|
This article examines the validity of the charge against Karpal Singh and of the Sedition Act within the contexts of:
-
I The political background and circumstances of the sedition charge; II The history of Sedition Act prosecutions in Malaysia;
-
III The history and development of the law of sedition in common law jurisdictions;
-
IV Malaysian national law and the rights guaranteed by the Malaysian Constitution;
-
V Common law principles including lawyers’ privilege and the rule of law; and
- VI International laws and standards.
LAWYERS’ RIGHTS WATCH CANADA views the charge against Karpal Singh as a grave violation of the privilege that protects lawyers, judges and litigants from criminal and civil liability for words spoken during court proceedings. The charge constitutes an alarming precedent that not only undermines Mr. Singh’s right and duty as a lawyer to fully represent the best interests of his client, but also infringes his right to freedom of expression. In so doing, the charge violates common law principles and international human rights
standards.LAWYERS’ RIGHTS WATCH CANADA is concerned that the charge against Karpal Singh not be clothed with legitimacy by the fact that a trial is being held. As lawyers we oppose the usurpation of the law to achieve political ends. As cautioned by author Vahakn N.
Dadrian:
“We are all familiar with the cloak of legality to what are essentially political prosecutions.”[4]The Federal Constitution of Malaysia clearly provides for a legal and parliamentary system governed by the rule of law. As lawyers we are concerned that the offences created by the Sedition Act and the charge against Karpal Singh are not compatible with the rule of law. We have written this article to provide lawyers and human rights commentators with an overview of the standards and legal principles—drawn from national, international and common law sources—against which to assess the validity of the charge and the Sedition
Act.LAWYERS’ RIGHTS WATCH CANADA hopes this article will provide some understanding of why sedition in the form created by Malaysian law has been rejected in other common law jurisdictions as incompatible with democracy.
|
