_________________________________________________
SEDITION IN MALAYSIA
The Sedition Act in Malaysia is a law prohibiting discourse deemed as seditious. The act was originally enacted by the colonial authorities of British Malaya in 1948. The act criminalises speech with “seditious tendency”, including that which would “bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against” the government or engender “feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races”. The meaning of “seditious tendency” is defined in section 3 of the Sedition Act 1948 and in substance it is similar to the English common law definition of sedition, with modifications to suit local circumstances. The Malaysian definition includes the questioning of certain portions of the Constitution of Malaysia, namely those pertaining to the Malaysian social contract, such as Article 153, which deals with special rights for the bumiputra (Malays and other indigenous peoples, who comprise over half the Malaysian population).
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_%28Malaysia%29
…
11 October 2018
..
KUALA LUMPUR: The Cabinet has agreed to a moratorium on the Sedition Act 1948, says Gobind Singh Deo (pic).
The Communications and Multimedia Minister said he had presented the proposal for a moratorium on the Act at the Cabinet meeting on Wednesday (Oct 10).
“A decision was made by the Cabinet yesterday that since we are going to abolish the Sedition Act, it has to be suspended temporarily.
“The decision will be communicated to the Attorney General, and that is a work in progress,” said Gobind after launching an e-commerce summit here on Thursday (Oct 11)).
A moratorium on an Act means authorities will not be allowed to use it to arrest anyone for sedition.
Gobind had said that the repeal of the Sedition Act would take place at the next Parliament meeting.
.
..
…
13 July 2018
..
Prosecutor: AGC to review all sedition cases
PUTRAJAYA, July 14 — The Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) will be reviewing all ongoing sedition cases to consider whether to continue prosecution or drop the charges, a deputy public prosecutor said today.
DPP Wan Shaharuddin Wan Ladin said however that the review would be done if those being charged have written or made a legal representation to the AGC for their sedition cases to be dropped.
“Yes, we are reviewing all sedition cases, but there must be a legal representation, then we will review,” he told Malay Mail when contacted today.
He said that the AGC will decide whether to proceed with or to drop the sedition charges, which will depend partly on the “current policy” for sedition cases.
“It all depends on the policy and the strength of the evidence,” he said. “But the upmost factor is the strength of the cases”.
Wan Shaharuddin had informed the Court of Appeal today in a case involving PKR’s N. Surendran of the AGC’s review plans.
The government is currently under the Pakatan Harapan coalition, which had promised in its 14th general election manifesto to abolish various “cruel” laws such as the Sedition Act 1948.
When asked, Wan Shaharuddin told Malay Mail that there are currently approximately 10 ongoing sedition cases at all different levels of the court, with the lawyers for eight of these cases already having written in their legal representations to the AGC to have their client’s charges dropped.
https://www.malaymail.com/s/1651867/prosecutor-agc-to-review-all-sedition-cases#.W0gpeS9M8O8.twitter
..
.
PUTRAJAYA, July 13 — The prosecution yesterday withdrew a sedition case against the late Selangor state assemblyman Mat Shuhaimi Shafiei who died earlier this month, his lawyer confirmed today.
Lawyer Latheefa Koya said the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) withdrew the charge against the late Sungai Kandis assemblyman at the Shah Alam High Court yesterday.
“Yesterday, his matter at the Shah Alam High Court has been withdrawn by the DPP, but they clarified in the letter they had already withdrawn before he died,” she told reporters when met at the court here, referring to the deputy public prosecutor.
She was referring to a letter from the AGC that Shuhaimi’s lawyers received the day before yesterday.
In the letter dated July 3 and signed off by the AGC’s Solicitor-General II Datin Zauyah T. Loth Khan, the top legal official conveyed the government unit’s condolences to Shuhaimi’s lawyers over the sad news of their client’s death on July 2.
Zauyah then went on to say that the AGC had decided to accept their representation for Shuhaimi’s case under Section 4(1)(c) of the Sedition Act to be dropped.
..
|
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD OCT. 6, 2014
The Malaysian government has increasingly employed the Sedition Act, a British colonial era law, to intimidate and silence political opponents. The law criminalizes speech uttered “to excite disaffection” against the government and defines sedition so broadly that it is an invitation to authoritarian abuse.
Prime Minister Najib Razak had promised to repeal the act, but, since the general elections in May last year, his government has made full use of the law to hound his critics. While Mr. Najib’s ruling coalition, Barisan Nasional, won 60 percent of the parliamentary seats in the election, for the first time since independence in 1957, the opposition coalition, Pakatan Rakyat, won a 51 percent majority of the popular vote.
The elections seem to have shaken the government enough for it to arrest and prosecute an array of politicians, journalists, academics, students, religious leaders and civil society activists who did not advocate the overthrow of the government. For example, a senior opposition politician was charged with sedition for criticizing a decision by the appeals court in a statement to the news media. A local state assemblyman was charged for allegedly saying “damn, damn” about the government’s United Malays National Organization to several assemblymen. Since 2013, at least 14 people have been charged. Those found guilty can face up to three years in prison.
Mr. Najib’s crackdown is a deplorable attack on free speech and a serious threat to democracy. He appeared to understand this danger when he promised to repeal the Sedition Act. He should do so immediately.
—
Star
Tuesday September 2, 2014 MYT 7:17:27 AM
Azmi faces sedition charge
PETALING JAYA: Universiti Malaya law lecturer Assoc Prof Dr Azmi Sharom (pic) is expected to be charged with sedition today over comments made on an online portal over the 2009 Perak crisis.
He is expected to be charged under Section 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act 1948.
Under the section, anyone who utters any seditious words faces a fine of not more than RM5,000, a jail term of not more than three years, or both, if found guilty.
Azmi declined to comment on the possibility of him being charged for making the statements.
The English online portal reported that the law professor was previously under probe for his quotes in an article titled, “Take Perak crisis route for speedy end to Selangor impasse, Pakatan told”, which was published on Aug 14.
Azmi is an associate professor at the Faculty of Law of the university.
—
In the last few days, PKR vice-president Rafizi Ramli and his party colleague Padang Serai MP N. Surendran, Shah Alam MP and PAS central committee member Khalid Samad, and DAP Seri Delima assemblyman R. S. N. Rayer have been charged for sedition.
DAP Seputeh MP Teresa Kok and PKR Batu MP Tian Chua are also facing trial for sedition, while former Perak MP and Changkat Jering assemblyman Nizar Jamaluddin was charged with criminal defamation for a statement he had allegedly made two years ago.
Critics said the move as an attempt by Putrajaya to silence its political foes.
YAHOO! NEWS MALAYSIA
New harmony laws being drafted, Putrajaya says in defence of sedition charges
The Malaysian Insider
Putrajaya said new harmony laws were being drafted but defended the recent slew of sedition charges against opposition politicians, adding that the courts were fair to all.
The Prime Minister’s Office, in a statement today said the government would repeal the Sedition Act and replace it with the National Harmony Bill as pledged.
This came in response to criticism over the current sedition dragnet on several opposition leaders with critics accusing Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak of going back on his word to repeal the draconian law.
The statement said the National Harmony Bill was currently in drafting stage.
“Until new legislation is in place, existing cases must be tried under existing laws. Any charges under the Sedition Act are a matter for the courts.
“Malaysia’s judiciary is independent, as the verdicts of many cases prove,” the spokesperson said.
https://my.news.yahoo.com/harmony-laws-being-drafted-putrajaya-says-defence-sedition-044242979.html
—–
Free Malaysia Today
How to avoid being seditious
Here are probably eight things you would have to consider before speaking in Malaysia to avoid having a ‘seditious tendency’.
By JoFan Pang
To kick-start this collaboration between MyConsti and FMT I’m sure many would appreciate a brief description of the Constitution.
Most would know that Malaysia is a nation which practices constitutional supremacy. That basically means that the Federal Constitution of Malaysia is the highest law of Malaysia and it defines our whole existence in this country. It defines the power of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. It also sets out the three branches of government (Parliament, Executive, Courts) and states all of their roles and functions.
…..
For all you law students, relevant authorities interpreting the meaning of these words are PP v Ooi Kee Saik & Ors [1971], PP v Fan Yew Teng [1975], PP v Oh Keng Seng [1978] and PP v Param Cumaraswamy [1986].
…..
Based on the four cases mentioned, these are probably eight things you would have to consider before speaking in Malaysia to avoid having a ‘seditious tendency’:
1. Seditious words have to be spoken by the accused. [PP v Ooi Kee Saik & Ors]
Yes, being Captain Obvious, I thought you may want to know that this is generally what all the prosecution has to prove to presume that you have intended to stir up hatred or contempt towards the relevant parties provided under Section 3.
2. Immaterial whether statement is true or false. [PP v Oh Keng Seng]
Because as long as the statement made is perceived to be able to cause the consequences discussed in Section 3, it has a seditious tendency and the accused will be guilty.
3. Constructive criticism towards government policy for change or reform is safe speech. But if court is satisfied that speech is clearly aimed at stirring up hatred, contempt or disaffection towards the government (or the YDPA), it shall be caught within s.3(1) of the Act. [PP v Ooi Kee Saik & Ors]
Basically it is okay to criticize the government and its policies but that criticism cannot stir hatred or excite disaffection towards these parties.
4. ‘Excite disaffection’ in relation to a government refers to the implanting or arousing or stimulating in the minds of people a feeling of antagonism, enmity and disloyalty tending to make government insecure. [PP v Param Cumaraswamy]
Well, we all have our insecurity issues, don’t we?
5. Section 6(2) provides that a person shall not be convicted under S4(1)(c) or (d) if he did not authorize the publication or has no reason to believe that the publication had a seditious tendency. [PP v Ooi Kee Saik & Ors]
So the only way publishers can get off the hook is to prove that they are completely unaware of it.
6. The courts must determine sedition tendency by using the general impression that a normal person has upon reading the statement. [PP v Fan Yew Teng]
This is probably the simplest yardstick to grasp “seditious tendency”
7. It is unnecessary for the prosecution to specify in charge which of the 6 tendencies under S.3 of the Act that the accused has violated. Judge may determine it in trial. [PP v Param Cumaraswamy]
Judges will honestly ask themselves if statement has tendency to cause those consequences. They would act like juries in our jurisdictions which does not have the jury system.
8. Words are seditious if they are likely to incite or influence the audience addressed or if they are likely to incite or influence ordinary people even though the audience addressed was unaffected by the words [PP v Param Cumaraswamy]
It does not matter even if the audience is generally fine with it, as so long as it is likely to influence other people, it is seditious.
Time to replace Sedition Act
So this is the current position of the laws on sedition in Malaysia. Are there possibilities that the things you say or post on social media will likely to fall under all these conditions? Yes? No?
Think about this. You may be charged under a law that was intended to combat terrorism, enacted before the birth of Article 10(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution which provides that “every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression”.
No doubt there are exceptions under Article 10(2)(a) regarding speech that would affect national security, international relations, contempt of court and so on, but the question now is whether the Sedition Act even lives up to the protection enshrined under those exceptions listed?
In fact, the Penal Code already has provisions to deal with incitement of violence and terrorism.
Why then are we still actively using such archaic laws when even our colonial masters who enacted it to begin with stopped convicting people for sedition since 1909?
One by one unconstitutional archaic laws have been faced with abolishment. From the Internal Security Act to the Emergency (Public Order and Crime Prevention) Ordinance and the less archaic but declared unconstitutional S15(2)(c) of the Universities and University Colleges Act which forbids students to join politics.
In 2011, together with promises about the repealing of the Internal Security Act, our prime minister also promised repeal of the Sedition Act to be replaced by a National Harmony Act.
But since then, we see nothing but an increasing number of arrests and charges under the Sedition Act made against dissenters of the authorities, upholding constitutional values while serving its’ noble cause of counter-terrorism.
JoFan Pang is a law student passionate about human rights, specifically in Malaysia. Tweeting at @jofanpang, he moves with @UndiMsia, lives with @LoyarBurok as he upholds @MyConsti.
MyConstitution is a campaign by Bar Council Constitutional Law Committee to bring the Federal Constitution to the people.
http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/opinion/2013/07/21/how-to-avoid-being-seditious/
—–
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Five Charged With Sedition in Malaysia
By Abhrajit Gangopadhyay and Jason Ng
Malaysian prosecutors charged two opposition politicians and three anti-government critics with sedition on Wednesday, adding to the simmering political tension that has refused to fade as the opposition contests the outcome of a general election that kept the ruling coalition in power.
The recent charges highlight the Malaysian authorities resolve to clamp down on the opposition’s peaceful protests that have rocked the nation of 28 million and sparked a debate on the use of a colonial-era Sedition Law that Prime Minister Najib Razak has pledged to scrap.
The law allows the detention of people urging the overthrow of the government. Mr. Najib had announced plans to repeal the decades-old legislation as part of a series of political reforms aimed at allowing greater freedom of expression in this multi-ethnic, Muslim-majority democracy.
Opposition leaders Tian Chua and Tamrin Ghafar and activist Harris Ibrahim were charged under Section 4 (1)B of the Sedition Act at a Kuala Lumpur court early Wednesday, their lawyers said.
They were detained last week for questioning under the same law and subsequently released.
All three say they are innocent.
http://blogs.wsj.com/searealtime/2013/05/29/five-charged-with-sedition-in-malaysia/
————————————————————————
weehingthong 
Pingback: ‘Tis the season for being charged for Sedition.. | weehingthong
Pingback: N Surendran will face Sedition charge | weehingthong
Pingback: 57th Merdeka: An increasingly Fragmented Nation? | weehingthong