Decision to Charge Sabu is most inopportune
September 22, 2011
www.malaysiakini.com
Netto comments: Decision to Charge Sabu is most inopportune
by Terence Netto
Sep 22, 11
7:49am
It’s odd – this propensity of the Najib Razak administration to shoot itself in the foot just when it is poised to play the winning cards it intimates it has long been harbouring.
In this instance, the timing of the self-inflicted wound – the decision to charge Mohamad Sabu under the Penal Code with criminal defamation as a result of remarks the PAS No 2 made over the Bukit Kepong incident – is most inopportune.
The case comes to court just after the Attorney-General’s Chambers dropped charges against a coterie of Parti Sosialis Malaysia activists who were initially indicted for offences under the hoary Emergency Ordinance and obsolete laws.
Also, the case against Sabu is being pressed when the Prime Minister’s predecessor cautions him over the possibility of internal opposition to his liberalising laws curtailing civil liberties.
It is a measure of the silo-mentality of some UMNO leaders that they are more concerned about internal reaction rather than public restlessness with a status quo that the UMNO supremo is trying to change.
In other words, how UMNO reactionaries and right wing conservatives feel matters more than what the public wants. Najib’s ballyhooed moves have attracted an array of ayes and nays from sceptics, with contention building over who should take the credit for the intended liberalisation, an exchange that mirrors the ongoing debate over which political forces were more responsible for gaining independence for the country in 1957.
With regard to Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s caution about the likelihood of internal dissent, a
Najib lieutenant has interjected to say that, perhaps, Abdullah lacked clarity about his own tilt towards liberalism, which was why, claimed Mohd Nazri Aziz, the former PM’s attempt at ‘perestroika‘ (restructuring of political discourse in Malaysia through relaxation of repressive laws) did not cut any ice with party reactionaries and right wing conservatives.
Talk about a lack of clarity about what liberalism ought to look like, what can be more addled than a decision shortly after liberalising measures were announced on prime-time television to prosecute ex-ISA detainee Mat Sabu for reason of his revisionist take on an incident that happened 61 years ago?
Form rather than substance
It has been argued in these columns that Najib knows the forms of liberalism, but not its substance, just as it has been suggested that he knows what 1Malaysia means – credit his ‘We must embrace our differences’ as having some worth – but does not know how to give effect to it.
The evidence of cognitive dissonance in the Najib administration is now too plentiful to deny. From day one of his administration the PM appeared to want to smooth along nice and easy, with periodic announcements of changes to policies and practices. But all the while his administration has been prey to jerks and twitches that throw it off-stride.
Out of this discontinuity between the reformist image he desperately wants to project and the reality that is considerably less amenable, the PM comes across as asking the public to trust him.
Opinion surveys now tell him that the ‘trust-the-PM’ factor is slipping. Every new PM is given a wide berth by a watching public to strut his stuff, but once the people sense his act is tinsel, they can turn on the leader with a vengeance.
Look at predecessor Abdullah’s slide from conductor of the 2004 BN landslide to casualty of the 2008 BN debacle, all within the span of a term.
The resounding lesson of that precipitous slide: Don’t backslide once you have campaigned on a promise of reform.
Conjuring tricks
The problem reform-seeking Najib faces in his party and the administration is the undertow of stale thinking that hinders ameliorative policies.
In such circumstances, the task of leadership is to transform the public understanding of national
issues and on the platform that affords the leader must break through the gauntlet of obstacles made up of reactionary forces, interest-group power, public passivity or cynicism, and conventional wisdom.
Najib is unable to transform his party’s and his administration’s assumption that democracy must be tutelary and citizens are essentially wards and not free agents.This is the obsolete thinking he has not been able to change as time winds down rapidly to when he must seek his own electoral mandate.
Even if he gets it, it will be a victory without drum rolls, a majority without a meaningful mandate. That is because he has not defined clearly what he wants to do with it.
He is, in the end, more interested in form rather than substance, in management than in leadership, in tone than in content.He is like the avuncular man who comes to do conjuring tricks at a children’s party who is then startled to discover that the kids have grown up and want something more elevating.
To charge him with some dubious reasons on a vague law – criminal defamation is meant to be something defamatory, eg : someone defames a Minister -, like the Profumo Scandal in Britain – IF it is proven to be false, then he who defames is liable to be convicted & sent behind bars.
The reason is : the falsity of the libel or slander against the Minister, AFFECTS the entire Government adversely, Hence, it is considered “criminal ” in nature….. if they are false.
What Mat Sabu alleges…. that ” Communists are heroes ” is his version at the very best…..but otherwise, not worth two hoots to worry about after 61 years, since our history on Independace has already been laid out in the Constitution through the Merdeka Agreement ! ( ie : history written by the victors ).
If it is any worth, all what the Govt needs is engage him ” intellectually” by way of documents or evidence & and living persons who are witnesses, and splash it in order to discredit him. Or debate with him openly in a public forum .
By charging him, to me it is counter-productive, and it would be a discredit rather than a credit to the Government !
Good quote : what a good leader does in the beginning, a bad leader does it unsuccessfully in the end,,,,” – discretion is a better part of valour.
Abnizar - September 22, 2011 at 5:13 pm
These are mixed signals and it goes to show Najib Razak is not in control. Period. Bad news for UMNO and the country. Good news for the Opposition.
Mr Bean - September 22, 2011 at 5:17 pm
The decision to charge Sabu with anything is a political decision. And the sooner we accept that the better. It is meant to be a distraction. Or at best a gauntlet thrown at Najib’s feet by his political rivals within his party.
Mr Bean - September 22, 2011 at 6:27 pm
Charging Mat Sbu under anything is good enough to moderate the damage that Mat Sabu’s suit against the Utusan. Quite simply, the worse case sceanrio for Utusan is for it to lose the case and has to pay Mat Sabu millions. Of course, there will be an appeal by Utusan against that decision. In that context, Mat Sabu can found guilty on the government’s charge, and that will put tremendous pressure on the judiciary who will be hearing Utusan’s appeal to overturn the first decision. In all, the charge on Mat Sabu is a hedging strategy just in case Mat Sabu wins the first round against Utusan. Here, for the strategy to work, timing for the minders of Utusan is crucial. Mat Sabu’s detractors cannot afford to have Mat Sabu successful in his suit against Utusan, which would only mean that the government’s charge does not have standing because the proven facts in the suit would have unassailable.
Tang Loon Kong - September 22, 2011 at 9:59 pm
The charges against Mat Sabu for criminal defamation cannot stand. Not in law, it cannot stand. One way to see it is as a man without legs who is trying to stand. No can do.
Mr Bean - September 23, 2011 at 12:05 am
In April, 2003, in Shihlin, Taipei, Taiwan, a Filipino woman, Virginia Chun, aged 46, cut off the penis of her Filipino-Chinese husband, surnamed Tsai, on a Tuesday while Tsai was asleep in their house. After flushing his penis down the toilet, she fled back to the Philippines. After being stitched up at a hospital, Tsai was left with a 2.5 cm (1 in) stump of a penis and is unable to have sex — wikipedia on the subject of extradition treaty
It is like asking Tsai to have sex. No can do.
Mr Bean - September 23, 2011 at 3:23 am
It may not be so stupid after all to charge Mat Sabu for criminal defamation.
———————————-
Defamation
499.
Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read or
by signs, or by visible representations, makes or publishes any
imputation concerning any person, intending to harm, or knowing
or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the
reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter
excepted, to defame that person.
Explanation 1—It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a
deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that
person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family
or other near relatives
——————————
“would harm the reputation of that person IF LIVING”
Mr Bean - September 23, 2011 at 4:59 am
Mr Bean - September 23, 2011 at 5:13 am
“AND is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his FAMILY OR
OTHER NEAR RELATIVES” (emphasis mine)
What do you think guys??
Mr Bean - September 23, 2011 at 5:16 am
You there Art Harun??
Mr Bean - September 23, 2011 at 5:17 am
I can’t believe what I’m reading.
Mr Bean - September 23, 2011 at 5:19 am
Why criminal defamation? What crime did Mat Sabu did other than utter a few words that don’t go down well with some sectors of the population. If unhappy file civil claims against him and apply for million in RM for punitive damages.
BN leaders say lots more defamatory words everyday and the Malay papers print such defamatory words everyday. How come they have not been arrested for criminal defamatory? Especially the Malay papers, they have every intent to create uneasiness among certain groups. I thought ISA will cover all these areas, so why not thyrow the ISA book at Utusan and group?
webelos - September 23, 2011 at 5:31 am
Why criminal defamation and why not civil?
Because if criminal it is the state that is prosecuting the case and the punishment is jail or fine or both. In any civil action, the remedy is of course damages. In civil proceedings the party suing is the aggrieved party called the plaintiff and in this case the party or parties are long dead. The issue then is did their right or rights survive them? We are then talking of the estate of the deceased or his or her family members and close relatives.
Mr Bean - September 23, 2011 at 7:08 am
If criminal the law to look at would be the Penal Code and if civil it is the Defamation Act 1957.
Mr Bean - September 23, 2011 at 7:11 am
In the U.K. criminal libel has been abolished as recently as 2010.
Mr Bean - September 23, 2011 at 7:27 am
In the U.S. at federal level there is no criminal defamation law today. Though the law is still on the books of a number of states. But when actions result in criminal convictions, it is less than a year and fines average less then USDLS2k.
Mr Bean - September 23, 2011 at 7:43 am
Mr Bean,
Yes, that has been the normal case, where if a person who is dead, is defamed by anyone ( ie falsely or maliciously ), the next of kin, the decd’s family members and/or surviving relatives would be able to file CIVIL claims for libel or slander – its not an offence against the State or Govt, in which case its not “criminal” defamation. but merely a civil matter.
As an illustration : in the Profumo case , he being a Govt Minister, but was proven to have extra-marital affairs with Christine Killer (beg your pardon, Christine Keller ? ), he had resigned from office as allegations were proven true. If false, this is where it becomes ” criminal” defamation, because all the malicious falsehood can bring down whole government.(akin to defemation to the State/Govt although a single minister was falsely defamed).
Hypothetically, in Mat Sabu’s case, to identify ” legally” who that he defamed is in itself ” a legal hurdle “, ie : who is or are the Complainants ? Police Association ? If so, are they a govt body or entity, to qualify for criminal prosecution by the Govt ?
Forget about ” substance ” in Mat Sabu’s alleged defamatory or libellous utterances….. that’s in the trial proper….period.
(Contrary views/opinions welcome)
Abnizar - September 23, 2011 at 11:10 am
I think they may be able to make a prima facie case against Mat Sabu. Whether they are able to make it stick is a different matter.
In the interest of freedom of speech, law on criminal defamation is being repealed. The laws on sodomy too are being repealed but if allowed to remain on their books are not enforced.
Malaysia seems stuck in a time warp.
Mr Bean - September 23, 2011 at 12:16 pm
In one famous case, the sisters of boxer Jack Thompson sued a magazine for defamation after it published an article falsely stating that Thompson became a drug addict who was stabbed to death. The court ruled that the false statements were about the deceased Jack Thompson and not about his sisters. The fact that the article defamed Thompson did not give his survivors an action for defamation. Any defamation claim Thompson may have had died with him.
Read more at Suite101: Defaming the Dead: Why a Defamation Claim Dies with the Plaintiff | Suite101.com http://suzanne-bechard.suite101.com/defaming-the-dead-a115193#ixzz1YkLhFnt9
http://suzanne-bechard.suite101.com/defaming-the-dead-a115193
scarlet.pimpernel - September 23, 2011 at 12:32 pm
We need to do a reality check here!
Criminal defamation is alive and well in Malaysia. See Application 1 under Sec. 499 Penal Code. Good luck to Mat Sabu.
Mr Bean - September 24, 2011 at 12:14 am
Mongkut Bean
How many cases have been successfully prosecuted under Sec. 499 Penal Code, do you know? Were the cases similar in nature? Who were the presiding judge?
semper fi - September 24, 2011 at 1:13 am