Disturbing legal implications on sedition and 'fatwa' in Malaysia

Kassim Ahmad & Karpal Singh Two recent cases raise the issue of what amounts to sedition and why one can’t question or challenge a ‘fatwa’.

THE recent conviction of Karpal Singh under the Sedition Act and the charging of Kassim Ahmad under the Federal Territories Syariah offences law raise some disturbing questions with serious implications as to where we are headed as a democratic nation.

First, let us look at the Sedition Act. The trouble with this law, a remnant of British colonialism, is two-fold. First, its basic premise is that criticism of authority should be controlled. This in itself is already an affront to democracy.

Second is its open-ended nature. Just what exactly amounts to sedition, for example. However, up until the Karpal Singh case, I thought there was one defence in the Sedition Act that was pretty strong.

Something is not seditious if you are pointing out that the object of your criticism has done something wrong, especially in the context of their constitutional limitations. This appears so clear to me that it seemed unlikely any court could find a way around it.

Alas, that is exactly what seems to have happened to Karpal. He basically said that the decision made by the Sultan of Perak of choosing a new Mentri Besar for the state in 2009 could be questioned in court.

I can’t for the life of me see what is seditious about that. Is the Sultan limited by the Constitution and the law in the discharge of his powers? Yes, of course he is. And if there is a dispute as to whether he acted lawfully or not, could he not be questioned? Again, of course he should, for we live in a constitutional and not an absolute monarchy.

And lastly, if there is to be a questioning of the acts of a member of the royalty, is there a lawful manner with which this can be done? Again the answer is yes, because we have the Special Court which was designed specifically for the royals and inserted into our Constitution by the Government.

Even within the authoritarian nature of the Sedition Act, there seem to be limits as to what can be deemed seditious. I thought those limits were clear enough. It appears that I am wrong.

What is of concern is that even when an act clearly falls within the allowable limits of a law, this does not appear to make any difference at all. Thus, the reach of a poor law becomes even greater and all that much more oppressive.

The second thing I want to talk about is the charging of Kassim Ahmad. This case raises some serious problems with some of the Syariah laws we have in this country.

According to the Syariah Offences law of the Federal Territories, it is an offence to question and speak in contradiction to a fatwa made by the mufti.

This fatwa need not be gazetted, that is to say made into law, just its mere exclamation is enough to give it weight of law. Needless to say, fatwas which have been gazetted can’t be questioned either.

Firstly, one wonders why one can’t question or challenge a law? If a fatwa is gazetted and made into law, what makes it different from any other law? Why can’t it be challenged? I can criticise the Contracts Act so why can’t I criticise any other thing which affects my life?

But what is really disturbing is the fact that a fatwa, which is after all merely an opinion, can carry the weight of law even without going through the legislative process of debate and voting. This in effect means that one person’s words suddenly become akin to a law for we cannot challenge it and if we do we can face a fine and jail.

This is frightfully undemocratic and can lead to some horrific scenarios. What if a mufti passes a fatwa saying that any sort of dissension against the civil government is wrong?

According to the Federal Territories law, any challenge of fatwa can be punished. What kind of democracy are we living in if a person’s statement by itself can have such authority?

Much has been said about how Malaysia is edging towards a more liberal and open democracy. Laws have been repealed or changed and steps (albeit baby steps) have apparently been taken.

What these two events show is that there are still some very undemocratic laws in existence, they are still being used and any hope that we are becoming more democratic is hopelessly naïve.

Brave New World by Azmi Sharam

> Azmi Sharom (azmisharom@yahoo.co.uk) is a law teacher. The views expressed are entirely the writer’s own.

Legal profession unattractive in Malaysia?

Malaysia is not a hub for legal services in the region. The best minds are more interested in practising in other jurisdictions where the work and pay is better.

IT’S a funny world we live in. Today’s unalterable truth may be tomorrow’s shibboleth.

For the legal profession in Malaysia, the seemingly unalterable truth is – do not join the profession unless you are prepared to face the harshness of the working conditions.

However, if you persevere, the returns can be very rewarding and fulfilling.

The National Young Lawyers Committee (NYLC) conducted a survey on the working conditions of young lawyers in late 2011, and the results which were recently released can be found at www.malaysianbar.org.my.

It indicates that there is or will be a mass exodus of young lawyers from the legal profession because of the lack of work-life balance, low pay and bad working conditions.

The survey shows that the average starting pay is RM3,000-RM3,500 in the Klang Valley and RM2,000-RM2,500 outside of the Klang Valley – just enough to support the cost of living.

The average working hours are between 51 hours to more than 60 hours a week. Almost all young lawyers work weekends.

This means that, in the Klang Valley, based on the average monthly pay of RM3,250 (RM39,000 per annum, excluding bonuses) and average working hours of 55 hours a week (2,860 hours over 52 weeks), over a year, first-year lawyers are only paid RM13.64 per hour. It is much lower for pupils.

Outside of the Klang Valley, based on the average monthly pay of RM2,250 (RM27,000 per annum, excluding bonuses) and the same average working hours, over a year, first-year lawyers are only paid RM9.44 per hour.

Some recommendations were made by the NYLC to increase the starting pay and improve working conditions.

Some quarters cynically cried out that young lawyers are making demands despite being of low quality.

They say that young lawyers should not demand higher pay unless they have proven themselves.

Pause for a moment and consider what the survey results really mean. Firstly, it means that the profession, as a whole, is not attractive.

Students, when choosing a degree, will second-think pursuing law. Law students may choose not to practise upon completing their law degree.

Some will be driven by passion, but not everyone has enough passion to endure the initial hardship.

The best minds may instead be more interested in other professions. Why isn’t the profession able to retain these talents?

Generally, Malaysia is not a hub for legal services in the region. The best minds are more interested in practising in other jurisdictions where the work and pay is better.

The profession must improve and be the main legal services hub in the region. But the paradox is, to do so, higher salary and better working conditions are also required to attract and retain the best talents.

Secondly, not having an attractive entry point does not augur well for diversity in the legal profession.

The legal profession should be diverse because lawyers are guardians of rights and liberties of people of all gender, races, backgrounds or classes.

The current starting salary and working conditions, by chance or design, targets only a single demographic – fresh graduates, middle or upper middle class, living with their family, and having little family or financial commitments.

A prospective entrant who has dependants would find it hard to pursue a career in law given the low average starting pay, the long hours and the non-existing weekends.

To quote Lord Falconer: “If you don’t catch people when they’re 15 or 16, when it comes to choosing judges 30 or 40 years later, you won’t have the diversity you need to ensure that judges reflect society”.

Thirdly, with the starting salary and working conditions of the legal profession failing to attract and retain talents and not encouraging diversity, legal access would be significantly affected. Legal access also means having access to a lawyer of your choice.

The survey shows that 28.17% of the respondents in the Klang Valley and 15.29% of the respondents outside of Klang Valley are leaving the profession in the next five years and a further 38.73% of the respondents in the Klang Valley and 48.24% of the respondents outside of Klang Valley are uncertain of their future in the legal profession.

These staggering numbers show that lawyers do not want to be lawyers anymore.

Society will be affected because the choice of lawyers would be limited. There will not be a greater pool of talent to choose from for clients or when it comes to the appointment of judges.

The quality will have to be compromised with whatever the supply is. In the long run, it will be detrimental to the legal system in Malaysia.

The results and the recommendations by the NYLC are not unjustified.

It would be convenient to blame the law schools for failing to produce competent graduates. But employers must look at themselves and ask if they have been contributing to this problem.

The unalterable truth of today must be questioned. For employers who are truly concerned about attracting and retaining the best talents, the survey results and recommendations should be taken seriously.

For those who choose to ignore the survey results and recommendations, do so at your own peril.

PUTIK LADA 

By NEW SIN YEW
newsdesk@thestar.com.my

 > The writer is a young lawyer. Putik Lada, or pepper buds in Malay, captures the spirit and intention of this column – a platform for young lawyers to articulate their views and aspirations about the law, justice and a civil society. For more information about the young lawyers, visit www.malaysianbar.org.my.

Related posts:
Malaysian young lawyers not up to par
Former badminton star admitted a British barrister-at-law and now an advocate and solicitor of Malaysian High Courts
Malaysian lawyer/former golf president in Olympic Court of Arbitration...