Destiny

Nur Izzati Rosli Joyce Grace Azleena Khairuddin Ahmad Qayyum Zulhakimi Johan

Issue
Whether Women Solidarity is entitled to the full right

of publication under Freedom of Speech , Assembly and Association Article 10 of the Federal Constitution?

Freedom of Association
In Article 10(1)(b) provides the right of freedom to

associate to every citizen subject to clause (2),(3) and (4). This includes the right to form political parties, NGOs, club & religious groups. Freedom of association also includes the right to refuse to associate, right to dissolve an existing association and right to resign from an association. In the case of Dewan Undangan Negeri Kelantan v Nordin Salleh (1992), Supreme Court struck down an amendment to the Kelantan Constitution that required an assemblyman to vacate his seat if he defected from the party on whose ticket he had won his seat.

Permissible Restrictions
There are a few restrictions under the freedom of

association. An example :
Article 10(2)(c). Restrictions on the right to form

association in the interest of national security, public order and morality. The Socities Act 1966.
Socities Act 1966
All socities are required to register with the Registrar of

Society. The act gives a wide power to the Registrar and the Minister to refuse, cancel registration or to ban an society. Internal disputes within the society are required to be

Application (FOA)
In this situation, Woman Solidarity which is an

NGO, is registered under the Societies Act 1966. Therefore, this association is a legal association and constitutional as required under Article 10(2)(c) which provides a permissible restriction in order to maintain public order.

Freedom of speech & expression

Article 10(1)(a) provides the right to freedom of

speech and expression to every citizen subject to clause (2), (3) and (4). It is generally understood that freedom speech & expression comes in a combination of many forms :
Political, artistic & aesthetic field including

communication by mouth, signs, symbols, arts, music, films etc.

Press freedom
In Federal Constitution, there is no mention of

freedom of the press or freedom of the electronic media. However in India, there is a long line of cases that upheld the notion of freedom of speech and expression.
Bennet Coleman v Union of India (1973),freedom of

speech and expression includes the freedom of press. Romesh Thappar v Madras (1950), it was held that freedom of the press is a species of which freedom of expression is a genus. Sakal Papers v Union of India (1962), it was held that it is unconstitutional if a law seeks to peg the number of pages of a newspapers to its price or to restrict the

 In Article 10(2)(a) states that Parliament has the

power to impose certain restrictions on free speech. One of the restrictions authorized by Parliament is Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984. The Act imposes a number of prior restraints on the above activities and prescribes strong penalties.

 Political experiences of our countrys past have,

understandably, shaped the restrictions on the freedom of press. Reports on racially sensitive issues are said to have partly caused in the racial riots in Singapore and Kuala Lumpur in 1950. Therefore, it is seemingly normal that the press is kept on a tight leash. However, relaxation does take place from time to time but things re tightened again if the situations demand.

Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984

S 3(2) :

Machine, equipment or any process of printing capable of printing at a rate of 1,000 impressions per hour or more.
How to apply for a printing permit ? (s. 3)
Owners are required to apply for a license from the

Home Ministry The period of the license is only for 12 months or shorter. No permits required for the use in the ordinary course of business. (business cards, billheads etc)

 Under section 3 (3), Ministers discretion on the

grant, refusal, revocation or suspension of a license in a determination of its period is ABSOLUTE.

Judicial review is not allowed. (S. 13A) In the case of Sugumar Balakrishnan (1998), the term personal liberty includes the liberty of an individual to seek judicial review. Persatuan Aliran Kesederan Negara v Minister (1988), issues of constitutionality and abuse of power were raised but rejected summarily. The minister is not required to give the parties a prior

hearing. Ss. 13(1) & 13B. Based on section 12 (1), in granting a license, the minister also have a power to impose conditions he deems fit.
The deposit may be forfeited. Ss 10 & 12(1)

The permit cannot be assigned or transferred except

Application
In this case, Women Solidarity was a granted a

permit to publish a Newsletter by the Minister subject to a condition that it shall be for internal circulation only amongst the members of the organization. The condition set by the minister to limit the publication circulation is based on Section 12(1) of Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984. The imposition of this condition was appealed to the Minister. However the appeal was dismissed as the ministers discretion is final.

 The law is constitutionally made as it is accordance

with Article 10(2) which provides for permissible restrictions. The condition set up by the minister to limit the publication for internal circulation only is valid because the Act gives the power to the minister to impose such condition in the interest of public order. This decision cannot be questioned in court through judicial review as stated in Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984. Based on the case of Persatuan Aliran Kesederan Negara v Minister (1988), the judge held that Judicial Review can only be applied regarding the discretion of Minister subject to the principle of illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety.

 However, there is no principle of illegality,

irrationality, and procedural impropriety involved in the case of Women Solidarity and thus there can be no Judicial Review in this case. The Printing Presses and Publication Act 1984 is also valid and constitutional because under Article 4(2)(b), parliament has a discretion to make restriction regarding free speech to protect the interest of the public order.

Conclusion
The Women Solidarity is not entitled to the full right of the article 10 (1) as the article is subjected to clauses (2), (3), and (4) which confers the power to parliament to enact law or restrictions on the freedom of speech. Thus,the Women Solidarity must comply with the restrictions and not to go against them.