Controversial law still has a place

The Sedition Act doesn’t have to be repealed. It needs some tweaking and must be used wisely and fairly.

WE celebrated National Day last week with the usual pomp and pageantry. It is a reminder that our country’s independence is precious and that we must always appreciate and safeguard it.

But merely reflecting on the past is not enough. The nation’s foundations need to be strengthened based on our Constitution and laws to ensure its wellbeing and future. Maintaining racial harmony is essential.

These days, we see opposition leaders, who were part of the previous government, questioning the Pakatan Harapan government as to why it has been slow in fulfilling campaign promises to repeal some laws. Yet these people did nothing to criticise or modify any of these laws when they were once in a position to do so.

In any case, it is against national interest to repeal laws for political expediency. Laws that serve a proper purpose should be kept. However, there should be a careful study of the laws that may be repealed and this should include public consultation.

The law on sedition, for example, warrants a discussion here.

Traditionally, sedition has been a crime against the state. It has generally been limited to the offence of organising or encouraging opposition to government in a manner (such as in speech or writing) that falls short, however, of the more dangerous offences that constitute treason.

Sir James Stephen, a 19th century judge, gave what is widely considered the classic definition of seditious words: “Words or writing used or written for the purpose of bringing into contempt the Crown or the Constitution of the Country, or administration of Justice, or to excite her Majesty’s subjects to alter existing laws otherwise then by lawful and constitutional means as well as to incite feelings of ill will and hostility between different classes of Her Majesty’s subjects.”

In the United States, the nature of sedition was covered in the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were four internal security laws passed by Congress in 1798 to restrict aliens and curtail the excesses of an unrestrained press, in anticipation of an expected war with France.

The American leaders knew that when the French invaded other European countries, it was usually with the help of political dissidents in those places. The Alien and Sedition Acts were meant to prevent such subversion in the United States.

These two examples clearly show the original rationale behind sedition laws.

However, in Malaysia, the law on sedition has been modified and there have been concerns over how that law has been applied.

In part, this is due to the fact that some of the changes were the result of kneejerk reactions at a time when parliamentarians from the ruling coalition were likely to approve every proposed legislation put before them.

It is sedition here if words or actions have a “seditious tendency”. According to Section 3 of the Sedition Act, this refers to a tendency to do the following:

(a) bring into hatred or contempt, or excite disaffection against any Ruler or Government;

(b) excite the subjects of any Ruler or the inhabitants of any territory governed by any government to attempt to unlawfully procure the alteration of any matter as by law established;

(c) bring into hatred or contempt or excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Malaysia or in any state;

(d) raise discontent or disaffection amongst the subjects of the Yang DiPertuan Agong or of the Ruler of any state or amongst the inhabitants of Malaysia or of any state;

(e) promote feelings of ill will and hostility between Malaysia’s different races or classes; or

(f ) question any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of Part III of the Federal Constitution.

It would be wise to retain (a) and (b) as they reflect the essence of the offence. Category (c) can be deleted as this is already adequately punishable under the law of contempt.

Category (d) is general and vague and is, in a way, already covered by the other categories. It should be amended so that any comment or statement on a ruler’s actions or statements is permissible and not deemed sedition by the mere fact.

Of course, categories (e) and (f ) should remain.

People have been pushing for a repeal of the Sedition Act because of the way it has been administered in the past. It has been used and relied upon on a selective basis and, in many cases, to intimidate and punish the Opposition. This made the law obnoxious to many.

In the interest of the country as a whole, the law must be relied upon and used in the correct manner. It must be fairly and honestly used against those who breach it. And it must serve a proper objective and not as a tool to oppress or intimidate opponents or anybody else.

The law on sedition is not totally unnecessary. It is an old law that exists all over the world, though not necessarily in the same form or terms as Malaysia’s. What is required is a law that is in the longterm interest of the country.

Any comments or suggestions for points of discussion can be sent to mavico7@ yahoo.com. The views expressed here are entirely the writer’s own.