HUMAN RIGHTS, FREEDOM OF

information AND MASS MEDIA

in Malaysia1
By Mohd Hamdan bin Adnan2
Introduction
Human rights, freedom of speech, information and mass media are increasingly considered
essentials in the pursuit of good governance, democracy and nation building. Also, it is
increasingly thought to be not only crucial but rather essential for progress, technological
advancement and enhancing civilization.
Furthermore, in todays world it is increasingly becoming more difficult for any
government or body to suppress information. Thanks to the Internet and the rapidly
advancing communication technologies. They have democratice information further and
effectively.
To add to the Internet, in nations where there is a tendency to control information, rumours
and gossips can easily be the order of the day. All these will create a bad image of the nation
and the government of which countries ruled by any form of regimes will want to avoid.
Even China, the fast awakening dragon was forced to minimised human rights abuses when
they wanted to host the Olympic game. The United States of America and its allies invaded
Iraq on the pretext that the Saddam Hussein regime has weapons of mass destructions and
abuses human rights. We all know that those conquering countries themselves have weapons
of mass destructions which are far more destructive than the Iraqis and are not free from
human rights abuses.
The significance of human rights and the freedom of communication for humanity cannot
be over estimated. Without free flow of communication no nation or society or even any
body can exist for long, much less to prosper and advance. As such, Article 19 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) 1948 proclaimed:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and

expression, which includes the right to hold opinions
without interference and to seek, receives and imparts
information and ideas through any media, regardless of
frontiers.

Understanding Human Rights

Human rights refer to the "basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled."
Examples of rights and freedoms which are often thought of as human rights include civil and
political rights, such as the right to life and liberty, freedom of expression, and equality before
the law; and social, cultural and economic rights, including the right to participate in culture,
the right to food, the right to work, and the right to education.
The Preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) declares it as the
recognition of our inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of
the human family to freedom, justice and peace in the world. It states that disregard and
contempt of human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience
of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech
and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of
the common people. It further stressed that it is essential that if man is not to be compelled to
have recourse as a last resort to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights
should be protected by the rule of law.
Condition of modern life, especially in this era of rapidly advancing information
technologies, the demand for honouring human rights, freedom of information and mass
media is ever increasing. Many scholars today believe that the growing secularization has
meant that more areas of life are open to opinion rather than divine laws, and to pervasive and
free communication rather than revealation.
Also, the fast expanding IT technologies and industrialisation has rapidly extended
literacy and provided technical facilities for mass communication. It further accelerated
globalisation which makes nations with open economy overly dependent on each other. Also,
urbanisation has brought large audiences together. It created the need for effective and
interactive communication within and between the various and diverse publics.
Further, the world wide speedy expansion of the democratic processes has enlarged and
widened the publics whose opinions count. Also, it has enhanced the communication media
social and political responsibilities. The basic need for the free flow of communication or
more often seen as freedom of expression or speech or media freedom and its impact on the
quality of public opinion has become crystal clear.
Today, the demand for freedom of speech and opinion is not just link to a democratic
communication system with its two basic requirements: namely, the right to transmit and the
right to receive. It now includes such factors as participation, representation, and access to
media and communication resources.
Additionally, now most researchers point out that the concept of democratic
communication must be seen as two fold. It should involve participation in media, as well as
in society. Meaning, because communication is part of society itself, it becomes almost

impossible to consider democratization of communication without examining democratization

of society as a whole.
Since ancient Greece, the general conception of democracy was based on several
assumptions related to communication abilities and rights. It stipulates that for citizens to
fully benefit from democracy they must be:

(1) Well informed;

(2) Interested in general politics;
(3) Have equal right to speak and participate in decisionmaking; and that
(4) All decisions are submitted to public discussions
before becoming policies or laws.
We have yet to conduct a periodic study to know how many Malaysian voters have those
characteristics or qualities that were prescribed more than 2000 years ago to ensure a vibrant
and meaningful democracy.
However, even now, there are those who still question the value of free communication or
media freedom. According to a former Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan:

There are, however, those who still question the value of freedom
of speech in their societies; those who argue that it threatens
stability and endangers progress; those who still consider freedom
of speech an imposition from abroad and not the indigenous
expression of every peoples demand for freedom. This argument
is never made by the people, but the Government; never by the
powerless but by the powerful; never by the voiceless but by those
whose voices are the only ones allowed to be heard.

Hence, many now argued that of the rights listed in the 30 articles of the UDHR none
is as essential as Article 19, the Right of Freedom of Opinion and Expression. It is
believed that without the right to speak out freely, protecting the other basic human rights can
be very difficult and even hazardous. Now, for many citizens and especially human rights
activists, the mass media embodies the spirit of the UDHR Article 19: it is their voice, their
expression of one of the most basic human rights the freedom to state ones opinion.

Mass Media
Mass media is any medium used to transmit mass communication. Until recently mass
media was clearly defined and was comprised of the eight mass media industries; Books,
Newspapers, Magazines, and Recordings, Radio, Movies, Television and The Internet.
Defining mass media is no longer clear cut or simple. The continuing explosion of digital
communication technology adds more than a little confusion on the subject. Developing new
technology breeds new questions. Should cell phones be included in a definition of mass
media? What about video and computer games? Is World of Warcraft a mass medium
strictly speaking? Considerable debate surrounds this topic at the moment and the answer is
still not too clear.
In the 21st century, media has become very powerful. It is the medium through which we
get to know the happenings of the world. Media can remove the curtains to show the world
the truth. Also media brings front the injustice done to people.
However there is a bad side to it too. For example, many media people conduct polls when
given money. When a beauty product comes out...the media gives out a poll saying the
maximum percentage women like it when a man takes her out for shopping. Just to make men
buy the product they give out the any informaton trying to make it look absolutely right. And
they do succeed.
Today's media has lots of power.
So much power that it can change a truth into a lie and a lie into the truth just by a few
impressive lines making it looks the same.
There are more and more information outlets everyday. Knowing something about them
and how they tend to affect the message they're conveying is essential to remain an informed
person, and to be an effective communicator.

Mass Media Functions

Media freedom is essential in todays society it performs or serves a number of essential
functions in our lives. First, they serve the information function. Second, they serve the
surveillance function. Third, they serve the agenda-setting function. Fourth, they serve the
intepretation function. Fifth, they connect us with various groups in our society. Sixth, they
sustain our connection with various groups in our society. Seventh, they help to socialize and
to educate us. Eight, they entertain us.
Thus, it is so clear that the mass media functions as conduits for disseminating information,
which in turn contributes to the development of societies as a whole. When the media is not
allowed to function as it should, societies would remain in the darkness of ignorance and be
very vulnerable to any forms of abuse. This would be more so, if the media role in the system
of checks and balances to ensure fair governance of society is not put in place.

The number of hours we spend consuming mass media content is mind-boggling. This
amount is fast increasing. For better or for worse, we are married to the media or at the very
least inextricably linked to it. We are now living in a media culture. Its influence is becoming
more pervasive and penetrative. I suppose that is what the information era is all about.
Human Rights & Media Freedom
As mentioned and emphasized, media freedom is directly linked to
freedom of opinion and expression. It is now regarded as one of the basics of human
rights as clearly stated in Article 19 of the UDHR. Aslo, Article 19, Part 111 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states the right to hold opinions
and freedom of expressions.
Further, Section 4(4) of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999 permits
SUHAKAM to have regard to the UDHR. However, according to Shad Faruqi despite this
admirable provision, the enforceability in national courts of the international law in human
rights remained problematic or in question. Faruqi offered three reasons for this sorry state of
affair:
1. International law is not part of the definition of law in Article (160(2) of
the Federal Constitution. In this Article, law is defined into written and
common law, and only to that extent is recognized in custom and
usage.
2. International treaties are not law per se for national purposes, unless
they have been ratified by the national government.
3. Even if ratified by the executive, treaties do not become part of the law
of Malaysia until they are converted into an Act of Parliament by the
legislature.

The Malaysian Charter on Human Rights which have been endorsed by 49 Malaysian
Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) is more explicit in championing freedom of
expression and media. Article 14 of the Charter entitiled Freedom of Expression and
Access to Information states the following:
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinions and responsible exercise of the
freedom of expression without interference and persecution.
2. Everyone is entitled to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through
an independent and responsible mass media free of political censorship and
monopoly.
3. The media of mass communications shall not be subjected to licensing at the
discretion of Government.
4. Mass communication media owned by the state must be governed and run by an
autonomous impartial board made up of representatives appointed by the state,
the non-governmental sector and opposition political parties.

Human Rights Media Guidelines

I feel it can be agreed and not argued that an irresponsible mass media can create havoc
to a nation, organisation, group, family or even individual. For examples, irresponsible
journalism has played a role in aggravating some of the worst episodes in Malaysian history.
It includes the 13th May racial riots and the Indonesian Confrontation. Even the abrogines of
Peninsula Malaysia and the effiminate men and masculine women have complained that the
mass media generally tend to portray them negatively. Recognising this, even human rights
documents like the UDHR and the European Convention of Human Rights have established
guidelines for a responsible mass media practice.
Article 12 of the UDHR sets a clear standard upon which members of the media or any
professional communicators should endeavour to follow. It states that no one shall be
subjected to arabitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, or to
attacks upon his honour and reputation.
Article 12 also provides for the right to
protection of the law against such interferences or attacks.
Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights establishes the right to freedom
of expression. It also provides for restrictions to this right. Therefore, it follows that the right
of freedom of expression must be balanced by the obligation to display equal respect for the
rights of others, the rights of society and the rights of the nation.
Further, Article 19 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),
stresses that the exercise of the right of freedom of expression carries with it special duties
and responsibilities. Article 20 of Part 111 of the ICCPR also reminds us that freedom of
expression and the media carries with it special duties and responsibilities. As such,
paragraph 2 of Article 20 of the ICCPR may subject us to certain restrictions. But, these shall
only be such as are provided by laws of the nations and must be deemed to be necesssary.
There are:
a) For respect of the rights or reputation of others;
b) For the protection of national security or of public
order, or of public health or morals.
c) Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
d) Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred
that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility
or violence shall be prohibited by law.

Malaysia has yet to ratify the ICCPR.

Malaysian Government do so.

It is strongly recommended that the

Malaysian Mass Media

The Malaysian media context has seen profound changes over the past few decades.
Beginning with a controlled media environment where the print media worked under an
annual licensing scheme and broadcast media were State controlled, Malaysia has witnessed a
process of deregulation and liberalization of the media landscape since the early 1980s.
Today, the Malaysian media continue to see some form of control over the mainstream
media through licensing of the print media and State control of broadcasting but in addition
there are a range of commercial radio and TV stations that are in operation.
Malaysia has also actively embraced new media technology and the Governments
Multimedia Super Corridor initiative has opened up the media landscape through the rapid
expansion of the Internet and mobile telecommunications. The Malaysian media landscape
thus offers a range of media offerings based on various analog and digital media platforms.
The expansion of the new media in Malaysia is so extensive that a former Home Minister
Syed Hamid Albar commented: The Internet news media cannot be called an alternative
media any more as it is a more popular medium than the traditional mainstream media in
MalaysiaI think we have to call the alternative media the mainstream. In fact, mainstream
papers are trying to emulate them and be as critical as they can to sell their papers (Straits
Times, October 22, 2008)
This is a very interesting statement and undoubtedly stems from the recognition by the
Malaysian government that the Internet did play a significant role in the last General Election
in Malaysia where the opposition parties aggressively used the Internet and made
unprecedented election gains in Malaysian history. As the opposition parties had limited
access to the mainstream media, they were left with no choice but to harness the Internet as
effectively as possible. The Government however relied heavily on the mainstream media to
canvas the electorate. It has been later admitted by several Government sources including
former Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi that the Government had underestimated the
power and influence of the Internet.
Today, we live in a media environment where both new media and mainstream mass media
co-exist. We have also witnessed ways in which these various media forms are
complementary. A community radio station can now be uploaded on the Internet to reach out
to audiences across the world. Most newspapers around the world have online editions. Radio
and TV stations can be now captured online. The convergence provides great new
opportunities for both on-line media and the mainstream media. However in order for this to
happen, traditional mainstream mass media need to undergo a rude awakening that the world
of media has changed irrevocably. It must shed its negative image of being government
gazette if it is to remain credible and relevant.

Malaysia Laws Affecting Media

In Malaysia, we can proudly proclaim that the freedom of speech and expression is
guaranteed for all citizens by Article 10(1) (a) of the Federal Constitution, the supreme law of
the country. Sadly, this right is not of an absolute character. This is seen from Article 10(2)
and (4) of the Federal Constitution, which allows Parliament to impose restrictions on this
right under the following circumstances:

a. On the rights conferred by paragraph (a) of Clause (1), such restrictions

as it deems necessary or expediet 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. 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, 153 or 181 otherwise than in relation to
the implementation thereof as may be specified in such law.

Thus, in Malaysia the mass media is restricted from freely carrying out its functions by a
host of laws enacted by Parliament. A number of media laws are said to have very restrictive
effects on mass communication. The most draconian of such laws is the Printing Presses and
Publication Act 1984. This Act prohibits the possession or use of a printing press without a
license granted persuant to the Act. Furthermore, licenses granted under the Act are only
valid for 12 months or less. This would require publishers and printers to apply for a renewal
of their licenses prior to its expiration. Four elements of this Act which have a very adverse
impact on media freedom are (1) the requirements for printing licenses, (2) publishing
licenses, (3) false news and (4) the finality of Minister of Home Affairs decisions. Meaning,
this Act does not allow the media owners to seek justice to the court.
Instead they have to seek the redress at the same minister who has rejected them in the first
place. On this, the Malaysian National Human Rights Commission or more popularly known
as SUHAKAM has received numerous complaints and memorandums from individuals and
groups who feel they have been unjustly denied renewal or their printing permits.
SUHAKAM also noted that this problem is compounded by the fact that the Act does not
allow for independent reviews of decisions made in respect to the granting or renewal of
permits.
Another law that is very detrimental to mass media freedom is the Official Secret Act. As
a whole this Act may still be relevant although certain aspects of the Act should be subjected

to review or appeal. These are: the lack of clarity in the definition of secrets; the lack of a
time limitation on the classification of an item as a secret; and the imposition of a minimum
prison sentence persuant to conviction under the Act.
Other laws that tend to regulate freedom of speech and the media include national security
laws such as Sedition Act 1948, the Internal Security Act 1960, and as mentioned the Offical
Secret Act 1972. In addition, contempt of court laws and exorbitant damages awarded
pursuant to action under the Defamation Act 1957 also regulate communication. These and
other regulations are said to have created a culture of fear among professional communicators,
especially journalists. It curtailed effective and creative reporting of public interest issues.
Hence, with the various restrictive laws controlling the print media as well as TV and
radio, it would be very difficult for the Malaysian mass media to rebrand itself to make it
more pro human rights plus defending public interest and not just pro government. It is
estimated that there are about 50 laws regulating communication and the mass media. A few
may be deemed as necessary while the majority can be seen as draconian.
Thus, no one in Malaysia should be surprised that out media freedom rating is always
among the worst in the world. Our media freedom ranking by the Reporters without Borders
(Reporters sans Frontieres or RsF), as usual has never been "complimentary" to us. In its
2008 raking Malaysia was downgraded by another eight notches to 132 out of some 173
countries. This was the third year in a row that Malaysia was slipping in ranking, from 92 in
2006 to 127 in 2007 and in 2008 we are in our worst ever position. We are in fact worse off
than Timor Leste (a respectable double digit ranking of 65); Indonesia, which despite
enjoying a somehat full-blown press freedom since the fall of President Suharto is ranked at
111; Thailand (124) and Cambodia (126).
Everytime our media freedom ranking worsens our leaders allege that those making the
ranking are jealous of Malaysias success. Therefore, they are forever bias against Malaysia.
Than, those sychophants from the media or even academics will echo the same sentiments.
Further, many Malaysian media professionals are resigned to it.

Fortunately, they are those individuals and non-governmental organisations including the
oppositions that are persistently lobbying for better freedom of speech and the media. They
would include nearly all the consumer organisations, Aliran, Hakam, Suaram, etc.

Kempen for better freedom of speech and media

It is to SUHAKAM credit that it had also conducted a Workshop on Freedom of the
Media as a means of addressing some of the issues brought up to them.
During the workshop, panelists from both ends of the spectrum were brought together,
namely government officials, senior editors and representatives from the independent media.
The speakers included Dato Chor Chee Heung, Datuk Zainudin Maidin, Professor Mohd
Safar Hashim, Mr Steven Gan, and Mr Ahmad Lufti Othman. Professor DatoMohd Hamdan
Adnan, SUHAKAMs chairman for the Working Committee on Complains and Investigations
then, chaired the workshop.
I have included SUHAKAMs recommendations as part of my own recommendations for
improving speech and media freedom in Malaysia as a basis for honouring and promoting
human rights.

Recommendations for a Better Communication Freedom

1. Malaysia to rectify relevant human rights covenants, conventions and treaties to
enhance and protect speech and media freedom in the country. For example, the
ICCPR. It Article 19 states that the exercise of the right to freedom and
expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities.

2. Enacting a Freedom of Information Act. Human rights assert that the right of

equal access to information must be safeguarded. Therefore, laws that are

incompatible to it must be amended accordingly. Asian nations that already
enacted the Right of Information Act include the Philippines, Hong Kong,
Thailand, South Korea, and Japan. Furthermore, Indonesia, India, Pakistan,
Nepal and Taiwan are in the process of enacting similar laws.

3. Reviewing the Printing Presses and Publications Act (PPPA) 1948. It should be
reviewed with a view to repeal provisions which impose excessive restrictions of
media freedom. Sections of the PPPA to be reviewed with the intent of repealing
it should include the following:
(a) Section12 (1), which prescibes a maximum period of 12 months for the validity
of licences obtained under the Act, thereby requiring renewal after this
period.
(b) Section 13 of the Act, which empowers the Minister to revoke or suspend
licences, in the interest of public order or national security.
(c) Section 13A, which excludes any form of judicial review of decisions made in
relations to the revocation or suspension of permits.
(d) Section 13B, which excludes the right to be heard for those who have had
their license or permit revoked.
Here it is recommended that the Home Ministry considers adopting a liberal
approach with regards to the approval and renewal of printing and publishing
permits and licences by providing for automati renewal of all permits and licences.
Also, it is recommended that the Home Ministry to consider the potential use of
alternative and less arbitrary means of regulating printing and publishing. For
example, a demerit system is instituted to allow action to be taken against errant
publications.
4. Reviewing the Official Secrets Act (OSA) 1972. The relevant authorities should
consider reviewing provisions of the OSA in order to confine the ambit of
documents liable to be classified as official secrets, and to allow for judicial
review of decisions pertaining to the classification of documents as official
secrets. Provisions of the OSA which should be reviewed include:
(a) Section 2 of the OSA, which defines official secrets as any document
specified in the Schedule and any information and material relating thereto
and includes any other official document, information and material as may be
classified as Top Secret, Secret, Confidential or Restricted, as the case

may be, by a Minister, the Menteri Besar or Chief Minister of a State or such
public officer appointed under Section 2B.
(b) Section 2B, which provides the Minister, the Menteri Besar or the Chief
Minister of the State with the power to appoint any public officer by a
certificate under his hand to classify any official document, information or
material as Top Secret, Secret, Confidential or Restricted, as the case
may be.
(c) Schedule 2A which includes in the definition of official secrets, Cabinet
documents, records of decisions and deliberations including those of Cabinet
committees; State Executive Council documents, records of decisions and
deliberations including those of State Executive Council committees; and
documents concerning national security, defence and international relations.
5. Reviewing the use of National Security Laws against the media. Threats to
national security should be seen as an excuse to restrict freedom of expression
and the media.
This is especially so in relations to issues of editorial
independence and the protection of confidential sources of information.
6. Reviewing other laws and practices limiting media and information freedom. It is
recommended that all laws affecting the duties of communication professionals
be subjected to review. Such laws include the Defamation Act 1957. In relations
to defamation actions, the Courts should take into account the need to uphold
freedom of expression and information when considering such cases. Exorbitant
awards in relation to defamation actions will inevitably stifle media freedom and
creative reporting by instilling a culture of fear among professional
communicators. This will inevitably affect the level of reporting or coverage of
potentially sensitive isues.
7. Establishing an independent, impartial and self-regulating Media Council. This
Council should empower media professionals to exercise greater control over
their profession, while simultaneously improving the quality of media
practitioners in Malaysia. To ensure that this Council is not seen as an alternative
way of regulating the media, a majority of its members must be from the
communication industry and the chairperson is elected by the Councillors. Also,
the establishment of the Media Council should see the repeal of many of the laws
constraining information freedom. An independent Media Council cannot operate
in an environment where restrictive media laws dominate.
8. Each of the professions in the communication and media industry must have its
own Code of Ethics or Code of Practice or Code of Conduct. This is to improve
the standard of practice and ethical conduct among the professional
communicators in Malaysia. These professional codes should reflect the Article
12 of the UDHR 1948, which reads as follows: No one shall be subjected to
arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, or to
attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection
of the law against such interference or attacks. The propossed Media Council
should be entrusted for overseeing the enforcement of the Code of Practice.

9. Lifelong learning or training should be made available and mandatory for all
communication and media professionals. These would enable them to practice
their profession with current knowledge, skills and integrity. Such lifelong
education and training should encompass such areas as professional skills,
management, current issues, motivation and integrity. Particular attention
should be given to educating for issues involving public interest, human rights
and the environment. This is to enable them to conduct their profession with full
awareness of the impact of their actions upon society.
10. Providing bona fide media practitioners with press accreditation tags. The
provision of such tags remains necessary because certain numbers of the media
professionals have complained of difficulty in effectively reporting on certain
events. However, this accreditation tags must be easily available to all bona fide
media people and not use as further limiting information freedom.
11. SUHAKAM should champion the freedom of information and the media at all
times. After all the UDHR 1948 and a number of human rights covenants and
conventions all stressed the needs for information and media freedom. Thus, it is
essential for Suhakam to promote Freedom of Expression as key elements in the
development of the information and enlightened society. Also, as it have been
pointed out many times: Media freedom is as much the lifeblood to the
communication professions as it is to Human Rights Commissions. Without it,
Human Rights Commission will find itself shut out when dealing with a hostile
regime that has the media under its thumb.

Conclusion
In Malaysia, the usual reason given by the Government for the tight control of the mass
media is to ensure racial harmony and national security. It must be reminded that
Malaysia is not the only country in the world with a multi-racial, multi-cultural and multireligious country. Nearly all the big nations now including USA, Britain, France, and
Germany have some forms of pluralism and their communication freedom is not overly
controlled. Thus, our national media policy to unite all Malaysians in order to preserve
racial harmony and internal security must be based on human rights principles. Surely, the
current 1Malaysia campaign is a promising effort.
Arguments given today also include that the national security concerns have even
compelled democratic Western nations to enact restrictive laws which have even
encompassed the Internet. While, this may be true, they do have their check and balance.
What is essential, however, is formulating the right balance, between freedom of
information and the media and the need to guarantee national security and unity base on
human rights principles. The ability and the wisdom of the people to decide what is right
and wrong should not be continously underestimated. For one day they might be really
have enough of it.
Here, it must be reiterated that the Right to Freedom of Expression and Information
remains imperative to the proper functioning of a free, wise and well-informed society.

Hence, the media has a pivotal role in ensuring a free flow of communication thereby
allowing citizens to exercise their democratic rights on the basis on well-informed
decisions.
Again, it must be reminded that the exercise of ones rights cannot come at the expense
of the rights of others. Legitimate concerns of national security and unity, may be seen as
justification for an erosion of the Right to Freedom of Expression and Information. This
position is corroborated by Article 29 (1) and (2) of the UDHR 1948, which states as
follows:
1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and
full development of his personality is possible.
2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be
subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for
the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights
and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of
morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic
society.

Nevertheless, I again would like to remind that national security and other national interests should
never be used as justification for the arbitrary denial of the Right to Freedom of Expression and
Information. So, a delicate balancing exercise must be undertaken to guarantee that neither the rights
of the individual nor the rights of society at are unjustifiably compromised.
I would like to end this paper by quoting the words of one of my favourite ex-boss Nik Abdul
Rashid, a former law lecturer who eloquently summed up the conundrum faced when attempting to
balance media freedom with other competing concerns. He lamented:

How much freedom do we need in order to develop the

kind of journalism fit for the country? or How much
freedom should be given to media people to develop that
kind of Malaysian journalism? is like asking how much
water and fire are needed to prosper. With too little
water, we go thirsty, but with too much water, we will be
drowned. With too little fire, we may have to go raw,
but too much fire, we perish. Press freedom is vital, but
too much freedom is fatal.

References
1. Amnesty International (2004). Amnesty International Report. Amnesty International Publications.
2. Alexander, Fran (ed) (1998). Encyclopedia of World History. Oxford University Press.
3. Alston, Philip (2005). "Ships Passing in the Night: The Current State of the Human Rights and Development
Debate seen through the Lens of the Millennium Development Goals". Human Rights Quarterly. Vol. 27 (No. 3)
p.807
4. Arnhart, Larry (1998). Darwinian Natural Right: The Biological Ethics of Human Nature SUNY Press.
5. Ball, Olivia; Gready, Paul (2007). The No-Nonsense Guide to Human Rights. New Internationalist.
6. Barber, Benjamin R. (2008). Consumed: How Markets Corrupt Children, Infantilize Adults, and Swallow Citizens
Whole. W. W. Norton .
7. Barzilai, Gad. (2003). Communities and Law: Politics and Cultures of Legal Identities. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press.
8. Chauhan, O.P. (2004). Human Rights: Promotion and Protection. Anmol Publications PVT. LTD..
9. Cook, Rebecca J.; Fathalla, Mahmoud F. (September 1996). "Advancing Reproductive Rights Beyond Cairo and
Beijing". International Family Planning Perspectives Vol.22 (No.3): p.115-121
10. Cross, Gary (2000). An All-Consuming Century: Why Commercialism Won In Modern America. Columbia
University Press. (Paperback, 256 pages)
11. Davenport, Christian (2007a). State Repression and the Domestic Democratic Peace. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
12. Davenport, Christian (2007b). State Repression and Political Order. Annual Review of Political Science.
13. Donnelly, Jack. (2003). Universal Human Rights in Theory & Practice. 2nd ed. Ithaca & London: Cornell
University Press.
14. Ellerman, David (2005). Helping People Help Themselves: From the World Bank to an Alternative Philosophy
of Development Assistance. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
15. Mohd Hamdan Adnan (2010). A Dictionary for Communication and Public Relations Practice. Shah Alam:
UPENA.
16. Mohd Safar Hasim (2002). Mengenali Undang-undang- media dan siber. Kuala Lumpur: Utusan Publications
and Distributors.
17. SUHAKAM (2003). A Case For Media Freedom Report of Suhakams Workshop on Freedom of the Media.
Kuala Lumpur: Suhakam.

Notes:
1 A key note address for the Program Impact (Immersion Project, Appreciation and Tribute)
Pusat Pengajian Komunikasi, UNIVERSITI SAINS MALAYSIA, Penang, 31 March 2010.
2
President, Institute Public Relations Malaysia (IPRM). Advisors to FOMCA
and ERA Consumers. Former Professor of Communication and Public
Relations at the University Technology MARA. Malaysias Human Rights
Commissioner for three terms. Chairs the Working Committee on
Complaints & Investigations. Also, chairs the Visitation Committee for
Place of Detentions. Have written 25 books on communication, public
relations, & consumerism. Have published more than 300 papers on
communication, public relations, human rights, environment and other
issues pertaining to public interest.