Democracy in Malaysia: A Regime's Limitations on Freedom of Speech

In Malaysia, democracy is seen as being controlled by the government itself, with the ruler or person in power not believing in giving absolute freedom to the public. The formation of parties and oppositions is not allowed in Malaysia, as it is believed that these groups can use their power and influence people in a wrong way. In contrast, the United Kingdom has a more expressive freedom of speech, allowing for media and public forces to present their views. However, Malaysia's government restricts simple things like oppositions, NGOs, and public views, using laws and powers to maintain peace and public order. This centralization of power has led to concerns about the state of democracy in Malaysia.

RUNNING HEAD: FREEDOM OF SPEECH 1
Name
College

FREEDOM OF SPEECH 2
ABSTRACT
This report speaks about the freedom of speech in Malaysia. We all are acquainted with
the recent news of Malaysia related to riots and protests on limiting their freedom of expression
in the country. Here we will discuss Malaysia’s past experiences of freedom of speech and
executing rules and regulations. We will also talk about the problems Malaysia has come through
all the way. The topic is discussed in detail along with examples of recent scenarios, which have
transpired in the country. The freedom of speech in Malaysia will also be compared to that of the
United Kingdom.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH 3
Contents
ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................3
DEMOCRACY ALA MALAYSIA................................................................................................4
FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN THE UNITED KINGDOM..............................................................7
COMPARISON OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN MALAYSIA AND THE UNITED
KINGDOM......................................................................................................................................9
CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................10
REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................11

FREEDOM OF SPEECH 4
INTRODUCTION
This article talks about the freedom of speech in Malaysia. Recent incidents in the
country have not given a positive impact to the world about their freedom to express in the
country. For example- the reporters are charged under cases if they speak against the government
or the power in charge. The constitution of Malaysia officially has given the statement that
people of the country have a right to speak and express them on any matter and form trade
unions based on like professions. But, on the other hand, it also restricts the limits of their rights
under the Section 2, which prohibits any person living in Malaysia from speaking or planning
against the constitution or the government of the country. As per the constitution, this is for the
interest and safety of the national security and also for bringing a sense of respect to the
government.
The constitution as well as the other Laws has a provision and rights to seek and punish
the ones who are found to be misbehaving with the freedom that they have got. They also have a
right to punish the ones who are found exceeding their rights and taking the government for
granted. Basically, the government doesn’t support people speaking up on controversial issues
that are related to the special favors and rights offered to the native people of Malaysia.
It is often stated that Malaysia is a multiracial society. There are often conflicts between
races, and the country requires laws, which stop the spread of racial prejudice and bigotry of
religious views. This is why the constitution prohibits public speeches that advocate or talk about
forcibly causing the downfall of the Malaysian federation (Post, 2014) .
There, in Malaysia, political speech is not prohibited in the country but has its limits.
These speeches must be circumscribed by the limits of racial harmony and national stability.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH 5
The question is- IS THIS DEMOCRACY, REALLY DEMOCRACY?
DEMOCRACY ALA MALAYSIA
These words “democracy ala Malaysia” mean “the democracy according to the needs of
government”. This statement was raised by the Barison national government stating that the
country obviously has to maintain harmony in racial, political and social ways and increase
stability and security but this must not be done by compromising with the state and its definition
of democracy.
Democracy means, a person has the right to express himself or herself as per his or her
thoughts and views. By limitations of this freedom of speech, the government cannot reach to its
highest level. Being overzealous about the system and democracy is not a good option for the
future of the country and its people (NG, N.D.) .
Going back to the records, here is a case that happened in October 2003.
Mahathir Mohammad, prime minister of Malaysia at that time claimed that too much
freedom of speech and democracy could lead to anarchy and the destruction of the multiracial
society of Malaysia. He used his power for the detention of a terrorist suspect and also banned
the communist party from taking part in the elections. Elections are a major part of democracy
and it gives a sense of harmony amongst the citizens as well the authorities.
The power holders in Malaysia have forgotten the real meaning of democracy in the urge
to respect federation and the constitution.
The Prime Minister’s words on a public dealing speech were that, if a person or a group
of people are trying to incite a race or a riot, he is actually going against democracy and the
decision of a majority. Any actions that would seem undemocratic by the government’s

FREEDOM OF SPEECH 6
definition would be prosecuted. He also added that, because of an obsession with democracy,
anarchy can take over in the country.
Afterwards, Mahathir was replaced by his son, as he being the successor in 2003.
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, his son, spoke in his speech at the parliament that he supports and
respects democracy and promised to take criticism from the public in a positive manner. He also
showed his interest in upholding democracy for fighting corruption and terrorism. However, he
also warned that “The meaning of democracy must not be misunderstood as absolute freedom.
Any issues which would inflame racial, religious and sentiments of culture will not be
sensationalized. All the attempts to destroy peace in the country and risking national security will
be dealt with seriousness and firm actions.” (Sana, 2008).
Malaysia has been an example for tolerance with any kinds of people and immigrants.
People from so many countries, especially India and China come to Malaysia for their personal
purposes. They are allowed to follow their religion and practice their culture. This tolerance in
Malaysia has always proved to be - and has kept the Malaysian democracy in the right side of the
tide up till now.
But, this government does not stand in favor of having powerful opposition and its
opinion lies in the fact that NGO’s and the opposition must be kept in check as they have the
capability to influence a large group of people and can endanger order of public peacefulness.
This can obstruct national development and a well planned society.
In Malaysia, some groups or formations of activities or societies was known to be as a
political party. This word political was declared under the Societies act 1966. These political
societies were bound to be restricted after 1981 as a law was introduced specially formulated to

FREEDOM OF SPEECH 7
curb such groups. This law stated that, any political society considered as a body or a group that
influences any activities or policies was not allowed to gain public power (Attitudes toward
Democracy in Malaysia: Challenges to the Regime?, 1996) .
FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
British citizens have different kind of right to freedom, i.e. the negative kind of freedom.
The expression of freedom and speech is under a common law in United Kingdom. Although
there is a good base of freedom in the country still there are exceptions, which include
harassment, distress and alarming situations where the entire base of power is being questioned.
United Kingdom does have national security issues, which restricts their freedom to express
themselves freely. Any activity which is considered to be ill or against the public order and
disrupts peace amongst the public is stopped and not entertained in the country (J. Michael,
1983).
The law of the United Kingdom is supposed to be respected and followed. Although the
United Kingdom has maintained to have an open and a large press system and environment
inside the boundaries of its country still the use of surveillance and counterterrorism regulations
by the authorities have left a negative effect on the freedom of media and people’s views.
The political environment in the United Kingdom does not have any restrictions on the
access of the Internet. It is rare to find any attacks on personalities on social media in the
country. There have been cases which have showed that journalists in the north have faced
problems and harassments. After the case of murder of a journalist who was researching on the
investigations of police, illegal armed races, the military and the drug selling gangs, it was found
that even United Kingdom is not safe for a person who wants to use his freedom of opinion and
research.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH 8
For example, a reporter who was researching on a discrepancy created by a government
official was murdered and no reason was found for his murder.
Not only this, many reports are beaten or threatened by people when they indulge into the
matters of politics and legacy.
United Kingdom has a good and a firm tradition of broadcasting and as an example we
can see the BBC, which is supported by the public as well as the government. Hence, it is proved
that United Kingdom does have a reasonable and a good freedom of expression inside the
country. United Kingdom is a country with an unwritten law and constitution; here the laws
come from a common practice of international human rights legislation (J. Michael, 1983) .
There have been positive changes and developments in the United Kingdom related to
speech and expression. This has tough secrecy legislation and due to this, the interest of public in
defense was removed in the official secrets act and this was not replaced by any other law again.
This official secrets act was pushed in 1989.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH 9
COMPARISON OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN MALAYSIA AND THE UNITED
KINGDOM
As we read above, freedom of speech in Malaysia has been complicated for years. The
democracy and the government are not different. The Malaysian government claims to be
democratic but by definition it is not a democratic country. Based on the research done above, on
the government of Malaysia and after discussing several examples, we come to a point, that,
Democracy of Malaysia is decided by the government itself. The ruler or the person in power
does not believe in giving absolute freedom to the public. Formation of parties and oppositions is
not allowed in Malaysia. It is believed that a formation of group, an opposition or a NGO can use
its power and influence people of the country in a wrong way.
This case, when compared to the United Kingdom, it is believed that freedom of speech
in the United Kingdom has been better and much more expressive than in Malaysia. The United
Kingdom might have issues with the freedom of speech when it comes to defense or national
security and terrorism but except that, media and the public force are given respect and a right to
present their views.
The government in Malaysia does not support the democratic views and criticism but that
doesn’t mean they give the public, a chance to speak against their government, against the racial
rules and regulations, public order. They are not allowed to create any kind of nuisance with the
federation. The evidence to this statement can be given by the several experiences of people
being jailed and nailed on speaking or guiding public in against of their government and its
working.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH 10
In Malaysia, rules are rigid as well as clear. Any person, who is found violating the
system, is punished without any statement of proof given to them. Basically, this is not a
democracy. Still it has been accepted and followed since so many years of the formation of
government in Malaysia (Sana, 2008) .
CONCLUSION
After going through the condition of Malaysia, it is proved that Malaysia is not one of the
countries, which accept the strong liberalism factor approach in relation the freedom of
expression and speech. The working of Malaysia does not support the disagreement of
reasonable regulation. Malaysian government is trying hard to explain their kind of democracy
and their rules and regulations by proving the conclusion with the reasons of religious
backgrounds, issues of culture and speech of hatred to influence public. But it is still too difficult
to understand those arguments as limiting the political freedom for opposition has no valid
reason for it. Limiting civil society and opposition makes Malaysia a less democratic state.
We also discussed and compared the case of freedom in speech and expression with the situation
of The United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom, the situation is not as bad as it is in Malaysia.
Because of the recent incidents related to press and media, UK has been considered in the
category of half democracy but there is no such pressure of freedom of speech experienced there.
People support and are a part of press and media. And in today’s world press and media are a
form of public freedom (Atlas, 1997) .
The government of Malaysia is underling the freedom of speech and democratic
processes by restricting simple things like oppositions, NGO’s and public views. They have used
the powers and laws to strengthen them. The government in Malaysia believes, keeping an eye

FREEDOM OF SPEECH 11
on the public is not for disrupting their democracy but, instead it is to maintain peace and public
order. If the public is given full rights of democracy, then they will start acting as their own ruler
and each small group or sect will come out with their own kind of right and wrong.
But reading about the incidences mentioned in the report, we find that, the centralization of
power has been applied by the government and to avoid further issues, name of public order and
religion nuisance are used.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH 12
Bibliography
Atlas, F. (1997). Democracy and authoritarianism in Indonesia and Malaysia. New York: St. Martin's
Press.
Attitudes toward Democracy in Malaysia: Challenges to the Regime? (1996). 36.
J. Michael. (1983). Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0277-9390(83)90028-6
NG, C. (N.D.). The Hazy New Dawn: Democracy, Women and Politics in Malaysia. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1716586
Post, T. H. (2014). Detoriating democracy in Malaysia. Retrieved from
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4813259
Sana, M. (2008). Freedoon of speech and democracy in Malaysia. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02185370801962440
Alatas, F. (1997). Democracy and authoritarianism in Indonesia and Malaysia. New York: St. Martin's
Press.
Democracy, media and law in Malaysia and Singapore a space for speech. (2016). [Place of
publication not identified]: Routledge.
Michael, J. (1983). Official information law in the United Kingdom. Government Publications Review,
[online] 10(1), pp.61-70. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0277-9390(83)90028-6
[Accessed 26 Mar. 2017].
Ng, C. (n.d.). The Hazy New Dawn: Democracy, Women and Politics in Malaysia. SSRN Electronic
Journal. [online] Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1716586 [Accessed 26 Mar. 2017].
Poverty, Inequality, and Democracy. (2008). Journal of Democracy, [online] 19(4), pp.56-56.
Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jod.0.0027 [Accessed 26 Mar. 2017].
Sani, M. (2008). Freedom of Speech and Democracy in Malaysia. Asian Journal of Political Science,
[online] 16(1), pp.85-104. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02185370801962440 [Accessed
26 Mar. 2017].
The Huffington Post. (2014). Deteriorating Democracy in Malaysia. [online] Available at:
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4813259 [Accessed 26 Mar. 2017].
Von Vorys, K. (2015). Democracy Without Consensus. Princeton University Press.