78 Dictating the Internet: to online content deemed seditious.269 The Malaysian Bar, the Advocates’ Association of Sarawak and the Sabah Law Association criticized these penalties as being targeted specifically at expression online, particularly on social media platforms.270 Penalties were also increased under the amended Sedition Act to a maximum sentence of seven years’ imprisonment under section 3(1) – regardless of whether the offence was a first offence – and a maximum sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment for a new “aggravated” offence of sedition causing “bodily harm” or “damage to property”.271 In October 2018, the Pakatan Harapan coalition government announced a moratorium on the Sedition Act, which it soon after lifted, allowing the law to be used in circumstances involving “national security”, public order and race and religious relations.272 Prior to their election into power, Pakatan Harapan had committed to revocation of the Sedition Act in their Manifesto.273 Despite this promise, in January 2019, four persons were arrested under the law, on the basis of preserving racial and religious harmony – which was criticized by the Malaysian Bar for being a disproportionate use of the law, when other domestic legal and non-legal measures could have been used in an appropriate manner to prevent potential societal conflict.274 Similarly, in March 2019, seven organizers of a march commemorating International Women’s Day were summoned by the police for questioning under the Sedition Act.275 269 Sedition (Amendment) Act 2015, sections 8, 10. 270 Malaysian Bar, the Advocates’ Association of Sarawak and the Sabah Law Association, ‘Joint Press Release | Amendments to the Sedition Act 1948 are Draconian, Militate Against the Freedom of Speech and Expression, and Interfere with the Independence of the Judiciary’, Malaysian Bar Online, 17 April 2015, Available at: http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/press_statements/ joint_press_release_%7C_amendments_to_the_sedition_act_1948_are_draconian_militate_ against_the_freedom_of_speech_and_expression_and_interfere_with_the_independence_of_the_ judiciary_.html; Boo Su-Lyn, ‘Sedition Act revisions worst ever attack on free speech, lawyers say’, Malay Mail, 8 April 2015, Available at: https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2015/04/08/ sedition-act-revisions-worst-ever-attack-on-free-speech-lawyers-say/874199; The Star Online, ‘Sedition Act amendments further limit media freedom, say journalists’, 10 April 2015, Available at: https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2015/04/10/sedition-act-amendments-furtherrestrict-media-freedom-say-journalists/ 271 Sedition (Amendment) Act 2015, section 4. 272 Raynore Mering, ‘Sedition Act: Malaysian Bar calls for return of moratorium, halt to investigations’, Malay Mail, 11 January 2019, Available at: https://www.malaymail.com/news/ malaysia/2019/01/11/sedition-act-malaysian-bar-calls-for-return-of-moratorium-halt-toinvestiga/1711633; The Star Online, ‘Gerakan urges govt not to enact a new Sedition Act’, 13 May 2019, Available at: https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2019/05/13/gerakan-urges-govtnot-to-enact-a-new-sedition-act/ 273 See Manifesto at file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/Manifesto_PH_EN.pdf 274 These four cases included the cases of Eric Liew Chee Ling, Azham Akhtar Abdullah and Nur Alia Astaman. See Raynore Mering, ‘Sedition Act: Malaysian Bar calls for return of moratorium, halt to investigations’, Malay Mail, 11 January 2019, Available at: https://www.malaymail.com/ news/malaysia/2019/01/11/sedition-act-malaysian-bar-calls-for-return-of-moratorium-haltto-investiga/1711633; Human Rights Watch, ‘Malaysia: Keep Moratorium on Abusive Laws’, 5 December 2018, Available at: https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/12/05/malaysia-keep-moratoriumabusive-laws 275 They were reportedly taken in for questioning for potential violations of section 4(1) of the