Curtailing Free Expression, Opinion and Information Online in Southeast Asia draft sedition laws which are narrowly and strictly compliant with article 19(3) of the ICCPR and has clarified that “in circumstances of public debate concerning public figures in the political domain and public institutions, the value placed by the Covenant upon uninhibited expression is particularly high”.264 Cases above and below – in the contrary – show that political debate or commentary, reporting on government authorities and engagement in human rights advocacy, which should be protected speech are exactly the forms of expression which overbroad provisions in sedition laws have been used to curtail. Malaysia In Malaysia, the Sedition Act 1948 has not only been applied to clamp down on online expression and information regarding royalty, as noted above, but also leaders of government. This was evident during the administration of former Prime Minister Najib Razak, whose government was voted out in Malaysia’s 2018 general elections.265 An advisor to Malaysian human rights lawyers’ association, Lawyers for Liberty, noted that between 2013 and 2016, 170 cases had been brought under the Sedition Act, and that in 2015 alone, “during the peak of Najib’s crackdown”, 91 individuals were arrested, investigated or charged under the law.266 Of these individuals, the ICJ documented that 36 academics, lawyers, politicians, students, and activists had been targeted under the law in the first three months of 2015.267 During the administration of the former Prime Minister, amendments were also made to the Sedition Act in 2015 to extend the offence of sedition to include the “publishing, distribution and importing of seditious publications”, as well as “publication by electronic means” and acts which “cause to be published” seditious material and which “propagate” such material.268 The 2015 amendments also extended powers of the court to include ordering individuals to remove online content deemed seditious, banning individuals from accessing an electronic device and ordering an officer “authorized under the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998” to restrict access 264 CCPR/C/GC/34, paras 30, 38. 265 Human Rights Watch, ‘Malaysia: Drop Remaining Sedition Cases’, 1 August 2018, Available at: https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/08/01/malaysia-drop-remaining-sedition-cases 266 Ida Lim, ‘BN more restrained? Most sedition law abuses during your leadership, lawyer tells Najib’, Malay Mail, 12 January 2019, Available at: https://www.malaymail.com/news/ malaysia/2019/01/12/bn-more-restrained-most-sedition-law-abuses-during-your-leadershiplawyer-t/1711784 267 ICJ, ‘Malaysia: stop amendments strengthening Sedition Act’, 7 April 2015, Available at: https:// www.icj.org/malaysia-stop-amendments-strengthening-sedition-act/ 268 Sedition (Amendment) Act 2015 (‘Sedition (Amendment) Act 2015’), sections 2, 4, Available at: http://www.federalgazette.agc.gov.my/outputaktap/20150604_A1485_BI_Act%20A1485.pdf 77