ANALYSING MINISTERIAL REASONS FOR BANNING BOOKS UNDER THE PRINTING PRESSES AND PUBLICATIONS ACT 1984

Mohd Safri Mohammed Na'aim; Mohd Zamree Mohd Zahir; Ramalinggam Rajamanickam; Nur Khalidah Dahlan; Hasnizam Hashim

doi:10.33102/mjsl.vol13no2.1166

Authors

Mohd Safri Mohammed Na'aim Centre of Foundation Studies, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Cawangan Selangor, Kampus Dengkil, 43800 Dengkil, Selangor, Malaysia https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9137-1135
Mohd Zamree Mohd Zahir Faculty of Law, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
Ramalinggam Rajamanickam Faculty of Law, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
Nur Khalidah Dahlan Faculty of Law, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
Hasnizam Hashim Faculty of Syariah and Law, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia, 71800, Nilai, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia / Centre of Research for Fiqh Forensics and Judiciary (CFORSJ), Faculty of Syariah and Law, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia, 71800, Nilai, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33102/mjsl.vol13no2.1166

Keywords:

Publication, expression, Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984, prejudicial, public order

Abstract

The publication of books reflects the advancement of a country’s civilisation. This right is affirmed by Article 10(1) of the Federal Constitution (FC), which guarantees every person the right to freedom of speech and expression. However, this right is subject to certain limitations that may be imposed by Parliament, as prescribed in Article 10(2) of the FC. Among the laws governing this freedom is the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 (Act 301) (PPPA 1984). Section 7(1) of the PPPA 1984 empowers the Minister to prohibit publications whose content is, or is likely to be, prejudicial to public order, morality and security or other specified interests. An issue arises from Section 7 of the PPPA 1984, which lacks clarity regarding the requirement for the Minister to provide reasons when banning a publication. This research adopts a doctrinal approach, involving detailed analysis of the FC, the PPPA 1984, relevant case law, and scholarly writings in this area. The research finds that, although Section 7(1) of the PPPA 1984 does not explicitly require the Minister to provide reasons for issuing a ban, judicial decisions have established the necessity of doing so when executive discretion is exercised. The research proposes amending the section, considering the Court of Appeal’s case of Menteri Dalam Negeri & Anor v Chong Ton Sin (t/a Gerakbudaya Enterprise) & Anor (2024) 1 MLJ 611, where not only must the Minister state the reason for a ban as provided in section 7 of the Act, but also briefly explain it. Such a requirement would enhance transparency in governance by ensuring that ministerial decisions are clear and comprehensible, thereby aligning with the principles of natural justie.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ali, M. N., Musa, N., & Mohamad, M. A. (2022). Reasoned decision as a new horizon of good administration in Iraq. Journal of Hunan University Natural Sciences, 49(9), 157–164. https://doi.org/10.55463/issn.1674-2974.49.9.18

Bell, M. C. (2020). John Stuart Mill’s harm principle and free speech: Expanding the notion of harm. Utilitas, 33(2), 162–179. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0953820820000229

Cronin-Furman, K. R. (2009). 60 years of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Towards an individual responsibility to protect. American University International Law Review, 25(1), 175–198.

Crook, P. S. (2019). Natural justice and the constitution: Recent cases from the Court of Appeal. Journal of Malaysian and Comparative Law, 23, 37–56. https://ejournal.um.edu.my/index.php/JMCL/article/view/16110

Groves, M. (2013). Exclusion of the rules of natural justice. Monash University Law Review, 39(2), 285–318.

Gunatilleke, G. (2021). Justifying limitations on the freedom of expression. Human Rights Review, 22(1), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12142-020-00602-3

Hin, O. K. (2017). “The policing and politics of the Malay language”. Penang Institute Issues. https://penanginstitute.org/publications/issues/the-policing-and-politics-of-the-malay-language/

Howie, E. (2018). Protecting the human right to freedom of expression in international law. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 20(1), 12–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549507.2018.1392612

Hutchinson, T., & Duncan, N. (2012). Defining and describing what we do: Doctrinal legal research. Deakin Law Review, 17(1), 83–119. https://doi.org/10.21153/dlr2012vol17no1art70

John, D. F. (2019). Reasoned decisionmaking vs. rational ignorance at the patent office. Iowa Law Review, 104(5), 2351–2386.

Kenny, P. D. (2020). “The enemy of the people”: Populists and press freedom. Political Research Quarterly, 73(2), 261–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912919838613

Mohd Zahir, M. Z., Rajamanickam, R., Dahlan, N. K., Mohammed Na’aim, M. F., Hashim, H., Hasshan, H., Saifuddin, S., & Hashim, F. Y. (2024). Drawn into controversy: The comic book banned by the authority. Current Legal Issues, 6, 54–61.

Mohd Zahir, M. Z., Tengku Zainudin, T. N. A., Rajamanickam, R., & Abd. Rahman, Z. (2019a). Arahan do not resuscitate (DNR) dalam sektor kesihatan dari perspektif undang-undang. Akademika, 89(2), 143–154. https://ejournal.ukm.my/akademika/issue/view/1199

Mohd Zahir, M. Z., Tengku Zainudin, T. N. A., Yaakob, H., Rajamanickam, R., Harunarashid, H., Mohd Shariff, A. A., Abd Rahman, Z., & Hatta, M. (2019b). Hak pesakit bagi melaksanakan arahan awal perubatan: Suatu gambaran umum (Patient’s right to implement an advance medical directive: An overview). Sains Malaysiana, 48(2), 353–359.

Nawang, N. I., Mustaffa, A., & Tahir Mohamed, A. M. (2020). Regulating online news portals in Malaysia – Reference to Independent Press Standards Organization. In International Conference on Communication and Media (pp. 380–387). European Proceedings.

Nor, M. W. M., Al-Attas, S. F. A. S. H., & Ghazali, L. S. (2023). Realising accepted UPR recommendations: Challenges and realities in Malaysia’s commitment to enforce freedom of expression. SINERGI: Journal of Strategic Studies & International Affairs, 3(Special Issue, March), 66–81. https://doi.org/10.17576/sinergi.SI1.2023.05

Nordin, R. (2010). Malaysian perspective on human rights. Jurnal Undang-Undang dan Masyarakat, 14, 17–33.

Paterson, P. (2006). Administrative decision-making and the duty to give reasons: Can and must dissenters explain themselves? Auckland University Law Review, 12, 1–43.

Sani, M. A. M., & Shah, D. D. A. H. (2011). Freedom of religious expression in Malaysia. Journal of International Studies, 7, 33–49. https://e-journal.uum.edu.my/index.php/jis/article/view/7916

Schauer, F. F. (1976). English natural justice and American due process: An analytical comparison. William & Mary Law Review, 18, 47–69.

Shalini, S., & Samundeswari, A. (2017). Literature as a reflection of the society: A study. In 1st National Conference on Teaching Innovations and Enhancing Learning (Arts, Science and Technology) (pp. 170–173).

Singh, A. P. (2015). Reasoned decision: The necessity and importance to achieve transparent and accountable society. Journal of National Law University Delhi, 3(1), 163–181.

Singh, J. K. S. (2020). Free speech, constitutional interpretation and sedition in Malaysia: Taking a rights-expansive approach. Journal of Malaysian and Comparative Law, 47, 1–28.

Tengku Zainudin, T. N. A., Abd Rahman, Z., Mohd Zahir, M. Z., & Rajamanickam, R. (2018). Banning books in Malaysia: The legal perspective. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences, XLII, 413–420.

Thomas, T. (2004). Freedom of religion and registration of religious groups. The Journal of the Malaysian Bar, 33(1), 15–38.

UN Human Rights Committee. (2011, July 29). “General comment No. 34: Article 19, freedoms of opinion and expression (UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/34)”. United Nations. https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/general-comments-and-recommendations/general-comment-no34-article-19-freedoms-opinion-and