Criticism
There has been quite a debate on the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 in Malaysia. Although the law was meant to maintain genuine news stories, create a regulated press sector, and provide legal guidelines to reporters, some say that the legislation is restricting political discourse, silencing political opponents and manipulating the news delivered to consumers. [5]
The Act has been criticised for curtailing the freedom of speech in Malaysia, which is subject to any restriction Parliament may impose under Article 10 of the Constitution. In particular, it has been alleged that the Act "empowers the Minister to exercise virtually total control over the print media." [1] This criticism was intensified after a 1987 amendment to the Act established an ouster clause preventing actions of the Home Affairs Minister from being called into question by the courts. [6]
Despite this, High Court Justice Harun Hashim has asserted that the Home Affairs Minister's actions may be subjected to judicial review. In the case of Persatuan Aliran Kesedaran Negara v. Minister of Home Affairs, Harun quashed the decision of the Minister to refuse Aliran , a reform group, permission to publish a Malay publication. His decision was reversed on appeal in the Supreme Court, where Supreme Court Justice Ajaib Singh ruled that the amended section 12 of the Act did exclude actions of the Home Affairs Minister from judicial review. [7]
The constitutionality of the Act has been called into question. In Public Prosecutor v. Pung Chen Choon, it was argued that the restrictions placed by section 8(A)(1) of the Act on freedom of speech violated Article 10 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that although the Act did restrict freedom of speech, such restrictions were permitted by Articles 4(2) and 10(2) of the Constitution, and that the right to freedom of speech was not an absolute right. While the Constitution of Malaysia does allow freedom of speech and for the press, there is a very crucial limitation - The Constitution provides that freedom of speech may be restricted by legislation "in the interest of security (or) public order. [8]
Hence this means the government can enact legislation to determine the way information is disseminated by the mass media industry if the government feels that the national interest has been threatened. Supreme Court Justice Edgar Joseph stated:
The Government of this country has always recognised the important influence which the press exerts on the public mind, especially in the area of politics, and understandably, therefore, it has enacted laws which have imposed wide control over publications generally. [9]
Although Pung's counsel presented various authorities from other jurisdictions, the Supreme Court dismissed them, holding that "the Malaysian press is not as free as the press in India, England or the United States of America and cases from these jurisdictions are of little relevance." [10]
While freedom of religion is de jure symbolically enshrined in the Malaysian Constitution, it de facto faces many prohibitions and restrictions. A Malay in Malaysia must strictly be a Muslim, and they cannot convert to another religion. Islamic religious practices are determined by official Sharia law, and Muslims can be fined by the state for not fasting or refusing to pray. The country does not consider itself a secular state and that Islam is the state religion of the country, and individuals with no religious affiliation are viewed with hostility.
The Federal Constitution of Malaysia, which came into force in 1957 as the Constitution of the Federation of Malaya and was amended in 1963 to form the Constitution of Malaysia, is the supreme law of Malaysia and contains a total of 183 articles. It is a written legal document influenced by two previous documents, the Federation of Malaya Agreement 1948 and the Independence Constitution of 1957. The Federation was initially called the Federation of Malaya and it adopted its present name, Malaysia, when the states of Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore became part of the Federation. The Constitution establishes the Federation as a constitutional monarchy, having the Yang di-Pertuan Agong as the Head of State with largely ceremonial roles. It provides for the establishment and organisation of three main branches of the government: the bicameral legislative branch called the Parliament, which consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate ; the executive branch led by the Prime Minister and his Cabinet Ministers and the judicial branch headed by the Federal Court.
Parliamentary privilege is a legal immunity enjoyed by members of certain legislatures, in which legislators are granted protection against civil or criminal liability for actions done or statements made in the course of their legislative duties. It is common in countries whose constitutions are based on the Westminster system.
The Constitution of the Republic of Singapore is the supreme law of Singapore. A written constitution, the text which took effect on 9 August 1965 is derived from the Constitution of the State of Singapore 1963, provisions of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia made applicable to Singapore by the Republic of Singapore Independence Act 1965, and the Republic of Singapore Independence Act itself. The text of the Constitution is one of the legally binding sources of constitutional law in Singapore, the others being judicial interpretations of the Constitution, and certain other statutes. Non-binding sources are influences on constitutional law such as soft law, constitutional conventions, and public international law.
The Internal Security Act 1960 was a preventive detention law in force in Malaysia. The legislation was enacted after the Federation of Malaya gained independence from Britain in 1957. The ISA allows for detention without trial or criminal charges under limited, legally defined circumstances. On 15 September 2011, the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Najib Razak said that this legislation will be repealed and replaced by two new laws. The ISA was replaced and repealed by the Security Offences Act 2012 which has been passed by Parliament and given the royal assent on 18 June 2012. The Act came into force on 31 July 2012.
Operation Lalang was a major crackdown undertaken by the Royal Malaysian Police from 27 October to 20 November 1987, ostensibly to prevent the occurrence of racial riots in Malaysia. The operation saw the arrest of 106 to 119 people—political activists, opposition politicians, intellectuals, students, artists, scientists and others—who were detained without trial under the Internal Security Act (ISA). It was the second largest mass arrest in Malaysian history involving the ISA since the 13 May riots 18 years earlier. It also involved the revoking of the publishing licenses of two dailies, The Star and the Sin Chew Jit Poh and two weeklies, The Sunday Star and Watan.
Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia grants the Yang di-Pertuan Agong responsibility for "safeguard[ing] the special position of the 'Malays'(see note) and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interests of other communities" and goes on to specify ways to do this, such as establishing quotas for entry into the civil service, public scholarships and public education.
The protection of basic human rights is enshrined in Constitution of Malaysia. These include liberty of the person and prohibition of slavery and forced labour. At the national level, legislative measures that exist to prevent human rights violations and abuses can be found in acts and laws on issues that either have a human rights component or relate to certain groups of society whose rights may be at risk of being violated. Human rights groups are generally critical of the Malaysian government and the Royal Malaysia Police.
Rais bin Yatim is a Malaysian politician and lawyer who served as the 18th President of the Dewan Negara from September 2020 to June 2023, 8th Menteri Besar of Negeri Sembilan from 1978 to 1982 and the Member of Parliament (MP) for Jelebu from November 1999 to May 2013.
Liversidge v Anderson [1942] AC 206 is a landmark United Kingdom administrative law case which concerned the relationship between the courts and the state, and in particular the assistance that the judiciary should give to the executive in times of national emergency. It concerns civil liberties and the separation of powers. Both the majority and dissenting judgments in the case have been cited as persuasive precedent by various countries of the Commonwealth of Nations. However, in England itself, the courts have gradually retreated from the decision in Liversidge. It has been described as "an example of extreme judicial deference to executive decision-making, best explained by the context of wartime, and it has no authority today." It is therefore mainly notable in England for the dissent of Lord Atkin.
The Sedition Act 1948 in Malaysia is a law prohibiting discourse deemed as seditious. The act was originally enacted by the colonial authorities of British Malaya in 1948 to contain the local communist insurgence. The act criminalises speech with "seditious tendency", including that which would "bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against" the government or engender "feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races". The meaning of "seditious tendency" is defined in section 3 of the Sedition Act 1948 and in substance it is similar to the English common law definition of sedition, with modifications to suit local circumstances. The Malaysian definition includes the questioning of certain portions of the Constitution of Malaysia, namely those pertaining to the Malaysian social contract, such as Article 153, which deals with special rights for the bumiputra.
Article 10 of the Constitution of Malaysia guarantees Malaysian citizens the right to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of association. Unlike comparable provisions in constitutional law such as the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Article 10 entitles citizens to such freedoms as are not restricted by the government, instead of absolutely guaranteeing those freedoms.
Madhavan Nair & Anor. v Public Prosecutor [1975] 2 MLJ 264 is a case in Malaysian law concerning the freedom of speech, sedition, and Article 10 of the Constitution.
Loh Kooi Choon v Government of Malaysia (1977) 2 MLJ 187 is a case decided in the Federal Court of Malaysia concerning the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, and also involving the extent to which Parliament can amend the Constitution. The decision was delivered by Federal Justice Raja Azlan Shah.
Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Menteri Dalam Negeri was a 2009 legal decision by the High Court of Malaya holding that Christians do not have the constitutional right to use the word "Allah" in church newspapers. An appeals court overturned a previous ruling which granted that right. This verdict on appeal was later upheld by the Federal Court of Malaysia in 2014. However, the ruling was not followed by the High Court in another case in 2021. The government lodged an appeal, but later withdrew it.
Chng Suan Tze v. Minister for Home Affairs is a seminal case in administrative law decided by the Court of Appeal of Singapore in 1988. The Court decided the appeal in the appellants' favour on a technical ground, but considered obiter dicta the reviewability of government power in preventive detention cases under the Internal Security Act ("ISA"). The case approved the application by the court of an objective test in the review of government discretion under the ISA, stating that all power has legal limits and the rule of law demands that the courts should be able to examine the exercise of discretionary power. This was a landmark shift from the position in the 1971 High Court decision Lee Mau Seng v. Minister of Home Affairs, which had been an authority for the application of a subjective test until it was overruled by Chng Suan Tze.
Article 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, specifically Article 14(1), guarantees to Singapore citizens the rights to freedom of speech and expression, peaceful assembly without arms, and association. However, the enjoyment of these rights may be restricted by laws imposed by the Parliament of Singapore on the grounds stated in Article 14(2) of the Constitution.
Singapore has a multi-party parliamentary system of representative democracy in which the President of Singapore is the head of state and the Prime Minister of Singapore is the head of government. Executive power is vested in the President and the Cabinet. Cabinet has the general direction and control of the government and is collectively responsible to the Parliament. There are three separate branches of government: the legislature, executive and judiciary.
Chan Hiang Leng Colin v. Public Prosecutor is a 1994 judgment of the High Court of Singapore delivered by Chief Justice Yong Pung How which held that orders issued by the Government deregistering the Singapore Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses under the Societies Act and banning works published by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society ("WTBTS") under the Undesirable Publications Act did not violate the right to freedom of religion guaranteed by Article 15(1) of the Constitution of Singapore.
The Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 is the law which regulates public protests in Malaysia. According to the Barisan Nasional government, the Act allows citizens to organise and participate in assemblies peaceably and without arms, subject to restrictions deemed necessary and in the interest of public order and security.
