee Abdullah

“I am worried, if this project (RM100m integrated pig farm) is approved, Selangor will be known as darul babi”

If indeed the Sedition Act is meant to protect the non-malays or even to preserve peace and harmony, why are all the aforementioned individuals getting away scot-free despite all the hue and cry?

So who does the Sedition Act really protect? Until now, no one can say for sure. It remains a hot potato

Henry Ward Beecher once famously said, “Laws and institutions, like clocks, must occasionally be cleaned, wound up, and set to true time.” Ergo, the Sedition Act needs to be ammended or abrogated in order to avoid the dangers of selective prosecution

* Check it out also at The Malaysian Insider, The Malay Mail Online, Malaysiakini, and The Malaysian Times

The Unbearable Stench Of Hypocrisy

by | Jul 8, 2014 | Law, Politics

Former Perkasa deputy president Datuk Zulkifli Noordin (henceforth DZN) labelled those who commented against the recent Federal Court ruling on the Allah issue as “rude and insolent” and questioned whether these people wanted another May 13-like riots.

Apparently when the High Court rules in favour of the Catholic church, it is alright to question the decision, and thus appeal to a higher court

In response to the decision of the High Court allowing the Herald to use “Allah” in its publication, DZN stated “I can’t understand how any Muslim can support this judgment”.

When it comes to the Federal Court’s refusal to grant The Herald leave for appeal, it is NOT alright to question the decision (eventhough the Catholic church can legally file for a judicial review)

DZN urged the religious extremists to respect the court decision, the Federal Constitution and the sensitivity of other religions including Islam and Christianity

Respect the sensitivity of other religions? That is rich coming from the guy who gave a religious sermon belittling Hinduism in March 2013!

Anyone smell the hypocrisy here? Basically the principle applied is ‘anything not in my favour is questionable while anything in my favour should not be questioned’

In all his wisdom (or lack of it), DZN labelled those who opposed his principle as “rude,” “insolent” and even went to the extent of questioning whether those people wanted a 13th May 2.0

He is annoyed by the speck of sawdust in his brother’s eye but is oblivious to the plank in his own eye!

DZN went on to say that the religious extremists challenged the Muslim community by threating to continue using the word Allah in churches and in their worship

Apparently DZN was not aware (at the time of blogging) that Putrajaya issued a statement clarifying that the Federal Court’s ruling on the Allah issue applied only to the Catholic weekly, Herald.

The statement added that Malaysian Christians can still use the word Allah in church and that the government remains committed to the 10-point solution

Whoops, looks like DZN jumped the gun when he blamed the “religious extremists.” So who is next in line to be blamed? The government for coming up with the 10-point solution? The courts for not making this decision binding upon all future use of “Allah” by non-muslims?

Although Selangor has the 1988 Non-Islamic Religions (Control of Propagation Among Muslims) Enactment banning the use of the word “Allah” by non-muslims, it is important to note that Sabah & Sarawak does not have such an enactment, hence the use of the word “Allah” by Christians there is perfectly fine and cannot be construed to be provocation as it is not illegal

*Read it also at The Malay Mail Online