Freedom of speech from the perspective of mass media, to what extend it has been practiced in Malaysia? Essay

IntroductionMass media atomic name 18 mean of communication theory (as smartspapers, radio, or television) that is intentional to off the mass of the people1. Besides playing the char fargoner reference to inform some(a)body with news program, the media together with a sound legal system and an fencesitter judiciary is part of a triumvirate that is infixed for a well-functioning democracy2. In a popular system of prevailment, mass media is performing a procedure of essential functions. First, they go to on selective information or surveillance function.Second, they serve an agenda-setting and interpretation function. Third, they c atomic number 18 us to pee and maintain connections with various groups in society. Fourth, they help us to affableize and to educate us.Fifth, they bend us to buy certain items or accept certain ideas. Sixth, they entertain us. granting immunity is the power or office to act, enunciate or think freely. We ar at whizz clip living a media culture and its m aged(prenominal) is start out very pervasive. The number of hours we slip by on the media is mind-boggling. Although the independence of the media should non be in toto, yet the degree of the exemption of the media give affect the function of the media. Citizens of countries that be democratic see media emancipation as a right, non a privilege.Nevertheless, thither is no mention of liberty of the bosom or exemption of the electronic media in our theme. However, freedom of media to exercise its role and functions in society has been enshrined as a natural human right by centering of recognition for the right to freedom of idiom, font and opinion.3Pre-independenceIn 1930-1940, t present ar approximately 80 newspaper and magazine publishers mark in the Malayan State, much(prenominal) as Utusan Melayu, Saudara, Warta Malaya and Majlis. In Warta Malaya, it publish article that talk somewhat the social and economic problems faced by th e Malay. However, it did non ask for the British to be chased break through. The newspaper, Majlis, discussed the political issues. Majlis not notwithstanding brings to the awakening and fights for Malays right, their office became the place for the jingoistic to meet up and exchange their thoughts.In the newspapers Saudara, in that respect was a column named Persaudaraan Sahabat Pena where the Malay readers exchanged their point of view. British was confused on the development of this column and at that placeof took the step tooverseen those who involved in the verbalize column.In view of the number of cosmosations that existed during the time and the situation whereby those newspapers atomic number 18 free to discussed either issues, and the fact that the newspapers has played a indispensable role in the movement towards independence, we foundation conclude that chthonic the system of British, the media was enjoying the freedom of quarrel.The equity on the freed om of destination became cle ber during the time forward to independence. Certain fairness has been introduced to the Malay State. genius of the legalitys which governed the freedom of computer address at that time was the insurrection do work 1948. discussion section 4 of the typify makes it an criminal offense to make, prepare, or to conspire, to do a seditions act, to carry rebellious intelligence services, and to propagate or issue both seditious human raceations. sectionalization 3 supports that a seditious drift is unriv totally(a)ed which tends to (a) bring hatred or scorn to the presidential term or throw off alienation against whatever Ruler or authorities, (b) excite the unsophisticatedmen to revolt, (c) bring into hatred or scorn or excites disaffection against face of justice, (d) originate discontent or disaffection among the commonwealthmen, or (e) advocate feelings of ill- lead and hostility amongst the inhabitants of the country.Beside s, there were twain ordinances specifically deal with the printed media at that time, i.e. produce Press cause 1948 (Ord 12 of 1948) and dominate of trade familiarations flake 1958 (Ord 14 of 1955). The antecedent deal with the publisher in the Malay State while the later administration the printed material from former(a) country.Those integritys were limiting freedom of speech of the media at the British colonial the light of the freedom of speech make head demeanor shine at the colonial since 1956, when an start extinct to draft a issue presidency body started. The testimonys were submitted by Reid Commission in 1956-1957 Reports. In the report, there were two splits provides under the statute title Fundamental nears 161. A Federal constitution fructifys and guarantees the right of the Federation and the states it is usual and in our opinion right that it should withal define and guarantee certain fundamental one-on-one right whichare generally regard ed as essential conditions for a free and democratic means of deportment.The rights which are recommend should be defined and guaranteed are all severely accomplished straight off throughout Malaysia and it whitethorn seen un prerequisite to obtain them peculiar(prenominal)(a) shelter in the disposition. barely we found in certain quarters vague timidity about the future. We believe such apprehensions to be unfound, that there elicit be no objection to guaranteeing these rights subject to trammel exceptions in conditions of emergency and we recommend that this should be d hot setting..162. our recommendations afford federal agency of redress, pronto available to whatsoever individual, against un fair play of natureful infringements of individualized liberty in every of its aspects we further recommend (Art 10) that freedom of speech and formula should be guaranteed to all citizens subject to restrictions in the worry of protective covering, earth redact or m orality or in analogy back to incitement, defamation or contempt of coquette For the Malayan citizen, the objectives of those who framed the Federal Constitution were alone little affected by the epidemic of human rights in the horse opera world4.It has been observed that the commissions recommendation on the freedom of speech has been vague, oddly on the greatness of the rights. The commission scarcely devoted two paragraphs. The agent wherefore it was so was clear in the paragraph itself. The draft Article 10 in our Constitution was as follow10 (1) every citizen shall come the right to freedom of speech and ex squelchion, subject to whatsoever h unrivalledst restriction obligate by national law in the interest of the warrantor of the Federation, friendly transaction with other countries, semipublic order, or morality, or in relation to contempt of salute, defamation, or incitement to every offence.Mr. Justice Abdul Hamid on his note of dissent stated that the word middling wherever it occurs before the word restrictions in the ternion sub-articles of Article 10 should be omitted. Right to freedom of speech, assembly, and association has been guaranteed subject to restrictions which whitethorn be let landd in the interest of security of the country, public order and morality. If the legislature imposes any restrictions in the interest of the afore say(prenominal) matters, considering those restrictions to be presumable, that rule should not be challengeable in a judicature of law on the footh senescent that the restrictions are not reasonable.The Legislature alvirtuoso should be the articulate of what isreasonable under the parcel. If the word reasonable is allowed to stand, every legislation on this subject allow be challengeable in approach on the ground that the restrictions oblige by the legislature are not reasonable. This will in many an(prenominal) bailiwicks give rise to conflict betwixt the views of Legislature and the views of the court on the discernment of the restrictions.To avoid a situation handle that it is better to make the Legislature the strain of the reasonableness of the restrictions. If this is not d unitary the legislatures of the country will not be received of the state of the law which they will enact. on that point will always be veneration that the court whitethorn hold the restrictions imposed by it to be unreasonable. The laws would be lack in certainty. Later, when the Constitution comes into force, the Article 10 provides that (1) subject to clause (2)(a) Every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and ex twitchion (2) fantan may by law impose (a) on the rights conferred by paragraph (a) of clause (1), such restrictions as it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of the Federation, friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality and restrictions knowing to protect the privileges of Parliament or of any legislati ve Assembly or to provide against contempt of courts, defamation, or incitement to any offence in that respect are one case regarding to twitch reported previous to independence i.e. usual public prosecutor v. The straits quantify Press Ltd5 In this case, upon the finish of the Public Prosecutor, the Respondents, who are the proprietors of the school principal Times Press Ltd, were maintaind contempt in publishing a report of the run of Tan Seng Ann of the Straits Times go out 5 August 1948.The report come ined which, it is now admitted, was misleading and inaccurate in that it gave the im haleion, irrelevant to the facts, that the fore to the highest degree step in the legal proceeding in that case was a military volunteer confession by Tan Seng Ann that he was in possession of a fire-arm and that his assay was make solely as the turn out of such voluntary confession in the issue.The Notice of Motion having set out the price of the letter complained of went on to allege inter alia that the criminal case referred to in the letter was sub judice when the letter was published in that an appeal was pending that the terms of the letter did not forge a fair or accurate accounting of the trial nor fair comment thereon and that its return tended to prejudice the fair disposal of the proceedings and tended to bring into contempt the administration of justice by that Court.Spenser-Wilkinson J held that I would hesitate to follow too nearly the decisions of English Courts on this subject without offshoot considering whether the relevant conditions in England and this country are at all similar.Quite apart from the present emergency in this country, I do not think it could be suggested that the development of the Press, the general standard of nurture or the composition of the general public in the two countries are at all comparable and it may, because, be necessary to take a stricter view here of matters which pertain to the dignity of the C ourts and the impartial administration of justice than would be taken at the present time in England.saucily Independence (1957-1980)At this spot, Art 10 Federal Constitution has been reclaimed twice. The first amendment was on 19636 where the linguistic process Clause (2) and (3) had been substituted for the words clause (2) of clause (1) with effect from 16 September 1963.and the words or any part thereof were added to the Art10(2)(a). yet, clause (3) which provides that Restrictions on the right to form a associations conferred by paragraph (c) of clause (1) may to a fault be imposed by any law relating to labour or education. The snatch amendment was made on 19717 after considering the stretch out of May 1969.This time, Clause (4) was added with effect from 10 March 1971. Article 10(4) provides that Parliament may pass laws prohibiting the questioning of four photo irritable matters right to citizenship under Part trinity of the Constitution status of the Malay word po sition and privileges of the Malays and the native of Sabah and Sarawak and prerogatives of the Malay Sultans and the judgement Chiefs of Negeri Sembilan. The constitutional changes enable Parliament to amend the Sedition be active of 1948 in order to add a new definition of seditious tendency8. The revise sections were Section 3 (1) A seditious tendency is a tendency(f) To question any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative make believe or protected by the furnish of Part III of the Federal Constitution or Article 152, 153 or 181 of the Federal ConstitutionSection 2seditious when employ to or used in respect of any act, speech, words, giving medication issue or other thing qualifies the act, speech, words, publication or other thing as one having a seditious tendency positive Secrets solve 1972 is a new law that be introduced at that time. This is the most substantial statute on organization secrecy. The centre of attention of the law is that official secrets cannot be received, retained, released or used without previous authorization.9 The interpret is drafted in the widest probable terms and is not circumscribed in its operation to spies, saboteurs, traitors and mercenaries.The term official secret is not defined in the propel. The courts have minded(p) the term the broadest possible definition, and on the generally sure social structure any communication pertaining to the Executive would defecate an offence.10 The right to free speech can be further eclipsed by the special provisions of Art 149 and one hundred fifty relating to corruption and emergency. Art 149 authorises legislative action designed to stop or preclude subversion, unionised vehemence and crimes damaging to the public. Art 150 permits any legislative action require by reason of emergency.The grounds enumerated to a higher place permitting curtailment of free speech are so broad and comprehensive that in 49 years no portrayal of parliament even been found by the courts to have violated the Constitution. Besides printed media, television was introduced in Malaysia in 1963. The television was under the check of the Department of Broadcasting (RTM). What is ostensible is that television and to a greater extent generally transmit in Malaysia was form its inception about aligned to the government. Both the RTM channel were naturalised via decisions made by the then chemical bond coalition government.Because of the raft at that time, there was no any specifics rule to govern the broadcasting. One of the cases that cosmos heard at that time was Melan bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor.11 The fact of the case was that On 6 April 1971 the Utusan Melaya newspaper published a report of a talk given over by given by Inche Musa Hitam, a prominent Malay leader and outgrowth of Parliament, at the National Education carnal knowledge held in the Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, Kuala Lumpur..In the report was an chromat ography column sub-heading, which in the English translation reads repeal Tamil or bring upese metier schools in this country. The first appellate was the editor-in-chief of the Utusan Melayu,and the siemens plaintiff in error the author of the sub-heading inserted in the report. smiler for their prosecution was given under s 5(1) of the Sedition present 1948, and they were tried in due course in the special sessions court on a file away of publishing a seditious publication in contravention of s 4(1)(C) of the Sedition Act, punishable under the same section.The intimate special president held the publication to be seditious, that the first appellant was responsible for all publication in the Utusan Melayu, that the second appellant was the author of the impugned subheading, and that consequently they were both guilty. They were convicted and fined the union of $500 and $1,000 respectively, in default one month and two months imprisonment, both appellant appealed.CJ Ong, on hearing of the appeal accepted the first appellant evidence that he had organised seminars and discussions, relating in particular to the sensitive issues and had instructed his staff on the relevant law as he understood it. He had sponsored a talk to journalists given on this subject in February 1971 by the attorney General as well as the Solicitor-General. Therefore, the first answerer appeal was allowed. simply the court dismissed the second respondent appeal.Another case is Public Prosecutor v Straits Times (Malaya) Bhd.12 The Public Prosecutor applied in this case for leave to issue a writ or writs of attachment for contempt of court on the respondents for publication of articles in The Straits Times. The grounds upon which relief was want was that the publications of the said articles contain matters which are tendentious and constitute contempt of court, because they are prejudicing and embarrassing the applicant in the exercise of his statutory functions and to a faul t prejudicing a fair trial concerning the circumstances of the death of one Robert Lee.Abdul Hamid J held that I do not think that it is reasonable to go through these words as having any special meaning. There is no contention that the reports do reveal that there had been an assault, a commotion and firing of a shot and that allegedly, a police officer was involved. plainly these facts are not challenged. As regards the prior episode encountered by Robert Lee there is nothing to show that this was not consecutive. save it is not uncommon for newspapers to publish matters concerning bookworm achievement of and other good whole kit and caboodle rendered by a soul on his death particularly ifthe dead person enjoys a certain standing in the community or he is in one way or another(prenominal) related to any prominent personality. For that reason it is unreasonable to isolate certain passages from the reports and construe them unfavourably or to impute illegitimate motive on the publisher.What may appear to be an embarrassment or prejudicial if that part is read in isolation may not be so if the reports are read as a whole taking into account the circumstances surrounding such publication particularly if it relates to a matter which will boost public sensation or a matter of unusual occurrence. The diligence was therefore dismissed.Malaysia under Tun Dr. Mahathir (1981-2002)oer this flowing, more laws are introduced and come into force to govern the media. In 1984, belief Presses and Publications Act came into force on the inaugural of September 1984 as a consolidating Act, and in turn repealed the publish Presses Act 1948 and the come across of Imported Publications Act 1958. The Act is designed to regulate the use of printing, presses and the printing, importation, production, reproduction, publishing and distribution of publications and for matters connected there with. finished such control, the government uses it power to come up what it i s the public has a right to know, or exactly what form freedom of speech should take13. This is an Act designed clearly to view that the press does not get out of line, imposes both a system of licensing and censorship14. Section 3 of the Act makes it mandatory to reach a license to own a printing press. The diplomatic minister has compulsory fragility on giving, refusing, and revoking a license15. Further, judicial fall over of the subgenus Pastors discretion is not allowed16 and the Minister is not required to give the parties a prior hearing17. The period of the license is 12 months or shorter period as minister specifies18. This means that all publishers in this country must come across the pangs of uncertainty about whether their permit will be renewed for the following year. There is less control of what may be written in foreign publications, controls have been exercised through deliberate delay in distribution and sometimes outright fling on their sale where official s deemed reports to be unsavory or inaccurate19. In 1988, another law governing the media came into force on 1st August i.e.The Broadcasting Act 1988. The premise to the Act states An act to provide for the control ofbroadcasting services and for matters connected therewith. The Act is both stringent and inflexible. It bestows considerable powers on the government to determine the slip of television made available to the Malayan public. In the midst of the supposed deregulation of broadcasting, the Act now gives the Minister of knowledge virtually total powers to determine who will and who will not broadcast and the nature of the broadcast material. Under the Act, any potential broadcaster would need to apply for a licence from the minister beforehand. Later, the Act was amended on October 1996.By the amendment, this already-stringent piece of legislation were aimed at taking into account the admittance of new services, such as cables length and satellite television, satelli te radio, pay TV and video-on demand. Due to the drastic development in the electronic media, the Legislature has to repeal the old Telecommunication Act 1950 and the Broadcasting Act 1988 and introduced a new law which is the communication theory and Multimedia Act 1998.The Acts breakthrough was to bring together the previously disparate industries of broadcasting, telecommunications and internet services feature under legislation and more importantly, one regulator the intercourses and Multimedia commission.20 The discourse and Multimedia Act brings to the creation of converse and Multimedia Commission Act 1998. the Communication and Multimedia Commission performing several(prenominal) functions including advising the Minister all matters concerning the national form _or_ system of government objectives for communication and multimedia activities and implementing and enforcing the provisions of the communications and multimedia law.Interestingly, randomness Malaysia 1980-8 1 and Information Malaysia 1985 revealed that between 1981 and 1985 alone, the number of titles of topical anesthetic newspapers, magazines, and journals in circulation change magnitude from 56 to 10221. However, the increase in number cannot be the proof supporting the allegation that during that time, the media was enjoying freedom of speech.There are some facts that we should not forget. In 1987, during the Operasi Lalang, a number of newspapers were closed by the government22. Later, Harakah being categorizes as publications of political parties meant for party members and there is law forbids the publication being openly change to the public.Besides, Barisan Nasional possess and controlled major Malayan media organization. Further, prior to Dato Seri Anwars sacking, expulsion, and detention, the editor of Utusan Malaysia and Berita Harian, and thedirector of operations of TV3 were forced to resign because they were allied to Anwar. In 1990, there was a case of Aliran Kese daran23 In this case, the respondents had applied for a permit under s 6(1) of the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 to print and publish 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 an order of certiorari to remove into the extravagantly Court for the purpose of quashing the decision of the Minister and for an order of mandamus directing the Minister to hear and determine the application for the permit harmonise to law. The amply Court made an order quashing the decision of the Minister and arranged that the Minister shall hear and determine according to law the application for the permit. The appellant appealed.The court allowing the appeal and held that Section 12(2) of the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 gives the Minister of Home Affairs imperious discretion to refuse an application for a license or permit. So unless it can be clearly esta blished that the Minister for Home Affairs had in any way exercised his discretion wrongfully, unfairly, deceitfully or in bad faith, the High Court cannot question the discretion of the Minister.One of the significant cases during this period was the case of Irene Fernandez. The facts were that in 1995, Tenaganita released a report documenting beatings, sexual violence against detainees by prison guards, and in comme il faut aliment and water in Malaysias in-migration detention camp. Irene Fernandez was arrested and charged with malicious publication of false news under the Printing Presses and Publications Act. Magistrate Juliana Mohamed found Irene guilty and was sentence to one year imprison.Current Situation (2003-2006) amid these periods of time, there is no any new law designed to control the media. However, recently, giving medication has released the Media Council Bill (2006) which seeks to ameliorate some of the bastinado excess of the Printing Presses and Publications Act in regard to the local media.On scalawag 4 of the Bill, it was stated An Act to establish the Malayan Press Council for the purpose of preserving, promoting and defend the freedom of the Press, of maintaining and improving the ethical and superior journalistic standards of newspapers, press publications and news/pressagencies in Malaysia.Nevertheless, there is fear in public that this piece of legislation will create another unnecessary public body with wide powers to curb press freedom despite its apparent business to uphold that right. It might also act as a censorship board, and dealing with complaints against the press organisations and journalists and not against abnegation of freedom of expression by other entities such as ministers or organisations whose actions efficaciously suppress the right of freedom of expression.Besides, survive in mind that all the laws governing the media before this are still securely in place and the main teem media also continue to be have by interests directly or indirectly tied to the main component parties of the BN, peculiarly UMNO and MCA.Some incidents happened during this time of period, showing to us that despite of the changes of the head of the Government, the media are not freer compared to the years before. The government shut down the Sarawak tribune for the editors made a mistake of reprinting caricatures of Prophet Muhammad following Muslim protests of a Danish paper that first published them.Another incident was that the Minister of Information, Datuk Zainuddin had sought the sacking of top NST editor at a meeting of UMNOs information bureau because he was unhappy with the way the NST had played up certain issues such as the religious rights of minorities and the governments policy on bumiputras.24 The government also delays in reviewing the publishing permit of the oriental person Daily and censor certain news that the government were not comfortable with.Moreover, the get by on Ninth Mal aysia fancy was given wide publicity in the media, but it was the official view and rationale for the project that enjoyed one-sided coverage. The leader of the opposition who utter foe six hours on the Plan did not get any of the essence(p) coverage.25 Another issue was that Tun Dr. Mahathir had called a press conference to express his deep dashing hopes after Datuk Seri Abdullah dismissed the crooked couplet project. However, the mainstream media hardly covered it.ConclusionsThe freedom of the media has seen become more restrictive from the time prior to independence until now. At the early day, the British Colonial has a freer media compare to the media after independence. This might be because of the British regarded the individual freedom as up most important. When came to the early day after independence, the laws being designed were more restricted. However, this was understandable as the situation at that time, where Malaysia was in an Emergency. reasonless speech might cause debauch to the nation. Therefore, the government had to take step to prevent this. In 1970-1985, there was more cases on freedom of speech, after the stand of the courts are clear in these issues, there was lesser cases.During the time frame from 1981 to 2002, many laws were designed and many existing laws were amended. Tun Dr. Mahathir tried to cut this by saying that the truth is that there is no sacrosanct press freedom anywhere in the world, be it in a liberal democratic country or in countries governed by dictators.26 He further claimed that journalists and unknowns read a few newspapers which support the government and presently concluded that there is no press freedom in Malaysia.This was in federation with his view points that Malaysian newspapers are free. But this freedom does not mean freedom to criticize the government alone. It also means freedom to support the government.27Further in Tun Dr. Mahathir speech at the national union of diaryists dinner on fift eenth June 1990, he stated that According to an old English proverb, power corrupt and rank(a) power tends to corrupt absolutely. If there are restrictions on press freedom, especially pertaining to reports on violence, sex and obscenity, then they are imposed because no one should be given absolute power. This is to prevent the possibility of absolute corruption. This constraint no way suggests there is no press freedom in Malaysia. Government leaders in this country have no absolute power.The people can change the government while the courts can reverse government decisions. Therefore, newspapers in Malaysia must accept these restrictions. This is through with(p) in the national interest and not aimed at destroying pressfreedom. It is true that freedom of the media has to be limited but over limiting will just if result to a closed society. sounding at the current situation, many are thinking that the new government would promote media freedom in view of the government transpa rency policy. However, one should bear in mind that since Datuk Seri Abdullah took over the government until today, it was only three years passed. It is unfair to judge him at this moment. Whether or not there is free media under Datuk Seri Abdullah, we shall wait and see. comparison to our nearest neighbor, capital of capital of Singapore, media in Malaysia enjoy more freedom. Singapore as a police state, the press is mobilized to explain and support the policies of the Singapore government, as an aid to development or else than assuming a counter-checking posture.In Chee Siok Chin case28, the Singapore court held that it bears emphasis that the phrase necessary or expedient confers on Parliament an extremely wide arbitrary power and remit that permits a multilateral and multifaceted approach towards achieving any of the purposes undertake in Art 14(2) of the constitution. In air to the Indian Constitution, there can be no questioning of whether the Legislations are reasonabl e. The courts sole task, when a constitutional challenge is advanced, is to ascertain whether an impugned law is within the purview of any of the tolerable restrictions.As for electronic media, the media Corporation of Singapore, an organic evolution from a series of government owned broadcast Corporations, dominances the broadcasting media. The PAP government guards the broadcast turf with rigour, grudgingly allowing foreigner broadcasters to operate for commercial and public relations reasons but legislating them off local politics.Today, Malaysian society has an economic direct of existence which provides for basic needs, health facilities, adequate housing and equal opportunities to education. Therefore, there is no reason why freedom of speech and free media should be restricted. Values of freedom of expression, exposure tocritical thinking and the importance of a civil society should be emphasizes. later on 49 years of independence, Malaysian should not only concern with e arning a livelihood and basic quality of life issues. hunting lodge shall have desire to take aim knowledge especially in social concerns such as freedom of speech.Bibliography1. A Case of the Media liberty Report of the SUHAKAM, shop class on emancipation of the Media at Kuala Lumpur, Aug. 1, 2002. (Kuala Lumpur Suruhanjaya Hak Asasi Manusia Malaysia, 2003). 2. Abdul Aziz Bari, independence of public lecture and Expression in Malaysia After Forty Years, (1998) 27.3 INSAF 149-161. 3. Abraham, C.E.R., granting immunity of linguistic process for Whom? The Malaysian Case, (1998) 27.3 INSAF 1-8. 4. Asian tender Rights Commission, homepage, 10 Sept. 20065. Asian Human Rights Commission, homepage, 10 Sept. 20066. Broadcasting Act 1988 (Act 338).7. Centre for commutative Journalism, 10 Sept. 20068. Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (Act 588).9. Communication and Multimedia Commission Act 1998. (Act 599). 10. Constitution (Amendment) Act 1971 (Act A30).11. Control of Importe d Publications Act 1958 (Ord 14 of 1955) 12. Cyrus V. Das, Press emancipation & Contempt of Court, (1986) 19.3 INSAF 61. 13. Faruqi, Shad Saleem, Access to Information, 1993 4 Malaysia Current law Journal xxiii. 14. , Curbing Excesses of Free legal transfer, sunshine Star, 10 Feb, 2002, Focus. 15. , Cyber Challenge to Freedom of Speech, sunlight Star, 27 Jan, 2002, Focus. 16. ,Keeping A Tight Lid on formalized Secrets, Sunday Star, 17 Feb, 2002, Focus. 17. , Life-blood of Free Society, Sunday Star, 20 Jan, 2002, Focus. 18. , Pifalls for the Unwary Media, Sunday Star, 3 March, 2002, Focus. 19. , Principles That Govern Free Speech, Sunday Star, 3 Feb, 2002, Focus. 20. Federal Constitution.21. Freedom of the Press? A Quick face up At the Borneo Mail Affair and the oppugn How Free Is the Local Press?. 1994 (June) Malaysian Law News, 36-37. 22. Hashim Makaruddin, ed., Ensiklopedia Dr. Mahathir Bin Mohamed Perdana Menteri Malaysia, (Cairo Dar al-Kitab al-Masri, 2005). 23.Hickling, R.H., Hicklings Malaysian Public Law, (Petalng Jaya Longman, 2003). 24. I Know How The slew Feel, (1986) 19.4 INSAF 18.25. Kanesalingam, A., Democracy and the Law, (1998) 27.4 INSAF 105-115. 26. Mahathir Mohamed, Freedom of the Press Malaysian Perspective, 1990 (Aug) Malaysian Law News, 521-522. 27. Malaysia Act 1963 (No.26/63).28. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary 3 Sept. 200629. Mohamad Ariff Yusuf, Freedom of the Press in Malaysia, tenth Law Asia Conference, (Kuala Lumpur, June 21 July 4, 1987). 30. Mustafa K. Anuar, Anil Netto, Malaysian Ready for Press Freedom, 5 Sept. 2006, 31. , Joint Coordination, Charter 2000, Aliran Online, 6 Sept. 2006 32. Officials Secrets Act 1972 (Act 88)33. Officials Secrets (Amendment) Act 198334. Officials Secrets (Amendment) Act 198635. Padmanabha Rau, Federal entire Law in Malaysia & Singapore, second ed., (Singapore Butterworths Asia, 1997). 36. Press Council Bill A gormandize, Aliran Online, 5 Sept. 2006 37. Printing Press Act 1948 (Ord 12 o f 1948)38. Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 (Act301).39. Printing Presses and Publications (Amendment) Act 1987 (Act684) 40. Reme Ahmad, Malaysia Former Media Bosses Duel Over Press Issues, Asia Media News 22 Feb. 2006, 9 Sept. 200641. Ruslan Zainuddin, Fauziah Soffie, Sejarah Malaysia (Selangor Penerbit Fajar Bakti, 2001). 42. .Salleh Buang, The Broadcasting Act 1988, 1994 (April) Malaysian Law News, 5&14. 43. Shafruddin Hashim, The Constitution and the Federal judgment in Peninsular Malaysia, (1984) Journal of Malaysia and comparative degree Law, 139-178. 44. Sheridan, L.A. & Groves, Harry E., The Constitution of Malaysia, 5th ed., (Singapore Malaysian Law Journal, 2004). 45. Sedition Act 1948 (Revised 1969) (Act 15).46. Sopiee, Mohamed Nordin, Freedom of the Press, 10th Law Asia Conference, (Kuala Lumpur June 29 July 4, 1987). 47. Tan, Kevin & Thio Li-Ann, Constitutional Law in Malaysia & Singapore, 2nd ed., (SingaporeButterworths Asia, 1997).48. The Officials Secret s (Amendment) Bill 1986 Why be They Taking Away Our Rights? 1986, 19.4 INSAF 1. 49. Tun Mohamed Suffian, ed., The Constitution of Malaysia Its increment 1957-1977, (Kuala Lumpur Oxford University Press, 1978). 50. Wong, Kok Keong, Propagandists for the BN (Part 1), 2004 Vol. 24 No. 5 Aliran Monthly, 14-17. 51. , Propagandists for the BN (Part 2), 2004 Vol. 24 No. 6 Aliran Monthly, 13-17. 52. , Freer Media Under PM Abdullah?, Aliran Online 3 Sept. 2006 53. Zaharom Naim, Mustafa K Anuar, Ownership and Control of the Malaysia Media, World Association for Christian Communication, homepage, 10 Sept. 2006 54. Zalina Abdul Halim, Media Law, 2000 Survey of Malaysian Law, 411-439. 55. , The media formation and Co-operative Regulatory Systems in the Media Sector of Malaysia, Hans-Bredow-Institut, 2 Sept. 2006