Kuala Besut will decide Najib’s fate
If we do not do this we will be cursed by our descendants for having betrayed the our race
If it looks and smells like shit there is no need to taste it because chances are it is shit.
UMNO Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin Abu Bakar has urged young voters in Kuala Besut to support the coaliton’s candidate, explaining that defeat in Terengganu would ‘threaten the position of Najib Abdul Razak’.Game change has a different connotation to different people.To my mind in UMNO game change cannot mean change in the government or in the political leaders or in the laws or in the judicial system. Game change in UMNO can have only one real meaning: raising the standard of living of all the malays not the elites
Malaysian Constitution was based on western models. We borrowed parliamentary democracy and an independent judiciary from England, federalism and the fundamental rights from the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution, the Directive Principles of State Policy from the Irish Constitution, etc. Thus we borrowed a modern Constitution from western models, and transplanted it from above on our largely backward, feudal society.Democracy is a feature of an industrial, not feudal, society. But the intention of our founding fathers was that democracy and other modern principles, such as liberty, equality, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, liberty or equality, as well as modern institutions such as Parliament and independent judiciary, etc would pull our backward, feudal society into the modern age.Race and religious vote banks, which could be craftily manipulated by many of our politicians to serve their selfish ends, emerged and became a normal feature of elections and other political activity in most parts of Malaysia. Everyone knows that in most parts of Malaysia people vote on racee and religious lines, instead of looking at the merits of the candidate, Najib should answer, who actually the master mind behind the murder of Altantuya. We don’t want a PM who’s involved in a murder case. How can his bodyguards were found guilty but without any motive to kill
It is for this reason that many persons with criminal background have often been elected. Democracy was never meant to be run in this manner, and this has blocked our progress. Hence fundamental social and political changes are now required.The unfortunate truth is that most of our people are still intellectually very backward, with faith in racism, communalism and superstitions are prevalent in large parts of Malaysia.There are no doubt fundamental rights in our Constitution, e.g. right to life, freedom of speech, liberty, equality etc. but these are meaningless to a man who is poor, hungry and unemployed. Therefore it is the duty of all patriotic people to help our country abolish poverty, unemployment, and other social evils. That alone can be regarded as a game change. How this will be done is for the people themselves to find out, using their creativity.
Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak today revealed that the National Harmony Act slated to replace the Sedition Act will retain three key elements.What national interest? More like UMNO’s interest and a political tools to silence dissenter. PM is telling Malaysian there that he guarantee freedom of speech but no guarantee of freedom after the speech. enough of the double standards and selective prosecution practised by the corrupt BN minority government which has lost its credibility. There should not be any replacement for Sedition Act which can be abused by the authority against human rights and opposition politicians.. well as to deal with actions that question the status and privileges enshrined in the Federal Constitution.” This is just a Sedition Act with another prettier name. Lame duck PM.
The cartoonist did nothing illegal. In a democracy many things are said, some truthful and others false. I often used to say in court when I was a Judge that people can call me a fool or crook inside court or outside but I will never take contempt of court proceedings, because either the allegation is true, in which case I deserve it, or it is false, in which case I will ignore it. These are occupational hazards, and politicians, like judges, must learn to put up with them.
In fact arresting a cartoonist or any other person who has not committed a crime is itself a crime under the Indian Penal Code called wrongful arrest and wrongful confinement. So policemen who make such illegal arrests cannot take the plea that they were obeying orders of political superiors. In the Nuremberg trials thr Nazi war criminals took the plea that orders are orders, and that they were only obeying the orders of their political superior Hitler but this plea was rejected by the International Tribunal, which held that illegal orders should be disobeyed.
Transcript of Justice Markandey Katju’s interview with Karan Thapar on CNN-IBN’s Devil’s Advocate.
Karan Thapar: Hello and welcome to Devil’s Advocate. Should the law on sedition be scrapped – that’s one of the key issues I shall explore today with the Chairman of the Press Council and former Supreme Court judge Markandey Katju. Justice Katju, let’s start with Section 124 A of the Indian Penal Code which lays down the law on sedition. After its abuse in the Aseem Trivedi case and several other instances, do you think it should be scrapped?
Justice Markandey Katju: I don’t think it should be scrapped. In 1962, in a judgement called Kedarnath Singh vs State of Bihar, the Supreme Court considerably narrowed down the scope of that provision and said that it will apply only to incitement to violence. So merely criticising the government or bringing the government into disrepute is not sedition.
Karan Thapar: But despite SC ruling, it continues to be misused.
Justice Markandey Katju: See every law can be misused. The law is very clear as in the Kedarnath case. It has stated down that law of sedition will only apply to cases of incitement to violence.
Karan Thapar: Surely the SC has laid down in crystal clear terms how the law should be used. But that’s still being ignored as seen in the Aseem Trivedi case. The law was used against a cartoonist who merely ridiculed the government. Therefore the law of sedition has become a means to silence critics. Surely these are pressing reasons for scrapping the law altogether.
Justice Markandey Katju: No, wrongful arrests is a crime under the Indian Penal Code, Section 342. The policemen should have been booked and put in prison. And politicians who ordered the arrest should have been put on trial too.
Karan Thapar: But the courts did not take that view at all. The lower court admitted the case. The higher court went on to consider the matter of bail. None took the line you are taking.
Justice Markandey Katju: I cannot comment on pending case. It won’t be proper. I am only expressing my personal opinion that it is a crime punishable by law under the IPC to arrest a person who has not committed a crime.
Karan Thapar: The reason why the lower and higher courts take a completely different line is perhaps because the language of Section 124 is so vague that it can be interpreted in a hundred million ways. Let me quote to you. It talks about “bringing or attempting to bring into hatred or contempt”, and “exciting or attempting to excite disaffection”. See these terms can be interpreted in a thousand different ways leading to abuse.
Justice Markandey Katju: In Kedarnath Singh case, the SC was told that this provision should be declared unconstitutional, for being violative of fundamental rights granted by the Constitution.Karan Thapar: That was not done.
Justice Markandey Katju: The SC said that instead of striking it down, we will narrow it down and thereby make it constitutional.
Karan Thapar: But that is not being done. The SC’s narrowing down of the law is not being observed by the government. Aseem Trivedi’s arrest is proof. Arundhati Roy, Binayak Sen, the Kudankulam protests are all proof that the government is not observing the SC’s narrowing down of the law.
Justice Markandey Katju: It can be very well observed. I will tell you something. A police case can be started in two ways: either you file an FIR with the police or you file a criminal complaint before the judicial magistrate. FIR will not work because the police is under the government. But the magistrate is not under the government. He is under the High Court. So file a criminal complaint and make the police and the politicians accused in such cases. They will be put on trial.Karan Thapar: But is it not simpler to strike down a law that is being repetitively misused?
Justice Markandey Katju: I blame the lawyers for all this. Why can’t they advise their clients to file a criminal complaint?
Karan Thapar: Even the judges didn’t follow your line in the Aseem Trivedi case. That’s the sad part.
Justice Markandey Katju: Let me tell the whole nation this. If this thing is repeated and it comes to my knowledge, I am going to institute criminal proceedings and I am going to get the person or the politician or the DGP of police whoever ordered a wrongful arrest, locked up. By now, you must be knowing what kind of a person I am. I will get it done.
Karan Thapar: That is very reassuring. But let me point out one thing to you. The problem is the high-handed attitude of our authorities coupled with their intolerance of criticism, which makes this law on sedition a weapon in their hands which they misused to silence or punish their critics. So why not scrap this law altogether?
Justice Markandey Katju: I have no objection. You put this question to Parliament. I am not Parliament. I cannot remove the law. Parliament does all that.
Karan Thapar: That’s an interesting development in your thinking. You began by saying the law should not be scrapped. Now you say that it can be considered.
Justice Markandey Katju: No I have no problem in scrapping the law. All I said was if the law is not scrapped, there are safeguards.
Karan Thapar: Quite right. But given the way it is abused by our politicians, isn’t it better for the law to be scrapped? Would you accept it?
Justice Markandey Katju: It is better to scrap it, let us agree on that.
Karan Thapar: You have given a very clear answer which is reassuring. First, you have given a very clear commitment that in case such a thing happens in future that a wrongful arrest is made, you yourself will take action against the abusers of the law. Secondly and more importantly, you have agreed that it is better that the law of sedition be scrapped.
Justice Markandey Katju: Absolutely.
Karan Thapar: Now, do you believe that Aseem Trivedi’s cartoons – depicting Parliament as a commode, depicting the national emblem with wolves instead of lions or converting ‘Satyamev Jayate’ to ‘Bhrashtamev Jayate’ – should be punished in this way?
Justice Markandey Katju: In criminal law, there is a principle called ‘mens rea’. It means guilty mind. That is an essential ingredient of criminal offence. Now Aseem had no intention of insulting the national emblem or Parliament. He said what most of the people agree with. His intention was to say that these politicians are corrupt, the system has become corrupt. There was no mens rea. He had no guilty mind. There was no intention to denigrate the symbol.
Karan Thapar: So, that second charge against him of denigrating the national emblem is a wrong charge and should be dropped.
Justice Markandey Katju: Absolutely. The intention was not to denigrate the symbol but to say that politicians are corrupt.
Karan Thapar: Now the police commissioner of Bombay has gone on record to say that cartoonists and artists should not cross limits. Is it fitting for the chief of police to speak in such threatening terms?
Justice Markandey Katju: He is talking nonsense. Don’t think that people in high posts are not capable of talking nonsense. There are many such people and he seems to be one of them.
Karan Thapar: So you criticise his statement?
Justice Markandey Katju: Not only criticise, it is utter rubbish. He is talking humbug. He is talking anti-democratic things. He does not deserve to be a police commissioner. In a democracy, people are the rulers. All authorities are the servants of the people, not their masters. The masters have the right to criticise their servants and take them to task. So people have the right to criticise all authorities.
Karan Thapar: So what you are saying is that the police chief should be admonished for making such a statement.
Justice Markandey Katju: He should be sacked. He does not deserve to be a police chief.
Karan Thapar: Let’s widen the discussion. The Indian Express reports that the National Security Council has proposed a new law protecting the privacy of people holding high public office. Do you believe this is necessary or do you believe this is an attempt, perhaps an unjustified attempt, to limit the scrutiny the press would otherwise pay to their lives and behaviour?
Justice Markandey Katju: Please get your fundamentals clear. In a democracy, people are supreme. In a monarchy, it is the king. But in a democracy, this is reversed. So, people have the right to scrutinise government officials.
Karan Thapar: So you mean to say this is a wrong proposal?
Justice Markandey Katju: It is.
Karan Thapar: Would you take a step further, and as the Chairman of the Press Council, say that the media is justified in scrutinizing the private lives of public officers if it affects the national interest?
Justice Markandey Katju: Yes of course. Because once you are in public life, your private life does not remain as private. You must act in accordance with national interest.
Karan Thapar: So this attempt to provide additional protection to the privacy of the high and mighty is actually a form of censorship through the backdoor?
Justice Markandey Katju: Prima facie, this proposal is not democratic. Although it would not be proper for me to comment on it, but it is undemocratic.
Karan Thapar: Justice Katju, the Supreme Court has this week ruled that to ensure justice and fair trial, a court, on a case by case basis, for a limited period, can restrain media coverage of court proceedings. Do you think that’s a correct ruling or a wrong ruling?
Justice Markandey Katju: I think it is correct. It has struck a balance between freedom of the media and also to give protection to the accused.
Karan Thapar: Some people say this law could be tantamount to partial or limited censorship on behalf of the accused and that is not just damaging the freedom of the press but also justice.
Justice Markandey Katju: Even if this ruling had not come, this law was already there. A judge always has the discretion to stop media coverage of a trial if he or she feels that it can affect the outcome of the case or the proceedings themselves.
Karan Thapar: Except that earlier, power was inherent. Now the Chief Justice has made it explicit. Let me tell you why this is a possible cause for concern. One of the great achievements of the media in the BMW hit-and-run case was that it exposed without doubt the collusion between the accused and the prosecution. Had this ruling been in existence at that point of time, it is quite possible that that exposure may never have happened. And therefore, the injustice that was being perpetrated might never have been revealed.
Justice Markandey Katju: See a law can be abused. That is true. The law can be abused in particular cases. But broadly, the judge has the right to control the proceedings in his court. This law was there already. This is necessary to ensure that justice is done.
Karan Thapar: Two very senior SC lawyers have publicly and strongly criticised this SC ruling. Dushyant Dhave called it possibly one of the worst rulings from the Supreme Court. Rajiv Dhawan said this could amount to a form of censorship of the press.
Justice Markandey Katju: I disagree with both of them. This is a very balanced judgement. They have said, only in exceptional circumstances when it is urgently required. Even without this formal ruling, this law was already there. A judge has the authority to control the proceedings in his court to ensure justice.Karan Thapar: Now aside from this ruling, the SC also refused to lay down across-the-board general guidelines for the reporting of the media.
Justice Markandey Katju: I think SC acted correctly. So far as the Press Council is concerned, we already have guidelines. However, they are restricted to print media. So the guidelines are already there…
Karan Thapar: Except that they are voluntary. They can be observed or not observed. Had the SC laid down the guidelines, they would have been much more stringent with provisions for punishment.
Justice Markandey Katju: SC must be battered from both sides. I mean you batter it for what it has done and you batter it for what it has not done, what do you want?
Karan Thapar: That is the power of critical comment. Isn’t it?
Justice Markandey Katju: And I think it is a very balanced judgement. I think Justice Kapadia has written a very balanced judgement.
Karan Thapar: Let me then move on to the very last question. You are a firm believer of a formal system of regulation of the media. Many have turned around and said self-regulation is enough. You say it is not. What would you say to critics who say that formal regulation would impinge upon the freedom of the press?
Justice Markandey Katju: Firstly, there is a distinction between regulation and control. In control, there is no freedom. In regulation, there is freedom but it is subject to reasonable restrictions in the public interest. I am in favour of regulation.
Karan Thapar: Why not self-regulation?
Justice Markandey Katju: Self-regulation is no regulation, it has been proved. In fact, how many licences have till now been cancelled?
Karan Thapar: But is it essential to scrap licences to prove you are effective? Can something be done without going to that extent?
Justice Markandey Katju: How? They just imposed fine on one TV channel of Rajat Sharma.
Karan Thapar: That was sufficient for all others to fall in line thereafter.
Justice Markandey Katju: No no, they went there with folded hands to Rajat Sharma.
Karan Thapar: They specifically deny it.
Justice Markandey Katju: Alright, they may deny that but we know what happened. They withdrew that order. Rajat Sharma came back. Why don’t they televise the proceedings? I am prepared to televise anything.
Karan Thapar: Lots of proceedings aren’t televised but that does not mean they haven’t had effect.
Justice Markandey Katju: What effect have they had? In fact, I had effect. When I started raising my voice, on your show Devil’s Advocate, regarding the broadcasting of Aishwarya Rai Bachchan’s pregnancy, that is when they issued guidelines for the media. They would not have done it had I not raised the voice.
Karan Thapar: My last question to you – are you therefore saying to me that although the electronic media as a whole is saying that the News Broadcasting Standards Authority is sufficient and effective, you say it is not. And you believe that electronic media should be regulated and from outside.
Justice Markandey Katju: It should be regulated and by an independent statutory authority and not the government. Like the Press Council, see I am only the Chairman, there are 28 members.
Karan Thapar: But you are government-appointed.
Justice Markandey Katju: I am not government-appointed. I was selected by a three-member committee, consisting of the Vice President of India, the Lok Sabha Speaker and one representative of Press Council.
Karan Thapar: We have run out of time, but the bottomline is that despite the criticism you face, you stand by your position that there must be third party regulation of the media.
Justice Markandey Katju: That’s right.
Karan Thapar: Justice Katju, a pleasure talking to you.
Justice Markandey Katju: Thank you.
