LETTER | Are charges against Chegubard objectionable?

LETTER | A day after he was charged in the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court, Bersatu information committee member Badrul Hisham Shaharin, better known as Chegubard, claimed trial at the Johor Bahru Sessions Court to a charge of making seditious remarks against Yang di-Pertuan Agong Sultan Ibrahim Sultan Iskandar.

According to the charge sheet, Badrul (above) was alleged to have made seditious remarks on his Facebook page at Bukit Bintang in Kuala Lumpur at 6.30pm on April 26, regarding reports on discussions about a casino in Forest City, Johor.

He was charged under paragraph (c) of Section 4(1) of the Sedition Act 1948 (Act 15). If convicted, he faces a sentence of a fine not exceeding RM5,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or both, for a first offence.

Paragraph (c) is the offence of printing, publishing, selling, offering to sell, distributing, or reproducing any seditious publication.

By Section 2 of the Act, seditious publication means any publication having a seditious tendency.

By Section 3 (1) of the Act, seditious tendency includes bringing into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any ruler or against any government – paragraph (a).

By paragraph (a) above, seditious remarks can be “against any Ruler or against any Government”. The charge against Badrul is for making seditious remarks against the king ONLY and not against the government AS WELL. (Emphasis added)

If Badrul were to be charged for seditious remarks against the king and against the government, there would be two charges against him under the Act – that is, a charge for seditious remarks against the king and a charge for seditious remarks against the government.

This is in accordance with Section 163 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Act 593) which mandates that there shall be separate charges for distinct offences. Seditious remarks against the king and seditious remarks against the government are distinct offences under the law.

If Badrul was only charged for making seditious remarks against the king, then it is not inconsistent with what was agreed by the cabinet that the use of the Act would be limited to matters involving the royalty.

This was announced by Azalina Othman Said, the minister in charge of law and institutional reform.

Azalina was reported to have said in July last year that “the cabinet has agreed in principle for the Sedition Act 1948 to be reviewed to ensure this law is used only to protect the institution of rulers from any provocation”.

The charge against Badrul in the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court is reportedly framed under paragraph (c) of Section 4(1) of the Act for seditious remarks against the king as well.

Are the charges objectionable?

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.