A Universiti Malaysia (UM) law lecturer has argued that Abdul Aziz Bari, the embattled law professor from Universiti Islam Antarabangsa (UIA), did not commit sedition when commenting on the Selangor sultan statement.

kl bar judiciary forum 241007 azmi sharom According to Azmi Sharom, the UIA constitutional expert “had done nothing wrong” in describing the sultan’s decree on the state Islamic department’s 'inspection' of a function at the premises of a Petaling Jaya church as “unusual and inconsistent”.

    

"The second section of the Sedition Act actually provides for persons to comment in incidences where the government, for example, went beyond its role as spelled out in the constitution," Azmi Sharum told the audience at a forum on academic independence in Petaling Jaya last night.

Section 2 of the Act states that "notwithstanding anything in subsection (1) an act, speech, words, publication or other thing shall not be deemed to be seditious by reason only that it has a tendency:

“(a) to show that any Ruler has been misled or mistaken in any of his measures;

“(b) to point out errors or defects in any Government or constitution as by law established (except in respect of any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative referred to in paragraph (1)(f) otherwise than in relation to the implementation of any provision relating thereto) or in legislation or in the administration of justice with a view to the remedying of the errors or defects.”

Azmi argued that this leeway in the law allows an academic like Abdul Aziz to raise pertinent issues with regards to the interpretations of the workings of the sultans within Malaysia's constitutional monarchy.

Another panel member at the forum, writer Hasmi Hashim, pointed out that “what is questioned, if at all, is not the constitution, but the contents of the constitution”.

The panel members also contended that the constitution has been amended enough times by the government, even touching upon the supposedly taboo subject of the monarchy, in particular, their duties and immunities, for the powers-that-be to be going after Abdul Aziz.

Hasmi said Abdul Aziz is an renowned expert in the field of constitutional studies and the monarchy, having studied and written extensively on the issue.

However, Azmi acknowledged that what is going on in the mind of our overly imaginative government, may be beyond his interpretation of the spirit and letter of that particularly broad and vague law, often used to silent dissent.

"I don't know the imagination of the government. Their imagination is so great that what is not seditious can be imagined to be seditious."

A form of thought control

The Sedition Act, he said, are part of the fetters used by the government to enforce their control over societal thought, something he is very much against.

"The limitation to academic freedom is human stupidity. Academic rigour and discipline should be the limits of academic freedom, not law... or my VC (vice-chancellor), it should be my work and my integrity," he argued.

Fellow panel member civil rights lawyer Fadiah Najwa blamed UIA for the suspension of Abdul Aziz, attacking the university’s failure to defend academic freedom and for its docile acquiescence to the authorities.

"I blame the UIA. They should have defended him, not silence him through dirty tactics," charged the attorney, who once studied in the university and was taught by Abdul Aziz.