INTERNAL SECURITY AND SEDITION ACTS OF MALAYSIA

The Internal Security Act (ISA) and Sedition Act are used to imprison people without charge for an indefinite length of time. The ISA allows for arrest without warrant and detention without trial for individuals deemed to be a threat to national security for a term of two years renewable indefinitely. The laws are holdovers from British colonial days. They were originally intended to deal with armed communist insurrection during the Malayan Emergency of 1948- 60. This law permitted the indefinite detention by executive order of any person suspected of leftist or procommunist activity. They were originally brought back into widespread use after the 1969 riots to crack down on racially-motivated unrest and Communist insurgencies.

Malaysia's Sedition Act 1948 remains on the books. Despite longstanding election pledges from multiple administrations, including the Pakatan Harapan-led coalition, to repeal the colonial-era legislation, the government maintains the law to preserve public order and national security. The law continues to be actively used by authorities to investigate and charge individuals for speech deemed critical of the government, religion, or the royal institution. [Source: International Bar Association, Civicus Monitor]

Malaysia's Internal Security Act (ISA) is no longer on the books. Parliament passed legislation to repeal the highly controversial law—which permitted detention without trial—and it officially ceased to be in force in 2012. The ISA was replaced by the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (SOSMA). SOSMA outlines special procedures for handling security-related offenses, though its provisions for investigative detention and legal access continue to be a subject of debate among civil rights groups.

Malaysia's Sedition Law

Malaysia’s Sedition Act has long been one of the country’s most controversial laws, drawing criticism from human rights groups and opposition figures who argue that it has been used to silence dissent and restrict freedom of expression. Originally introduced by the British colonial government in 1948 to combat communist insurgents, the law remained in force after independence and gradually expanded in scope under successive governments. [Source: Jennifer Pak, BBC, November 27 2014]

The Sedition Act criminalises acts, speeches, publications, or expressions deemed to bring hatred or contempt against the government or Malaysia’s nine royal rulers. It also prohibits discussion of sensitive issues such as race, religion, and the special constitutional position of ethnic Malays and the indigenous peoples of Sabah and Sarawak. Those convicted under the law can face fines and prison sentences of up to three years. Critics argue that the legislation’s broad and vague wording allows authorities to target political opponents and discourage open debate.

from Article 19

Over the years, the law has been used against opposition politicians, activists, journalists, academics, and lawyers. Among the most prominent figures investigated under the act was opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim. Human Rights Watch estimated that at least 14 people were charged with sedition after 2013, while the prosecution of University of Malaya professor Azmi Sharom over comments linked to a political crisis sparked protests from students, academics, and members of the Malaysian Bar.

The controversy intensified after Prime Minister Najib Razak initially promised to abolish the Sedition Act in 2012, describing it as legislation from a “bygone era” that would be replaced with a National Harmony Act. However, after facing pressure from conservative groups within the ruling coalition, Najib later announced that the law would instead be retained and strengthened. Proposed amendments included provisions to protect the sanctity of Islam, prevent insults against religions, and prohibit calls for Sabah and Sarawak to leave the federation.

Amnesty International’s Condemnation of Malaysia’s Sedition Act

Human rights organisations strongly condemn the Sedition Act. Amnesty International described the law as an “outdated and repressive piece of legislation,” while Human Rights Watch warned that its continued use threatened freedom of expression in Malaysia. At a time when the Seditions Act was used to crack down on critics of the government, Amnesty International said: Malaysia’s government has launched an unprecedented crackdown through the Sedition Act over the past two years to silence, harass and lock up hundreds of critics, Amnesty International said in a new briefing today. [Source: Amnesty International, January 26, 2016]

Critical Repression: Freedom of Expression Under Attack in Malaysia shows how the use of the Sedition Act — which gives authorities sweeping powers to target those who oppose them — has skyrocketed since the Barisan Nasional coalition government narrowly won the 2013 general elections, with around 170 sedition cases in that period. In 2015 alone, at least 91 individuals were arrested, charged or investigated for sedition — almost five times as many as during the law’s first 50 years of existence. [Source: Amnesty International, January 26, 2016]

Speaking out in Malaysia is becoming increasingly dangerous. The government has responded to challenges to its authority in the worst possible way, by tightening repression and targeting scores of perceived critics,” said Josef Benedict, Amnesty International’s South East Asia Deputy Campaigns Director.

Plans to Repeal Malaysia's Sedition Law That Never Happened

In July 2012, Malaysia announced plans to repeal the Seditions Act—a colonial-era law curbing free speech—in the latest political reform ahead of general elections. Associated Press reported: “Prime Minister Najib Razak said that the Sedition Act represented a "bygone era" and will be replaced with a new law to prevent incitement of religious or racial hatred. It will be the latest repressive law to be annulled as part of his pledge to protect civil liberties. Opposition leaders claim the reforms are a ploy to gain public support ahead of polls that must be called next year at the latest. [Source: AP, July 12, 2012]

"We mark another step forward in Malaysia's development. The new National Harmony Act will balance the right of freedom of expression as enshrined in the constitution, while at the same time ensuring that all races and religions are protected," Najib said. The government earlier this year revoked a draconian security law allowing detention without trial and eased public assembly rules in a massive overhaul of strict security laws. Critics said the reforms were a sham as the laws were replaced with legislation that is just as repressive.

"The replacement legislation has been as bad or worse from a rights perspective," said Phil Robertson, Asia deputy director for Human Rights Watch. "The government should realize that change for change's sake is not enough." Lim Guan Eng, Chief Minister of opposition-ruled Penang state, said the sedition law has long been used as a convenient political tool to silence opposition voices. Lim himself was jailed for 18 months under the law in 1998 for allegedly making seditious remarks in his defense of a rape victim.

Internal Security Act of Malaysia

The Internal Security Act (ISA) essentially allows the government to arrest people for whatever reason it likes and hold them as long as it wants. It has been utilized by the Malaysian government to round up people it deemed to be threats to national security, which has included opposition parliamentarians, academics and journalists. For this, the Malaysian government had been subjected to repeated calls to abolish the ISA. Another law, the Emergency Ordinance (EO), was introduced in Malaysia following race riots in 1969, allowing suspects to be detained for up to two years with consent of a minister. The government has used it against opposition politicians.

Opposition leaders including Anwar Ibrahim, Lim Guan Eng and Karpal Singh have been held under the ISI law. The same regulation remains in neighboring Singapore, another former British colony. Political prisoners have complained that while they were imprisoned under the Internal Security Act they were not allowed to call a lawyer and were kept in solitary confinement in a tiny cell. Soem have said they were blindfolded and handcuffed and subject to long hours of interrogation. One man told the Washington Post he was not tortured but he said he “broke down” and “cried.”

Lim Guan Eng, a top official in the opposition Democratic Action Party (DAP) served 12 months in jail in 1998 and 1999 on sedition charges for distributing a pamphlet that criticized the government. Opposition activist Nagapan Gobalkrishnan was arrested shortly after giving a vitriolic ant-Mahathir speech and detained for 51 days. under the internal security law.

After the elections in 1999, authorities arrested three top opposition figures. They were Karpal Singh, a leader in the opposition DAP and Anwar’s lawyer; Marinia Yuffoff, a member of the Keadilan Party; and Zulkifli Sulong, editor of an outspokenly anti-government newspaper. They were all charged withe sedition.

History of Malaysia’s Internal Security Act (ISA)

Dante Pastrana wrote in World Socialist Web Site, “Onerous laws such as the Sedition Act and the Official Secrets Act have underpinned the Malaysian police state. The ISA was particularly dreaded. Its provisions included indefinite detention without trial or judicial review and the suppression of dissident publications. A “danger zone” could also be proclaimed, where security forces could “take such measures, including means dangerous or fatal to human life” deemed necessary to clear the zone of prohibited persons. The ISA, enacted in 1960, codified the repressive measures used by Britain to suppress a rural insurgency led by the Communist Party of Malaysia. UMNO-led governments have ruled since independence and utilised the ISI to suppress political opposition and social unrest. In the course of 52 years, over 10,800 persons, including labor activists, student leaders, and trade unionists, were detained without trial under the ISI and another 2,066 placed on restriction orders dictating their activities and residence. [Source: Dante Pastrana, World Socialist Web Site, May 4, 2012]

According to the International Federation for Human Rights: “Since its enactment in 1960, succeeding emergency laws aimed at combating the communist insurgency during the 1940s and 1950s, the ISA has facilitated serious human rights abuses, including torture and ill-treatment, and has therefore been repeatedly denounced, including by local human rights groups in Malaysia and again recently, in June, by the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention during its mission to Malaysia. [Source: International Federation for Human Rights, August 1, 2010]

The ISA, in clear violation of internationally recognised human rights standards relating to fair trials, has been invoked against those who commit acts deemed to be "prejudicial to the security of Malaysia", or threatening to the "maintenance of essential services" or "economic life". These vaguely defined security notions have led to the frequent use of the law against citizens peacefully expressing their religious and political beliefs, as well as a number of human rights defenders.

In 2009, the authorities made some welcoming moves, including the release of 40 ISA detainees from Kamunting detention camp (of which at least five were human rights defenders and the announcement that the law will be amended based on feedback obtained from various stakeholders. However, at the same time, new arrests under the ISA have been documented by SUARAM ( Suara Rakyat Malaysia, (Malay for "Voice of the Malaysian People"). As of 2010, 16 individuals were detained under the ISA in Malaysia – among which 14 were detained after the Government had announced its review of the legislation. SUARAM has also expressed gravest concerns over other existing emergency and anti-subversion laws which also provide for indefinite detention without trial, namely the Emergency Ordinance 1969 (EO) and the Dangerous Drugs Act 1985 (DDA). As of February 2010, 819 individuals were detained without trial under the EO, while 412 were incarcerated under the DDA – giving a total of more than 1,200 individuals detained without trial in Malaysia.

Malaysia Abolishes the Internal Security Act

In September 2011, it. Prime Minister Najib Razak of Malaysia announced that his country’s draconian Internal Security Act (ISA) would be abolished, to be replaced by two new anti-terrorism laws. Gan Yen Kuan of Businessweek wrote: Prime Minister Najib Razak announced Malaysia’s biggest political reforms since independence in 1957, two months after street protests that led to the arrest of more than 1,600 people. Najib said he would abolish the Internal Security Act and Emergency Ordinance to ensure that people in future can’t be held for their political affiliations. The government will also loosen restrictions on the media and public assembly, he said in a speech broadcast in Malay language on national television today. [Source: Gan Yen Kuan, Businessweek, September 15, 2011]

“The abolition of the ISA, and the other historic changes, underline my commitment to making Malaysia a modern, progressive democracy that can be proud to take its place at the top table of international leadership,” Najib said. “Many will question whether I am moving too far, too fast. There may be short-term pain for me politically, but in the long term the changes I am announcing will ensure a brighter, more prosperous future.” Najib, 58, vowed to improve democratic freedoms before national elections in 2013 after a backlash against the country’s response to a July 9 rally demanding an overhaul of electoral laws. Groups such as Amnesty International condemned the use of force to detain the peaceful activists for defying a government ban to march on the capital.

“It’s geared toward the election,” Ong Kian Ming, a political analyst at UCSI University in Kuala Lumpur, said of Najib’s speech. “It’s a positive development that opens up space for freedom of speech, rule of law and transparency,” Ibrahim Suffian, a political analyst at Merdeka Center said in a telephone interview. “The proof lies in the implementation of these statements and the nature of the laws meant to replace the ISA.” The Internal Security Act will be replaced by a law that would incorporate more judicial oversight and limit police powers to detain people for preventative reasons, Najib said.

New Draconian Security Bill Passed in Malaysia

In May 2012, the Malaysian Parliament, passed a draconian new security bill touted as a more democratic alternative to the draconian Internal Security Act (ISA) but still grants far reaching powers to the police. According to the US-based Human Rights Watch, the legislation allows “an arrest without a warrant if the officer merely ‘has reason to believe’ that the person may be involved in security offenses, many of which are vaguely defined. It would give the police broad powers to conduct searches and intercept communications without judicial warrant. And it would permit the police unilaterally to impose electronic monitoring devices on individuals released from detention, a serious infringement of personal liberty.” [Source: Dante Pastrana, World Socialist Web Site, May 4, 2012 /=/]

Dante Pastrana wrote in World Socialist Web Site, “The legislation denies bail to those arrested under its provisions and “sets the stage for trials with secret witnesses, unlawfully obtained evidence, and continued detention of those found not guilty.” As aptly described by the Malaysian human rights organisation, Lawyers for Liberty, the preventive detention without a trial under the ISA has been replaced with preventive detention with a sham trial under the new security bill. /=/

“The Najib government has also tabled amendments to the Penal Code, the Evidence Act and the Criminal Procedure Code. The amendments to the Penal Code define as crimes “activities or attempts to conduct activities detrimental to parliamentary democracy”—a sweeping definition that could be used against virtually any political opposition. The provision in the ISA against the publication of dissent and possession of dissident publications is now in the Penal Code. Punishment for these “crimes” ranges from a minimum of five years’ jail, to a maximum of life imprisonment. /=/

“Amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code will provide the police with expanded powers to intercept communications and seize electronic data without warrants. An amendment to the Evidence Act is directed at forcing internet websites to divulge the identity of anonymous writers and bloggers accused of security offenses. A Freedom of Assembly Act was also approved last year. It bans street protests and allows security forces to forcibly disperse any assembly that “disturbs public tranquillity.” /=/

National Security Council Act Replaces the Internal Security Act

In August 2016, Malaysia brought into force the controversial National Security Council (NSC) Act, a law that granted sweeping powers to the government in the name of national security. The legislation, passed by Parliament in late 2015 under Prime Minister Najib Razak, allows authorities to declare designated “security areas” where security forces can exercise extraordinary powers similar to martial law. [Source: Al Jazeera, August 1, 2016]

Under the law, a National Security Council chaired by the prime minister can authorise police and military personnel to conduct searches, seize property, make arrests, and impose movement restrictions without warrants in areas considered under security threat. The legislation also permits authorities to control access to these zones and restrict public gatherings and demonstrations. Supporters of the law argued it was necessary to combat terrorism and respond quickly to security threats.

However, critics described the legislation as “draconian” and warned that it could be abused for political purposes. Opposition groups, civil society organisations, and legal experts argued that the broad powers granted under the NSC Act threatened civil liberties, weakened democratic safeguards, and concentrated excessive authority in the hands of the executive. Human rights advocates feared the law could discourage public protests and suppress political dissent, particularly during a period of growing anger over the 1MDB corruption scandal linked to Najib’s administration.

International organisations also raised concerns. The United Nations Human Rights Office warned that the act could encourage human rights violations, while activists argued it marked a major step backward for democratic freedoms in Malaysia. The law came at a politically sensitive time, as protests and investigations connected to the 1MDB scandal intensified both domestically and internationally, increasing fears that the legislation might be used to shield the government from mounting political pressure.

Image Sources: Wikimedia Commons

Text Sources: New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Times of London, Lonely Planet Guides, Library of Congress, Malaysia Tourism Promotion Board, Compton’s Encyclopedia, The Guardian, National Geographic, Smithsonian magazine, The New Yorker, Time, Newsweek, Reuters, AP, AFP, Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic Monthly, The Economist, Foreign Policy, Wikipedia, BBC, CNN, and various books, websites and other publications.

Last updated May 2026