COMMENT This writer does not know what to say about our Home Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, a PhD holder, who is now leaving it entirely to the courts to decide on the wide definitions of sedition.

First, the home minister bulldozed the amendments to the pre-Merdeka law through Parliament, despite the decision on academician Azmi Sharom's challenge to the constitutionality of the Sedition Act 1948 pending in the Federal Court, the country's highest court.

Now, after it has been passed by the legislature, the smart alec Zahid is passing the baton of the controversial amendments, which the international community already sees as a bad law, back to courts to decide.

What is the logic of his actions?

First he ignores the court's decision on a law. Then he tables questionable amendments to it, which have not only been criticised by Pakatan Rakyat lawmakers but also by his BN colleagues in the legislature.

The international community, including the United Nations Human Rights Commissioner, the International Commission of Jurists, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch, have condemned the amendments and the Sedition Act itself, which is deemed as undermining the rule of law in Malaysia.

With the amendments passed, what Zahid is saying now is he wants those charged after this to possibly challenge the changes in court on the wide-ranging definitions.

Isn't it the minister's responsibility to make sure the amendments are correct to begin with?

Or is Zahid “too smart” to understand the far-reaching implications of the amendment in the first place?

This coming from a minister who knowingly, or unknowingly, signed a letter of support to a suspected illegal gambling kingpin facing the law in the United States.

Zahid had told Parliament while winding up the second reading of the bill about 10 last night that the definition of sedition was quite wide. This already shows there is ambiguity there.

“So let the courts define it,” the home minister said, but he refused to tackle questions on whether the holding of a referendum to decide if Sabah and Sarawak should secede from Malaysia falls under the definition of sedition.

Yesterday, Speaker Pandikar Amin Mulia ignored pleas to the legislature to await the decision of the Federal Court in Azmi Sharom's case, which was heard last month and for which the decision is yet to be delivered.

Minister's reply proves act gone worse

Yesterday UN High Commissioner of Human Rights Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein urged the Malaysian government to withdraw the amendments for fear that the changes planned would make the Act go from a bad law to worse .

This writer also observes that the concern of the UN is certainly justified, judging by the manner Zahid ( right ) gave his reply last night.

The minister seemed to be in the dark, or ignorant. Or was he perhaps living on another planet, not knowing the far-reaching implications of the wide definitions of the changes to the Sedition Act?

Isn't it his job to refine or narrow down the wide definitions in the first place, when he knows that this is so?

What was Zahid doing when the amendments were being drafted by his ministry and the Attorney-General's Chambers?

These are the questions that the Bagan Datoh MP must answer in light of the withdrawals of certain amendments to that controversial law, namely the removal of the 'no bail' clause and the lowering of the mandatory minimum jail sentence of five years to three years.

For a person who posseses a doctorate, and being an Umno vice-president, he should have spotted the weaknesses in the bill.

Now, with the amendments, words uttered against the government or the courts would not be deemed seditious.

Hence, being a devil's advocate here, should all those already been charged in courts for allegedly committing such offences be released or discharged right away?

Where are the Pakatan MPs?

One of the amendments states that there is no need for the prosecution to prove intention. So while the opposition lawmakers from Pakatan have been harping on the Sedition Act act being draconian and limiting freedom of speech and expression, where were the missing elected representatives when the amendments were put to vote in the wee hours of that morning?

They have betrayed the trust of the people who put them there in the first place. They know fully well that the Act can be used against them - in fact, the law has already been used against some of them.

Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak had promised three years ago that the Sedition Act would be repealed and replaced with a law on national harmony. Najib subsequently rescinded on his promise. Then, he moved on to enhance the colonial law on sedition.

Already, we have seen 42 people being charged or investigated under the Act in 2013, and within the first quarter of this year, another 36 are facing the same fate.

The Pakatan Rakyat representatives supposedly represent 52 percent of the popular votes cast in the last general election - so it has been argued.

If the majority of their constituents are upset with the new laws and amendments, they should at least be there to debate and try and vote against such laws and amendments.

At least 26 Pakatan MPs were absent during the final vote on the the Prevention of Terrorism Bill but after brickbats, seven were absent from the second reading of the Sedition Act amendments.

Those elected representatives who are against the bill, but who were not present when the voting took place should be brought to task by their constituents for failing to perform their duties.