Freedom of Speech.

In this globalization era, the people in the world no matter what are their races, religions,
origins, ages and positions should have the right to express and voice out their opinion and
thought without censorship and restraint. The right is actually known as the freedom of speech
or the freedom of expression. Freedom of speech is also one of the humans right. According to
Merriam-Webster, freedom of speech is defined as the legal right to express one's opinions
freely. To be more precise, the freedom of speech is the right to express information, ideas, and
opinions free of government restrictions based on content and subject only to reasonable
limitations (as the power of the government to avoid a clear and present danger) especially as
guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. From the
definition, it is clear that freedom of speech is actually a very important right that the public
must have. With this right, the public including the people who are being oppressed can voice
out and express what they feel and what are their thought and hope.

“Human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear”
declared the United Nations (UN) and that “to rebel against tyranny and oppression…is
protected by the rule of law.” This shows how UN recommends to all the countries in the world
to support the freedom of speech. All the people in this world should be given a chance to talk,
a chance to express their ideas and feelings and a chance to deliver their speech. Not just that,
freedom of speech is actually very important because it brings good to us. When the people are
given the freedom of speech, there will be many new ideas come out which can lead to the
development of the country and the civilization of the world. Freedom speech also will
encourage the development in social relationships to prosper and the truth can be established.

When the media are given the freedom to operate in all aspects including political and
civil society, this is called media freedom or freedom of press. The term media freedom extends
the traditional idea of the freedom of the press to electronic media, such as radio, television,
and the Internet. The definition of freedom of the press according Merriam-Webster is the right
of newspapers, magazines, etc., to report news without being controlled by the government.
Freedom of the press also defined as the right to publish and disseminate information, thoughts,
and opinions without restraint or censorship as guaranteed under the First Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution. Media freedom is generally held to be necessary for democratic societies.
Individuals generally cannot get sufficient information on their own to make informed
decisions on public matters, so they rely on media to provide information. So, it shows the
media responsibility and accountability in providing information. In addition, the media are an
outlet for public discussion and opinion and generally fulfil the functions of seeking truth,
educating the public, and serving as a watchdog over government.

There are many countries that apply freedom of speech in their countries and it is
written in their countries’ law. But saying what you like is more accepted in the United States
than anywhere else, according to recent research. The Pew Research Centre polled 38 countries
around the world in 2015 and found that Americans are more tolerant of free speech than other
nationalities. They are also the most supportive of freedom of the press and the right to use the
internet without government censorship.

In Malaysia, the freedom of speech also being applied and it is stated in Article 10 in
the Federal Constitution, which declares categorically in Clause (1) (a) that “every citizen has
the right to freedom of speech and expression”. But it is different in Malaysia due to the
situation here. Malaysia consists of multi-racial society and that is why the freedom of speech
in Malaysia is quite different with other countries. Two particularly sensitive issues which are
ethnic rivalry and religion are considered taboo and discussion of these issues is severely
restricted. Article 10 of the Malaysian Constitution, in reflecting the sensitiveness of these
issues, specifies a list of restrictions, which limit the right of free speech on the grounds of
guarding political stability and racial harmony.

There are differences between freedom of speech and hate speech. Free speech is the
freedom to voice out our thoughts and expressions without restrictions, while hate speech is
the abuse of this freedom to harm others, or speech intended to cause violence. Put differently,
free speech means we can say whatever we want. Hate speech is when we say things that are
offensive or harmful, targeted at a particular person or group of people. That is why the
Malaysia government has taken a step further to control not only hate and racial speech, but
also any political speech that seriously challenges the government. This is because to maintain
the prosperity of the country and prevent the racial riot like what had happened on 13 May
1969.

Before Tun Dr Mahathir take over Malaysia again for the 2nd time, the nation was living
in a scared environment where they did not own the freedom of talking or telling the truth to
the society. We were being lock in a cage where freedom of speech, freedom of voice out is
being control by another person. Time flies, after the exchange of Prime Minister, freedom of
speech has been legally applied to the country where people can voice out their opinion, their
ideas or their perception about the country especially or about others. But of course, even with
the existence of freedom towards the nation, there are still guidelines, rules & regulations that
the nation needs to obey.

Base on the article from www.nst.com.my entitled ‘’Freedom of Speech: Do not cross
the line”. This article was written by Mr Salleh Buang on 2nd January 2019 at 11.09 p.m. In
this article, Mr Salleh Buang explain that there is a thin line between free speech & hate speech.
As stated by him, ‘free speech is the freedom to voice out our thoughts and expressions without
restrictions, whilst hate speech is the abuse of this freedom to harm others, or speech intended
to cause violence.’ He added that free speech means we can say whatever we want while hate
speech is when we say things that are offensive or harmful, targeted at a particular person or
group of people.

In the context of Malaysia, “free speech” refers to “freedom of speech and expression”
as stated in Article 10 of the Federal Constitution, which declares categorically in Clause (1)
(a) that “every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression”. Moreover, he also
added that freedom of speech only applied to Malaysian citizens as it is not fully freedom but
there are subjected to several restrictions under the clauses (2), (3), & (4) of the same article.

An example was given in the article stated he House of Lords declared in James v
Commonwealth of Australia [1936] AC 578 that free speech doesn’t mean that you can say
whatever you want, free speech stands for speech that was hedged by the law against
defamation, blasphemy, sedition and so forth. It holds a strong meaning that there still a
guideline that you need to refer even with the freedom of speech authority.

News updated from July 2018, Minister in the Prime Minister Department Datuk Dr
Mujahid Yusof Rawa proposed three new laws to criminalise hate speech. The law is ‘The
Anti-Discrimination Act’, ‘National Harmony and reconciliation Commission Act, and ‘The
Religious and Racial Hatred Act’. But months go buy, there are still no news or new
development towards these ideas of Datuk Dr Mujahid.

In other article from www.thestar.com.my The Star Online issues Saturday, 2nd June
2018 entitled ‘Anwar: Media Freedom is truly important to the new Malaysia’ Dao Seri Anwar
Ibrahim stated that the new Malaysia propose the nation to speak freely and reminds there’s
nothing to be afraid of. But of course, we should obey the guidelines that the country and the
law has provided to us regarding on freedom of speech and media. He added that the purpose
of media freedom is for them to acknowledge the real situation and problems that the nation is
having, crisis and so forth. In return, they have the solution for the problems and can be done
if both sides play a good role in the game.

Media freedom doesn’t always win; they own flaws too. In the article http://asklegal.my
, the tittle is ‘Is there freedom of speech if in Malaysia if you can get arrested on Facebook
post?’ Every once in a while, we’ll come across a news report where someone gets arrested for
comments or posts they had made on social media, such as the students being investigated by
the police over posts on the MMU Confessions Facebook page, or the 3 people charged in court
for insulting then-PM Najib online. In more recent news, four people were charged with
insulting Islam online, with one of them being sentenced to 10 years and 10 months in prison;
and the other for 7 months and a RM10,000 fine. At the time of updating this article, another
man was also charged for insulting Hinduism online. On the other hand, this happens when
you misuse the freedom that were provided by the government. Facts, evidence or visible prove
(pictures/videos) needed if you were talking or attacking about other people as it functions as
a protection for you to not being legalize arrested.

In my opinion, freedom of speech and freedom of media both respectively have their
own pros and cons. On the right side, the government also needs to being considerate when it
comes to choosing cases that were created by the nation or the people and only choose the
worst case. While on the left side, the nation or the people needs to think before doing anything
as what you are about to post or talk might give effect to other group of people. With the law
provided, we must obey the rules and regulations that were prepared by the government.
Understanding between both sides needs to be achieve as it will define who and prove that as
a country with multi religious, nation and ethnic, we can all achieve that understanding between
the nation itself and the government also.

As we all know, in article 10 of federal constitution, it is stated that everyone has the
right to freedom of speech and expression. In other words, every citizen can say whatever they
want as long as they are not implementing it as a hate speech. Unlike our neighbour country,
an idyllic and liveable city in Asia, Singapore. There is serious problem for the country around
a proposed law to prevent fake news that could have ramifications for free speech. Singapore
had introduced the ‘Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill’ to prevent fake
news. Under this newly introduced rule, is that it will allow the government to add correction
to the content that is deemed to be false. The content of the article will not be edited but instead
it can be added with facts so that the facts can travel together with the falsehood. With this
newly proposed law, the government can cover their ‘wrong doing’ by adding the positive side
of the story to sweeten the pill.

As we all know, Singapore government has the power to limit citizens’ right ad to
inhibit political opposition. The way I see it is that Singapore has tight rules unlike Malaysia
where rules are basically invisible to some. It is a smart move for the Singapore government to
proposed the new law as to keep the citizens to stay under and to keep their name clear from
the media. Phil Robertson, the deputy Asia director stated that the Singapore government strive
in treating those who express any negative views or view them as criminals. In Malaysia, this
rule cannot be applied because of the rules in Malaysia are not tight. Breaking the law in
Malaysia nothing new. Anybody can get away from getting any punishment if they got caught
breaking the law. But when it comes to spreading hate speech, the citizen can be a bit bitter.

The absolute Brunei Darussalam also known as Brunei under the monarchy of Sultan
Hassanal Bolkiah has continue to restrict the output of the media and also limit the diversity of
media in Brunei. Journalist could face a lot of problem if found guilty of reporting “false and
malicious” news. Blogging there are considered publication “for the purpose of law and
slander,” Even if the blogger deleted the defamatory statement, it is still can be used as evidence
against the guilty blogger. Passage of the 2005 Sedition Act worsened the state of press
freedom in Brunei by expanding the list of punishable offenses to include criticism of the
sultan, the royal family, and the national Malay Islamic Monarchy ideology, which promotes
Islam as the state religion and the idea that monarchical rule is the only acceptable form of
governance. If a person found in violation of these offenses or any publisher publishing article
with the intention to provoke, face fines. There is no legislation establishing the right to access
official information. Foreign journalist must obtain government approval to work in the country
while newspapers company must apply for annual publishing permits. The government are
allowed to shut down any media outlet and block foreign publications with no possibility of
appeal. An Internet Code of Practice, included in a 2001 press law, makes individuals as well
as content and service providers liable
for publishing anything that is “against
the public interest or national harmony
or which offends against good taste or
decency.” It also requires all sites that
carry content or discuss issues of a
religious or political nature to register
with the Broadcasting Authority.
Violation of the code is punishable by
up to two years of imprisonment and a
BN$20,000 fine. This gives Brunei
government to control the output of the
media keep their good name in the
paper.

The reason why Brunei are able to

control the media is because the country
is well-provided. With all the richest,
they can provide citizen with ease.
Sultan of Brunei is one of the richest
men in the world and he spend his
wealth shamelessly. There are pros and
cons for the state of Brunei in term of
the law. Brunei laws favoured more to
the government than the citizen. Brunei
has the reputation of getting boycott by artists or companies. In recent news, Brunei has
introduced death by stoning as punishment for gay sex and the LGBT community has boycott
the company that are owned by the Brunei royal in respond to that newly introduced law. Artist
like, Ellen DeGeneres, Elton John, ‘Dua Lupa’ and many more have boycotted any business
that are owned by the royals of Brunei. But the Sultan of Brunei has put out a statement on
Instagram which might shut down the boycott movement. In the statement, he stated that other
countries might find faults in their laws and they might find faults in other countries laws. He
also stated that it is their country and other countries should not meddle with their country.
Here is the screenshot of the statement from Brunei.
 In Malaysia we technically do not have the freedom of speech. There are many
examples out there in the past about people getting arrested for expressing their thoughts. For
example, a student, Adam Adli, was campaigning for the protection of student rights and
academic freedom. On 19th September 2014, he was sentenced to a year in jail on charges of
sedition in relation to a speech he made. He urged people to protest the widely contested 2013
general election results. This shows Freedom of Speech does not exist in Malaysia. Many
people have spoken out about the things that are needed to be voiced out. But thankfully, last
year our government has changed and citizen and the media are allowed to express anything
they want. The media can publish anything they want as long as there is not sensitive issue
being put out. So, is the freedom of speech really exist or are we still being kept under.

The judiciary is responsible for protecting the freedom of the press. At the same time, the
press is responsible for reporting facts and events in a manner that helps the judiciary make
impartial legal decisions that can affect the course of a nation. While it is the media’s job to
raise important issues and update the citizen, it is the judiciary’s job to ensure that it can do so
without interference.

However, the roles of these two institutions do not end here. It is the responsibility of the
media to bring news and facts that will shape the society opinion and allow the citizens of a
country to voice out their rights. The judiciary’s role is to protect those rights. Therefore, it
becomes clear that in order to function efficiently, both the media and the judiciary must be
independent of any outside influences that may attempt to skew information or legal decisions.

When it comes to freedom of speech, there is a different between free speech and hate
speech. Free speech is the freedom to voice out our thoughts and expressions. But hate speech
it is the abuse of freedom to harm others, or speech intended to persuade and cause violence.
Put differently, free speech means we can say whatever we want. Hate speech is when we say
things that are offensive or harmful, targeted at a particular person or group of people and break
the boundary

No right is absolute. This is true even for the right to freedom of speech or expression.
However, the right does exist and as long as it does, the power lies in the hands of the people.
Since the freedom of the press also falls under this right, it is clear that the press is the tool that
indirectly protects all other rights that a people may enjoy. Curbing the freedom of the press is,
thus, curbing the freedom of the people. So is there really a freedom of speech in Malaysia,
you decide.
Reference

Brunei. (2016, December 01). Retrieved from https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-

press/2014/brunei
Case History: Adam Adli Abdul Halim. (2018, February 23). Retrieved from
https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/en/case/case-history-adam-adli-abdul-halim
Freedom of Speech. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/freedom of speech
Freedom of The Press. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/freedom of the press
Freedom of Speech and Democracy in Malaysia. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02185370801962440?journalCode=rasi20
Gray, A. (n.d.). Freedom of speech: Which country has the most? Retrieved from
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/freedom-of-speech-country-comparison/
(n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.nst.com.my/opinion/columnists/2019/01/446413/freedom-
speech-do-not-cross-line
(n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-law/federal-
constitution-of-malaysia-constitutional-law-essay.php
Press freedom in Malaysia - whither rule of law? (2018, May 03). Retrieved from
https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/422919
Russell, J., & Russell, J. (2019, April 03). Singapore's proposed 'fake news' law could stifle
free speech. Retrieved from https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/03/singapore-fake-news-law-
free-speech/
Singapore: Free Expression Targeted. (2019, January 17). Retrieved from
https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/01/17/singapore-free-expression-targeted