Saifuddin quietly signed the Statute of Rome without informing Mahathir

By ratifying the Statute of Rome, the Federal Constitution of Malaysia MUST BE AMENDED to include a provision for the Malay Rulers to be tried at the ICC. Source (pic): The Edge Markets

Following is an editorial adapted from the Malay Mail Online complete with responses by TTF (in blue):


KUALA LUMPUR: Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said that the probe over a forum on the Rome Statute, was just a normal police procedure.

The prime minister said it did not meant that the police were  going to prosecute those they quizzed over it.


“It is to protect us, when people try to stir problems they must find out, not that the investigation means they will prosecute people but they must find out whether there is any attempt to stir trouble, it does not mean it’ll be followed by charges,” he told reporters when asked on the issue, here today.

TTF: Actually, PDRM has ample evidence that those involved with the forum were seditious towards the Malay Rulers.

That having been said, the word sedition refers to the act of saying or writing something that either disrupts social harmony or has the potential to do so.

The act is defined under Section 3(1) of the Sedition Act 1948 and concerns wrongdoings summarised below (Courtesy of Ask Legal):

1. Bringing hatred, contempt, or inciting dissatisfaction against any Ruler, any Government, or the justice system of Malaysia

2. Inciting people to get the law changed illegally (such as through rioting or mob justice)

3. Raising dissatisfaction among Malaysians

4. Promoting tensions and hostility between the races or classes of Malaysians

5. Questioning the status of our citizenship rules, the national language, the Rulers, or the special position of the Malays and the Natives of Sabah and Sarawak (the Social Contract)

Section 3(2) of the same Act also says that it’s not seditious to do the following:

1. Point out that a Ruler has been misled or mistaken in their decisions

2. Point out errors or defects in the government’s policy, laws, and even errors in court decisions

3. Persuade the government to change our laws by lawful means (except our Social Contract)

4. To point out matters that cause tension and divides in our multicultural society, so that they can be solved

The law, however, is vague in its construct and has repeatedly been abused to stymie dissent against government. 

Prior to the 14th general election, Mahathir, together with leaders of the Pakatan Harapan coalition, pledged to get rid of the Act as it was “excessively broad and vague” with restrictions imposed on freedom of speech.

However, on the 3rd of December 2018, the DAP’s Gobind Singh Deo announced that the law would still be in force but would be limited to issues of national security, public order and race relations.

It follows, that unless the Government of Malaysia (GoM) can prove that those being questioned uttered words that have the potential of disrupting national security, public order and race relations, there is nothing much the police can do.

At the end of the day, when a law is as “excessively broad and vague” as the Sedition Act 1948 is, the government of the day is at liberty to twist the arms of enforcement and judiciary at pleasure to protect its supporters and apologists.


MMO Continued…

He was met after opening the Al-Sharq Youth Annual Conference 2019.

On Monday, Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Tan Sri Mohamad Fuzi Harun said the police would quiz several individuals involved with the forum, which also featured Attorney-General Tommy Thomas, that was held at Universiti Malaya on Saturday, to record their statements.

Mohamad Fuzi was reported as saying that the investigation fell under the Sedition Act, prompted by several complaints over the forum lodged with the police.

Asked whether the probe was in a way an obstruction to freedom of speech, Dr Mahathir said Malaysia did guarantee freedom of speech but it was not unlimited.

“If you do something that is going to cause problems to people, you insult people, then of course its not included in free speech,” he added.

TTF: I concur.

However, you promised to do away with the Sedition Act 1948 because the act was “excessively broad and vague” with restrictions imposed on one’s freedom of speech.

You broke your promise.

Because of that, we’re finding it difficult to believe that the law will not be abused to persecute only those opposed to government and free anyone linked to government from blame.


MMO Online…

The Rome Statute became a controversial issue in Malaysia after the government withdrew from it within the stipulated period allowed after ratification.

The prime minister had said that Malaysia had to take the step because there was fear among the  Conference of Rulers and certain segments of society that the country would lose its sovereignty if it was a signatory to the statute.

The forum was held to clarify that this was not the case.

TTF: That’s a big fat lie.

First and foremost, Saifuddin did not inform Mahathir that he was going to sign the Statute of Rome.

When Mahathir found out, he was horrified but decided to go along with it just to prevent people from thinking that he had no control over his ministers.

A plan was then hatched to perform damage control.

Mahathir quickly insinuated that the Crown Prince of Johor was misleading the people by having them think that the ratification of the treaty would impinge on the Malay Rulers.

Not only did he lie, common sense dictates that “any international instrument officially ratified or recognised by Malaysia has to be applied in the country’s domestic law.”

READ THE FOLLOWING:

Tommy Thomas, Noor Farida, and Prof Shad fighting for a “worthless” statute

In 1993, Mahathir got parliament to pass amendments to Articles 32, 38, 42, 63, 72 and 181 of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia following an incident involving the Ruler of Johor.

Prior to the amendments, the Constitution granted the Rulers the right not to be prosecuted by criminal courts unless they voluntarily surrendered their legal immunity.

The amendments stripped the Rulers of that right by granting a Special Court the authority to exercise jurisdiction over them and decide if they could be tried or if they could try another.

The amendment, however, did not grant the International Criminal Court (ICC) jurisdiction over the Malay Rulers.

Put differently, the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, which Mahathir himself admits is supreme, bears no provision stating that the ICC can try a Malay Ruler.

It follows, that should the Statute of Rome be ratified, the Constitution MUST BE AMENDED to include a provision for the Malay Rulers to be tried at the ICC.

So you see, it is not the Malay Rulers or the Crown Prince of Johor who were misled, as claimed by Mahathir.

On contraire, it is Mahathir himself who was misled by the principal legal advisor of government regarding the implications the ratification will have on the Federal Constitution of Malaysia and the Malay Rulers.

And we all know who the principal legal advisor to the Government of Malaysia is.

Adapted from:

Loading...

COMMENTS

Comments

Comments



Loading...