Where in the world does anyone use Sedition Act? Not even Uganda, why Malaysia? BY V. ANBALAGAN JULY 12, 2013 Even if the Sedition Act is repealed, there is a clutch of existing laws that can be used by the authorities to deal with offences related to racial and religious strife and matters protected by the Federal Constitution, said criminal and constitutional lawyers. 1
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Where in the world does anyone use Sedition Act? Not even Uganda, why Malaysia?BY V. ANBALAGANJULY 12, 2013
Even if the Sedition Act is repealed, there is a clutch of existing laws that can be
used by the authorities to deal with offences related to racial and religious strife and
matters protected by the Federal Constitution, said criminal and constitutional
lawyers.
In many countries, they noted, sedition laws have either become obsolete or have
been repealed. For example, in 2010, the courts in Uganda called the sedition law –
a legacy of British rule – unconstitutional, while in India, the law that was used by the
1
British to detain Mahatma Gandhi is these days treated with disdain by the Indian
Supreme Court.
In England, which gave Malaysia and other Commonwealth countries the framework
of their sedition laws, the last conviction was in 1909.
So why is Malaysia’s Home Minister Datuk Ahmad Zahid Hamidi so insistent on
keeping the Sedition Act here? Because it has become a convenient crutch for the
government to suppress dissent, said the lawyers.
They noted that the sedition law in Malaysia had over the years become an absolute
liability offence, where the intention of the speaker is irrelevant. All the judge has to
decide is if the words uttered were likely to create hostility towards the government.
Lawyer Edmund Bon rattled off various provisions in the Penal Code to check on
offences deemed seditious. Then, there was also the Printing, Presses and
Publications Act 1984 and the Communications and Multimedia Act 1988 to keep an
eye on conventional and the new media.
But he noted that these laws required the prosecution to show intention while under
the Sedition Act, it was easy for the state to obtain a conviction.
The Sedition Act 1948 was enacted by the British to tackle the spread of communism
during the emergency period. The communists officially surrendered to the
Malaysian government in 1989 and since then, the sedition law has been used
against opposition politicians and non-governmental organisations.
Another lawyer, Amer Hamzah Arshad noted that any aggrieved party whose
reputation was injured could file a defamation suit and obtain an injunction from
court.
"Let citizens handle their affairs privately. The state's involvement should be bare
minimum," he said.
Amer observed that there was selective prosecution where opposition politicians and
activists were harassed with the sedtion law while those in favour of the
establishment were left off the hook.
"This is the perception of many... that the government is using the Sedition Act to
silence its critics," Amer said.
2
He said as a society matured and a vibrant democracy evolved, those in authority
must also learn to accept constructive criticisms.
K. Shanmuga said the Court of Appeal has taken the stand that the sedition law was
legal on grounds it did not breach the freedom of expression provision in the
Constitution.
"In moving with the times, the cabinet and Parliament must repeal this law to
demonstrate that Malaysia is a forward looking nation," he said, adding that a state
should not criminalise speech unless it incited violence and went against public
order.
Jeyaseelan Anthony, who wrote the book "Seditious Tendency? -Political
Patronisation of Free Speech and Expression in Malaysia", went further.
He said that any law that allowed people to be sent to jail for holding a different view
is draconian and has no place in a country’s legal system.
Anthony noted that in England, sedition laws were created to protect the British
monarchy and the British Empire form being vilified, and came about when there was
a belief that kings and queens had divine powers and god-sent. Therefore, any
criticism against the monarchs was deemed sinful. Today, this reasoning is scoffed
at. - July 12, 2013.
In London, Najib insists will repeal Sedition ActJULY 03, 2013
3
Najib insisted that the law was only being applied on individuals who were undermining
Malaysia’s security. — AFP picPETALING JAYA, July 3 — Datuk Seri Najib Razak
yesterday renewed his pledge to do away with the criticised Sedition Act, even as
authorities continue to wield the colonial era law against opposition members and
activists.
Speaking on British broadcaster BBC’s World News programme, the prime minister
insisted that the law that critics allege is used to silence dissent, was only being applied
on individuals who were undermining Malaysia’s security.
“We have shown an awful lot of latitude to people who protest against the government,
but people cannot say something that will undermine the stability of our country,” Najib
told BBC World News yesterday.
“We will amend the act but we want to keep Malaysia peaceful and harmonious,” he
added.
In July last year, Najib announced that the 1948 law will be repealed but added that this
would only be done once a replacement law — a National Harmony Act — is introduced
in its place. Then de facto law minister Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz had said this would happen
this year.
But the authorities’ decision to charge PKR’s Tian Chua along with activists Haris
Ibrahim, Adam Adli and Safwan Anang last month with the act has renewed questions
over the government’s sincerity to do away with the controversial law.
Opposition lawmakers argue that prosecution under the Sedition Act should not be
pursued given Najib’s announcement.
Yesterday, Lembah Pantai MP Nurul Izzah Anwar filed a Private Member’s Bill with
Parliament in a bid to hasten the abolishment of the law.
“More than a year ago Datuk Seri Najib Razak had announced the government’s
decision to abolish the Sedition Act 1948 and replace with a law that will be known as
the National Harmony Act.
“Unfortunately, the public is still waiting for Datuk Seri Najib to fulfil his promise, in fact
they are stunned by the legal action on activists and Pakatan Rakyat politicians by using
the Sedition Act post-Election 2013,” she told a press conference in Parliament here.
4
Yesterday, Najib also pointed to his deliverance of previous pledges as evidence of his
intent to repeal the Sedition Act.
Since making the pledges during a live Malaysia Day address in 2011, Najib has
repealed the Internal Security Act (ISA), lifted three Emergency Declarations, and
passed the Peaceful Assembly Act to promote greater liberties pertaining to public
gatherings.
He has also removed the annual printing licences previously mandated by the Printing
Presses and Publications Act 1984 and allowed student participation in politics through
amendments to the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971.
The prime minister arrived in Britain from an earlier trip to Tanzania yesterday. He is
scheduled to meet with British counterpart David Cameron tomorrow, and will also
launch the Battersea project belonging to the consortium of Sime Darby, SP Setia and
the Employees Provident Fund in London.
- See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/in-london-najib-
This time it has been used against Irene Fernandez and former Perak Mentri Besar, Nizar Mohamed.
We have seen how the Sedition Act was used against Karpal Singh, a prominent lawyer and politician, when he was charged for insulting the Sultan of Perak for saying that His Majesty should not interfere with matters concerning the state and that he can be sued for doing so.
Some may wonder what sedition is all about as the word sounds very serious and terrifying.
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 prime minister has announced recently that the Sedition Act will be reviewed.
This article posits that the Sedition Act 1948 should not be reviewed but repealed.
The question is why?
I say this because, any piece of legislation which imprisons people for holding different views and opinions is to say the least, draconic.
Such a law should not be a part of any legal system.
To understand why this is so, one needs to inquire into history to look at the origins of the offence of sedition.
The offence itself is made in England.It is part of the common law of England.
It was created to protect the British monarch and the British Empire from being criticised or vilified.
The law on sedition came about during a period when kings and queens were believed to have divine powers and they were believed to be god sent and as such the laws dispensed by them were unquestionable and criticism of rulers were seen as sinful and unlawful.
Today, this believe is no longer true and is seen as foolish.
Therefore a law which was created with such a purpose in mind may not be suitable or relevant in present times.
40
The common law provides that one is only deemed to have uttered or published words which are seditious if those words incite people to violence.
Therefore words which do not incite others violence does not amount to sedition.
Although this was the case in Britain, its colonies were visited with legislation against sedition which was more draconian.
In India for example the British colonial courts through several cases decided that the common law on sedition as applied in England will not be applied in India.
That means words which merely criticised the British colonial government in India over its unfair policies and practices amounted to sedition.
That explains why prominent Indian freedom fighters and nationalist like Mahatma Gandhi, V O Chidambaram Pillai and Balgandhar Tilak were arrested charged for sedition for speaking against the British in India.
Mahatma Gandhi for example was imprisoned several times after being convicted for sedition.
The intention of the British was clearly to suppress and punish per se any individual who attempts to create feelings of disaffection, hatred or contempt to its rule, irrespective of the whether or not disorder follows or is likely to follow.
Clearly, this was the most convenient way to successfully prosecute freedom fighters and nationalist.
The crime of sedition was the most effective weapon used by the British to suppress dissent and to fulfill its colonial agenda in India.
A further qualification of incitement to violence and public disorder to prove the offence of sedition would have definitely been an hindrance.
The law on sedition that was applied in India is the same as ours in Malaysia.
The Sedition Act 1948 was enacted by the British to suppress communist elements within the Communist Party of Malaya and its propaganda which was active in Malaya during the emergency period.
The communist officially surrendered to the Malaysian government in 1989.
Although communism is no longer a threat, nevertheless the Sedition Act has been used against members of the opposition, Members of Parliament, journalist and other NGO leaders pursuing campaigns that imply some criticism of the government policies and its institutions.
41
Some of these individuals have been fined and one occasion even imprisoned under the Sedition Act.
The current Chief Minister of Penang, Lim Guan Eng for example,was charged and convicted for sedition and was imprisoned.
The British left Malaya in 1957 however the Sedition Act never left with them.
It was actually adopted into the Malaysian legal system by a constitutional amendment.
It is unfortunate that we are still being dictated by colonial laws like the Sedition Act, which is considered obsolete in many commonwealth countries due to its history of being an instrument of oppression.
The Sedition Act is a piece of legislation that can be easily abused and manipulated by the powers that be because of the uncertainty contained in its provisions.
The provisions of the Act are couched with archaic and vague language in particular Section 3(1) (a) - (f) which lays down the situations where words can come within the meaning of ‘seditious tendencies'.
They are as follows:
(a) bring hatred or contempt to the government or to excite disaffection against any ruler or against any government.
(b) to excite its subjects to procure the alteration of the government by unlawful means
(c) to bring into hatred or contempt or excite disaffection against the administration of justice
(d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the people
(e) to promote feeling of ill-will and hostility between the different races
(f) to question any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative protected by the Federal Constitution.
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.
42
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.
Of grave concern is the fact that the Act can be used quiet easily to stifle legitimate criticisms against the government and its institutions.
Cases have shown that this is possible.
For example Dr Ooi Kee Saik a opposition politician, was charged and sentenced to pay a fine under the Sedition Act for having lamented during his speech about the domination of one particular race (the Malays) in the army, police, educational institutions and business and that these policies do not augur well with the government's policy on racial integration and he accused the government of gross partiality in favour of one race.
The court found that the issues raised by Dr Ooi amounted to bringing the government into hatred or contempt, or exciting feelings of disaffection against the government.
It is clear that Dr Ooi was only calling for greater racial integration between the various races in Malaysia in order to prevent racial imbalance in the institutions of government and that he was only pointing out to the government that they should do away with policies that do not promote racial integration which is a recognised objective of the government.
He did not incite any members of his party or the general public to violence.
In fact many government ministers today have time and again called on the government to maintain better racial balance in the various institutions of the government.
It is difficult to understand how Dr Ooi's statements could be considered as seditious.
The wanton use of the Sedition Act can also be seen in the prosecution of Param Cumaraswamy, a prominent lawyer and a human rights activist, who was charged for having uttered seditious words at a press conference ,where he made statements calling upon the Pardons Board to recommend to the King that the death sentence of a man charged for possession of a firearm be commuted to life imprisonment as it had done in another more serious case, where the accused a influential politician and a serving Minister was guilty discharging a firearm and committing murder.
The accused also urged the Pardons Board to exercise their powers fairly and uniformly so that people would not be made to feel that the Board was discriminating between the rich and the poor in terms of severity of sentence.
43
The prosecution alleged that the utterance of these words above by the accused have a tendency to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the subjects of the Yang Dipertuan Agong or any ruler of any state and to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any ruler or against any Government
Param Cumaraswamy , was acquitted and discharged after being called to enter his defense on the grounds that the alleged seditious statements did not have the tendency to incite or to raise disaffection among the people and it did no refer to the King but only to the Pardons Board.
In hindsight, Param Cumaraswamy should not have been prosecuted in the first place since it is obvious that he was only seeking reprieve for his client by calling on the Pardons Board to act according to good conscience so that it would not be seen to be discriminatory.
His plea was for a good cause and as such there was nothing seditious in his plea.
Even more worrying is the fact that the truth or falsity of the words uttered or written, are immaterial and will not provide a defense.
Even if the words are uttered by the speaker with the most, noblest intention again this will not provide him with a defence.
It is therefore an absolute liability offence where intention is irrelevant.
In Public Prosecutor v Mark Koding, Justice Azmi Kamaruddin in the course of his judgment said: "..it is immaterial whether the accused intention or motive was honorable or evil when making the speech."
All the judge has to do is to see whether the words are likely to create disaffection against the government, the ruler or the people.
If in his honest judgment he finds it is likely to do that then the statement is seditious.
The Malaysian courts have adopted the meaning of "disaffection" in the Australian case of Burns v Ransley, which means disloyalty, enmity and hostility.
In other common law jurisdictions like Canada, Australia and India it has been established sedition could not be established without proof of acts that have implicit in them the idea of subverting the government by violent means and inciting others to violence and disorder.
Unfortunately the trend in Malaysia gleaned from the cases decided, does not require any proof of incitement to violence or unlawful behaviour.
In essence the Malaysian courts have rejected the common law requirement.
44
It is quite clear that prosecutions under the Sedition Act are carried out to suppress dissent and its reach even extends to what is said by Members of Parliament in Parliament.
This is rather shocking as the electorate expects the people whom they have voted into Parliament to speak on their behalf without fear or favour.
The question is, how are the representatives of the people expected to perform their parliamentary duties if their mouths are gagged by the Sedition Act? This is definitely an affront to the principle of parliamentary democracy.
No other parliament in the world is subjected to such a restriction.
The recent incidences involving Irene Fernandez, Nizar and Karpal Singh and has indeed attracted much public attention and we have seen how the machinery of the government particularly the police have swiftly swung into action to investigate the case.
However in hindsight, the alleged seditious statements uttered by Irene Fernandez, Nizar and Karpal Singh seems to be rather trivial, when compared to the statements made by certain Umno delegates at the Umno general assembly in 2007.
Although there were speeches made that were racially inflammatory which would clearly come within the ambit of the Sedition Act, no action taken by the police and surprisingly no one was charged for sedition.
Their inaction seems to be rather mind boggling when compared with the swiftness of the investigations done in the Irene Fernandez cases, Nizar case's and Karpal Singh's case.
Again in the Permatang Pauh by elections in 2008 certain racially inflammatory statements were made against the Chinese community in Malaysia by a Umno politician but lo and behold although the police investigated him, he was never charged for sedition.
Conversely, two bloggers who were perceived to be anti- establishment and one of the founders of Hindraf who only tried to raise the legitimate concerns of the Indian community, were speedily charged for sedition.
The point here is that laws like the Sedition Act can be used to create a culture of fear among the people that they may prosecuted if they spoke their mind on certain issues and of course these type of laws can used at the whims and fancies of the powers that be to only prosecute those whom they feel is a threat to their existence and as shown from the examples above, the Act can be used as a tool for selective prosecution.
I do not understand why is there such a hue and cry made about the Irene Fernandez and Nizar's statements made to the press about the ill-treatment
45
of foreign workers and about the Sultan of Johor purchasing a car number plate.
The authorities should instead investigate Irene Fernandez's claim rather than threatening her with sedition.
His Majesty the Sultan of Johor has already clarified that he had purchased the number plate with his own money after being questioned by Nizar, who for all intents and purpose has a right to express his opinion that His Majesty may have made a mistake.
In many countries, sedition laws have either become obsolete or have been repealed.
There has not been a prosecution for sedition in Canada since the 1950s.
This may be due to the fact that the Law Reform commission of Canada in 1986 had described that the offence of sedition as "an outdated and unprincipled law" and that there no longer seems to be a need for separate offence of sedition since the conduct that would be proscribed by can be dealt with as incitement, conspiracy, contempt of court or hate propaganda.
In Australia, the post 9/11 era led to the passing of the Anti-Terrorism Act (No 2) 2005 which made substantial amendments to existing sedition laws by repealing several sections of the Crimes Act 1914 concerning sedition.
In India, most charges of sedition are dismissed since the Indian Supreme Court has adopted the British common law where the incitement to violence and disorder must be proven in order to constitute the offence of sedition.
In England, the last conviction for sedition occurred in 1909 and thereafter prosecutions have become very rare. Kenya has repealed their Sedition Act.
The Sedition Act actually spells the death knell for the opposition in any Parliamentary democracy and therefore this is another justification for the repeal of the Sedition Act.
Even if it is argued that that the Sedition Act is necessary to maintain public tranquility and racial harmony, there are enough provisions in the Penal Code to deal with racial strife and anarchy.
People who cross the line by inciting others to overthrow the government or the monarchy through violence or to commit crimes against another community can be dealt with under the Penal Code.
Sedition Act 1948 relic of its time
The relevance of the Sedition Act today must be looked at along the lines of maintaining public order by punishing and deterring those who incite violence and public disorder and curbing the threat of subversion and terrorism.
46
However, the main theme of the Sedition Act currently in force today clearly, does not address these concerns but it seeks only to criminalize speech or expression that is merely critical of the government and its institutions.
The opposition as the elected representatives of the people and civil society groups should be allowed to criticise the administration of government and its policies since it is the legitimate expectation of the people that the government and the institutions of government are administered in accordance with the principles of transparency and accountability.
As such the repeal of the Act is necessary and timely since the Malaysian Penal Code is equipped with provisions against racial incitement, subversion and curbing terrorist activities which includes inciting people to engage in terrorism against the state and other terrorist activities.
Jeyaseelen Anthony is an advocate and solicitor (non -practicing) and was also a member of the Bar Council Law Reform Committee.
Use of Sedition Act must be stopped immediately
Jeyaseelen Anthony
4:42PM Nov 7, 2012
Another person has fallen victim to the Sedition Act although the prime minister who is the head of the executive, has said that the Act is oppressive and will be repealed.
Ahmad Abdul Jalil was arrested last week under Section 4(1) of the Sedition Act for insulting the sultan of Johor and rearrested again on Monday.
It is difficult to digest this latest arrest and the continued prosecution of Karpal Singh and P Uthayakumar, a former Hindraf leader, for sedition.
Further making this worse than it is, Ahmad Abdul Jalil was arrested in Cheras, Kuala Lumpur but brought to Johor for investigations and he is being remanded there, too.
I was practicing at the Criminal Bar for many years and have been involved in handling many criminal cases, I for one have not heard of such a thing happening before!
Usually if a suspect is arrested in Kuala Lumpur, police investigation is done
in Kuala Lumpur and the case will be sent to the Kuala Lumpur magistrate's court at Jalan Duta for a remand order.
Why is Ahmad's case so special that the Johor police need to get involved and the remand order issued by the Johor Baru magistrate's court?
Is it because it involves the sultan of Johor? There is really something amiss here and we are made to believe that Ahmad would not be brought to the palace but there is nothing stopping the sultan and his aides from going to the police station.
Can the Johor police guarantee that this will not happen?
Although our prime minister has said that the Sediton Act is oppressive and will be repealed but prosecutions are still being conducted against Karpal Singh and Uthayakumar.
Why is this so? The attorney-general who is supposed to be the top legal adviser to the government which Najib heads, has the unfettered discretion to withdraw the charges against these two individuals but yet he has not exercised his powers.
There is nothing stopping our attorney-general from withdrawing the charges against Karpal Singh and Uthayakumar or even advising the police from arresting anyone under Sedition Act as the prime minister himself has said that the Sedition Act is oppressive and up for repeal.
If the attorney- general is truly independent of the executive then he must withdraw the sedition charges against Karpal Singh and Uthayakumar.
Legally it may be right to arrest and prosecute people for sedition as the Act has not been repealed yet but it is morally wrong to continue to arrest and prosecute people under the Sedition Act knowing very well that the Act is slated for repeal on the grounds that it is an oppressive and an archaic law.
The government including the AG has a moral responsibility to its people to make sure that ‘persecutions' are not the order of the day.
This is a moral responsibility and if it continues to persecute people by arresting and pursuing charges against them under Sedition Act than it becomes an immoral government.
JEYASEELEN ANTHONY is a consultant at the Faculty of Law, Universiti Malaya and the author of the book 'Seditious Tendencies - Political Patronisation of Freedom of Speech and Expression in Malaysia'.
The Sedition Act (1948)
48
Thursday, 23 May 2013 Super Admin
The Sedition Act started life as the 1351 EnglishStatute of Treasons. Hence sedition is
closely associated with treason. In the 1500s, King Henry VIII broke away from Rome and
established the Church of England with him and not the Pope in Rome as the head of the
church and God’s representative on earth. This was, of course, heavily opposed and
criticised by the Catholics and this was when the sedition law was heavily used. Those
found guilty of sedition were put to death or at the very least imprisoned with their ears
cut off.
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
As I write this, thus far student activist Adam Adli has been arrested (and charged plus is now out
on bail) for sedition and, today, Haris Ibrahim, Tian Chua and Tamrin Tun Ghafar (ex-Umno MP
and ex-MARA Chairman) have also been picked up. I expect Hishamuddin Rais (who spent 20
years in political exile in Manchester) and Cikgu Bard (Badrul Hisham Shahrin) to be added to
that list very soon plus probably a few more, Anwar Ibrahim included.
Maybe we shall be seeing a repeat of the ‘Reformasi 10’ roundup that we saw in April 2001. In
April 2001 the arrests were under the detention without trial Internal Security Act. This time it is
under the Sedition Act, which means they will be given a trial.
But why the Sedition Act and what is so ‘special’ about this law?
The Sedition Act started life as the 1351 English Statute of Treasons. Hence sedition is closely
associated with treason. In the 1500s, King Henry VIII broke away from Rome and established
the Church of England with him and not the Pope in Rome as the head of the church and God’s
representative on earth. This was, of course, heavily opposed and criticised by the Catholics and
this was when the sedition law was heavily used. Those found guilty of sedition were put to death
or at the very least imprisoned with their ears cut off.
49
When Queen Mary I took over in July 1553, she restored Roman Catholicism and had over 300
Protestant religious dissenters burned at the stake over five years in the Marian persecutions. In
November 1558, Mary’s younger sister, Elizabeth took over as Queen Elizabeth I and she
restored Protestantism and did to the Catholics what Mary did to the Protestants.
Then England saw its first Civil War in 1640, a power struggle between King Charles I and
Parliament. There were many reasons for this conflict but amongst the key factors was religion.
Charles was viewed as ‘Catholic-friendly’ (his wife and mother were both Catholics) while the
majority of the Parliamentarians were Puritans who viewed Catholics as heretics and deviants.
Charles I was toppled and executed in 1649 and for 11 years England was ruled as a Republic
until Charles II, his son, took the throne in 1660. And that’s when the sedition law was formalised
as the Sedition Act (1661) -- to put down any further ideas of turning England into a Republic or of
restoring Roman Catholicism. In fact, 100 years earlier, Elizabeth I had already got Parliament to
pass a law that forbids a Catholic from sitting on the throne of England. Hence to even talk about
it is a crime and punishable by death.
And then the British came to the Malay states. In 1824, the British and Dutch exchanged
Bencoolen in Sumatra with Melaka. Earlier, in 1786, the British took Penang and then Singapore
in 1819. In 1941, the British lost Malaya to the Japanese, and when the Japanese surrendered at
the end of World War II, the British returned to Malaya and created the Malayan Union, which
was opposed by the Malays and triggered the formation of Umno. Due to this strong opposition,
in 1948, the British abandoned the Malayan Union and created the Federation of Malaya
or Persekutuan Tanah Melayu.
Nevertheless, while the nationalist Malays (in particular those in Umno) accepted this, the more
radical Malays plus the Socialists and Communists opposed it. To stifle this dissent, the British
introduced the Sedition Act (1948) and those opposed to the British and to the formation of the
Federation of Malaya took to the jungles to continue their opposition as an armed struggle.
And that is the history of the Sedition Act. It started life as a weapon to clamp down on and
punish those aligned to Rome and those who criticised the English Monarch. It was then
‘exported’ to Malaya as a weapon to clamp down on and punish those who opposed the British
and the Federation of Malaya.
Now it is a weapon used to stifle dissent or act against those who ‘violently’ oppose the results of
the general election or, like in my case, those who criticise and ‘bring hatred’ to the wife of the
Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia (now wife of the Prime Minister, of course).