In federal constitution, article 10 is a key terms of part 2 of the constitutions. Basically, article 10 simply means the rules, regulations and restrictions of a malaysia citizen on the freedom of speech, assembly and association. In a general perspective, we have the rights to talk what we want because we have the right to do so. However, in Article 10 (2)(a)(b)(c), constitution had clearly listed out that parliament also has the right to give certain restrictions on our freedom of speech. Although all malaysia do have the rights of the freedom of speech as stated in the article 10, the freedom is only valid if it meets certain criteria in term of national security, ethics or morality as stated in Article 10 (2). As a conclusion for the idea, we do have the rights to say anything we like assuming it does not threaten the society and even causes any public disorder or chaos. Article 10 gives Malaysians the freedom of speech as are not hampered by the government in any ways instead of absolutely guaranteeing those freedoms. In the paragraphs below, we are about to discuss some restrictions or acts that restrict the freedom of speech. For instance, defamation act 1957, sedition Act 1948 and the printing presses and publications Act 1984.
First of all, defamation act 1957 was imposed by authorities to supervise an individual from using words that may hurt another person’s reputation in the eyes of the public. We can classify this into two categories : slander and libel. If the defamatory statement is printed or spread through media to the third parties then it’s a libel. If it’s in oral form, it’s slander. Both of them are related to malicious damaging the reputation. Three elements must be satisfied in order to charge defendant under this particular act, which are the statement must be defamatory, published to the third party and must refer to the prospector him or herself. In the cases of defamation which can be used as example to justify the limit of the freedom of speech on internet would be the case of malaysia blogger Ahirudin Attan. The defendant is a blogger, mainly on journalism, mass media and politics since may 2006. NSTP had sue the blogger due to him posting defamatory statements on his blog as NSTP claims that it was libellous and were against them. They stated that the defendant’s blog contains linking to another blog called “ walked with us” where it might related to the content of the “ walk with us “ blog. The plaintiff has cited several postings to support their legal actions At last, Ahirudin lose the case. This case had been a viral scenario and people are discussing widely at that moment. Most of the people are on Ahirudin’ side. However, it again shows that even in the cyberspace, we do not have absolute freedom of speech and all of us should comply with the rules and laws imposed by the authority. Besides that, the defamation act can also seem to protect an individual from slander or libel. For example , case of MGG Pillai v Tan Sri Dato Vincent Tan Chee Yioun & other appeals (1995) 2 MLJ 493. In short, the freelance journalist MGG Pillai were found guilty due to defamatory actions against Vincent tan. Vincent tan as a successful businessman charged the journalists for damages and for intention to intentionally defame his reputation. He complained that the articles published in magazine called Malaysian industry was defamatory. Although some of the related defendants did publish an apology ( without seeking Vincent’s solicitors for approval ), but the apologies are clearly lacking of sincerity in it. Finally, the court awarded Vincent tan rm 10 million as compensation in the year 1994. In both cases, we can conclude that defamation act 1957 main purpose it to protect every Malaysians from being defame. Of course, we are given the freedom of speech and expression, but we as a responsible citizens in Malaysia should not be abusing it until causing possible harms to other individual or parties. Last but not least, defamation act 1957 does restrict the freedom of speech to a certain limit.
Then, sedition act 1948 is also one of the act that restricts or freedom of speech in Malaysia. As a short definition, sedition act 1948 is all about statements or any actions that brings detestation to stir disaffection agains government or offend feelings of ill-will between different races. Clear examples would be questions provisions in the constitution of Malaysia about citizenship, Malay language as first and national language, and also Malay privilege in Malaysia. For instance , the case that was charged under this act was Melan Bin Abdullah & anor v public prosecutor (1971) 2 MLJ 280. Utusan Melayu publishes a report with headings “ abolish Tamil or Chinese medium schools in this country “. The court had defined the heading as seditious publication which is against the act listed above. Those words and statements was also against the article 153 (1) (a) where everybody had the right to lean it use other languages and nobody should hamper it. In this particular case, it indicated everyone should think wisely and check legal issues before stating something specially to the public. The second example for this act would be lim guan eng case in 1995. Lim guan eng was jailed because of the sedition and also fake news publishing. He accused the attorney general of mishandling allegations that the chief minister which is from malacca guilt for statutory rape Malay school girl. It was a big and vital news back then which causes waves in Malaysia’s politics. Moreover, he was also charged under publishing false news under the printing presses & publications act. He was charged under sedition act because he stated that rape victim as imprisoned victim and she was held by Malaysia police without parental agreement for 10 days. Those statements had caused public anger because of the issue that underage victim is not criminal offender to be punished hence should be released and let her stay with her parents instead. At first, lim guan eng was fined rm 15,000 but the prosecutor requested a retrial due to unsatisfactory of the case’s result. At last, lim guan eng was sentenced for 18 months custody. Again, both of this cases indicate that we do not have fully access to what we can speak in the public and laws are absolute to be followed.
Finally, printing presses and publications 1984 (PPPA) is used to enhance the restrictions of the previous printing laws and covered all domestic publications ( books, pamphlets and newspaper). The punishment if an individual print, sales or distribute and possess any prohibited books will be punished up to 3 years imprisonment and or a fine of rm 20,000. For instance, the case of Irene Fernandez. This case is about charges of intentionally publishing false news relating to her documentation of sexual abuse and deny of adequate medical care to migrant worker. The allegations comprise reports of series deaths caused by several medical issues such as Beri-beri and malnutrition. In addition to that, the case of Mohd Ibrahim v public prosecutor (1963) should also be noted. He was found to have a possession of sexuality or pornography novel ( Tropic of Cancer ), which was found under the counter of his shop. He then was charged for having in his possession for purposes of sale and convicted in October 23 ,1962. In short, the act is to prevent printing presses from doing something immoral and illegal , for example , pornography, racism and other sensitive issue.
In a nutshell, freedom of speech and expression is actually a thing in Malaysia. However, there are also several acts which are listed above which limit and restrict our rights to a certain extent. It’s important for us to keep in mind that we have our rights to express but we also needs to be mindful about the laws that exits.