The Sedition Act 1948: What Malaysian Law Defines as a Seditious Tendency

The Sedition Act 1948 does not define “sedition”. It defines a seditious tendency, and then attaches offences to acts, words and publications that have one. The distinction runs through the whole statute, and it is where any reading of the Act has to begin.

This page sets out what Act 15 says as a matter of text: its long title, the branches of the definition in section 3, the exceptions that qualify them, the offences in section 4, and the procedural machinery around them. It describes the operative statute; it does not discuss any particular prosecution or the arguments for or against the law.

At a glance

Short title	Sedition Act 1948 (section 1)
Act number	Act 15
Long title	”An Act to provide for the punishment of sedition”
First enacted	1948, as Ordinance No. 14 of 1948
Revised	1969, as Act 15, with effect from 14 April 1970
Commencement	Peninsular Malaysia 19 July 1948; Sabah 28 May 1964; Sarawak 20 November 1969
Operative text	1969 revision, reprinted incorporating amendments up to 1 January 2006
Sections	1 to 11

The Act is short — eleven sections. Its weight sits almost entirely in two of them: section 3, which defines the tendency, and section 4, which creates the offences.

The definition: section 3(1)

Section 2 does the groundwork with a single sentence. The word “seditious”, “when applied to or used in respect of any act, speech, words, publication or other thing”, qualifies that thing “as one having a seditious tendency”. Everything therefore turns on what a seditious tendency is — and section 3(1) lists six branches.

A seditious tendency is a tendency:

• (a) to bring into hatred or contempt, or to excite disaffection against, any Ruler or against any Government;
• (b) to excite the subjects of a Ruler, or the inhabitants of a territory, to seek “otherwise than by lawful means” the alteration of any matter as by law established;
• (c) to bring into hatred or contempt, or to excite disaffection against, the administration of justice in Malaysia or in any State;
• (d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the subjects of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or of a Ruler, or amongst the inhabitants of Malaysia or any State;
• (e) to promote feelings of ill will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Malaysia; and
• (f) to question any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by Part III of the Federal Constitution or by Article 152, 153 or 181 of the Federal Constitution.

Here “Ruler” is defined broadly — it means the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, or the Ruler or Yang di-Pertua Negeri of any State — and “Government” means the Government of Malaysia and of any State.

Branch (f) is the one that ties the Act to the Federal Constitution. The provisions it names are the entrenched settlements of the constitutional bargain: Part III (citizenship), Article 152 (the national language), Article 153 (the special position of the Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak), and Article 181 (the sovereignty and prerogatives of the Rulers). Under branch (f) it is the questioning of these matters that carries the tendency.

The exceptions: section 3(2)

The definition does not stand alone. Section 3(2) provides that, notwithstanding subsection (1), a thing is not deemed seditious “by reason only” that it tends:

• to show that a Ruler has been misled or mistaken in his measures;
• to point out errors or defects in any Government or constitution as by law established, or in legislation or in the administration of justice, with a view to the remedying of those errors or defects; or
• to persuade people to seek, by lawful means, the alteration of a matter as by law established, or to point out, with a view to their removal, matters producing ill will and enmity between races or classes.

Two limits run through these exceptions. First, they are withdrawn in respect of the entrenched matters in branch (f): pointing out “defects” is sheltered except where it touches the Part III / Article 152, 153 or 181 subjects, other than in relation to the implementation of a provision. Second, the shelter applies only “if the act, speech, words, publication or other thing has not otherwise in fact a seditious tendency” — the exception cannot rescue something that is seditious on other grounds.

Intention is deemed irrelevant: section 3(3)

Section 3(3) is the provision that most distinguishes the Act from the ordinary criminal-law starting point. For the purpose of proving an offence, the intention of the person charged “shall be deemed to be irrelevant” if in fact the act had — or would, if done, have had — a seditious tendency, or if the words, publication or thing had one.

In the Act’s own scheme, the tendency of the material is the operative fact; the purpose or motive behind it is expressly put to one side by the text.

The offences and penalties: section 4

Section 4(1) creates the principal offence. A person commits it who:

• (a) does, attempts, prepares or conspires to do any act which has, or would if done have, a seditious tendency;
• (b) utters any seditious words;
• (c) prints, publishes, sells, offers for sale, distributes or reproduces any seditious publication; or
• (d) imports any seditious publication.

The penalty on conviction is, for a first offence, a fine not exceeding five thousand ringgit or imprisonment not exceeding three years or both; for a subsequent offence, imprisonment not exceeding five years. Any seditious publication found in the offender’s possession, or used in evidence at the trial, is forfeited.

Section 4(2) creates a separate, lighter offence: possession of a seditious publication “without lawful excuse”. It carries, for a first offence, a fine not exceeding two thousand ringgit or imprisonment not exceeding eighteen months or both, and up to three years for a subsequent offence.

“Publication” is defined expansively in section 2 — it covers all written or printed matter, and anything that by its form is “capable of suggesting words or ideas”, along with every copy and reproduction.

Procedure and safeguards

Three sections temper how the offences are prosecuted and proved:

• Section 5 — consent to prosecute. No person may be prosecuted for a section 4 offence “without the written consent of the Public Prosecutor”. The Public Prosecutor may in that consent designate the court of trial.
• Section 6 — corroboration and innocent publication. Notwithstanding the Evidence Act, no one may be convicted under section 4 “on the uncorroborated testimony of one witness”. A defendant charged with publishing or importing under paragraph 4(1)(c) or (d) has a defence if the publication was dealt with without his authority, consent and knowledge and without want of due care, or if he did not know and had no reason to believe it had a seditious tendency.
• Section 7 — innocent receiver. A person sent a seditious publication without his knowledge is not liable for possessing it if he delivers it to the police as soon as he learns its contents.

Ancillary powers

The remaining sections equip the courts and the police:

Section	What it provides
8	Issue of a search warrant for premises holding a seditious publication, with a warrantless power in urgent cases for a senior officer
9	On conviction for publishing seditious matter in a newspaper, the court may suspend the newspaper, restrain those responsible, or restrict the printing press, for up to one year
10	On the Public Prosecutor’s application, the court may make a “prohibition order” against a seditious publication likely to lead to unlawful violence or promoting hostility between classes or races, requiring copies to be delivered to the police
11	Arrest without warrant

The 2015 amendment, and the text that is in force

Reading the current text matters here more than usual. The Sedition (Amendment) Act 2015 (Act A1485) was passed by Parliament and, on its face, would have revised the Act — extending “publication” to electronic means, recasting parts of the section 3 definition, and raising the section 4 penalties, among other changes.

On the Attorney General’s Chambers Laws of Malaysia portal, however, the in-force reprint of Act 15 still records amendments only up to 1 January 2006, and the last amending instrument in its list of amendments is the Malaysian Currency (Ringgit) Act 1975. The portal’s separate record for Act A1485 shows no commencement timeline. The operative statute, as reflected by the official source, is therefore the 1969 revision described on this page.

Anyone quoting section 3 or the section 4 penalties should confirm which text they are citing: several widely circulated summaries reproduce the 2015 amendment wording as though it were the law in force, which the AGC record does not bear out.

Common mistakes

• Treating “seditious” as a free-standing concept. In the Act it is purely derivative — section 2 defines it only as “having a seditious tendency”, and the tendency is defined in section 3.
• Assuming intent must be proved. Section 3(3) deems intention irrelevant once the tendency exists in fact.
• Reading branch (f) as covering all constitutional debate. It is tied to specific provisions — Part III and Articles 152, 153 and 181 — not the Constitution at large.
• Quoting the 2015 penalties. The increased, imprisonment-only penalties belong to Act A1485, which does not appear as in force on the AGC record.

What’s next

This page fixes the text of Act 15 — its definition, offences and machinery. How the Act sits against the free-speech guarantee in Article 10 and the fundamental liberties, and how sedition relates to the offences against the State in the Penal Code, are separate questions that will be linked from here as they are written.

For any live question, check the current version of Act 15 on the AGC Laws of Malaysia portal rather than a cached copy or a third-party summary.