Double standards
Some people can make statements that are offensive, and get away with it. Does this mean that there are different laws for different people?
There are many situations where people can be hurt by the use of words. Existing laws make the utterance of such words an offence or a civil wrong.Where such words, when published, constitute a civil wrong, it would be up to the party affected to initiate action and seek appropriate relief. Where it is an offence, it falls upon the State to investigate and initiate prosecution.
There are many instances of such action being taken. Malaysians have seen defamation actions filed with different results. There are instances of people being prosecuted for offences such as sedition and criminal defamation, among others.
In recent times there have been well-publicised instances of individuals making statements that are hurtful to the extent of breaching the law. Such statements have been made in Parliament and outside.
A reader wants to know why some people can make statements that are offensive, yet have no action taken against them.
It is a fact of life that some people get away with wrongdoing while others in a similar situation do not. When such statements are made in Parliament, it is easier to explain. This is because Members of Parliament (MPs) enjoy a measure of immunity.
This immunity is based on the assumption that MPs are honourable men who have respect for the law and a sense of decency. It is to facilitate a member voicing out legitimate grievances. In the process he might defame someone.
He needs protection to be able to raise matters of public concern and interest without fear of someone suing him. But the use of words which convey messages that are indecent or vulgar is hard to understand, and even more difficult to appreciate.
However, not all that is said in Parliament enjoys absolute immunity. Statements made which are seditious have led to a prosecution. In addition, Parliament has internal procedures to deal with inappropriate conduct. The exercise of this procedure is an entirely different matter.
There are laws to regulate free speech. It is the MPs who vote for these laws when enacted. Thus the MPs ought to be aware of the effect of these laws in any event.
Apart from the traditional offences and provisions of the Penal Code and others, the more recent legislation, the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, by virtue of section 211 makes it an offence to provide content that is “indecent, obscene, false, menacing or offensive”.
An ordinary person who commits a breach is liable to a fine not exceeding RM50,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or both. When such content continues to be published, a further fine of RM1,000 can be imposed for so long as it continues.
The ordinary citizen is naturally puzzled when an MP makes statements which breach the very restrictions and restraints which he and his colleagues have created. But then there is immunity for anything done or said before the House by reason of Section 7 of the House of Parliament (Privileges and Powers) Act 1952.
The position is different when statements are made by some politicians which appear to breach the law, but no action is taken. Another twist to such situations is the attempt by “delinquents” to rely on the literal meaning of the words used as a basis to proclaim their purported innocence.
Such an approach can only suggest that either such “delinquents” believe that their audience is highly gullible or they themselves are ignorant, a matter difficult to believe.
If neither of this be the case, then such “delinquents” are just being plain dishonest.
This is because when used in certain situations, a word or sentence can convey a meaning that is beyond or even the opposite to the literal meaning of the word used. Thus the word “front” can mean “back”!
An example of this is provided by the Bills of Exchange Legislation which creates certain rights to the holder of a Bill of Exchange in due course. Such a person loses his rights if such a bill is not “complete and regular on the face of it”. The bill is only complete considering the front and the reverse.
It is therefore necessary to examine the endorsements which appear on the back and front of the Bill of Exchange.
Coming back to the question of internal procedures in Parliament, these no doubt exist for regulating the conduct of MPs. But it remains nevertheless a matter of internal resolution.
Given that decisions in this regard are made by voting along party lines, the outcome and determination of whether there is wrongdoing and, if so, how serious it is appears to be dependent on the numbers rather than on the merits of the issue.
It will therefore be seen that apart from exceptions, hurtful statements can sometimes be made with near absolute impunity. In the case of Parliament, the exception to the extent that it exists is premised on the high regard placed on MPs. However, when some MPs do not understand or appreciate this, they only bring dishonour to themselves and to the House.
- The Star
There are many situations where people can be hurt by the use of words. Existing laws make the utterance of such words an offence or a civil wrong.Where such words, when published, constitute a civil wrong, it would be up to the party affected to initiate action and seek appropriate relief. Where it is an offence, it falls upon the State to investigate and initiate prosecution.
There are many instances of such action being taken. Malaysians have seen defamation actions filed with different results. There are instances of people being prosecuted for offences such as sedition and criminal defamation, among others.
In recent times there have been well-publicised instances of individuals making statements that are hurtful to the extent of breaching the law. Such statements have been made in Parliament and outside.
A reader wants to know why some people can make statements that are offensive, yet have no action taken against them.
It is a fact of life that some people get away with wrongdoing while others in a similar situation do not. When such statements are made in Parliament, it is easier to explain. This is because Members of Parliament (MPs) enjoy a measure of immunity.
This immunity is based on the assumption that MPs are honourable men who have respect for the law and a sense of decency. It is to facilitate a member voicing out legitimate grievances. In the process he might defame someone.
He needs protection to be able to raise matters of public concern and interest without fear of someone suing him. But the use of words which convey messages that are indecent or vulgar is hard to understand, and even more difficult to appreciate.
However, not all that is said in Parliament enjoys absolute immunity. Statements made which are seditious have led to a prosecution. In addition, Parliament has internal procedures to deal with inappropriate conduct. The exercise of this procedure is an entirely different matter.
There are laws to regulate free speech. It is the MPs who vote for these laws when enacted. Thus the MPs ought to be aware of the effect of these laws in any event.
Apart from the traditional offences and provisions of the Penal Code and others, the more recent legislation, the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, by virtue of section 211 makes it an offence to provide content that is “indecent, obscene, false, menacing or offensive”.
An ordinary person who commits a breach is liable to a fine not exceeding RM50,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or both. When such content continues to be published, a further fine of RM1,000 can be imposed for so long as it continues.
The ordinary citizen is naturally puzzled when an MP makes statements which breach the very restrictions and restraints which he and his colleagues have created. But then there is immunity for anything done or said before the House by reason of Section 7 of the House of Parliament (Privileges and Powers) Act 1952.
The position is different when statements are made by some politicians which appear to breach the law, but no action is taken. Another twist to such situations is the attempt by “delinquents” to rely on the literal meaning of the words used as a basis to proclaim their purported innocence.
Such an approach can only suggest that either such “delinquents” believe that their audience is highly gullible or they themselves are ignorant, a matter difficult to believe.
If neither of this be the case, then such “delinquents” are just being plain dishonest.
This is because when used in certain situations, a word or sentence can convey a meaning that is beyond or even the opposite to the literal meaning of the word used. Thus the word “front” can mean “back”!
An example of this is provided by the Bills of Exchange Legislation which creates certain rights to the holder of a Bill of Exchange in due course. Such a person loses his rights if such a bill is not “complete and regular on the face of it”. The bill is only complete considering the front and the reverse.
It is therefore necessary to examine the endorsements which appear on the back and front of the Bill of Exchange.
Coming back to the question of internal procedures in Parliament, these no doubt exist for regulating the conduct of MPs. But it remains nevertheless a matter of internal resolution.
Given that decisions in this regard are made by voting along party lines, the outcome and determination of whether there is wrongdoing and, if so, how serious it is appears to be dependent on the numbers rather than on the merits of the issue.
It will therefore be seen that apart from exceptions, hurtful statements can sometimes be made with near absolute impunity. In the case of Parliament, the exception to the extent that it exists is premised on the high regard placed on MPs. However, when some MPs do not understand or appreciate this, they only bring dishonour to themselves and to the House.
- The Star
MOHD ADHA MOHD ZAIN (ADHA ZAIN)
Blogger Informasi
