HASUTAN PUPUK BIBIT PERPECAHAN
Sikap suka menghasut orang lain bukanlah budaya yang sihat dan amalan tersebut tidak melambangkan realiti sebenar keharmonian masyarakat di negara ini. Hasutan bukan sahaja mewujudkan ketegangan malahan memupuk bibit-bibit perpecahan dan hilang rasa hormat serta kepercayaan.
Bagi memastikan orang ramai tidak mudah termakan dan terpengaruh dengan sebarang bentuk hasutan yang dilakukan maka undang-undang untuk mengawalnya diwujudkan melalui Akta Hasutan 1948. Akta ini berasal dari Ordinan Penerbitan Hasutan 1915 dan sumbangan besar akta ini ialah sebagai usaha untuk memerangi pengganas komunis berikutan perisytiharan Darurat di Tanah Melayu. Akta ini dipinda pada tahun 1970 iaitu selepas kejadian 13 Mei 1969 bagi memastikan sensitiviti kaum tidak dibangkitkan dalam proses demokrasi biasa.
Seksyen 2 Akta ini menyatakan bahawa sebarang perbuatan, ucapan, penerbitan, perkataan atau apa-apa benda lain dianggap menghasut jika mempunya kecenderungan menghasut. Manakala Seksyen 3 Akta berkenaan menerangkan maksud kecenderungan menghasut antaranya sebagai bagi mendatangkan benci atau penghinaan atau bagi membangkitkan perasaan yang tidak suka terhadap mana-mana raja atau kerajaan (seksyen 3(1)(a); mendatangkan benci atau penghinaan atau membangkitkan perasaan tidak puas hati terhadap pentadbiran keadilan (seksyen 3 (1)(c); mengembangkan perasaan jahat dan permusuhan antara kaum atau golongan penduduk Malaysia (seksyen 3 (1)(e); dan menyoal apa-apa perkara, hak, taraf, kedudukan, keistimewaan, kedaulatan atau hak kedaulatan yang tetap dilindungi seperti Perkara 152, 153 dan 181 Perlembagaan Persekutuan.
According to Mr. Bhag Singh, what is sedition has been described by judge J. Stephens as, “Words or writing used or written for the purpose of bringing into contempt the Crown or the Constitution of the Country, or administration of Justice, or to excite her Majesty’s subjects to alter existing laws otherwise than by lawful and constitutional means as well as to incite feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of Her Majesty’s subjects.”
Traditionally sedition has been seen as an offence closely connected to being involved in a rebellion and described as “disloyalty in action”. However, the offence in Malaysia has acquired an additional feature in sub paragraph (f) of the Sedition Act which makes it seditious to touch upon what in our context are referred to as sensitive issues. Under the Act, the intention of the person uttering the words is not a relevant factor in constituting an offence. Section 3(3) of the Sedition Act 1948 specifically provides that the intention of the person is irrelevant.
Another question that often arises is whether words ought to be regarded as seditious if there is no effect produced on the audience to whom they are addressed.
Even in England, the views expressed are not entirely consistent. In Rex v. Aldred, Coleridge J. said that it is necessary “... to look at all the circumstances surrounding the publication with the view of seeing whether the language used is calculated to produce the results imputed; that is to say, you are entitled to look at the audience addressed, because language which would be innocuous, practically speaking, if used in an assembly of professors or divines, might produce a different result if they were used before an excited audience of young and uneducated men.”
A different and opposing view was expressed by Cave J. in Reg v. Burns who in the course of deciding whether the words had such a tendency went on to say: “A man cannot escape from the consequences of uttering words (with a seditious tendency) solely because the persons to whom they are addressed may be too wise or too temperate to be seduced (by those words).”
[ http://thestar.com.my/columnists/story.asp?file=/2007/12/25/columnists/articlesoflaw/19837259&sec=Articles%20Of%20Law ]
Bagi memastikan orang ramai tidak mudah termakan dan terpengaruh dengan sebarang bentuk hasutan yang dilakukan maka undang-undang untuk mengawalnya diwujudkan melalui Akta Hasutan 1948. Akta ini berasal dari Ordinan Penerbitan Hasutan 1915 dan sumbangan besar akta ini ialah sebagai usaha untuk memerangi pengganas komunis berikutan perisytiharan Darurat di Tanah Melayu. Akta ini dipinda pada tahun 1970 iaitu selepas kejadian 13 Mei 1969 bagi memastikan sensitiviti kaum tidak dibangkitkan dalam proses demokrasi biasa.
Seksyen 2 Akta ini menyatakan bahawa sebarang perbuatan, ucapan, penerbitan, perkataan atau apa-apa benda lain dianggap menghasut jika mempunya kecenderungan menghasut. Manakala Seksyen 3 Akta berkenaan menerangkan maksud kecenderungan menghasut antaranya sebagai bagi mendatangkan benci atau penghinaan atau bagi membangkitkan perasaan yang tidak suka terhadap mana-mana raja atau kerajaan (seksyen 3(1)(a); mendatangkan benci atau penghinaan atau membangkitkan perasaan tidak puas hati terhadap pentadbiran keadilan (seksyen 3 (1)(c); mengembangkan perasaan jahat dan permusuhan antara kaum atau golongan penduduk Malaysia (seksyen 3 (1)(e); dan menyoal apa-apa perkara, hak, taraf, kedudukan, keistimewaan, kedaulatan atau hak kedaulatan yang tetap dilindungi seperti Perkara 152, 153 dan 181 Perlembagaan Persekutuan.
According to Mr. Bhag Singh, what is sedition has been described by judge J. Stephens as, “Words or writing used or written for the purpose of bringing into contempt the Crown or the Constitution of the Country, or administration of Justice, or to excite her Majesty’s subjects to alter existing laws otherwise than by lawful and constitutional means as well as to incite feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of Her Majesty’s subjects.”
Traditionally sedition has been seen as an offence closely connected to being involved in a rebellion and described as “disloyalty in action”. However, the offence in Malaysia has acquired an additional feature in sub paragraph (f) of the Sedition Act which makes it seditious to touch upon what in our context are referred to as sensitive issues. Under the Act, the intention of the person uttering the words is not a relevant factor in constituting an offence. Section 3(3) of the Sedition Act 1948 specifically provides that the intention of the person is irrelevant.
Another question that often arises is whether words ought to be regarded as seditious if there is no effect produced on the audience to whom they are addressed.
Even in England, the views expressed are not entirely consistent. In Rex v. Aldred, Coleridge J. said that it is necessary “... to look at all the circumstances surrounding the publication with the view of seeing whether the language used is calculated to produce the results imputed; that is to say, you are entitled to look at the audience addressed, because language which would be innocuous, practically speaking, if used in an assembly of professors or divines, might produce a different result if they were used before an excited audience of young and uneducated men.”
A different and opposing view was expressed by Cave J. in Reg v. Burns who in the course of deciding whether the words had such a tendency went on to say: “A man cannot escape from the consequences of uttering words (with a seditious tendency) solely because the persons to whom they are addressed may be too wise or too temperate to be seduced (by those words).”
[ http://thestar.com.my/columnists/story.asp?file=/2007/12/25/columnists/articlesoflaw/19837259&sec=Articles%20Of%20Law ]
Comments