Lawyers and the rule of law on trial: Sedition prosecutions in Malaysia

Criminal Law Forum

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2001, Pages 1-23

  Davidson, Gail ^a,b,g   Friesen, Tami ^c,d,g   Jackson, Michael ^a,e,f,g  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^b Law Society of British Columbia   (Canada)

^c DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^d Law Societies of British Colombia and Ontario   (Colombia)

^e KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^f YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^g Lawyers' Rights Watch Canada   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 52549114185     PISSN: 10468374     EISSN: 15729850     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1011697712638     Document Type: Article

References (82)

1. Karpal Singh was a DAP Member of Parliament from the State of Penang from 1978 to November 1999, and was a State Assemblyman for the State of Kedah from 1974 to 1978.
2. Karpal Singh was arrested during 'Operation Lalang' in October 1987 under the Internal Security Act and imprisoned until January 1989. He was released on a habeas corpus application in March 1988, but was arrested hours later. As a result of the 1987 arrest, Karpal Singh was designated as a prisoner of conscience by Amnesty International.
3. "Whoever voluntarily commits carnal intercourse against the order of nature shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to twenty years, and shall also be liable to whipping."
4. THE STRAITS TIMES [Singapore], Sept. 23, 1998.
5. Pursuant to Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance No. 22/1970, s. 2(1), which was repealed in October 1998.
6. As reported on the website 〈http://www.malaysiakini.com〉.
7. G. MACKENZIE, LAWYERS AND ETHICS: PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND DISCIPLINE 26-27 (1993) at 26-27.
8. Amnesty International Press Statement, Jan, 20, 2000, AI Index: ASA 28/01/00.
9. Muzzled in Malaysia, THE ECONOMIST, Aug. 29, 1998.
10. Amnesty International Press Statement, March 2000, AI Index: ASA 28/03/00.
11. Dato' Param Cumaraswamy is currently the Special Rapporteur on Judicial Independence of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.
12. Civil Case No. S2-23-93-1999 (Nov. 19, 1999) (Kuala Lumpur High Court) [unreported]. This decision is under appeal.
13. 1275, 3 Edw. I, c. 34. (repealed in 1887).
14. Zundel v. The Queen et al., (1992) 75 C.C.C. (3d) 449 (S.C.C), at 501 (per McLachlin J.).
15. 77 E.R. 250.
16. Ibid., at 251.
17. L.W. Maher, The Use and Abuse of Sedition, 14 SYDNEY L. REV. 287, 312 (1992).
18. LORD DENNING, LANDMARKS IN THE LAW 295 (1984).
19. Boucher v. The King, [1951] S.C.R. 265, at 285-286.
20. Kenya's Sedition Act was repealed in November 1997 by the Statute Laws Repeals and Miscellaneous Amendments Act 1997.
21. G. Imanyara & K. Mungai, Kenya, in SPEAKING FREELY: EXPRESSION AND THE LAW IN THE COMMONWEALTH 330 (R. Martin, ed., 1999) (Toronto: Irwin Law, 1999) 287 at 330.
22. R. v. Aldred, (1909) 22 Cox C.C. 1.
23. R. v. Caunt, (1947) 64 L.Q.R. 203.
24. Supra note 19.
25. R. v. Chief Metropolitan Magistrates Court ex parte Choudhory, [1991] 1 All E.R. 306, at 323 (emphasis added).
26. Supra note 19, at 288.
27. Ibid., at 286.
28. Kedar Nath. Singh v. State of Behar, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 955, at 968.
29. The Australian Intelligence and Security (Consequential Amendments) Act 1986, ss. 12-13.
30. Supra note 17, at 288.
31. L. W. Maher, Dissent, Disloyalty and Disaffection: Australia's Last Cold War Sedition Case, 16 ADELAIDE L. REV. 1, 17 (1994).
32. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 89 S. Ct. 1827, 23 L. Ed. 2d 430 (1970).
33. 18 U.S.C. s.2384: "If two or more persons ... conspire to overthrow, put down or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them ..."
34. United States v. Rahman, 854 F.Supp. 254 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). See INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW: CASES AND MATERIALS 1215 (J.J. Paust & M.C. Bassiouni et al., 1986).
35. The Sedition Ordinance came into force on July 19, 1948 [hereinafter Sedition Act].
36. Subsections 3(2)(e) and (f) were added and s. 3(2) was amended.
37. Sedition Act, ss. 3(1)(e)&(f).
38. Lim Guan Eng v. P.P., [1998] 3 M.L.J. 14, at 43.
39. P.P. v. Ooi Kee Saik & Ors, [1971] 2 M.L.J. 108, at 111.
40. Supra note 28.
41. Cited by Venkt Iyer in SPEAKING FREELY: EXPRESSION AND THE LAW IN THE COMMONWEALTH, supra note 21, at p. 232.
42. Supra note 39 at 112.
43. P.P. v. Mark Koding, [1983] 1 M.L.J. 111, at 114 (per Mohamed Azim J.).
44. P.P. v. Param Cumaraswamy (No.2), [1986] 1 M.L.J. 518 at 525.
45. R. v. Sullivan (1868), 11 Cox C.C. 44.
46. (1949) 79 C.L.R. 101.
47. L. W. Maher, supra note 31.
48. R.A. Addruse, Malyasia in SPEAKING FREELY: EXPRESSION AND LAW IN THE COMMONWEALTH 369, 380 (R. Martin, ed, 1999).
49. GATLEY ON LIBEL AND SLANDER 281 (P. Milmo & W.V.H. Rogers, eds, 9th ed., 1998);
50. P.R. CARTER-RUCK, R. WALKER & H.N.A. STARTE, CARTER-RUCK ON LIBEL AND SLANDER 119 (4th ed., 1992);
51. R.E. BROWN, THE LAW OF DEFAMATION IN CANADA, Vol. I 554 (2nd ed., 1994).
52. R. v. Skinner, (1772) Lofft 55, at 56, 98 E.R. 529, at 530.
53. Royal Aquarium v. Parkinson, [1892] 1 Q.B. 431 (CA.), at 451 (per Lopes L.J.).
54. Thiruchelvaseharam a/l Manickavasegar v. Mahadevi a/p Nadchatiram, Civil Case No. S2 (S5)-23-14-1997, tried together with Civil Case No. S5-23-08-1997 (January 22, 2000) (Kuala Lumpur High Court), at 31 (per Dato' Foong J.) [unreported].
55. Ibid., at 33.
56. Jamieson v. The Queen, Brugmans v. The Queen, (1993) 177 C.L.R. 574, at 582.
57. See: P.R. Carter-Ruck et al., supra note 49, at p. 119; GATLEY ON LIBEL AND SLANDER, supra note 49, at pp. 282-283; R.E. Brown, supra note 49, at pp. 574-575.
58. Geyer v. Merritt, (1979) 16 B.C.L.R. 27 (B.C.S.C), aff'd (1980) 26 B.C.L.R. 373 (B.C.C.A.); Munster v. Lamb, (1883) 11 Q.B.D. 588 (C.A.).
59. GATLEY ON LIBEL AND SLANDER, supra note 49, at p. 284.
60. Munster v. Lamb, supra note 56; R.E. Brown, supra note 49, at p. 616.
61. P.R. Carter-Ruck et al., supra note 49, at p. 185.
62. Munster v. Lamb, supra note 56, at 605. See also: P.R. Carter-Ruck et al., supra note 49, at p. 119; R.E. Brown, supra note 49, at p. 31.
63. Supra note 54, at 583. The latter two quotations are from Dawkins v. Lord Rokeby, (1873) L.R. 8 Q.B. 255, at 264.
64. P.R. Carter-Ruck et al., supra note 49, at p. 119; GATLEY ON LIBEL AND SLANDER, supra note 49, at p. 292; R.E. Brown, supranote 49, at pp. 575-576.
65. Bretherton v. Kaye, [1971] V.R. 111 (S.C), at 116 (per Gillard J.); See also Lincoln v. Daniels, [1962] 1 Q.B. 237 (CA.), at 255-256 (per Lord Devlin).
66. J.G. FLEMING, THE LAW OF TORTS, 8th 559 (1992).
67. See V.V. Veeder, Absolute Immunity in Defamation: Judicial Proceedings, 9 COLUMBIA L. REV. 463 (1909), at 469.
68. Munster v. Lamb, supra note 56, at 603-604.
69. Rondel v. Worsley, (1969) 1 A.C. 191, at 227 (per Lord Reid).
70. V.V. Veeder, supra note 64, at p. 482.
71. Ibid., at pp. 482-483.
72. Bretherton v. Kaye, supra note 63, at 125.
73. Resolution No. 4 of Bar Council Malaysia (March 25, 2000), paras. 4 (a), 〈http://www.jaring.my/bar-mal/fr_mess .htm〉.
74. Ibid., at paras. 1, 7.
75. Ibid., at paras. 10, (b), (c), (e), (f).
76. U.N. Doc. A/CONE 144/28/Rev. 1 at 118 (1990). The Basic Principles were adopted by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, in Havana, 1990.
77. Supra note 73, at para. 16.
78. The Harare Declaration is the Commonwealth's second general statement of beliefs and was issued by Commonwealth Heads of Government at their meeting in Zimbabwe in 1991.
79. Latimer House Guidelines for the Commonwealth, Part VII, article 3.
80. Differences Relating to Immunity from Legal Process of a Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, Advisory Opinion of 29 April 1999.
81. Insas Berhad & Magapolitan Nominees Sdn Bhd. v. Param Cumaraswamy, Oct. 29, 1999, Grounds for Judgment [unreported].
82. Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee, "The Administration of Justice in Malaysia", Jan. 8, 2001.