Karpal sailing into troubled waters...

A record number of police reports had been lodged against DAP Chairman for seditious statements against our beloved Sultan of Perak and also Sultan of Selangor.

Much have been written and reported, both in mainstream media as well as online news portals. In the former, mainly twisted to their own advantage by Umno leaders including PM, while in the latter, mainly by oppositionists and sympathisers.

My personal choices are as follows:

By a letter writer to Malaysiakini who provided a good historical background:
Karpal and the Malay Sultanate saga
Pragalath May 13, 08 4:09pm

I refer to the Malaysiakini report Protect Karpal's right to views, says Santiago.

The current political drama over Bukit Gelugor MP, Karpal Singh’s statement and police report against the Perak Sultan and the Raja Muda of Kelantan is an interesting one.

Certain parties such as the Perak Umno Youth, the BN Back Benchers Club and the Malay Unity Action Front have lodged police reports and there is speculation that Karpal Singh - who is DAP chairperson -may be charged for treason since he is alleged to have raised the sensitivities of the Malay community by raising the issue of the Malay Sultanate.

Commenting on this matter, Tengku Adnan commented that: ‘He had made a strong comment that the Sultan and royalty were subject to the law just like a normal citizen following the amendments to the Federal Constitution in 1993. The comments were like a warning to the Sultan of Perak and other Malay Rulers that they should not interfere in state administrative matters’.

There are at least ten reports lodged against Karpal Singh as was reported thus far but I would like to view this episode from another perspective since action speaks louder than words. The Malay sultanate is a permanent feature of Malaysia’s past, present and future. So strong is their influence that the second principle of our Rukunegara is ‘Loyalty to the King and Nation’.

In the 1991 publication of Pelindung, Chandra Muzaffar wrote that the British maintained the positions of the Malay sultanates even though they were the ones who actually wielded power in the Federated Malay States via the British Resident system. On the other hand, the Malay sultanate had more power and discretion in the Non-Federated Malay states.

Opposition to Malayan Union in 1948 occurred largely due to the reduced role of the Malay Sultanate under the Malayan Union plan. It was a prelude to the formation of Umno. Umno’s main objective then was to protect the interest of the sultanate. One of Umno’s resolutions stated: ‘Terminating the powers of the Sultanate would spell the demise of the Malay States in the Peninsula’ (Menamatkan kuasa-kuasa Sultan, maka musnahlah sama sekali Negeri-Negeri Melayu di Semenanjung Tanah Melayu).

Chandra also noted a point in the reduction of influence of the Malay sultanate over the rakyat in tandem with Umno’s increasing influence. Fast forward to 1993, a major development took place in terms of the federal constitution. It is in this very year that the Umno-led Barisan Nasional government passed a major constitutional amendment that restricted somewhat the authority of the Malay Sultanates.

The Dewan Rakyat parliamentary bill, in its explanatory statement states that ‘the bill seeks to amend the relevant provisions of the Federal Constitution for the purpose of withdrawing the immunity of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and the Rulers from any legal proceedings in any court in their personal capacities and to make consequential amendments arising thereform’.

It is fascinating to note that the Umno that was formed to protect the Malay sultanate in 1948 had actually led the BN coalition to successfully amend the constitution to restrict the privileges of Malay sultanate whose roles were already becoming ceremonial in nature.

Shortly before the amendment was tabled in the august house, several issues such as the extravagant lifestyle of the royalty were highlighted in the electronic media, especially by the state owned RTM and TV3 television stations. This were done by the Mahathir administration to convince and justify the need for such an amendment.

These are some of the events that must be taken into consideration now. ‘Malays forget easily’ is a book title popularised by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad during his premiership. In this sense I would like to state that even Malaysians forget easily. Hence the above outline.

Post March 8, didn’t 22 BN state assembly persons almost launch a boycott of the appointment of Ahmad Said as menteri besar of Terengganu by Sultan Mizan Zainal Abidin? The boycott did not materialise simply because Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi decided to back off and support the Sultan’s choice instead of his.

A similar scenario also took place in Perlis when Raja Syed Sirajuddin appointed Dr Md Isa Sabu instead of the incumbent Shahidan Kassim. The appointment was made in accordance to Article 39 (2) of the state constitution which states that the Raja can appoint whomever he feels has the trust of the members of the state legislative assembly to be menteri besar. Despite that, there was a gathering of 100 people in Putrajaya in support of Shahidan. Aren’t these acts defying the sultanate?

As events unfold, I cannot decide who is right and wrong but I would like to reiterate the fact that actions speak louder than words. If Karpal’s statements were seditious, wouldn’t the Umno-led BN’s concerted effort in amending the constitution in 1993 be equivalent to treason?

Lastly, I would like to stress the fact that the sultans are not just sultans for the Malays. They are the sultans for every single citizen residing in their respective states. They are the Malaysian sultanate and not simply the Malay sultanate anymore.

In its Vox Populi, a reader commented:
On Protect Karpal's right to views, says Santiago
New Generation Kid: With all due respect to Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, I read with disgust your recent remarks on the Karpal issue. First of all, you contradict yourself because just around one month ago, when you were embroiled in the Terengganu menteri besar selection episode, the whole country heard your comment when you termed the move by the Terengganu Sultan in appointing his choice of a menteri besar as ‘unconstitutional’.

Yet, when Karpal Singh made a similar comment, you are trumpeting that he is wrong and needs to be punished. You do not have any right to comment on the punishment of Karpal as the matter is yet to be brought to court. Haven't you learnt in school before that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty? Don't you have any respect for the due process of the law?

Your actions only further confirm your government's legacy of double-standards which inevitably caused their dismal performance of the BN coalition under your leadership in the recent general election.

Last but not least, in Malik Imtiaz's blog, Disquiet, one of many lawyers' take on the issue:

WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2008
Karpal Singh: 'Disaffection' Not An UMNO State Of Mind

Accusations of sedition are being hurled around as if it is going out of fashion.

I think the offence of sedition in itself ridiculous. It is a vestige of colonialism that was aimed at only one thing: silencing of free expression to protect vested interest. I have decried recourse to the Sedition Act and have consistently advised against filing police reports for sedition. It does not matter who says what, be they from the Barisan Nasional, its component parties or those that make up the Pakatan Rakyat; if statements are found to be offensive, there is ample room in the public space to take it up there without having to criminalise expression. God knows, there are more important things for the police to be focusing on.

The case of Mr Karpal Singh illustrates this. Rightly or wrongly, he expressed a view concerning the position taken by His Royal Highness the Sultan of Perak. His view concerned the validity of the legal position taken by the Sultan. If Mr Karpal Singh is right, then the Sultan, respectfully, erred in issuing a show cause to the Menteri Besar of Perak in the way that was done. If Mr Karpal Singh was wrong, then the Sultan was correct.

Where is the sedition in this? I cannot see it. If there are those who disagree with his view, let them state their position and then let all involved agree to disagree.

It is not sedition to voice an opinion. It is only where the opinion is stated in a way that gives rise to a ‘seditious tendency’ within the meaning of the Sedition Act that the opinion could be arguably characterised as being seditious. The Sedition Act sets out six heads of a seditious tendency as follows:
1. to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any Ruler or against any Government;
2. to excite the subjects of any Ruler or the inhabitants of any territory governed by any Government to attempt to procure in the territory of the Ruler or governed by the Government, the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter as by law established;
3. to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Malaysia or in any State;
4. to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the subjects of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or of the Ruler of any State or amongst the inhabitants of Malaysia or of any State;
5. to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Malaysia; or
6. 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.
Looking at the facts of the scenario at hand, it would appear that those who accuse Mr Karpal Singh of sedition take refuge in limbs (1) or (4). Mr Karpal Singh has clarified that he did not seek to question the prerogative of the Sultan, such as it was, and contends that in his view the Sultan was not exercising prerogative in the circumstances.

It is significant that at the heart of both limbs (1) and (4) is a requirement of, at the very least, discontent or disaffection. To establish this is no easy task. It is not enough to merely point to the words giving rise to a tendency towards, putting it simply, dissatisfaction. It is necessary to establish that the potential dissatisfaction would be directed at the institution of the Sultan and would be of such a widespread nature that the institution itself would be in danger.

As was observed by the High Court (PP v Param Coomarswamy, 1986):

“"Disaffection" means disloyalty, enemity and hostility against Authority. In the same way, "discontent" means dissatisfaction against Authority. Therefore, "to raise discontent or disaffection" among the people means to create discontent or disaffection among the people against Authority. Consequently, the assertion of a grievance or complaint which tends to create discontent must be directed at Authority for it to be seditious.”

Looking on at the enthusiastic show-boating by certain UMNO quarters, I am hard pressed to conclude that such expressions as we have heard would amount to a dissatisfaction, let alone such a level of dissatisfaction.

Quite aside from that, it is significant that thus far no one, including the Attorney General, has pointed to section 3(2)(a), Sedition Act which plainly provides:

“...an act, speech, words, publication or other things shall not be deemed to be seditious by reason only that it has a tendency to show that any Ruler has been misled or mistaken in any of his measures;”

Is that not what Mr Karpal Singh was attempting to do? An inference to the contrary is something which, try as I might, I cannot draw from the circumstances.

UMNO must realize the glass house it is in. Judged by the criteria forming the basis of its position on the issue of Mr Karpal Singh having committed sedition, much of what was said in and around the appointments of the Menteri Besars of Perlis and Trengganu could similarly be said to be seditious. But then, I wonder whether this even matters. The political expediency of the very public and highly sensationalised accusations appears to outweigh all other considerations.

MIS