Power of court to prevent person from leaving Malaysia Section 6: Innocent receiver of seditious publication Section 8:
Power of court to prevent person from leaving Malaysia Section 6: Innocent receiver of seditious publication Section 8: Issue of search warrant Section 9: Suspension of newspaper containing seditious matter Section Power of court to prohibit circulation of seditious publications Section 10A: Special power to issue order regarding seditious publications by electronic means Section Arrest without warrant History[ edit ] The law was introduced by the British inthe same year that the autonomous Federation of Malaya came into being, with the intent of curbing opposition to colonial rule.
The Federal Constitution of Malaya and later Malaysia permitted Parliament to impose restrictions on the freedom of speech granted by the Constitution.
After the May 13 Incidentwhen racial riots in the capital of Kuala Lumpur led to at least deaths, the government amended the Constitution to expand the scope of limitations on freedom of speech. The Constitution Amendment Act named Articles, andand also Part III of the Constitution as specially protected, permitting Parliament to pass legislation that would limit dissent with regard to these provisions pertaining to the social contract.
The social contract is essentially a quid pro quo agreement between the Malay and non-Malay citizens of Peninsular Malaysia; in return for granting the non-Malays citizenship at independence, symbols of Malay authority such as the Malay monarchy became national symbols, and the Malays were granted special economic privileges.
With this new power, Parliament then amended the Sedition Act accordingly. The new restrictions also applied to Members of Parliament, overruling Parliamentary immunity ; at the same time, Articlewhich governs Constitutional amendments, was amended to entrench the "sensitive" Constitutional provisions; in addition to the consent of Parliament, any changes to the "sensitive" portions of the Constitution would now have to pass the Conference of Rulersa body comprising the monarchs of the Malay states.
Despite their opposition, the ruling Alliance later Barisan Nasional coalition government passed the amendments, having maintained the necessary two-thirds Parliamentary majority. Article 10 4 also states that "Parliament may pass law prohibiting the questioning of any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of Part III, articleor otherwise than in relation to the implementation thereof as may be specified in such law".
These portions of the Constitution have been criticised by human rights advocates, who charge that "under the Malaysian Constitution, the test is not whether or not the restriction is necessarily but the much lower standard of whether or not Parliament deems the restrictions necessary or even expedient.
There is no objective requirement that the restriction actually is necessary or expedient and the latter standard is much lower than that of necessity. It is also a crime to possess a seditious publication without a "lawful excuse".
The act defines sedition itself as 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 as having a seditious tendency".
Under section 3 1those acts defined as having a seditious tendency are acts with a tendency: Section 3 2 provides certain exceptions, providing examples of speech which cannot be deemed seditious. It is not seditious to "show that any Ruler has been misled or mistaken in any of his measures", nor is it seditious "to point out errors or defects in the Government or Constitution as by law established".
It is also not seditious "to attempt to procure by lawful means the alteration of any matter in the territory of such Government as by law established" or "to point out, with a view to their removal, any matters producing or having a tendency to produce feelings of ill-will and enmity between different races or classes of the population of the Federation".
However, the act explicitly states that any matter covered by subsection 1 fnamely those matters pertaining to the Malaysian social contractcannot have these exceptions applied to it.
Section 3 3 goes on to state that "the intention of the person charged at the time he did or attempted a seditious act This latter provision has been criticised for overruling mens reaa legal principle stating that a person cannot be guilty of a crime if he did not have the intent to commit a crime.
Implementation[ edit ] Inthen Deputy Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi threatened to charge opponents of a change in educational policy with sedition. In recent times, the law has invoked to quell political opposition to the government.
Lim Guan Enga former Member of Parliament from the DAP, had likewise been found guilty of sedition in for accusing the Attorney General of failing to properly handle a case where the Chief Minister of Malacca had been charged with statutory rape of a schoolgirl.
That same year, the online publication Malaysiakini was temporarily shut down under the Sedition Act after it published a letter criticising Malay special rights and compared the Youth wing of a government party to the Ku Klux Klan. These critics charge that this vagueness constitutes "an invitation to abuse and authorities may seek to apply them in situations which bear no relation to the original purpose of the law".The Law Society has expressed concern over Malaysia’s continuing use of the Sedition Act.
The act, which was made law during the British colonial era, criminalises speech uttered ‘to excite disaffection’ against the government. The crime of sedition is specified in Section 4 of the Sedition Act of The offence, which may attract a sentence of up to three years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of up to RM5, (approximately US$), is defined in section 4 of the Sedition Act.
Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak has made two contrasting pledges with regard to the Sedition Act of First, during the election period in , he vowed to repeal the archaic law.
The Malaysian Sedition Act disregards this vital prerequisite by substituting ‘intention’ with the idea of a ‘seditious tendency’. The Act clearly specifies, in section 3(3), that the intention of an accused person is irrelevant if they committed an act which has a seditious tendency.
The Sedition Act in Malaysia Essay Sample.
Undersigned affiliations, may allegation to accurate our weight on the crumbling gages of versatility of delivery in Malaysia and the present changes adequate with the Sedition Act. The Sedition Act was introduced by the British colonial government in to use against local communist insurgents.