“Tuan Yang di-Pertua, ramai Ahli-Ahli Yang Berhormat telah membangkit isu ini iaitu berkenaan dengan aktiviti detrimental to Parliamentary Democracy. Cuma di peringkat awal saya ingin menyebut iaitu aktiviti detrimental to Parliamentary Democracy means an activity carry out by a person or a group of person design to overthrow or undermine Parliamentary Democracy by violent or unconstitutional means. Jadi kalau setakat dalam Dewan macam Yang Berhormat dari Kubang Kerian yang pakai tai berberi pada hari ini ya, dia mengutuk kerajaan, dia hentam kerajaan itu biasa sebab ianya bukan mengikut violent or unconstitutional means. Jadi, takkanlah kita nak mengatakan dia telah melakukan satu kesalahan. Ayat yang penting di sini must be, dengan izin, by violent or unconstitutional means. Itu yang penting dan hal yang lain buatlah. Kalau bercakap, menjerit kah, apa kah atau di luar nanti marah saya sebagai Menteri. Macam-macam dia cakap, cakaplah tetapi itu bukan by violent or unconstitutional means.”
Menteri Nazri Aziz diParlimen bertarikh 17 April 2012
AUGUST 3 — Over the past few days, many people have been investigated under section 124B of the Penal Code, which prohibits “activities detrimental to parliamentary democracy”. This provision was passed in the House of Representatives on April 17, 2012 and came into force on July 31, 2012. There are no reported cases on this section. This article seeks to shed light as to the scope of the section.
In interpreting a provision of law, a construction “that would promote the purpose and object underlying the Act shall be preferred” (section 17A of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967). How do we determine the purpose and object of an Act? One of the most common methods is to look at the speech of the Minister introducing the Act during the parliamentary debates. This method has been recognized by our Federal Court in Danaharta Urus Sdn Bhd v Kekatong Sdn Bhd [2004] 1 CLJ 701.
So, what did the relevant Minister say when introducing section 124B? On April 17, 2012, Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz, in introducing the amending bill to the Penal Code, stated the following on sections 124B-N (pp. 65-66):
“Rang undang-undang ini akan dapat membantu mencapai matlamat untuk pelaksanaan dan pentadbiran sistem perundangan yang lebih adil di samping memelihara kebebasan hak asasi individu sebagai mana yang dijamin oleh Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Selain itu, pindaan ini dilihat dapat memastikan bahawa keselamatan negara serta ketenteraman, keharmonian dan kesejahteraan rakyat dan negara terus dikekalkan.”
Two things to note from the above; first, the minister had earlier noted that the term “Parliamentary Democracy” carried a wide meaning. Secondly, the provision must be understood in the context of the fundamental liberties guaranteed under the Constitution. A heated debated took place after the minister’s speech. Concerns were raised as to the possible abuse with such a wide term. Ultimately, and pertinently, the minister replied by setting out two very important restrictions on the new provisions. The minister expressed:
“Tuan Yang di-Pertua, ramai Ahli-Ahli Yang Berhormat telah membangkit isu ini iaitu berkenaan dengan aktiviti detrimental to Parliamentary Democracy. Cuma di peringkat awal saya ingin menyebut iaitu aktiviti detrimental to Parliamentary Democracy means an activity carry out by a person or a group of person design to overthrow or undermine Parliamentary Democracy by violent or unconstitutional means. Jadi kalau setakat dalam Dewan macam Yang Berhormat dari Kubang Kerian yang pakai tai berberi pada hari ini ya, dia mengutuk kerajaan, dia hentam kerajaan itu biasa sebab ianya bukan mengikut violent or unconstitutional means. Jadi, takkanlah kita nak mengatakan dia telah melakukan satu kesalahan. Ayat yang penting di sini must be, dengan izin, by violent or unconstitutional means. Itu yang penting dan hal yang lain buatlah. Kalau bercakap, menjerit kah, apa kah atau di luar nanti marah saya sebagai Menteri. Macam-macam dia cakap, cakaplah tetapi itu bukan by violent or unconstitutional means.”
This is pivotal, as it sets down the scope of section 124B. Essentially, an activity detrimental to “Parliamentary Democracy” must be “violent” or carried out by “unconstitutional means”. This was crystallised in section 130A of the Penal Code. Additionally, and interestingly, the minister also pointed out that expression of criticism or anger by way of “shouting” wouldn’t be an offence. The minister then explained the meaning of the term “unconstitutional” (p. 116):
“Jadi kita hendak sebut cara yang unconstitutional ini. Unconstitutional means adalah cara yang tidak berlandaskan dengan perlembagaan pula ialah sekiranya sebagai contoh because you want to know what is meant by unconstitutional means. For example, contohnya seorang telah melantik dirinya sendiri sebagai Perdana Menteri sedangkan menurut perenggan 2(2)(a) perkara 43 Perlembagaan Persekutuan, lantikan tersebut hendaklah dibuat oleh Yang di-Pertuan Agong. Itu dia tadi what is meant by unconstitutional means? Bermakna perkara yang boleh berlaku hanya dibenarkan dalam perlembagaan itu sahaja yang boleh berlaku. Akan tetapi kalau kita melakukan perkara yang tidak dibenarkan oleh constitution, it means unconstitutional lah.
On the term “violent”, the minister said (p. 120):
“Tuan Yang di-Pertua, cara yang ganas tersebut, tadi kita bercakap tentang unconstitutional dan sekarang ganas. Cara yang ganas tersebut mungkin melalui pelbagai cara yang tidak dibutirkan di sini. Ia mungkin merangkumi pembunuhan atau assassination ketua negara, rampasan kuasa berdarah oleh pihak-pihak yang ingin menubuhkan kerajaan seperti kumpulan Al-Ma’unah ini memang kenalah, pemberontakan bersenjata, perang gerila, guerrilla warfare dengan izin, keganasan atau kerosakan harta benda. Sebagaimana yang kita sedia maklum, kumpulan Al-Ma’unah bermatlamat untuk menggulingkan kerajaan secara kekerasan bersenjata. Bagi tujuan tersebut mereka telah merompak senjata api di Kem Tentera Grik. Semua ini kita rangkumkan dan kita tengok inilah dimaksudkan dengan violent means tetapi apa yang kalau Yang Berhormat mengkritik kerajaan dalam Parlimen, itu bukan violent. Jadi jangan bimbanglah, tidak kena dalam akta ini.”
The examples given by the minister suggests a high standard of violence. The freedom to assemble is a right guaranteed under Article 10 of our Constitution and has been upheld by the courts. It is also pertinent to note that the Minister relied on the United Kingdom Security Services Act 1989 in introducing the term “detrimental to parliamentary democracy”. As far as the UK cases (see R v Shayler [2002] 2 WLR 754) are concerned, such provisions must be applied with a legitimate aim and in a manner necessary for a democratic society. It is fitting to end this article with a passage from a European Court of Human Rights case, which was adopted by the UK courts.
“Nevertheless, in view of the risk that a system of secret surveillance for the protection of national security may undermine or even destroy democracy under the cloak of defending it, the Court must be satisfied that there exist adequate and effective guarantees against abuse.”
- See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/what-you-think/article/section-124b-of-the-penal-code-a-neutral-comment-on-activities-detrimental#sthash.tjtkVaoE.dpuf
I suppose the best explanation and decision will come from our learned Judges when these Section 124B cases are put to trial.
Additional read:
Legal experts critical of Penal Code section
No comments:
Post a Comment