Malaysian Police Warn Public Against Criticising Government Policies Under Sedition Act

On April 17, 2026, M Kumar, director of Malaysia's Bukit Aman Criminal Investigation Department, issued a public warning: Malaysians who make "provocative" comments about government policies on social media face prosecution under the Sedition Act 1948 [1]. "The freedom of expression was not a license to spread lies, insults and provocative remarks that could threaten the peace, harmony and public order," Kumar said [1]. Days earlier, a TikTok user named Jorjet Myla had been arrested and held for three days under the same Act for allegedly criticizing Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim in a video [2].

The warning followed a year in which sedition investigations hit a 15-year high. It came from a government that had explicitly pledged to repeal the law. And it landed in a country where the human rights commission itself called the arrest "a disproportionate and unlawful measure" [3].

A Colonial Statute, Still on the Books

The Sedition Act was enacted in 1948 by British colonial authorities during the Malayan Emergency, a counterinsurgency campaign against communist guerrillas [4]. The law criminalizes speech deemed to have a "seditious tendency" — a phrase broad enough to cover criticism of the government, the judiciary, or the constitutional position of the Malay rulers [4].

After the May 13, 1969 racial riots in Kuala Lumpur — an event that killed hundreds and led to a suspension of parliament — the Act was amended to prohibit any questioning of the special privileges afforded to Malays and other Bumiputera under Article 153 of the Federal Constitution [5]. That amendment transformed the Act from a colonial security tool into a permanent restriction on political speech about race-based policy.

The most consequential changes came in 2015 under Prime Minister Najib Razak. Despite having pledged in 2012 to repeal the Act, Najib reversed course and instead pushed through amendments that the president of the Malaysian Bar, Steven Thiru, called "the most serious attack on freedom of speech in the country's history" [6]. The United Nations urged Malaysia to withdraw the changes, warning they would "seriously undermine freedom of expression and make a bad law worse" [6].

The 2015 amendments:

• Raised the maximum prison term from 3 years to 7 years for general sedition [4]
• Introduced sentences of up to 20 years for seditious acts resulting in physical harm or property destruction [4]
• Imposed a mandatory minimum of 3 years, stripping judges of sentencing discretion [4]
• Expanded the definition of "publish" to include "cause to be published," meaning sharing, retweeting, or reposting seditious content became a criminal act [4]
• Empowered courts to order the removal of electronic content and to ban convicted persons from accessing electronic devices [4]

The amendments were passed after a 14-hour parliamentary session that ended at 2:30 AM [6].

Enforcement by the Numbers

Between 2010 and 2025, Malaysian police opened 1,222 investigation papers under the Sedition Act, according to a parliamentary reply cited by Free Malaysia Today. Of those, 130 individuals were charged in court [7].

Source: Free Malaysia Today / Parliamentary Reply

Data as of Feb 4, 2026CSV

The data reveals a striking pattern. In 2010, police opened just 21 investigations. By 2015 — the year Najib strengthened the Act — at least 91 individuals were arrested, charged, or investigated, a figure Amnesty International noted was "almost five times as many as in the law's first 50 years" [8]. After a dip during the brief reformist period following the 2018 election, investigations surged again. In 2025, police opened 142 investigations — the highest annual count in the 15-year record [7].

Yet prosecution remains relatively rare compared to investigation. Between 2018 and 2022, 367 investigations produced only five court cases and three convictions [9]. This disparity points to what civil liberties groups describe as the Act's primary function: not conviction, but deterrence through investigation, arrest, and the threat of charges.

The Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ), which tracks freedom of expression cases, recorded a parallel trend. Its monitoring found 36 Sedition Act cases in 2025, an 84% increase over 19 cases in 2024 [10]. Across all restrictive speech laws combined — including the Sedition Act, the Communications and Multimedia Act, and the Penal Code — the CIJ documented 233 cases in 2025, up from 189 the prior year [10].

Source: Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ)

Data as of Dec 10, 2025CSV

The TikTok Arrest and the Chilling Effect

The April 2026 police warning was not issued in a vacuum. It followed a pattern of arrests targeting ordinary social media users.

In October 2025, seven members of the public were arrested for videos posted on TikTok and Facebook that were critical of the government [11]. The laws invoked included the Sedition Act, sections of the Penal Code, and the Communications and Multimedia Act [11]. Zaid Malek, director of Lawyers for Liberty, was blunt: "We are now in a police state, and the statement issued by the police is clear proof of this" [11].

The arrest of Jorjet Myla in April 2026 drew particular scrutiny because Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail had declared in January 2026 that the Sedition Act would only be invoked for insults to the royal institution or threats to national sovereignty [2]. Myla's alleged offense — criticizing the prime minister — fell outside those stated boundaries. DAP Wanita leader Sangeet Kaur Deo condemned the arrest, noting the contradiction between the government's stated policy and its enforcement actions [2].

SUHAKAM, Malaysia's official human rights commission, issued a formal statement expressing "grave concern." The commission cited Article 10 of the Federal Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression, and articulated a principle: "Public officials must tolerate heightened scrutiny and criticism; using criminal law to shield officials from criticism contradicts democratic principles" [3].

Kumar's warning, issued without a formal legal gazette or regulatory notice, functions as what critics call an extrajudicial chilling effect. No new law was passed. No formal enforcement guidelines were published. A police official simply told the public that criticizing government policies could result in prosecution — and the burden shifted to every Malaysian with a social media account to guess where the line falls.

Between January 2022 and September 2025, the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) issued 54,175 takedown requests to platforms, with an 85% removal rate [10]. The government has also announced plans for mandatory eKYC (electronic Know Your Customer) identity verification for social media users, scheduled for rollout in the second quarter of 2026 [10].

Who Gets Targeted

The Sedition Act is not applied uniformly. Human Rights Watch documented in 2014 that at least 23 sedition cases targeted elected members of parliament, human rights defenders, academics, lawyers, students, and journalists [12]. The pattern has persisted.

Opposition politicians are frequent targets. In 2023, Muhammad Sanusi Md Nor, a PAS opposition leader and Chief Minister of Kedah, faced two counts of sedition for remarks questioning royal decisions on government formation [13]. "It seems that in Malaysia, we can't say anything," Sanusi said [13]. That same year, opposition politician Razali Idris was charged with sedition — a prosecution that Lawyers for Liberty called "in outright breach of PH and Anwar's promise to repeal the Sedition Act 1948" [14].

Journalists have been directly affected. Reporters Without Borders documented the case of journalist Rex Tan, investigated for sedition for asking a question [15]. Journalist Susan Loone was arrested in 2014 for an article critical of police [12].

Academics are not exempt. Dr. Azmi Sharom, a University of Malaya law professor, was charged with sedition for comments on a constitutional crisis [12]. Cartoonist Zunar (Zulkiflee Anwar Ulhaque) was arrested and charged under the Act for tweets critical of the judiciary [8].

Students and ordinary citizens round out the enforcement profile. Student activist Adam Adli Abd Halim was prosecuted for sedition [12]. The CIJ's 2025 report found that 14% of Sedition Act cases targeted political critics and another 14% targeted student activists [10].

The selective enforcement pattern — opposition politicians, ethnic minority commentators, journalists, academics, and now TikTok users — raises questions about whether the law functions as a content-neutral public order measure or as a tool for managing political dissent.

The Broken Promise

Anwar Ibrahim's political coalition, Pakatan Harapan (PH), made the repeal of the Sedition Act a central campaign pledge long before winning power. When PH first governed briefly after the 2018 election, the new administration announced plans to abolish the Act. That government collapsed before following through.

When Anwar became prime minister in November 2022, the expectation was that repeal would follow. It has not.

In March 2024, Home Minister Saifuddin stated that Cabinet had agreed to amend — not repeal — the Act, narrowing its scope to target only insults against the monarchy [7]. As of April 2026, no such amendment has been tabled in parliament.

Human Rights Watch has been direct in its assessment. In January 2025, the organization's Deputy Asia Director Bryony Lau said: "Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim promised Malaysians sweeping reforms, but his government has instead sought to restrict freedoms of expression, assembly, and religion" [16]. HRW noted that the government had proposed expanding the powers of repressive laws, including the Sedition Act and the Communications and Multimedia Act, and had passed a new Cyber Security Act in August 2024 that further extended government powers over online expression [16].

Civil society groups have been equally pointed. Aliran called the government's U-turn on repeal "unacceptable" [17]. BenarNews reported that activists accused Anwar of breaking explicit promises [18]. Global Voices assessed after one year of Madani governance that the reform agenda had "faltered" [19].

The political explanation is coalition arithmetic. Anwar governs through a unity government that includes UMNO, the Malay nationalist party that has historically used the Sedition Act to suppress dissent. Repealing the Act would risk fracturing a coalition held together by power-sharing rather than shared ideology. The Act also serves the interests of the Malay royal houses, whose constitutional position it protects, making reform politically costly across multiple constituencies.

Anwar himself has articulated a middle position: "I do not agree that the Sedition Act should be used against those who criticise the prime minister and the government, but we will not tolerate anyone who tries to incite or slander to the point of touching on the 3R issues — rulers, race, religion" [16]. In practice, the distinction between "criticism" and "touching on 3R issues" is drawn by police, not by courts.

What an Ordinary Malaysian Faces

For an ordinary Malaysian who posts a video criticizing fuel subsidy cuts or education policy, the legal exposure is real and the practical consequences extend beyond the courtroom.

Under current law, a first-time sedition conviction carries a mandatory minimum of 3 years in prison, with a maximum of 7 years [4]. A fine of up to RM5,000 (approximately $1,100 USD) may also be imposed [13]. If the speech is deemed to have caused physical harm or property destruction, the sentence can reach 20 years [4]. A convicted person can be banned from using any electronic device [4].

The prosecution timeline stretches over months or years, during which the accused may face bail conditions that restrict speech and movement. Even without conviction, the investigation process — arrest, remand (Myla was held for three days [2]), police questioning, and the possibility of charges — carries employment consequences, social stigma, and significant legal costs.

The US State Department's 2024 human rights report on Malaysia documented ongoing restrictions on expression, including Sedition Act enforcement [20]. The low conviction rate (3 convictions from 367 investigations between 2018 and 2022 [9]) does not mean the law is benign. The investigation itself is the punishment, and the police warning amplifies that effect by telling millions of social media users that any "provocative" comment about government policy could trigger it.

Malaysia in Regional Context

Malaysia is not alone in using colonial-era or authoritarian laws to regulate speech, but the breadth of the Sedition Act's application is distinctive within Southeast Asia.

Source: Compiled from national legislation

Data as of Apr 18, 2026CSV

Thailand's lèse-majesté law (Section 112) carries the harshest penalties in the region — up to 15 years per offense — but is formally limited to speech about the monarchy [21]. Indonesia's ITE Law, with penalties of up to 6 years, criminalizes online content that violates "decency" or spreads "false news," and has been used against journalists and political opponents [21]. Singapore's POFMA empowers individual government ministers to order the deletion of online content they deem false, without requiring a court order, though prison terms for individuals are shorter [21]. Cambodia's lèse-majesté law, carrying up to 5 years, applies narrowly to the monarchy [21].

What distinguishes Malaysia's Sedition Act is its explicit coverage of criticism of government policies — not just the monarchy or factual accuracy, but policy disagreement itself. Combined with the 2015 expansion to social media sharing and the mandatory minimum sentences, the law creates a framework where the line between legitimate political commentary and criminal sedition is determined by prosecutorial discretion.

The Government's Case: Communal Stability

The government's strongest argument for retaining some form of sedition law rests on Malaysia's specific history of communal violence.

The May 13, 1969 riots remain the foundational trauma of Malaysian politics [5]. The violence, which erupted along ethnic lines between Malay and Chinese communities, killed at least 196 people by official count (unofficial estimates run much higher) and led to a fundamental restructuring of Malaysian society through the New Economic Policy and its Bumiputera affirmative action programs [5].

Government officials argue that speech questioning ethnicity-linked policies — Bumiputera quotas in education and business, the special constitutional position of Malays — risks reigniting communal tensions. A 2023 study found that 80% of hate speech reports in Malaysia contained racial undertones [22]. The Malaysia Racism Report documented 15 instances of politicians fueling racial tensions in 2023 alone [22]. In November 2022, Malaysian rulers publicly urged politicians to stop using race and religion to incite divisions [23].

The causal link between online criticism of specific policies and actual communal violence is, however, thin in the contemporary record. Malaysia has not experienced ethnic riots on the scale of 1969 since that event. The 2018 controversy over potential ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) generated significant online racial rhetoric but no physical violence [24]. The question is whether the absence of violence validates the deterrent effect of laws like the Sedition Act, or whether Malaysian society has matured beyond the conditions that produced 1969 — a question the data cannot definitively resolve.

ARTICLE 19, the international free expression organization, has argued that polarization and communal harm in Malaysia are more often driven by political elites exploiting racial and religious divisions than by ordinary citizens posting on social media [25]. If that analysis is correct, the Sedition Act addresses the wrong vector of communal risk.

The Road Ahead

The Malaysian government is moving toward greater, not lesser, control of online speech. The planned eKYC requirement for social media users would eliminate anonymous criticism [10]. The 2024 Cyber Security Act expanded government powers over digital platforms [16]. The MCMC's takedown apparatus has already processed over 54,000 requests [10].

Meanwhile, the Sedition Act itself remains unamended. The promised reform to narrow its scope to royal insults has not materialized. Investigations are at record levels. And a police official has publicly told Malaysians that criticizing government policy can land them in criminal jeopardy.

The gap between the Madani government's reform rhetoric and its enforcement reality is now the defining feature of Malaysian free expression policy. Anwar Ibrahim came to power partly on the strength of his own experience as a political prisoner. His coalition partners and institutional constraints have produced an outcome in which a law written by British colonial administrators to suppress communist insurgents is being applied to TikTok users who criticize the prime minister.

Whether Malaysians accept that outcome — or whether the chilling effect has already made the question moot — depends on whose voice is still willing to test the line.