Gopal Sri Ram JCA:

Preliminary

[1] These four appeals came before us on 1 April 1998. Two of them were by Lim Guan Eng whom we shall, throughout this judgment, refer to as "the appellant". The first of these was directed against the conviction and sentence on a charge under s 8A of the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 ("the PPPA"). The second was directed against the conviction and sentence upon a charge under s 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act 1948. The other two appeals were by the Public Prosecutor who complained that the sentence passed upon the appellant in respect of each proved offence was inadequate. Although the appeals by the Public Prosecutor were lodged earlier in point of time, we decided to hear the appellant's appeals first. Counsel for the appellant and the learned deputies who appeared for the respondent agreed to this course.

[2] After carefully considering the arguments addressed to us, we dismissed the appellant's appeal against conviction and sentence, but allowed the respondent's cross-appeal. We set aside the sentence passed upon the appellant by the High Court on each charge. We then sentenced the appellant to 18 months imprisonment on each charge with effect from 1 April 1998, and ordered that these sentences do run concurrently. The reasons for our decision are as follows.

Facts And Background

[3] The appellant is the Member of Parliament for Kota Melaka. He is a prominent political figure whose views command much influence over the Malaysian public. He is, and was at all material times, the Deputy Secretary-General of the Democratic Action Party (DAP), which is the political party that leads the Opposition in Parliament. He is also the National Chairman of the DAP Youth. These are positions of some importance.

[4] Tan Sri Rahim Tamby Chik ("Rahim") was the former Chief Minister of the State of Melaka. He was charged with certain offences, the particulars of which are irrelevant for present purposes. However, the Public Prosecutor, after a consideration of the material before him came to the conclusion that there was inadequate evidence to proceed with the case against Rahim. Accordingly, the charges against Rahim were withdrawn and he was acquitted of them.

[5] The case against Rahim attracted much publicity in the print and the electronic media. Wide publicity was also given to the allegation that Rahim had had sexual relations with a girl below the age of sixteen years. The truth of this allegation was never tested in a Court of law. However, the Attorney General in his capacity of Public Prosecutor made a public statement to the effect that there was insufficient evidence to show that Rahim had committed any offence in relation to the girl in question.

[6] Although the girl's name appears in the record of proceedings before us, we directed that it be not published. Henceforth we will merely refer to her as "the minor".

[7] The evidence available on record shows that the minor was at one point in time detained by the police. But she was not, according to her own evidence, placed in a lock-up. She was subsequently placed in protective custody pursuant to an interim order made by the magistrate's Court under s 8(2) of the Women and Girls Protection Act 1973. There was then an attempt by her grandmother to have her set at liberty. However, the habeas corpus proceedings instituted for that purpose failed, the minor having filed an affidavit stating that she did not wish to be removed from the protective custody in which she had been placed. After the dismissal of the habeas corpus application, a final order was made under s 8(4) of the aforesaid Act. We may add that this final order was made at the instance of the minor.

[8] The appellant was unhappy with these events. He asked questions about them in Parliament. He was given answers to these questions. But he was still dissatisfied.

[9] On or about 15 January 1995, there was published at his instance, 5000 copies of a pamphlet (exhs. P11 and P11B) w