FREEDOM OF THE PRESS IN MALAYSIA WITH REGARDS TO MALAYSIAN CONSTITUTION

INTRODUCTION
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).

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

The Printing Presses and Publication Act (PPPA) is a law that governs the printing press in Malaysia that was introduced and passed in 1984. It provided the Home Affairs Minister, the power to grant or withdraw a printing license or a publishing permit . In addition to the power to control the domestic print, 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 . The Sedition Act 1948 was enacted by the British in 1948. It was amended after the racial riots of 1969. The scope of the act is very broad and its definition very much open to interpretations. According to the act, sedition can be applied to or used in respect of any act, speech, words or publication. Seditious publication would include all written or printed material. It would be considered a seditious tendency to question the provisions of the Constitution dealing with language, citizenship, the special privileges of the Malays and of the natives of Sabah and Sarawak. 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. 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, 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 legislature was further strengthened through an amendment in 1987 during the big political clampdown of the oppositions known as Operasi Lalang. 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 .

The Internal Security Act (ISA) 1948 is another remnant of the colonial administrations that has been conveniently retained by the government after independence. 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. A detainee is, therefore, presumed guilty without trial. It further allows a detainee to be held under solitary confinement for 60 days without legal counsel. The Home Minister has the power to extend the detention for another two years. The original purpose of the ISA was to counter in the Communist insurgency in the founding years of Malaysia, 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 . Article 19 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) guarantees the right to freedom of expression. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression. This right includes the right to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Article 19 of the UDHR, as part of a UN General Assembly resolution is not directly binding on any States. Nevertheless, it is widely regarded as having acquired legal force as customary international law since its adoption in 1948 and therefore binding on all States . Malaysia as a member of the United Nation should abide by the spirit its resolution.

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

CASES INVOLVED
Chai Choon Hon v. Ketua Polis Daerah, Kampar and Government of Malaysia (1986) In this case, the Democratic Action Party (DAP) Secretary of the Kampong Baru, Malim Nawar branch, Chai Choon Hon applied on August 3rd 1984 for a license to hold a DAP solidarity dinner and lion dance in public space. His application was accepted, but stamped with seven restrictions two of which he found to be highly problematic. 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, 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. 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. Upon taking the issue to court, the trial judge ruled that the condition restricting speeches from touching on political issues were unreasonable and violated freedom of speech. However, the judge found that restricting the number of speakers to seven to valid. Chain Choon Hon appealed, and the issue was taken to the Supreme Court. 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. Allowing for more than seven speakers might stretch the event well past the licensed time of 11:30pm. The judge, Abdoolcader S.C.J. found this to be unjustified, for two reasons: 1) if the event continued after the period during which it was permitted, the police had the means to deal with the infringement of timeframe, and 2) the officer based the number restriction on assumptions (chiefly that each speaker would talk for 30 minutes). Chai Choon Hon s appeal was allowed with costs. This is an important case because it means that the government s power to regulate meetings and events is not absolute. As this trial show, such a right is easily abused especially towards rival politicians and it is important that freedom of assembly remain safeguarded, and only restricted when it is absolutely necessary for public safety.

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. The appellants were, even after being issued a license by the police officer to hold a public meeting, 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. 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 appellant s counsel Karpal Singh argued that once the police allowed the issuance of license for assembly, it is beyond their power to impose restrictions beyond administrative and logistics matters. The counsel argued that only Parliament has a right to impose restrictions on freedom of speech. Although the counsel for the appellant accepted that the police had power to regulate conduct of the licensee, they must consider their actions in light of the interests of society at large which the counsel contended the police failed to consider. 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.C.P.D had the right to impose restrictions on the licensee within reason. Judge Chang Min Tat, 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),(3)and (4) of Article 10 of the Federal Constitution. While the acknowledging that wording of (2) of Article 10 was broad, he ruled that it is not within the competency of the courts to question the necessity or expediency of the legislative provision. The issue here is that what is defined as within the limits of the freedom of speech is not clearly understood. It must be noted that a statute cannot encompass everything and it is up to the judge to interpret liberally or conservatively. 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. Finally, 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. However the judge again disagreed with this contention saying the issue of national security should come first. The appellants appeal was unsuccessful as the judge ruled that the OCPD has the power to impose condition 14.

Cases in point 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 . 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 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. Zakaria Yatim FCJ, in upholding the conviction, acknowledged that the draft judgment is not the actual judgment but disagreed there was a likelihood of miscarriage of justice, and ruled out an order for retrial. Among the main issues which this case discussed: 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 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.

The Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 (PPPA)

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. 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. 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), which states that the protection will not be accorded to anyone charged under the Sedition Act, as well as citing case Inspector-General of Police & Anor v Lee Kim Hoong (1979). Karpal Singh also raised issue with the evidences of the prosecution. He objected the fact that the appellant was called to defend for the second charge despite the trial judge, Mohd Noor considered the evidence unsatisfactory. 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. Karpal Singh also contested the evidence used to convict Lim Guan Eng, which was the statement of Kpl Stanley Liew, as uncorroborated since he dismissed the evidence of Mr Yew Kok Kee, a DAP member who denied that the appellant uttered the words contained in the second charge. The trial judge considered that Yew Kok Kee s statement was biased and weak. 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, Zakaria Budin and Inspector Lok Yoke Choy Lastly, 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, ruled for a sentence of 18 months for each charge.

 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. In 1987 Aliran brought the matter to the High Court for a judicial review of the Minister s absolute discretion in granting permit. 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. The minister s discretion is absolute, it is not unfettered. (HARUN J. 1987). 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. However in 1990, a three panel bench overturned the decision following the Ministry s appeal. 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. (ABDUL HAMID LP, MOHAMED YUSOFF, AJAIB SINGH SCJJ.1990)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 Court cannot question the minister s discretion.

The Sedition Act 1948

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

The Official Secrets Act 1972 (OSA)

CASES IN POINT Public Prosecutor v Ooi Kee Saik and Ors (1971) The defendant, Ooi Kee Saik, 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. The defendant was found to have uttered seditious words in his speech, in which he accused the Alliance government of practicing on the ethnic based policy. The other defendants, 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. 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 judge Raja Azlan Shah found the defendant guilty for having uttered seditious words which came within the Sedition Act 1948 S 4(1), S 2 and S 3 (1). In his judgment Raja Azlan Shah rejected the argument of the lead counsel for defendants, Sir Dingle Foot for the need to follow the common law principles of sedition in England, of which the words are likely to incite violence, tumult or public disorder. Raja Azlan Shah also rejected that the intention of the speaker is essential to the offence. What the prosecution has to prove, in the judge s ruling, is that the accused have actually spoken the words. In choosing a more literal interpretation of the statute instead of a more liberal interpretation, 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. 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. With reference to the other defendants who were charged for sedition in publishing offensive material, the judge found them guilty based on evidence of knowledge and awareness of the alleged incident. Finally, Sir Dingle Foot, 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. The judge disagreed explaining that the Constitution is framed to allow far reaching powers to the Yang di Pertuan Agong during times of emergency. Each of the accused was fined RM2000 in default of six months imprisonment.

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

MALAYSIAN CONSTITUTION: is it a freedom to express?

The Federal Constitution of Malaysia, which came into force in 1957, is the supreme law of Malaysia. The Federation was initially called the Federation of Malaya (Persekutuan Tanah Melayu) and it adopted its present name, Malaysia, when the States of Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore (now independent) joined the Federation. 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. It provides for the establishment and the organization of three main branches of the government are the bicameral legislative branch called the Parliament, which consists of the House of Representatives (Dewan Rakyat) and the Senate (Dewan Negara); the executive branch led by the Prime Minister and his Cabinet Ministers and the judicial branch headed by the Federal Court.

SOCIAL CONTRACT
Although developed for understanding human societies, socio biologists have adapted it to societies of other social species or even to interspecies symbiotic relationships. Among humans, 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. Racial issues have always been difficult to discuss, not only in Malaysia. 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. 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, for example. Politically Malaysia is also divided. The three main parties mirror the three main ethnic groups. The nation is thus in a state of apartheid, were the different races do not traditionally mingle in business nor in social life. In the 21st century this is an unbearable situation. For when the open-minded reach out to create businesses and relations across the racial boundaries, the government and law is suddenly directly and indirectly opposing them. (SAKARIAS E. 2009)

WHY FREEDOM IS NOT ABSOLUTE?

To say there are no absolutes is to be hypocritical since the statement is an absolute. 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, it is the way things are, and no one can know this until they choose to be free.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN MALAYSIA

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.

MEMALI
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.

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. Art 152(2) allowed English to be used in parliament, in state assemblies and for official purpose for 10 years after merdeka. English to be the language in the high court and the federal court. On the expiry of the 10 years,1967, parliament did make provision for the national language. The potential conflict between the right to use languages other than Bahasa Malaysia.

KOMAS a communications centre set up in August 1993 after two years of close consultation among several grassroots organisations and individuals in Malaysia. It was established with the main intention of servicing the organising needs of groups involved in a whole range of issues in Malaysia today. Fight for freedom of speech and expression in Malaysia constitution. KOMAS produce GADOH, 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. In most cases, these racist sentiments start at home where young people are exposed to discriminatory attitudes towards other races.

In 2009 during Gadoh screening in Kg Buah Pala, Pulau Pinang, the screening was stopped by the police. Story in Gadoh is about the racism problem among the school students. This film was screened at several institutions in Selangor and Pulau Pinang. The police said that the content could create emotion of racism, there was no permit and this film had no permition from Finas. 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, 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 , which has yet to obtain approval from the Control and Film Censorship division under the Home Ministry. Gerakan s National Unity Bureau chief Dr Asharuddin Ahmad said that there ought to be a clear guidelines and transparent process on this, as long as the contents of the movie were not extreme in nature or too violent, the government should allow the screening. (http://www.gerakan4u.com/en/press/releases/1825/)

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

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

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

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

Freedom is not absolute in RELIGIOUS in Malaysia

While the right to freedom of religion is guaranteed in all religions, classical Muslim jurists argue for a restrictive scope of the right to freedom of religion in Islam. Muslims who intend to leave the Islamic faith are subject to the death penalty. Once an individual becomes a Muslim, he is prohibited from converting out of Islam. Although the Federal Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of religion, Muslims who intend to renounce Islam or who have apostatized, in reality, face considerable obstacles, among others, various punishments for apostasy.

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

The Special Position of Islam in Federal Constitution

State law and in respect of the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya, Federal law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam. Article 3(1) appears, to some extent, 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 interpretation on the position of Islam is very crucial. Islam seems to be placed beyond other religions in the Federation. though some legal commentators agree to the higher position given to Islam, it was otherwise decided in Che Omar bin Che Soh v Public Prosecutor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

April 18, 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. The woman, whose request for anonymity highlights the sensitivity of the issue in Malaysia, says the country's constitution guarantees freedom of religion and should therefore allow her to leave Islam if she wishes. 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. 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. A few years ago a Malay woman was "kidnapped" by her parents after it was reported that she had become a Christian, and her boyfriend received death threats, lawyers said.

Law of Apostasy in Malaysia

There are three approaches taken by the states: 1. States have enacted laws whereby apostates are subject to punishment: Pahang: Fine, imprisonment or whipping. Pahang made apostasy an offence in its Administration of the Religion of Islam and the Malay Custom Enactment of 1982 (Amended 1989). Any Muslim who states that he has ceased to be a Muslim, whether orally, in writing or in any other manner whatsoever, with any intent whatsoever, commits an offence, 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 , Section 185.

 Perak: Section13 (Perak Islamic Criminal Law Enactment of 1992) - 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, shall be considered as insulting the religion of Islam, 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 .

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

Special Privileges of Bumiputra

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

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). 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. Land owned by non-Malays should not be taken for the purpose of the Malays. 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. 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. Special rights of Malays were under the protection of the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong. Yang Di-Pertuan Agong should listen to the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 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.

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. MSC status companies listed on MESDAQ, Malaysia's latest stock exchange, modelled on the NASDAQ and other 'tech' stock exchanges are not subject to this requirement. A certain percentage of housing in any development has to be sold to Bumiputra owners. Housing developers are required to provide a minimum 7% discount to Bumiputra buyers of these lots. A basket of government guaranteed and run mutual funds are available for purchase by Bumiputra buyers only. Many government tendered projects require that companies submitting tenders be bumiputra owned. Approved Permits (APs) for automobiles preferentially allow Bumiputra to import vehicles. Automotive companies wishing to bring in cars need to have an AP to do so. APs were originally created to allow Bumiputra participation in the automotive industry since they were issued to companies with at least 70% Bumiputra ownership. 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.

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

History of Student Unions Freedom in Malaysia

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

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, Home Ministry Of Higher Education 2008)

The Problem of AUKU

At first, the preamble to the provisions of the AUKU is to provide the establishment, maintenance and administration of University and University Colleges. After that, 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, Tun Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad through Amendment Act A295 which clearly contradicts the principle of legal justice. The main objective of the amendments brought in 1975, which lasted until the present is to prevent student involvement with political parties and trade unions and merger between the student bodies.

CASES
Case 1: UKM s Students Charged by UUCA (AUKU) Muhammad Hilman bin Idham, Muhammad Ismail bin Aminuddin, and Azlin Shafina Mohamad Adzha, who are 2nd year Political Science students from UKM, have been charged by the university with Section 15(5)(a) of the University & University College Act 1971 (UUCA), 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. They were stopped by the police and were held until the arrival of UKM s Student Affairs Department officials, who immediately accused them of participating in politics and expressing support or sympathy towards political parties who were contesting in the by-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. 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. The actual amount of the fine will be decided later. The decision was made during a 90-minute-long disciplinary proceeding held in the Penang-based University this afternoon. Soh, 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, which he eventually lost.

 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 Abu Bakar was found by family members near a mosque in Bangi early yesterday. She cast her vote in the elections and won. After being reported missing for about 30 hours from a students apartment in Pantai Dalam here, Masturah used a borrowed mobile phone to call her family, who picked her up at about 12.30am. There had been an alleged SMS threat against her. She later told the police she could not recall how she came to be at Bangi, which is her hometown.

Personal Liberties Fundamental liberties are rights and freedoms that we have as human beings. Some fundamental liberties are set out in the Constitution. Because these rights and freedoms 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. (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, publicity or public disclosure. It is also a right of an individual to seclude oneself or information about him and thereby reveal himself selectively. (Foong Cheng Leong)

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

 Invasion of Privacy However, although the right to privacy provided by the Constitution, is there an actionable right against someone who invaded your privacy? Notwithstanding the recognition of such right, 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. The tort of invasion of privacy is not recognized in Malaysia. This basically means that you cannot sue someone for invading your privacy.

Cases of the personal liberties.

Nasha spy camera case: Supervisor loses appeal Ahmad Bakhtiar, 31, guilty of two charges of trespassing into the apartment of Nasha, whose real name is Noraisha A.Aziz, 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. Ahmad Bakhtiar was sentenced to six months jail for each offence.

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.

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

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

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", a term coined by Lord Nicholls in the House of Lords case of Campbell v. MGN Limited [2004] UKHL 22, in Malaysia. In this case, 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. Basically, this tort protects information that is "private". It affords respect for one aspect of an individual s privacy.

Closing If the tort of invasion of privacy or misuse of private information is recognized in Malaysia, 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. With such torts, this may bridge the gaps in the Malaysian Personal Data Protection Act 2010.

The effect of the recognition of the privacy rights in Malaysia is far reaching. It may, in no particular order, affect the following: Employees rights especially when it comes to employee monitoring; Authorities right to conduct searches such as strip searches or search of a premise or vehicle; 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); Details of relationships such as intimate details of partners including intimate pictures; The right of the media to report news regarding individuals; Rights of public figures such as politicians and celebrities; and The position of the admissibility in Court proceedings of illegally obtained evidence which infringes an individual s right to privacy

Recommendation

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

Rights and freedom are not absolute and self evident. You exist by right not because the state allowed you to, 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, or if you do fight you will prevail. If you stand and fight and do not prevail, others will because you stood and fought for truth and justice.

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

The purpose of this paper is, therefore, threefold. Firstly, 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. 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.

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

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

THE END. THANK YOU