Is the constitution seditious too?
My article was earlier published in the rakyattimes.com on 10/3/2014
Recently, the Bukit Gelugor member
of parliament and DAP national chairman Karpal Singh has been convicted and
found guilty of sedition by the court against the Sultan of Perak.
What wrong has Karpal committed
then? As a lawyer, Karpal has made his expression known to the public based on
his legal experience that certain ruler has erred in law and therefore can be
subject to legal challenge.
That was Karpal’s legal opinion
based on the fact of the existence of Article 182 of the Federal Constitution
where it clearly states that any ruler or even the King could be charged for an
offence or sued in a civil suit in a Special Court.
The DAP MP has made the said legal
opinion in public following the 2009 coup d’etat of which the Perak state
government was overthrown by Umno with the support from the palace and an
Umno-led rebel state government was subsequently installed following the
successful rebellion.
Karpal stated his opinion not just
on his own jurisdictions, but legally based on the constitution, therefore his
statement on the Perak ruler is correctly and accurately constitutional.
So, when putting the guilty judgment
order against Karpal, why then did Judge Azman Abdullah avoided the reference
to the Article 182 of the Federal Constitution but instead only made a partial
reference to Article 183 of which its states no legal proceedings would be
instituted against the rulers unless it is authorized by the Attorney-General.
Is he trying to deny the existence of Article 182 which had already clearly
stated the facts that rulers can also be subject to legal scrutiny over their
actions?
Then, on what particular
justification does that judge had in implicating the DAP MP for sedition, of
what kind of action, how was it being carried out and the impact on the Perak
ruler himself on whether the ruler has indeed “suffered” from the effects of
such “sedition”?
We are very certain that everyone of
us are aware that Article 182 was initiated by the then prime minister Tun Dr
Mahathir Mohamad following series of royal wrongdoings during his reign. Dr
Mahathir’s initiatives had also proven that any member of the royalty, even and
especially a constitutional monarch is not divine or immune from the law.
But then, a judgment has been made
otherwise against an experienced legal professional for using Article 182 to
state the facts over the Perak coup d’etat. If Karpal has obtain the
constitutional reference to state a reality, and he is now found guilty of
sedition, then the judge should also rule that the entire Federal Constitution
is seditious as well, therefore should be abolished immediately to pave way for
the parliament to rewrite the constitution to order.
If someone were to say that this or
that ruler should be overthrown, then it is deemed unconstitutional because
such action was not legally bind as a lawful act under the constitution, but in
the case of referring any ruler to the Special Court for legal scrutiny, it is
clearly stated in the constitution that such action is allowed and therefore
its nature of action is lawful.
In this case, our nation’s judiciary
quality and wisdom has indeed deteriorated. This is one of the most disgusting
judgment a high court judge has made so far.
A very simple question, even a child
would be able to answer this straight forwardly. Are lawyers who state a fact
of the law or getting any references from the constitution liable for sedition?
How come Dr Mahathir and many other Umno leaders were not charged for sedition
when he talked about taking off the rulers’ immunity during that time, when the
Article 182 has yet to exist?
And now, is the Sedition Act
currently above the Federal Constitution? The judge who made that judgment of
guilt should also explain the differences between Karpal and Dr Mahathir’s
actions, which one is considered sedition and based on what.
Going back to Dr Mahathir’s intent
then in taking off the rulers’ immunity, in which part of the Sedition Act or
any other laws that had allowed Dr Mahathir to be exempted of any sedition
charges against him? Can Judgment Azman please stand out and answer all these
conflicting judicial views and actions? Look, even the entire bench of the
highest court are so confusing and did not really know what they had done.
If the facts of Article 182 has been
proven to have been referred by Karpal during the 2009 Perak coup d’etat, is
the judge ready to declare the Federal Constitution seditious too and call for
its abolishment?
Then, should Judge Azman fail to
come to a conclusion on such, this entire episode of convicting Karpal for
sedition against the Perak ruler has been made based on political motive and it
is nothing about the law or judiciary itself.
