Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
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
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