The conviction of senior lawyer and veteran parliamentarian Karpal Singh for sedition last Friday is inconsistent with the international standard on freedom of opinion and expression, International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH) says.

While no one is above the law under the rule of law, FIDH president Karim Lahidji said, however, in a constitutional monarchy system, a decision of the monarch can be scrutinised under a judicial process.

“Karpal has been prosecuted for merely expressing a legal opinion,” Karim said, adding that the conviction goes against Article 19 of the International Declaration of Human Rights.

FIDH, which is based in Paris, and local human rights movement Suaram, in a statement issued yesterday further described the conviction of Karpal for sedition as a setback for the rule of law and freedom of expression.

The High Court in Kuala Lumpur last Friday found the 73-year-old politician guilty of sedition and fixed March 11 for sentencing, by which time Karpal has to file his medical report. He faces up to three years' jail or a fine of RM5,000.

The Sedition Act 1948, is one of the laws that Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak promised to repeal in 2012 and to replace it with a National Harmony bill.

Repeal the Sedition Act

Karim also called on Malaysia to repeal its outdated sedition law and other draconian legislation that it inherited from the British colonial administration.

Meanwhile, Suaram executive director Yap Swee Seng said it is of grave concern that the Malaysian government continues to use such outdated legislation to harass and silence political opponents.

“Over 18 months ago, Najib announced that the Sedition Act would be abolished. But as his government struggles to maintain its shaky grip on power, Najib has failed to keep his promise.

“Instead, Najib’s administration has stepped up on the prosecution of opposition leaders under this law,” Yap said.

Karpal was initially acquitted of sedition on June 11, 2010, without his defence being called, but on appeal to the Court of Appeal, it reversed the decision and ordered him to enter his defence.