The malaysian sedition act of 1948 essay
Malaysia should create non-arbitrary laws that respect the fundamental liberties of every individual as well.
Sedition act meaning
Businesses also benefit from lower interest rates, as it encourages them to make large equipment purchases due to the low cost of borrowing. Even the British have discarded the law; the last documented prosecution for sedition in the United Kingdom was in Malaysias constitutional safeguards fall flat on international standards by permitting restrictions on expression where they are merely expedient to the government, rather than necessary in a democratic society. He graduated from the University of Michigan in , then obtained his degree from Columbia Law School in State of Assam, the Supreme Court unambiguously stated that only speech that amounts to incitement to imminent lawless action can be criminalised. In this Act-- "Government" means the Government of Malaysia and of any State in Malaysia; "publication" includes all written or printed matter and everything whether of a nature similar to written or printed matter or not containing any visible representation or by its form, shape or in any other manner capable of suggesting words or ideas, and every copy and reproduction or substantial reproduction of any publication; "Ruler" means the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or the Ruler or Yang di-Pertua Negeri of any State in Malaysia; "seditious" when applied to or used in respect of any act, speech, words, publication or other thing qualifies the act, speech, words, publication or other thing as one having a seditious tendency; "words" includes any phrase, sentence or other consecutive number or combination of words, oral or written. If they non-Malays messed with our rights, we will mess with theirs. It was then exported to Malaya as a weapon to clamp down on and punish those who opposed the British and the Federation of Malaya. 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. While the government presented these changes as a liberalization of the law, nothing in the amended act prevents the authorities from treating criticisms of the government as seditious on the grounds that they have a tendency to cause discontent among the inhabitants of Malaysia in violation of section 3 1 d. This precipitated a constitutional crisis when the rulers rejected the amendments.
Any criticism of the Government would be seditious. Without Sedition Act, there will be serious racial and religious tension that might lead to violence. Since Art10 2 of the Federal Constitution has provided sufficient restrictions towards freedom of speech, Malaysia should move forward and reconsider the application of the Sedition Act in order to not jeopardize the freedom of expression as it is an important element in a democratic society.
This creates safer place for everyone to self-actualise without being inhibited by destructive exercise of freedom of speech. In his majority judgment of the case, Tun Ariffin Zakaria CJ held that Section 4 1 of the Sedition Act did not run counter to Article 10 2 a of the Federal Constitution as Parliament has the right to restrict the freedom speech as it deems necessary or expedient to national security.
Section 3 2 provides certain exceptions, providing examples of speech which cannot be deemed seditious. Those charged with sedition once the amendments enter into force will face significantly higher penalties.
There are a few reasons so as to why these laws were abolished but the main ones that are often cited in arguments are firstly, to stop providing a convenient excuse for regimes around the world to retain their own oppressive laws and secondly, to resonate with the principle of freedom of speech and democracy.
Critical Social Policy, 33 1pp. For me, it is not an easy question and sincerely, I answered and described based on my reading through the Ministry of Assess the role of the U.
The law simply cannot be justified as a restriction on freedom 38 Subsection 3 1 b 40 Public Prosecutor v. The famous cartoonist known as Zunar 11 has posted nine tweets on the social platform Twitter questioning the judgment passed down by the court.
based on 64 review