Does the Sedition Act stifle genuine discussion on race and religion?

Question

Accepted Answer

The Sedition Act Has Hindered Open Dialogue on Race and Religion

The Malaysian Bar has urged the government not to prosecute individuals involved in the Low Yat Plaza riots under the Sedition Act 1948. President Steven Thiru argued that this colonial-era legislation infringes upon constitutional freedoms of speech and expression. He asserted that the Act has historically suppressed discussions on race and religion, forcing differences to be concealed and festering beneath a superficial unity, thereby preventing genuine engagement with critical issues and fostering discord.
Suppression of Constitutional Freedoms

Steven Thiru articulated that the Sedition Act 1948 directly contravenes the constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression. He stated that resorting to this law has the effect of pushing sensitive issues concerning race or religion into the background, preventing them from being openly discussed and addressed. This, in turn, can cause these differences to worsen over time, hidden under a facade of national harmony.
Hindrance to Addressing Key Issues

The Malaysian Bar contends that the application of the Sedition Act discourages and obstructs the proper and authentic examination of significant societal concerns. By stifling open discourse, the Act prevents the underlying causes of discord from being genuinely tackled. This can lead to a build-up of unresolved issues, potentially resulting in deep-seated and intractable disagreements within the community.
Alternative Legal Frameworks Proposed

Instead of employing the Sedition Act, the Malaysian Bar suggested that individuals engaging in hate speech, inciting violence, damaging property, or causing harm should be investigated and prosecuted under the Penal Code. This approach, according to the Bar, provides sufficient legal prohibitions within existing legislation to address such offences without resorting to a law that curtails fundamental freedoms. The Bar also cautioned against using the Low Yat incident as a pretext to increase control over internet and social media usage, as this would also violate constitutional guarantees of free expression.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Does the Sedition Act stifle genuine discussion on race and religion?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends