“ Pakatan nama individu didakwa ejen BN untuk ‘beli MP’

Pakatan Rakyat hari ini mendakwa ketua parti KITA Kedah, Zamil Ibrahim telah membuat rundingan supaya MP pembangkang berpaling tadah, seperti didakwa dalam satu video yang dirakam setahun lalu.”

Zamil Ibrahim bukan ahli Parti KITA kerana beliau telah dipecat dalam bulan Februari 2012. Beliau tiada sebarang jawatan dalam Parti KITA.

Malaysiakini mestilah membetulkan segera fakta berkenaan dan meminta maaf kepada KITA.

Sekretariat Media Pusat
Parti KITA

Dalam menggambarkan peranan mufti ini, al-Shātibī menyatakan bahawa kedudukan mufti di dalam masyarakat (‘ummah) menepati kedudukan nabi Muhammad SAW, sebagai pengganti dan pewarisnya.

Ini kerana mufti sentiasa menjadi tempat rujukan dan memainkan peranan utama dalam menyampaikan hukum-hukum Allah SWT. Namun, fatwa juga adalah satu camaliah ijtihād yang merupakan manifestasi terhadap dinamisme al-fiqh al-Islamiah yang sentiasa kekal relevan pada semua zaman, tempat, persekitaran dan masa.

Bagi menjadikan fatwa yang dikeluarkan dihormati dan diterima masyarakat, mufti hendaklah berpegang pada etika sebagai seorang mufti.

Sebagai seseorang mufti, beliau hendaklah sentiasa menyedari dan ingat bahawa setiap apa yang diperkatakan dan difatwakan mengenai agamanya akan dihisab di hadapan Allah SWT pada hari akhirat kelak.

Oleh itu, seseorang mufti hendaklah memenuhi syarat-syarat dan kriteria seorang mufti, tidak cukup hanya memiliki ilmu pengetahuan yang mendalam dan wawasan hidup yang luas, tetapi beliau juga wajar melengkapi dirinya dengan sifat dan etika tertentu di dalam mengemukakan fatwa, agar fatwa yang
dikemukakan itu mendapat tempat dan pahala di sisi Allah SWT dan diterima di sisi manusia serta lebih bertepatan dengan hakikat yang dikehendaki syarak.

Iman Ahmad Ibn Hambāl r.a. menyebut bahawa tidak sewajarnya seseorang itu mengangkat atau menawarkan dirinya untuk berfatwa sehinggalah terdapat pada dirinya lima perkara:

1. Beliau hendaklah mempunyai niat. Ini kerana seseorang yang tidak mempunyai niat tidak akan mendapat cahaya (petunjuk) pada dirinya dan tutur katanya.
2. Beliau hendaklah merupakan seorang yang mempunyai ilmu, sifat kasih, lemah lembut dan penyabar serta jiwa yang tenang.
3. Beliau hendaklah merupakan seorang yang mempunyai keyakinan yang teguh pada tugas dan pengetahuannya.
4. Keperluan hidup seseorang mufti dalam keadaan mencukupi (al-kifayah) dan tidak bergantung pada manusia. Jika sebaliknya, mufti akan dimamah dan dipengaruhi oleh orang yang berkepentingan.
5. Mengenali manusia: iaitu mempunyai maklumat dan pengetahuan yang cukup tentang adat istiadat dan selok-belok kehidupan manusia. Mengetahui secara praktikal maslahat mustafti. Begitu juga mengenai helah orang yang bertanyakan fatwa kerana tidak semua pertanyaan fatwa itu bertujuan untuk mendapat jawapan fatwa.

Selain itu, terdapat banyak lagi sikap atau etika yang perlu ada pada diri seseorang mufti dalam mengemukakan fatwa. Antaranya:

1. Sebelum mengemukakan fatwa, seseorang mufti hendaklah terlebih dahulu mendekatkan diri kepada Allah SWT dengan memohon dan meminta petunjuk serta pertolongan dari-Nya agar diilhamkan perkara yang hak dan benar, dikurniakan untuknya kekuatan untuk sampai kepada hukum yang disyariatkan oleh Allah SWT pada setiap persoalan yang diajukan kepadanya. Selain itu, beliau juga hendaklah memohon perlindungan Allah SWT dari dorongan hawa nafsu dan godaan syaitan. Antara doa yang dianjurkan agar dibaca oleh mufti ialah, “Wahai Tuhan Jibra’il dan Mika’il serta Israfil, Tuhan yang menciptakan langit dan bumi, Tuhan yang mengetahui yang ghaib dan yang nyata, Engkau menghukumkan antara para hamba Engkau tentang perkara yang mereka perselisihkan. Tunjukkanlah kepadaku hidayah tentang apa yang sebenarnya dalam perkara yang mereka berselisih pendapat tentangnya dengan izin Engkau. Sesungguhnya Engkau memberi hidayat kepada sesiapa yang Engkau kehendaki ke jalan yang betul.

2. Mufti hendaklah memperbetulkan niat dalam mengemukakan fatwa, iaitu hanya untuk mendapatkan keredaan Allah SWT semata-mata. Mufti juga mesti memastikan fatwa yang dikemukakan itu bertepatan dengan maqāsid sharciyyah (matlamat syariat) dalam menjaga kemaslahatan manusia.

3. Mufti hendaklah menyertakan dalil-dalil dan alasan-alasan yang kuat bersama fatwa yang dikeluarkan, selain cillah, hikmat dan falsafah hukum yang mendasari keputusan tersebut. Hal demikian merupakan roh bagi kesempurnaan fatwa, selain dapat merangsang akal mustaftī (orang yang minta fatwa) untuk memahaminya.

Menurut al-Qardāwī, cara ini amat penting kerana mutakhir ini, bilangan orang yang mengejek, mempersendakan Islam dan ajarannya sangat banyak, dan mereka ini tidak boleh menerima sesuatu ketetapan hukum melainkan setelah dapat mengenal pasti alasan, sebab dan tujuannya.

4. Seseorang mufti juga perlu bersedia menerima teguran untuk memperbetulkan kesalahan atau kesilapannya. Sikap ini lebih baik berbanding berterusan dalam melakukan kesalahan.

5. Mufti perlu berfatwa dengan apa yang beliau ketahui, dari perkara yang hak dan berpegang teguh pada/mempertahankan fatwa yang dikemukakannya itu meskipun boleh mendatangkan kemarahan atau perasaan tidak senang hati sesetengah pihak termasuk para penguasa dan pemimpin kerajaan. Ini kerana apa yang dicari mufti adalah keredaan Allah SWT bukanya keredaan manusia.

6. Mufti juga perlu peka terhadap adat, curuf serta suasana kehidupan manusia pada zamannya. Ini supaya beliau dapat menggabungkan fatwanya dengan realiti kehidupan ummah. Perkara ini penting kerana maklumat dan pengetahuan yang cukup tentang suasana kehidupan sebenar, adat-istiadat dan kebiasaan hidup manusia, menjadikan mufti lebih bijak dan berhati-hati dalam melaksanakan amanah Allah SWT ke atas dirinya.

7. Sekiranya seseorang mufti mendapati persoalan yang diajukan kepadanya itu mengandungi kemusykilan yang memerlukan penjelasan, maka menjadi kewajipan beliau untuk meminta penjelasan sewajarnya daripada mustaftī. [12] Ini kerana meninggalkan istifsār (tidak meminta penjelasan) merupakan kunci/penyebab kepada segala kesilapan dalam fatwa.

8. Senantiasa bersedia menasihati mustafti agar pergi kepada orang yang lebih alim daripadanya, untuk bertanyakan mengenai sesuatu permasalahan dan kemusykilan yang sedang dihadapi mustafti tanpa ada rasa tidak selesa di dalam hatinya.

9. Mufti hendaklah sedaya upaya menganjurkan dan menasihatkan kepada mustafti suatu perkara yang dibolehkan sebagai cadangan dan galang ganti ke atas perkara yang diharamkan. Ini kerana adalah penting sekiranya mustafti tersebut meminta fatwa berkenaan suatu perkara yang disangkanya adalah diharuskan dan sangat memerlukan kepada perkara tersebut, sehinggakan sanggup berusaha untuk mendapatkannya walau apa cara sekalipun.

10. Selain itu, mufti juga tidak boleh tergesa-gesa dalam mengemukakan fatwa dan menjawab persoalan yang dilontarkan kepadanya tanpa berfikir panjang dan mengamati permasalahan tersebut dengan lebih teliti.

11. Seseorang mufti hendaklah memberi perhatian serius berkaitan perkara-perkara berbangkit yang mempunyai hubungan langsung dengan realiti kehidupan yang sedang dihadapi masyarakat.

Mufti tidak sepatutnya menyibukkan diri mereka dengan menjawab persoalan-persoalan yang tidak membawa manfaat dan berkaitan dengan perkara-perkara yang belum berlaku, persoalan yang boleh memancing pendebatan dan pertikaman lidah sesama sendiri dan juga berkaitan dengan persoalan-persoalan yang bersifat menguji kebolehan seseorang mufti atau bertujuan untuk menunjukkan kebolehannya.

Perkara-perkara demikian bukan sahaja tidak bermanfaat malah kadang-kalanya boleh mengundang permasalahan dan menimbulkan kesan yang buruk terhadap masyarakat.

12. Mufti hendaklah menjelaskan sesuatu fatwa dengan jelas dan terang sehinggakan dapat menghilangkan keraguan mustaftī terhadap sesuatu permasalahan yang diajukan. Mufti tidak boleh mengemukakan fatwa yang boleh meletakkan mustaftī dalam keadaan kebingungan dan penuh tanda Tanya.

Umpamanya: apabila diajukan sesuatu persoalan, beliau menjawab: “persoalan ini mempunyai dua pendapat..!” tanpa menambah dan menjelaskan jawapan dengan sewajarnya.

13. Sebelum mengeluarkan fatwa dalam masalah-masalah yang rumit, mufti sewajarnya berbincang dengan golongan yang diiktiraf keilmuannya.

Adalah tidak wajar bagi setiap kemusykilan yang timbul dilakukan penyelesaiannya secara bersendirian tanpa diadakan sebarang persidangan atau perbincangan dengan para ilmuwan Islam yang pakar dalam bidang tersebut.

Firman Allah SWT bermaksud :“… dan bermesyuaratlah dengan mereka dalam urusan (peperangan dan hal-hal keduniaan) itu”

14. Salah satu perkara mustahak yang mesti diberikan perhatian secukupnya oleh mufti adalah mengajukan pendahuluan-pendahuluan serta persiapan-persiapan mental sidang penanya terhadap ketentuan-ketentuan hukum yang agak baru dan asing bagi mereka.

Cara yang demikian adalah sunnah Allah SWT di dalam al-Qur’ān contohnya mengenai kisah Nabi Zakaria a.s yang mendapat seorang cahaya mata dari isterinya yang mandul adalah pendahuluan bagi kisah Nabi cIsa a.s. yang dilahirkan tanpa seorang ayah.

Jika ada pasangan yang mandul, kemudian akhirnya mendapat juga cahaya mata, walhal pada ghalib kebiasaannya pasangan seumpama itu tidak pernah mendapat keturunan, maka jiwa dan mentaliti manusia akan siap sedia untuk menerima dan memperakui jika sekiranya kemudian ada seseorang dilahirkan
tanpa ayah.

Sekiranya etika yang disebutkan ini diamati dan diamalkan oleh setiap orang mufti, nescaya fatwa yang dikeluarkan akan mendatangkan impak yang positif kepada umat Islam, bahkan fatwa tersebut juga akan dapat diterima dan dihormati oleh masyarakat. Ajaran Islam pula tidak akan diberikan persepsi negatif oleh mereka yang tidak dapat memahami ajaran agama dengan sempurna.

MALAYSIANS .. why can’t educational issues be non-partisan so that children will not be victims of discrimination why choke the future generation of the lifeline of a good ethical foundation
by stopping funding and the the ability to contribute to nation-building why must the bright young minds be held for ransom just because a political promise is made to teach justice in a certain fashion ahhh Malaysian … do not politicize education it is the only means to create good and ethical citizens and a future generation minds cultivated in the hands of good teachers who too should be non-partisans and without ideological inclination this — is the only way to ensure the future generation will not sell this nation to neo-colonialism whose agents are even good at spewing proses of patriotism
MALAYSIANS … behave if you will in order to arrive safely at this educational path to salvation and behave so that the future generation will not urinate on each others’ grave and curse each other in eternal damnation
Let us work together for national progress .. through goods deeds .. good teaching and learning ..and deep reflections …. — azly rahman

DR AZLY RAHMAN, who was born in Singapore and grew up in Johor Baru, holds a Columbia University (New York) doctorate in International Education Development and Master’s degrees in the fields of Education, International Affairs, Peace Studies and Communication. He has taught more than 40 courses in six different departments and has written more than 300 analyses on Malaysia. His teaching experience spans Malaysia and the United States, over a wide range of subjects from elementary to graduate education. He currently resides in the United States.
Source : Malaysia Today

PETALING JAYA: Bekas Mufti Perlis, Datuk Dr Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin menegur usaha pendakwahan Islam di Malaysia dan menganggap menjurus kepada pembaziran wang.

Beliau membandingkan dengan usaha pendakwahan Kristian di Britain yang berasaskan pemberian khidmat kepada masyarakat berdasarkan akal fikiran.“Jika kita hendak menawan manusia, tawanlah akal dan jiwanya. Maka, nanti ajaran ini akan meresap ke dalam dirinya

“Agama yang dianugerahkan Allah sebagai rahmat untuk sekelian alam tidak disebarkan dengan kesungguhan. Jika disebarkan pun, ramai yang menggunakan pendekatan yang salah.

“Orang Islam bukan tidak ada wang. Namun mereka telah bazirkan kepada perkara-perkara yang tidak kena tempatnya. Pergilah lihat kepada surau-surau yang dibina oleh jabatan-jabatan agama untuk Orang Asli di Malaysia, sebahagiannya menjadi tempat binatang-binatang bersolat. Tiada petugas yang menjaga.

“Bukan sahaja kebajikan Orang Asli, tetapi surau yang dibelanjakan oleh wang zakat itu pun dibiarkan begitu sahaja. Jangan tanya kosnya yang mungkin melebihi harga patut. Namun jika kita ke kawasan pendalaman Thailand umpamanya, kita akan dapati ramai pendakwah muda Kristian yang berasal dari Barat yang sanggup tinggal beberapa tahun untuk menyebarkan agama mereka.

Hujah akal dan jiwa

Beliau berkata demikian dalam artikel terbarunya yang diterbitkan semalam bertajuk Islam Yang Dihilangkan Kelunakakannya.
Menurutnya Mohd Asri, pendekatan dakwah mesti berasaskan hujah akal dan jiwa.

“Islam agama yang berbicara kepada akal dan jiwa manusia. Nas-nas Islam berhujah dengan akal manusia, dan dalam masa yang sama memujuk mereka.”

“Banyak nas al-Quran dan hadis yang mengajar kita untuk melakukan pendekatan yang lunak dalam menyeru orang lain kepada kebenaran.Bukan melalui paksaan. Bukan dengan kekerasan. Bukan dengan cercaan,” katanya sambil merujuk kepada Surah at-Taubah.

Kaedah pendakwahan masyarakat Kristian di Britain beliau dapati, dibuat dengan keterbukaan dan kasih sayang.

“Bicaranya penuh dengan keterbukaan dan kasih sayang. Mereka sering mengulangi ayat bahawa kita hanya ingin berkongsi pendapat, dan menyebarkan mesej yang baik. Kita tidak ingin memaksa orang lain menjadi Kristian tetapi ingin berkongsi dengan mereka. Bertukar pandangan tentang Tuhan dan berkongsi isu-isu kemanusiaan.”

Kristian bakal memuncak di China

Hasilnya banyak anggota masyarakat Cina di Britain menjadi Kristian. Berdasarkan pemerhatiannya, beliau yakin bahawa negara China pada masa hadapan mampu menjadi negara yang paling ramai orang Kristian.

“Demikianlah pihak gereja. Mereka amat bijak apabila melihat perkembangan China hari ini. Mereka mengambil peluang yang ada. Jika masa depan China seperti yang diramalkan, sekali lagi Kristianiti berada di puncak.”

Di samping itu, beliau turut menyalahkan peranan sesetengah pihak yang mempolitikkan hubungan golongan Islam dan bukan Islam.

Ajaran-ajaran agama ini yang dibuat oleh sesetengah pihak hanya memilih nas-nas yang ungkapkan oleh al-Quran dan hadis dalam suasana peperangan tapi cuba dilaksanakan dalam suasana aman dan manusia mencapai tahap perubahan yang seperti ini.

“Sedangkan nas semasa aman dan nas semasa perang tidak sama. Hasilnya, ramai bukan Muslim gagal melihat wajah Islam yang asal.

Sumber: Free Malaysia Today

Kemudian ,telah diberitakan bahawa bayaran bagi tender nombor tersebut telah dibayar oleh Kementerian Kesihatan. Akhirnya, setelah tepis, tolak , terajang dan kuntau, dan setelah ditegur oleh Perbendaharaan Malaysia bahawa tiada peruntukan membeli nombor kenderaan yang diluluskan dalam bajet, diberitakan bahawa Menteri mengakui memperoleh nombor plat kenderaan WWW 15 itu “secara percuma” . Ertinya “Aku dapat nombor plat WWW 15 secara percuma!” atau “JPJ bagi nombor WWW 15 kat aku secara percuma !”

Tetapi, harus diingat! Telah diberitakan bahawa DYMM Yang DiPertuan Agong dikehendaki membayar tender berkenaan. DYMM Sultan Johor pun gunakan duit sendiri untuk membayar nombor plat kenderaan yang Tuanku tender.
Dan, Menteri Kesihatan Liow Tiong Lai mendapat nombor yang ditender secara eprcuma.

SEKARANG,Parti KITA menggesa Menteri Liow Tiong Lai membayar tender nombor berkenaan secara peribadi, atau memohon maaf kepada orang ramai dan segera menyerahkan kembali nombor berkenaan kepada JPJ untuk ditender semula.
Sekretariat Media Pusat
Parti KITA

The Sedition Act has reared its ugly head again. This time it is against Irene Fernandez and former Perak Menteri Besar, Nizar Mohamed. We have seen how the Sedition Act was used against Karpal Singh, a prominent lawyer and politician, when he was charged for insulting the Sultan of Perak for saying that His Majesty should not interfere with matters concerning the state and that he can be sued for doing so.

Jeyaseelen Anthony, CPI

Some may wonder what sedition is all about as the word sounds very serious and terrifying. No doubt it is a serious and terrifying offence as one may be imprisoned for merely voicing out different views and opinions. Worst still one may even be branded as a criminal, not for committing crimes like theft and murder but by only having different views or opinions that may be interpreted as being anti-establishment by the powers that be. The prime minister has announced recently that the Sedition Act will be reviewed. This article posits that the Sedition Act 1948 should not be reviewed but repealed. The question is why?

I say this because, any piece of legislation which imprisons people for holding different views and opinions is to say the least, draconic. Such a law should not be a part of any legal system. To understand why this is so, one needs to inquire into history to look at the origins of the offence of sedition.

The offence itself is made in England. It is part of the common law of England. It was created to protect the British monarch and the British Empire from being criticized or vilified. The law on sedition came about during a period when kings and queens were believed to have divine powers and they were believed to be god-sent and as such the laws dispensed by them were unquestionable and criticism of rulers were seen as sinful and unlawful. Today, this belief is no longer true and is seen as foolish. Therefore a law which was created with such a purpose in mind may not be suitable or relevant in present times.

The common law provides that one is only deemed to have uttered or published words which are seditious if those words incite people to violence. Therefore words which do not incite others violence does not amount to sedition. Although this was the case in Britain, its colonies were visited with legislation against sedition which was more draconian. In India for example the British colonial courts through several cases decided that the common law on sedition as applied in England will not be applied in India. That means words which merely criticized the British colonial government in India over its unfair policies and practices amounted to sedition.

That explains why prominent Indian freedom fighters and nationalist like Mahatma Gandhi, V.O. Chidambaram Pillai and Balgandhar Tilak were arrested charged for sedition for speaking against the British in India. Mahatma Gandhi for example was imprisoned several times after being convicted for sedition. The intention of the British was clearly to suppress and punish per se any individual who attempts to create feelings of disaffection, hatred or contempt to its rule, irrespective of the whether or not disorder follows or is likely to follow. Clearly, this was the most convenient way to successfully prosecute freedom fighters and nationalist. The crime of sedition was the most effective weapon used by the British to suppress dissent and to fulfill its colonial agenda in India. A further qualification of incitement to violence and public disorder to prove the offence of sedition would have definitely been an hindrance.

The law on sedition that was applied in India is the same as ours in Malaysia.

The Sedition Act 1948 was enacted by the British to suppress communist elements within the Communist Party of Malaya and its propaganda which was active in Malaya during the emergency period. The communist officially surrendered to the Malaysian government in 1989. Although communism is no longer a threat, nevertheless the Sedition Act has been used against members of the opposition, Members of Parliament, journalist and other NGO leaders pursuing campaigns that imply some criticism of the government policies and its institutions. Some of these individuals have been fined and one occasion even imprisoned under the Sedition Act. The current Chief Minister of Penang, Lim Guan Eng for e.g. was charged and convicted for sedition and was imprisoned.

The British left Malaya in 1957 however the Sedition Act never left with them. It was actually adopted into the Malaysian legal system by a constitutional amendment. It is unfortunate that we are still being dictated by colonial laws like the Sedition Act, which is considered obsolete in many commonwealth countries due to its history of being an instrument of oppression. The Sedition Act is a piece of legislation that can be easily abused and manipulated by the powers that be because of the uncertainty contained in its provisions. The provisions of the Act are couched with archaic and vague language in particular Section 3(1) (a) – (f) which lays down the situations where words can come within the meaning of ‘seditious tendencies’. They are as follows:

(a) bring hatred or contempt to the government or to excite disaffection against any ruler or against any government.

(b) to excite its subjects to procure the alteration of the government by unlawful means

(c) to bring into hatred or contempt or excite disaffection against the administration of justice

(d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the people

(e) to promote feeling of ill-will and hostility between the different races

(f) to question any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative protected by the Federal Constitution.

The uncertainty of its provisions is implicit in words like “bringing into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any ruler or against any government” in Section 3. The language used here is broad and vague enough to catch anything and everything particularly the tendency to question or criticize any government about their policies or actions. There seems no line drawn between legitimate criticisms and criticisms that lead to incitement to violence and disorder. It seems that any criticism aimed at any government or its institutions are capable of having seditious tendencies under the Act.

Of grave concern is the fact that the Act can be used quiet easily to stifle legitimate criticisms against the government and its institutions. Cases have shown that this is possible. For e.g. Dr Ooi Kee Saik a opposition politician, was charged and sentenced to pay a fine under the Sedition Act for having lamented during his speech about the domination of one particular race (the Malays) in the army, police, educational institutions and business and that these policies do not augur well with the government’s policy on racial integration and he accused the government of gross partiality in favour of one race. The court found that the issues raised by Dr Ooi amounted to bringing the government into hatred or contempt, or exciting feelings of disaffection against the government.

It is clear that Dr. Ooi was only calling for greater racial integration between the various races in Malaysia in order to prevent racial imbalance in the institutions of government and that he was only pointing out to the government that they should do away with policies that do not promote racial integration which is a recognized objective of the government. He did not incite any members of his party or the general public to violence. In fact many government ministers today have time and again called on the government to maintain better racial balance in the various institutions of the government. It is difficult to understand how Dr Ooi’s statements could be considered as seditious.

The wanton use of the Sedition Act can also be seen in the prosecution of Param Cumaraswamy, a prominent lawyer and a human rights activist, who was charged for having uttered seditious words at a press conference, where he made statements calling upon the Pardons Board to recommend to the King that the death sentence of a man charged for possession of a firearm be commuted to life imprisonment as it had done in another more serious case, where the accused a influential politician and a serving Minister was guilty discharging a firearm and committing murder. The accused also urged the Pardons Board to exercise their powers fairly and uniformly so that people would not be made to feel that the Board was discriminating between the rich and the poor in terms of severity of sentence.

The prosecution alleged that the utterance of these words above by the accused have a tendency to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the subjects of the Yang Dipertuan Agong or any ruler of any state and to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any ruler or against any Government.

Param Cumaraswamy, was acquitted and discharged after being called to enter his defense on the grounds that the alleged seditious statements did not have the tendency to incite or to raise disaffection among the people and it did not refer to the King but only to the Pardons Board. In hindsight, Param Cumaraswamy should not have been prosecuted in the first place since it is obvious that he was only seeking reprieve for his client by calling on the Pardons Board to act according to good conscience so that it would not be seen to be discriminatory. His plea was for a good cause and as such there was nothing seditious in his plea.

Even more worrying is the fact that the truth or falsity of the words uttered or written, are immaterial and will not provide a defense. Even if the words are uttered by the speaker with the most, noblest intention again this will not provide him with a defence. It is therefore an absolute liability offence where intention is irrelevant. In Public Prosecutor v Mark Koding, Justice Azmi Kamaruddin in the course of his judgment said:“..it is immaterial whether the accused intention or motive was honorable or evil when making the speech”

All the judge has to do is to see whether the words are likely to create disaffection against the government, the ruler or the people. If in his honest judgment he finds it is likely to do that then the statement is seditious. The Malaysian courts have adopted the meaning of “disaffection” in the Australian case of Burns v Ransley, which means disloyalty, enmity and hostility. In other common law jurisdictions like Canada, Australia and India it has been established sedition could not be established without proof of acts that have implicit in them the idea of subverting the government by violent means and inciting others to violence and disorder.

www.malaysia-today.net

The Government is hoping that this new law will curb postings by anonymous bloggers and commentators who are critical of the Government. Which may sound well-intentioned; I am also a target of many of these. But, at the same time, this law is more far-reaching because it makes owners of blogs, Facebook pages and Twitter accounts responsible for anything that appears on them.

Marina Mahathir, The Star

AS often happens, e-mails pop up in my inbox with interesting headlines. While I usually save them to read later, I had to open this particular e-mail immediately because it had my name in it.

To my horror, I found an article purportedly written by me being circulated to much salutary praise.

Normally, I would either ignore it or leave it to readers to judge whether I really wrote such an article.

It would be obvious, I thought, to those who have followed my columns all these years that the style in that article, the photo byline notwithstanding, was definitely very different from mine.

Indeed, the reason I was passed the article was because some people who are very familiar with my writing style had their suspicions.

But I cannot rely solely on the goodwill of my readers anymore. With the new amendment to the Evidence Act 1950 which just came into being – it won’t matter if

my so-called “article” was full of grammar and spelling mistakes which I wouldn’t normally make – I would be deemed as having written it until I can prove otherwise.

The newly inserted Section 114A of the Evidence Act provides for the following:

• Owners, hosts, administrators, editors or sub-editors of websites or social media accounts are deemed responsible for any content that has been published or re-published on their site whether by themselves, persons impersonating them or any other persons;
• Subscribers of a network service which was used to publish or re-publish any content are deemed responsible for the publication; and
• Owners or individuals in custody of an electronic device that was used to publish or re-publish any content are deemed responsible for the publication.

Basically, this means that until you can prove you are innocent of these charges, you are considered by the law as guilty.

This is a complete reversal of the usual “innocent until proven guilty” axiom in most courts of law.

You can imagine the chill that went through my spine when I read this law. Over the years, not only have I been impersonated in articles and comments but also in real life.

Now all of these people will be encouraged to do more because of this law. They will know that I will have to spend so much time, energy and expense to fight to prove my innocence in the courts that they will get away pretty much scot-free.

Furthermore, while I’m trying to prove that I didn’t write these articles, they can continue to keep writing them with impunity.

Who, therefore, is this law meant to protect? And how could such a law have been passed?

Once again, this is another example of a law that was rushed through Parliament without much debate and discussion, to the detriment of us all.

More importantly, it is a huge threat to the freedom of speech that is enshrined in our Federal Con­stitution, a freedom already threatened by so many other laws.

The Government is hoping that this new law will curb postings by anonymous bloggers and commentators who are critical of the Government. Which may sound well-intentioned; I am also a target of many of these.

But, at the same time, this law is more far-reaching because it makes owners of blogs, Facebook pages and Twitter accounts responsible for anything that appears on them.

If someone posts an anonymous comment on my blog or Facebook page that somebody else does not like, then I’m instantly responsible for it even if I don’t know who the poster is in real life.

It can also work the other way round. Anyone can pretend to be a government official or politician and make a critical or defamatory posting on a government or political website.

Actually, there can be lots of such postings on any website and the owner, including presumably the Government, will be held responsible for them.

I’m not even sure what can be done by anyone to seek redress for that. Talk about an incentive to spam people with all sorts of nasty comments!

It makes you wonder how laws are made in this country. Already one law, the Election Offences Act, had to be retracted after it had been passed because it was found to be detrimental to all sides in an election.

Surely this was a result of not giving the law enough scrutiny and debate in Parliament.

If more time had been given, then surely such faulty laws would not have been passed in such a form.

Doesn’t this also make you worry about the other laws passed in such a hurry as well?

What traps lurk within them that we don’t know about, and which we could unknowingly get caught in?

malaysia-today.ne

BN tidak boleh menjaja “rakyat diutamakan” kalau ia terus-menerus memperkosa wang rakyat untuk kepentingan politik mereka.
KITA mendesak Menteri Pengajian Tinggi memberikan penjelasan kenapa wang PTPTN yang dikhususkan untuk pelajar telah ditadbir berdasarkan keputusan politik. Jangan jadi macam “budak-budak”.