Preview

Media Law Case Studies

Better Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1497 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Media Law Case Studies
Title and Citation
Mark Koding v. Public Prosecutor
[1982] 2 MLJ 120
Facts
On 11 October 1978, the Accused, Mark Koding, a lawyer and member of the Dewan Rakyat made a speech in Parliament which was thought to be seditious. He was subsequently charged with committing an offence under Section 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act.
Issues
1. Whether, as a Member of Parliament (MP), the Accused’s right of free speech in Parliament, given by sections 3 and 8 of the Houses of Parliament (Privileges and Powers) Ordinance [No. 15 of] 1952 and Article 63(2) of the 1957 Federal Constitution, has been validly limited by the subsequent amendment made to Article 63 with the addition of Clause (4) by the Constitution (Amendment) Act. 1971 (Act A30).
2. Whether the Accused’s right of free speech in Parliament is part of the Constitution’s basic structure or a fundamental rule of natural justice, thus rendering any supposed amendment of the Constitution seeking to limit such right is void and of no effect.
3. Whether the demand for closure of Chinese and Tamil schools in the process of implementing the national language can be legally and constitutionally treated as questioning Article 152(1) and thus, bringing into operation section 3(1) (f) of the Sedition Act 1948 (Revised 1969), despite there not being a demand for the abolition of prohibition of the teaching or learning of such languages.
Reasoning
1. While Sections 3 and 8 of the Houses of Parliament (Privileges and Powers) Ordinance 1952 as well as Article 63(2) of the Constitution grants an MP freedom of speech in Parliament without being held liable to be prosecuted or questioned in court, the subsequent addition of Clause 4 in Article 63 states that Clause 2 is not applicable to any person who has committed an offence under Article 10(4) or the Sedition Act 1948.
Noting that the Accused is charged via the Sedition Act, it is clear that the Accused’s right of free speech in Parliament is limited by Clause 4 of



References: Mark Koding v. Public Prosecutor [1982] 2 MLJ 120 Public Prosecutor v. Param Cumaraswamy [1986] 1 MLJ 512 Public Prosecutor v. Param Cumaraswamy (No. 2) [1986] 1 MLJ 518 Public Prosecutor v. Pung Chen Choon [1994] 1 MLJ 566

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Satisfactory Essays

    Gravel v. US

    • 465 Words
    • 2 Pages

    The Speech and Debate clause of the U.S. Constitution was intended to protect members of Congress from any prosecution that disrupts the legislative process. Therefore, Gravel is justified in his claim that he is protected under it.…

    • 465 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people…

    • 813 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in…

    • 559 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    THESIS: The first amendment of the constitution of the United States protects our right to freedom of speech. However, the freedom to speak should not entitle the speaker to purposely hurt another person by revealing private matters or spreading rumors and lies.…

    • 1316 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Other bills of rights do not empower the courts to overrule the parliament’s laws. These bills of rights enable alleged contraventions of rights to be investigated and resolved. They may provide for remedies such as changing…

    • 164 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    However freedom of speech is not absolute. The word “abridging” in the Free Speech Clause suggests that government cannot deprive the right to freedom of speech; but at the same time the suggestion is unclear about whether the government can put restrictions on how “free” the speech can be. Most people when mention the word “speech”, usually have the tendency to think of spoken words and often neglect the existence of…

    • 2295 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    What does freedom of expression really mean? Why is it important to our democratic society? In the landmark case of R. v. Keegstra (1990), the issues of freedom of expression and hate speech is brought in front of the Supreme Court of Canada. The case also deals with issues of whether sections 319(2) and 319(3)(a) of the Criminal Code violated section 2(b) and section 11(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The courts view that the objectives of having freedom of speech are correlated with democracy in the sense that for members of society to have their voices heard, they must be free to speak on matters that provide value back to society. This case has served as precedence for other freedom of expression cases. R. v. Keegstra can be looked at through many of the legal principles, but for the purposes of this essay, I will focus on the Offense Principle. This principle, brought forward by Joel Feinberg, is a tangent of John Mill’s Harm Principle, which deals with non-physical harm, such as hate speech. This is evident when looking at R. v. Keegstra, as the Offense Principle is the best principle to articulate why the dissenting judges ruled the way they did. I believe that the lead dissenting judge, Beverly McLachlin, ruled accurately in her judgement and I intend to support this ruling throughout this essay. As well, I will provide a summery of R. V. Keegstra, look at Philosophical principles as…

    • 2805 Words
    • 12 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Better Essays

    “Congress shall make no law respecting … or abridging the freedom of speech.” It all started in Athens between 800 and 400 B.C.E. when certain citizens were allowed to speak without fear. The Athenians had laws about the freedom of speech we still recognize and use, such as Slander, the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person 's reputation; and some others that punished the people for criticizing the government severely and blaspheming of the sacred. Even though Athens was greatly recognized by its freedom of speech, the freedom was not absolute; it gave the right only to male adult citizens. After certain time the democratic government came down and one-man began to rule. The persons that ruled were called Caesars and they gave “dissent by permission” a practice that extended to Europe and the British Isles. The change to this situation began when King John signed the Magna Carta, a document that worked as the base and path opener to the constitutional liberty of England and the United…

    • 1794 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Some people take advantage of the freedom of speech.According to the observer it states that “these same people would claim that the right of freedom of speech has a limit that ends once a speaker’s words turn offensive or derogatory”.…

    • 574 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Right To Silence Reforms

    • 2656 Words
    • 11 Pages

    ‘Victoria should adopt reforms enacted in England which allow the jury to draw a strong adverse inference from a suspect’s exercise of the right to silence when questioned by police and permit the trial judge to direct the jury accordingly.’ Critically discuss.…

    • 2656 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Better Essays

    7933). This example alone; emphasizes, that speech itself can result in harm. Society has a moral obligation to intervene to restrict free speech and provide protection from such reprehensible intolerance's being perpetrated (Jacobson, 2000); for this reason, individuals must forfeit negative liberties for progression in a free society (Berlin, 1958, p. 29). Berlin (1958) raises a key question, about who should impede our liberty (p. 2), this is the flip side of the complex argument of free speech, to have positive liberties implemented, requires trust in the governments and politicians we elect. Mill (1859) supports a cautious approach to the power rendered to a government or overriding power (p.…

    • 1571 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    That freedom of speech is quintessential to the survival of democracy is almost a universal truth – one which finds support in the Indian Constitution as well. However, freedom of speech, if left completely unbridled, can be abused, to marginalize certain social groups. Such speech, which incites hatred towards a particular social group – usually national, religious, or racial, is commonly known as hate speech.…

    • 201 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Sample

    • 637 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Section 80 applies if there is a trial on indictment, but leaves it to the Parliament to determine whether any particular offence shall be tried…

    • 637 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    (1) If a member of Parliament is convicted of an offence and is sentenced by a court to imprisonment for a term of not less than 2 years, he shall forthwith cease to perform his functions as a member of Parliament and his seat shall become vacant at the expiration of 30 days thereafter:…

    • 651 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Section 8 of the act enlists certain offences which would disqualifies a person from being elected or continuing as a member of the parliament or legislative assembly.…

    • 992 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays