How has the Sedition Act been used against opposition figures?

Question

Accepted Answer

The Sedition Act's Increased Use and Application Against Opposition Figures

The Sedition Act 1948 has been a subject of significant political contention, particularly concerning its application against opposition figures. Following the repeal of the Internal Security Act (ISA) in 2010, there was a notable surge in the use of the Sedition Act. Between 2012 and 2015, its application reportedly increased by 1,000 per cent. During this period, individuals investigated and prosecuted under this act were predominantly politicians and activists associated with the opposition. These very individuals are now part of the current government, highlighting a historical shift in political power dynamics and the perceived instrumentalisation of the Act.
Historical Context and Political Campaign for Repeal

The Sedition Act, a colonial-era legislation, has long been criticised for its potential to stifle dissent. Its increased usage between 2012 and 2015 coincided with a period of heightened political activity and a growing movement to abolish the law. In 2014, the Gerakan Hapus Akta Hasutan (GHAH) movement was established with the explicit aim of repealing the Sedition Act. This campaign garnered substantial support from opposition figures and numerous non-governmental organisations (NGOs) who were vocal critics of the Act's broad scope and potential for misuse.
Demands of the Anti-Sedition Movement

The GHAH movement articulated a clear set of demands centred on the complete removal of the Sedition Act from the statute books. Firstly, they called for the outright repeal of the Act. Secondly, they demanded the immediate cessation of all ongoing investigations and prosecutions under the Act, along with the release of any individuals currently imprisoned as a result of convictions under it. Crucially, the movement also stressed the importance of ensuring that any legislative change would not result in the introduction of a similarly oppressive law, thereby safeguarding freedom of expression and political discourse.
Case of Wan Ji Wan Hussin and Penalties

A prominent case illustrating the Act's application is that of preacher Wan Ji Wan Hussin. He was sentenced under the Sedition Act for a social media post made 11 years prior, which was deemed insulting to the Sultan of Selangor. Wan Ji was charged under Section 4(1)(c) of the Sedition Act 1948. This section outlines penalties that can include a maximum fine of RM5,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years for a first offence. For subsequent offences, the maximum imprisonment can extend to five years, indicating the severity with which such alleged transgressions can be treated under the law.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

How has the Sedition Act been used against opposition figures?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends