Malaysia

• Author: Raja Aziz Addruse
• Pages: 369-397

HALAYSIA

BY

RAJA

AZIZ

ADDRUSE

A.

OWNERSHIP

AND

REGULATION

OF

THE

MASS

MEDIA

i)

Locally

Owned

Mass Media

a)

Electronic

Media

here

are

currently

five

national television channels,

two

state-owned

and

three owned

by

private companies. There

are

also

two

cable

television providers. Subscribers

are

able

to

tune

in to

various for-

eign

television channels such

as

CNN, NBC, HBO, Discovery,

and

some

other local channels.

The

licensing authority

is the

Ministry

of

Energy,

Communications

and

Multimedia.

b)

Print

Media

Daily

newspapers

can be

obtained

in

four

different

languages: English,

Malay,

Chinese,

and

Tamil.

The

papers

are all

owned

by

private companies

and

individuals.

The

licensing authority

is the

Home

Ministry.

It is

under

the

purview

of the

Minister

of

Home

Affairs,

who is

also

the

Prime Minister.

All

journals, newsletters,

and

newspapers

for

public distribution

must

be

licensed

for

this purpose,

and

they must also

be

registered with

the

Ministry

of

Home

Affairs.

The

licence

is

valid

for

only

a

year,

but it

can

be

renewed yearly.

c)

News

Agencies

Bernama

is the one

domestic news agency.

369

T

2)

Foreign-Owned Mass Media

There

are

foreign

news agencies

in the

country, such

as

Reuters

and AP.

Subscriptions

to

certain

foreign

newspapers

are

allowed. There

are no

transnational conglomerates that

own the

local media. Foreign ownership

of

local

media

is

regulated

by the

Foreign

Investment

Committee,

which

is

a

department within

the

Prime Minister's

Office.

B.

CONSTITUTIONAL

PROTECTION

OF

FREEDOM

OF

EXPRESSION

The

right

to

freedom

of

speech

and

expression

is

provided

in the

Federal

Constitution

of

Malaysia, which

is

expressed

to be the

country's supreme

law.

That right

is

embodied

in

Part

II of the

Constitution, entitled "Funda-

mental Liberties."

The

right

to

freedom

of

speech

and

expression

is,

how-

ever,

subject

to

restrictions,

as

Parliament

may

deem necessary

or

expedient

to

impose

in the

interest

of the

security

of

the

Federation,

friendly

relations with other countries, public order

or

morality

and

restrictions designed

to

protect

the

privileges

of

Parliament

or of any

Legislative

Assembly

[of any

state

in

Malaysia]

or to

provide

against contempt

of

court, defamation,

or

incitement

to any

offence."1

The

extent

of the

restrictions that

can

potentially

be

imposed

by

Parlia-

ment

has

been considered

by the

courts

in a

number

of

cases, which

are

dis-

cussed

below.

Arguments advanced

that

the

restrictions

must

be

reasonable

if

they

are to be

valid have

not

found

favour

with

the

courts. Malaysian

courts have consistently declined

to

follow

rulings

in

India, where

the

cor-

responding provisions expressly require

that

any

imposed restriction

be

reasonable.

By

declining

to

test

the

reasonableness

of the

restriction

by

ref-

erence

to the

interest

or

privilege

to be

protected under

the

Constitution,

the

courts have, perhaps unwittingly, conferred upon Parliament

an

unfet-

tered discretion

to

circumscribe citizens' right

to

freedom

of

speech

and

expression.

The

courts appear

to

have implied

from the

absence

of the

adjective

"reasonable" that

the

reasonableness

of the

restrictions imposed

by

Parliament

is not

relevant

in

determining

the

restrictions' validity.

In the

1.

Article

10(l)(a)

read

with Article

10(2)(a).

COUNTRY

REPORTS

370