The repeal of Sedition Act and the Rulers’ consent

By admin-s Last updated Oct 10, 2014

The prohibition or limitation on freedom of speech – that has somehow been allowed by the Constitution itself – can now be curtailed and this ground of curtailment cannot be removed.

Aziz Bari, The Ant Daily

The repeal of Sedition Act 1948 has become an issue which has somehow stuck the label of flip-flopping on the Najib administration.

It has also pit ministers against each other; making them a laughing stock. This is because ministers – as required by the principle of collective responsibility – must sink and swim together on a major policy issue. Meanwhile on Oct 7, de facto Law Minister Nancy Shukry did not seem to be certain as to whether the draconian law that has netted so many government critics would eventually go.

Be that as it may, some have raised the question whether the repeal of the colonial law would require the consent of the Conference of Rulers. It is to be stated that under our constitutional scheme certain amendments to the Constitution, such as to the provisions pertaining to the Malay language, citizens or the Rulers must be consented to by the Rulers.

This means that a mere two-thirds majority support in parliament is not enough. The same goes with amendment to the provisions concerning Sabah and Sarawak; which requires the concurrence of the heads of the states concerned.

Back to the controversial sedition legislation, it would be recalled that the blanket prohibition on the questioning of certain matters – which was a cap on the right to freedom of expression guaranteed by the Federal Constitution – was made after the 1969 racial riot through an amendment made in 1971. Clause 4 of Article 10 (1)(a) which allows parliament to pass law prohibiting matters concerning citizenship, Malay language and special position as well as the sovereignty of the Rulers.

It is interesting to note that it is fine to raise issues pertaining to the implementation of the matters enumerated above.

The limitation allowed by Article 10(4) above has been entrenched by Article 159(5) which says that the provision can only be amended with the Rulers’ consent. In simple term, the prohibition or limitation on freedom of speech – that has somehow been allowed by the Constitution itself – can now be curtailed and this ground of curtailment cannot be removed. It is obviously quite amazing how the 1969 riot has further eroded the rights enshrined by the Constitution, our basic law.

It must be pointed out, however, that the Constitution does not mention sedition law in black and white; our basic law merely says about a law prohibiting the provisions listed above. As such, I think it is not necessary to get the consent of the Conference of Rulers in order to get the sedition legislation repealed.