How does the Sedition Act’s existence enable misuse and abuse?

Question

Accepted Answer

The Sedition Act Facilitates Misuse and Abuse Through Its Continued Application

The existence of the Sedition Act continues to enable its misuse and abuse, as evidenced by its application in cases such as the conviction of Muslim preacher Wan Ji Wan Hussin. Despite a pledge to abolish the law, the Pakatan Harapan (PH) government has instead opted to "review" it, allowing enforcement to persist. This approach has drawn criticism, particularly concerning the potential for the law to be wielded against individuals exercising their freedom of speech.
Continued Enforcement Despite Repeal Pledges

Pakatan Harapan included the abolition of the Sedition Act in its election manifesto, identifying it as one of several security laws from the Barisan Nasional era deemed abusive. However, after securing power, the coalition shifted its stance to a "review" of these laws. This change in approach means the Act remains on the statute books, and consequently, law enforcement agencies, such as the police, have stated their ability to continue applying it as long as it is valid legislation.
Judicial Decisions Upholding and Increasing Sentences

Recent judicial proceedings highlight the ongoing impact of the Sedition Act. In the case of Wan Ji Wan Hussin, his appeal against a sedition conviction for remarks made seven years prior was rejected by the High Court in Shah Alam. Furthermore, the court increased his prison sentence from nine months to one year, underscoring the severity with which such convictions can be treated under the current legal framework. The refusal to grant an immediate stay of execution pending a formal application further illustrates the immediate consequences for those convicted.
Moratorium Lifted Amidst Concerns Over Royal Insults

The government had previously implemented a brief moratorium on the enforcement of the Sedition Act. This pause was lifted in December, reportedly following an increase in online commentary perceived as insulting to Malaysia's royalty. This action suggests a sensitivity to certain types of speech, leading to the reinstatement of the Act's enforcement and indicating a continued willingness to utilise it to address specific concerns regarding public discourse.
Legal Avenues for Repeal Remain Open

There are no significant legal impediments preventing the repeal of the Sedition Act. Its abolition in Parliament would require only a simple majority, a threshold that should be achievable for a ruling coalition. The decision to maintain and review the Act, rather than to repeal it outright, therefore appears to be a policy choice rather than a legal necessity, leaving the potential for its continued application and subsequent misuse unresolved.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

How does the Sedition Act’s existence enable misuse and abuse?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends