I remember Home Minister Zahid Hamidi said this in 2014, about a year before replacing Muhyiddin Yassin as Deputy Prime Minister: "Its actually not easy to apply the Sedition Act on anybody but the country needs it for security reasons, not for politics...and not for government critics. It will make us very unpopular but for a stable, harmonious and peaceful Malaysia, we must retain it... and the people should support it."
![]()
In simple words, the Sedition Act 1948 must stay. Freedom of expression does not mean one can easily provoke racial or religious sentiment, make seditious remarks and anything that could lead to public unrest and discomfort.
For a multiracial and multi religious country like Malaysia, we cannot subscribe to the system of a one-race nation because race and religion sentiments have proven fatal to our peace and stability.
The opposition, human rights groups and their NGOS may continue applying pressure for Putrajaya to repeal the 'draconian' Act but we cannot make another big mistake like when we repealed the Internal Security Act (ISA) about four years ago, which opened the doors to uncontrolled elements of 'a la subversive'.
Thanks to the Federal Court in Putrajaya yesterday for declaring the Sedition Act 1948 constitutional and that its penalties are a reasonable restriction on the right to free speech.
Chief Justice Arifin Zakaria said this in dismissing law lecturer Dr Azmi Sharom’s petition challenging the law on the grounds that under Article 10(2) of the Federal Constitution, only Parliament could enact laws that restrict freedom of expression.
Justice Arifin ruled that a less restrictive interpretation of the phrase “Parliament may by law” (as stated in Article 10) was needed to be read in harmony with Article 162, which allows pre-Merdeka laws to continue to be used.
Justice Arifin noted that in the final draft of Article 10(2), the word “reasonable” as a qualifier to restrictions that could be imposed by Parliament was omitted.
![]()
Azmi’s counsel Datuk Malik Imtiaz Sarwar said he would need to study the judgment before advising his client on how to proceed.
Deputy Solicitor General II Datuk Tun Abdul Majid Tun Hamzah said that with the resolution of this case, the prosecution could move ahead with the other sedition cases that have been stayed in view of Azmi’s petition.
On Nov 5, last year, the High Court invoked its power under Section 84 of the Court of Judicature Act 1964 to refer Azmi’s sedition case to the Federal Court for determination, as it involved questions of the constitutionality of the Act.
Azmi, 45, claimed trial on Sept 2 last year to making seditious comments in an article titled “Take Perak crisis route for speedy end to Selangor impasse, Pakatan told,” that was published in an English online portal on Aug 14.
The lecturer, also a columnist with The Star, was charged under Section 4 (1)(b) of the Sedition Act, with an alternative charge under Section 4 (1)(c) of the same Act. He faces a maximum fine of RM5,000 or jail not exceeding three years, or both.
Azmi may be an expert in law but like a doctor, he may only good at one or two disciplines. The Sedition Act had, on many occasions, been successful in addressing extreme ideologies deemed harmful to the nation and the rakyat.
Yes, anybody can challenge the Act and the Federal Constitution but any law that serves for national security should be well accepted by level-headed minds. Unless there are people who simply want to incite confrontation and plunge the country into chaos!
In simple words, the Sedition Act 1948 must stay. Freedom of expression does not mean one can easily provoke racial or religious sentiment, make seditious remarks and anything that could lead to public unrest and discomfort.
For a multiracial and multi religious country like Malaysia, we cannot subscribe to the system of a one-race nation because race and religion sentiments have proven fatal to our peace and stability.
The opposition, human rights groups and their NGOS may continue applying pressure for Putrajaya to repeal the 'draconian' Act but we cannot make another big mistake like when we repealed the Internal Security Act (ISA) about four years ago, which opened the doors to uncontrolled elements of 'a la subversive'.
Thanks to the Federal Court in Putrajaya yesterday for declaring the Sedition Act 1948 constitutional and that its penalties are a reasonable restriction on the right to free speech.
Chief Justice Arifin Zakaria said this in dismissing law lecturer Dr Azmi Sharom’s petition challenging the law on the grounds that under Article 10(2) of the Federal Constitution, only Parliament could enact laws that restrict freedom of expression.
Justice Arifin ruled that a less restrictive interpretation of the phrase “Parliament may by law” (as stated in Article 10) was needed to be read in harmony with Article 162, which allows pre-Merdeka laws to continue to be used.
“Therefore the Act being an existing law at the material date should continue to be valid and enforceable post-Merdeka,” he said in a 10-page summary of the unanimous judgment for the media.In addressing the question of whether the Sedition Act’s criminalisation of expression was an unreasonable restriction, the panel disagreed.
Justice Arifin noted that in the final draft of Article 10(2), the word “reasonable” as a qualifier to restrictions that could be imposed by Parliament was omitted.
“We are inclined to agree ... that it is not for the court to determine whether the restriction imposed by legislature pursuant to Article 10(2) is reasonable or otherwise,” he said.The five-man panel, which also included Court of Appeal president Justice Md Raus Sharif, Chief Judge of Malaya Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin, Justices Abdull Hamid Embong and Suriyadi Halim Omar ordered the case be remitted to the Sessions Court.
Azmi’s counsel Datuk Malik Imtiaz Sarwar said he would need to study the judgment before advising his client on how to proceed.
Deputy Solicitor General II Datuk Tun Abdul Majid Tun Hamzah said that with the resolution of this case, the prosecution could move ahead with the other sedition cases that have been stayed in view of Azmi’s petition.
On Nov 5, last year, the High Court invoked its power under Section 84 of the Court of Judicature Act 1964 to refer Azmi’s sedition case to the Federal Court for determination, as it involved questions of the constitutionality of the Act.
Azmi, 45, claimed trial on Sept 2 last year to making seditious comments in an article titled “Take Perak crisis route for speedy end to Selangor impasse, Pakatan told,” that was published in an English online portal on Aug 14.
The lecturer, also a columnist with The Star, was charged under Section 4 (1)(b) of the Sedition Act, with an alternative charge under Section 4 (1)(c) of the same Act. He faces a maximum fine of RM5,000 or jail not exceeding three years, or both.
Azmi may be an expert in law but like a doctor, he may only good at one or two disciplines. The Sedition Act had, on many occasions, been successful in addressing extreme ideologies deemed harmful to the nation and the rakyat.
Yes, anybody can challenge the Act and the Federal Constitution but any law that serves for national security should be well accepted by level-headed minds. Unless there are people who simply want to incite confrontation and plunge the country into chaos!