Every Government Since 2012 Has Promised To Repeal The Sedition Act. Cases Rose 84% In 2025.
In 2012, Prime Minister Najib Razak vowed to repeal the Sedition Act 1948.
In 2014, he announced instead that it would be strengthened to preserve domestic harmony. In April 2015, Parliament passed amendments after less than a day's debate.
In its election manifesto, Pakatan Harapan committed to repealing a list of "tyrannical" laws including the Sedition Act. That government came and went without repeal.
And the Centre for Independent Journalism's Freedom of Expression Report 2025 recorded 36 sedition cases in 2025, up from 19 in 2024 — an 84% increase.
This article is the history and the politics of that law. For how the Act operates today alongside s.233 CMA and the Online Safety Act, see the online speech article.
The Sedition Act 1948 was enacted by the British colonial authorities in 1948, and was carried into independent Malaysia under Article 162 of the Federal Constitution as "existing law". It criminalises conduct with a "seditious tendency" and does not require the prosecution to prove intent. The Sedition (Amendment) Act 2015 (Act A1485) removed criticism of the government and judiciary as protected categories, but added religion, raised the maximum for general sedition from three to seven years, introduced a penalty of up to 20 years where seditious activity causes physical harm or property damage, brought electronic media and social media sharing within the Act, and reduced judicial sentencing discretion. In PP v Azmi Sharom the Federal Court held on 6 October 2015 that the Act is constitutional.
1. Colonial origins, and why it survived independence
The Act was enacted in 1948 by the colonial authorities of British Malaya, in the context of the communist insurgency and — as Amnesty International puts it — to combat the independence movement.
It survived Merdeka by constitutional design. In PP v Azmi Sharom, Chief Justice Arifin Zakaria explained that when Malaya achieved independence on 31 August 1957 it was not possible for a new set of legislation to be immediately enacted to replace the existing law, so it was inevitable that all laws then in operation would continue until repealed. That continuity was provided for by Article 162 of the Federal Constitution.
Amendments came in 1969, following the 13 May incidents, and again in 2015.
2. What the Act actually criminalises
The offence turns on "seditious tendency" — including a tendency to "excite disaffection" against, or "bring into hatred or contempt", the ruler or the government.
Two features make it unusually broad:
No intent requirement. The prosecution does not have to prove that the accused intended any seditious effect. Tendency is enough.
Penalties. For a first offence, the pre-amendment position was up to three years' imprisonment and/or a fine of RM5,000; subsequent offences up to five years.
3. The 2015 amendments — expansion, not repeal
This is the pivot of the whole story. The Sedition (Amendment) Act 2015 was passed after less than a day's debate. What it did:
| Change | Effect |
|---|---|
| Removed criticism of the government and judiciary as protected institutions | The one genuinely liberalising element |
| Added "religion" as a protected category | New offence territory |
| Raised the maximum for general sedition | From 3 years to 7 years |
| New penalty of up to 20 years | Where seditious activity results in physical harm or destruction of property |
| Reduced judicial discretion | Requiring prison sentences of between three and seven years |
| Brought in electronic media | Sharing on social media now within the Act |
Contemporaneous assessments were blunt. The Diplomat noted that while some critics would be relieved by the removal of the government-and-judiciary provisions, "overall the new law represents a greater threat to human rights and free speech." Amnesty's Josef Benedict said it was "deeply worrying that Malaysia's authorities are moving to make the Sedition Act an even more potent tool for repression, rather than repealing it as they have promised."
A UPR submission summarised it precisely: the Act was amended in 2015, "removing some offences while increasing penalties for others, contradicting Prime Minister Najib Razak's 2012 promise to repeal it entirely."
4. The Federal Court decision
On 6 October 2015, the Federal Court ruled the Sedition Act 1948 constitutional.
The challenge was brought by Professor Azmi Sharom, then facing prosecution over comments in an interview with Malay Mail Online about a political crisis in Selangor. The Court held the Act compatible with Article 10 of the Federal Constitution.
ARTICLE 19's response noted the decision came a week after the Court of Appeal had found the criminalisation of peaceful assemblies constitutional, and said it brought into question the judiciary's ability to safeguard fundamental rights. Its Executive Director Thomas Hughes observed that many who had spoken out already faced sedition charges and were awaiting the outcome, and now "each face as many as 43 years in prison or significant fines."
5. Who has been prosecuted — the pattern
The escalation is documented. As of April 2015, at least 78 people had been investigated or charged under the Sedition Act since the beginning of 2014.
Categories consistently identified in the reporting:
Academics. Professor Azmi Sharom — a law academic prosecuted for a quoted comment on a constitutional question.
Cartoonists. Zulkiflee Anwar Ulhaque ("Zunar"), whose case was later withdrawn.
Lawyers and opposition politicians. Human rights lawyer N. Surendran and MP R. Sivarasa — both withdrawn. Lawyer Rafique Rashid Ali was subject to a sedition probe in October 2024 over a speech at a rally.
Former prime ministers. In August 2024, Muhyiddin Yassin, then leading the main opposition coalition, was charged with sedition over allegedly insulting the previous king; he pleaded not guilty in Gua Musang on 27 August 2024.
Activists. Badrul Hisham Shaharin ("Chegubard") was charged in April over a Facebook post citing a Bloomberg report, and faces further counts.
Students. CIJ's 2025 monitoring found political critics and student activists representing 14% each of monitored incidents.
Ordinary social media users. In December 2024 police arrested a TikTok account owner in Johor over statements about the royal institution and the Prime Minister.
Journalists. CIJ has documented cases including an investigation under the Sedition Act, s.505 Penal Code and s.233 CMA together.
6. The numbers, year by year
From CIJ's monitoring:
| Year | Sedition cases |
|---|---|
| 2022 | 15 |
| 2023 | 29 |
| 2024 | 19 |
| 2025 | 36 |
2025 in context. CIJ's Freedom of Expression Report 2025 recorded 36 monitored incidents involving 42 individuals — an 84% increase on 2024. Across all restrictive speech laws, investigations and arrests rose from 189 cases in 2024 to 233 in 2025.
Related enforcement data from the same report: MCMC issued 54,175 takedown requests between January 2022 and September 2025, of which 85% were successfully removed. CIJ also flagged plans for mandatory eKYC identity verification for all social media users by Q2 2026 as posing risks to journalists, activists and those relying on anonymity.
Treat these as CIJ's monitored incidents, not official statistics. They are the most consistent year-on-year series available, but they are civil society monitoring, not a government dataset.
7. Where repeal stands now
The promises:
- 2012 — Najib Razak vows repeal
- 2014 — announces strengthening instead
- 2015 — amendments expand the Act
- Pakatan Harapan manifesto — commits to repealing the Sedition Act, SOSMA and the PPPA
- Anwar Ibrahim government — CIJ notes the PM reiterated in 2025 that freedom of expression would be upheld
The reality as reported:
- Human Rights Watch's World Report 2025 states the government "has proposed amendments to expand powers of repressive laws, including the Sedition Act 1948 and the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998."
- Malaysia did not accept UN member state recommendations to repeal the Sedition Act, s.233 CMA and the PPPA.
- CIJ's assessment in December 2025: reliance on these laws "has not decreased — it has intensified", describing a picture of "reform pledged but control maintained."
- A joint statement by the Clooney Foundation for Justice, the IBA's Human Rights Institute, SUARAM, Lawyers for Liberty, ARTICLE 19, CIJ, ALIRAN, Undi18 and the Teoh Beng Hock Trust urged repeal and asked the government to concede the Act's unconstitutionality in the Court of Appeal challenge connected with Wan Ji bin Wan Hussin v Public Prosecutor.
What has changed. CIJ has credited the government with establishing a Media Council, passing a Right to Information Act, and enacting whistleblower protection measures — see (Parliament Fixed The Whistleblower Act's Biggest Flaw In 2025. The Fix Still Isn't In Force.) for the position on whether those amendments are actually in force.
8. The case for retention, stated fairly
This article would be dishonest if it presented only one side, because the retention argument is made seriously in Malaysia and by people acting in good faith.
Social cohesion in a plural society. Malaysia's demographic composition and the memory of 13 May 1969 underpin an argument that speech touching race, religion and royalty (3R) carries a risk of communal violence that most societies do not face, and that a state needs a tool to intervene before that risk materialises.
The constitutional position. Article 10(2) of the Federal Constitution expressly permits Parliament to impose restrictions on freedom of speech, including in the interest of security and public order. The Federal Court held in 2015 that the Act is compatible with Article 10. On that view, the Act is not a constitutional aberration but an exercise of a power the Constitution grants.
Protection of the institution of the Rulers. A significant portion of sedition enforcement concerns the royal institution, which occupies a constitutional and symbolic position that has no direct equivalent in most jurisdictions where sedition laws have been repealed.
The case against, equally fairly:
Vagueness and the absence of intent. "Seditious tendency" and "excite disaffection" are broad, and no intent needs to be proved — so a person can be convicted for effects they never sought.
Chilling effect. The Act's existence deters legitimate criticism regardless of how often it is charged, and CIJ has described specific arrests as failing international standards of proportionality and creating a chilling effect.
Selective application. Critics point to the concentration of cases against opposition figures, activists, academics and students.
International comparison. The joint civil society statement notes that courts and legislatures around the world have recently struck down or repealed sedition laws as archaic colonial holdovers.
The 3R argument cuts both ways. Those seeking repeal do not generally argue that incitement to communal violence should be lawful — they argue it should be prosecuted under provisions requiring proof of intent and actual risk, rather than under a tendency-based colonial statute.
We are not adjudicating this. It is a live political and constitutional question on which Malaysians hold strongly held and sincere views.
FAQ
When was the Sedition Act introduced?
1948, by the colonial authorities of British Malaya. It continued into independent Malaysia as existing law under Article 162 of the Federal Constitution, and was amended in 1969 and 2015.
Does the prosecution have to prove I meant to be seditious?
No. The Act criminalises conduct with a "seditious tendency" and does not require proof of intent.
Didn't the 2015 amendments make it better?
Partly and partly not. They removed criticism of the government and judiciary as protected categories, but added religion, raised the general maximum from three to seven years, added a 20-year penalty where physical harm or property damage results, brought social media within the Act, and reduced judicial sentencing discretion.
Is the Act constitutional?
The Federal Court held on 6 October 2015 in the Azmi Sharom challenge that it is compatible with Article 10 of the Federal Constitution. Civil society organisations continue to argue otherwise, including in the Wan Ji appeal.
Has the government promised to repeal it?
Repeatedly, since 2012. It has not been repealed. Human Rights Watch reported in 2025 that the government had proposed amendments to expand rather than reduce its powers.
How many people are actually charged?
CIJ monitoring records 15 cases in 2022, 29 in 2023, 19 in 2024 and 36 in 2025 — an 84% rise in the most recent year. These are monitored incidents, not official statistics.
Who gets charged?
The documented pattern includes academics, cartoonists, lawyers, opposition politicians, student activists, journalists and ordinary social media users. CIJ's 2025 report found political critics and student activists each accounted for 14% of monitored incidents.
What's the argument for keeping it?
That a plural society with the history of 13 May needs a tool to address 3R speech before it produces violence; that Article 10(2) expressly permits such restrictions; and that the Federal Court has upheld its constitutionality.
This article is general legal information, not legal advice, and reading it does not create a lawyer–client relationship.
This article is general legal information and historical background, not legal advice, and reading it does not create a lawyer-client relationship. It sets out the history of a contested law and presents the arguments for and against its retention without taking a position on that question, which is a matter of legitimate political debate in Malaysia.
Specific to this article: the case figures are the Centre for Independent Journalism's monitored incidents, not official government statistics, and different organisations count differently — treat year-on-year comparisons as indicative of direction rather than precise. The 2015 amendment details are drawn from contemporaneous reporting and human rights organisation analysis rather than a clause-by-clause reading of Act A1485 that we retrieved in full; verify against the current text of the Sedition Act 1948 at agc.gov.my. Penalty figures reported for the pre-2015 and post-2015 positions differ across sources and this article identifies which period each figure relates to. Cases described are drawn from press and NGO reporting; where charges were laid we have not in every instance traced the outcome, and a charge is not a conviction. The constitutional challenge in Wan Ji bin Wan Hussin v Public Prosecutor was reported as before the Court of Appeal and we have not confirmed its final outcome. If you are under investigation or charged under the Sedition Act, get a lawyer — Bar Council Legal Aid Centres are at malaysianbar.org.my.
Spot something outdated or wrong? Tell us — we’ll verify and correct it, with the correction noted.
Key sources (15) — how this was verified
- ARTICLE 19 / IFEX, October 2015, "Malaysia: Sedition Act upheld in further blow to free expression" — the Federal Court's ruling on 6 October 2015 that the 1948 Sedition Act is constitutional, in the challenge brought by Professor Azmi Sharom over comments to Malay Mail Online about the Selangor political crisis; the description of the Act as a relic of British colonial rule criminalising conduct with a "seditious tendency" including a tendency to "excite disaffection" against or "bring into hatred or contempt" the ruler or government; the confirmation that it does not require the prosecution to prove intent, and provides for up to three years' imprisonment and/or a RM5,000 fine for a first offence with up to five years for subsequent offences; the holding that it was compatible with Article 10; the figure that as of April 2015 at least 78 people had been investigated or charged under the Act since the beginning of 2014; and Thomas Hughes's statement on its use against academics, cartoonists and opposition politicians: https://ifex.org/malaysia-sedition-act-upheld-in-further-blow-to-free-expression/ and https://www.article19.org/resources/malaysia-sedition-act-upheld-in-further-blow-to-free-expression/
- Amnesty International, "Malaysia: End unprecedented crackdown on hundreds of critics through Sedition Act" — the Act as a colonial-era relic first introduced under British rule in 1948 to combat the independence movement; the first-offence penalty of three years and/or RM5,000 and five years for subsequent offences; Najib Razak's 2012 vow to repeal the law and the government's subsequent strengthening and widening of it; and the April 2015 amendment rushed through parliament after less than a day's debate, which added criticism of religion to the list of sedition offences, reduced judicial sentencing discretion by requiring prison sentences of between three and seven years, and brought electronic media and social media sharing under the Act, together with Josef Benedict's statement: https://www.amnestyusa.org/press-releases/malaysia-must-end-unprecedented-crackdown-on-hundreds-of-critics-through-sedition-act/ and https://www.amnesty.org.au/malaysia-sedition-act-crackdown/
- The Diplomat, April 2015, "Malaysia Strengthens Sedition Act" — Najib Razak's two contrasting pledges (2012 repeal, 2014 strengthening); the increase in the maximum jail term for general sedition cases from three to seven years; the new provision allowing a penalty of up to 20 years for seditious activities resulting in physical harm or destruction of property; the removal of provisions making it seditious to criticise the government and the judiciary; and the assessment that overall the new law represents a greater threat to human rights and free speech: https://thediplomat.com/2015/04/malaysia-strengthens-sedition-act/
- UPR-Info joint submission — the summary that the Sedition Act was amended in 2015, removing some offences while increasing penalties for others, contradicting Prime Minister Najib Razak's 2012 promise to repeal it entirely and commitments made during the previous UPR; the removal of the government and judiciary and the addition of "religion" as protected institutions; and the recommendation to repeal the Sedition Act 1948 alongside the PPPA 1984, Film Censorship Act 2002, SOSMA 2012 and OSA 1972: https://upr-info.org/sites/default/files/documents/2019-08/js3_upr31_mys_e_main.pdf
- ResearchGate, "Should the Malaysian Sedition Act be repealed?" — PP v Azmi Sharom, per Arifin Zakaria CJ: "When Malaya achieved her independence on 31 August 1957, it is not possible for a new set of legislations to be immediately enacted by Parliament to replace the 'existing law'… it is inevitable that all laws then in operation will have to be continued until they are repealed", provided for by Article 162 of the Federal Constitution; and the note that amendments came in 1969 following the 13 May incidents and in 2015: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321264369_Should_the_Malaysian_Sedition_Act_be_repealed
- Wikipedia, Sedition Act 1948 — the Act's enactment by the colonial authorities of British Malaya in 1948 to contain the local communist insurgence, and its amendment history including the Sedition (Amendment) Act 2015 [Act A1485]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_1948
- FMT, 10 December 2025, "Sedition Act cases up 84% in 2025, says CIJ" — CIJ's Freedom of Expression Report 2025 recording 36 sedition cases in 2025 against 19 in 2024, an 84% increase; 36 monitored incidents involving 42 individuals, with political critics and student activists representing 14% each; the rise in investigations and arrests under restrictive speech laws from 189 cases in 2024 to 233 in 2025; MCMC issuing 54,175 takedown requests between January 2022 and September 2025 with 85% successfully removed; and CIJ's concern over plans for mandatory eKYC identity verification for all social media users by Q2 2026: https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2025/12/10/sedition-act-cases-up-84-in-2025-says-cij
- Global Voices / Advox, December 2023 — CIJ monitoring the filing of 29 sedition cases in 2023 compared to 15 in 2022; CIJ's crediting of the government for establishing a Media Council, passing a Right to Information Act and enacting whistleblower protection measures; and the finding that authorities continued to rely on colonial-era laws to harass critics, journalists and opposition members: https://advox.globalvoices.org/2023/12/30/after-a-year-in-power-malaysias-madani-government-falters-on-reform-agenda/
- The Star, 15 December 2025, "Freedom of expression in Malaysia: Setting back and forth" — CIJ's report The State of Freedom of Expression in Malaysia 2025 describing "reform pledged but control maintained"; the Prime Minister's reiteration that freedom of expression would be upheld against continued enforcement of restrictive laws; and CIJ's finding that reliance on the CMA, Sedition Act and PPPA "has not decreased — it has intensified": https://www.thestar.com.my/news/focus/2025/12/15/freedom-of-expression-in-malaysia-setting-back-and-forth
- Human Rights Watch, World Report 2025 — Malaysia — the statement that the government "has proposed amendments to expand powers of repressive laws, including the Sedition Act 1948 and the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998"; the April charge against political activist Badrul Hisham Shaharin ("Chegubard") for a Facebook post citing a Bloomberg report, with further counts of sedition and defaming King Ibrahim Iskander; and the August charge against former Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin: https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2025/country-chapters/malaysia
- CIVICUS Monitor — the government's non-acceptance of UN member state recommendations to repeal the Sedition Act, s.233 CMA and the PPPA; the August 2024 sedition charge against former Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin over allegedly insulting the previous king, with a not guilty plea entered at Gua Musang on 27 August 2024; the October 2024 sedition probe into lawyer Rafique Rashid Ali over a rally speech in Perak; the December 2024 arrest of a Johor TikTok account owner over statements targeting the royal institution and the Prime Minister; and SUARAM's December 2024 report on continued use of the Sedition Act, s.233 CMA and PPPA: https://monitor.civicus.org/explore/malaysia-government-stifles-expression-increases-online-controls-and-facilitates-transnational-repression/ and https://monitor.civicus.org/explore/malaysia-activist-investigated-for-sedition-protesters-harassed-and-increasing-online-controls/
- International Bar Association / Clooney Foundation for Justice joint statement — the call by the Clooney Foundation for Justice, the IBA's Human Rights Institute, SUARAM, Lawyers for Liberty, ARTICLE 19, the Centre for Independent Journalism, ALIRAN, Undi18 and the Teoh Beng Hock Trust for Democracy for legislation to repeal the Sedition Act 1948, and the urging of the government to concede its unconstitutionality in the Court of Appeal challenge connected with the conviction of Wan Ji in Wan Ji Bin Wan Hussin v Public Prosecutor; and the observation that courts and legislatures around the world have recently struck down or repealed this colonial holdover: https://www.ibanet.org/IBAHRI-joint-letter-on-Malaysia-Sedition-Act
- ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR) — the withdrawal of sedition cases against cartoonist Zulkiflee Anwar "Zunar" Ulhaque, human rights lawyer N. Surendran and MP R. Sivarasa; and Pakatan Harapan's election manifesto commitment to repealing "tyrannical" laws including the Sedition Act, SOSMA 2012 and the PPPA 1984: https://aseanmp.org/publications/post/malaysia-sedition-and-repressive-laws
- IFEX / CIJ, 10 December 2025, "Freedom of expression is an everyday essential" — CIJ's call for the repeal or substantial amendment of repressive laws including the Sedition Act, CMA, Official Secrets Act and Peaceful Assembly Act, and its assessment that the freedom of expression environment remains stagnant with rising enforcement: https://ifex.org/malaysia-freedom-of-expression-is-an-everyday-essential-stop-restricting-keep-progressing/
- New Malaysia Herald, May 2026 — CIJ's documentation of a journalist investigated under the Sedition Act 1948, s.505 of the Penal Code and s.233 of the CMA together, with CIJ describing the arrest as failing to meet international standards of proportionality and creating a chilling effect: https://newmalaysiaherald.com/2026/05/26/malaysias-press-freedom-needs-more-than-rankings-to-recover/