Former Dewan Negara president Rais Yatim pleaded not guilty on 25 September 2026 to a charge under section 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act 1948 over words allegedly spoken during the 5 June ceremony at a Melaka hotel where Tunku Nadzaruddin Tuanku Ja’afar was proclaimed the 12th Yang di-Pertuan Besar by those who organised it.
According to the charge, Rais referred to Tunku Nadzaruddin as the 12th Yang di-Pertuan Besar, said he was free to perform royal functions and called on those present to pledge their loyalty to him (Bernama, 25 September 2026, Malay Mail, 25 September 2026).
The Akta Hasutan 1948 (Sedition Act 1948)
The Act is short, with eleven sections (see full reprint here).
Section 3(1): the six seditious tendencies
(1) A “seditious tendency” is a tendency:
(a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any Ruler or against any Government;
(b) to excite the subjects of any Ruler or the inhabitants of any territory governed by any Government to attempt to procure in the territory of the Ruler or governed by the Government, the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter as by law established;
(c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Malaysia or in any State;
(d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the subjects of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or of the Ruler of any State or amongst the inhabitants of Malaysia or of any State;
(e) to promote feelings of ill will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Malaysia;
(f) to question any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of Part III of the Federal Constitution or Article 152, 153 or 181 of the Federal Constitution.
Section 3(1) contains six categories of seditious tendency.
In the Negeri Sembilan crisis, words recognising another person as Yang di-Pertuan Besar or calling upon the public to transfer their loyalty could potentially raise questions under paragraph (a), concerning disaffection against a Ruler; paragraph (b), concerning an alteration otherwise than by lawful means of something established by law; paragraph (d), concerning disaffection among a Ruler’s subjects; and paragraph (f), concerning constitutional matters protected by Article 181.
Sections 3(2) and 3(3): the exceptions, and why intention is set aside
Section 3(2) protects saying that a Ruler has been misled or mistaken, and pointing out defects in government, law or the justice system with a view to fixing them, although that protection is narrower for the matters listed in paragraph (f). Section 3(3) makes the speaker’s intention irrelevant if the words had a seditious tendency, a feature critics of the Act have long regarded as one of its broadest (Amnesty International USA, 25 January 2016).
Section 4(1): the offences and the penalties
(1) Any person who:
(a) does or attempts to do, or makes any preparation to do, or conspires with any person to do, any act which has or which would, if done, have a seditious tendency;
(b) utters any seditious words;
(c) prints, publishes, sells, offers for sale, distributes or reproduces any seditious publication; or
(d) imports any seditious publication, shall be guilty of an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable for a first offence to a fine not exceeding five thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both, and, for a subsequent offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; and any seditious publication found in the possession of the person or used in evidence at his trial shall be forfeited and may be destroyed or otherwise disposed of as the court directs.
Section 4 turns those definitions into criminal offences. It covers acts with a seditious tendency, the uttering of seditious words, and the printing, publishing, distributing or reproducing of a seditious publication.
For a first offence, the Act provides for a fine of up to RM5,000, imprisonment for up to three years, or both.
Rais has been charged specifically under section 4(1)(b), concerning the alleged uttering of seditious words (Bernama, 25 September 2026).
Section 5: the Public Prosecutor’s consent
Section 5 allows a prosecution under section 4 only with the written consent of the Public Prosecutor, who may also choose any court in Malaysia to hear the case. The Rais case is being heard in Melaka because the alleged offence took place in Alor Gajah.
Section 6: corroboration and a defence for publishers
Section 6(1) bars a conviction on the uncorroborated evidence of a single witness. Section 6(2) gives a person charged with publishing a defence if the material went out without their knowledge or they had no reason to believe it was seditious.
How the Act has appeared in the crisis so far
The public record shows the Act invoked mainly at the investigation and charging stage:
8 May 2026: Negeri Sembilan police said 49 statements had been recorded over social media content linked to the crisis, with investigations under section 4(1) of the Sedition Act, sections 500 and 505(b) of the Penal Code, and section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998. The police chief said the kertas siasatan (investigation papers) would be referred to the prosecution (FMT, 8 May 2026).
25 June 2026: Badrul Hisham Shaharin, known as Chegubard, pleaded not guilty at the Seremban Sessions Court to a charge under section 4(1) of the Sedition Act over a Facebook post made on 26 May concerning the Negeri Sembilan royal institution. The court set bail at RM5,000 and rejected the prosecution’s request for a gag order (Malaysiakini, 25 June 2026, Malay Mail, 25 June 2026). On 12 August the court fixed his trial for 15 to 17 February 2027 (Utusan Malaysia, 12 August 2026).
20 July 2026: A 52-year-old man was detained in Seremban over a Threads post that police said insulted the Negeri Sembilan royal institution. The investigation was under section 4 of the Sedition Act, section 505 of the Penal Code and section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act (The Sun, 20 July 2026).
25 September 2026: Rais Yatim pleaded not guilty to a charge under section 4(1)(b). Bail was set at RM8,000 with one surety, and the case was fixed for mention on 27 October (Bernama, 25 September 2026).
The Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU) has directed that a police report be lodged against the six signatories of the 5 September document, while the Home Minister has said police are investigating the wider dispute from “every angle” (Malay Mail, 14 September 2026, Malay Mail, 24 September 2026).
Where the Sedition Act ends and the Penal Code begins
The Sedition Act is one of several federal laws that touch the position of a Ruler. Section 121B of the Penal Code deals with compassing or intending the deposition of a Ruler from the rule of a State, and it carries far heavier penalties.
The two laws ask different questions:
The Sedition Act looks at the tendency of words and acts: whether they bring a Ruler into contempt, or question a protected status.
Section 121B looks at a design directed at removing a Ruler.
When asked on 24 September which of the two applied to the investigation into the Executive Council, the Home Minister left the matter to police and, after them, the Attorney General’s Chambers (Malaysia Tribune, 24 September 2026).
What are the wider ramifications?
The charge against Rais shows that the Public Prosecutor has chosen to prosecute words describing Tunku Nadzaruddin as the 12th Yang di-Pertuan Besar and calling on those present to pledge loyalty to him.
If those words are ultimately found to have a seditious tendency, their subsequent circulation could raise separate questions under section 4(1)(c). Section 4(1)(c) covers anyone who “prints, publishes, sells, offers for sale, distributes or reproduces” a seditious publication, with the same maximum penalty prescribed under section 4(1).
In a dispute argued extensively on social media, the distinction between creating and circulating content may matter less than one might think. Reposting, forwarding or sharing material can itself fall within section 4(1)(c) where the publication is found to be seditious, and carries the same maximum penalty under section 4(1) as speaking or writing the original words.
Read Next: Could the Undang’s Declaration Constitute Sedition?
If you are new to this Substack and are not sure where to begin, visit our Start Here page, where we list all our articles organised by theme.
Related posts:
Sources:
49 Keterangan Dirakam Berkait Krisis N Sembilan (FMT, 8 May 2026)
Man Detained Over 3R Social Media Posts in Seremban (The Sun, 20 July 2026)
Hasut Institut Diraja: Chegubard Dibicara Februari Tahun Depan (Utusan Malaysia, 12 August 2026)
Polis Siasat Krisis Negeri Sembilan Dari Pelbagai Sudut (Malaysia Tribune, 24 September 2026)
Rais Yatim Pleads Not Guilty to Sedition Charge (Bernama, 25 September 2026)
If you are new to this Substack and are not sure where to begin, visit our Start Here page, where we list all our articles organised by theme.
Anak Nogori is independent commentary on the unfolding constitutional crisis in Negeri Sembilan, where centuries-old Adat Perpatih, royal succession law, and modern political manoeuvring are colliding in ways Malaysia has never seen before. If you find this useful, share it with someone who should be following this, or subscribe to receive the latest articles in your inbox.
