Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

ROUND 1

Good morning to the respected, our cocious time keeper, members


of the government team and members of the floor. I, Syahirah
Bakar, as the first speaker of the opposite, would like to present the
first argument. We the opposites, strongly believes that sedition act
should not be abolish.

First of all, why i do not agree with the motion of abolishing the
sedition act, is because abolishing the sedition act would threaten
the peace and stability that we have gained now by malaysians - as
the rights and privileges of bumiputeras stated in the federal
constitutions could be challenged.

I believes that the law is still relevant and is needed to safeguard the
nation’s harmony and in fact, it does not contradict the federal
constitution. The sedition act should be maintained because it serves
to protect the national harmony instead of only protecting the malay
interest. The government has to take action over racial and religious
matters that may threaten national unity. This is because, these days
many people have been making derogatory remarks against the
Rulers and questioning rights accorded in the Federal Constitution,
hence the law needs to stay.
The sedition act has been used in the past to prosecute Lim Guan Eng
for criticising the Attorney General over a rape case, to raid online
news portal Malaysiakini and to charge Adam Adli, a 24-year-old
student activist who wanted to overthrow the government. The Act
has also been employed in investigation of UMNO-owned
newspaper Utusan and two right-wing bloggers for “racial sedition”
after publishing materials seen to provoke anti-Chinese sentiment.

From these cases we can see that the sedition act, act as a shield for
all. Imagine without the existence of the sedition act, the nation
would be in ruins as there will be no other act that is as strong and
concrete as the sedition act to charge such action.

The Act was established in tandem with our vision in the constitution
to ensure peace and justice in the multiracial society and the public
should really need to study the reason as to why the Act exists in the
first place.

And bear in mind that once a law has been abolished, it is hard to get
it back. Why abolish it when we can just amend it to suits with our
current situation?
ROUND 2

Based on the Article 10 of Federal Constitution which is Freedom of


speech, assembly and association, it is clearly stated (1) Subject to
Clauses (2), (3) and (4), a. every citizen has the right to freedom of
speech and expression, b. all citizens have the right to assemble
peaceably and without arms and c. all citizens have the right to form
associations. However, parliament may by law impose such
restrictions as it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of the
security of the Federation or any part thereof, public order or
morality. Also, in clause 3 of article 10, it says that Restrictions on
the right to form associations conferred by paragraph (c) of Clause
(1) may also be imposed by any law relating to labour or education.
(4) In imposing restrictions in the interest of the security of the
Federation or any part thereof or public order under paragraph (a)
of Clause (2), Parliament may pass law prohibiting the questioning
of any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or
prerogative established or protected by the provisions of Part III,
Article 152, 153 or 181 otherwise than in relation to the
implementation thereof as may be specified in such law.
Which means the people of Malaysia are free to express their
thoughts as long as it does not touch on Malaysia’s sensitivity and as
long as it is express in a good manner. Usually those who are arrested
and charged under the sedition act are those who express in horrible
manner and inappropriate language. Take Wan Khairul Ihsan case as
an example, where he is arrested for calling Malay uprising to
"cleanse Chinese blood". On the 4th February of 2015, Wan Khairul
had posted two tweets calling for a Malay uprising against the
Chinese. Which later MCA Youth lodged a police report on Tuesday,
10 March 2015, over the tweet. The next day, police arrested Wan
Khairul Ihsan at Jalan Raja Laut in Kuala Lumpur and he is arrested
under Section 4(1)C of the Sedition Act 1948.

Meanwhile there are recent rally taxi drivers protest in front of


Ministry of Finance building seeking for justice for taxi drivers as
there were reports that says the government may work with ride-
hailing firm Grab to provide transport services at MRT stations.
However, all of the protesters are not arrested but their thoughts
and demands are taken into account by the government since the
protests does not involve any violence or foul language or touch on
sensitivity.

This proves that, for YB Farah to say that sedition act blocks
Malaysians freedom of speech is irrelevant because such act do exist,
it is just a matter of whether or not the person understands the true
function of the act itself. It is common for the opponent of the
Sedition Act to only cite selective prosecution and limitation in
freedom of speech as grounds for it to be expunge but when actually
the fault lies in the implementer, not the law.

ROUND 3