Most Read
Most Commented
Read more like this
mk-logo
News
Journalists, be warned: You are not immune from prosecution for sedition

Freedom comes with a very high price. There is no immunity for journalists. What you say, write or publish can be taken against you but whether your action constitutes sedition or not depends largely o­n the 'goodwill' of the judge.

This is the essence of the two-hour discussion by four prominent speakers at the forum entitled "Freedom of the media and Sedition" organised by the Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ) and National Human Rights Society (Hakam) in Kuala Lumpur yesterday.

The speakers include Raja Aziz Addruse, former Hakam president and former Bar Council chairperson, Dr Mohd Safar Hasim, media studies and communication academician from UKM, K Haridas, executive committee member of JUST International and Steven Gan, editor-in-chief of of malaysiakini.

Chaired by CIJ's V Gayathry, the forum was organised as a follow up to the recent police raid o­n malaysiakini for a controversial letter published o­n its web-site.

The forum, attended by 50-odd participants deliberated o­n the issue of press freedom, the Sedition Act, history of media control and the rights of various sectors to exercise their freedom.

Vary from judge to judge

It started with Raja Aziz, who is a prominent human rights lawyer, saying that free speech and expression is a right given to citizens but parliament may by law impose restriction in the interest of public order and national security.

One of these laws is the Sedition Act but the definition of 'seditious' may vary from judge to judge, said Raja Aziz.

He cited several incidences such as the Lim Guan Eng case where Lim was charged and jailed 18 months o­n grounds of being seditious although the question of national security did not arise.

Lim had made strong comments against the Attorney-General, accusing him for 'selective prosecution' when former Melaka chief minister Rahim Thamby Chik was released while the under-aged girl he purportedly raped was 'imprisoned'.

"There are differing opinions according to different judges as there are no guidelines or benchmark," said Raja Aziz.

"In these cases (sedition), I am afraid you have to rely o­n the goodwill of the judge. That is a fact," he added.

No immunity for journalists

But what about immunity for sources? Is there 'absolute' protection for sources or journalists? Is there consideration for 'trust' between a journalist and his or her source, which is such an integral part of the media profession?

No, said Raja Aziz, there is no immunity for journalists based o­n common law principles, even in the United Kingdom.

People can demand for disclosure of sources and it is discretion o­n the part of the judge to weigh the competing interest of the person, public and the source, he added.

However, he questioned whether the police act in raiding malaysiakini's office and seizing its computers and disrupting its business operation was an appropriate action.

"It does not seem quite right, they should go to court for an order for source disclosure, and those who did not comply can be cited for contempt of court.

Up to court to decide

"There is a procedure for requiring disclosure of sources. o­ne can apply and it is for the court to decide whether disclosure should be made," he added.

Such insecurity among journalists and their sources does not board well for press freedom or in malaysiakini's case, the right to information and the guarantee by the government of no Internet censorship.

Does the police action o­n malaysiakini considered a form of censorship?

Dr Mohd Safar said the action o­n the website should not be considered a form of censorship as action was o­nly taken after the letter was published.

He added that the courts in previous cases have decided that editors are free to publish their materials but cautioned that action can be taken later.

"Malaysiakini

is testing the boundaries of press freedom. Malaysiakini will continue to fight. Either way, there may be more freedom or more control," he added.

He later spoke o­n the 'clash of rights' between malaysiakini , Umno Youth and the police.

He said the recent episode was a good case of malaysiakini exercising its right to freedom of speech whereas the police was exercising its right to act based o­n a report by Umno Youth.

He suggested the formation of a media or press council, which was mooted by the government but had received lukewarm responses from media agencies due to its uncertain functionc and structure.

"There is a long silence o­n this question. If there is a council, we don't have to face what malaysiakini is facing now," said Mohd Safar.

Complain to council

Meanwhile, deliberating o­n the issue of the press council Haridas, who is trained in law and communications, said that people should take their complaints to the media council and let journalists be judged by their peers.

He said the police may not be the right authority to deal with the media.

"One cannot underestimate the power of the mediaMalaysian democracy needs vibrancy and participation by all sectors of society," he said.

"Youths will continue to ask hard questions. We cannot lock them out, we cannot let the police deal with them. We cannot say everything is sensitive that we become insensitive," he added.

Finally, Gan, who was the last speaker, said that malaysiakini's battle to uphold freedom of the press was not "legal but political".

He said Malaysia has enacted 35 laws which curtail press freedom and malaysiakini has made it a point to 'challenge' these laws.

But the support from the public would be very, very important, he stressed.

" Malaysiakini must win, if not we are going to disappear. If we succumb to the police, this will be the end of our credibility and we cannot continue as a newspaper," he added.

ADS