A law that protects the crooks and punishes the good guys
Nancy said it was media exposes that motivated the government to push for the amendments of Section 203 of the Penal Code.
Terence Fernandez, fz.com
SO JUST who is Section 203 of the Penal Code (Amended) supposed to protect?
That those re-elected into power (albeit barely) are falling over themselves to suppress the flow of information, begs the question as to why the sudden need to threaten civil servants against leak information.
To put it bluntly, the August House has been raped to enable laws to be passed to protect crooks.
One does not see any other logic as to why a civil servant who provides information to the public or media on matters of public interest may end up in jail.
After all Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Nancy Shukri let the cat out of the bag that it was media exposes that motivated the government to push for the amendments.
“The leaking of information to electronic media with false exaggeration to tarnish the government needs to be handled seriously,” she is reported as telling Parliament today.
Section 203 states: “Whoever discloses any information or matter which has been obtained by him in the performance of his duties or the exercise of his functions under any written law shall be punished with a fine of not more than one million ringgit; or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with both.”
Datuk Paul Low, another Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department told fz.com yesterday that he was going to bring up the issue at today’s Cabinet meeting.
However it looks like whatever debate that will be taking place at the Prime Minister’s office will be purely academic. This is because Low’s colleagues including those from Barisan Nasional (BN) worked late into the night to amend the legislation, passing the second reading.
Hence one supposes as a member of the Senate, Low will be the only government representative who will vote against the amendment when it comes to the Dewan Negara.
Nancy tried some damage control “explaining” that the legislation is meant to be read together with existing provisions with regards to giving false information.
Section 203 states that “whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, gives any information respecting that offence which he knows or believes to be false, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both.”
She said whistle-blowers who tip off the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) will be protected under the MACC Act itself.
Unfortunately, while the MACC is doing a lot of good work to change perception, the fact that whistle-blowers have flown off the top floors of the Commission’s buildings is still a recent memory.
So one doubts if any government servant will be queuing outside the MACC’s doors anytime soon.
Former minister Datuk Seri Noh Omar – dropped for not delivering Selangor to BN in the recent general election – argues that it is only applicable to information that jeopardises the country’s security.
But in the vague big world of officialdom and self-serving politicians what is “national security”? A person’s political future can also be a matter of national security!
I have had enough policemen coming to my office to take my statements on “national security” and public interest issues, including the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ).
The first question is always “who gave you the information” followed by “why you wrote this story”.
That has always been the perception – that the authorities are never interested in investigating the message but rather shoot the messenger.
So here is also where Nancy’s arguments is flawed where misinformation is reported.
In January, a criminal defamation report was filed against a reporter from my previous organisation for reporting on a shooting death case involving the police.
So, if there are any misreporting, the Press can be hauled up under provisions of Section 499 to Section 502 of the Penal Code, where we can face up to two years jail.
And along with the Official Secrets Act (OSA), there is already an arsenal of laws to suppress information and penalise those who make it public.
So again, for whose benefit is the amendment to Section 203 being done?
As Low says, any law that restricts information must also be in tandem with the introduction of the likes of a Freedom of Information Act.
Unfortunately we have people in power who use their positions to introduce new restrictions that only serves to protect crooks, while decent law abiding citizens such as civil servants end up paying the price for doing the right thing.
