detained under SOSMA,35 their case brought back the old spectre of repression of political dissent and criminalisation of freedom of expression under the ISA for members of civil society and the public.36 The use of SOSMA to silence political dissent and criminalise freedom of expression was once again witnessed in the arrest and detention of Maria Chin Abdullah, the chairperson of Bersih 2.0.37 On the eve of the Bersih 5 rally on 18 November 2016,38 Maria Chin Abdullah and Mandeep Singh39 were arrested at the Bersih office. During the raid of the office, lawyers were denied access to Maria Chin Abdullah and Mandeep Singh, and were also not allowed to witness the search. On the day of the rally itself, the police informed the counsels that Maria Chin Abdullah was detained under SOSMA in relation to an alleged offence under Section 124C of the Penal Code (124C outlines the offence of threat to parliamentary democracy).40 It should be noted that thus far, the use of SOSMA has not applied to any issues that deal with freedom of expression online directly. However, the manner in which it has been applied suggests that it may be interpreted and utilised the same way as its predecessor the ISA. Furthermore, it is also noted that unlike the ISA, SOSMA is a procedural law by nature and its utilisation is dependent on the interpretation of an offence under Chapter VI of the Penal Code. On that note, there is no distinction or definition made in the relevant section that restricts it to “offline” events and incidents only, and thus it can be applied to any offence that surfaces online. Sedition Act 1948 Since the abolition of the ISA, the Sedition Act 1948 is a popular go-to law for the silencing of political dissent by the government. As noted in the Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) Annual Human Rights 35 The Star Online. (2017, 28 April). Duo will not be tried under Sosma. The Star Online. www.thestar.com.my/news/ nation/2017/04/28/duo-will-not-be-tried-under-sosmakhairuddin-chang-will-instead-face-banking-sabotage-charge 36 Doraisamy, S. (2015, 24 September). The spectre of ISA: Broken promises and freedom forgone. SUARAM. www.suaram. net/?p=7250; see also: Thiru, S. (2015, 15 October). Press Release: Respect the rule of law and release Dato’ Sri Khairuddin and Matthias Chang. The Malaysian Bar. www.malaysianbar.org.my/ press_statements/press_release_%7C_respect_the_rule_of_law_ and_release_dato_sri_khairuddin_and_matthias_chang.html 37 A popular mass movement demanding free and fair elections in Malaysia. www.bersih.org/about/background 38 Free Malaysia Today. (2016, 18 November).Police arrest Maria Chin after Bersih raid. Free Malaysia Today. www. freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2016/11/18/ police-arrests-maria-chin-after-bersih-raid 39 The manager of Bersih 2.0. 40 Brown, V. (2016, 19 November). Bersih 5: Maria Chin detained under Sosma. The Star Online. www.thestar.com.my/news/ nation/2016/11/19/bersih-5-maria-chin-detained-under-sosma Report in 2015 and 2016, the use of the Sedition Act 1948 hit a record high41 in the years that followed the repeal of the ISA. In general, the crime of sedition is a colonial offence that was established in Malaysia prior to its independence.42 The law itself has been amended on several occasions in the past. However, coming into the digital age, the Government of Malaysia has not made any distinction in the application of the Sedition Act 1948. Human rights defenders (HRDs) and political dissenters have been arrested and charged for allegedly seditious speeches made during public forums, and also for articles written and published online. A notable example where the Sedition Act 1948 was applied to online articles would be the case of Azmi Sharom in 2014. Azmi Sharom, a respected academic at the University of Malaya, was first charged for sedition over an article relating to an ongoing political crisis in Perak, which was published online.43 He was charged under Section 4(1) (b) with an alternative charge under Section 4(1)(c) of the Sedition Act 1948 that outlines an offence of uttering any seditious statements and printing, publishing, selling, offering for sale, distributing or reproducing any seditious publications, respectively. After 17 months of delays, the public prosecutor requested for Azmi Sharom to be given a discharge not amounting to an acquittal.44 In Azmi Sharom’s case, there was an attempt by his counsels to have the Sedition Act 1948 declared as unconstitutional and void. Unfortunately, the Federal Court rejected the counsels’ motion and further restricted the interpretation of freedom of expression in its decision. In Azmi Sharom’s decision, the Federal Court deemed the requirement for restriction of freedom of expression based on the concept of reasonableness would amount to “re-writing” Article 10(2) of the Federal Constitution and effectively sought to remove the need for reasonableness.45 Apart from Azmi Sharom’s case, another notable case where the Sedition Act 1948 was applied 41 The use of the Sedition Act 1948 in 2015 and 2016 is reported to be 220 and 12 times, respectively. See: www.suaram.net/wordpress/ wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Overview-2016-Digital-Edition.pdf 42 The Sedition Act was passed in 1948 but Malaysia only achieved independence in 1957. 43 Free Malaysia Today. (2014, 1 September). Azmi Sharom next up for sedition charge. Free Malaysia Today. www. freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2014/09/01/ azmi-sharom-next-up-for-sedition-charge 44 Fadzil, F. (2016, 19 February). Court acquits Azmi Sharom of sedition charge. The Star Online. www.thestar.com.my/news/ nation/2016/02/19/court-acquits-azmi-sharom-of-sedition-charge 45 PP v Azmi Sharom [2015] 8 CLJ 921 [37]-[40]. MALAYSIA / 87