Freedom of Speech: Malaysia vs United Kingdom

This report provides a detailed analysis of freedom of speech in Malaysia, comparing it with the United Kingdom. It discusses the limitations on free speech in Malaysia, highlighting the government's control over political expression and the restrictions on opposition groups. The report contrasts this with the UK's approach, which, despite some limitations related to national security, generally allows for greater freedom of expression. The analysis concludes that Malaysia's approach to democracy and freedom of speech is significantly more restrictive than that of the UK, raising questions about the true nature of democracy in Malaysia. The report also includes references to support its claims.

RUNNING HEAD: FREEDOM OF SPEECH 1
Abstract
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Introduction
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Democracy In Malaysia
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Freedom Of Speech In The United Kingdom …………………………………………………………………
Comparison of Freedom Of Speech In Malaysia and The United Kingdom ………………………………
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
References……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

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
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(example of one incident). The constitution of Malaysia officially has given the statement
that people of the country have a right to speak and express themselves 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(WHAT IS SECTION 2). 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.
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.
The question is- IS THIS DEMOCRACY, REALLY DEMOCRACY?

FREEDOM OF SPEECH 4
DEMOCRACY ALA MALAYSIA
These words “democracy ala Malaysia” mean “the democracy according to the needs of
government”. This statement was raised by the Barisan 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.
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 the social platform meant(which social platform), that, if
a person or a group of people are trying to incite a race or a riot, he is actually going against

FREEDOM OF SPEECH 5
democracy and the decision of a majority. Any actions that would seem undemocratic by the
governments definition would be prosecuted. He also said “because of an obsession with
democracy, anarchy can take over in the country”. (Reference the quote)
Afterwards, Mahathir was replaced by his son, as he being the successor (what year).
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.” (Add reference)
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.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH 6
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
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.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH 7
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.
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 are some 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. (give examples)

FREEDOM OF SPEECH 8
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.
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.( Re write, what year is the Official Secrets Act)

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. 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. (how to support this statement)
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 is 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. (evidence)

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.
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 and non-presence of proper
constitution, United Kingdom(incorrect) has been into certain issues and problems 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.
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

FREEDOM OF SPEECH 11
and laws to strengthen themselves. The centralization of power has been applied by the
government and to avoid further issues, name of public order and religion nuisance are used.
(evidence)
THERE IS NO HALF DEMOCRACY. EITHER THERE IS DEMOCRACY OR IT IS NOT.
REFERENCES
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:

FREEDOM OF SPEECH 12
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.
Welsh, B. (1996). Attitudes toward Democracy in Malaysia: Challenges to the Regime?. Asian
Survey, [online] 36(9), pp.882-903. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2645537
[Accessed 26 Mar. 2017].