May it please Yang Arif, I am Nur Qistina Aisyah Binti Mohd Nazaro.

I appear as the co counsel

on behalf of the plaintiff. My learned leader has already addressed Yang Arif on the first and
second ground of appeal.

Therefore, I will now address Yang Arif on the third ground of appeal in which the Appellant
have the rights to practice freedom of speech and expressions in accordance with Article 10 of
the Federal Constitution Malaysia and the restrictions to the freedom were unreasonable.

In addressing this ground, there are three points that I will address which are:

1. Firstly, Espada Daily has the right to criticize the actions of the respondent based on
Article 10 of the Federal Constitution.

2. Secondly, the Respondent has raised doubts about his own credibility as a member of
parliament through a video recording showing himself with Rokiah in front of the hotel
room.

3. And lastly, the respondent's claim that Daria News has tarnished his reputation by
spreading his video with Rokiah was unreasonable

Yang Arif,

For my first point of my submission, I would like to emphasizes about Article 10 of the Federal
Constitution. The Federal Constitution of Malaysia is considered as the supreme law in
Malaysia. Article 10 of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia provides for freedom of speech,
expression, assembly and association, is one of the fundamental liberties. This means,everyone
has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to
receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless
of frontiers.

Yang Arif, to delve into this issue, this can be further seen in the case of, PP v Pung Chen Coon
where the case empowers people's right to freedom of expression as enshrined in article 10 (a),
(b) and (c) of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia. In this case, It was held by the judge, Edgar
Joseph that "It would be the duty of the court to consider each impugned law separately, regard
being had to the nature of the right alleged to have been infringed"

Moreover, in this case, the rights that are being violated must be examined by the court. The
court also needs to consider what the restriction's fundamental goals are. Then the court must
consider the extent and urgency of the evil which parliament claims to remedy, not forgetting the
conditions of the time. The law must be in essence and substance, and it must be essential to
uphold those grounds in 10(2)(a), (2)(b), or (2)(c), in order for the court to be satisfied. For
instance, the court must consider whether a law passed by Parliament has anything to do with
preserving public order. The court has the authority to repeal the law if there is no relationship
between it and the intended outcome. The relationship must also be real and proximate, not
improbable or problematic.

Therefore, Yang Arif,

In relation to the case of PP v Pung Chen Choon, the court should examine the reasons for the
restriction of freedom of expression contained in clause (2) (a) and (3) of article 10 of the federal
constitution of Malaysia. In the present situation, the appellant, Espada Daily, has shared an
article about a post made by Daria News on Oops. However, it must be emphasised that Espada
Daily is an online newspaper affiliated with the political party that opposes any reformation to
the immigration policy. Therefore, due to the act of the Respondent himself who was in the hotel
together with Rokiah, the leader of a group of immigrants from a country located in the Global
South, it should be a concern for those who oppose the entry of immigrants. The act of Aizen
also is reasonable to be criticised by the respondent Thus, Espada Daily, has the right to criticise
Aizen's actions as well as exercise the freedom of speech that is stated in Article 10 of the
Federal Constitution.

Yang Arif, I shall now move on to my second point. My second point is, the Respondent has
raised doubts about his own credibility as a member of parliament through a video recording
showing himself with Rokiah in front of the hotel room.

Yang Arif, the issue in this present situation started when the respondent claimed that the video
of himself and Rokiah in front of the hotel room has been deepfake edited by his enemies to
damage his reputation.

However, Yang Arif, the technology expert, Menos Studio, has confirmed that the video
recording was not edited as a deepfake in which deepfakes are synthetic media that have been
digitally manipulated to replace one person's likeness convincingly with Aashallow fake, as
opposed to a deepfake, is a method of manipulating media content without the use of machine
learning technology and algorithmic systems. Instead, shallow fakes utilise simple video editing
software to alter existing media content. In the present situation, Menos Studio has confirmed
that the video has been sped up at a crucial moment to show Aizen getting physical with Rokiah.
Therefore, it is unreasonable for the respondent to say that the video was recorded to tarnish his
own reputation when it was the respondent who had committed the act that raised doubts in the
first place.

Therefore, Yang Arif, this will lead to my last point which is, The respondent's claim that Daria
News has tarnished his reputation by spreading his video with Rokiah was unreasonable

The Respondent should not restrict the appellant's freedom of speech by using clause (2) under
Article 10 of the Federal Constitution to protect his own interests as a member of parliament. In
the current situation, Aizen Alawei, claimed that the act of Daria News Oops spreading the
video of him with Rokiah in front of the hotel room has resulted in his reputation as a member of
parliament being tarnished. However, the respondent cannot place the blame on Daria News
Oops because as a member of parliament, the Respondent should not do anything that could
cause defamation to himself. The respondent's actions together with Rokiah in front of the hotel
room itself have actually raised doubts on his credibility as a member of parliament.

Yang Arif,

In relation to the current situation, It can be further seen in the case of Muhammad Hilman v
Kerajaan Malaysia where the court held that parliament can no longer make restrictions that it
deems fit for the purpose of fitting within the meaning of Art10(2). It must be a reasonable
restriction. The courts have the power to examine whether the restrictions imposed are
reasonable or vice versa. Thus, in the current situation, the claim that made by the respondent
was unreasonable due to the fact that the respondent restricted the freedom of speech and
expression of the appellant using clause (2) Article 10 of the Federal Constitution is solely
intended to protect the personal interest of the respondent himself as a member of parliament.

Furthermore, it is reasonable for the people to criticize a member of parliament. This is because,
Malaysia is a democratic country where leaders are chosen through voting during elections.
Therefore, the right to freedom of expression as enshrined in article 10 of the Federal
Constitution should not have limitations especially if the limitations are intended to protect the
interests of any member of parliament.

In conclusion, we humbly hope that Clause (2) Article 10 of the Federal Constitution used by the
respondent to defend himself will be reviewed by the appellate court.

Yang Arif,

To conclude my submission for today, I shall reiterate that The appellant is not guilty under
Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 as he did not fulfill the four
elements that Section 233 caters to, he also did not fulfill the elements of such communication
are false in nature and the communication was uploaded with the intention on the part of the
appellant to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person.
In addition, we sincerely hope that the appellate court can reconsider the appellant's right to
freedom of expression as stated in Article 10 of the Federal Constitution.

This is because, if examined rationally, it is inappropriate to use clause (2) of Article 10 of the
Federal Constitution to restrict the freedom of speech and expression of the people. Furthermore,
as a democratic country, the people have the right to speak since the elected leaders are chosen
by the people of the country.

If I can no further assistance to this honorable court, I shall yield the floor to my the lead counsel
of the Respondent to proceed with their submissions. I thank the Court for its time and
indulgence.