Courts fail to be impartial in sedition cases, says lawyer
A series of "unsavoury" decisions by the judiciary on sedition cases shows that the courts are not impartial when it comes to politically-motivated cases, said Lawyers for Liberty co-founder Eric Paulsen.
"The only institution which stands between the rakyat and the continued abuse of power by the police and Attorney-General's Chambers is the judiciary.
"Unfortunately, recent decisions by the judiciary do not give the rakyat much optimism nor hope that this is the case," Paulsen said in a statement.
The cases of construction site supervisor Chow Mun Fai and Anything But Umno (ABU) activist Ali Abdul Jalil were two recent examples in which the court had shown "disproportionality" in its decisions, he said.
"Chow had initially been charged under the Sedition Act 1948 for an offensive Facebook posting and later pleaded guilty under the Communications and Multimedia Act 1988."
"After admitting to using Facebook to post offensive comments to hurt the feelings of others, Chow should have been fined when pleading guilty to an alternate charge."
"Instead, he was sentenced to the maximum penalty of 12 months jail under the Communications and Multimedia Act 1988," Paulsen said.
Paulsen said that by pleading guilty, Chow should have received a one-third discount of the sentence he would have received in the event he had claimed trial.
He also said that the judiciary appeared to be powerless in stopping Ali from being charged repeatedly under the Sedition Act 1948.
"Ali has been dragged from Selayang to Shah Alam and now to Johor Baru for Facebook postings which should be considered as the same transaction."
"He should just be tried in Kuala Lumpur or Selangor where the offences were allegedly committed and where he resides instead of being hauled up and down the length of Malaysia."
Paulsen said activists Muhammad Safwan Anang and Adam Adli Abdul Halim had also been dealt with rather harshly and disproportionately by the judiciary.
Safwan was sentenced to 10 months in jail while Adam received a 12-month jail sentence for what Paulsen said were clearly politically-motivated offences.
"These series of unsavoury judicial decisions shows that when it comes to politically motivated cases, the judiciary is not impartial or independent."
Paulsen said the rampant and indiscriminate use of the Sedition Act was akin to the use of the Internal Security Act in Ops Lalang in the 1980s, where the law was used as a "catch-all" to target all and sundry.
"Putrajaya is currently cracking down on anything that is remotely contentious, thus stifling civil liberties and creating a climate of fear," Paulsen said.
"LFL calls upon the judiciary to uphold its oath of office – to bear true faith and allegiance to Malaysia and preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the fundamental rights guaranteed therein."- TMI
"The only institution which stands between the rakyat and the continued abuse of power by the police and Attorney-General's Chambers is the judiciary.
"Unfortunately, recent decisions by the judiciary do not give the rakyat much optimism nor hope that this is the case," Paulsen said in a statement.
The cases of construction site supervisor Chow Mun Fai and Anything But Umno (ABU) activist Ali Abdul Jalil were two recent examples in which the court had shown "disproportionality" in its decisions, he said.
"Chow had initially been charged under the Sedition Act 1948 for an offensive Facebook posting and later pleaded guilty under the Communications and Multimedia Act 1988."
"After admitting to using Facebook to post offensive comments to hurt the feelings of others, Chow should have been fined when pleading guilty to an alternate charge."
"Instead, he was sentenced to the maximum penalty of 12 months jail under the Communications and Multimedia Act 1988," Paulsen said.
Paulsen said that by pleading guilty, Chow should have received a one-third discount of the sentence he would have received in the event he had claimed trial.
He also said that the judiciary appeared to be powerless in stopping Ali from being charged repeatedly under the Sedition Act 1948.
"Ali has been dragged from Selayang to Shah Alam and now to Johor Baru for Facebook postings which should be considered as the same transaction."
"He should just be tried in Kuala Lumpur or Selangor where the offences were allegedly committed and where he resides instead of being hauled up and down the length of Malaysia."
Paulsen said activists Muhammad Safwan Anang and Adam Adli Abdul Halim had also been dealt with rather harshly and disproportionately by the judiciary.
Safwan was sentenced to 10 months in jail while Adam received a 12-month jail sentence for what Paulsen said were clearly politically-motivated offences.
"These series of unsavoury judicial decisions shows that when it comes to politically motivated cases, the judiciary is not impartial or independent."
Paulsen said the rampant and indiscriminate use of the Sedition Act was akin to the use of the Internal Security Act in Ops Lalang in the 1980s, where the law was used as a "catch-all" to target all and sundry.
"Putrajaya is currently cracking down on anything that is remotely contentious, thus stifling civil liberties and creating a climate of fear," Paulsen said.
"LFL calls upon the judiciary to uphold its oath of office – to bear true faith and allegiance to Malaysia and preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the fundamental rights guaranteed therein."- TMI
