Honestly, I lost count. It seems that every day there is a new case. The recent rampage by the Attorney-General’s Chambers to charge not only politicians, elected representatives, academics and now to the extent of media reporter for various offences, mostly for criminal intimidation under Section 506 of the Penal Code and Section 4(1) of the Sedition Act 1948 has raised democracy’s alarm bell and once again proved that our freedom of speech as enshrined under Article 10 of our federal constitution is again under siege.

Article 10 of our federal constitution guarantees our freedom of expression and speech subject to existing law. I admit, freedom of expression is not absolute. It was never intend to be. English philosopher, John Stuart Mill in his book ‘On liberty’, said, “No society in which these liberties are not, on the whole, respected, is free, whatever may be its form of government; and none is completely free in which they do not exist absolute and unqualified.”

However, any law enacted and in operation to curtail our fundamental right pursuant to Article 10 must be in compliance with existing democratic ideas and rule of law. It cannot be seen to be a piece of political tool used to suppress the voice of the people who may differ in their view and ideas with the existing establishment. It must be made clear that dissent and disagreement form part of a vibrant democracy society. If not, everyone would have the same opinion on the same thing and how do we expect society to progress in a healthy manner without discussion, for discussion cannot take place without differ opinions.

The much-criticised Sedition Act is a piece of pre-Merdeka legislation, enacted by the British to combat the rise of communism. Just like the now repealed Internal Security Act 1960, it no longer serves its purpose in the 21st century.

Over the course of time, the usage of the Act and the court interpretation of it had virtually made it an offence with no defence. The wide interpretation given to the act means that it is sufficient to secure a conviction by virtue of proving such seditious words were uttered or printed and the court need even not examine the consequences or the effect of such words (PP v Ooi Kee Saik - Raja Azlan Shah). This is still good law today. Furthermore, in another case involving another politician, Mark Koding, the court also ruled that the intention or motive of the speaker even if it is noble is irrelevant to defend a sedition charge.

Furthermore the Sedition Act seeks to limit and control freedom of expression far beyond what is permissible under International law most notably Article 29 & 30 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

The purpose of Sedition Act to limit freedom of speech is for protection of serious national security. But how many cases recently being charged can be categorised as posing a threat to serious national security issues or could seriously jeopardise social cohesion?

We have just recently witnessed the late Karpal Singh being convicted under Section 4(1) of the Sedition Act for merely giving his legal opinion. If a prominent lawyer like Karpal or a well-respected legal scholar like Azmi Sharom can’t even give their legal and academic opinions, how can we as a whole expect society to progress?

As each day goes by, we are becoming more and more akin to a police state or at least in perception, we are moving towards that. The public is no fool. They can see for themselves how the government is turning a piece of legislation into a political weapon to suppress dissenting views. Those that cherished the rule of law and our fundamental liberties must stand up now and be counted.

JIMMY PUAH WEE TSE is Johor PKR legal bureau chief cum state assemblyperson for Bukit Batu.