PPB - Mohd Hafiz Ramlee LW 16 - 5
PPB - Mohd Hafiz Ramlee LW 16 - 5
PPB - Mohd Hafiz Ramlee LW 16 - 5
Faculty of Law
January 2016
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
This paper aims to embark on a research to examine the relevancy of the Sedition
Act 1948 in Malaysia. The paper is organised into five chapters to achieve this goal.
This research is also structured in a way that we would not have a specific literature
review and findings chapter as it is incorporated into all the other chapters.
Chapter one is the introduction of this paper which includes the research background
and the problems this study seek to address. This chapter also highlights the
The second chapter touches on the origins of sedition and its adoption as a
Malaysian law. This chapter would also look to dissect the wordings of the act and
Chapter three will delve into the implementation of the act and issues that arises from
it. Several cases will be discussed to clearly determine the extent of the use of the act
and the conflicts that accompanies it. Criticisms and scholarly discussions from
1
Chapter four will look at the alternative local laws and also international practices.
This will serve as a tool for comparison with the act, from the choice of legal terms
The fifth and final chapter includes the recommendations and conclusion to the
research. Here we will answer the research questions to fulfil the research objectives
Sedition Act 1948 was adopted by the British rulers from existing 19th Century
legislation from colonial India into the then Malaya before independence. Its purpose
was to combat threats from Communists insurgency.1 The Sedition Act originated as
later amended and passed as the Sedition Act (Act 15/1970), which was enforced on
14th April 1970.2 The act since then has gone through two major amendments. The
special position under the Federal Constitution, the monarchy and the preeminent
position of the national language. The second amendment both restricted and
expanded the seditious definition by removing seditious acts against the government
and judiciary while adding seditious act relating to religion and talks of secession.
Sedition Act and only after independence from the British in 1957 was the act used to
prosecute. Ironically the act was never used against communist sympathisers or its
1
SUARAM & ARTICLE 19 2005. Freedom of Expression and The Media in Malaysia. London.
2
SHAMRAHAYU ABDUL AZIZ. 2014. Hujah Mansuh Akta Hasutan Tidak Konkrit [Online]. Kuala
Lumpur. Available: ikimfm.my /v2/hujah-mansuh-akta-hasutan-tidak-konkrit/.
2
rulers, whom all later laid down their arms in the year 1989; instead it has been
mainly used against members of opposition political parties, journalists, and social
activists.3
There are strong oppositions against the Sedition Act mainly by opposition political
leaders, social activist, SUARAM and even the Bar Council of Malaysia. The current
Prime Minister, Dato’ Seri Najib Tun Razak has spoken on abolishment of the act on
11th of July 2012 to be replaced by National Harmony Act,4 but he later declared on
27th November 2014 to strengthen the act instead amidst strong calls by his ruling
party to retain the act.5 Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, the former Prime Minister
concurs with the current Prime Minister’s statement to maintain the act but he also
cautions that the act itself is not a tool or means to maintain power. The power comes
from the people and their support for the particular government.6
Among the other supporters of the act, Former Law Minister Syed Hamid Albar spoke
in support of the act citing the need for containment of ‘domestic aggression’.7 Others
argue that the Sedition Act does not deny the right of the accused to be presumed
innocent; hence, it does not conflict with the philosophy of the administration of
justice.8
3
ANTHONY, J. 2009. Seditious Tendency? Political Patronisation of Free Speech and Expression in
Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, ERA Consumer Malaysia.
4
SHAGAL, L. K. & RAZAK AHMAD. 2012. PM: National Harmony Act to replace Sedition Act. The Star
Online, 11 July.
5
AKIL YUNUS. 2014. Najib: Sedition Act to stay. Ibid., 27 November.
6
2014. Don’t rely on Sedition Act for power, Pak Lah says. The Malay Mail Online, 27
November.
7
SHAMIM ADAM. 2014. Malaysia’s Sedition Law Needs to Stay, Former Minister Says. Bloomberg.com,
29 October.
8
SHAMRAHAYU ABDUL AZIZ. 2014. Hujah Mansuh Akta Hasutan Tidak Konkrit [Online]. Kuala
Lumpur. Available: ikimfm.my /v2/hujah-mansuh-akta-hasutan-tidak-konkrit/.
3
The parties calling for repeal of the Act has labelled the act as too broad and vague in
the definition of ‘sedition’. The central notion of sedition is defined broadly and could
be anything which, ‘when applied or used in respect of any act, speech, words,
publication or other thing qualifies the act, speech, words, publication or other thing
Arguments have also been raised against using an act formed by the Colonial
Authorities to subjugate any challenge to its rule and as an act of bondage of the
population. In addition, the charges against a wide cross section of the population for
comments made on the country’s affairs subvert the democratic process and the
There have been calls that it undermines academic and other legitimate freedoms.
The act is said to hinder independent thought, enquiry and expression and will create
a servile and subjugated society ill-equipped to meet the country’s future challenges
in a globalised world.10
To conclude, there are supporters and oppositions to the Sedition Act, both parties
raise claim for their decisions. These claims need to be analysed and reviewed on
merit, as well as the concerns of both parties need to be addressed. The end result
should be a balance of both the needs of the parties in determining whether the
9
GURDIAL SINGH NIJAR. 2014. Why should the Sedition Act be repealed? freemalaysiatoday.com, 30
September.
10
Ibid.
4