Hassan, Nazri moot 'modernising' Sedition Act to include element of intent

PARLIAMENT | A bipartisan proposal to amend the Sedition Act by including the element of intent was made in the Dewan Rakyat today.

It was brought forth by Hassan Abdul Karim (Harapan-Pasir Gudang) and supported by Nazri Abdul Aziz (above) (BN-Padang Rengas).

At present, a person can be charged and convicted under the Sedition Act even if they did not have any intent to make seditious remarks.

This is as Section 3 (3) of the pre-Merdeka law says that a person's intention is irrelevant, an element which the Court of Appeal once ruled unconstitutional before it was overturned on a technicality.

Speaking in the Lower House today, Nazri while debating the merits of the National Unity Ministry, said the Sedition Act was needed to ensure peace among the country's multiracial society.

He added that it was not the Act's fault if it is abused, but noted the need to "modernise" it to reflect the current situation.

"If a leader abuses the Act for self-interest, we should 'burn' that leader, not throw away this Act."

Hassan (above) interjected by asking if the element of mens rea (intent) should be inserted into the Act.

"We should include that element of intent if we want to prove someone is guilty (of sedition)," the PKR lawmaker said.

Nazri welcomed the proposal and agreed that intent is important.

"What you said is right, there must be an element of intent to cause conflict," the former law minister said.

Hanipa Maidin (Harapan-Sepang) then asked whether the Sedition Act was "inherently wrong" and not a good Act that was open to abuse, because the 1948 law had many problematic elements.

This, he said, includes that a "seditious tendency" was enough for a conviction.

However, Nazri responded that the Sedition Act should not be viewed through a "western" lens, and should instead be looked at in the local context.

The Umno backbencher said that some acts may not cause problems in western countries, such as eating pork in front of Muslims, or slaughtering cows in front of Hindus.

However, in Malaysia, eating pork in front of a mosque, or slaughtering a cow in front of a Hindu temple will cause anger, and as such the element of tendency in the Sedition Act is still relevant here, Nazri added. 

Previously, abolishing the Sedition Act was part of Pakatan Harapan's election manifesto.

There were plans to replace the law with a new one, but nothing came of it.

Nazri and Hassan were speaking during the debate on a bill to restructure Budget 2020 to take into account the new ministries created when the Perikatan Nasional government took over in February.

The restructuring bill does not include additional expenditure. - Mkini