Skip to main content

Sedition Act 1948 should have been repealed a long time ago. But why?

THE Sedition Act 1948 is a legislative measure that was enacted in Malaysia during the colonial era, designed to curb any form of speech or expression that was deemed to be seditious in nature with the aim of maintaining public order and security.

The Sedition Act has been subject to much debate and criticism, with some arguing that it is a violation of freedom of speech and expression. Despite this, the Act remains in force in Malaysia to this day, albeit with some amendments made over the years.

Although I concur with the abolition of this Act, it is imperative that a comparable new legislation be enacted to address the escalating prevalence of racially and religiously bigoted remarks that have been unsettling our distinctive multicultural and multi-religious society as of late.

An instance that exemplifies the prudent decision-making of the governing body is the substitution of the Internal Security Act of 1960 with the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (SOSMA).

This replacement can be perceived as a strategic move to harmonise with the ever-changing legal framework and fulfil the aspirations of the general public.

The Sedition Act outlines a comprehensive definition of sedition, encompassing various forms of expression such as acts, speeches, words, publications, and other means that possess a seditious tendency.

Section 3(1) of the Act specifies that acts with a seditious tendency include those capable of inciting hatred, contempt, or disaffection against any Ruler or Government, as well as those seeking to effect changes to established matters through unlawful methods.

Furthermore, the Act criminalises the promotion of feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races and classes of Malaysians.

In summary, the Act prohibits speech that demonstrates a seditious tendency, which encompasses expressions that may incite hatred, contempt, or disaffection towards the government, as well as those that foster animosity and hostility between different racial and social groups.

The Act was used to suppress political dissent and opposition to the ruling government, resulting in numerous arrests and prosecutions.

In the case of Mat Shuhaimi Shafiei, the Malaysian Federal Court of Appeal declared a section of the Sedition Act unconstitutional. This section criminalised the publication of seditious material without requiring the accused to possess the necessary criminal intent (mens rea).

The Court justified its decision by stating that nearly every crime necessitated proof of criminal intent, and that the law in question established a strict liability offense, which unduly restricted the freedom of expression guaranteed by Malaysia’s Federal Constitution.

In the case of Public Prosecutor v. Azmi Bin Sharom, the defendant, a law professor at University Malaya, was charged with sedition on Sept 2, 2014, for comments made on an online news article. Sharom contested the constitutionality of the Sedition Act, citing its colonial origins.

The court subsequently issued a landmark ruling, affirming the constitutionality of the law. On Feb 12, 2016, the Attorney General elected to withdraw the charges against Sharom.

The Sedition Act had far-reaching consequences across various domains of society.

First, it significantly impacted freedom of speech and expression, as individuals were subjected to legal scrutiny and potential prosecution for expressing dissenting opinions or criticising the government.

This curtailment of civil liberties had a chilling effect on public discourse and stifled democratic participation.

Moreover, the act had profound implications for political dissent and opposition movements. By criminalising acts of sedition, the government effectively suppressed opposition voices, hindering the development of a robust and pluralistic political landscape.

This, in turn, limited the avenues for constructive dialogue and impeded the democratic process.

Furthermore, the Sedition Act had a profound impact on the media landscape. Journalists and publishers faced increased scrutiny and self-censorship, fearing potential legal repercussions.

This resulted in a climate of restricted press freedom, where the dissemination of critical or alternative viewpoints was curtailed, thereby undermining the role of the media as a watchdog and catalyst for societal progress.

In a nutshell, the Sedition Act left an indelible mark on the socio-political fabric of the time. Its implementation had significant implications for freedom of speech, political dissent, and media freedom.

Based on a comprehensive understanding of the historical context and a thorough analysis of the multifaceted consequences of this legislation, it is my firm belief that the current administration, under the leadership of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, should take the necessary steps to abolish this legislation that originated from the colonial era and was designed to serve a specific purpose.

The surrender of the Communist Party of Malaya should serve as the definitive moment marking the end of this legislation. Regrettably, for political reasons, this has yet to occur.

While I acknowledge the necessity of such laws in the present to address the growing issue of racial and religious seditious remarks, it is imperative that a new legislation be enacted to suit the current dynamic environment in Malaysia and effectively tackle these challenges. – Oct 4, 2023

Source: https://focusmalaysia.my/sedition-act-1948-should-have-been-repealed-a-long-time-ago-but-why/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Two Tales, Two Leaders - PART 1

Man has dual nature; he is both his own person and a member of his country. On the one hand, the law must protect the individual from the injustices of the multitude.  History has shown how individuals fall prey to mass perversity, their crime being simply a refusal to conform to the beliefs and prejudices of the majority. Anwar Ibrahim, The Asian Renaissance, 1997., Page 63. The value system and ethical code therefore determine the success or failure of corrective measures. If the value system is wrong, corrective measures will not be productive or will be only slightly productive. When the value system motivates, very little corrective measures are needed. Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad, The Malay Dilemma, 1970., Pages 172-173. Introduction Malaysia is our motherland. We love our country. This country has so much of wealth. Even though, Malaysia has agonized considerably in past three decades because of the malpractices of the corrupted characters but she is never fail t...

Brexit: A lesson for Malaysians

Yesterday, Britons through a referendum made a decision to leave European Union. The ruling Conservative Party divided on this referendum and David Cameron in favour of ‘Remain’ was defeated outright. Even though he is disagreed with the decision of Britons, he announced that he is resigning from his premiership in respect of people’s decision. We can expect in a mature democracy country like United Kingdom this is vastly anticipated to be transpired.   A few days ago, the current Chief Commissioner of Malaysian Anti-Corruption of Commission made a statement that he is stepping down from his position and there are some rumours indicating that a few prominent officers from the said Commission will either resign or retire. It’s very eccentric news for Malaysians as it will have a profound impact on bribery and corruption issues in Malaysia as a whole. Recently, the results of two by elections were won by Barisan Nasional, the ruling party of Malaysia. Many promises had been...

Constitution of Malaysia: An Introduction Part 5

7 (1) No person shall be punished for an act or omission which was not punishable by law when it was done or made, and no person shall suffer greater punishment for an offence than was prescribed by law at the time it was committed. (2) A person who has been acquitted or convicted of an offence shall not be tried again for the same offence except where the conviction or acquittal has been quashed and a retrial ordered by a court superior to that by which he was acquitted or convicted.