DO we need to enact more laws which restrict the individual’s right to speech and expression? There is a concern that having too many laws in the country might suffocate the people. People might feel restless and live in constant fear. In the end, we will create a voiceless society which is unable to speak up on anything, even lacking the ability to defend its rights.

Recently, the government is mulling a new act to impose civil penalties on those who play up 3R (race, religion and royalty) sentiments. There is also undergoing effort to legislate Online Safety Law. There are so many existing laws in the country which can be used to prevent the abuse of freedom of speech and expression like the Sedition Act 1948 [Act 15], Penal Code [574], Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 [Act 588] and many more.

We can always the improve all these existing laws to deal with any arising issues pertaining to freedom of speech and expression without having the need to create a new law. Some peoples would like us to emulate the approach taken by other countries. Among the favourite country they would like us to emulate is Thailand.

Thailand has the lese-majeste law which forbids the insult of the monarchy. It is among the strictest law in the world. It has been increasingly enforced ever since the Thai military took power in 2014 in a coup, and many people have been punished with harsh jail sentences. Critics say the military-backed government uses the law to clamp down on free speech, and the United Nations (UN) has repeatedly called on Thailand to amend it. But the Thai government says the law is necessary to protect the monarchy, which is widely revered in Thailand.

This law is seen by many as one of the factors why the country still in political turmoil until today. As such, do we need to emulate such law for our country? Are we so keen seeing people getting arrested, standing for court trial, paying fines and send to prison just because they have the bravery and courage to speak up and express themselves?

We live in a time of law, in which there seem to be statutes, rules, and regulations monitoring and controlling every aspect of our lives. Of course, there are advantages and disadvantages having laws. Without doubt, laws are probably the most important aspect of a society. Laws are a powerful method to manage the society. A society without laws cannot function well, although too much regulations may pose a threat to the society. If a society doesn’t have effective laws, the society will be chaotic and there is no economic development.

Laws give people various kinds of rules and regulations to tell every citizen what can do and what they cannot do. If people act freely at their will, it will create a less efficient society. Thus, laws are a good tool for people to build a harmonious and peaceful society. People are more inclined to be driven by the illegal interests or desire without law’s restrains. Peoples are more likely to do something which are hurtful and harmful to others, such as fraudulent and violent activities if we don’t have laws. At this moment, law is a powerful weapon to punish those offenders and helping them understand the boundary between right and wrong.

However, too much rules and regulations can restrict people’s freedom to some extent, which impose a detrimental influence on society’s long-term development. If the authority just wants to set complex rules to maintain the society stable without listening the public’s voice, the citizen feel they are ignored and they don’t have motivations to contribute the development of the whole society. One example is the censorship law that restrict the freedom of speech and expression. If citizens have no opportunity speak out their voices, the government cannot pinpoint and tackle the problems, such as corruption and bureaucracy. After a long time, people will be disappointed in society and thus the society will be indulged in stagnation.

Freedom of speech and expression is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to express their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or facing with legal action. Freedom of speech and expression is part of basic human rights and guaranteed under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 (UDHR) and recognized in international human rights law under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 (ICCPR). Freedom of speech and expression also guaranteed under Article 10 (1) of our Federal Constitution.

However, we have to accept the fact that no guaranteed freedoms and basic human rights can be absolute and this include freedom of speech and expression. The guaranteed freedom of speech and expression under Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 (UDHR) and Federal Constitution mentioned above has been amended to include restriction and limitation to such basic freedom. As a result, law can be created and use against anyone who cross the red line and abuse the freedom which was given them. But this does not mean that the government can create many laws in order to put restriction and limitation to such basic freedom. The government should instead provide assurance and protection to such basic freedom. People should be allowed to speak and express themselves without fear of being arrest and prosecuted. Differences of ideas and opinions should be settled professionally through discussion and debate and not through arrest and prosecution. – September 11, 2024.

* Muzaffar Syah Mallow is associate professor at the Faculty of Shariah and Law, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.