Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

If unruly characters are allowed to obstruct legitimate discussions, it could signal a disturbing trend.

OUR country has a well thought-out Federal Constitution and laws enacted to meet every situation. Whether it is basic human rights or sensitive issues, these are matters that had been thought about and suitable provision made.

Of course, words like “human rights” and “sensitive issues” are not directly defined in either the Fede-ral Constitution or any of the laws that are ordinarily encountered.

However, the concept of human rights is reflected in the Federal Constitution in the part relating to fundamental liberties.

Part II of the Federal Constitution spells out the fundamental liberties. Article 10 in the Constitution grants to all citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression, and the right to assemble peaceably and without arms.

In granting this right, the Federal Constitution also allows for restrictions to be placed with regard to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to any offence. What may be referred to as sensitive issues can be traced to the Sedition Act 1948.

This is by reason of the definition of “seditious tendency” being words or acts which have a tendency to promote feelings of ill will or hostility between different races or classes of the population. There are, of course, seditious tendencies in other forms.

The Act has been amended to make it seditious to just touch on certain topics and subjects. Thus Section 3(1)(f) makes it seditious to question any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of Part III of the Federal Constitution or Article 152, 153 or 181 of the Federal Constitution.”

Bar Council forum

The recent events involving the forum organised by the Bar Council and its disruption has illustrated once again the use of the word “sensitive issues” by those who have no understanding of the issue at all or those who do not want to understand it.

The forum was to discuss the circumstances that have manifested themselves arising out of the passing of Article 121 (1A) of the Federal Constitution. At the time it was passed, the impact on people of other faiths embracing Islam seems to have been not adequately considered.

The forum was to discuss problems arising out of this situation and no more. In any event, the situation would not at all come within the scope of a sensitive issue as envisaged and contemplated in the Sedition Act 1948.

Part III of the Constitution deals with the subject of citizenship while Article 152 deals with the position of the national language.

Article 153 deals with the reservation of quotas for Malays and Natives of Sabah and Sarawak, and Article 181 deals with the rulers’ sovereignty. But even if the Sedition Act 1948 is to be looked at in a broader sense, it helps to be reminded of what was said by Abdul Hamid J (as he then was) in Public Prosecutor v Fan Yew Teng in the following words:

“The Act is in no way directed to any law-abiding citizen, nor is it directed at those whose words are expressive of only a tendency to point out errors or defects in the Government or Constitution as by law established, even though the condemnation may be couched in the strongest possible language. It is lawful and not actionable so long as the criticism is fair and temperate.”

In holding the forum, the Bar Council was by all accounts engaged in a legitimate activity. There is no suggestion by anyone that the proposed gathering was illegal or that what was to be discussed was in contravention of the law.

In any event, statements made to suggest that the discussion would involve sensitive issues would appear to be premature. This is because all the statements were made even before the forum had started.

Based on the law, no one has identified in what way sensitive issues were involved and relevant. If indeed any infringement of the law was seriously anticipated, the authorities could have acted to obtain recordings and thereafter prosecute the person responsible for such offending statements.

The authorities are familiar with such options. There have been various cases where the speeches made were recorded and the person who made the speech which was considered racially inflammatory was subsequently charged and convicted.

Such an approach would not only provide an opportunity for a judicial decision that would provide guidance on what is sensitive and what is not, but also be in accordance with the rule of law.

The rule of law enables those who do not contravene the law to be allowed to engage in activity to express their views and voice out their suggestions to help resolve outstanding problems in society.

Those who intrude into meetings and demand that such meetings be stopped without understanding what was being discussed are in no better position then the road bullies who take the law into their own hands and are condemned by the public.

The only difference is that the unruly characters who decided to become judge and enforcer of their own misconceived beliefs did so accompanied by law enforcement officials. They then embellished this conduct with uncalled for conduct with remarks which could themselves be seditious.

The manner in which those who arrogated to themselves the power to stop a legitimate discussion and the apparent silence of the authorities in allowing this intrusion may well be based on reasons which are best known to them.