Sedition Act 1948 In Malaysia

Topic:

Sedition Act 1948 in Malaysia should be abolished.

Thesis Statement:

Sedition Act 1948 in Malaysia should be abolished because it violates the fundamental rights, the provisions are ambiguous, and it kills the democracy of Malaysia.

Have you ever imagine living in a world where you cannot do anything as you want?, you cannot freely say what you want to say nor express yourself to your heart content, well you are living in that world now, particularly in Malaysia. The restriction by the government in using the Sedition Act 1948 has been a thorn in one’s flesh and slowly the country that uphold highly of democracy seems to be turning into dictatorship thus this Sedition Act should be abolished because it violates the fundamental rights,

Article 19, states that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. International Commission of Jurists states that the Act by its terms restrain on the exercise of freedom of expression which is inconsistent with the basic rule of law and human rights principle (Gil, 2014). N. Surendran, a Member of Parliament who acts as counsel for opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim is facing charges under the Sedition Act. He was charged on 19 August 2014 for criticizing the Court of Appeal ruling in the sodomy case of Anwar Ibrahim as “flawed, defensive, and insupportable.” Also, he is charged for his comment in a video uploaded on the website YouTube, he said that the proceeding against Anwar Ibrahim were “an attempt to jail the opposite leader of Malaysia (Gil, 2014). Clearly, this violates the article 19 of UDHR that ensure the right to freedom of opinion and

The Sedition Act 1948 has a widely definition of sedition, and place many limitation of freedom of expression, particularly sensitive issues. Sedition tendency is defined in Section 3 of the Act as to bring into hatred or contempt or to execute disaffection against any ruler or government, to seek alternation other than lawful means of any matter by law established, to bring hatred or contempt to the administration of justice in the country, to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the subject and to promote ill-will and hostility between races or classes. This Act is very unclear as the sedition and seditious tendency are loosely defined and subjective words such as hatred, contempt, discontent, feeling ill-will and disaffection are use without any definition. Also, this Act grants authorities too much of discretion for arbitrary enforcement thus the scope is unforeseeable (Malaysia: Sedition Act upheld in further blow to free expression, 2015) .In addition, it is a strict liability offence. According to Gill, the intention of a person reported making seditious statement is irrelevant due to the loosely defined and subjective words that are not defined. Example, a person making a statement may not have the intention for seditious act, but may nonetheless be held liable for it if the authorities believe the person has seditious intention (Gil,