The prosecution in the late Karpal Singh's sedition case told the Court of Appeal today that the former Bukit Gelugor MP’s statement has a seditious tendency, as it incited people into hating the institution of the Malay rulers.

Deputy public prosecutor Awang Armadajaya Awang Mahmud said Karpal's statement mentioning the Perak sultan - whom Karpal had criticised during the silver state's 2009 political imbroglio - fits one of the six criteria defined under Section 3 of the Sedition Act 1948.

He added any reasonable man could see that Karpal’s words would have the desired effect of causing people to hate, or be disaffected with, the institution.

The six criteria underlined under Section 3(1) are:

  • (a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any ruler or against any government;

  • (b) to excite the subjects of the ruler or the inhabitants of any territory governed by any government to attempt to procure in the territory of the ruler or governed by the government, the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter as by law established;

  • (c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Malaysia or in any state;

  • (d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the subjects of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or of the ruler of any state or amongst the inhabitants of Malaysia or of any state;

  • (e) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Malaysia; or

  • (f) to question any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of part III of the federal constitution or Article 152, 153 or 181 of the federal constitution.

    • Awang Armadajaya said the Sedition Act is a valid law as ruled by the Federal Court in Universiti Malaya lecturer Azmi Sharom's case.

    He also stressed that the law is to prevent public disorder.

    Karpal merely expressing opinion

    Meanwhile, Puchong MP Gobind Singh Deo said his late father was merely expressing an opinion as a senior lawyer and an MP then, and therefore it is not seditious, as it concerned constitutional provisions in the federal constitution and the Perak constitution.

    There is an exception under the Sedition Act to act as a safeguard to a person who was merely expressing an opinion.

    "He (Karpal) had no intention to create any untoward circumstances, as he was merely lending his legal opinion in the press conference," said the lawyer.

    Gobind further told the appellate court that under Section 3(2) of the Sedition Act, there is an exception towards someone providing opinion.

    “The trial judge (Azman Abdullah) had in this judgment noted, and also commented on, the opinion given. The judge noted that this was an opinion, but had ruled the matter as seditious.

    “This shows the defect in the High Court's judgment and hence, the conviction and sentence should be set aside,” he said.

    Additionally representing on Karpal's behalf were lawyers Ramkarpal Singh and RSN Rayer. Karpal’s wife, Gurmeet Kaur, was also in attendance at the public gallery.

    Karpal's family is seeking to set aside the conviction and RM4,000 fine he faced for expressing an opinion on the Perak imbroglio by saying that what the late Sultan of Perak, Sultan Azlan Shah, did was wrong.

    The prosecution initially cross appealed for the sentence, however, they had withdrawn their appeal following Karpal's death.

    The family's appeal is being heard before a three-member bench led by Justice Mohtaruddin Baki.

    The other judges are Court of Appeal judge Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat and High Court judge Kamardin Hashim.

    Justice Mohtaruddin has said the bench would defer in giving their decision to another date, and that all parties would be informed.