‡ Media or press freedom, and the freedom of expression are some of the most cherished values, values that are part of a common heritage of mankind in a democratic world. International bodies and courts have also made it very clear that freedom of expression is one of the most important human rights. Media freedom is also an actual demand of the rights to free expression of the opinion. The media plays dual roles in propagating the public as well as a channel for society to voice out opinions (AZIZUDDIN, NORHAFEZAH & SAODAH, 2003). ‡ A survey conducted by the Reporters Sans Frontiers (RSF) in October 2003 ranked Malaysia 104th in the world press freedom index, the bottom half of the 166 conutries surveyed. However, in Southeast Asia, Malaysia is ranked higher than Indonesia (110), the Phillipines (118) and Singapore (144), while falling behind Cambodia (81) and Thailand (82) (Malaysian Human Rights Report, 2003). The RSF explained that the low ranking means that the media is tightly controlled or monitored by the government, the few independent journalists are constantly harassed or imprisones, while foreign media is banned or allowed in very small doses.

‡ The freedom of expression in Malaysia is based on Article 10 in the Malaysian Federal Constitution which provides that every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression. More specifically, media freedom is one of the rights guaranteed as stated in Article 10, Clause 1 (a). However, this right is not absolute, since limitations are given in the following clause of the same Article 10, Clause 2. The imposition of some limitations is proper and necessary in the interest of maintaining order in the relationship between individuals in a State, and between those individuals and the state. (KUA, 1990). ‡ Therefore, the Malaysian legislative system has restricted media freedom through various Acts, among them the Printing Presses and Publications Act, Internal Security Act, Broadcasting Act, Imported Publication Act and Bernama Act. Other laws that curtail and control the freedom of the press include the Sedition Act and the Official Secrets Act. The Sedition Act is used to control media from broadcasting false news, provoking anger and hatred of certain races towards other races ( AZIZ, 1998). It bans any act, speech, words and publication that bring into hatred or excite dissatisfaction against the Rulers, government, rule of law, and administration of justice ( PADMAN, 2001). The media wield tremendous power in moulding public opinion and swaying the minds of the people. Their reach to the masses and the possible influence their views and reporting can have on public opinion makes them the natural target for control by those in power. (KUA, 1990). Further outlines forms of control can be taken in three ways. First, control can be exercised through the policy of a newspaper (via control of its corporate structure), control of its right to free speech and expression (through legislation) or control by regulation of its operation (through licensing or through restriction of its circulation). (KUA 1990).

Channels like RTM 1. Berita Harian. TV3 and NTV7 are under the government influence. 2001). Thus. RTM 2. The press in Malaysia has little room for independence. Commercial stations like TV3 and NTV7 provide their own news service. (JAAFAR. their ownership is closely aligned either to political godfathers in the ruling coalition or to prominent businessmen who support the leadership (Padman. 2002). a state owned and operated official information network comes under tight content control. Both Utusan Melayu and Utusan Malaysia newspapers are published under Utusan Melayu (M) Berhad. if the ruling party is strong. which is an investment company for MCA (Malaysian Chinese Association). For example. Malay Mail are under the influence of the ruling party. which has a close relationship with UMNO. and vice versa. Nanyang Siang Pau and China Press are owned by Huaren Holdings. the editor will enjoy more freedom. providing less publicity for the opposition parties. UMNO. RTM. Therefore. 2003) ‡ The control of the media in Malaysia by the ruling party is conversely proportional to its own strength. and generally acts as a mouthpiece for the government and its interests (HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT. dailies such as the News Straits Times. . but the owners too are associates of the ruling elite.‡ All the media companies that are publicly listed in Malaysia. Business Times. which itself is a natural phenomenon. The Star. these channels are regarded as the main channels to deliver governmental agenda and propaganda. thus.

The Act provides for arbitrary arrest and detention without trial for an indefinite period based on mere suspicion that one "may be likely" to commit an act deemed dangerous to national security. The scope of the act is very broad and its definition very much open to interpretations. . it is widely regarded as having acquired legal force as customary international law since its adoption in 1948 and therefore binding on all States . It provided the Home Affairs Minister. It is also considered seditious to bring into hatred or contempt the administration of justice in the country or point our errors or defects in the implementation or administration of government policies. Nevertheless. receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. It would be considered a seditious tendency to question the provisions of the Constitution dealing with language. According to the act. Malaysia as a member of the United Nation should abide by the spirit its resolution. ‡ ‡ Article 19 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) guarantees the right to freedom of expression. Subsequent amendments made to the original Act had the effect of making almost all official documents official secrets thus making it illegal for journalist to have access to them . therefore. the power to grant or withdraw a printing license or a publishing permit . The original purpose of the ISA was to counter in the Communist insurgency in the founding years of Malaysia. the act also requires foreign publication sold in the country to pay a large deposit which would be forfeited if the publishers did not appear in court to face charges of publishing materials prejudiced to the national interest . presumed guilty without trial. In addition to the power to control the domestic print. It was amended after the racial riots of 1969. The Sedition Act 1948 was enacted by the British in 1948.‡ The Printing Presses and Publication Act (PPPA) is a law that governs the printing press in Malaysia that was introduced and passed in 1984. Seditious publication would include all written or printed material. The Home Minister has the power to extend the detention for another two years. The legislature was further strengthened through an amendment in 1987 during the big political clampdown of the oppositions known as Operasi Lalang. as part of a UN General Assembly resolution is not directly binding on any States. speech. Article 19 of the UDHR. This right includes the right to hold opinions without interference and to seek. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression. the special privileges of the Malays and of the natives of Sabah and Sarawak. words or publication. citizenship. it prohibits a person from getting information that is deemed an official secret by the government for the fear that it may fall into the hands of the enemy. ‡ ‡ ‡ The Internal Security Act (ISA) 1948 is another remnant of the colonial administrations that has been conveniently retained by the government after independence. sedition can be applied to or used in respect of any act. It further allows a detainee to be held under solitary confinement for 60 days without legal counsel. however the Federal Court proclaim that the purpose of the ISA is for all forms of subversion but was more directed to communist activities which was prevailing at the time the law was enacted . The Official Secret Act (1972) is piece of legislature that hampered the working of journalists and dampened the development of investigative journalism A byproduct of the 1969 racial riots. A detainee is.

public order or morality and restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament or of any Legislative Assembly or to provide against contempt of court. defamation. Clause (2) of Article 10 states: (2) Parliament may by law impose (a) on the rights conferred by paragraph (a) of Clause (1). status. such restrictions as it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof. on the right conferred by paragraph (c) of Clause (1). public order or morality. (b) Such restrictions as it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof. such restrictions as it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof. Parliament may pass law prohibiting the questioning of any matter. friendly relations with other countries. right. (4) In imposing restrictions in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof or public order under Clause (2) (a). article 152. the right to freedom of expression is not absolute. or incitement to any offence. or public inquiry. privilege.ARTICLE NUMBER 10 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ (1)Subject to Clauses (2). 153 or 181 otherwise than in relation to the implementation thereof as may be specified in such law. sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of Part III. position. However. (3) and (4) (a) Every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression. ‡ ‡ .

His application was accepted. and only restricted when it is absolutely necessary for public safety. but stamped with seven restrictions two of which he found to be highly problematic. Abdoolcader S. any group wanting to hold an assembly or meeting or form a procession in a public area must first apply to the Officer in charge of that district. Chai Choon Hon applied on August 3rd 1984 for a license to hold a DAP solidarity dinner and lion dance in public space. the judge found that restricting the number of speakers to seven to valid. However. and the issue was taken to the Supreme Court.C. Chai Choon Hon s appeal was allowed with costs. Upon taking the issue to court. As this trial show. Chain Choon Hon appealed. This officer has the right to refuse or restrict the license if he or she feels it to be prejudicial to the interest of the security of Malaysia. such a right is easily abused especially towards rival politicians and it is important that freedom of assembly remain safeguarded. The first condition was that the number of speakers at the event must not exceed seven. The second condition was that under no means were the speeches to touch on political issues. Under Section 27 (2) of the Malaysian Police Act. the Democratic Action Party (DAP) Secretary of the Kampong Baru.CASES INVOLVED ‡ ‡ Chai Choon Hon v. The judge.J. for two reasons: 1) if the event continued after the period during which it was permitted. Kampar and Government of Malaysia (1986) In this case. the police had the means to deal with the infringement of timeframe. Allowing for more than seven speakers might stretch the event well past the licensed time of 11:30pm. the trial judge ruled that the condition restricting speeches from touching on political issues were unreasonable and violated freedom of speech. The Officer to whom Chai Choon Hon made the application (named as the first respondent in the case) told the court that limiting the number of speakers was due to time restrictions. ‡ ‡ . Malim Nawar branch. and 2) the officer based the number restriction on assumptions (chiefly that each speaker would talk for 30 minutes). found this to be unjustified. Ketua Polis Daerah. This is an important case because it means that the government s power to regulate meetings and events is not absolute.

However the judge again disagreed with this contention saying the issue of national security should come first. Although the counsel for the appellant accepted that the police had power to regulate conduct of the licensee. Judge Chang Min Tat. charged with reference to sensitive issue by questioning the requirement to pass the national language paper in order to determine whether a student gets a General Certificate after the Malaysian Certificate Examination.C. they must consider their actions in light of the interests of society at large which the counsel contended the police failed to consider. The counsel argued that only Parliament has a right to impose restrictions on freedom of speech.P. Karpal Singh contended that the appellants should be allowed to determine for him what he should speak on and that he would do so at his own peril. This shifting of the burden of proof to the prosecution enables greater application of the freedom of speech. While the acknowledging that wording of (2) of Article 10 was broad. The issue here is that what is defined as within the limits of the freedom of speech is not clearly understood. ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ . The appellants appeal was unsuccessful as the judge ruled that the OCPD has the power to impose condition 14. The appellants were. The judge further cites the reasons why the Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance 45 was passed (the conventional rhetoric of the judges) to limit the right of the freedom of speech afforded because of the effects of the racial riots in 1969.‡ ‡ Madhavan Nair & Anor v Public Prosecutor (1975) The case discusses the validity of the condition imposed on license of a public meeting and whether a ban on reference to sensitive issue is infringing right of speech. he ruled that it is not within the competency of the courts to question the necessity or expediency of the legislative provision. even after being issued a license by the police officer to hold a public meeting.(3)and (4) of Article 10 of the Federal Constitution. It must be noted that a statute cannot encompass everything and it is up to the judge to interpret liberally or conservatively. it is beyond their power to impose restrictions beyond administrative and logistics matters. The appellant s counsel Karpal Singh argued that once the police allowed the issuance of license for assembly.D had the right to impose restrictions on the licensee within reason. explained that an attack on the enforcement of the restrictions can only succeed if the condition itself is seen as an infringement on the freedom of speech within limits set on this fundamental right in clauses (2). The dispute centered on whether Condition 14 of the license can be exercised by the police officer in charge under Section 27 of the Police Act. The senior federal counsel rebutted the argument explaining that the power to impose restrictions was a delegated power under S 27(1) of the Police Act therefore the O. Finally.

The question on the draft judgment which precluded the subsequent handing down of a judgment was disputed in court because the draft judgment was not considered as the actual judgment and so there was real likelihood of a miscarriage of justice. The judge further explained the fact that the 16 year old girl was kept in protective custody with the written consent of her father under S 8(4) )a) of the Women and Girls Protection Act does not mean she was imprisoned. Instead he preferred the meaning of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary which says that prison is penjara . 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 . and ruled out an order for retrial. in upholding the conviction. 2) S 4 (1) (b) Sedition Act 1948 for making a speech which contained seditious words regarding the non-prosecution of an alleged rape case involving Tan Sri Rahim Thamby Chik. The defense counsel Mr Karpal Singh argued that detention was synonymous with imprisonment looking at several dictionaries and the duration of the detention. acknowledged that the draft judgment is not the actual judgment but disagreed there was a likelihood of miscarriage of justice. Among the main issues which this case discussed: The first is whether the words mangsa dipenjarakan is synonymous with the word imprisonment .‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ Cases in point Lim Guan Eng v Public Prosecutor (1998) This is the appeal case of Lim Guan Eng. The Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 (PPPA) . Zakaria Yatim FCJ. The judge disagreed with the above argument because he felt the other dictionaries which Mr Karpal Singh referred to gave vague and definitions.

as well as citing case Inspector-General of Police & Anor v Lee Kim Hoong (1979). Mohd Noor considered the evidence unsatisfactory. which states that the protection will not be accorded to anyone charged under the Sedition Act. Karpal Singh also contested the evidence used to convict Lim Guan Eng. the judge found that the fine imposed by the High Court judge was grossly inadequate in view of the seriousness of the offense and the requirement of deterrence. The present judge upheld the decision. . stating that the trial judge is correct in his judgment that the statement of Kpl Stanley Liew were corroborated by two other police officer. ruled for a sentence of 18 months for each charge. The trial judge considered that Yew Kok Kee s statement was biased and weak. as uncorroborated since he dismissed the evidence of Mr Yew Kok Kee. He raised the consequences it had on the freedom of speech in Parliament protected under Article 63(1) and (2). The judge however validated the earlier decision to use the evidence by drawing in Article 63(4). a DAP member who denied that the appellant uttered the words contained in the second charge. He objected the fact that the appellant was called to defend for the second charge despite the trial judge. FCJ Zakaria Yatim however upheld the decision and considered that the trial judge never used the word unsatisfactory and was in the opinion that the appellant had possibly attempted to confuse the court. Zakaria Budin and Inspector Lok Yoke Choy Lastly. Mr Karpal Singh also protested the use the Record of Parliamentary Debates of the House of Representatives as admissible evidence to ascertain whether the appellant had taken reasonable measures in Parliament to verify the truth of the words complained of. which was the statement of Kpl Stanley Liew.‡ ‡ 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. Karpal Singh also raised issue with the evidences of the prosecution.

if the magazine publishes undesirable material. 1987). In November 1986.1990)It was held that unless it can be clearly established that the Minister of Home affairs in any way exercised his discretion wrongfully. (HARUN J.‡ 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. and he had no good reasons in refusing Aliran s application after all. a three panel bench overturned the decision following the Ministry s appeal. But their application was rejected without any given reason. Sedition Act 1972 and the Penal Code. it is not unfettered. Aliran applied for an order of Certiorari to have the High Court quash the minister s decision and an order of mandamus directing the Minister to hear and determine the application for the permit according to law. In 1987 Aliran brought the matter to the High Court for a judicial review of the Minister s absolute discretion in granting permit. ‡ However in 1990. dishonestly or in bad faith. the Persatuan Aliran Kebangsaan (Aliran) applied for a permit to publish a Bahasa Malaysia version of their magazine. quashing the Ministry s rejection of a permit for publication. the High Court cannot question the minister s discretion. unfairly. (ABDUL HAMID LP. MOHAMED YUSOFF. . AJAIB SINGH SCJJ. The judge asserted that the minister s discretion is limited to protecting the public interest. Seruan Aliran in addition to its English monthly publication Aliran Monthly. The minister s discretion is absolute. The minister of Home Affairs has absolute discretion and there is no evidence showing he acted with any impropriety nor his action was prejudiced bias or in bad faith. the publisher and editor are subject to laws like the OSA 1972.

Raja Petra posted the article titled µLet¶s send the Altantuya murderers to hell¶ on his blog. Just to make a remark that Raja Petra. Abdul Rashid is also being detained for alleging in his blog business connections between the force and triad society. apart from being charged under the Sedition Act. Also present were DAP leaders Lim Kit Siang and Ronnie Liu as well as Lembah Pantai MP Nurul Izzah Anwar. Najib subsequently issued a denial through his press secretary Tengku Sariffuddin Tengku Ahmad. a Mongolian national. Abdul Rashid made a posting in his blog telling his readers that he is not satisfied being arrested as his arrest was not due to just cause but due to his ³itchy hand´. and the word ³Malaysia´ for ³Israel´. the 2nd blogger who was arrested under Seditions Act in Malaysia is Abdul Rashid Abu Bakar. the jawi script of ³Allah´ and ³Muhammad´ for ³C4 (the explosive used in the murder of the Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu). he was later also being charged for criminal defamation on 17 July 2008 over the statutory declaration made in relation to the Mongolian murder case.´ he said. whose blog is Penarik Beca (trishaw peddler). Raja Petra claimed trial to the charge. Raja Petra could be jailed for a maximum of three years and/or face a fine of up to RM5. Abdul Rashid ³was detained for publishing in his blog a digitally manipulated image of the police insignia. a Malaysian blogger.´ he added. If found guilty. On April 25. News about Raja Petra¶s case spread like a wild fire last night and this morning a large crowd had gathered at the court complex to show support for him.The officer did not specify when and whether or not Abdul Rashid will be formally charged.000. They are going to find ways and excuses to charge me but these are stupid excuses. In addition to this charge. On 12 August 2008. we will show that there is no evidence against me. ‡ . whereas Rosmah has also denied the allegations against her. Malaysia Today news portal webmaster Raja Petra Kamaruddin was charged with sedition at the Petaling Jaya Sessions Court over an article which he wrote in his website. Abdul Rashid was arrested late in the evening on 7 August 2008 in his home. The article allegedly implied that Deputy Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak and his wife were involved in the killing of a young Mongolian woman. The posting implicated Najib and his wife Rosmah Mansor in the high-profile case. ³I knew this was coming. ³Once they charge me. Raja Petra said that he was a victim of political persecution. Raja Petra was called in by the police to have his statement recorded over an Internet about pertaining to the murder case of Altantuya Shaariibuu. Abdul Rashid Abu Bakar. He was charged under Section 4(1)(c) of the Sedition Act for publishing seditious article on April 25 on Malaysia Today. Syed Azidi Syed Aziz.The Sedition Act 1948 ‡ ‡ Raja Petra Kamaruddin . He said he has no regret for the content that his posted but he is regretted for lampooning the police logo. deemed to be ³insulting´ to the police force. Based on the press realease from the Centre for Independent Journalism. Included in Abdul Rashid¶s version were modifications substituting the head of a tiger for that of a dog. The chargesheet also highlighted nine paragraphs of the article which was titled ´Let¶s send the Altantuya murderers to hell´ as seditious. Malaysia Today. Deputy Public Prosecutor Nordin Hassan is prosecuting while Raja Petra was represented by a team of six lawyers led by Karpal Singh. After Raja Petra.

The judge disagreed explaining that the Constitution is framed to allow far reaching powers to the Yang di Pertuan Agong during times of emergency. vice-chairman of the DAP Penang branch and others were charged of the offence of sedition under S 4(1) (b) of the Sedition Act 1948. is that the accused have actually spoken the words. S 2 and S 3 (1). in which he accused the Alliance government of practicing on the ethnic based policy. the judge Raja Azlan Shah found the defendant guilty for having uttered seditious words which came within the Sedition Act 1948 S 4(1). the judge found them guilty based on evidence of knowledge and awareness of the alleged incident. Sir Dingle Foot. tumult or public disorder. Each of the accused was fined RM2000 in default of six months imprisonment. the judge s reasoning took into account that the Yang di Pertuan Agong during the racial riots in 1969 promulgated the Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance No 45 where certain sections of the Sedition Act 1948 were amended to regulate inflammatory speech. What the prosecution has to prove.The Official Secrets Act 1972 (OSA) ‡ ‡ ‡ CASES IN POINT Public Prosecutor v Ooi Kee Saik and Ors (1971) The defendant. counsel for the defendants argued that the amendments effected by the Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance 45 was not valid because it infringes on the legislative authority of the Federal Parliament and such powers could not have been envisioned as it centers to much power in one body. Although it has been noted by Raja Azlan Shah that the right to freedom of expression is fundamental for any democratic institution. he noted that such freedom is not an absolute right but must be within reason to maintain an effective balance. In choosing a more literal interpretation of the statute instead of a more liberal interpretation. With reference to the other defendants who were charged for sedition in publishing offensive material. Raja Azlan Shah also rejected that the intention of the speaker is essential to the offence. Ooi Kee Saik. On the grounds that the defendant uttered seditious words challenging the special position and privilege of the Malays under Article 152 and 153/181. The other defendants. in the judge s ruling. Fan Yew Teng are charged with publishing them in the Rocket and while Kok San and Lee Teck Chee were charged with printing the speech in Rocket. of which the words are likely to incite violence. ‡ ‡ ‡ . Sir Dingle Foot for the need to follow the common law principles of sedition in England. The defendant was found to have uttered seditious words in his speech. Finally. In his judgment Raja Azlan Shah rejected the argument of the lead counsel for defendants.

The judge of the first sedition trial acknowledged that Melan Abdullah s limitations in this respect. he delegated authority to trusted subordinates. Melan Abdullah s appeal was on the grounds that his responsibilities as editor-in-chief made it impossible to read and approve every article of each publication. Ong CJ. Rather.000 respectively. who presided over this appeal. V. the second appellant wrote a subheading for an editorialized report of a talk given by the Member of Parliament.‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ Melan bin Abdullah & Anor. learn and be educated in any other language. both were charged with sedition. The judge dismissed the author s appeal and said something very expressive of the current state of media freedom in Malaysia: Correct verbatim reporting. Melan Bin Abdullah. and as such never read every article of each publication every day. For the April 6. nor was it actually a call to abolish Chinese and Tamil s schools. According to his statement. The appellants are the then-editor-in-chief of the Bahasa Malaysia publication Utusan Malayu. Public Prosecutor [1971] This is a very interesting appeal that deals with sedition. he would have no hesitation in finding that Melan Abdullah should not have been charged. 1971 edition of Utusan Melayu. and the author of an editorial with the subheading Abolish Tamil or Chinese medium schools in this country (referred to in the case simply as the second appellant ). Section 6(2) of the Sedition Act provides that no one should be charged under the Act if the accused can prove that the publication of such Seditious words happened without his authority. status position or privilege laid out in Article 152. that it breached the rule prohibiting questioning the right. both were charged with sedition and given fines of $500 and $1. said that with all due respect to the previous President. Musa Hitam. In the first trial. The title he settled on was Abolish Tamil or Chinese medium schools in this country according to the MP. In November 1971. The second appellant s grounds for appeal questioned the ruling that his subheading was seditious for contravening paragraph (f) of sub-section (1) of section 3 in other words. Melan Abdullah. . Judge Ong allowed his appeal and overturned the charge against him. with a staff of over 140. 153 or 181 of the Federal Constitution. specifically the right for individuals to: use. of a seditious utterance is no excuse for publishing the same. but nevertheless concluded that by giving authority to his subordinates. Given Melan Abdullah s efforts to educate his staff on the Sedition Act and his other responsibilities as editor-in-chief. as editor-in-chief for the Melayu Group oversaw a total of 10 publications. even. he instructed his staff on the topic of relevant laws such as the sedition act and sponsored a talk on the subject to Utusan journalists. he had given them full permission to publish the subheading thereby making his exercise of due care and caution a failure. this was not necessarily representative of his talk. In this case. consent and knowledge and without any want of due care or caution on his part.

It provides for the establishment and the organization of three main branches of the government are the bicameral legislative branch called the Parliament. is the supreme law of Malaysia. Sarawak and Singapore (now independent) joined the Federation. Malaysia. the executive branch led by the Prime Minister and his Cabinet Ministers and the judicial branch headed by the Federal Court. when the States of Sabah. The Constitution establishes the Federation as a constitutional monarchy having the Yang di-Pertuan Agong as the Head of State whose roles are largely ceremonial. which consists of the House of Representatives (Dewan Rakyat) and the Senate (Dewan Negara). The Federation was initially called the Federation of Malaya (Persekutuan Tanah Melayu) and it adopted its present name.MALAYSIAN CONSTITUTION: is it a freedom to express? The Federal Constitution of Malaysia. . which came into force in 1957.

socio biologists have adapted it to societies of other social species or even to interspecies symbiotic relationships. it implies that the people give up sovereignty to a government or other authority in order to receive or maintain social order through the rule of law. It can also be thought of as an agreement by the governed on a set of rules by which they are governed. were the different races do not traditionally mingle in business nor in social life. Racial issues have always been difficult to discuss. the government and law is suddenly directly and indirectly opposing them. (SAKARIAS E. The three main parties mirror the three main ethnic groups. The social contract is part of the Malaysian constitution and simply states that non Malay Malaysians are granted citizenship and in turn grant the Malay Malaysians special privileges including easier access to public services. The nation is thus in a state of apartheid. This renders millions of people second class citizens and creates a society of racial supremacy. If you are born in Malaysia with a Chinese ethnic background you are excluded from all government educational scholarships. Politically Malaysia is also divided. Among humans. For when the open-minded reach out to create businesses and relations across the racial boundaries.SOCIAL CONTRACT Although developed for understanding human societies. not only in Malaysia. for example. In the 21st century this is an unbearable situation. 2009) .

and no one can know this until they choose to be free. Those who work to convince you otherwise are not concerned with your best interest. they are not concerned with truth. . and they are concerned with winning the argument. Freedom is not a debate.WHY FREEDOM IS NOT ABSOLUTE? ‡ To say there are no absolutes is to be hypocritical since the statement is an absolute. it is the way things are.

Article 10(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution provides that every Malaysian citizen shall have the right of free speech and expression (KUA KIA S.1990). Article 10(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution provides that every Malaysian citizen shall have the right of free speech and expression.

What happened in Memali? The authorities wanted to arrest Ibrahim a scholar who had previously appeared on national television to lecture on Islamic matters under the Internal Security Act (ISA). He resisted. Revered by the local population, the confrontation between the police and Ustaz Ibrahim's followers ended in bloodshed 14 civilians and 4 policemen dead. The government accused them of being deviant Islamic militants who wanted to overthrow the government. But this was without evidence. The police wanted to arrest Ibrahim under the ISA - as if there's no other way to detain him but to use the ISA. That means the government of that time had no valid reason to charge him in an open, free and fair trial. (ZEDECK 2009) show video

Al-Fatehah Memali On 19 November 1985, hundreds of police, under then Home Minister Tun Musa Hitam, laid siege to Memali, Kedah, on the grounds that a deviant Islamic sect, lead by one Ibrahim Mahmud, (Ibrahim Libya) had infected the village. I still remember watching RTM, when I was 8 years old, on that day. The images were so strong. They made me think: why were there heavy police deployments, with armoured vehicles, M-16s, the FRU? Were Ustaz Ibrahim Libya (as he was known) and the villagers of Memali so dangerous? Rahmat said.

1967.LANGUAGE Act 152(1) provides that Malay shall be the national language (but no person shall be prohibited or prevented from using or from teaching or leaning any other language) After merdeka there was a move towards the establishment of BM as the national and official language. On the expiry of the 10 years. parliament did make provision for the national language. . English to be the language in the high court and the federal court. in state assemblies and for official purpose for 10 years after merdeka. Art 152(2) allowed English to be used in parliament. The potential conflict between the right to use languages other than Bahasa Malaysia.

Fight for freedom of speech and expression in Malaysia constitution. . a film tells the story of a group of teenagers who fought each other along racial lines a cycle of hatred and violence further escalated by their environment and school system. It was established with the main intention of servicing the organising needs of groups involved in a whole range of issues in Malaysia today. KOMAS produce GADOH. In most cases.KOMAS a communications centre set up in August 1993 after two years of close consultation among several grassroots organisations and individuals in Malaysia. these racist sentiments start at home where young people are exposed to discriminatory attitudes towards other races.


com/en/press/releases/1825/) . the government should allow the screening. Gerakan s National Unity Bureau chief Dr Asharuddin Ahmad said that there ought to be a clear guidelines and transparent process on this. The police said that the content could create emotion of racism.gerakan4u. Is it Gadoh is too dangerous to be screen until 20-50 police arrived to seek for the reason to stop the screening? (KRIS KHAIRA 2009) On Thursday. Story in Gadoh is about the racism problem among the school students. the screening was stopped by the police. (http://www.In 2009 during Gadoh screening in Kg Buah Pala. there was no permit and this film had no permition from Finas. which has yet to obtain approval from the Control and Film Censorship division under the Home Ministry. 2 September 2010 Gerakan has urged the government in the spirit of merdeka to be more open-minded and reconsider its decision to disallow the public screening of the locally-made film Gadoh . This film was screened at several institutions in Selangor and Pulau Pinang. Pulau Pinang. as long as the contents of the movie were not extreme in nature or too violent.

The actors and crew were crying.Tanda The show had to be towed to the middle of the night Studio is already booked and when the night performances. A brilliant social commentary by RAT and directed by Nam Ron. Room air conditioning switch is locked. a play by Rumah Anak Teater (RAT). Tanda was initially staged at the Akademi Seni Kebangsaan (ASWARA) in Kuala Lumpur for three days from Feb 9 before it was unexpectedly banned . That evening. (Noorsila M 2010) . Tanda. Tanda was stop by the show running. has irked the authorities with its orgy scene.A group of 30 theatre activists staged a protest outside ASWARA on Friday afternoon. crying because they were treated so participate. demanding the government-owned Malaysian school of art to offer them a written explanation on the sudden ban. two buses carrying the audience from Johor and Pahang to see the show. and to respect their freedom of expression. There are viewers forced open shirt over the show. ASK locked gates and we are not allowed to enter after 6 pm.

It is an example of Pink Triangle Malaysia's working approach of community development for HIV/AIDS education. Kuala Lumpur. sex-workers. Bukak Api is street lingo among sex-workers to mean to have sex with a client. support and care. film students and production houses in support of the need for communityfriendly information. residents. portraying the subculture as honestly as possible. (AMIR MUHAMMAD 2000) . The film was a community effort which brought together various agencies.Bukak Api Osman Ali Bukak Api was made to heighten HIV/AIDS awareness amongst the sexworker community in Chow Kit. brothel owners.

it was banned in March 2006 for being a threat to national security. Seattle. Interviews with the current residents are juxtaposed against historical narration.Lelaki Komunis Terakhir . the last leader of the banned Communist Party of Malaya. London. . It takes the form of a travelogue through the present day towns that he lived and operated in.AMIR MUHAMMAD and RED FILMS Lelaki Komunis Terakhir is a semi-musical documentary road movie that is based on the life of Chin Peng. Buenos Aires and Toronto. from birth to national independence. Although initially passed for restricted viewing in Malaysia. Screened in over 30 international film festivals including Berlin.

The producers have since then denied that the film is wholly based on the true events. Dukun is a 2007 Malaysian horror film. I thought that was a great movie and it s such a waste that a wonderful movie like this has been banned by the Malaysian Authority. (ALLAN KOAY 2007) . The family of Mona Fandey have voiced their dissatisfaction over the content and basis of the movie after announcement of the film release. Datuk Mazlan Idris. by Mona Fandey. but that it was merely inspired by those events.DUKUN Erma Fatima DUKUN has been banned from local cinema scene. The film is loosely based on the true story of the murder of a Malaysian politician. a once mildly popular Malaysian singer in 1993.

classical Muslim jurists argue for a restrictive scope of the right to freedom of religion in Islam. among others. various punishments for apostasy. .Freedom is not absolute in RELIGIOUS in Malaysia ‡ While the right to freedom of religion is guaranteed in all religions. ‡ Once an individual becomes a Muslim. ‡ Muslims who intend to leave the Islamic faith are subject to the death penalty. Muslims who intend to renounce Islam or who have apostatized. ‡ Although the Federal Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of religion. in reality. he is prohibited from converting out of Islam. face considerable obstacles.

while the latter has an additional meaning which is one who forsakes Islam for unbelief or for another religion is called a murtadd . cause . ‡ The former signifies turning back from Islam to another religion or to unbelief. ‡ The Arabic equivalent term for apostasy is ridda and irtidad . .APOSTASY ‡ Apostasy = denotes abandonment of one s religious faith. party.

to some extent. . ‡ Article 3(1) appears. Federal law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam. to reiterate the rights protected under Article 11(1) and also to reaffirm the supremacy of the position of Islam under the Federal Constitution.The Special Position of Islam in Federal Constitution ‡ State law and in respect of the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur. Labuan and Putrajaya.

. ‡ though some legal commentators agree to the higher position given to Islam. ‡ Islam seems to be placed beyond other religions in the Federation. it was otherwise decided in Che Omar bin Che Soh v Public Prosecutor.‡ The interpretation on the position of Islam is very crucial.

Muar. . In his case. there are lots of Malay people has been baptized. and he finally free from the charge. Until the date that he was been arrested. he claimed that the Home Minister trapped him into ISA detention because of spreading the Christian though while he was born as a Muslim.CASES Jamaluddin @ Jeshua Othman (1987) Jeshua from Jalan Daud. Johor was the person who started spreading the Christianity throughout Malaysia after been hiding for quit sometimes in church. He has been using the freedom of religion as a reason to unlock himself from ISA.

Jamaluddin Othman name as one of the apostasy in the book Freedom of Religion In Malaysia . page 42. .

Hartina Kamaruddin. 1996. 1995. Perak has been apostasy because she followed her husband which is an Indian name Rajeswaran. . She even changed her name to Nivashiny Rajeswaran and their letter of wedding registration date March 24. 1996 Hartina originally from Kampar. She had shown all documents which contain that she is not practicing Islam anymore to her family at September 1.

Nor Aisyah Bokhari. Malaysian has been surprised again with another apostasy case by Nor Aisyah Bokhari from Pontian. and they got married. Islam and daughter of an Imam and she able to remember Surah Yassin. She was really obeyed to her religion. . 1997 During this year. She ran with her husband and had been apostasies due to obey to her husband. a Chinese. Nor Aisyah was graduated Diploma in Banking from ITM and worked in a bank in Jalan Ampang. Johor. She ran with her husband.

page 51 .Nor Aishah Bokhari name in the list of apostasy Muslims in the book of Freedom of Religion In Malaysia .

while the mother is Kalthum binti Omar which both of them are Malays and practicing Islam. 1998 Azlina Jailani is a Malay girl who apostasy and changed her name into Lina Joy. she said she wanted to marry an Indian guy who is Christian. She has a baptized certificate from the Our Lady Fatima baptize church in Brickfields. . In the year of 2000. Azlina confessed that she was not practice Islam since she was born.Azlina Jailani. Her father name is Jailani bin Sharif.

2001 A Malaysian woman who was born a Muslim but converted to Christianity took the government to court on Wednesday for ruling she needs permission from an Islamic court before removing her original religion from her identity card. says the country's constitution guarantees freedom of religion and should therefore allow her to leave Islam if she wishes. The woman. whose request for anonymity highlights the sensitivity of the issue in Malaysia. and her boyfriend received death threats. A few years ago a Malay woman was "kidnapped" by her parents after it was reported that she had become a Christian. But lawyers defending the government at the High Court in Kuala Lumpur say that the freedom is not absolute and should be subject to other sections of the constitution like one allowing religious groups to manage their own affairs. lawyers said. .April 18. The case highlights growing tension in this multi-cultural nation between traditional Islam and a more liberal approach to religion that stresses the freedom to choose.

States have enacted laws whereby apostates are subject to punishment: Pahang: Fine.Law of Apostasy in Malaysia ‡ There are three approaches taken by the states: 1. with any intent whatsoever. . Any Muslim who states that he has ceased to be a Muslim. Section 185. imprisonment or whipping. and on conviction shall be liable to a fine not exceeding five thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both and to whipping of not more than six strokes . commits an offence. whether orally. in writing or in any other manner whatsoever. Pahang made apostasy an offence in its Administration of the Religion of Islam and the Malay Custom Enactment of 1982 (Amended 1989).

shall be considered as insulting the religion of Islam.Any Muslim who by his word or conduct whatsoever intentionally claims to cease to profess the religion of Islam or declares himself to be non-Muslim.‡ Perak: Section13 (Perak Islamic Criminal Law Enactment of 1992) . . and shall on conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding three thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or both .

whereby Muslims who intend to leave the Islamic faith must undergo a counseling process for repentance purposes. Muslims who intend to renounce Islam are detained at the Islamic rehabilitation centre for counseling purposes to keep their Islamic faith. the writer is of the view that the law of apostasy must be standardized and uniformed. Melaka and Sabah. . Terengganu. In the states of Sabah. Perak. Provisions on punishment and mandatory detention at the Islamic rehabilitation centre for apostasy should be reviewed. Given the provisions of Articles 11(1) and 3(1) of the Federal Constitution. This can be seen in the states of Pahang.CONCLUSION ‡ Although Article 11(1) of the Federal Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of religion. It seems that the Negeri Sembilan s law will be a good model for adoption. Other states are silent on the provision of apostasy. Kelantan and Malacca. it seems that some states have penalized Muslims who renounced Islam.

but these privileges have been recorded in the Federation of Malaya Agreement 1948. But the post as Prime Minister. Chief Ministers. However. ‡ The Yang Di-Pertuan Agong is not a privilege of the Malays but it will be held by the Malays until whenever.Special Privileges of Bumiputra ‡ Everyone in Malaysia have the rights and the same obligation. Special privileges of Malay and Bumiputra are not the new rule. . These rights will be observed except when the constitution was changed or violated. Ministers and Governors General can be held by any other nation other than the Malays as long as he was born in the Federation of Malaysia. the Malay and Bumiputra people have their special privileges compared with other races in Malaysia. and these agreements have been adopted in the Malay states which are not associated before the war.

Land owned by non-Malays should not be taken for the purpose of the Malays. ‡ Economic Assistance Rules should be made to enable the Malays get licenses or permissions to allow them to carry out its activities and other economic activities. Yang Di-Pertuan Agong should listen to the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The State Government may open up land for the Malays and the special conditions of the State Government has allocated land for the public opening of a similar area of land for the Malays cannot exceed the land area of the public. Special rights of Malays were under the protection of the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong. ‡ Position in Government Positions in the Government of the Federated Malay States must be provided at a certain ratio to the Malays and non Malays. . ‡ Provision of Scholarships Provision of scholarships or grants a lot more to the Malay students from non-Malay students.Special Privileges of Malays ‡ Land for Malays The right to the land of the Malays gets the truth by the State (as the opening of the land is under-regulated State control). and all the new changes to the special rights of Malays are based on the consent of the Malay Rulers. Special rights of Malays in the Malay states were guaranteed other than special rights of Malays in the Constitution.

A basket of government guaranteed and run mutual funds are available for purchase by Bumiputra buyers only. MSC status companies listed on MESDAQ. ‡ Approved Permits (APs) for automobiles preferentially allow Bumiputra to import vehicles.POLICY ‡ Companies listed on the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange (Bursa Saham Kuala Lumpur) must find Bumiputras to take up a minimum 30% of equity to satisfy listing requirements. Malaysia's latest stock exchange. ‡ A certain percentage of housing in any development has to be sold to Bumiputra owners. Many government tendered projects require that companies submitting tenders be bumiputra owned. . modelled on the NASDAQ and other 'tech' stock exchanges are not subject to this requirement. Housing developers are required to provide a minimum 7% discount to Bumiputra buyers of these lots. ‡ This was demonstrated in 2004 when Non-Bumiputra students who scored 5As in the STPM (the highest possible grade) were denied admission to their first choice of study in public universities while Bumiputra students with lesser grades were nonetheless admitted. APs were originally created to allow Bumiputra participation in the automotive industry since they were issued to companies with at least 70% Bumiputra ownership. Automotive companies wishing to bring in cars need to have an AP to do so.

The government also argues that the legal and economic advantages are necessary for Malaysia to reduce ethnic conflict. 1969. this is considered unfair by many. in particular.CONTROVERSY ‡ The Bumiputra laws stand out as an unusual public policy where preferential actions benefit the majority race of a country. As their settlement predates that of the Malays. As such. various groups including SUHAKAM. was spurred by large racial riots on May 13. the Malaysian Commission of Human Rights have called for the government to recognise Orang Asli as Bumiputra. and some argue that the advantages afforded to Bumiputras border on outright racism. especially as they are also much worse off than the Malays. Other than that. ‡ Another controversial aspect is that the Orang Asli of peninsular Malaysia is not considered Bumiputra under the Federal constitution. Orang Asli also lost their privileges. . The NEP.

their own canteen and buses. democratic and fully in charge of the administration of all students activities in the campus.History of Student Union·s Freedom in Malaysia ‡ In the era of 60 s and 70 s. . the students in UM had their own student union. They had their own building in the campus. the students had a Student Union that was really free. there was only one University in 60 s that is University of Malaya (UM). In Malaysia. They had their own constitution which was written by them and amended via the AGM in the Student Parliament. they managed and runned some of the transportation system in the campus. which was called UMSU (University of Malaya Student Union) or Kesatuan Mahasiswa Universiti Malaya. In 60 s. Through UMSU. Campus election was held to elect the student council in the union. independent.

Home Ministry Of Higher Education 2008) .University and Colleges Act 1971 (AUKU) ‡ University and Colleges Act 1971 (AUKU) is an Act enacted by the government that is allowed by the king on 27 April 1971. It also represents an act partly under the authority of the Ministry of Higher Education to provide for the establishment. maintenance and administration of universities and colleges of public universities and for other matters connected therewith. This Act was amended in 1975 and 1995 the University and Colleges Act 1995. (Acts.

which lasted until the present is to prevent student involvement with political parties and trade unions and merger between the student bodies. maintenance and administration of University and University Colleges. Tun Dr. many provisions in it especially the new sections are inserted after the amendment in 1975 which was presented by the Minister of Education at that time. Mahathir bin Mohamad through Amendment Act A295 which clearly contradicts the principle of legal justice. the preamble to the provisions of the AUKU is to provide the establishment. After that.The Problem of AUKU ‡ At first. The main objective of the amendments brought in 1975. .

CASES ‡ Case 1: UKM s Students Charged by UUCA (AUKU) Muhammad Hilman bin Idham. The five member panel presided by deputy vice-chancellor Assoc Prof Dr Jamaluddin Mohaiadin issued a stern warning and a fine of not more than RM200 against Soh. and Azlin Shafina Mohamad Adzha. Soh. The actual amount of the fine will be decided later. They were stopped by the police and were held until the arrival of UKM s Student Affairs Department officials. who are 2nd year Political Science students from UKM. which prohibits students from participating or expressing sympathy or support for any political parties. Three students above and Wong King Chai were travelling in 2 vehicles with 3 other members of the public in Hulu Selangor to observe the by-election campaigning process on 22/4/10. who immediately accused them of participating in politics and expressing support or sympathy towards political parties who were contesting in the by-election. have been charged by the university with Section 15(5)(a) of the University & University College Act 1971 (UUCA). which he eventually lost. The decision was made during a 90-minute-long disciplinary proceeding held in the Penang-based University this afternoon. . who is also USM Chinese Language Society president and former student representative was said to have campaigned for Parti Keadilan Rakyat vice-president Tian Chua in the Batu parliamentary seat during the general election. ‡ Case 2: Soh Sook Hwa Found Guilty The disciplinary board of Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) today found 22-year-old final year journalism student Soh Sook Hwa (former student s activists) guilty of breaching university regulations over her involvement in the March general election campaigns. Muhammad Ismail bin Aminuddin.

She later told the police she could not recall how she came to be at Bangi.30am. Masturah Abu Bakar was found by family members near a mosque in Bangi early yesterday.‡ Case 3: Missing UM candidate found and turns out a winner in elections The mysterious case of the missing campus election candidate turned out all right for her in the end. . Masturah used a borrowed mobile phone to call her family. which is her hometown. After being reported missing for about 30 hours from a students apartment in Pantai Dalam here. She cast her vote in the elections and won. who picked her up at about 12. There had been an alleged SMS threat against her.

Personal Liberties Fundamental liberties are rights and freedoms that we have as human beings. Some fundamental liberties are set out in the Constitution. they are said to be guaranteed and cannot be taken away from us unless the Constitution itself allows it. publicity or public disclosure. It is also a right of an individual to seclude oneself or information about him and thereby reveal himself selectively. (Malay Mail 2011) The right to privacy is basically the right to be left alone and to live the private aspects of one s life without being subjected to unwarranted or undesired. Because these rights and freedoms are set out in the Constitution. (Foong Cheng Leong) .

the courts will order that the person is brought before the court to be released.Article 5 Right to life and personal liberty ‡ Every person has a right to life and liberty. and must be brought before a magistrate within 24 hours and cannot be detained further unless it is with the authority of the magistrate. known as a remand order . . has the right to consult and be defended by a lawyer of his/her choice (this is known as access to legal representation ). A person who is arrested or detained:must be informed as soon as possible of the grounds of the arrest. The courts have said that the right to life includes a right to livelihood and quality of life. A person s life or personal liberty cannot be taken away unless it is in accordance with law. while the right to liberty includes the right to privacy. If a person has not been detained according to law. This is known as habeas corpus.

. ‡ The tort of invasion of privacy is not recognized in Malaysia.‡ Invasion of Privacy ‡ However. This basically means that you cannot sue someone for invading your privacy. such right may not be enforced by an individual against another private individual for the infringement of rights of the private individual as constitutional law (substantive or procedural) will take no cognizance of it. is there an actionable right against someone who invaded your privacy? ‡ Notwithstanding the recognition of such right. although the right to privacy provided by the Constitution.

Cases of the personal liberties. .

31.Nasha spy camera case: Supervisor loses appeal Ahmad Bakhtiar. .Aziz. whose real name is Noraisha A. Ahmad Bakhtiar was sentenced to six months jail for each offence. guilty of two charges of trespassing into the apartment of Nasha. in Shahzan Court in Jalan Nipah off Jalan Ampang and intruding upon her privacy by installing a closed-circuit camera between April and July in 2002.

.Chua Soi Lek s sex video hearing is on The MCA disciplinary committee will proceed with the hearing of party deputy president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek s sex DVD case.

the doctor had taken picture of the Plaintiff s anus during a medical procedure without informing the Plaintiff. . Lim Teik Man & Anor the first reported Malaysian case that recognizes the invasion of privacy as an actionable tort.Lee Ewe Poh and Dr.

that were distributed through the Internet which resulted in her decision to tender her resignation immediately.Elizabeth's wong issue semi-nude photographs of Bukit Lanjan assembly woman. Elizabeth Wong. .

It affords respect for one aspect of an individual s privacy. in Malaysia. In this case. . MGN Limited [2004] UKHL 22.Misuse of Private Information The recognition of right to privacy in Sivarasa s case may be a stepping stone to the expansion of the tort of breach of confidence to include "misuse of private information". this tort protects information that is "private". Basically. the House of Lords held that the publication of articles by the Mirror newspaper regarding well known model Naomi Campbell s attendance at Narcotics Anonymous meetings and her efforts to overcome her addiction to drink and drugs was a misuse of private information. a term coined by Lord Nicholls in the House of Lords case of Campbell v.

With such torts.Closing If the tort of invasion of privacy or misuse of private information is recognized in Malaysia. this may bridge the gaps in the Malaysian Personal Data Protection Act 2010. this may be used as a remedy against those who had breached the Malaysian Personal Data Protection Act 2010 (which is not in force yet). . The present Personal Data Protection Act 2010 does not provide for damages to data subjects for the breach of the said Act unlike the UK Data Protection Act 1988.

Authorities right to conduct searches such as strip searches or search of a premise or vehicle. It may. and The position of the admissibility in Court proceedings of illegally obtained evidence which infringes an individual s right to privacy . Details of relationships such as intimate details of partners including intimate pictures.The effect of the recognition of the privacy rights in Malaysia is far reaching. affect the following: Employees rights especially when it comes to employee monitoring. Rights of public figures such as politicians and celebrities. The right of the media to report news regarding individuals. Internet users rights such as the right to remain anonymous (note: bloggers have problem claiming anonymity pursuant to the case of The Author of a Blog v Times Newspapers Limited [2009] EWHC 1358 (QB) where the UK Court held that blogging is a public activity). in no particular order.

Recommendation .

hoped that such a perspective may add in a small way to our understanding of the basis for the restrictions imposed and. .The issue of freedom of speech will never disappear in Malaysia s political agenda so long as unreasonable restrictions exist. to uncover the way forward to a less trammeled future for free speech in Malaysia.

and if ever the state decides it won't allow you to exist what is not absolute is that you will stand and fight for your God given rights. If you stand and fight and do not prevail. .Rights and freedom are not absolute and self evident. You exist by right not because the state allowed you to. others will because you stood and fought for truth and justice. or if you do fight you will prevail.

Article 10 of the Federal Constitution provides that every Malaysian citizen shall have the right of free speech and expression. .

threefold.The purpose of this paper is. Firstly. This will include an examination of some key historical factors that may have exerted some measure of influence over the principle of free speech in Malaysia. therefore. . it seeks to examine the basis for the constitutional restrictions imposed on free speech in clauses 2 and 4 in Article 10 of the Federal Constitution.

Islamic juristic thinking and international human rights principles may have on the principle of free speech in Malaysia. Thirdly. . the role of the Legislature and the Judiciary in relation to the issue of free speech is addressed. the question.Secondly. is considered. as to whether any salutary influences that constitutional development in neighboring ASEAN countries.

and no one can know this until they choose to be free.Freedom is not a debate. it is the way things are. .


Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful