Freedom of speech, expression and association is regarded as one of the main core of

democracy. Without this freedom, democracy would not function properly. In Malaysia,
Article 10 of the Federal Constitution governs this said freedom. Thus, this provision protects
and create certain limitation in order to ensure that this freedom isn’t misused.

Article 10(1) of the Federal Constitution states that subject to clauses (2), (3) and (4),
every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression, all citizens have the right to
assemble peaceably and without arms, and all citizens have the right to form associations. To
further elaborate, this section is only limited to citizens only. This section also grants to all
citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression, the right to assemble peaceably and
without arms; and the right to form associations. However, Article 10(1) of the Federal
Constitution is subjected to the provisions in Article 10(2), 10(3) and 10(4) of the Federal
Constitution.

In the case of Lau Dak Kee v PP, it was stated by Mohamed Azmi J that Article 10(1)
of the Federal Constitution guarantees the rights of every citizen to freedom of speech,
assembly and association. These rights are, however, subject to any law passed by
Parliament. The ruling of this case is fundamentally known to be wrong and against the
original intent of the Reid’s commission. This commission clearly wanted and suggested that
the courts, which is also the judiciary body to a view and have the necessary stand in the laws
that restricting fundamental liberties, which includes Article 10(1) of the Federal Constitution
and not simply put into effect and agree with the legislatures on the laws that has been
passed by the Parliament. The judiciary has a wide discretion to interpret this laws. This is an
authority that should be used wisely especially when fundamental liberties of the citizens are
in question.

In the case of PP v Pung Chen Choon, Edgar Joseph Jr held that it would be the duty
of the court to consider each disputed law separately. It must be noted that it is not easy to
satisfy the requirements as laid down in this case. Thus far, there has never been any occasion
where a law has been declared unconstitutional by the courts.

Article 10 (2) of Federal Constitution states that the parliament may by law impose on
the rights conferred by paragraph (a) of Clause (1) that 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 any Legislative Assembly or to provide against contempt of court,
defamation, or incitement to any offence. Paragraph (b) of Clause (1) of Article 10 of the
Federal Constitution states that such restrictions as deems necessary or expedient in the
interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof or public order. And, paragraph
(c) of Clause (1) of Article 10 of the Federal Constitution states that 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.

It should also be known that there are many restrictions that has been imposed to the
freedom of speech in this country

This restrictions are caused as there are numerous other statutes and provisions that
has restricted the freedom of speech. As an example, the Sedition Act 1948 . This act clearly
restricts, showing hatred towards the rulers of the country as well as the government. Also,
among other grounds of restriction includes, bringing ill or hatred to administration of justice,
promoting ill will and hatred between races and many others. Sedition Act 1948 only needs
actus reus to convict an individual unlike in criminal offences where it needs both mens rea
and actus reus. Sedition Act 1948 is also regardless of whether the speech made by the said
individual is correct or not.

In the case of Melan Bin Abdullah , the editor of a newspaper being charged for
sedition calling for abolishment of vernacular schools. It was held that the accused was guilty
for sedition, but he was then acquitted because established a defence of non-negligent
publication. In the case of Mark Koding v Public Prosecutor, Mark Koding, the member of
Parliament from Sabah was found guilty in suggesting seditious amendments to Article 152
saying that the Chinese and Tamil vernacular school should be abolished and the usage of
Chinese and Tamil language on the road sign should be restricted. The contents that Mark
Koding suggested were seen as seditious and offending. In such a homogeneous democracies
society like Malaysia, the racial and language issue should be take note. Too much freedom
of speech and expression in discussing those issues would only easily stir up the
dissatisfaction of other ethnics in our country and might cause another race riot in Malaysia
again.

Moving on, in the case of Mat Suhaimi bin Shafiei v Malaysia, The Malaysian
Federal Court of Appeal declared a section of the Sedition Act unconstitutional because it
criminalized publication of seditious material without requiring the person charged to possess
the requisite criminal intent (mens rea). The Court reasoned that virtually every crime
required a proof of criminal intent, and that without it the law in question created a strict
liability crime, which disproportionately restricted freedom of expression enshrined in
Malaysia’s Federal Constitution.

Another statute that provides restriction on freedom of speech includes the Section
211(1) of the Communication and Multimedia Act 1998. This provision clearly states that no
content applications service provider, or other person using a content applications service,
shall provide content which is indecent, obscene, false, menacing, or offensive in character
with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass any person. Also, Section 233(1) of the
Communication and Multimedia Act 1998 provides restrictions on freedom of speech too. A
person who by means of any network facilities or network service or applications service
knowingly makes, creates or solicits; and initiates the transmission of, any comment, request,
suggestion or other communication which is obscene, indecent, false, menacing or offensive
in character with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass another person; or initiates a
communication using any applications service, whether continuously, repeatedly or
otherwise, during which communication may or may not ensue, with or without disclosing
his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass any person at any number or
electronic address, commits an offence.

Not forgetting, Section 505(b) of the Penal Code does provide certain restriction on
freedom of speech too. This particular provision mentions that whoever makes, publishes or
circulates any statement, rumour or report with intent to cause, or which his likely to cause,
fear or alarm to the public, or to any section of the public where by any person may be
induced to commit an offence against the state or against the public tranquillity shall be
punished with imprisonment which may extend to two years or with fine or with both.

Lastly, the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 also restricts the freedom of
speech. As per this act, one must obtain license to publish any sort of publishment from the
Home Ministry . The ministry can refuse license, or revoke it as per his discretion at any
time. Also, the license that is given by the ministry is not renewable without the discretion of
the court. In the case of Persatuan Aliran Kesedaran Negara v Minister of Home Affairs, a
reform group was refused a license to publish their monthly journal. This monthly journal
was in the national language which is Bahasa Malaysia. However, the court held that the
minister’s decision was unreasonable. But, the Supreme Court upheld the minister’s decision
on appeal. The minister later did grant the license to the reform group.
 Restriction to freedom of speech may be seem to be important in one way. This aid
way here is in the matters of contempt of court. If there is no restriction in the freedom of
speech, any individual would be able to say anything as they deem appropriate, which would
not necessarily be appropriate. Restriction in freedom of speech is extremely vital in the
matters of court as it would establish boundaries between freedom of speech and criticizing
administration of justice. Criticizing the justice system is never acceptable.

In the case of Lim Kit Siang v Dato Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, the Prime Minister
was subjected to contempt of court by the leader of the opposition. The Prime Minister was
said to have criticised the courts for interpreting statutes which are contrary to the intention of
the Parliament. However, it was held by the court that the Prime Minister’s remarks did not
constitute to the contempt of court. It was an inflection of of executives frustration.

In the case of AG v Manjeet Singh Dhillon, the accused who was the Secretary of the
Bar Council had filed an affidavit in support of the Bar's contempt. It was an application
against the Lord President of that time. The court held that the accused had committed
contempt of court. The accused had scandalized the court which is deemed to be a type of
contempt.

Moving on Article 10(1)(b) of the Federal Constitution regulates the freedom of

assembly. This matter was initially regulated by the Police Act 1967. In the case of Chai
Choon Hon v Ketua Polis Daerah, Kampar, Abdoolcader SCJ held that the restriction on the
number of speakers at a dinner speech held by DAP was void for unreasonableness under the
Police Act because the license already restricted the function as to time, so the number of
speakers is irrelevant.

In the case of Chua Beng Poh v PP, 42 lawyers were being charged for taking part in
an unlawful assembly. The High Court ruled that public meetings or procession even if they
are spontaneous, is unlawful if it takes place without a police permit.

In the case of Madhavan Nair v PP, the accused was charged with contravening a
condition on a license under the Police Act to make a speech which required him not to touch
on the status of the national language. Chang Min Tat J held that restriction was
constitutional as stated under Article 10(4) of the Federal Constitution.
 Article 10(1)(c) of the Federal Constitution is a provision that regulates on freedom of
association. In the case of Malaysian Bar v Government of Malaysia, Art 10(1)(c) does not
give any right to any citizen to manage association but the right to form it.

Article 10(3) of the Federal Constitution states that restrictions on the right to form
associations conferred by paragraph (c) of Clause (1) may also be imposed by any law
relating to labour or education.

Article 10(4) of the Federal Constitution states that 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. It is to be noted that Part III of the Federal Constitution speaks on
citizenship. Article 152 of the Federal Constitution is a provision relating to national
language. Article 153 of the Federal Constitution is relating to the reservation of quotas for
the Malays. And lastly, Article 181 of the Federal Constitution speaks the rulers sovereignty.