KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 4 ― The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) condemned today Malaysia's use of the Sedition Act to arrest dissenters, calling the colonial-era law “outdated and odious” and an attempt to “stifle freedom of expression”.

“Laws that criminalise free expression have no place in a modern Malaysia, and are incompatible with international human rights standards.

“The Malaysian government should immediately drop these charges and get rid of this law,” ICJ’s international legal adviser on Southeast Asia, Emerlynne Gil, said in a statement.

The ICJ also said the archaic law is being used to “silence voices perceived as challenging governmental policy”.

Putrajaya’s sedition crackdown led to three opposition lawmakers being charged under the colonial era law last week, including one for uttering the words “Umno celaka” in the Penang state assembly.

The latest targets to come under a sedition probe were news portal Malaysiakini and its journalist Susan Loone, over a report on a police crackdown on Penang’s volunteer patrol unit (PPS).

On Tuesday, Universiti Malaya (UM) law lecturer Assoc Prof Azmi Sharom was charged in court with sedition for his recent remarks on the 2009 Perak crisis, making him the first academic to get snagged in the dragnet.

Yesterday, Sabah police confirmed that they have started a sedition probe on the owners of a Facebook page propagating the secession of Sabah and Sarawak from Malaysia.

Also in Sabah yesterday, opposition politician David Orok claimed trial to a sedition charge for allegedly posting remarks insulting Prophet Muhammad and Islam on Facebook in July.

Today, the ICJ said it has called for the repeal of the law, which it considers to be incompatible with international standards.

“Over the past few weeks there has been a marked increase in the number of sedition charges filed by authorities in what seems like a clear crackdown against freedom of expression in Malaysia.

“Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak promised to repeal the Sedition Act in 2012.

“So far, we see no steps towards fulfilling this promise. In fact, we now see vigorous use of this outdated and odious law,” Gil said.

The ICJ said it considers that the law imposed restrictions on the exercise of freedom of expression that are “grossly overbroad and inconsistent with basic rule of law and human rights principles”.