The enforcement of Sedition Act though discretionary should be exercised cautiously with circumspect considering whether having regard to all circumstances under which the alleged seditious statement was made, it was still after all a “fair comment” in public interest and not actuated by malice and unfairness.

TBH’s death is a public issue of importance. Countless members of the public have expressed comments similar to LGE. How could LGE incite and confuse the public, causing them to turn against government agencies more than what members of the public have already formed in their impressions based on what they know from news ??? Does any one expect the public to have no impression or LGE as a politician not to take a stand or express any opinion? You mean one cannot express an opinion until Corner Court makes a conclusive determination? This implies the public ought to behave like sheep and have no opinion on the matter or if they have one, forget about their constitutional guarantee of Freedom of Speech and remain silent until Corner Court decides! This again assumes Coroner Court will decide! Hello, there is no guarantee that it will decide definitively either suicide or homicide. This is because a Coroner Court is an inquest – which unlike the normal court of law deciding on basis of beyond reasonable doubt standard of evidence – proceeds in another direction based on 100% certainty of proven facts, short of which the Inquest will (as many Inquests have done so) always return an “open verdict” ie that it cannot determine, with certainty, cause of death. So the Public or politicians cannot speak of the cause of TBH’s death until Inqiuest determines when we’re not even sure it will determine anything? This cannot be. Even for a politician, especially an Opposition politician, whose public function/duty is to criticise the government of the day and its policies and foibles, one can’t muzzle him just because what he says falls literally within or could be construed as “bringing into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Malaysia or in any State” in the language of the Act – without more.

“More” here means having regard to the entire circumstances under which the statement was made, there are, objectively, other elements of malice, unreasonableness, blatant intent to incite people against government by inciendiary speech appealing to emotions, based on not on real facts but a tissue of lies, falsehood etc which in aggregate make the statement not a fair comment at all but mala fide one and in bad faith, totally inimical to overall public interest, and not promotive of it!

Now how can LGE’s statement fall under that category? One cannot read the Act like an Ostrich construing words by their literal meaning without regard to context of the kind of mischievous, unfair and irresponsible behaviour and statement that the sedition Act, by history and enforcement, whether here or abroad, is intended to address and capture.

Anyone can lodge a police report alleging sedition based on misconception of the law and its nuance – but misconception is not something law enforcement and prosecution department could afford in their exercise of discretion.

If someone lodges a report then it is incumbent upon police to investigate including call in any relevant person for statement and if the person refuses to come in for the statement, to arrest him. Khalid is just stating that fact. Whether he’s politicking or not, its not necessary to say he plays politics “with an eye to replace Tan Sri Musa Hassan as the next Inspector-General of Police.” At the same time, it does not mean that investigations will lead anywhere.