Frreeeeddoomm OOffSSppeeeecchh PI007K15 SPECIAL EDITION “EVERY CITIZEN HAS THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION” Article 10 of Federal Constitution ARI F F zikri ( 2 0 2 3 8 2 9534) HANNAN ZULAIKHA ( 2 0 2 3 856 854) NUR KHAIRUNNISA' ( 2 0 2 3 6 1 0 9 14) AL ISYA QIST INA ( 2 0 2 346 0 7 04) ADL INA BATRISYIA ( 2 0 2 3474556 ) ADAM HAIKAL ( 2 0 2 346 9 2 3 8 ) REFERENCES: ADMIN. (N.D). FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION - SUHAKAM. RETRIEVED FROM: HTTPS: / /WWW.OHCHR.ORG/SITES/DEFAULT/FILES/DOCU MENTS/ ISSUES/EQUALPARTICIPATION/CONTRIBUTIONS/ MALAYSIAHRC.DOCX CHONG TON SIN (T/A GERAKBUDAYA ENTERPRISE) & ANOR V MENTERI DALAM NEGERI & ANOR [2023] 7 MLJ 1 18 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR V ADAM ADLI ABD HALIM & ORA [2014] 4 CLJ 881
2024 FREEDOMOFSPEECH ARTICLE 10 Article 10 ofFederal Constitution In Malaysia, freedom of speech is protected under Article 10 of the Federal Constitution. It states that every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression. Safeguarding this constitutional right is essential not just to Malaysia's advancement as a democratic nation but also to each citizen's livelihood and development. Explanation On Article 10 Article 10(1)(a) states that every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression. However, Article 10(2) outlined that Parliament may make laws to restrict this right if they are necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of the Federation, friendly relations with other countries, public order, or morality the protection of the privileges of Parliament or any Legislative Assembly or to provide against contempt of court, defamation or incitement to any offence. Examples of laws restricting freedom of speech, assembly, and association are The Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 and The Sedition Act 1948. importance of limitations in the freedom of speech To protect one’s right and dignity To safeguard the public safety Government plays a role in making sure the execution of freedom of speech doesn’t harm the safety of the public. When restrictions are applied, offences like defamation, hate speech, and incitement of violence can be avoided. Thus, setting standards of limitations on free speech may help maintain a healthy and harmonious atmosphere in the country Freedom of speech is not a green light to infringe on others’ rights and dignity. It is crucial to set boundaries to prevent hate speech and malicious falsehood. There must be a balance between the preservation of human rights and free expression to produce a society that is respectful.
Group 4 Contributor K15 Publication Date 26 April 2024 CASE : VOL. 01 Public Prosecutor v Adam Adli Abd Halim & Ora [2014] 4 CLJ 881 It's a way of life that holds the promise of a better, healthier society FACTS OF THE CASE In May 23, 2014, Adli faced accusations of sedition under Section 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act for remarks allegedly advocating street protests to topple the government after the Barisan Nasional's election win in Malaysia. 1. He was convicted and sentenced to one year in prison on September 18, 2014, but was released after posting a RM 5,000 surety bond. 2. Adli's lawyer, Latheefa Koya, defended his statement in court, arguing that it hadn't incited violence and reflected community concerns over election controversies involving Najib Razak. 3. Deputy Public Prosecutor Mohamad Abazafree Mohd Abbas argued that the statement disrupted public peace and portrayed the government negatively. 4. The High Court, while acknowledging the speech's seditious undertones, deemed a prison term excessive as it had not caused any harm, concurring with the lower court's decision. 5. ARTICLE 10 FREEDOM OF SPEECH RATIO DECIDENDI 1.There was no published legal opinion explaining the case's logic. Due to the uncertain extent of the law's phrasing, it has been criticised as being read very liberally. Section 3 of the Sedition Act defines what constitutes "seditious purpose," which is defined extremely broadly, while Section 4 of the legislation makes the intent specified in Section 3 a violation in and of itself. 2. According to Lawyers' Rights Watch Canada, Malaysian courts make conviction nearly a foregone conclusion in criminal cases since they do not require any proof that the words accused would or could have resulted in the outcomes listed in Section 3. 3. This case restricts expression because the defendant was convicted for expressing his right to freedom of speech. 4. Despite the fact that the defendant was not imprisoned as a result of the statement in question, the High Court's ruling instils dread in those who would oppose Malaysia's leadership. The allegation against Adli and the monetary penalties imposed by the Court were in direct opposition to his right to freedom of speech and expression. 5. LEGAL ISSUE Whether his speech incites the public to overthrow the government is deemed damaging to public peace and a violation of the limitation of freedom of speech and expression restriction. APPLICATION The case of Public Prosecutor v Adam Adli [2014] prompts the need to delineate between freedom of speech and sedition, particularly in Malaysia where the court takes a stance. While freedom of speech is a fundamental right, it cannot be absolute as unchecked freedom could lead to chaos. Constitutional rights and freedoms are subject to reasonable limitations necessary for societal security, well-being, peace, and order. From our viewpoint, freedom of speech ends where it violates Section 3 of the Sedition Act. The distinction between legitimate government criticism and sedition lies in whether the speech aims at reforming government policies or institutions. If the court determines that the speech primarily seeks to criticize government policies for reform, it is protected. However, if the speech is found to incite hatred, contempt, or offense against the government, it falls within the prohibition of Section 3(1)(a) of the Act. CONCLUSION In a nutshell, we do have freedom of speech and expression on this day, however the opportunity given isn't absolute. Living in such a multiracial society, each and every word should be observed cautiously as they would irritate or offend .We ought to shield our ethnics from being segregated. The public authority likewise assumes a significant part in authorizing the law without manhandling the law. Everybody has equivalent privileges to do anything they desire without overstepping the laws. CASE SUMMARY Adam Adli faced prosecution under Malaysia's Sedition Act for making statements perceived as inciting a government coup during a post-election conference organized by Suara Anak Muda Malaysia (SAMM), an opposition party. His remarks, made shortly after the Barisan Nasional's victory in the general election on May 13, 2013, were deemed to encourage the public to overthrow the government through street protests. The speech was deemed detrimental to public peace and portrayed the government negatively. Despite being educated, Adli's use of unlawful methods to incite public unrest was criticized. He was found guilty under Section 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act. Initially sentenced to one year in jail by the Session Court on September 18, 2014, the punishment was later reduced to a fine of RM 5,000 (approximately USD 1,250) by the Malaysian High Court on February 18, 2016.
FACTS OF THE CASE ChongTonSin (t/a GerakbudayaEnterprise)& Anor vMenteriDalamNegeri &Anor [2023] 7MLJ 118 The first respondent banned the publication of a book called ‘Gay is OK! : A Christian Perspective’ by the first applicant, claiming it could harm the public according to Section 7(1) of the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984. The applicants requested for the ban to be lifted but received no response. The applicants argued that the ban had violated their freedom of expression and right to equal treatment according to the Article 10(1) of Federal Constitution. The respondent believed the book promoted homosexuality, which could be damaging the public order and interest. The first respondent's argument that the book would likely undermine public order under section 7(1) of the Act is considered as an insufficient justification for the ban. After more than seven years since the book has been released, the first respondent is unable to provide proof of any real disruptions to public order. It follows that the book was not likely to be detrimental to public order in the first place when no such proof is shown. In this case, the appellant's book faced disruption accusations without evidence. Section 377A of the Penal Code isn't discriminatory as it states that no one is criminally liable for their sexual orientation. No disruption occurred within 7 years of publication of the book per Section 7(1) of the Printing Presses and Publication Act, confirmed as the book was published online before this. Christian views on homosexuality vary hence disregarding the statement Christianity prohibit homosexuality . Article 10 of the Federal Constitution allows freedom of expression however there is a limitation to it as stated in clause 2 of that article such as the speech should not disrupt national security, public order, ethics, or morality. Whether the publication of book was likely to be prejudicial to public order, morality and public interest LEGAL ISSUES It is a fact that the book has been published for seven years since September 2013 and there is no signs of any negative incidents associated with the book. The book was previously published on the Malaysiakini news portal between September 2010 and April 2011, and there is no evidence indicating that any party has reported the book as posing a danger to public order, morality, or interest. Hence, the public's reaction towards homosexuality is insignificant when the book is being discussed. Those events mentioned by the respondent regarding the public reaction are not linked to the book. The occurrences also do not affect the life of the community, public safety and peace. RATIO DECIDENDI COURT’S DECISION APPLICATION Chong Ton Sin CONCLUSION In short, freedom of speech, crucial for public voice, is outlined in Article 10 of the Federal Constitution. However, Article 10(2) allows limitations to safeguard public security and individual dignity. In Chong Ton Sin (t/a Gerakbudaya Enterprise) & Anor v. Menteri Dalam Negeri & Anor [2023], the court ruled that the book's long publication history without disturbance disregards the claims of public disruption, failing to justify restrictions under Section 7(1) of the Printing Presses and Publication Act 1984.