Is Proham Secretary-General Questioning Rights Of The Rulers?

24 11 2014

Insider 12

A lot of things have been said about the Akta Hasutan or the Sedition Act, a very important Act that was amended in 1970 to protect the stability of our country after a serious racial riot in 1969.

The question is, can the Akta Hasutan be abolished without the Rulers’ consent and is it true that Akta Hasutan is just a “normal Act” and “a colonial-era law made by the British” as claimed by some people?

The Malaysian Insider (TMI) in the above article wrote that Proham secretary-general Datuk Dr. Denison Jayasooria said,

“The Sedition Act is not protected by the constitution. It is a law made by the British.”

TMI also reported that, “the consent of the Rulers is not needed to abolish the Sedition Act 1948, as claimed by defenders of the colonial-era law, Proham secretary-general Datuk Denison Jayasooria said.”

Now, how true is Proham secretary-general’s statement?

A law expert, Tan Sri Dato’ Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahman does not agree with the those statements.

Tan Sri Aziz explains that Akta Hasutan is not considered as a British law any more because it has already been amended in 1970, after the May 13, 1969 racial riot.

The government had identified four sensitive issues as one of the major causes of the racial riot:

  1. Article 153 of the Federal Constitution: Special Rights For The Malays
  2. Article 152 of the Federal Constitution: Malay As The National Language
  3. Part III: of the Citizenship Rights
  4. Article 181 of the Federal Constitution: Rights, Status, Sovereignty Of The Rulers

To avoid more racial riots, Articles 10, 63 and 159 of the Federal Constitution was amended by adding Article 10 (4), 63 (4) and 159 (5) to prohibit any questioning on these issues.

The parliament then passed a law amending the Akta Hasutan under Article 10 (4) of the Federal Constitution by the addition of section 3 (1) (f), making questioning any of the four issues as an offence punishable under the Akta Hasutan.

Therefore, Tan Sri Dato’ Abdul Aziz said that in reference to Article 159 (5) of the Federal Constitution, the consent from the Conference of Rulers is needed to repeal the Akta Hasutan since the Act was amended under Article 10 (4) of the Federal Constitution. 

Article 159 (5) says:

A law making an amendment to Clause (4) of Article 10, any law passed thereunder, the provisions of Part III, Article 38, Clause (4) of Article 63, Article 70, Clause (1) of Article 71,
Clause (4) of Article 72, Article 152, or 153 or to this Clause shall not be passed without the consent of the Conference of Rulers.

Article 10 (4) of the Federal Constitutions says:

In imposing restrictions in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof or public order under paragraph (a) of Clause (2), Parliament may pass law prohibiting the questioning of any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of Part III, Article 152, 153 or 181 otherwise than in relation to the implementation thereof as may be specified in such law.

Prof Madya Dr. Syamrahayu Abdul Aziz who is an expert in the Constitutional Laws of Malaysia agrees with Tan Sri Dato’ Abdul Aziz and explains that:

  1. The laws that was passed before Merdeka Day are known as Enactment.
  2. The laws that was passed during the period of Emergency are known as Ordinance.
  3. The laws that was passed after our Merdeka Day but not during the period of Emergency are known as Act.
  4. If an Enactment and an Ordinance has been amended by the Parliament, it will be known as an Act.

So, since Akta Hasutan is an Act and not an Enactment, it is not just a British law as claimed by the Proham secretary-general.

A very senior lawyer, Uncle Dato’ Naser Disa who also agrees with Tan Sri Dato’ Abdul Aziz, told me that in fact claiming the consent of the Rulers are not needed to amend the Akta Hasutan can be an offence punishable under the Akta Hasutan because it is against the Article 181 for questioning the rights of the Rulers.

I agree with Tan Sri Dato’ Abdul Aziz that the people who are pushing for the Act to be abolished actually want total freedom and to be able to question the four sensitive issues that was protected under the Act.

They want section 3 (1) (f) of the Act to be abolished so that they are free to say what they want including to question the four sensitive issues.

Are their personal total freedom are more important than the love for their country?

But the weirdest thing is, those people who are fighting to repeal the Akta Hasutan are the same people who want the vocal Rightist to be charged under the Akta Hasutan.

Is preserving a peaceful country is a wrong thing to do that we need to abolish the important law that had managed to curb racial riots?

If the United Nations wants the country members to obey to certain laws made by them, we as a sovereign country has our rights to keep a law that is good for our country.

I would like to thank Uncle Azril for sending me Tan Sri Dato’ Abdul Aziz’s statements, Uncle Datuk Zulkifli Noordin for Dr. Syamrahayu’s article and Uncle Dato’ Naser Disa for helping me to understand more about Akta Hasutan that helps to understand the facts of this case that enable me to write this post.


Actions

Information

16 responses

26 11 2016
Police Report On Lim Guan Eng’s False Statements | Ahmad Ali Karim's Weblog

[…] Guan Eng has gone against four parts of the Sedition Act 1948, Section 3(1)(a), Section 3(1)(c), Section 3(1)(e), and Section 3(1)(f), an offense which is […]

Like

26 11 2016
Police Report On Lim Guan Eng’s False Statements | Ahmad Ali JetPlane

[…] Guan Eng has gone against four parts of the Sedition Act 1948, Section 3(1)(a), Section 3(1)(c), Section 3(1)(e), and Section 3(1)(f), an offense which is […]

Like

27 04 2016
The Malays of Malaysia – The Unique, Generous Race | Ahmad Ali Karim's Weblog

[…] of the Malays are not only protected by the Federal Constitution but are also protected by the Section 3(1)(f) of the Sedition Act of Malaysia, which protects the four sensitive […]

Like

10 10 2015
MMO Did Not Apologise For Boo Su Lyn’s Seditious Article | Ahmad Ali JetPlane

[…] It is not seditious to question Article 153 and the other sensitive issues protected by Article 10(4) .  […]

Like

10 10 2015
MMO Did Not Apologise For Boo Su Lyn’s Seditious Article | Ahmad Ali Karim's Weblog

[…] Article 10(4) is protected by Section 3(1)(f) of the Sedition Act: […]

Like

17 09 2015
Maintaining Racial Harmony In Malaysia | Ahmad Ali JetPlane

[…] To protect the stability of our country and to avoid such tragedy, the government then amended the Akta Hasutan.  […]

Like

17 09 2015
Maintaining Racial Harmony In Malaysia | Ahmad Ali Karim's Weblog

[…] To protect the stability of our country and to avoid such tragedy, the government then amended the Akta Hasutan.  […]

Like

30 08 2015
Ahmad Ali Karim's Weblog

[…] that does not respect Islam as the religion of the Federation, against the Article 153, hated the Sedition Act that protects the 4 sensitive issues and trying to erase the history that Malaysia was born from […]

Like

22 08 2015
G25, Another Voice Of Liberal Muslims? | Ahmad Ali Karim's Weblog

[…] shows that one does not understand the Sedition Act. According to Tan Sri Aziz Abdul Rahman, (please refer to this article) the Sedition Act or Akta Hasutan was written after the government identified four serious issues as […]

Like

21 08 2015
G25, Another Voice Of Liberal Muslims | Ahmad Ali JetPlane

[…] shows that one does not understand the Sedition Act. According to Tan Sri Aziz Abdul Rahman, (please refer to this article) the Sedition Act or Akta Hasutan was written after the government identified four serious issues as […]

Like

18 08 2015
Kampung Boy (Ein Frechsdachs Aus Malaysia) By Lat | Ahmad Ali Karim's Weblog

[…] father went there to buy a book named, “Kontrak Sosial” written by Aunty Shamrahayu; but he ended buying a few big bags of […]

Like

4 06 2015
My View On Waco’s Twin Peaks Shooting | Ahmad Ali Karim's Weblog

[…] all the mass shootings in the United States, is it right for the United States to tell Malaysia to repeal the Sedition Act after the Western powers and the United Nations had forced Malaysia to abolish […]

Like

4 06 2015
My View On Waco’s Twin Peaks Incident | Ahmad Ali JetPlane

[…] all the mass shootings in the United States, is it right for the United States to tell Malaysia to repeal the Sedition Act after the Western powers and the United Nations had forced Malaysia to abolish […]

Like

22 01 2015
Charlie Hebdo’s Idea Of Freedom of Religion And Freedom Of Speech | Ahmad Ali Karim's Weblog

[…] Malaysia, there is a limit to freedom of expression and freedom of speech as written in Article 10 of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia and making fun of other religions is against the teaching of […]

Like

24 11 2014
shamrahayu

Alhamdulillah. Very good write up and analysis. I enjoyed reading this. Thank you for quoting my view. I want to add: An Ordinance which has been revised becomes an Act.

Like

24 11 2014
ahmadalikarim

Dear Aunty Syamrahayu,
I’m very excited to see the comment. Thank you very much for writing. Aunty Syamrahayu’s article helps me a lot to understand this issue. Please visit my blog again.

Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: