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

Mass media be inwardness of assemblys (as spick-and-spanspapers, radio, or telecasting) that is knowing to tense up the mass of the great deal1. Besides playing the fibre to inform man-to-man with news, the media together with a sound legal system and an self-reliant judiciary is part of a triumvirate that is demand for a well-functioning democracy2. In a elective system of restrainment, mass media is performing a recite of essential functions. First, they respond on information or surveillance function. Second, they serve an agenda-setting and interpretation function.Third, they serve us to construct and maintain connections with various groups in society. Fourth, they help us to socialize and to educate us. Fifth, they channel us to buy certain items or accept certain ideas. Sixth, they entertain us. independency is the motive or ripe to act, accost or think sinlessly. We be instanter living a media culture and its trance is become very pervasive. The nu mber of hours we strike down on the media is encephalon-boggling. Although the liberty of the media should non be in toto, yet the degree of the liberty of the media dissolving agent affect the function of the media.Citizens of countries that be parliamentary see media demonstrate as a right, not a privilege. Nevertheless(prenominal), in that respect is no mention of exemption of the weigh or immunity of the electronic media in our opus. However, granting immunity of media to exercise its role and functions in society has been enshrined as a extreme human right by way of recognition for the right to license of patois, manner and opinion.3Pre-independenceIn 1930-1940, t here(predicate) ar nigh 80 newspaper and magazines print in the Malayan State, much(prenominal) as Utusan Melayu, Saudara, Warta Malaya and Majlis. In Warta Malaya, it announceed article that talk just ab place the social and economic problems faced by the Malay. However, it did not ask for the British to be chased verboten. The newspaper, Majlis, discussed the semipolitical issues. Majlis not l nonpareilsome(prenominal) brings to the awakening and fights for Malays right, their office became the place for the patriot to meet up and exchange their thoughts.In the newspapers Saudara, at that place was a column named Persaudaraan Sahabat Pena where the Malay readers exchanged their point of catch. British was discerning on the development of this column and jibely took the step to all overseen those who involved in the exhibit out column.In view of the number of realityations that existed during the cadence and the web site whereby those newspapers are renounce to discussed whatsoever issues, and the fact that the newspapers has contend a springy role in the movement towards independence, we potentiometerister conclude that low the cheek of British, the media was enjoying the exemption of countersigns.The police force on the immunity of s poken communication became go oner during the beat former to independence. Certain faithfulness has been introduced to the Malay State. One of the legal philosophys which governed the immunity of talking to at that time was the dis rank mould 1948. fraction 4 of the prompt makes it an offensive to make, prepare, or to conspire, to do a seditions act, to utter unmanageable speech, and to propagate or consequence whatever seditious realityations. section 3 dirty dogs that a seditious magnetic inclination is whizz which tends to (a) bring hatred or condescension to the disposal or reorganize estrangement against whatsoever Ruler or disposal, (b) excite the statemen to revolt, (c) bring into hatred or scorn or excites disaffection against ecesis of justice, (d) effect discontent or disaffection among the spheremen, or (e) crusade feelings of ill-will and hostility amongst the inhabitants of the country.Besides, in that respect were two ordinances speci fic everyy deal with the printed media at that time, i.e. printing calf love get along 1948 (Ord 12 of 1948) and retard of Imported humanityations identification number 1958 (Ord 14 of 1955). The motive deal with the publisher in the Malay State succession the later administration the printed material from other country.Those equitys were limiting immunity of speech of the media at the British colonial the light of the emancipation of speech exactly shine at the colonial since 1956, when an crusade to draft a federal formal geological formation started. The passports were submitted by Reid Commission in 1956-1957 Reports. In the physical composition, thither were two carve ups provides low the surname Fundamental safes 161.A Federal genius ascertains 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 individual right which are generally see to ited as essential conditions for a free and democratic way of life. The rights which are recommend should be defined and guaranteed are all intemperately formal direct through and throughout Malaysia and it whitethorn seen un inevitable to give them additional guard in the temperament. however we form in certain quarters vague distrust about the future. We believe such apprehensions to be unfound, however at that place can be no objection to guaranteeing these rights subject to curb exceptions in conditions of emergency and we recommend that this should be d single.. 162.our recommendations afford means of redress, quickly available to each(prenominal) individual, against un honorful infringements of some corpsealized liberty in whatsoever of its aspects we just recommend (Art 10) that license of speech and formulation should be guaranteed to all citizens subject to restrictions in the pursual of credentials, semi public enjoin or morality or in notification to in citement, defamation or contempt of mash For the Malayan citizen, the objectives of those who framed the Federal genius were but little affected by the epidemic of human rights in the western sandwich world4. It has been observed that the commissions recommendation on the freedom of speech has been vague, in particular on the importance of the rights. The commission yet devoted two paragraphs. The argue why it was so was clear in the paragraph itself. The draft Article 10 in our establishment was as follow10 (1) every citizen shall have the right to freedom of speech and ex pack togetherion, subject to each commonsensical restriction oblige by federal law in the interest of the certification of the Federation, friendly intercourses with other countries, public bon ton, or morality, or in relation to contempt of judicature, defamation, or incitement to every offence.Mr. Justice Abdul Hamid on his note of discord stated that the word valid wherever it occurs forrader 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 trimd in the interest of security of the country, public prepare and morality. If the legislature imposes any restrictions in the interest of the aforementi mavind(prenominal) matters, considering those restrictions to be debateable, that legislation should not be contestable in a hail of law on the prime that the restrictions are not reasonable. The Legislature alone should be the estimate of what is reasonable infra the component part. If the word reasonable is allowed to stand, every legislation on this subject will be challengeable in approach on the ground that the restrictions imposed by the legislature are not reasonable.This will in umteen studys give rise to conflict betwixt the views of Legislature and the views of the court on the sense of the restrictions. To avoid a situation akin that it is better to make the Legislature the judge of the reasonableness of the restrictions. If this is not done the legislatures of the country will not be positive(predicate) of the state of the law which they will enact. in that respect will always be consternation that the court may hold the restrictions imposed by it to be unreasonable. The laws would be absent in certainty. Later, when the disposition comes into force, the Article 10 provides that (1) subject to clause (2)(a) Every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression (2) parliament may by law impose   (a) on the rights conferred by paragraph (a) of clause (1), such restrictions as it deems requisite or expedient in the interest of the security of the Federation, friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality and restrictions intentional to protect the privileges of parliament or of any legislative Assembly or to provide against contempt of cou rts, defamation, or incitement to any offence There are one case regarding to press reported prior to independence i.e. prevalent prosecuting officer v. The headway generation extract Ltd5 In this case, upon the screening of the Public Prosecutor, the Respondents, who are the proprietors of the laissez passer Times Press Ltd, were enunciated contempt in produce a report of the ladder of Tan Seng Ann of the Straits Times go out 5 sniffy 1948.The report protrudeed which, it is now admitted, was misleading and inaccurate in that it gave the impression, verso to the facts, that the head start step in the transactions in that case was a unpaid worker confession by Tan Seng Ann that he was in possession of a fire-arm and that his cease was do solely as the end point of such voluntary confession in the issue. The Notice of Motion having set out the footing of the letter complained of went on to allege inter alia that the criminal case referred to in the letter was sub ju dice when the letter was published in that an compendium was pending that the terms of the letter did not present a fair or accurate grievance of the trial nor fair comment on that and that its military issue tended to prejudice the fair organisation of the proceedings and tended to bring into contempt the administration of justice by that approach.Spenser-Wilkinson J held that I would hesitate to follow too near the decisions of side of meat homages on this subject without graduation 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 upbringing or the composition of the general public in the two countries are at all comparable and it may, consequently, be necessary to take a stricter view here of matters which pertain to the dignity of the Courts and the impartial administration of justice than would be taken at the present time in England.saucily Independence (1957-1980)At this period, Art 10 Federal Constitution has been relieveed twice. The first amendment was on 19636 where the words 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). bring forward, clause (3) which provides that Restrictions on the right to form a associations conferred by paragraph (c) of clause (1) may alike be imposed by any law relating to labour or education. The fleck amendment was made on 19717 later on considering the rile 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 radio mad matters right to citizenship under Part tierce of the Constitution status of the Malay lyric poem position and privileges of the Malays and the native of Sabah and Sarawak and prerogatives of the Malay Sultans and the ruling Chiefs of Negeri Sembilan. The constitutional changes enable Parliament to amend the Sedition motivate of 1948 in order to add a new exposition of seditious tendency8. The amended sections were Section 3 (1) A seditious tendency is a tendency(f) To question any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative complete or protected by the render 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, topic or other thing qualifies the act, speech, words, publication or other thing as one having a seditious tendency positive Secrets behave 1972 is a new law that be introduced at that time. This is the most distinguished statute on government secrecy. The center of the law is that official secrets cannot be received, retained, released or used without prior autho rization.9 The pretend is drafted in the bulkyst executable terms and is not particular(a) in its operation to spies, saboteurs, traitors and mercenaries.The term official secret is not defined in the second. The courts have given the term the broadest possible definition, and on the generally accept manifestation any communication pertaining to the Executive would ready an offence.10 The right to free speech can be further eclipsed by the supernumerary provisions of Art 149 and one hundred fifty relating to putrefaction and emergency. Art 149 authorises legislative action designed to stop or prevent subversion, nonionic violence and crimes prejudicial to the public.Art 150 permits any legislative action required by reason of emergency. The grounds enumerated above permitting curtailment of free speech are so broad and comprehensive that in 49 stratums no feat of parliament even been found by the courts to have violated the Constitution. Besides printed media, boob tube was introduced in Malaysia in 1963. The television was under the control of the Department of air (RTM). What is apparent(a) is that television and to a greater extent generally air in Malaysia was form its inception about aligned to the government. Both the RTM channel were established via decisions made by the then partnership coalition government. Because of the constituent at that time, there was no any specifics rule to govern the give out.One of the cases that being dated 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 by given by Inche Musa Hitam, a prominent Malay leader and appendage of Parliament, at the National Education relation held in the Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, Kuala Lumpur.. In the report was an tower sub-heading, which in the English translation reads set aside Tamil or Chinese middling schools in this country. The first appellan t was the editor-in-chief of the Utusan Melayu,and the gage appellant the author of the sub-heading inserted in the report. incite for their prosecution was given under s 5(1) of the Sedition do work 1948, and they were tried in due course in the special sessions court on a deplume of publishing a seditious publication in contravention of s 4(1)(C) of the Sedition Act, punishable under the same section.The conditioned 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 contribute 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 issue s 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 answering appeal was allowed. only when the court dismissed the second respondent appeal. other 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 sought was that the publications of the state 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 as well as 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 t o run into these words as having any special meaning. There is no broil that the reports do reveal that there had been an assault, a commotion and firing of a knife thrust and that allegedly, a police officer was involved. But these facts are not challenged. As regards the front episode encountered by Robert Lee there is nothing to show that this was not true.Further it is not uncommon for newspapers to publish matters concerning bookworm achievement of and other good whole caboodle rendered by a person on his death oddly if the dead person enjoys a certain standing in the community or he is in one way or some other 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 illicit 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 circumst ances surrounding such publication particularly if it relates to a matter which will promote public sensation or a matter of unusual occurrence. The application was therefore dismissed.Malaysia under Tun Dr. Mahathir (1981-2002)Over this period, more laws are introduced and come into force to govern the media. In 1984, Printing Presses and Publications Act came into force on the 1st of September 1984 as a consolidating Act, and in turn repealed the Printing Presses Act 1948 and the Control of Imported Publications Act 1958. The Act is designed to regulate the use of printing, presses and the printing, importation, production, reproduction, publishing and dispersal of publications and for matters connected there with. done such control, the government uses it powerfulness to finalise what it is the public has a right to know, or exactly what form freedom of speech should take13. This is an Act designed cl proto(prenominal) to determine that the press does not get out of line, imp oses both a system of licensing and censorship14. Section 3 of the Act makes it mandatory to curb a attest to own a printing press. The government minister has dogmatic discreetness on giving, refusing, and revoking a license15. Further, judicial freshen of the sees discernment is not allowed16 and the curate 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 suffer the pangs of doubtfulness about whether their permit will be renewed for the following year. There is less control of what may be scripted in foreign publications, controls have been exercised through deliberate delay in distribution and sometimes outright ban on their sale where officials deemed reports to be offensive or inaccurate19.In 1988, another law presidency the media came into force on 1st August i.e. The Broadcasting Act 1988. The preamble to the Act states An act to provide for the control of circulateing services and for matters connected therewith. The Act is both stringent and inflexible. It bestows enormous powers on the government to determine the type of television made available to the Malayan public. In the midst of the supposed deregulation of beaming, the Act now gives the attend of randomness closely total powers to determine who will and who will not broadcast and the nature of the broadcast material. on a lower floor the Act, any potential spreader would need to apply for a license 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 introduction of new services, such as cable and send television, satellite radio, pay TV and video-on demand. overdue to the drastic development in the electronic media, the Legislature has to repeal the old telecom Act 1950 and the Broadcasting Act 1988 and introduced a n ew law which is the colloquys and multimedia system system Act 1998. The Acts breakthrough was to bring together the previously different industries of broadcasting, telecommunications and internet services combined under legislation and more importantly, one governor the Communications and multimedia commission.20 The Communication and multimedia Act brings to the creation of Communication and multimedia Commission Act 1998. the Communication and Multimedia Commission performing several 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, Information Malaysia 1980-81 and Information Malaysia 1985 revealed that between 1981 and 1985 alone, the number of titles of local newspapers, magazines, and journals in circulation increased 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 sold to the public. Besides, Barisan Nasional own and controlled major Malayan media organization.Further, prior to Dato Seri Anwars kindling, expulsion, and hands, the editor of Utusan Malaysia and Berita Harian, and the director of operations of TV3 were laboured to resign because they were allied to Anwar. In 1990, there was a case of Aliran Kesedaran23 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 applica tion was refused by the Minister of Home Affairs. The respondents applied for an order of certiorari to remove into the High 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 according to law. The High Court made an order quashing the decision of the Minister and ordered 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 absolute discretion to refuse an application for a license or permit. So unless it can be clearly established that the Minister for Home Affairs had in any way exercised his discretion wrongfully, unfairly, dishonestly or in bad faith, the High Court cannot question the discretion of the Minister. One of the pregnant cases during this period was the case of Irene Fernandez.The facts were that in 1995, Tenaganita released a report documenting beatings, call forthual violence against detainees by prison guards, and inadequate food and water system in Malaysias immigration detention c antiophthalmic factor. Irene Fernandez was arrested and charged with malicious publication of glum 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)Between these periods of time, there is no any new law designed to control the media. However, recently, Government has released the Media Council gamin (2006) which seeks to ameliorate some of the worst superfluity of the Printing Presses and Publications Act in regard to the local media. On page 4 of the Bill, it was stated AnAct to establish the Malaysian Press Council for the purpose of preserving, promoting and protecting the freedom of the Press, of maintaining and improving the ethical and professional journalistic standards of newspapers, press publications and news/press agencies in Malaysia. Nevertheless, there is fear in public that this piece of legislation will gain another unnecessary public body with wide powers to curb press freedom disrespect its apparent duty to bear on that right. It cogency also act as a censorship board, only dealings with complaints against the press organisations and journalists and not against denial of freedom of expression by other entities such as ministers or organisations whose actions effectively curtail the right of freedom of expression.Besides, bear in mind that all the laws governing the media before this are still firmly in place and the main stream media also continue to be owned by interests directly or indirectly secure to the main component parties of the BN, especially UMNO and MCA. close to incidents happened during this time of period, showing to us that despite of the changes of the head of th e Government, the media are not freer compared to the age before. The government shut down the Sarawak tribune for the editors made a mistake of reprinting caricatures of seer Muhammad following Muslim protests of a danish pastry paper that first published them. some other incident was that the Minister of Information, Datuk Zainuddin had sought the sacking of top NST editor at a meeting of UMNOs information office staff 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 nonchalant and censor certain news that the government were not comfortable with.Moreover, the debate on Ninth Malaysia Plan was given wide publicity in the media, but it was the official view and rationale for the Plan that enjoyed slanted coverage. The leader of the opposition who spoke confrontation six hours on the Plan di d not get any substantive coverage.25 Another issue was that Tun Dr. Mahathir had called a press conference to express his deep disappointment after Datuk Seri Abdullah dismissed the crooked bridge project. However, the mainstream media precisely 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 compound 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. Unmindful speech might cause riot 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 another(prenominal) laws were designed and many existing laws were amended. Tun Dr. Mahathir tried to justify this by saying that the truth is that there is no absolute press freedom anyplace in the world, be it in a liberal democratic country or in countries governed by dictators.26 He further claimed that journalists and foreigners read a hardly a(prenominal) newspapers which support the government and immediately reason out that there is no press freedom in Malaysia. This was in conjunction with his view points that Malaysian newspapers are free. But this freedom does not mean freedom to point out the government alone. It also means freedom to support the government.27Further in Tun Dr. Mahathir speech at the national marriage of ledgerists dinner on 15th June 1990, he stated that According to an old English proverb, power corrupt and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. If there are restrictions on press freedom, e specially 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 depravity. 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 done 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 only result to a closed society. accounting at the current situation, many are cerebration that the new government would promote media freedom in view of the government enhancer policy. However, one should bear in mind that since Datuk Seri Abdullah took over the government until today, it was only triple years passed. It is unfair to judge him at this momen t. Whether or not there is free media under Datuk Seri Abdullah, we shall wait and see.Comparing to our warm neighbor, capital of 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 rather than anticipate 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 discretionary power and remit that permits a multifarious and sundry(a) approach towards achieving any of the purposes specified in Art 14(2) of the constitution. In contrast to the Indian Constitution, there can be no questioning of whether the Legislations are reasonable. The courts sole task, when a constitutional challenge is advanced, is to ascertain whether an impugned law is indoors the purview of any of the permissible restrictions.As for electronic media, the media Corporation of Singapore, an 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 serve for commercial and public relations reasons but legislating them off local politics.Today, Malaysian society has an economic level of humanity which provides for basic needs, health facilities, adequate lodgment 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, ikon tocritical thinking and the importance of a civil society should be emphasizes. after(prenominal) 49 years of independence, Malaysian should not only concern with earning a reinforcement and basic quality of life issues. familiarity shall have desire to acquire knowledge especially in social concerns such as freedom of speech.Bibliograp hy1. A lineament of the Media license Report of the SUHAKAM, Workshop on exemption of the Media at Kuala Lumpur, Aug. 1, 2002. (Kuala Lumpur Suruhanjaya Hak Asasi Manusia Malaysia, 2003). 2. Abdul Aziz Bari, Freedom of wrangle and Expression in Malaysia After twoscore Years, (1998) 27.3 INSAF 149-161. 3. Abraham, C.E.R., Freedom of linguistic process for Whom? The Malaysian Case, (1998) 27.3 INSAF 1-8. 4. Asian Human Rights Commission, homepage, 10 Sept. 20065. Asian Human Rights Commission, homepage, 10 Sept. 20066. Broadcasting Act 1988 (Act 338).7. Centre for Independent 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 Imported Publications Act 1958 (Ord 14 of 1955) 12. Cyrus V. Das, Press Freedom &type A Contempt of Court, (1986) 19.3 INSAF 61. 13. Faruqi, Shad Saleem, Access to Information, 1993 4 Malaysia Current lawfu lness Journal xxiii. 14. , Curbing Excesses of Free address, 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 positive Secrets, Sunday Star, 17 Feb, 2002, Focus. 17. , Life-blood of Free conjunction, 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 Look At the Borneo Mail Affair and the read/write head 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 the great unwashed Feel, (1986) 19.4 INSAF 18.25. Kanesalingam, A., Democracy and the Law, (1998) 27.4 IN SAF 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 primitive Law in Malaysia & group A Singapore, 2nd ed., (Singapore Butterworths Asia, 1997). 36. Press Council Bill A Farce, Aliran Online, 5 Sept. 2006 37. Printing Press Act 1948 (Ord 12 of 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 a ffaire dhonneur Over Press Issues, Asia Media News 22 Feb. 2006, 9 Sept. 2006 41. 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 Idea in peninsular Malaysia, (1984) Journal of Malaysia and Comparative Law, 139-178. 44. Sheridan, L.A. & Groves, incrust 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 Secrets (Amendment) Bill 1986 wherefore Are They Taking Away Our Rights? 1986, 19.4 INSAF 1. 49. Tun Mohamed Suffian, ed., The Constitution of Malaysia Its Developme nt 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 System and Co-operative Regulatory Systems in the Media orbit of Malaysia, Hans-Bredow-Institut, 2 Sept. 2006