Article 10 of the Constitution of Malaysia

Article 10 of the Constitution of Malaysia guarantees Malaysian citizens the right to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of association. Unlike comparable provisions in constitutional law such as the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Article 10 entitles citizens to such freedoms as are not restricted by the government, instead of absolutely guaranteeing those freedoms.

Text

#Subject to Clauses (2), (3) and (4) —
#*(a) every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression;
#*(b) all citizens have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms;
#*(c) all citizens have the right to form associations.
#Parliament 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 or any part thereof, friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality and restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament or of any Legislative Assembly or to provide against contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to any offence;
#*(b) on the right conferred by paragraph (b) of Clause (1), such restrictions as it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof, or public order;
#*(c) on the right conferred by paragraph (c) of Clause (1), such restrictions as it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof, public order or morality.
#Restrictions on the right to form associations conferred by paragraph (c) of Clause (1) may also be imposed by any law relating to labour or education.
#In imposing restrictions in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof or public order under Clause (2) (a), Parliament may pass law prohibiting the questioning of any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of Part III, Article 152, Article 153 or Article 181 otherwise than in relation to the implementation thereof as may be specified in such law.

History

Drafting

The Constitution of the independent Federation of Malaya — which later merged with Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak to form Malaysia — was drafted by the Reid Commission, a body of eminent jurists from the Commonwealth of Nations. In its report, the Commission recommended that the Constitution protect "certain fundamental individual rights which are as essential conditions for a free and democratic way of life". Although the commissioners avoided recommending that these rights be entrenched — finding that they were "...all firmly established in Malaya"Yatim, Rais (1995). "Freedom Under Executive Power in Malaysia: A Study of Executive Supremacy", p. 77. Endowment Publications. ISBN 983-99984-0-4.] — they nevertheless felt that in light of "vague apprehensions about the future", it would be well to provide some constitutional safeguards for these rights. The "vague apprehensions" were mainly those of the non-Malays, who feared that an independent Malaya would be dominated politically by the Malays (see "ketuanan Melayu"). The Reid Commission thus recommended that the rights "...should be guaranteed in the Constitution and the courts should have the power of enforcing these rights". [Yatim, pp. 73–74.]

The draft Constitution prepared by the Commission included an Article 10 largely similar to the one eventually included in the final Constitution. However, the draft first clause differed in one important respect:

The other clauses covering freedom of assembly and association also similarly referred to a "reasonable restriction". Justice Abdul Hamid of Pakistan, a member of the Commission, wrote a strong dissenting view that was included in the final report of the Commission. His dissent criticised, among others, the draft versions of Article 4 and Article 10. [Yatim, pp. 62–64.] Hamid objected to the inclusion of the word "reasonable", stating:

Final version

The Working Committee established by the autonomous Federation's government adopted nearly all of Hamid's recommendations in his dissent, thereby eliminating the possibility of judicial review concerning the reasonableness of laws which infringed on the rights granted by Article 10. One legal commentator has stated:

Lord William Reid, who chaired the Commission, said that:

During the debate over the draft Constitution in the Federal Legislative Council, K.L. Devaser, an Alliance government backbencher, criticised the changes, arguing:

Over his objections, the Legislative Council approved the modified draft. This version of the Constitution, which contained an Article 10 much more similar to the present day version, also included a new Article 4(2) which provides that "The validity of any law shall not be questioned on the ground that...it imposes such restrictions as are mentioned in Article 10(2)". In light of these changes, a Malaysian lawyer has argued that "It is clear ... that freedoms of ... speech, assembly and association (Article 10) were intended to be restricted "ab initio"." [Yatim, pp. 68, 76.]

Implementation

Several acts of law regulate the freedoms granted by Article 10, such as the Official Secrets Act, which makes it a crime to disseminate information classified as an official secret. The Sedition Act 1948 makes it an offence to engage in acts with a "seditious tendency", including but not limited to the spoken word and publications; conviction may result in a sentence of a fine up to RM5,000, three years in jail, or both. The Public Order (Preservation) Ordinance 1958 allows the Police to declare certain areas "restricted", and to regulate processions or meetings of five persons or more. The maximum sentence for the violation of a restricted area order is imprisonment of 10 years and whipping. [Means, Gordon P. (1991). "Malaysian Politics: The Second Generation", pp. 142–143, Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-588988-6.]

Other laws curtailing the freedoms of Article 10 are the Police Act 1967, which criminalises the gathering of three or more people in a public place without a licence, and the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984, which grants the Home Affairs Minister "absolute discretion" in the granting and revoking of publishing permits, and also makes it a criminal offense to possess a printing press without a licence. [Rachagan, S. Sothi (1993). "Law and the Electoral Process in Malaysia", pp. 163, 169–170. Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press. ISBN 967-9940-45-4.]

The Sedition Act in particular has been widely commented upon by jurists for the bounds it places on freedom of speech. Justice Raja Azlan Shah (later the Yang di-Pertuan Agong) once said:

Legal criticism

Legal scholars have suggested that compared to other fundamental liberties set out in Part II of the Constitution, the freedoms of speech, association and assembly are easily abridged by both the executive and legislative branches of the government. Most of these freedoms, such as freedom from slavery, double jeopardy, etc., are not subjected to the same exclusions as set out in Article 10(2), (3) and (4). Instead, they are rights which are guaranteed without any qualification. The rights of Article 10 are subject to the exclusions of the aforementioned clauses. [Yatim, pp. 80–81.] Under Articles 149 and 150, during a state of emergency, the executive is granted the power to legislate, even if the resulting laws contravene the Constitution; however, this power does not extend to any matter pertaining to Islamic law, Malay customs, the customs of the indigenous peoples of Sabah and Sarawak, religion in general, citizenship, and language. [Means, pp. 141–142.] In light of this, one scholar (Shad Saleem Faruqi) has gone as far as to argue that:

It has been remarked that although the "fundamental" rights of Article 10 were not entrenched, other portions of the Constitution — namely those related to the Malaysian social contract such as those provisions concerning the national language of Malay, the national religion of Islam, the position of the Malay rulers, the special position of the Malay majority, and citizenship — were entrenched. These provisions may only be amended with the consent of the Conference of Rulers — a body comprising the Malay rulers and the Governors of those states without a monarch. [Yatim, pp. 77–78.] In criticising the Reid Commission's finding that the freedoms of Article 10 were "all firmly established in Malaya" prior to independence, it has been suggested that:

Notes and references

ee also

*Sedition Act (Malaysia)