freedom of talk from the point of view of

Essay Topics: Freedom speech, Kuala Lumpur, Mass media, Ressortchef umgangssprachlich,
Category: Legislation,
Words: 5953 | Published: 01.28.20 | Views: 118 | Download now

Intro

Get essay

Advertising are ways of communications (as newspapers, the airwaves, or television) that is designed to reach the mass of the people1. Besides playing the role to inform individual with news, the mass media together with a sound legal system and an independent judiciary is component to a triumvirate that is necessary for a well-functioning democracy2. Within a democratic approach to government, mass media is doing a number of vital functions. First, they provide on information or monitoring function.

Second, they provide an agenda-setting and meaning function.

Third, they help us to produce and maintain cable connections with various teams in society. Fourth, they will help us to socialize and to instruct us.

Fifth, they convince us to acquire certain items or agree to certain suggestions. Sixth, they will entertain all of us. Freedom is a power or right to act, speak or think readily. We are right now living a media culture and its effect is turn into very pervasive. The number of hours we dedicate to the mass media is remarkable.

Even though the freedom from the media should not be in toto, yet the level of the freedom from the media can affect the function of the media. Citizens of countries that are democratic see mass media freedom without any consideration, not a advantage.

Nevertheless, there is absolutely no mention of flexibility of the press or independence of the digital media in our Constitution. However , freedom of media to exercise its role and functions in society has been enshrined being a fundamental human being right via recognition for the right to independence of talk, expression and opinion. several

Pre-independence

In 1930-1940, there are practically 80 newspaper and journals published inside the Malay Point out, such as Utusan Melayu, Orang, Warta Malaya and Majlis. In Warta Malaya, that published document that speak about the cultural and financial problems faced by the Malay. However , it did not look for the British to be hunted down out. The newspaper, Majlis, discussed the political issues. Majlis not simply brings to the awakening and fights pertaining to Malays right, their workplace became the location for the nationalist to fulfill up and exchange all their thoughts.

Inside the newspapers Orang, there was a column named ‘Persaudaraan Sahabat Pena’ in which the Malay viewers exchanged their point of view. British was worried on the development of this steering column and therefore took the step tooverseen individuals who involved in the said column.

Consideringg the number of publications that existed during the time plus the situation where those papers are free to discussed any issues, and the fact that the newspapers features played a huge role in the movements towards freedom, we can determine that under the administration of British, the media was enjoying the liberty of talk.

The law for the freedom of speech became clearer in the period prior to self-reliance. Certain law has been introduced to the Malay State. One of many laws which governed the liberty of talk at that time was the Sedition Take action 1948. Section 4 of the Act can make it an offence to make, prepare, or to conspire, to do a seditions act, to utter seditious words, and to propagate or perhaps import any seditious guides.

Section 3 provides which a seditious tendency is one that tends to (a) bring hatred or disregard to the government or inspire disaffection against any Ruler or govt, (b) inspire the countrymen to revolt, (c) provide into hatred or contempt or excites disaffection against administration of justice, (d) raise discontent or disaffection among the countrymen, or (e) promote thoughts of ill-will and hostility amongst the habitants of the region.

Besides, there are two laws specifically deal with the published media during that time, i. electronic. Printing Press Act 1948 (Ord doze of 1948) and Control over Imported Publications Act 1958 (Ord 13 of 1955). The former cope with the author in the Malay State while the later governing the printed material from all other country.

Those laws had been limiting freedom of speech of the media at the British colonial the sunshine of the independence of speech only stand out at the impérialiste since 1956, when an try to draft analysis Constitution started. The tips were published by Reid Commission in 1956-1957 Reviews. In the statement, there were two paragraphs gives under the name ‘Fundamental Rights’ 161. A Federal Constitution identifies and guarantees the right in the Federation and the states; it truly is usual and in our view right which it should also establish and assurance certain fundamental individual proper whichare generally regarded as necessary conditions for any free and democratic life-style.

The legal rights which are advise should be defined and certain are all securely established at this point throughout Malaysia and it may well seen unneeded to give these people special safety in the Constitution. But all of us found in specific quarters obscure apprehension about the future. We believe such worries to be lost, but there could be no objection to promising these privileges subject to limited exceptions in conditions of emergency and recommend that this would be done¦..

162. our recommendations manage means of redress, readily available to the individual, against unlawful infringements of personal freedom in any of its aspects¦ we additional recommend (Art 10) that freedom of speech and expression needs to be guaranteed to all citizens controlled by restrictions with the intention to security, open public order or perhaps morality or perhaps in relation to incitement, defamation or contempt of court¦ For the Malaysian citizen, the objectives of the people who framed the National Constitution were but small affected by the epidemic of human privileges in the European world4.

It has been observed that the commission’s advice on the freedom of presentation has been hazy, particularly for the importance of the rights. The commission simply devoted two paragraphs. The main reason it was therefore was obvious in the section itself. The draft Content 10 within our Constitution was as follow:

10 (1) every resident shall have the right to flexibility of talk and phrase, subject to any reasonable restriction imposed by simply federal regulation in the interest of the safety of the Federation, friendly associations with other countries, public purchase, or morality, or regarding contempt of court, defamation, or inducement to any offence.

Mr. Justice Abdul Hamid on his take note of dissent stated that “the phrase ‘reasonable’ anywhere it arises before the word ‘restrictions’ in the three sub-clauses of Article 10 needs to be omitted. Right to freedom of speech, set up, and relationship has been certain subject to constraints which may be made in the interest of security of the country, public buy and morality. If the Legislature imposes virtually any restrictions in the interest of the aforesaid matters, considering those limitations to be reasonable, that legal guidelines should not be challengeable in a court of law on the ground which the restrictions aren’t reasonable.

The Legislature only should be the assess of what isreasonable underneath the circumstances. In the event the word ‘reasonable’ is permitted to stand, every legislation about this subject will be challengeable in court in the grass that the limitations imposed by the legislature are certainly not reasonable. This will likely in many cases give rise to conflict involving the views of Legislature as well as the views in the court within the reasonableness in the restrictions.

To stop a situation that way it is better to make the Legislature the judge in the reasonableness of the restrictions. If this sounds not carried out the legislatures of the nation will not be sure of the state of the law which they will enact. There always exists fear that the court may hold the constraints imposed because of it to be silly. The laws would be with a lack of certainty.  Later, if the Constitution has force, this article 10 provides that: (1) subject to term (2):

(a) Every resident has the directly to freedom of speech and expression; (2) Parliament might by law can charge: “

(a) within the rights conferred by paragraph (a) of clause (1), such restrictions as it deems necessary or expedient with the intention to the security in the Federation, friendly relations to countries, community order or morality and restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament or of virtually any legislative Set up or to provide against disregard of courts, defamation, or incitement to the offence;

There are one circumstance regarding to press reported prior to freedom i. elizabeth. Public Prosecutor v. The Straits Moments Press Ltd5 In this case, after the application of people Prosecutor, the Respondents, whom are the owners of the Straits Times Press Ltd, had been alleged disregard in creating a report with the trial of Tan Seng Ann in the Straits Moments dated 5 August 1948.

The survey appeared which in turn, it is now confessed, was misleading and inaccurate in that this gave the impression, contrary to the facts, the fact that first step inside the proceedings in that case was a voluntary confession by Tan Seng Ann that he was owning a fire-arm and that his arrest was made solely since the result of this kind of voluntary confession in the concern.

The Notice of Motion having set out the the letter complained of proceeded to allege inter alia that the lawbreaker case known in the notification was subwoofer judice if the letter was published in that an charm was pending; that the the letter did not constitute a good or appropriate account from the trial neither fair commentthereon; and that it is publication were known to bias the fair disposal in the proceedings and tended to get into disregard the administration of justice by that Court.

Spenser-Wilkinson J organised that: “¦I would hesitate to follow as well closely the decisions of English Process of law on this subject matter without first considering whether or not the relevant conditions in England which country have reached all identical.

Quite apart from the present urgent in this country, I do not really think it might be suggested that the development of the Press, the typical standard of education and also the composition in the general public in the two countries are at all comparable and it may, consequently , be required to take a tighter view in this article of concerns which apply to the dignity of the Process of law and the impartial administration of justice than would be considered at the present time in England. 

Recently Independence (1957-1980)

Only at that period, Artwork 10 Federal Constitution has become amended twice. The initial amendment was on 19636 where the phrases ‘Clause (2) and (3)’ had been substituted for what ‘clause (2)’ of term (1) with effect via 16 September 1963. plus the words ‘or any portion thereof’ had been added to the Art10(2)(a). Additional, clause (3) which provides that: “Restrictions on the right to type a interactions conferred simply by paragraph (c) of offer (1) may also be imposed by any rules relating to work or education.  The second amendment was performed on 19717 after with the trouble of May 1969.

This time, Offer (4) was added with effect via 10 03 1971. Document 10(4) gives that Parliament may complete laws prohibiting the asking of four very sensitive matters: directly to citizenship below Part 3 of the Metabolic rate; status of the Malay dialect; position and privileges from the Malays as well as the native of Sabah and Sarawak; and prerogatives in the Malay Sultans and the Judgment Chiefs of Negeri Sembilan. The constitutional changes allow Parliament to amend the Sedition Act of 1948 in order to give a new meaning of ‘seditious tendency’8. The changed sections had been: Section several (1) A seditious trend is a inclination

(f) To question virtually any matter, proper, status, location, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or perhaps protected by provisions of Part 3 of the Federal government Constitution or perhaps Article 152, 153 or 181 in the Federal Cosmetic

Section 2

“seditious when placed on or employed in respect of any work, speech, terms, publication or perhaps other factor qualifies the act, talk, words, syndication or different thing together having a seditious tendency; Recognized Secrets Act 1972 can be described as new legislation that end up being introduced during that time. This is the most important statute on government secrecy. The gist of the rules is that ‘official secrets’ may not be received, stored, released or used devoid of prior consent. 9 The Act is usually drafted inside the widest feasible terms and it is not limited in its operation to agents, saboteurs, traitors and mercenaries.

The term ‘official secret’ is definitely not defined in the Work. The legal courts have provided the term the broadest conceivable definition, and on the generally recognized construction virtually any communication pertaining to the Business would make up an offence. 10 The right to free conversation can be further eclipsed by special provisions of Artwork 149 and 150 associated with subversion and emergency. Art 149 authorises legislative action designed to prevent or stop subversion, structured violence and crimes lesiva to the community. Art a hundred and fifty permits any legislative action required simply by reason of emergency.

The grounds enumerated over permitting curtailment of free conversation are so wide-ranging and comprehensive that in 49 years no Action of parliament even recently been found by courts to obtain violated the Constitution. Besides printed media, television was introduced in Malaysia in 1963. The tv was underneath the control of the Department of Broadcasting (RTM). What is noticeable is that television set and more generally broadcasting in Malaysia was form their inception carefully aligned to the government. Both RTM route were founded via decisions made by the then Alliance coalition authorities.

Because of the circumstances at that time, there was no any specifics guideline to govern the transmissions. One of the circumstances that getting heard during that time was Melan bin Abdullah v Community Prosecutor. eleven The fact of the case was that On 6 April 1971 the Utusan Melaya newspaper posted a report of the talk given by given by Inche Musa Hitam, a visible Malay head and part of Parliament, in the National Education Congress held in the Dewan Bahasa kemudian Pustaka, Kuala Lumpur..

Inside the report was an editorial sub-heading, which the The english language translation scans: “Abolish Tamil or Chinese language medium educational institutions in this country.  The first appellant was the editor-in-chief of the Utusan Melayu, and the second appellant the author of the sub-heading injected in the record. Sanction for his or her prosecution was given under s i9000 5(1) from the Sedition Work 1948, and they were tried in due course in the special sessions court on the charge of publishing a seditious syndication in faiblesse of s i9000 4(1)(C) in the Sedition Take action, punishable under the same section.

The discovered special chief executive held the publication to be seditious, the first appellant “was responsible for all syndication in the Utusan Melayu, that the second appellant was the author of the impugned subheading, which consequently we were holding both guilt ridden. They were convicted and fined the sum of $250 and $1, 000 respectively, in default 30 days and two months’ imprisonment, both appellant appealed.

CJ Ong, on hearing in the appeal recognized the initial appellant facts that he had organised seminars and talks, relating particularly to the “sensitive issues together instructed his staff around the relevant legislation as he understood it. He previously sponsored a chat to journalists given within this subject in February the year of 1971 by the Legal professional General plus the Solicitor-General. Consequently , the initial respondent charm was allowed. But the court dismissed the other respondent charm.

Another case is Public Prosecutor versus Straits Instances (Malaya) Bhd. 12 People Prosecutor applied in this case to get leave to issue a writ or perhaps writs of attachment intended for contempt of court for the respondents pertaining to publication of articles in The Straits Moments. The grounds upon which relief was sought is that “the journals of the said articles include matters that happen to be tendentious and constitute contempt of courtroom, because they are prejudicing and awkward the consumer in the exercise of his statutory features and also prejudicing a fair trial concerning the conditions of the death of one Robert Lee. 

Abdul Hamid J held that: ‘I do not feel that it is sensible to construe these phrases as having any exceptional meaning. There is not any dispute the reports carry out reveal that there was an strike, a uproar and shooting of a shot and that allegedly, a police officer was involved. But these facts are not challenged. As regards the prior episode came across by Robert Lee there may be nothing to demonstrate that this was not true.

Even more it is not rare for newspapers to publish issues concerning educational achievement of and other great deeds rendered by a person on his fatality particularly ifthe dead person enjoys some standing in the city or he could be in one way or another related to any prominent personality. For this reason it is irrational to separate certain paragraphs from the studies and construe them unfavourably or to impute improper objective on the author.

What may well appear to be an embarrassment or perhaps prejudicial if perhaps that part is read in remoteness may not be therefore if the reviews are go through as a whole taking into account the circumstances adjacent such distribution particularly if that relates to a matter which will showcase public sensation or a couple of unusual happening.  The application was therefore dismissed.

Malaysia under Realisieren Dr . Mahathir (1981-2002)

Over this period, more laws and regulations are released and enter into force to govern the media. In 1984, Stamping Presses and Publications Work came into force on the very first of Sept 1984 as a consolidating Action, and in turn repealed the Printing Presses Take action 1948 and the Control of Brought in Publications Work 1958. The Act is made ‘to control the use of stamping, presses and the printing, importation, production, duplication, publishing and distribution of publications and for matters linked there with’.

Through such control, the government uses this power to know what it is the open public has a directly to know, or exactly what form freedom of speech should certainly take13. This can be an Work designed obviously to ensure that the press will not get out of collection, imposes equally a system of licensing and censorship14. Section 3 from the Act can make it mandatory to acquire a license to obtain a producing press. The Minister provides absolute discernment on supplying, refusing, and revoking a license15. Even more, judicial review of the Minister’s discretion is not allowed16 and the Minister is not required to give the functions a prior experiencing

17. The time of the permit is a year or short period as minister specifies18. This means that all publishers through this country must suffer the pangs of uncertainty regarding whether their very own permit will probably be renewed to get the following year. There is fewer control of what may be written in overseas publications, controls have been practiced through strategic delay in distribution and frequently outright bar on their sale where officials deemed reviews to be offensive or inaccurate19. In 1988, another law governing the press came into pressure on 1st August my spouse and i. e.

The Broadcasting Take action 1988. The preamble towards the Act declares: ‘An action to provide for the control ofbroadcasting providers and for concerns connected therewith’. The Act is both stringent and inflexible. It bestows gigantic powers within the government to look for the type of television made available to the Malaysian general public. In the midst of the supposed ‘deregulation’ of transmissions, the Take action now gives the Minister of Information virtually total forces to determine that will and who will not transmit and the characteristics of the transmission material. Underneath the Act, any potential broadcaster would need to get a licence in the minister in advance. Later, the Act was amended upon October mil novecentos e noventa e seis.

By the amendment, this already-stringent piece of laws were aimed at taking into account the introduction of new services, such as cable television and satellite television for pc, satellite a radio station, pay TELEVISION SET and video-on demand. As a result of drastic creation in the electric media, the Legislature has to repeal the old Telecommunication Take action 1950 plus the Broadcasting Take action 1988 and introduced a brand new law which is the Marketing communications and Multimedia system Act 98.

The Act’s breakthrough was to bring together the previously despropósito industries of broadcasting, telecoms and net services combined under legislation and more important, one limiter the Marketing and sales communications and Multi-media commission. twenty The Interaction and Multimedia system Act produces in the creation of Connection and Multimedia Commission Action 1998. the Communication and Multimedia Commission performing a lot of functions which include advising the Minister almost all matters with regards to the national coverage objectives for communication and multimedia activities and putting into action and improving the procedures of the communications and multimedia system law.

Interestingly, Information Malaysia 1980-81 and Information Malaysia 1985 says between 1981 and 85 alone, the number of titles of local newspaper publishers, magazines, and journals in circulation improved from 56 to 10221. However , the rise in number cannot be the proof supporting the claims that during that time, the media was enjoying freedom of speech.

There are some information that we should not forget. In 1987, throughout the Operasi Lalang, a number of newspaper publishers were closed by the government22. Later, Harakah being categorizes as magazines of politics parties suitable for party associates and there is legislation forbids the publication being openly sold to the public.

Besides, Barisan Lokal owned and controlled main Malaysian press organization. Further, prior to Informacion Seri Anwar’s sacking, exclusion, and detention, the editor of Utusan Malaysia and Berita Harian, and thedirector of businesses of TV3 were required to resign because they were germane to Anwar. In 1990, there was an instance of Aliran Kesedaran23 In cases like this, the participants had applied for a permit under s i9000 6(1) with the Printing Squeezes and Guides Act 1984 to print out and distribute in Bahasa Malaysia a magazine under the name and style of Seruan Aliran.

The application was refused by the Minister of Home Affairs. The respondents applied for a great order of certiorari to eliminate into the High Court for the purpose of quashing the decision of the Minister and for an order of mandamus leading the Ressortchef (umgangssprachlich) to hear and determine the application form for the permit relating to regulation. The Substantial Court built an purchase quashing your decision of the Ressortchef (umgangssprachlich) and ordered that the Ressortchef (umgangssprachlich) shall hear and determine according to law the application for the permit. The appellant appealed.

The the courtroom allowing the appeal and held that; ‘Section 12(2) of the Printing Presses and Publications Work 1984 shows the Minister of Home Affairs ‘absolute acumen to reject an application for any license or permit’. So unless it can be clearly founded that the Ressortchef (umgangssprachlich) for Home Affairs had at all exercised his discretion wrongfully, unfairly, dishonestly or not in good faith, the High The courtroom cannot query the discretion of the Ressortchef (umgangssprachlich). 

Among the significant situations during this period was your case of Irene Fernandez. The facts were that in 1995, Tenaganita released a report documenting beatings, sexual assault against detainees by penitentiary guards, and inadequate food and normal water in Malaysia’s immigration detention camp. Irene Fernandez was arrested and charged with malicious syndication of bogus news beneath the Printing Pushes and Journals Act. Magistrate Juliana Mohamed found Irene guilty and was word to one year imprison.

Current Situation (2003-2006)

Between these durations, there is no any new legislation designed to control the multimedia. However , recently, Government has released the Press Council Bill (2006) which in turn seeks to ameliorate a few of the worst more than the Creating Presses and Publications Work in regard to the local media.

On page 4 of the Bill, it had been stated: “An Act to ascertain the Malaysian Press Council for the purpose of conserving, promoting and protecting the freedom of the Press, of maintaining and bettering the honest and specialist journalistic criteria of newspapers, press journals and news/pressagencies in Malaysia. 

However, there is dread in public that this piece of laws will create one more unnecessary public body with wide power to control press flexibility despite it is apparent obligation to uphold that correct. It might as well act as a censorship panel, only working with complaints against the press organisations and press and not against denial of freedom of expression by simply other entities such as ministers or organisations whose actions effectively reduce the right of freedom of expression.

Besides, bear in mind that all the laws governing the mass media before this kind of are still tightly in place as well as the main stream media also remain owned simply by interests indirectly tied to the main component get-togethers of the BN, especially UMNO and MCA.

Some happenings happened during this period of period, showing to us that despite of the alterations of the brain of the Federal government, the mass media are not freer compared to the years before. The federal government shut down the Sarawak tribune for the editors built a mistake of reprinting caricatures of Telepathist Muhammad pursuing Muslim protests of a Danish paper that first released them.

Another incident is that the Minister of Information, Datuk Zainuddin experienced sought the sacking of top NST editor for a meeting of UMNO’s information bureau as they was miserable with the way the NST had enjoyed up selected issues such as the religious rights of hispanics and the government’s policy in bumiputras. 24 The government likewise delays in reviewing the publishing grant of the Oriental Daily and censor particular news the fact that government were not comfortable with.

Additionally, the debate on Ninth Malaysia Program was given vast publicity inside the media, but it was the official view and rationale pertaining to the Plan that enjoyed one-sided coverage. The leader of the resistance who spoke foe 6 hours for the Plan did not get virtually any substantive insurance. 25 One more issue is that Tun Doctor Mahathir had called a press conference to express his profound disappointment following Datuk Seri Abdullah dismissed the ‘crooked bridge’ project. However , the mainstream multimedia hardly covered it.

Findings

The freedom of the press has found become more restricted from the period prior to self-reliance until now. With the early time, the Uk Colonial has a freer multimedia compare to the media after independence. This could be because of the British deemed the individual independence as up most important. Once came to the early day after independence, the laws getting designed were more restricted. However , this was understandable as the situation at that time, where Malaysia was in an unexpected emergency.

Unmindful talk might cause huge range to the region. Therefore , the government had to have step to stop this. In 1970-1985, there was more situations on independence of talk, after the stand of the tennis courts are very clear in these issues, there was lesser cases.

In the period frame from 1981 to 2002, many laws had been designed and lots of existing laws and regulations were changed. Tun Doctor Mahathir attempted to justify this kind of by saying: ‘the reality is that there is zero absolute press freedom all over the world, be it within a liberal democratic country or perhaps in countries governed simply by dictators. 26 He further more claimed that journalists and foreigners examine a few newspaper publishers which support the government and immediately concluded that there is no press freedom in Malaysia.

This is in conjunction with his view items that: “Malaysian newspapers are free. But this kind of freedom does not mean freedom to criticize the government alone. It also means freedom to support the us government. 27

Further in Tun Dr . Mahathir speech at the national union of Press dinner upon 15th June 1990, this individual stated that: ‘According to an old English language proverb, electrical power corrupt and absolute electrical power tends to dodgy absolutely. If perhaps there are limitations on press freedom, specifically pertaining to studies on physical violence, sex and obscenity, then they are enforced because no one should be presented absolute electricity. This is to prevent the possibility of ‘absolute corruption’. This constraint not a way suggests there is no press flexibility in Malaysia. Government commanders in this region have no complete power.

The individuals can change the us government while the process of law can invert government decisions. Therefore , magazines in Malaysia must recognize these limitations. This is required for the countrywide interest rather than aimed at destroying pressfreedom. It truly is true that freedom of the media should be limited nevertheless over limiting will only cause a closed society.

Taking a look at the current condition, many are convinced that the new govt would promote media flexibility in view of the government transparency insurance plan. However , you should bear in mind that as Datuk Seri Abdullah overtook the government till today, it had been only 3 years passed. It can be unfair to judge him at this time. Whether or not there is free press under Datuk Seri Abdullah, we shall wait and see.

Evaluating to our nearest neighbor, Singapore, media in Malaysia delight in more freedom. Singapore as being a police express, the press is broken up to explain and support the policies with the Singapore government, as an aid to development rather than presuming a counter-checking posture.

In Chee Siok Chin case28, the Singapore court held that: “it bears emphasis that the phrase ‘necessary or perhaps expedient’ confers on Parliament an extremely large discretionary electric power and remit that permits a multifarious and multifaceted procedure towards obtaining any of the reasons specified in Art 14(2) of the metabolic rate. In contrast to the Indian Cosmetic, there can be no questioning of whether the Regulations are ‘reasonable’. The court’s sole process, when a constitutional challenge is definitely advanced, is always to ascertain whether an impugned law is at the grasp of one of the permissible limitations. 

As for electronic press, the media Corporation of Singapore, a great evolution from a series of federal government owned transmission Corporations, dominances the transmitting media. The PAP authorities guards the broadcast turf with rigour, grudgingly allowing for foreigner tv producers to operate to get commercial and public relations causes but legislating them off local governmental policies.

Today, Malaysian society posseses an economic standard of existence which gives for simple needs, health facilities, adequate housing and equal for you to education. Consequently , there is no reasons why freedom of speech and free multimedia should be limited. Values of freedom of expression, direct exposure tocritical considering and the need for a detrimental society ought to be emphasizes. Following 49 many years of independence, Malaysian should not just concern with generating a sustenance and standard quality of life problems. Society shall have desire to acquire expertise especially in cultural concerns including freedom of speech.

Bibliography:

1 . “A Circumstance of the Press Freedom: Survey of the SUHAKAM, Workshop upon Freedom from the Media at Kuala Lumpur, Aug. one particular, 2002. (Kuala Lumpur: Suruhanjaya Hak Dasar Manusia Malaysia, 2003). installment payments on your Abdul Aziz Bari, ‘Freedom of Presentation and Manifestation in Malaysia After 40 Years’, (1998) 27. three or more INSAF 149-161. 3. Abraham, C. Elizabeth. R., “Freedom of Presentation for Whom? The Malaysian Case, (1998) 27. several INSAF 1-8. 4. Asian Human Privileges Commission, homepage, 10 September. 2006

a few. Asian Man Rights Commission payment, homepage, twelve Sept. 06\

6th. Broadcasting Action 1988 (Act 338).

7. Middle for Independent Journalism, 12 Sept. 2006

eight. Communications and Multimedia Action 1998 (Act 588).

9. Connection and Media Commission Action 1998. (Act 599). twelve. Constitution (Amendment) Act year 1971 (Act A30).

11. Control of Imported Publications Act 1958 (Ord 14 of 1955) 12. Cyrus Sixth is v. Das, “Press Freedom & Contempt of Court, (1986) 19. three or more INSAF 61. 13. Faruqi, Shad Saleem, “Access to Information, [1993] 4 Malaysia Current Regulation Journal xxiii. 14. “, “Curbing Excesses of Free Speech, Sunday Star, 10 Feb, 2002, Target. 15. “, “Cyber Challenge to Liberty of Speech, Sunday Celebrity, 27 By, 2002, Emphasis. 16. “, Keeping A Tight Lid about Official Secrets, Sunday Legend, 17 Feb, 2002, Target. 17. “, “Life-blood of Free Society, Weekend Star, twenty Jan, 2002, Focus. 18. “, “Pifalls for the Unwary Media, Sunday Celebrity, 3 Drive, 2002, Emphasis. 19. “, “Principles That Govern Free of charge Speech, Weekend Star, a few Feb, 2002, Focus. twenty. Federal Metabolic rate.

21. “Freedom of the Press? A Quick Consider the Borneo Postal mail Affair as well as the Question: How Free May be the Local Press? . 1994 (June) Malaysian Rules News, 36-37. 22. Hashim Makaruddin, ed., Ensiklopedia Dr . Mahathir Bin Mohamed: Perdana Menteri Malaysia, (Cairo: Conceder al-Kitab al-Masri, 2005). 3.

Hickling, R. L., Hickling’s Malaysian Public Law, (Petalng Jaya: Longman, 2003). 24. “I Know How The individuals Feel, (1986) 19. four INSAF 18.

25. Kanesalingam, A., “Democracy and the Law, (1998) twenty-seven. 4 INSAF 105-115. 21. Mahathir Mohamed, “Freedom in the Press: Malaysian Perspective, 1990 (Aug) Malaysian Law Information, 521-522. 27. Malaysia Action 1963 (No. 26/63).

twenty eight. Merriam-Webster On the web Dictionary three or more Sept. 2006

twenty nine. Mohamad Ariff Yusuf, “Freedom of the Press in Malaysia, 10th Rules Asia Convention, (Kuala Lumpur, June twenty-one ” This summer 4, 1987). 30. Mustafa K. Anuar, Anil Esatto, “Malaysian Looking forward to Press Freedom, 5 September. 2006, 31. “, Joint Coordination, Rental 2000, Haluan Online, 6 Sept. 06\ 32. Officials Secrets Action 1972 (Act 88)

thirty-three. Officials Secrets (Amendment) Work 1983

34. Representatives Secrets (Amendment) Act 1986

thirty five. Padmanabha Rau, “Federal Constitutional Law in Malaysia & Singapore, 2nd ed., (Singapore: Butterworths Asia, 1997). thirty six. “Press Authorities Bill A Farce, Haluan Online, a few Sept. 06\ 37. Producing Press Act 1948 (Ord 12 of 1948)

35. Printing Pushes and Magazines Act 1984 (Act301).

39. Stamping Presses and Publications (Amendment) Act 1987 (Act684) forty. Reme Ahmad, “Malaysia Former Media Bosses Duel More than Press Issues, Asia Mass media News 22 Feb. 2006, 9 Sept. 2006

forty one. Ruslan Zainuddin, Fauziah Soffie, “Sejarah Malaysia (Selangor: Penerbit Fajar Bakti, 2001). forty two.. Salleh Buang, “The Transmissions Act 1988, 1994 (April) Malaysian Rules News, 5&14. 43. Shafruddin Hashim, “The Constitution and the Federal Idea in Peninsular Malaysia, (1984) Journal of Malaysia and Comparative Legislation, 139-178. forty-four. Sheridan, D. A. & Groves, Harry E., “The Constitution of Malaysia, 5th ed., (Singapore: Malaysian Regulation Journal, 2004). 45. Sedition Act 1948 (Revised ” 1969) (Act 15).

46. Sopiee, Mohamed Nordin, “Freedom of the Press, 10th Legislation Asia Conference, (Kuala Lumpur: June up to 29 ” September 4, 1987). 47. Suntan, Kevin & Thio Li-Ann, “Constitutional Law in Malaysia & Singapore, 2nd impotence., (Singapore: Butterworths Asia, 1997).

48. “The Officials Secrets (Amendment) Bill 1986: Why Are They Taking Away Our Rights?  1986, nineteen. 4 INSAF 1 . 49. Tun Mohamed Suffian, ed., “The Cosmetic of Malaysia: Its Development: 1957-1977, (Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, 1978). 50. Wong, Kok Keong, “Propagandists for the BN (Part 1), 2004 Vol. twenty-four No . your five Aliran Month-to-month, 14-17. 51. “, “Propagandists for the BN (Part 2), 2004 Vol. 24 No . six Aliran Month to month, 13-17. 52. “, “Freer Media Under PM Abdullah? , Aliran Online several Sept. 2006 53. Zaharom Naim, Mustafa K Anuar, “Ownership and Control of the Malaysia Media, World Association for Christian Communication, website, 10 Sept. 2006 fifty four. Zalina Abdul Halim, “Media Law, 2000 Survey of Malaysian Regulation, 411-439. 55. “, “The media Program and Cooperative Regulatory Devices in the Media Sector of Malaysia, Hans-Bredow-Institut, 2 September. 2006

You can even be interested in the next: speech regarding media, conversation on mass media

one particular

< Prev post Next post >