More clarity required for law of contempt

2
5,387 views
What happened to the famous Lady of Justice? - Image: jessica45/Pixabay

The Malaysian Bar calls upon the attorney general to revisit his discretion under Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution, in relation to the contempt proceedings against Malaysiakini and its editor-in-chief Steven Gan.

The law of contempt serves the public interest and is not to vindicate the dignity of any judge or the court itself, but to prevent an undue interference with the administration of justice in the public interest. There must be a balance between public interest and individual liberties.

As was resolved at the 53rd annual general meeting in 1999, the Malaysian Bar reiterates that the power to punish for contempt of court is by tradition to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases.

The Malaysian Bar understands that an inter partes hearing for the contempt proceedings has been fixed on 2 July 2020 (Thursday), pending disposal of Malaysiakini’s application to set aside the Federal Court ruling granting leave to the attorney general. The Malaysian Bar will hold a watching brief and ventilate the Bar’s views in the prescribed forum.

The law of contempt has been regarded by some common law countries as an archaic and unnecessary tool to interfere with freedom of expression. The UK has abolished the offence of “scandalising the court”.

The Malaysian Bar views that the vague concept of contempt of court has to be codified to provide a clear and unequivocal definition of legal concepts such as “scandalising the court” and to ensure some degree of certainty in this area of law. In this regard, the Bar Council is in the midst of drafting a contempt of court bill.

READ MORE:  When the government fears the people, it suppresses freedom of speech

Salim Bashir is president of the Malaysian Bar

This piece dated 30 June 2019 is reproduced from here and has been edited for style only.

Thanks for dropping by! The views expressed in Aliran's media statements and the NGO statements we have endorsed reflect Aliran's official stand. Views and opinions expressed in other pieces published here do not necessarily reflect Aliran's official position.

Our voluntary writers work hard to keep these articles free for all to read. But we do need funds to support our struggle for Justice, Freedom and Solidarity. To maintain our editorial independence, we do not carry any advertisements; nor do we accept funding from dubious sources. If everyone reading this was to make a donation, our fundraising target for the year would be achieved within a week. So please consider making a donation to Persatuan Aliran Kesedaran Negara, CIMB Bank account number 8004240948.
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
2 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ban Cheng Tan
Ban Cheng Tan
7 Jul 2020 11.50am

Let us see whether lawyers for the Malaysian Bar can intercede on behalf of the entire Malaysian population, get the Federal Court to drop the case against Malaysiakini that also provides feedback for the government and the country.

The charge is based on a law that is at best cock-eyed since it victimises the social media platform instead of attaching responsibility and guilt, if at all, on the commentators.

Perhaps, the Federal Court should formulate and announce a solemn judicial policy on how it will regard such cases, persuading the commentators to exercise restraint while asserting their right to democratic self-expression.

The right to self-expression is an inalienable right, an innate right, in any self-respecting democracy.

Teo Chuen Tick
8 Jul 2020 6.40am
Reply to  Ban Cheng Tan

Ban Cheng, the umnoputras will do no such thing.
The action has the desired effect – Malaysiakini is running yellow.
Let’s hope the Bar Council will do as you suggested – no, not that I think the umnoputras will pull back , but just so that a protest is made,