Human Rights Law in Malaysia

Human Rights: Msian Federal Constitution

Malaysia, they have been incorporated in Part II of our Federal Constitution comprising of Articles 5 to 13 of the
Constitution. The Federal Constitution guarantees certain fundamental liberties namely: Personal liberty (Article 5);
Prohibition against slavery and forced labour (Article 6); Protection against retrospective criminal laws and repeated
trials(Article 7); Equality before the law and the rights to equal protection of the law (Article 8); Prohibition of
banishment and freedom of movement (Article 9); Freedom of speech, assembly and association (Article10); Freedom
of religion (Article 11); Rights in respect of education (Article 12); and Right to property (Article 13).

Individual rights and freedoms as enshrined in the Constitution are not without limitations as peace and security of the
country must take centre stage. Therefore, the Federal Constitution provides for the limitations to those fundamental
rights and freedoms. These are contained in the relevant Articles itself and the written law made thereunder.

In Malaysia, we do not have a constitutional court. The Federal Court plays a dual role; as the final court of appeal as well
as the interpreter of the Constitution. Constitutional issue may be referred direct to the Federal Court for its decision,
and the ruling of the Federal Court on the issue is final and binding on the courts below. Therefore, the Federal Court can
be regarded as the constitutional court.

As the protector of the Constitution, the Malaysian courts have a role to play, to protect the rights of the individual visa
vis the State and between the States and the Federation. It ensures that State actions are within their allocated authority
including to ensure the rights and freedoms provided under the Federal Constitution are not infringed.

Are we creating a culture of fear?

“They are creating a culture of fear. If you engage in any talk of public interest, the police may come to your house, you
may be arrested, taken to the police station, remanded. Even members of Parliament are treated that way.” (Yap Swee
Seng, former executive director of Suara Rakyat Malaysia (Suaram), Kuala Lumpur, April 14, 2015 )

 What are the restrictions?

Internal Security Act 1960 (ISA)
Preventive detention was first implemented in Malaya by the British in 1948 to combat the armed insurgency of the
Malayan Communist Party during the Malayan Emergency. The ISA was replaced and repealed by the Security Offences
(Special Measures) Act 2012 (SOSMA) which has been passed by Parliament and given the royal assent on 18 June 2012.
The Act came into force on 31 July 2012.

Criticism on SOSMA
Amensty International:  fails to meet international human rights standards in several key ways – including by allowing
police to detain suspects incommunicado for 48 hours, increasing the risk of torture, and by allowing detention without
charge or access to courts for up to 28 days.

Sedition Act 1948

Another powerful and widely employed piece of legislation, which dates back to 1948, when Malaysia was still a British
colony, is the Sedition Act, which criminalises speech or writing that is considered to be seditious. A great many critics
and political opponents of the Malaysian regime have been arrested and held under the Sedition Act, the effect of which
has been to restrict freedom of expression in Malaysia.

Azmi Sharom
Azmi Bin Sharom, a law professor at the University Malaya, was accused of committing sedition and was charged on
September 2, 2014 for his remarks on an online news article. Sharom challenged the court over the constitutionality of
the Sedition Act because it is from the colonial era. The court later delivered a decision, considered as a landmark
verdict, that the law was constitutional.  The Attorney General decided to drop the charges against Sharom on February
12, 2016.
1
PPPA 1984
The Printing Presses and Publications Act was first introduced by the British colonial government as the Printing
Ordinance of 1948 at the beginning of the state of emergency, in order to counteract Communist activities seen as a
threat to the establishment. The Act required all newspapers and printing presses to obtain an annual publishing licence.

Lim Guan Eng v Public Prosecutor(1998)

This is the appeal case of Lim Guan Eng, who had been convicted for 18 months of imprisonment and fined under
1)S 8A (1) Printing Presses and the Public Act 1984 for maliciously publishing false news in the form of a pamphlet
entitled ‘Mangsa Dipenjarakan’ Arguments by Karpal Singh: The first is whether the words’mangsa dipenjarakan’ is
synonymous with the word ‘imprisonment’. The defense counsel Mr Karpal Singh argued that ‘detention’ was
synonymous with ‘imprisonment’ looking at several dictionaries and the duration of the detention.

Judge’s view
The judge disagreed with the above argument because he felt the other dictionaries which Mr Karpal Singh referred to
gave vague and definitions. Instead he preferred the meaning of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary which says that
prison is “penjara” The offense of publishing false news under S 8A(1) is presumed to have malicious intent and since the
judge is satisfied that no reasonable steps have been taken to rebut the presumption the accused is to be automatically
presumed to be malicious.

Minister of Home Affairs v Persatuan Aliran Kesedaran Negara (1990)

This is an appeal case by the Ministry of Home Affairs against a High Court ruling by Harun J. quashing the Ministry’s
rejection of a permit for publication.  In November 1986, the Persatuan Aliran Kebangsaan (Aliran) applied for a permit to
publish a Bahasa Malaysia version of their magazine, “Seruan Aliran” in addition to its English monthly publication Aliran
Monthly. But their application was rejected without any given reason. Harun J (HC) noted that although the minister’s
discretion is absolute, “it is not unfettered.” The judge asserted that the minister’s discretion is limited to protecting the
public interest, and he had no “good reasons” in refusing Aliran’s application – after all, if the magazine publishes
undesirable material, the publisher and editor are subject to laws like the OSA 1972, Sedition Act 1972 and the Penal
Code.

Court of Appeal
A three panel bench overturned the decision following the Ministry’s  appeal.  The judges, Abdul Hamid LP, Mohamed
Yusoff and Ajaib Singh SCJJ re-iterated that the minister of Home Affairs has absolute discretion, and cited that there is
no evidence showing he acted with any impropriety nor his action was prejudiced bias or in bad faith. It was held that
unless it can be clearly established that the Minister of Home affairs in any way exercised his discretion wrongfully,
unfairly, dishonestly or in bad faith, the High Could cannot question the minister’s discretion.

ZUNAR “the cartoonist”

On June 2010, the Malaysian goverment announced the ban on five of his political cartoon publications. The ban was
made under the PPPA. The books are:“1 Funny Malaysia”“Perak Darul Kartun”; “Isu Dalam Kartun vol 1”; “Isu Dalam
Kartun vol 2”; “Isu Dalam Kartun vol 3”.

Peaceful Assembly Act

The Peaceful Assembly Act (PAA) replaces Section 27 of the Police Act, which required police permits for large
gatherings. Under the new act, such permits are not necessary. Instead, organizers must give the police 10 days notice of
any planned gathering, after which the police will reply, outlining any restrictions they wish to place on the
gathering. However, the new act forbids street protest, prohibits persons under 15 from taking part in
gatherings, prohibits persons under 21 from organising them and etc.

The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia

2
The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) was established by Parliament under the Human Rights
Commission of Malaysia Act 1999, Act 597. The Act was gazetted on 9 September 1999. The inaugural meeting of
SUHAKAM was held on 24 April 2000. The impetus for the Malaysian Government to finally consider the setting up of a
national human rights institution came from several sources. Malaysia’s active involvement in the UNCHR was one. The
international attention on human rights as a result of the success of the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights in
Vienna where governments, including Malaysia, agreed that human rights are universal and indivisible, and they
recognized the importance of setting up national human rights institutions, also influenced the Government.
As leader of the Malaysian delegation to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR), Tan Sri Musa, in
1994 first suggested to the Government that the time was right for Malaysia to establish its own independent national
human rights institution.

Several factors influenced this proposal: the growing international emphasis on human rights and recognition that it
crosses boundaries and sovereignty; Malaysia’s active involvement in the United Nations system; the changing political
climate in Malaysia with a more politically conscious electorate and dynamic civil society.

By the mid-1990s, seven Asian countries, including two from ASEAN – Indonesia and the Philippines – had already
established national human rights institutions, while Thailand was in the midst of setting up its own. On 24 April 1999,
five years after the idea was first mooted, the Foreign Minister, Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar, announced that the
Government would table a Bill in the July 1999 sitting of Parliament to establish the Human Rights Commission of
Malaysia.

The Bill was guided by the Paris Principles of 1992 which provided the international criteria by which an independent
human rights commission should be established, and also by the experience of established human rights institutions,
especially in the Asia-Pacific region. On 3 April 2000, the Government announced the appointment of SUHAKAM’s first
Chairman, Tan Sri Dato’ Musa bin Hitam, and the 12 other members of the Commission to serve a two-year term, which
is renewable. The appointments were made by His Majesty the Yang DiPertuan Agong on the recommendation of the
Prime Minister.

Functions of SUHAKAM
SUHAKAM was established under the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999, Act 597. Section 2 of this Act
defines “human rights” as referring to the “fundamental liberties as enshrined in Part II of the Federal Constitution”.
The functions of SUHAKAM as set out in Section 4(1) are: to promote awareness of and provide education relating to
human rights; to advise and assist Government in formulating legislation and procedures and recommend the necessary
measures to be taken; to recommend to the Government with regard to subscription or accession of treaties and other
international instruments in the field of human rights; to inquire into complaints regarding infringements of human
rights.

Section 4(4) of the Act provides that regard shall be had to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 (UDHR) to
the extent that is not inconsistent with the Federal Constitution. This means that whatever rights and liberties not
mentioned in Part II but referred to in the UDHR must be considered provided that there is no conflict with the
Constitution.

The function of inquiring into complaints about human rights infringements is subject to the conditions imposed by
section 12 of the Act. Section 12 empowers SUHAKAM to act on its own motion to inquire into allegations of
infringement of human rights, in addition to acting on complaints submitted to it.

 Downfall
SUHAKAM, however, may not investigate complaints which are the subject matter of proceedings pending in a court of
law or which have been finally decided by any court. Such investigations have to cease if the matter being investigated is
brought before the courts.

3
Instead, Suhakam should insist that Parliament immediately amend HRCMA to remove these enabling provisions that
effectively open the way for a consistent misuse or abuse of law to circumvent, terminate, or otherwise make a mockery
of any serious inquiry into human rights infringement and violation that Suhakam might undertake. Suhakam should not
passively agree to these portions of HRCMA because their enabling provisions severely diminish Suhakam's actual
jurisdiction, reduce its effective investigative power, and, ultimately, prevent Suhakam from offering redress to victims of
past, present and future infringements of human rights.
 Power
The Act provides SUHAKAM with powers to enable it to discharge its functions effectively. Under section 4(2), the
Commission is empowered to do the following: to undertake research by conducting programs, seminars and workshops
and to disseminate and distribute the results of such research; to advise the Government and/or relevant authorities of
complaints against them and to recommend appropriate measures to be taken; to study and verify any infringement of
human rights; to visit places of detention in accordance with procedures as prescribed by laws relating to the places of
detention and to make necessary recommendations; to issue public statements on human rights as and when necessary
to undertake appropriate activities as are necessary.

Limitation of Part 2 of FC

The general assumption is that every constitution must grant a certain amount of nights and liberties to its citizens. The
extent of these rights could vary from country to Country. Govemmental policies, religions and other factors influence
the existence and the degree of freedom granted. As a general rule freedom are not granted by plain general principles.
There must be specific provisions which grant specific freedoms and it must be noted that no country grants absolute
freedom to its citizens éven if it can be construed as a very liberal and democratic country. For academic purposes, the
term liberty' is given a very narrow interpretation. It means the state of being free from any form of captivity, slavery,
imprisonment and despotic control. A 'right on the other hand is considered as a privilege that is granted under a
particular law.

In Article 5(1) of FC, the word saved in accordance with law set a limitation to the fundamental liberty of a person. In the
case of Che Ani Che Itam v PP, the interpretation was made literally; where any law passed to limit your liberty is valid
because it was passed by competent body; the Parliament. Therefore, by this interpretation, the Parliament can remove
your rights as long as the Constitution is not being altered.

Generally, the courts in Malaysia have held the term 'law' in Article 5(1) does not import the notions of due process; that
the word 'law in Art. 5(1) is any law passed by competent legislature in exercising its jurisdiction. Therefore, as per Ajaib
Singh in PP v Yee Kim Seng ; the law mentioned could mean any law passed by Parliament, irrespective of whether such
laws are morally right or otherwise. Judges in Malaysia are not willing to question the morality of the laws passed by
Parliament as they feel that they are just 'concerned with the administration of the law as is found in the statute books'.

In the case of Tan Tek Seng @ Tan Chee Meng v. Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Pendidikan & Anor, the expression “life”
appearing in art. 5(1) of the Federal Constitution does not refer to mere existence. It incorporates all those facets that
are an integral part of life itself and those matters which go to form the quality of life. In this case the right to life
encompasses the right to continue in public service subject to removal for good cause by resort to a fair procedure.

In Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Alam Sekitar & Anor v Kajing Tubek & Ors and other appeals, The respondents are three of
the 10,000 natives living in that part of Sarawak where the Bakun Hydro-Electric Project is situated. The respondents
claimed that inter alia the Project would adversely affect their fundamental rights in that their livelihood would suffer
from the resulting impact on the environment. The Court of Appeal stated that they and their ancestors have, from time
immemorial, lived upon and cultivated the land in question. It is common ground that the project will deprive them of
their livelihood and their way of life. Their ancestral and customary rights will be extinguished. The State Government of

4
Sarawak seeks to deprive the livelihood and way of life of all those affected by the project. The action however is valid
because it was made in accordance with the provisions of law.

In term of death penalty, having announced its intention to fully abolish the death penalty in 2018, the government
reversed this decision in March, stating that it would only repeal the mandatory death penalty for 11 criminal
offences. In October, the government said it planned to introduce the legislation in March 2020. There were no
executions since October 2018. However, Malaysia still punish those criminals with death penalty that committed
serious crime till nowadays. No abolishment or discussion has been raised by the government regarding this issue.

Article 6 is about prohibition of labour and slavery. The exception of Article 6(2) of FC is compulsory military or national
service. Art 6(3) work undertaken by a prisoner which is incidental to a sentence of imprisonment. Art 6(4), the
compulsory employment of a doctor in the service of the government - Part VII of the Medical Act 1971.

In the case of Barat Estates Sdn Bhd & Anor v Parawakan a/l Subramaniam & Ors ,S 12 and 13 of the Employment Act
1955 S 12 (1) of the Act permits either party to a contract of service to terminate it by giving notice. S 12 (2) sets out the
appropriate period of notice that ought to be given depending upon the duration of the contract.

The respondents (Parawakan and 336 workers) were employed by the first appellant (Barat Estates) on two estates. The
appellant owned both estates. In September 1990, the appellant sold both estates to Prospell Enterprise Sdn Bhd
(‘Prospell’). The appellant wrote a letter to the respondents informing them of the sale of the estates to Prospell and
said that the change of ownership would not affect the terms and conditions of the respondents’ service.

Prospell also wrote to the respondents Parawakan and 336 workers) offering them to continue their employment. All
the respondents accepted Prospell’s offer. The respondents later commenced an action against the appellants. They
claimed an indemnity under s 13(1) of the Employment Act 1955 on the ground that the appellants had failed to give
them notices of termination of their contracts in accordance with s 12 of the Act.

The issue before the High Court was whether the appellants were obliged to indemnify the respondents under s 13(1) of
the Act. The right to make a choice in the context of employment is a constitutional right. It is in accordance with art 6 of
the Federal Constitution. ‘Compelling an employee to work for a particular employer, without affording him a choice in
the matter, is merely one form of forced labour.’ It is in recognition of the constitutional right that the Employment Act
1955 preserves in an employee the choice of his employer. Further, the Act vests in the employee the right to be
indemnified by his former employer for the loss of the right.

Article 7 is about protection against retrospective criminal laws and repeated trials. Article 7(1) is only applicable to
substantive laws and as such retrospective alteration to procedural laws is not within the protection offered by the
provision. In the case of Gerald Fernandez v Attorney-General Malaysia: Defendant being tried in Singapore for
Corruption, but later being extradited to Malaysia. The court held that extradition of Criminal offence after it has been
committed is not contrary to Article 7 (1).

Apart from exclusion of application pertaining to Procedural law, the cases decided have also laid down more
exceptions; where protection under Article 7 (2) could not be invoked. In the case of Fan Yew Teng v Public Prosecutor,
Article 7(2) does not apply if the previous trial was declared a nullity because there is in fact no trial in such a situation
Another case id PP v Teh Cheng Poh . It also does not apply if the accused is charged with a different offence even if the
new charge is based on the same facts. No person shall be denied equality before the law or equal protection of the law
but Article 8 does not prevent Parliament from making a law based on or involving some classifications. Discriminatory
law is good law if it is based on “reasonable” or “permissible” classification.

Requirements that must be fulfilled by laws that involve classification. The classification is founded on an intelligible
differentia which distinguishes persons that are grouped together from others left out of the group. And The differentia
has a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the law in question. The classification may be founded on

5
different bases such as geographical, or according to objects or occupations and the like. There must be a nexus
between the basis of classification and the object of the law in question.

The limitation in Art 8 also includes bumiputera’s rights. For example, bumiputera is given discount of 15% in Johor. The
bumiputera also has status quo compare to other races in Malaysia. The question arises why bumiputera should be
given extra benefits when they are the majority of people in Malaysia, but they still need help from the government. In
term of education, they are also given privilege. The bumiputera can enrol into university with a lower grade while the
other races have to get higher grades in order to get into university. There is no equality in this sense.

In Art 9, the Limitation in Article 9(3) stated the special Powers of Sabah & Sarawak. The Constitution permits the
Borneo States through Federal law, to control entry into either State of citizens from elsewhere in Malaysia. The
Immigration Act 1963 gives each of the Borneo States wide powers to control entry into and residence in the State. A
West Malaysian needs an Entry Permit to enter Sabah. - s. 66 of the Immigration Act 1959/63, Act 155 Such an entry
permit is issued by the Director of Immigration for Sabah.

In Pihak Berkuasa Negeri Sabah v. Sugumar Balakrishnan & Another Appeal, While art. 9 (2) provides that every citizen
has the right to move freely throughout the Federation and to reside in any part thereof, it is subject, inter alia, to art.
9(3) by virtue of s. 60(2) of the Malaysia Act 1963. Art. 9(3) of the Constitution “clearly refers to Sabah and Sarawak,
both of which enjoy such a special position. The purpose of the qualification is to ensure that constitutional challenges
cannot be brought against these States in respect of their special immigration powers which may be used to control
entry from Peninsular Malaysia.”

In Malaysia, the right to freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed for all citizens by Article 10(1)(a) of the Federal
Constitution. However, this right is not absolute in nature. Article 10(2) and (4) of the Federal Constitution allows
Parliament to impose limits, if necessary, in the interest of national security, public order or morality or on issues
relating to the position of the National Language, the special status of Malays and natives of any of the states of Sabah
and Sarawak and the legitimate interest of other communities and the sovereignty of the rulers. This has led to many
laws being passed that controls our freedom of expression. The following are some of these laws:
 Sedition Act, 1948; Printing Presses and Publications Act, 1984; Official Secrets Act, 1972; Universities and University
Colleges Act, 1971; The Defamation Act 1957.

In the case of Lim Guan Eng v Public Prosecutor, This is the appeal case of Lim Guan Eng, who had been convicted for 18
months of imprisonment and fined under S 8A (1) Printing Presses and the Public Act 1984 for maliciously publishing
false news in the form of a pamphlet entitled ‘Mangsa Dipenjarakan’ Arguments by Karpal Singh: The first is whether the
words’mangsa dipenjarakan’ is synonymous with the word ‘imprisonment’. The defense counsel Mr Karpal Singh argued
that ‘detention’ was synonymous with ‘imprisonment’ looking at several dictionaries and the duration of the detention.

The judge disagreed with the above argument because he felt the other dictionaries which Mr Karpal Singh referred to
gave vague and definitions. Instead he preferred the meaning of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary which says that
prison is “penjara” The offense of publishing false news under S 8A(1) is presumed to have malicious intent and since the
judge is satisfied that no reasonable steps have been taken to rebut the presumption the accused is to be automatically
presumed to be malicious.

In Art 11, the right here includes the right to profess and practice one's religion. This includes the right to propagate
one's religion but with limitations which prevents the propagation of religion other than Islam to Muslims [Article 11(4)].
In Hjh Halimatussaadiah, the court held that the government's circular banning the wearing of the hijab by public
servants was within the scope of Article 11(5) which provides for the limitations for the right to the freedom of religion.

In Lina Joy where a born muslim female was not allowed to leave Islam. Ahmad Fairuz CJ, delivering the majority
opinion of the court, held that art. 11 required the appellant to observe the laws and practice of Islam and this apply
when it comes to exiting from the religion. The Federal Court also held that: a person professing a particular religion is
6
bound by the rules of the religion concerned, the right to profess and practice a particular religion are subject to
principles and practices determined by the religion and art. 11(1) does not confer unlimited right to do anything a
person pleases.

Art 12 stated the right in respect of education. However, the right is only subjected to the citizens. Non- citizens in
Malaysia does not have right in respect of education. In Merdeka University Berhad v Government of Malaysia, Article
12 (1) only applies to public educational institutions. In Teoh Eng Huat v Kadhi, Pasir Mas & Anor the court held that no
infant shall have the automatic right to receive instruction relating to any other religion than his own without the
permission of the guardian or parent.

Art 13 stated rights to property. However, most of the time, the aborigines are always being strike of the land. Their
lands are always acquired by the government without any compensation. Their place of living are always destroy for the
purpose of development. Since they live there for a long time, it is hard for them to go out and find a job outside. Their
resources are often come from forest and crops that they plant. Therefore, it is cruel to take their property or home
away.

Art 10, Freedom of expression

In Federal Constitution, Article 10 is a key term of Part II of the Constitution. It is part of the Fundamental Liberties that
we had mentioned before. In general, Article 10 simply means the rules, regulations, and restrictions of a Malaysian on
the freedom of speech, assembly, and association. As a citizen, we have the right to say whatever we want. We also
have the rights to assembly peacefully and form associations. However, in Article 10 (2) (a) (b) (c), Constitution had
clearly stated that the parliament has the right to impose restrictions on them.

By looking at the Federal Constitution, Malaysians do have the rights to enjoy the freedom of speech and expression as
stated in the Article 10. However, the freedom is only qualified in term of national security, public order, ethics or
morality as stated in Article 10 (2). The freedom is restricted and certain issues like the status of national language,
Malay’s special rights, the status of Islam as national religion and others that we should not question as stated in the
Federal Constitution. This means that we have the rights to say whatever we like without breaking the rules or
regulations that threaten the society and even causes any public disorder or riot. In general, the freedom of speech and
expressions in Malaysia is not absolute.

The Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 is a statute which governs the publishing and the usage of printing
presses in Malaysia. It was first introduced by the British colonial government as the Printing Ordinance of 1948 at the
beginning of the state of emergency. It is introduced in order to prevent Communist activities. This Printing Presses and
Publications Act required all newspapers and printing presses to obtain an annual publishing license from the Home
Affairs Minister. It is a criminal offense to posts or uses a printing press without a license granted by the Home Affairs
Minister. The Minister is given "absolute discretion" in the granting and revocation of licenses, and can also restrict or
ban any publications that are likely to endanger national security interest or create social unrest. 

 The Minister may at any time revoke or suspend a permit for any period he considers desirable. While Section 12(2)
mentions: (2) The Minister shall have the absolute discretion to refuse an application for a license or permit. Based on
these two provisions, our Malaysia actually has so-called democracy as the citizen is not allowed to voice out their ideas.
It is clear when the Minister is given the power to revoke or suspend any press as they think it may be necessary at any
time.

In the case of Persatuan Aliran Kesedaran Negara v. Minister of Home Affairs, Despite, in Persatuan Aliran Kesedaran
Negara v. Minister of Home Affairs12, High Court Justice Harun Hashim has asserted that the Home Affairs Minister's
actions in granting the license or permit may be subjected to judicial review. Harun quashed the decision of the Minister
to refuse Aliran, a reform group, permission to publish a Malay publication. His decision was reversed on appeal in the

7
Supreme Court, where Supreme Court Justice Ajaib Singh ruled that the amended section 12 of the Act did exclude
actions of the Home Affairs Minister from judicial review. 

The restriction freedom of expression can also be found in Defamation Act 1957. To put it in simple term, defamation
occurs when a person expresses words that may lower another person’s reputation in the eyes of the public. There are
two types of defamation in Malaysia: libel and slander. Libel is when such words are expressed in a permanent form
which is usually visible to the eye, like in a book, e-mail or picture. Slander is when such words are expressed in a
temporary form, usually when spoken or made by body movements. The law governing defamation in Malaysia is
Defamation Act 1957. 

The law of defamation functions as a restriction on a person's right to freedom of speech. The law of defamation has its
roots in the common law which existed before the enactment of the Constitution in 1965. As such, the courts must take
Article 162 of the Constitution into consideration when deciding whether the common law tort of defamation offends
the fundamental liberty of freedom of speech and expression.

The restriction of freedom of expression can be seen clearly in the case of Datuk Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim v Utusan
Melayu (M) Bhd & Anor. In this case, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim claim libel against Utusan Melayu for defamation, based
on two articles published by the defendants on the front page and 10 page of the ‘Utusan Melayu’ dated 17.1.2012. The
defamatory articles published by the defendant were supposedly based on the statement given by the plaintiff during an
interview conducted by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) on 12.1.2012. The plaintiff has pleaded that the
defamatory articles and words that have been published in the 'Utusan Malaysia' newspaper dated 17.1.2012 had
damaged his reputation as the opposition and political leader. Accordingly, the plaintiff has filed this suit against the
defendants for damages and injunction. The plaintiff therefore claims against the defendants damages.

The court held that the right to publish news report or article should not be construed as free-for-all as there is no
absolute freedom without any restriction so that the press will not be misused to defame others. The restrictions is
important to ensure that the press act professionally and be responsible and be sensitive towards an individual's
reputation and not just act as a recording machine so that it will not be used as an instrument by some unscrupulous or
by political or commercial people for their own hidden agenda or to defame an individual”.

 According to Sedition Act 1948, people are prohibited to try, to do or to makes any preparation to make other people to
do any seditious tendency. Any citizens of Malaysia are prohibited to do or to make any preparation for any illegal
activities which will destroy the peace and harmony in the country. The obvious example can be seen in 2007 HINDRAF
rally. In late 2007, several prominent members of the HINDRAF were arrested, some on charges of sedition; following an
enormous rally organized by HINDRAF in November. This activity was mainly about the status of the Hindu in Malaysia in
order to get compensation from the Government. HINDRAF activity is an illegal activity that make all the Indians to come
and argued for their rights. 

In the case of Azmi Bin Sharom, a law professor at the University Malaya, was accused of committing sedition and was
charged on September 2, 2014 for his remarks on an online news article. Sharom challenged the court over the
constitutionality of the Sedition Act because it is from the colonial era. The court later delivered a decision, considered
as a landmark verdict, that the law was constitutional.  The Attorney General decided to drop the charges against
Sharom on February 12, 2016.

For Internal Security Act 1960 (ISA)Preventive detention was first implemented in Malaya by the British in 1948 to
combat the armed insurgency of the Malayan Communist Party during the Malayan Emergency. The ISA was replaced
and repealed by the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (SOSMA) which has been passed by Parliament and
given the royal assent on 18 June 2012. The Act came into force on 31 July 2012.

8
Amensty International criticized SOSMA fails to meet international human rights standards in several key ways –
including by allowing police to detain suspects incommunicado for 48 hours, increasing the risk of torture, and by
allowing detention without charge or access to courts for up to 28 days.

The Peaceful Assembly Act (PAA) replaces Section 27 of the Police Act, which required police permits for large
gatherings. Under the new act, such permits are not necessary. Instead, organizers must give the police 10 days notice of
any planned gathering, after which the police will reply, outlining any restrictions they wish to place on the
gathering. However, the new act forbids street protest, prohibits persons under 15 from taking part in
gatherings, prohibits persons under 21 from organising them and etc.

In Chua Beng Poh v PP, 42 lawyers were charged for taking part in what was called an unlawful assembly. The High Court
ruled that public meetings or procession even if they are spontaneous, is unlawful if it takes place without a police
permit. The view taken here is that a gathering would fall under the term assembly in the statute even if there is no
intention to do so.

In Madhavan Nair v PP, the accused was charged with contravening a condition on a license under the Police Act to
make a speech which required him not to touch on the status of the national language. Chang Min Tat J held that
restriction was constitutional under Article 10(4).