This prosecution of Karpal Singh and sedition prosecutions against other Malaysians active in opposition parties have been severely criticized by international human rights organizations as examples of ‘selective prosecutions’ and of the use of penal statutes not to punish and prevent criminal activity but to silence critics. Amnesty International, commenting on the sedition charges against Karpal Singh and others, criticized such prosecutions by stating:
“Charging political leaders and journalists with sedition threatens to strike at the heart of free speech in a democratic society… When such prosecutions fall solely on opposition figures, public confidence in the rule of law and administration of justice risks being seriously undermined.”
[8] An editorial in The Economist, made this comment when the Court of Appeal confirmed the conviction for sedition of Lim Guan Eng, then a Member of Parliament, and imposed a jail term,
“The jailing of an opposition politician for daring to criticize the Attorney General and the police is outrageous in principle, dangerous in
practice.”[9] These criticisms are inspired by a number of factors that include: the pattern of Sedition Act prosecutions in Malaysia, the Prime Minister’s stated interest in silencing Karpal Singh, the Prime Minister’s apparent interest in the outcome of trial of the sodomy charge against Anwar Ibrahim’s and the lack of any legal safeguards preventing the Prime Minister from interfering with the Attorney General’s exercise of discretion. A review of post independence sedition cases in Malaysia indicates a pattern of prosecutions against members of the opposition, opposition members of Parliament, and others pursuing campaigns that implied some criticism of government. None of the cases reviewed involve any allegation of incitement to violence or unlawful behaviour. All fit into a pattern of what Amnesty International has labeled as: “politically motivated, selective prosecutions to silence prominent
dissenters.”[10]
Some examples of Sedition Act prosecutions and threatened prosecutions against government critics are as follows:
In l971 Dr Ooi Kee Saik, an active member of the opposition Democratic Action Party,was convicted of sedition for a speech he made at a dinner celebrating the release from prison of an opposition Member of Parliament, Lim Kit Siang, who had been held in jail for 18 months without charge or trial.q Fan Yew Teng, a Member of Parliament for the Democratic Action Party, was convicted for publishing the text of Dr. Ooi’s speech in the party newsletter. Dr. Ooi’s speech had suggested that some of the government’s policies were racially discriminatory. q In l985 Param
Cumaraswamy[11] was charged with sedition for a statement he made during a press conference calling on the Pardons Board to reconsider the commutation of death sentence for Sim Kie Chon. A mandatory death sentence had been imposed on Mr. Sim for his illegal, but otherwise innocent, possession of a gun. Mr. Cumaraswamy was acquitted on the grounds that his criticism was directed toward the Pardon Board and not against the King. q In l997 Lim Guan Eng, opposition Member of Parliament for the Democratic Action Party, was convicted of sedition and sentenced on appeal to 18 months in prison for stating that the Attorney General had used a double standard in a statutory rape case involving a 15 year old female constituent. Mr. Lim had questioned the fact that the victim was placed in a detention home for a period of three years while one of the alleged perpetrators, the Chief Minister of Melaka was not charged. In l994 corruption charges had been brought against the Chief Minister following a number of reports by Lim Guan Eng. As a result of his conviction Mr. Lim is barred from sitting as a Member of Parliament for 5 years from the date of his release.q In September l998, Dr. Wan Azizah, wife of Anwar Ibrahim, was arrested under the Sedition Act for expressing concern for her husband’s well being in police custody. She was arrested for expressing this concern after Anwar Ibrahim had been severely beaten by the Chief of Police, but before Wan Azizah knew of the beating.q In November l999 the High Court of Malaysia issued an injunction prohibiting the Malaysian Bar from meeting to discuss a perceived loss of confidence in the judiciary on the grounds that the participants in such a discussion would be committing sedition. Justice Dato’ Dr. Kamalanthan Ratnam when issuing the injunction said:
“ The conduct of the defendants and the members of the 3rd defendant (Malaysian Bar) if allowed to attend the EGM and to discuss the resolution would appear to constitute an offence under Section 4(1)(a) read together with Section 3(1)(c) of the Sedition Act l948. However, it is not my duty to make any finding as to whether an offence has or has not been committed under the said sections. This is for the Public Prosecutor to decide, if at all. In any event it is my judgement that the plaintiff in actual fact is protecting the defendants from plunging into an abyss from which they cannot emerge
unscathed.”[12]
In January 2000, Sedition Act charges were laid against three prominent government critics:
a) Marina Yusoff, lawyer and Vice President of the opposition National Justice Party, was charged for allegedly inciting racial hatred by suggesting that there was a connection between the ruling party and the l969 race riots,b) Zulkifli Sulong, editor of Harakah, was charged for publishing an article by Chandra Muzaffar, Deputy President of the National Justice Party, that criticized the media and the judiciary in relation to the trial of Anwar Ibrahim, andc) Chia Lim Thye, owner of the printing company for Harakah, was also charged in relation to the same article. Harakah is a newspaper published by the opposition Party Islam (PAS).
In the case of Karpal Singh, an additional factor suggesting ‘directed’ prosecution arises from the statement that Prime Minister Mahathir was reported to have made on February 4th, 2000 during an interview in London with Lee Tse Yin, expressing in very strong language the desire to get rid of Karpal Singh:
“As for my attitude towards lawyers, sometimes I crack jokes about lawyers. What I said was actually a quote from Shakespeare. Shakespeare, in one of his writings said, ‘the first thing we do, we hang the lawyers’ so during a Cabinet meeting, I jokingly said, the first thing we do, we should line up all the lawyers and shoot them. It was a joke.
Unfortunately somebody told the lawyers about it and the lawyers in the Bar Council decided I am against the lawyers.
I cannot be against all the lawyers. Only against some of the lawyers maybe. I don’t see why I should like Karpal Singh, for example, but not all the lawyers. But there are some lawyers who of course go all out and say things which are nasty. Then I would like very much to hang the lawyers, these particular lawyers. But of course this is just a wish. It is not going to
materialize.”[13][emphasis added]
As observed in Lawyers and Ethics:
“We can appreciate the fundamental importance of an independent bar only by contrasting the treatment of lawyers in Western democracies in repressive regimes. In the regimes of Stalin, Hitler, the Greek Colonels, and the Chinese Cultural revolutionaries, among others, vigorous and independent lawyers who have acted for clients whose views or conduct the government has deplored or feared have been harassed, ill-treated, prevented from practising their profession and in some instances even murdered, either by or with the complicity of the government. The cunning revolutionary in Shakespeare’s King Henry VI who said, “First, let us kill all the lawyers” knew that totalitarianism could not survive a strong and independent
bar.”[14][emphasis added]
Karpal Singh is one of the defense counsel for Anwar Ibrahim on charges that have divided the ruling party and captured the attention of Malaysians. The firing, incarceration and prosecutions of Anwar Ibrahim have proved to be unpopular with both members of the ruling party and with other Malaysians. Another factor perhaps contributing to criticisms that the prosecution of Karpal Singh is politically motivated arises from the perception that anything that hampers the defense of Anwar Ibrahim is likely to improve the chance of a guilty verdict that is accepted as being legitimate. |
