SEDITION ACT 1948 MALAYSIA

Freedom of speech is a very tricky right to be freely given to a citizen of a specific country. Words should be carefully used to make sure it does not cause unnecessary semantic meanings to a sentence. The sedition act 1948 was enacted in Malaysia as a method for government to keep check of the criticism of the mass.

A small history lesson on the Sedition act 1948 Malaysia:

In 1948, the Sedition Act was enacted by the British colonial government to combat the Communists. Amendments were made through an Emergency Ordinance 1971, not long after the riots of 1969, to criminalize any questioning on Part III (on citizenship), Article 152 (on national language), Article 153 (on the special positions of the Malays and the rights of other races) and Article 181 (the Rulers’ sovereignty) of the Federal Constitution. 

What are the important features of the act?

(1) Any person who—
(a) does or attempts to do, or makes any preparation to do, or conspires with any person to do, any act which has or which would, if done, have a seditious tendency;
(b) utters any seditious words;

(c) prints, publishes, sells, offers for sale, distributes or reproduces any seditious publication; or
(d) imports any seditious publication, shall be guilty of an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable for a first offence to a fine not exceeding five thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both, and,
for a subsequent offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; and any seditious publication found in the possession of the person or used in evidence at his trial shall be forfeited and may be destroyed or otherwise disposed of as the court directs.

(2) Any person who without lawful excuse has in his possession any seditious publication shall be guilty of an offence and shall,  on conviction, be liable for a first offence to a fine not exceeding two thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months or to both, and, for a subsequent offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, and the publication shall be forfeited and may be destroyed or otherwise disposed of as the court directs.

* highlight
Innocent receiver of seditious publication
7. Any person to whom any seditious publication is sent without his knowledge or privity shall forthwith as soon as the nature of its contents has become known to him deliver the publication to the officer in charge of a police district or, in Sabah and Sarawak, to an administrative officer or to the officer in charge of the nearest police station, and any person who complies with the provisions of this section shall not be liable to be convicted for having in his possession the publication:
Provided that in any proceedings against that person the court shall presume until the contrary be shown that the person knew the contents of the publication at the time it first came into his possession.

Not to forget that there are always dissenting opinions and critiques on the act itself.

"No doubt it is a serious and terrifying offence as one may be imprisoned for merely voicing out different views and opinions. Worst still one may even be branded as a criminal, not for committing crimes like theft and murder but by only having different views or opinions that may be interpreted as being anti-establishment by the powers that be.The uncertainty of its provisions is implicit in words like “bringing into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any ruler or against any government” in Section 3. The language used here is broad and vague enough to catch anything and everything particularly the tendency to question or criticise any government about their policies or actions. There seems no line drawn between legitimate criticisms and criticisms that lead to incitement to violence and disorder. It seems that any criticism aimed at any government or its institutions are capable of having seditious tendencies under the Act." - Jeyaseelan Anthony

M. Manoharan had submitted that the Sedition Act was unconstitutional because the scheme of the Act makes it an offence for a person to merely act, speak or publish statements with a "seditious tendency" without any requirement on the part of the prosecution to prove that the words were indeed seditious.

Contoh cases as a result of the Sedition Act

The defendant, Ooi Kee Saik, vice-chairman of the DAP Penang branch and others were charged of the offence of sedition under S 4(1) (b) of the Sedition Act 1948. The defendant was found to have uttered seditious words in his speech, in which he accused the Alliance government of practising on the ethnic based policy. The other defendants, Fan Yew Teng are charged with publishing them in the Rocket and while Kok San and Lee Teck Chee were charged with printing the speech in Rocket.On the grounds that the defendant uttered seditious words challenging the special position and privilege of the Malays under Article 152 and 153/181. Lastly , Each of the accused were fined RM2000 in default of six months imprisonment.

In 2005, Hishammuddin waved the keris at the UMNO Annual General Meeting. Commentators perceived this action as meant to defend the Malay Special Right. Although applauded by the Malay delegates, the picture of Hishammuddin waving the keris was widely ridiculed in the Malaysian blogosphere. In response to concerns over the racial rhetoric, then Vice President Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin said that "Although some sides were a bit extreme, it is quite normal to voice feelings during the assembly."
Hishammuddin also defended the delegates' actions, saying that events earlier in the year related to the status of Islam in Malaysia and the NEP had "played on the Malay psyche. If they had not been allowed to release their feelings in a controlled channel, it could have 

been even worse." He defended his usage of the keris, saying it was meant "to motivate the Malays" and that it "is here to stay", denying that it was a symbol of Malay supremacy (ketuanan Melayu).
Hishammuddin also asserted that "The keris is on the Umno flag...It is a symbol of Malay culture. You give keris as gifts to non-Malays, and non-Malays give them to me at functions."
However, Chinese politicians declared themselves unconvinced by Hishammuddin's explanations, with the Malaysian Chinese Association (a member of the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition) Youth chief, Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai, saying that "If I hold a Chinese sword at a wushu function, it would be different than if I hold one at a political event. This was a political function, so it is seen in a different context. It can create uneasiness."

Should the Sedition act 1948 be repealed?