AUGUST 24 — In “What the judges have said about freedom of speech, sedition, seditious intention” I referred to the case of PP v Ooi Kee Saik [1979] where High Court Judge Ajaib Singh (as he then was) said that to “establish its case against the accused the prosecution is not obliged to prove that anything said in his speech was true or false or that it caused any disturbance or a breach of the peace”. (Emphasis added)
I also referred to the case of Public Prosecutor v Param Cumaraswamy [1986], where High Court Judge N H Chan (as he then was) said:
“If the words complained of are themselves ‘expressive of a seditious intention’ as defined in the [Act] they are ‘seditious words’. It is not necessary to produce any extrinsic evidence of intention, outside the words themselves, before seditious intention can exist. If the words are seditious by reason of their expression of a seditious intention as defined in the [Sedition Act] the seditious intention appears without any extrinsic evidence.”
It is not necessary to prove actual intention. It is enough if the words are seditious by reason of their expression of a seditious intention as defined in the Sedition Act 1948.
Herein is one of the biggest criticisms of the Sedition Act — that by virtue of Section 3(3), intention is irrelevant. Even if the accused person had absolutely no intention to be seditious and made the alleged seditious remarks innocently, it will have no bearing on the case.
It was no surprise therefore that when, 10 years later in 2016, the Court of Appeal unanimously ruled in the case of Mat Shuhaimi bin Shafiei v Kerajaan Malaysia that Section 3(3) of the Act was unconstitutional, it was lauded and greeted as being “a landmark ruling”.
It wasn’t to be a permanent landmark though.
On appeal to the Federal Court following the grant of leave to appeal, a five-member bench of the apex court allowed the appeal and set aside the ruling of the Court of Appeal.
The law therefore stands that intention is irrelevant when preferring and proving a charge of sedition.
So, be mindful of your words. Even if they are factual and true. Even if they are not intended to be seditious.
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
