PK ought to get the patent rights to the word “sedition” in our nation.
Somehow Sedition seem to have evolved into a word that is the main domain of the opposition parties in Malaysia.Whenever the word appears in the news , unsurprisingly DAP or PKR or PAS etc will invariably be following in the mention..like magnet north and south poles attract. But seldom into articles where UMNO or BN is mentioned.. coz again like magnet but repelled like same poles..will never stick, north and north or south and south poles..
Perhaps,as theorized in the media, now TDM must be mulling over with a double take on his criricism on Najib abolishing ISA,replacing it with the sedition act, because it can be shown that it can be
exclusively focused on politicians..never mind the criminals, there are other laws for them..since the main purpose of the opposition is to point out improprieties of goverment which means saying things,making negative allegations against govermen, therefore, so easy to snare them under sedition act..since their statements can be construed as anti establishment and interfere with public order..etc etc.
As it is,not only criticize,just pointing out inconsistencies can be seditious,like Azmi Sharom..therefore point being, sedition act is just as useful as the ISA,if not more so,with a wider grey area.anything goes in interpretation of what is seditious.
that anyone who “does or attempts to do, or makes any preparation to do, or conspires with any person to do” an act with seditious tendency, such as uttering seditious words, or printing, publishing or importing seditious literature, is guilty of sedition. It is also a crime to possess a seditious publication without a “lawful excuse”. The act defines sedition itself as anything which “when applied or used in respect of any act, speech, words, publication or other thing qualifies the act, speech, words, publication or other thing as having a seditious tendency”.
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-PertuanAgong
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;
(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.
Section 3(2) provides certain exceptions, providing examples of speech which cannot be deemed seditious. It is not seditious to “show that any Ruler has been misled or mistaken in any of his measures”, nor is it seditious “to point out errors or defects in the Government or Constitution as by law established”. It is also not seditious “to attempt to procure by lawful means the alteration of any matter in the territory of such Government as by law established” or “to point out, with a view to their removal, any matters producing or having a tendency to produce feelings of ill-will and enmity between different races or classes of the population of the Federation”. However, the act explicitly states that any matter covered by subsection (1)(f), namely those matters pertaining to the Malaysian social contract, cannot have these exceptions applied to it.
Section 3(3) goes on to state that “the intention of the person charged at the time he did or attempted (a seditious act) … shall be deemed to be irrelevant if in fact the act had, or would, if done, have had, or the words, publication or thing had a seditious tendency”. This latter provision has been criticised for overruling mens rea, a legal principle stating that a person cannot be guilty of a crime if he did not have the intent to commit a crime.
A person found guilty of sedition may be sentenced to three years in jail, a RM5,000 fine, or both.