Answer Questions 1

Freedom of speech means in first amendment of U.S Constitution is the right to

state information, ideas, and opinions free of government 1. In this case, Fahmi
Reza Mohd Zain he has been arrested for alleged violations of two Acts which is
violations of the Sedition Act 1948 [Act 15] and the Communications and
Multimedia Act 1998 [Act 588]. This is because of his act which is disrespecting
the parliament. Then, he makes a statement that he has the right to speech or
illustrate or express anything he wanted to because of freedom of speech as a
citizen in Malaysia. Hence, the issue here is whether the freedom of speech and
expression is absolute or not.

Based on the Article 10(1) (a)(b)(c) of the Federal Constitution, it stated that
Malaysia’s society has the right to speech freedomly, do assembly, and form
association freely. It means that every community in Malaysia can speak out their
thoughts and opinion freely and can make an assembly or form an association. In
Zi Publications Sdn Bhd & Anor v Jabatan Agama Islam Selangor & Ors [2020] 2
case, it stated that Article 10(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution did not give the
guarantee absolute freedom of speech and expression because it needs to be read
with other provisions that related with it for instance if the speech brings negative
impact to the parliament or religion of the federation, it is prohibited, and the
wrongdoer can be arrest.

Part II of the Federal Constitution, entitled 'Freedom of Speech, Assembly, and

Association,' legally guarantees freedom of speech in Malaysia. Article 10(1) 3
states that (a) "every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression,"
(b) "every citizen has the right to peaceful assembly without arms," and (c) "every
citizen has the right to organise associations." However, as noted in the preceding
discussion, the provisions of Article 149 of the Federal Constitution have
suspended freedom of expression. This obviously demonstrates that the
constitution contains contradictions, especially the requirements of Article 10 (1)
1
The Constitution of The United States
2
Zi Publications SDN BHD & Anor v Jabatan Agama Islam Selangor & Ors [2020] MLJU 938
3
Federal Constitution of Malaysia

3
and Article 149. Although Article 10 (1) guarantees citizens the right to free
speech and expression, Article 149 expressly limits that right 4. Internal Security
Act 1960 and Official Secrets Act 1972 Universities and University Colleges Act
1971, Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984, and Sedition Act (SA) 1948 are
the Acts that restrict freedom of speech in Malaysia.

In fact, issues related to freedom of speech are not only emphasizing on the
importance of individual rights alone. The essence of the issues that occur entirely
are stressing many aspects related such as communal rights, the defence of the
rights of citizens and others5. Furthermore, the constitution and other laws as
mentioned above contain provisions that seek to punish those who are found to be
abusing their right to free expression by expressing controversial views on issues
such as the special rights of Malays and other indigenous peoples (Bumiputera),
Islam as the national religion, the rights of immigrant races especially Chinese
and Indians to citizenship, the King's position, and the status of the Malay
language as the national language and official language.

In Fahmi Reza’s situation, he has gotten attention from Selangor’s Sultan

Sharafuddin Idris Shah that purchased a painting6 depicting Member of Parliament
in Dewan Rakyat as apes, monkey and frog. This artwork done by him to
visualize the anger and outrage of citizen as well as political protest to the
member of Dewan Rakyat. Thus, his artwork was not sufficient to be charge
under Section 233 of Communication and Multimedia Act since it was not an
offensive and threatening content as mentioned under the Act.

4
Wan Abdul Manan Wan Muda, Keadilan Sosial Dan Kebebasan Bersuara Rukun Negara Maju.
(PTS Publications & Distributors 1996).
5
Lee Kuok Tiung, Mohd Safar, Baszlee Bee Basrah. ‘Perkembangan Persuratkhabaran bahasa
Mandarin di Malaysia dan Peranannya Dalam Masyarakat Cina’ [2011]
6
Zikri Kamarulzaman, ‘Parliament of the Apes’ (Malaysiakini, 13 April 2022).
<https://www.malaysiakini.com/newsletter/617853>

3
In the case of Public Prosecutor v. Ooi Kee Saik & Ors (1971), 7 the court took a
rational approach to free expression. Under Section 4(1)(b) of the SA 8, Ooi Kee
Saik, vice chairman of the DAP Penang branch, and others were charged with
sedition. In his address, Ooi was determined to have said seditious things,
accusing the government of following an ethnic-based policy. Fan Yew Teng,
Kok San, and Lee Teck Chee, among the other defendants, were charged with
publishing them in the DAP publication Rocket and printing the speech in Rocket.
The accused was found guilty for the publish seditious tendency speech.

In another case, Public Prosecutor v. Oh Keng Seng (1977),9 the court held that a
speech stating that "the army is composed entirely of one ethnic group as a result
of the government's policy to favour that ethnic group in order to ensure political
hegemony" is clearly illegal under the SA because the speaker intentionally
incites hatred between races, contempt, or dissatisfaction with the government. On
23 June 1972, at Tampin, Negeri Sembilan, the accused, Oh Keng Seng, was
charged with seditious tendency for uttering seditious remarks in Mandarin. The
offender was fined RM2,000 and sentenced to six months in prison if he did not
pay the fine.

Conclusion

The laws of Malaysia limit freedom of expression, even though the Federal
Constitution, Part 2 Article 10 (1) guarantees freedom of speech to all Malaysians.
It demonstrates the substantial gaps between Malaysian laws and the Federal
Constitution. Many of the situations that have occurred in Malaysia that have
resulted in the question of freedom of speech have been completely avoided such
as The May 13 riots, The Teaching and Learning of Science and Mathematics in

7
PP v Ooi Kee Saik & Ors [1971] 2 MLJ 108.
8
Sedition Act 1948.
9
PP v Oh Keng Seng [1977] 2 MLJ 206.

3
English (PPSMI), Video of Negarakuku by Namawee. 10 Thus, the enjoyment for
freedom of speech and expression as Malaysia citizen is not absolute according to
the law pass by Parliament.

Biblio

Zi Publications SDN BHD & Anor v Jabatan Agama Islam Selangor & Ors
[2020] MLJU 938

Federal Constitution of Malaysia

Kamarudin Z, ‘Hak Kebebasan Bersuara:Peruntukan Undang-Undang Dan Isu

Berkaitan.’ [2013].

Kamarulzaman Z, ‘Parliament of the Apes’ (Malaysiakini, 13 April 2022).

<https://www.malaysiakini.com/newsletter/617853>

Kuok Tiung L, and others. ‘Perkembangan Persuratkhabaran bahasa Mandarin

di Malaysia dan Peranannya Dalam Masyarakat Cina’ [2011]

PP v Oh Keng Seng [1977] 2 MLJ 206

PP v Ooi Kee Saik & Ors [1971] 2 MLJ 108

Sedition Act 1948

Wan Muda, W.A.M. Keadilan Sosial Dan Kebebasan Bersuara Rukun

Negara Maju. (PTS Publications & Distributors 1996).

10
Zaharahanum Kamarudin, ‘Hak Kebebasan Bersuara:Peruntukan Undang-Undang Dan Isu
Berkaitan. [2013].