(New York) – The Malaysian government should reinstate its moratorium on using the Sedition

Act pending the law’s repeal, Human Rights Watch said today. Previous Malaysian
governments have used the broadly-worded law, which goes well beyond inciting the public to
violence, to silence critics of the government, the judiciary, and Malaysia’s royalty.
While the current government, which took office in May 2018, promised to repeal the Sedition
Act, the attorney general’s office has recently sought higher penalties in two pending sedition
cases, raising concerns about the commitment to reform.

“It’s outrageous that Malaysia’s self-described ‘reformist’ government seems intent on jailing
people under the justly maligned Sedition Act,” said Linda Lakhdhir. “The government should
impose a moratorium on this long-abused law until it can be repealed.”

The government ran on a platform promising to repeal oppressive laws, including the Sedition
Act. On October 11, 2018, the communications and multimedia minister, Gobind Singh Deo,
announced that the Cabinet had agreed to a moratorium on use of the law pending repeal.
However, the government lifted that moratorium on November 30, 2018, in response to
disturbances surrounding a Hindu temple in Subang Jaya, and the law has since been used to
arrest individuals for comments critical of the Malaysian monarchy.

In a recent case, the public prosecutor filed a cross-appeal against preacher Wan Ji Wan
Hussin’s appeal of his conviction under the Sedition Act, seeking to enhance his sentence. On
July 9, the High Court denied Wan Ji’s appeal and increased his sentence from nine months to
one year in prison. The public prosecutor has also appealed the decision of the High Court to
replace the eight-month jail term imposed on activist Haris Ibrahim after his conviction for
sedition with a fine of RM4,000 (US$970). The government is seeking the reimposition of a
prison sentence.

Following public outcry over the increase of Wan Ji’s sentence, the Attorney General Tommy
Thomas said he was not aware of the case and that the cross-appeal was filed before the May
2018 election. He added, however, that “where there are no alternatives under the laws, then in
appropriate cases, [the Attorney General] could not rule out applying the Sedition Act, until it is
repealed.”

The government appears to be backtracking on other abusive laws, Human Rights Watch said.
On July 16, Mohamed Hanipa Maidin, the deputy minister in the Prime Minister’s department,
stated that the government would submit amendments to the Official Secrets Act (OSA) “in its
efforts to tighten the current regulations to prevent leakages in the Information and
Communications Technology (ICT) environment and current threats.” He also stated that a
Freedom of Information Act would be put forward to “offset the impact of the OSA.”

By criminalizing the disclosure or receipt of documents without requiring that the government
demonstrate that such disclosure would pose a “real and identifiable threat of causing
significant harm,” Malaysia’s Official Secrets Act violates international freedom of speech
standards and fosters a culture of secrecy that runs counter to the public’s interest in access to
information about government activity, Human Rights Watch said.
“Malaysia should be making it harder, not easier, to misuse the overbroad Official Secrets Act,”
Lakhdhir said. “The government needs to show that it’s really committed to an open society
and has shed the heavy-handed ways of the past.”

PETALING JAYA: Several human rights organisations have slammed the additional one-year
sentence given to preacher Wan Ji Wan Husin for sedition.

He was initially sentenced to nine months in jail by the Sessions Court in April 2018, but this
was extended to one year by the Shah Alam High Court on Tuesday (July 10), when it denied
Wan Ji’s appeal against his conviction and sentence.

The group expressed deep concerns over the court's verdict and the fact that the Attorney
General’s Chambers did not acquiesce to Wan Ji’s appeal in the High Court, and, in fact,
appeared to have cross-appealed and asked for a heavier sentence.

"This goes against the promise made by the Attorney General that there would not be any more
selective prosecutions in the New Malaysia.

"This casts further doubts on the Pakatan Harapan government's reform credentials and calls
into question the government's sincerity toward a more democratic Malaysia," read the
statement that was endorsed by 12 groups, including Sisters in Islam (SIS), Suara Rakyat
Malaysia (Suaram), Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ) and Aliran.

Wan Ji was convicted under the Sedition Act for making remarks that were found to be
seditious against the Sultan of Selangor in Facebook posts in 2012.

The groups called upon the government to concede to Wan Ji’s appeal on his conviction and
sentence, to re-impose a moratorium on the Sedition Act and other repressive laws; and to
abolish the Sedition Act in its entirety.

"The criminalisation of insults, per se, whether of royalty or any government leader, without
any accompanying threat to national security, public order or public morality, cannot constitute
a legitimate restriction of the freedom of expression," they said.

Amnesty International Malaysia said the court decision signaled a deep concern for the freedom
of expression and assembly in Malaysia.
“Despite repeated calls to both the old and new government to repeal or amend repressive
legislation, we are seeing individuals fall victim to these laws, indicating that the fight to
enlarge the space to exercise one’s freedoms is far from over,” said its ex

Read more at https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2019/07/10/human-rights-

organisations-slam-heavier-sedition-sentence-for-wan-ji#plAoGKhxXvwD5qzQ.99
Let Wan Ji be the last unjust victim of the Sedition Act ― Gabungan Bertindak Malaysia
Published 3 weeks ago on 12 July 2019

JULY 12 ― In our multi-faceted plural society of diverse ethnic groups and religious
composition, the task of maintaining harmony and peaceful co-existence demands constant
rigour and commitment.

Malaysian society's experience and appreciation to protect social harmony and peaceful co-
existence has however been based largely on the strength and rigour of political and spiritual
institutions maintaining regulations and the enforcement of law and order on its subjects.

It has led to an unhealthy and sometimes overzealous dependence on laws and punishments to
detect and deter infringements that are deemed to destabilise the social order.

This has brought unintended consequences of abuse of laws and politically motivated
prosecution as well as the weakening of our social institutions that hold society together to a
fragile state.

We forgot the best defence for a stable and peaceful society is forged through consensus and
the accepted norms of that society.

Hurtful and even hateful speeches are best combated with robust criticisms and sanctions
emerging from within a free civic minded public discourse.

Controversial views cannot be made to go away or disappear with suppression.

It will instead be driven underground to build up more discontent and bitterness that in the end
will only fuel greater socio-political divides and resentments against institutions and even
government.
With this in mind, we in Gabungan Bertindak Malaysia (GBM), welcome the announcement by
Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad that the government has decided to repeal the
Sedition Act 1948 (Sedition Act).

While welcoming the government’s intention to repeal the Sedition Act, we however remain
optimistically cautious that the government intends to replace the Sedition Act with a new law.

This caution is not unfounded given that the new law could well be a disguise akin to the old
proverbial saying of “old wine in new wine skin”.

(last)
In a Malaysia whose democratic traditions and practices are constantly evolving, it is essential
for the government to show forth its commitment to build a mature democracy that value the
social space so necessary to enhance consensus building and acceptable societal norms.

Freedom for all people to express their thought, conscience and opinions are vital if Malaysian
society is to experience greater social cohesion and harmony with one another.

The government must not act in ways that stifle the practice of free speech and expression no
matter how unpalatable a speech may be provided it does not bring physical harm and the
incitement to violence and hatred as prescribed by law and in accordance with international
norms and standards.

The unfortunate conviction and sentencing of Ustaz Wan Ji Wan Husin is rather discomforting.

His conviction and sentence appears to reinforce the conventional experience in Malaysian
society that social harmony is best protected through strict enforcement of law and the
imposition of higher penalties.

But Wan Ji’s conviction and increased penalty has only sparked dissatisfaction and dissension.

This is all the more when Wan Ji is convicted under an Act of Parliament now confirmed to be
repealed soon.

If an Act of Parliament deserves to be repealed, common decency should dictate the Act should
have never been used in the first place.

A moratorium on all cases under the Sedition Act should have been granted.
Sadly, in the case of Wan Ji, this did not happen. Justice has clearly not been served, neither has
it been seen to be done.

To therefore allow justice to serve its course and correct that which is wrong, GBM would urge
the government and in particular, the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) to move and take all
necessary measures so that the High Court’s decision where the High Court upheld the Wan Ji’s
Conviction with an increased sentence, can be set aside by the higher court.

We also welcome the stay of execution of the jail sentence which was granted by the High
Court today. The decision is a first towards justice for Wan Ji.

Let Wan Ji be the last victim of this unjust and oppressive act.

May Malaysians never have to fear to express their opinion because of oppressive laws that
seeks to silence dissenting opinions from the powers and authorities, whoever they maybe.

A just and peaceful society will follow when freedom and the rights of all people are well
respected and upheld.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the
views of Malay Mail.

Analysts split on axing Sedition Act

Larissa Lumandan - July 13, 2019 7:00 AM
64
Shares
48 9 6
Buku Harapan, 100 hari, Pakatan harapan
Abolishing draconian laws was one of the promises in PH’s election manifesto.
KUCHING: Analysts have differed on the debate over abolishing draconian laws, with one
warning that the opposition will use Pakatan Harapan’s (PH) failure to do so against it and
others cautioning that such laws may still be necessary.

Universiti Malaysia Sarawak’s (Unimas) Jeniri Amir said the PH government could not afford
to make another U-turn by not repealing the Sedition Act 1948.

“They have to bite the bullet and repeal the Sedition Act,” he told FMT.
Jeniri Amir.
However, he questioned Putrajaya’s willingness to do so, saying it appears as though it is trying
to apply the law to warn Sarawak activists and NGOs not to go overboard in their quest to seek
independence for the state.

“Perhaps the prime minister has started to realise the importance of certain aspects of the law to
safeguard the country’s sovereignty, especially issues concerning the 3Rs – race, religion and
royalty,” he said.

In May, de facto law minister Liew Vui Keong announced that the Sedition Act would be
repealed or replaced with a new law, or have its provisions placed under the Penal Code.

However, Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad told Parliament last week that the Sedition
Act would be used against those who call for Sarawak’s secession from Malaysia if they
jeopardise public order and security.

Awang Azman Awang Pawi.

Universiti Malaya’s Awang Azman Awang Pawi said the Sedition Act is still relevant in the
context of national security, to protect the country against domestic threats.

He acknowledged that the PH government had promised to abolish all draconian laws,
including the Sedition Act, but quoted Mahathir who had said that “the PH manifesto is not a
‘bible’, only a guide”.

Awang Azman said there must be a limit to freedom of speech, especially for those who incite
others to create unrest and harm to the country’s administration.

Arnold Puyok.
“There is no absolute freedom in this world. In fact, matters pertaining to certain rights, status,
positions, sovereignty, privileges and prerogatives are protected under Part 3 of the Federal
Constitution,” he said.
Another political analyst from Unimas, Arnold Puyok, said it would be risky for the federal
government to repeal the act completely as the people are not politically mature enough to
speak responsibly about sensitive issues.

“The 3Rs are still being discussed and debated, and we have seen people becoming emotional
and out of control when discussing related issues.

“The federal government can retain the act but they must use it more judiciously,” he said.
KUALA LUMPUR: Putrajaya will repeal the Sedition Act and replace it with a new law, Prime
Minister Mahathir Mohamad said on Thursday (Jul 11).

He said in parliament that the government was in the process of drafting a new Bill to replace
the Sedition Act 1948.

Advertisement
“Firstly, we have to withdraw the legislation first. For the new law, we are in the process of
rearranging it,” he said, adding that this would be done as soon as possible.

Repealing the Sedition Act was one of the major pledges made by the ruling Pakatan Harapan
(PH) coalition in the run-up to general elections last May.

Before the May 2018 polls, dozens of politicians and activists were detained and charged under
the Sedition Act as former prime minister Najib Razak's administration worked to clamp down
on dissent, especially after news broke in 2015 of a multi-billion dollar scandal at state fund
1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB).

READ: Malaysia's new government slow on reforms, rights groups say

Advertisement
READ: Malaysia’s artists pledge to continue pushing boundaries of political expression
After coming to power, PH has come under fire for dragging its feet in repealing the archaic
law.

The Sedition Act has been used to convict and punish Islamic preacher Wan Ji Wan Hussain
from Parti Keadilan Rakyat - the largest PH component party - over remarks made against the
Selangor sultan seven years ago.

Wan Ji served as Finance Minister Lim Guan Eng's press officer when he was Penang chief
minister.
Earlier this week, the High Court in Shah Alam rejected the preacher’s appeal against his
conviction, while increasing his original prison sentence from nine months to a year.

Read more at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia/malaysia-repeal-sedition-act-

mahathir-11711956

KUALA LUMPUR, July 19 — Seeking to improve relations with critical civil society
organisations (CSOs), Parliament has agreed in principle to register an All-Party Parliamentary
Group (APPG) as part of its function, Dewan Rakyat Speaker Datuk Mohamad Ariff Md Yusof
said today.

APPG, a concept borrowed from the UK Parliament, is an informal working group of MPs and
senators to tap society at the grassroots level and come up with policies addressing issues such
as food security and sustainable development for the country.

It is separate from the existing formalised bipartisan parliamentary select committees (PSCs),
which exists to oversee the execution of policies and acts as a check-and-balance.

Ariff said APPG can provide a clearer perspective on what the public actually needs.

“APPGs is not confined to formalities and it can be as wide as the boundaries of society. In
bridging the gap between Parliament and the people, APPGs can rise above political divide and
put the people first.

“There are tremendous mutually beneficial relationships when MPs partner with CSOs in
APPGs,” said Ariff in his keynote address at the National Forum on Sustainability, Corporate
Social Responsibility (CSR) and Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) 2019 held at
Parliament here.

He said lawmakers are elected to act in the public interest “but they may lack in-depth
knowledge of policy areas that more specialised CSOs possess or the special expertise and
skills of external oversight institutions”.

“Most CSOs operate at grassroots levels and thus, in general, have active engagement with
local actors and communities. It is almost obligatory upon MPs to seek and maintain dialogue
with a wide range of CSOs as a regular part of the parliamentary process,” he added.
He said all the APPG working groups will be registered under Parliament and will consist of a
minimum of five MPs.

Membership of the working groups will be open to both members of the Dewan Rakyat and the
Dewan Negara.

Ariff also revealed that the formation of the country’s first APPG will be focusing on
sustainable development goals.

The amendments to the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 (PAA) recently passed in Parliament have
given a new dimension to democracy in the country. Certain provisions in the law prior to this
appeared to limit the right of the people to assemble peacefully, whether publicly or privately,
and to collectively express, promote, pursue and defend their common interests which is a
fundamental human right.

Notably, street demonstrations and protest marches will no longer be a crime under the newly
amended act. The proposed amendments come in the wake of a shift in government policy that
says the right to assemble peacefully and without arms should also include street protests as
long as they do not pose a threat to or affect public order and security.

With these changes to the act, there will be no more distinction between peaceful and street
protests, in line with the aspiration of the people who cherish more freedom in exercising their
right to express their dissatisfaction over issues they are not happy with.

Interestingly, the compound for both offences now is not more than RM5,000. So politicians or
lawmakers need not worry as offences under this act are considered minor and not felonious
offences which would cause them to lose their qualification as lawmakers or bar them from
contesting in the following general election.

The right to freedom of association is recognised as a human right, a political right and a civil
liberty. Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to freedom
of assembly and association, including the right to form trade unions, subject to certain
restrictions in accordance with law and necessary in a democratic society.

Democratic countries are cognisant of the fact that freedom of assembly is an important means
through which the public can express their views to their leaders and to other members of
society. It promotes public discourse and diversity, and it is also a proper tool to achieve change
in society. There is no doubt that peaceful assembly is an inherent and inalienable part of the
freedom under Article 10 of the Federal Constitution, and it has been an effective tool for
citizens to express their concerns over issues they are not happy with.

However, in most cases permission needs to be granted by governmental agencies for a protest
or demonstration to be held at a particular venue at a particular time. Failure to obtain a permit
may lead to charges of having an assembly without a permit. Permits can be denied on grounds
that the protest will create security risks, especially so in a multiracial and multi-religious
society. Citizens ought to be cognisant of this constraint.

The UN Human Rights Committee held that “a requirement to notify the police of an intended
demonstration in a public place six hours before its commencement may be compatible with the
permitted limitations laid down in Article 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights. Countries such as France require only a notification period of three days
whereas Sweden requires notification only depending on the type of assembly”.

In Moldova and Poland, small assemblies do not require any notification whatsoever as such
notifications may nullify the possibility of holding spontaneous and urgent assemblies, which
can be at odds with the right to freedom of assembly as guaranteed in Article 10 (1)(a) of the
Federal Constitution of Malaysia.

Nevertheless, in the Malaysian context the government has to be more practical and cautious as
race and religion can be exploited by irresponsible elements to gain political mileage and cause
upheaval in society. The amendment to Section 9 of the act to shorten the notification period for
an assembly from 10 days to five before the date of the assembly is judicious enough for a
country like Malaysia.

Internationally, the UN special rapporteur on the rights to peaceful assembly and of association
finds that states should not impose authorisation requirements on organisers as such
requirements turn the right into a privilege. However, in our context we accept in principle that
this notification requirement as proposed in the new act is to enable the authorities to meet their
duty to facilitate the assembly, to protect public safety, to prevent any possible disorder or
crime and to reroute traffic if necessary.

Under the existing provisions of the PAA, children under the age of 15 are prohibited from
participating in peaceful assemblies, and those under the age of 21 are barred from organising
them. This is at odds with Article 15 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child of which
Malaysia is a signatory, whereby children have the right to freedom of assembly, expression
and association. Children, regardless of age, must also be allowed to freely express their
grievances and they should not be prohibited from organising or participating in protests or
demonstrations, if such assemblies directly affect their interests.

The social climate will determine the country’s economy. There are also concerns that
amendments to the existing act may lead to violent street demonstrations, similar to those which
have taken place in some countries. However, if there are protests which can cause
disturbances, violence or loss of peace, action can be taken under the Penal Code against the
offenders. The country’s security is paramount. Street assemblies can sometimes turn disruptive
and affect businesses and cause anxiety among investors. State governments and local councils
should identify designated areas outside of cities for peaceful assemblies to take place.

The PAA cannot be repealed altogether as proposed by some, as the act is necessary to ensure
peace and security. We cannot afford a “free-for-all” or absolute democracy in a multiracial and
multi-religious country like Malaysia. Repealing the act could lead to untoward consequences
to the security of the nation.
(intro)
THE recent rejection of independent Muslim preacher Wan Ji Wan Hussin’s appeal against his
sentence for making seditious remarks against the Sultan of Selangor has reignited questions
around the present-day relevance of the Sedition Act 1948: Whether the government is serious
about revising the law and the extent to which freedom of speech covers the Malaysian
institutional monarchy’s affairs being made public.

(Wan Ji was, however, granted a stay of the one-year jail sentence by the Shah Alam High
Court on July 12 pending appeal.)

While Malaysia does not have lèse majesté laws that criminalise defaming, insulting or
threatening the king and its regency, Malaysia’s sultanate affairs are governed by and protected
under the Federal Constitution.

Matters regarding the co-existence of Malays, the sultan and Islam are mainly administrated
under Article 153 of the Federal Constitution, which refers to Malay rulers’ responsibility for
“safeguard(ing) the special position of the Islamic religion, national language, special position
of the Malays and Bumiputeras and the legitimate interests of other races”.

Questioning this policy, the privileges, position and powers of the sultans, and the position of
the Malays are also prohibited under the Constitution (Article 10(2)) and the Sedition Act.
These issues need to be carefully handled to avoid national instability.

The Yang di-Pertuan Agong’s provision of support for the government to rule and promote
democracy is entrenched under various Articles in the Federal Constitution. It covers the king’s
responsibility as the symbol of a united Malaysian society comprising diverse ethnicities
(Article 153), and as having executive roles as head of state, head of the Islamic religion
(Article 3) and supreme commander of the armed forces (Articles 38, 39 and 40(1)).

The Yang di-Pertuan Agong also appoints certain important positions at the legislative and
executive level, such as the prime minister and attorney-general (Article 40), as advised by the
cabinet.
THE CONCEPT OF WA-ULIL AMRI MINKUM (AND THOSE ENTRUSTED WITH
AUTHORITY AMONGST YOU)

Are the sultans immune from criticism under the law and to what extent can sultans’ matters be
made public (excluding those mentioned in Article 153)? To answer this question, we need to
consider first, the legislative aspect and second, what Islam says about obeying the ruler.

Prior to the 1993 amendments limiting the king’s power on the executive level, a Hansard
record of Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s speech before Malaysia’s Dewan Rakyat on Feb 14,
1993, stated that Parliament passed a motion to permit commoners to criticise the sultans, even
the king, without fear of the Sedition Act, except on matters questioning the legitimacy of the
monarchy itself.

Whereas, in Surah An-Nisaa verse 59, Islamic scholars unanimously agree that while there is
unconditional obedience to the Prophet and God, the obedience to Ulil Amr (those in authority)
should be parallel in matters that align with clear commands from Allah and His Messenger.

Wan Ji reportedly questioned the status of the sultan as the head of Islam, claiming most of the
sultan’s actions were not in line with Islamic teachings. Likewise, associating the sultan with
derogatory words is also not recommended in Islam.

Because if God could still ask Prophet Musa A.S. to speak to the pharaoh via a gentle, soft and
delicate speech (so that it might soften his heart), (Quran, 20:44), why could not Wan Ji use the
same approach?

After all, the sultan is not as bad as the pharaoh; but we are also not in a position to decide if the
sentence is harsher than Wan Ji’s crime. Nonetheless, based on the parliamentary official record
(Hansard) noted above, by questioning the existence of the constitutional monarchy and the
sultan’s position, Wan Ji has gone beyond what the Hansard allows.

However, from a social justice and humanitarian standpoint, the sentence was unprecedented,
as previous cases tried under the Sedition Act have resulted
in fines rather than imprisonment.

This exception needs to be justified, especially when the government continues to mention
reforming freedom of speech in Malaysia to meet international human rights standards as has
been recently reaffirmed by the prime minister prior to this case.

It is clear the sultan is not immune to criticism provided it does not question his status.
As Wan Ji’s ambitions are rather impractical and farfetched, clear proof that his actions might
constitute a threat to national security is needed to justify his sentence.

In terms of the ethno-religious cultural sensitivity that encircles freedom of speech, perhaps the
central issue at the moment is to resolve how the public can exercise their freedom of speech
without sidelining Asian values or falling foul of the Sedition Act.

This model should also consider its performance under a variety of political, historical, cultural
and geographical conditions that differ from the Western setting.

Yet, such a model would be futile and won’t guarantee press freedom and responsibility if
much of the media remains under restrictive laws, like the Sedition Act 1948 and the Official
Secrets Act 1972.