Repealing Sedition Act: ‘Put in new Bill first’

BN leaders stress the importance of a replacement Bill in the event the Sedition Act 1948 is repealed.

PETALING JAYA: A replacement Bill must be drafted in the event Cabinet decides to follow-through its proposal to abolish the Sedition Act 1948.

BN leaders said today it was crucial to have a replacement Bill in place to govern society to ensure “people’s speeches won’t create disharmony and disunity”.

They were responding to former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad statement on Monday that the repeal of the Sedition Act would lead to widespread abuse of freedom of speech.

“I don’t think we should be too rash to reverse and repeal everything. A new Bill must be drafted, then only can the government repeal the old Act,” Labis MP Chua Tee Yong told FMT.

He pointed to the repealed Emergency Ordinance (EO), which had yet to be replaced by a new security law.

The 2011 repeal of the EO has since been blamed for contributing to a spike in crime by numerous quarters, including current Home Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi. Last week, Zahid announced that a second draft of the replacement law will be ready by September.

“I think the Bill should at least make it to first reading in Parliament before the Sedition Act can be repealed. Those who want to go against the law will not wait until the new Act is in place,” said Chua.

Kedah Gerakan Youth chief Tan Keng Liang mirrored Chua’s sentiments and said “a new Bill must be drawn-up first, before the Act is repealed”.

“I agree that the Act needs to be repealed but at the same time there must be law to ensure that no person should try to create disharmony among Malaysians by uttering words that can cause disunity and hatred,” he said.

“We cannot have a country without any laws. This would create tension among Malaysians. After the Act is repealed, we need to have a law that is already in place (to govern society),” he added.

Chua acknowledged the main concern among the public was that the current Sedition Act “can be used as a political weapon” and was “open for abuse”.

“The people are hoping for check and balance in law. Awareness has also increased and the public are calling for transparency when a person is detained,” he said.

“Perhaps the government can disclose in detail when detained, what are the remedial and follow-ups to be taken,” he added, referring to the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 as precedent.

“The PAA 2012 gives guidelines and procedures on how rallies should be done peacefully. So far, all the rallies that have come after Act have been peaceful with full corporation from the police and authorities.”

Asked why the need for repeal when the Sedition Act could be amended, Tan said: “It is not easy to amend an Act.”

“It is easier to make a new one. For legislative purpose, amending an Act can become confusing for future reference. It is easier to create a new Act, that would be the best step.”

Sedition Act must stay

Meanwhile, Umno Cheras division chief Syed Ali Alhabshee said the Sedition Act must be maintained to uphold peace and harmony in the country.

“(Mahahir’s) statement is wise as there is no reason the government should give in to political pressure,” he said.

“If the government bows down to pressure then the people will lose confidence in (them) and the credibility of law would be questioned.

“An Act or law must be amended if it fulfills the interests of people and country, not in desperate measure due to political pressure,” he added.

Like Mahathir, Syed Ali also said that “public opinions and expert advice” must be considered before Cabinet makes a decision to amend or repeal the Act.

“All laws are good laws, only their implementation must be stressed upon.”