as where a translator of publications deemed to be Islamic in nature has been subjected to local state laws as opposed to federal law.11 The development suggests that elements of Islamic or Sharia laws may impact on freedom of expression on par with federal laws passed by the parliament. Laws which restrict freedom of expression are common in Malaysia and the application of the laws is largely supported and backed by legal jurisprudence which tends to interpret civil liberties enshrined in the Federal Constitution in a conservative or restrictive manner. An example of this can be seen in the cases involving Anwar Ibrahim, where the burden of proof and presumption of innocence were disregarded and elements of rule of law were violated.12 A more recent example can be seen in the case of PP v Azmi bin Sharom, where the Federal Court ruled that the court has no power to determine whether a restriction imposed by the parliament is reasonable or otherwise.13 Examples of laws restricting freedom of expression in Malaysia include, but are not limited to: • Sedition Act 1948, which renders comments, speeches, selected statements or publications as seditious, potentially resulting in a fine or imprisonment for offenders. • Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, a broad law covering all aspects of telecommunication and multimedia which contains provisions that have been interpreted in manners that punish “hurtful” comments made online. • Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984, a law that imposes criteria and requirements for print media which has been utilised to ban books, outlaw t-shirts related to civil activism and shut down print media. • Selected sections of the Penal Code with explicitly repressive provisions such as Section 124B and other more innocuous sections such as Section 298,14 298A15 and 499.16 11 The case of Zaid Ibrahim, which will be further explored later in this report. 12 Anwar Ibrahim’s first trial in 1998 was met with a series of controversies and reversal of the rule of law; a similar turn of events was witnessed yet again in his more recent conviction for sodomy. See Thomas, T. (2008, 29 July). Comment: A second prosecution of Anwar Ibrahim – is it in the national interest? The Malaysian Bar. www.malaysianbar.org.my/members_opinions_ and_comments/comment_a_second_prosecution_of_anwar_ ibrahim_is_it_in_the_national_interest_.html?date=2017-06-01 13 PP v Azmi bin Sharom, op. cit. 14 Uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person. 15 Causing, etc., disharmony, disunity, or feeling of enmity, hatred or ill will, or prejudicing, etc., the maintenance of harmony or unity, on grounds of religion. 16 Criminal defamation. In terms of the interpretation of the law, the Federal Court of Malaysia serves as the apex court. Due to the nature of most criminal cases relating to freedom of expression, the Federal Court only hears and decides on cases if there was an appeal or challenge on constitutional issues. For cases where no such challenges were filed by the defendant or the prosecutor, the case usually ends at the Court of Appeal, which has in the past ruled in favour of acquitting or discharging the defendant in line with a more progressive interpretation of freedom of expression.17 Curtailment of freedom of expression online In the past, freedom of expression has been largely restricted through the use of security laws. One of the laws that coloured Malaysian history in this aspect would be the Internal Security Act 1960 (ISA). Since its inception, there were documented incidents where political opponents were alleged to have been detained under the ISA.18 Over the years, the ISA was also used to silence civil dissent, notably in 1987 under “Ops Lalang”, where 106 individuals including NGO activists and intellectuals were arrested and detained.19 The pattern of suppression of freedom of expression was also seen in 1998 during the height of the Reformasi movement seeking to oust the prime minister of the day, Tun Mahathir Mohamad, following the fallout and persecution of Anwar Ibrahim,20 and yet again in 2008 when political blogger Raja Petra Kamaruddin,21 MP Teresa Kok and journalist Tan Hoon Cheng were arrested and detained.22 Officially they were arrested for being a threat to security, peace and public order under Section 73(1) of the ISA. When inquired, the deputy inspector-general of police of the day reported that the journalist, Tan, was arrested for reporting a racist remark made by a politician from the ruling party; Teresa Kok was arrested for alleged involvement with a resident’s petition over a mosque; while Raja Petra was only alleged to be involved with activities that could cause unrest. 17 In Safwan Anang’s sedition case, the Court of Appeal maintained a high threshold for a statement to be deemed seditious by the court and acquitted Safwan Anang. www.kehakiman.gov.my/directory/ judgment/file/W-09-7-2016.pdf 18 Hansard, 30 July 1971. www.parlimen.gov.my/files/hindex/pdf/DR30071971.pdf 19 https://aliran.com/oldsite/hr/js3.html 20 BBC. (1999, 15 November). A crisis unfolds: Timeline. (1999, 15 November). BBC News. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/special_ report/1998/10/98/malaysia_crisis/204632.stm 21 One of the few known cases where an individual was detained under the ISA solely for his commentaries online. Raja Petra Kamaruddin is a controversial political blogger who has been active since far before the rise of the internet in Malaysia. 22 The Star Online. (2008, 13 September). Raja Petra, Teresa Kok and Sin Chew reporter arrested under ISA. The Star Online. www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2008/09/13/ raja-petra-teresa-kok-and-sin-chew-reporter-arrested-under-isa MALAYSIA / 85