Why Malaysia still uses a colonial law to silence critics

Kua Kia Soong

The arrest of journalist Rex Tan under Malaysia’s Sedition Act 1948 for posing a civil, non-violent question at a public lecture by UK politician George Galloway marks yet another grim milestone in the long misuse of this colonial relic.

It demonstrates, with depressing clarity, that despite repeated promises of reform, the Malaysian state continues to rely on an intellectually bankrupt law that treats critical thought itself as a danger.

Once again, we are confronted with what I described more than two decades ago as a contempt for the mind.

A colonial relic reborn

The Sedition Act was enacted by the British colonial administration to suppress anti-colonial resistance. Its primary function in practice was to insulate those in power from scrutiny, rather than to protect democratic harmony.

That it remains in force nearly seven decades after independence is itself an indictment of Malaysia’s unfinished decolonisation.

Over the decades, the act has been deployed selectively against opposition politicians, activists, academics, artists and journalists.

In 2000, it was used against the late Karpal Singh for remarks allegedly made in court during Anwar Ibrahim’s trial.

In 2000, Marina Yusof was charged for questioning the official narrative of the May 13 incident in 1969.

In 2024, it was invoked against Mahiaddin Yasin [who was charged with one count of sedition].

Now, in 2026, it is being wielded against a journalist whose ‘crime’ was to ask a question.

If sedition can be stretched to encompass a question posed at a lecture, then no public space for reasoned discussion remains safe.

Burden of proof turned on its head

Like the notorious Internal Security Act (ISA), the Sedition Act functions as a catch-all.

Vague and elastic concepts such as “tendency to bring into hatred or contempt” allow the authorities to criminalise speech without having to demonstrate actual harm, violence or incitement.

The burden of proof is effectively reversed: the accused must prove innocence, intent or reasonableness.

This places the act in the same moral universe as the McCarthyite witch hunts of 1950s America, where accusation itself was punishment.

The chilling effect is the real objective. Journalists self-censor. Academics hedge their words. Ordinary people retreat into silence.

This is not national security but intellectual suffocation.

Questioning power is not sedition

In any genuine democracy, people have the right – indeed the duty – to question political power, public narratives and state conduct.

International human rights standards are clear: restrictions on speech must be necessary, proportionate and directed only at preventing real and imminent harm, such as violence or armed insurrection.

Malaysia already possesses ample laws on defamation, contempt of court and public order to address reckless or malicious speech.

The continued reliance on sedition reveals not a legal necessity but political insecurity.

Rex Tan’s arrest is especially troubling because journalism is, by its very nature, an act of questioning. To criminalise a journalist for asking a question is to criminalise journalism itself.

Reformasi without reform

The continued use of the Sedition Act under governments that rose to power on promises of Reformasi represents a profound betrayal.

When a so-called “Madani” (trustworthy) administration resorts to colonial-era speech crimes, Reformasi degenerates into what has been called Reformati (death of reforms) – reform in name, repression in practice.

If Karpal Singh were alive today, he would probably have condemned the Tan’s arrest with the same ferocity he once directed at Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s administration – and at his own former allies when they abandoned principle for expediency.

Sedition vs free speech standards

The continued enforcement of the Sedition Act 1948 places Malaysia in clear violation of internationally recognised principles of freedom of expression, as well as long-established common law traditions from which the Sedition Act itself supposedly derives.

Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantees the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds.

Any restriction on this right must satisfy three cumulative tests:

• Legality – the law must be clear, precise and accessible
• Legitimate aim – such as the protection of national security or public order
• Necessity and proportionality – the restriction must be the least intrusive means of achieving that aim and must address a real and imminent threat

The Sedition Act fails on all three counts. Its language is notoriously vague. Terms such as “hatred”, “contempt” and “disaffection” are undefined and elastic, allowing virtually any critical speech to be criminalised. This violates the principle of legal certainty required under international human rights law.

Moreover, the act dispenses entirely with the requirement of imminent harm. Under international standards, speech may only be restricted where there is a direct and immediate connection between the expression and a serious threat, such as violence or armed insurrection.

A civil question posed by a journalist at a public lecture plainly meets none of these criteria.

The UN human rights committee has repeatedly emphasised that laws protecting national security or public order must not be used to suppress criticism of public institutions or political leaders.

Tan’s arrest is therefore incompatible with the core protections envisaged under Article 19.

Proponents of sedition often invoke Article 20 of the convention, which requires states to prohibit advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.

This provision, however, sets a high threshold. Mere offence, criticism or historical inquiry does not qualify.

Malaysia’s Sedition Act collapses this distinction entirely. It criminalises speech without requiring proof of incitement, intent or likelihood of harm. In doing so, it conflates genuine hate speech with legitimate political expression and historical debate.

Common law

Even within common law jurisdictions, sedition has long been recognised as an anachronism.

In the UK – the very source of Malaysia’s Sedition Act – the offence was formally abolished in 2009, following judicial and parliamentary recognition that it was incompatible with modern democratic values. British courts had already narrowed the scope of sedition decades earlier, requiring proof of violence or public disorder.

Australia has similarly reformed its sedition laws, replacing them with narrowly defined offences tied explicitly to violence and terrorism.

Malaysia, by contrast, has preserved sedition in its most primitive colonial form.

Worse, amendments in recent decades have expanded its reach while stripping away traditional safeguards, including the relevance of intent.

Thus, Malaysia today applies a version of sedition that would be considered unconstitutional or unlawful in most common law democracies.

Defending the right to think

Tan’s arrest is not merely an attack on one journalist. It is an attack on the idea that ordinary people are capable of thinking critically, asking questions and engaging with uncomfortable truths.

A state that fears questions reveals its own moral and intellectual weakness.

As long as the Sedition Act remains on the statute books, Malaysia’s democratic aspirations will remain hostage to a law designed to keep minds in chains.

Kua Kia Soong, a former MP, is the director of human rights group Suaram.

Support our work by making a donation. Tap to download the QR code below and scan this QR code from Gallery by using TnG e-wallet or most banking apps: