Since the abolishment of Internal Security Act 1960 (ISA) – now replaced with Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 – more and more people are becoming outspoken, all for the sake and glory of freedom of speech. And in recent events, there are many unsolicited movements and bodies trying to study the Sedition Act 1948 and in fact coming out with premature outcomes, deciding to permanently abolishing it. But before I dive further into the article, first let me ask you a question. What is exactly “freedom of speech” and does it mean absolute freedom to utter just about anything we have in mind?
If you were referring to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, then you are half right. It does say in that particular amendment that anyone (may) has the legal right to voice out his or her opinions but it does not mean that they can avoid any consequences. You may be shunned from your family, friends and community and not given the chance to get all the opportunities that you otherwise would have been entitled to. These are the real life consequences that one might need to face, for invoking one’s right to freedom of speech. So, who ever said that freedom of speech is consequence-free?
And here’s a reality check. United States of America is world’s apart in terms of demographic and its democratic structure when compared to Malaysia. What may have worked with them, may have not worked at all with ours. We have Sultanates whom we must respect as the rulers of our land.
In Rukun Negara (National Principles) itself, it is explicitly expressed and embedded that one must believe in God, and also one must portray loyalty to the King and the Country. This loyalty means that every citizen of Malaysia should show loyalty towards the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, regardless of where they are in the world. Furthermore, in the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, Article 3 provides that Islam is the religion of the Federation while Article 32 states that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is the Supreme Head of the Federation.
America doesn’t have these and that’s one of the many reasons freedom of speech doesn’t work well here, in Malaysia.
Now, on to the Sedition Act itself.
Under section 3(1), those acts defined as having a seditious tendency are acts with a tendency:
“(a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any Ruler or against any Government;
(b) to excite the subjects of the Ruler or the inhabitants of any territory governed by any government to attempt to procure in the territory of the Ruler or governed by the Government, the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter as by law established;
(c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Malaysia or in any State;
(d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the subjects of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or of the Ruler of any State or amongst the inhabitants of Malaysia or of any State;
(e) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Malaysia; or
(f) to question any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of part III of the Federal constitution or Article 152, 153 or 181 of the Federal Constitution.”
and if it’s to be read together with Article 63 of Federal Constitution;
“(1) The validity of any proceedings in either House of Parliament or any committee thereof shall not be questioned in any court.
(2) No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in any proceedings of either House of Parliament or any committee thereof.
(3) No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything published by or under the authority of either House of Parliament.
(4) Clause (2) shall not apply to any person charged with an offence under the law passed by Parliament under Clause (4) of Article 10 or with an offence under the Sedition Act 1948 as amended by the Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance No. 45, 1970.”
What does this means?
To remove Sedition Act, is to render Article 63(4) incomplete/useless, which lifts a form of restriction on Article 63(2). It means any Member of Parliament would be able to say, discuss and even scrutinize on about anything that is sensitive in nature, as per Section 3 of Sedition Act. Once the barrier is lifted, they can now “discuss” the status and relevancy of our Malay rulers, the Social Contract, Bumiputera privileges and many others on their long-awaited list to be discussed.
When you start questioning the relevancy our Malay rulers, the Social Contract and Bumiputera privileges, you’re are questioning it’s validity and also the validity of the Federal Constitution too as these matters are embedded loud and clear within it. Wouldn’t this go against the very Rukun Negara that every patriotic citizen should adhere to at all times? Where are the patriotism and the so-called harmonious unity amongst us?
I am not denying that there are cases that this power is abused over and over again, however, to completely abolish this act because of the actions of some are over doing it. This act is meant to be a preventive measure, to protect what is firmly held strong within the Federal Constitution of Malaysia. To remove this act permanently, is to remove your door from its locks, shackles and chains and allowing everyone into your home without anything to hold them back and I am sure you don’t want just anyone or anything to come into your home.
So what do I suggest from all of this?
Amend it instead, fix the loose ends and bolster the squeaky parts. A good statute can only be better through amendments, and not by removing it completely. Improvise its implementation and enforcement so that it cannot longer be misused easily. Create a preventive measure if there is any abuse. The Attorney General Chambers have their own Law Reform research team that could help with that, why not utilise them for a good cause such as this?
My last words is that do not easily be swayed by those trying to have this statute abolished as the consequences are beyond what we can imagine for now. Freedom of speech, after all, does not mean freedom from consequences.
Muhammad Akmal Abdul Ghani
LLB, University of Adelaide
Head of Media, PEMBINA Alor Setar Chapter
