Unfazed, Teresa Kok to contest sedition charges

6 May, 2014

At 9.35 this morning, clad in a red baju kurung and flashing her trademark smile, Teresa Kok strode confidently into the room. From her demeanour, the scene could have been a market walkabout session or a boardroom meeting. But this was the Criminal Sessions Court 1 in Jalan Duta, and the Seputeh MP was about to be charged for sedition.

Alone in the dock, the DAP National Vice Chairman was accompanied by many party supporters including Selangor State Speaker Hannah Yeoh, Segambut MP Lim Lip Eng, Rahang State Assemblywoman Mary Josephine, Kota Kinabalu MP Jimmy Wong and many others.

The Court Interpreter read out the charge, framed from Section 4(1)(c) of the Sedition Act 1948, which is used against a person who publishes any seditious publication. The maximum sentence for an offence under this section is RM5,000 or three years jail, both of which could disqualify Kok from holding office.

The four-term MP was unfazed and pleaded not guilty to the charges, which defence lawyers called “an insult to the intelligence”. The defence lawyers Param Cumaraswamy and Sankara Nair then applied for Kok to be released on personal bond, as was allowed for Anwar Ibrahim during his last trial. Justice Norsharidah bt Awang was unmoved by defence counsels’ argument that as an MP and a cooperative subject, Kok does not pose a flight risk. The judge rejected the application and fixed bail at RM4,000.

Also on the legal team is Teresa’s fellow DAP MP Gobind Singh Deo, looking alert despite his inhuman schedule since his father Karpal Singh’s untimely death last month. Gobind tells us that while the late Karpal was charged with sedition just before his demise, the defence did not request for personal bond and chose to post the requested bail amount of RM2,000. “We don’t need any favours from the court,” he said.

The Puchong MP is equally determined to fight out the charges for his client, together with fellow defence lawyers Param Cumaraswamy, Sankara Nair, and Aaron Lee. Former Bar Council President Param Cumaraswamy was himself charged (and acquitted) under the same law in 1986, his case is compulsory reading for students of constitutional law.

Senior lawyer Sankara Nair -better known as S.N Nair – is Anwar Ibrahim’s defence lawyer, while Aaron Lee also represented actress Lim Ching Miau when she was questioned by the police regarding her role in the Onederful Malaysia video clip.

Public opinion that the charge is flimsy and politically-motivated is backed by the actions of the Home Ministry itself, which after weeks of investigation admitted that the video did not insult the Prime Minister. Bar Council President Christopher Leong was also quoted as saying that the video was not seditious.

Not to mention the fact that it took over three months after the video was released (in late January) for the Attorney General to file charges. Does it take that long for the investigation to determine if a video is seditious or not?

Another question arises here, if the video indeed contains seditious elements, should it be banned?

Legally speaking, all that is needed to prove a person guilty of sedition is for the prosecution to establish that the published material has “a seditious tendency”.

How does one prove that? The Sedition Act gives several definitions in relation to “exciting disaffection against the Government”, “bringing into hatred or contempt the administration of justice” or “promoting feelings of hostility between the races”.

Others who have been found guilty of sedition include Karpal Singh (for saying that the Sultan can be sued), Lim Guan Eng (for saying that the AG used double standards in a rape case of a 15 year old malay girl), and Dr Ooi Kee Saik (for commenting that Malays dominated the civil service).

Many others have been charged for comments are trivial as expressing her concern for her husband’s safety in detention (Wan Azizah in September 1998), for publishing an article which criticised the media and judiciary in relation to Anwar’s case (Harakah’s Zulkifli Sulong in January 2000) and for saying that the people’s power can topple the government (student activist Adam Adli in May 2013).

In Teresa’s case, the transcript of the offending portion of the 11-minute video was read out. It related to national security, where Master Yan Yan says “Malaysia is the sixth most dangerous country”. The make-believe feng shui master also spoke about “pirates, kidnapping, and opening live fire” in Sabah.

The charge also touched on a portion of the video where Uncle Wai discussed about Chinese and Tamil vernacular schools. The last portion of the charge was in relation to “selling out the Chinese” and the “Chinese-selling” party.

Kok has maintained that the video is a parody and does not contain any sensitive elements, asking reporters “what’s so wrong with the script?”. With the trial fixed for 2nd September, we can expect to see an in-depth discussion of subjects deemed sensitive in Malaysia, in the context of an archaic law which the government claimed it would replace in 2012.

One thing is for sure, Kok is walking her talk that public figures are bound to be criticised and they should face it with a sense of humour. -The Rocket

This article was written by on Tuesday, May 6, 2014 at 1:38 pm. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

No Comments

Leave a Reply

Other News

The story behind parliamentary written replies

23 July, 2014 0 Comments

By Lu Wei Hoong Early last month, PKR’s Bagan Serai MP N Surendran slammed the institution of Parliament as “a waste of money”, because recent events have shown that it merely acts as a “rubber stamp” for the government of the day. To members of the media who cover the ... Full Article →

Artist Zunar, relentless fighter against tyranny (Part 2)

23 July, 2014 0 Comments

(…continuation from part 1) Since 2009, we still haven’t seen other cartoonists who shine other than yourself. Why is that so? Ok. With regard to this, I can only provide the space and guidance for cartoonists, I wont be able to turn them into successful cartoonists. That is for themselves ... Full Article →

Thank you, veterans! Because of you, DAP prevails

2 April, 2014 0 Comments

On 2 March, Penang Chief Minister and DAP MP for Bagan Lim Guan Eng hosted a private dinner in honor of the Penang state DAP veterans. There are over 120 veterans in the state who have been party members for over 30 years. Of the number, about 70 turned up ... Full Article →

What’s wrong with the Terengganu crisis?

5 June, 2014 0 Comments

by Political Studies for Change (KPRU) Election fever has become a phenomenon in this equatorial country ever since the March 8 political tsunami, which has changed the political landscape, though the political transformation has not completed yet. To a certain extent, each legislature at federal and state level has put a different complexion on politics. The recent Terengganu political crisis and the storming of the Penang state assembly by UMNO members have to do with legislative politics. Legislative politics is different from election politics. From the parliament to legislature assembly in each state, the most frequent question that has been asked by people is about the attendance of members of elected representative, and as for some other incidents that have happened in legislature they have merely formed a part of their memory as people might find them obscure. Obscurity has become a byword for these pieces of memory due to the fact that people might not have the foggiest about these floating debris of memory. The most unforgettable legislative incident to the people goes to the seizure of power in the Perak state, and despite that, people did not necessarily follow on all the details and issues arising from the incident of seizing power in Perak state. This time - the Terengganu crisis is not only a political crisis, but also a ‘legislative crisis’. The lack of pressure from people in Terengganu lies in the insufficient knowledge about legislative which has saved Najib Razak’s shaky hold on power, as well as the dying Terengganu political and legislative crises from the jaws of death. The incident got serious. Media started to report extensively and non-UMNO members in BN also thought that it was a red flag. However, from the Prime Minister Najib’s statement announcing that the Sultan of Terengganu, Sultan Mizan Zainal Abidin had consented to the resignation of Ahmad Said as well as the appointment of Ahmad Razif Abd Rahman as the new Terengganu Menteri Besar; to the dramatic twist of events where Ahmad Said and and two other UMNO state assemblymen quited the party and then later returned to the party, there appeared an unification in media reporting of the incident from the preparedness to deal with the incidents from different angles. As stability wins over anything else, water leaves behind no trails in its path. From Najib’s statement on 12th May 2014 to the new Menteri Besar Ahman Razif’s taking of oath of office before Sultan Mizan; and to the former Menteri Besar Ahmad Said’s announcement made at his official residence in Kemaman as to his decision to withdraw his resignation from UMNO, the whole process took shorter than two days. Nonetheless, all of the incidents that have occurred in the midst of the Terengganu crisis must not be dismissed out of hand, particularly when comes to the interpretation of matters involving legislative, which calls for some clarification and so that when similar event takes place in future, people in the particular state would no longer stay static in the face of the crisis. This Terengganu crisis, after Ahmad Said and two other UMNO state assemblymen quited the party, left Barisan Nasional with 14 state seats, against Pakatan Rakyat’s 15 in the assembly, giving an equation of 15:14:3, with 3 being the “independent reps”. On the same day, that is, 13th May, the Terengganu state legal advisor Datuk Azhar Abdul Hamid, when contacted by Bernama, has claimed that despite the fact that the number of BN assemblymen had dropped from 17 to 14, the state assembly Speaker was counted as a representative of the ruling state government, thereby giving an equation of 15:15:3. It was Wesak day, which is also a public holiday. After founding director of think tank Political Studies for Change (KPRU), Ooi Heng and his family offered prayers in a Buddhist temple and after he came across Azhar’s misleading statement, Ooi Heng shared his personal view on Facebook, taking the view that the Speaker shall have the casting vote only when the voting comes down to a tie. After talking to a journalist, Ooi Heng is even convinced that the real reason behind Terengganu state legal advisor making misleading statement was to buy some time for UMNO’s political power, so as to resolve the political and legislative crisis. The Federal Constitution has given exposition on legislative power, which includes both parliament and state assembly, and under which the Speaker’s voting right is also covered. The Federal Constitution is basically modeled on the Westminster parliamentary system. Schedule 8, Paragraph 10 (1B) of the Federal Constitution makes it clear that the Speaker of legislative assembly who is not an elected representative has no voting power. Whereas according to the Article 27 (1B) of the Constitution of Terengganu, non-member of the Assembly elected as Speaker has no voting right. Terengganu assembly speaker, Mohd Zubir Embong, is not an elected representative, as he was appointed as assembly speaker on 16th June 2013 after being defeated in the election for Kuala Terengganu parliamentary seat. Hence, the controversy over the question of whether the speaker’s vote can be counted shall not even arise. In fact, not only does the state assembly follow the Westminster legislative custom, but the parliament of Malaysia is also following the system. The Article 57 (1A) of the Federal Constitution clearly provides that any person elected as Speaker of the House of Representatives who is not a member of the House of Representatives has no voting right. Furthermore, according to the Standing Order 45(1), the speaker shall be entitled to give his deciding ballot only when the voting comes down to a tie where ayes are equal to noes. This deciding ballot can be known as the casting vote, or ‘undi pemutus’ in Malay. The aim of this article is to clear doubts on this legislative incident, and as far as the Speaker’s voting right is concerned, no critical comment is intended to be directed at the roles that both government and the opposition have played in this political power crisis. However, I am of the opinion that despite the misleading statement by the state legal advisor, government and opposition elites should still be held responsible politically for this legislative incident. It is indeed bizarre that both government and opposition have no idea about the legislative procedures in the Terengganu state assembly when most of the assembly members are from UMNO and PAS. In the two days within which the 3 UMNO state assemblymen became ‘independent reps’ (Less than 48 hours), Terengganu state assembly has actually been beset with crisis. While there was likely UMNO fall down in Terengganu, UMNO has nonetheless got themselves some time to stabilise their shaky hold on power. Apart from UMNO taking the lead in this incident, the fact that PAS was being indifferent to the misleading statement will go down in the history of legislative politics. History is bound to repeat when political elite’s political action has not been properly examined. -The Rocket * The views expressed in this article are the personal opinion of the columnist ... Full Article →