Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


Printing Presses and Publication Act 1984

No description

Amira Amira

on 9 December 2015

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Printing Presses and Publication Act 1984

Printing Presses and Publication Act 1984
Prepared by:
Fatin Nurulshahirah Maaris ( 2015258928)
Noor Maizura (2015674064)
Nor Amira (2015636862)

What is PPPA law in Malaysia ?
Printing Presses and Publication Act 1984, also known as Act 301, under the laws of Malaysia. This act is published by the commissioner of law revision in Malaysia under the authority of the revision of law act 1968. All of the amendments are incorporated up to January 1st, 2006.
Have an arrangement of sections which can be divided into 5 parts
Part I is preliminary :
Short title of the act and the interpretation of the act.
The Amendments
The new amendments for PPPA 1984 has been amended in year 2012. There are a few changes that has been made which includes the changes in:
Section 3
Section 6(1)
Section 12
Section 13A(1)
Section 13B
Regulates the use of printing presses and the printing, importation, production, reproduction, publishing and distribution of publications and for matters connected therewith.
Part II is the licensing of printing presses :
The license to use printing presses and the printing press used for unlawful purpose.
Part III is consists of the permit to publish newspaper :
Includes the grant of permit and the offence to print, import, and publish, etc., newspaper without permit.

Part IV is the control of undesirable publications :
Undesirable publications, offences, offence to publish false news, suppression and the suspension of publication, undesirable publication may be refused importation and withholding delivery pending decision of Minister.

Part V is the miscellaneous :
Deposit, printed document to bear name of printer and publisher, validity of license and permit, revocation, suspension and transfer of license and permit, minister’s decision final, exclusion of right to be heard, presumption, presumption of printer and publisher, search warrant 17, power to open package, power of seizure or detaining printing press or publication, all things seized liable to forfeiture, arrest without warrant, corporations and firms, liability of partners, directors, etc., service of notice, etc., bar to legal proceedings, exemption, rules and repeal.

Section 3
According to the Section 3 (3) of the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984, the word “Absolute Discretion “ has been removed. This means that the minister’s decision can be challenged in Court.
Section 6(1)
Same as the Section 3 (3) of the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984, under Section 6 (1), the word “Absolute Discretion “ has been removed meaning that the minister’s decision can be challenged in Court.
Section 12
Once a license is given, it will remain for as long as it is not revoked. Unlike the previous Act in 2006 when it has to be renewed annually. The Section 12(2) also has been removed involving the minister’ absolute discretion.
Section 13A(1)
The Minister’s decision to refuse to grant or to revoke or suspend a license or permit is final but can be challenge in court.
Section 13B
A person will be given the right to be heard in the court if the Minister intends to revoke or cancel the license granted to him which in the previous Act in 2006 has made the exclusion of the person’s right to be heard.

Zulkiflee SM Anwar Ulhaque / Zunar
One of Malaysia's most controversial political cartoonists, picking apart the government in a country with drawing editorial cartoons for the past 20 years in Malaysia.
The Malaysian government detaining him, confiscating his books and raiding his printer’s offices
His cartoons, published on the independent news site as well as through his own books and social media, regularly satirize the legitimacy of the ruling United Malays National Organization.

Zunar’s publications focused on :
The corruption and misconduct of Prime Minister NajibRazak’s administration.
Such as the murder of Altantuya, the Scorpene scandal, the conspiracy against Anwar Ibrahim, misuse of public funds and taxpayer money.
June 2011, he filed another suit to challenge the Malaysian government for unlawfully detaining him on 24 September 2010

He claims that the whole arrest and detention process reeked of bad faith and was politically motivated.
This suit aims to bring into focus the constitutional and human rights arguments, the police’s excessive powers and abuse, illiberal and outdated laws like the Sedition Act and the PPPA, and the collusion between the government and the police.

Issues Argued
Whether omnibus prayer in statement of claim for 'further or other relief' could be used to award damages
Whether seizure and continued detention of books and collage unlawful
Whether appellant's constitutional right to make a living affected
Whether appellants entitled to damages

Zunar then has brought civil suit against the government and police for his unlawful arrest and detention. However on 31 July 2012, High Court dismissed the Zunar's claimed due to the relevant provisions of respective Acts
Fall under Section 11 of the Sedition Act 1948 and Section 20 of Printing Presses And Publication Act 1984. High Court held that the seizure and continuos detention of the 66 books titled "Cartoon-O-Phobia" and artistic was unlawful.
Verdict given for this case - High Court dismiss both the appeal by the appellants and the cross-appeal by the respondents, hereby affirm the order of the High Court that each party pays its own cost.
The seizure of Zunar made the PPPA as draconian Act by the government that possibly questioned by authorities especially writers on their practice of freedom of expression in media these days.  


The Herald
Malaysian Catholic of newspaper
Tan Sri Archbishop Murphy Pakiam, DD, on behalf of the Catholic Bishops of Peninsular Malaysia (owner)
The Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Menteri Dalam Negeri case is a court decision holding that Christians do not have the constitutional right to use the word "Allah" in church newspapers.
An appeals court overturned a previous ruling which granted that right

On Feb 16 2009 the Roman Catholic Church led by Archbishop Murphy Pakiam files a judicial review application at the Kuala Lumpur High Court to declare the Home Ministry's ban of its use of the word 'Allah' in its Herald weekly, as illegal
ministry and government as respondents
The Herald published in four languages has been using the word 'Allah' to refer to God in its Malay language section, for the consumption of Catholic readers in Sabah and Sarawak.

Issues Argued
Whether it would be incumbent on the Minister to place before the Court the facts and the grounds on which he had acted?
Whether the decision of a Minister is reviewable where such decision is based on ground of alleged national security and whether it is a subjective discretion?Is the mere assertion by the Minister of a threat to public order, or the likelihood of it, sufficient to preclude inquiry by the Court?
Whether in judicial review proceedings a Court is precluded from enquiring into the grounds upon which a public decision maker based his decision?

Application for judicial review, the Applicant applied for declarations to declare that the Applicant had the constitutional right, pursuant to Articles 3(1), 10, 11 and 12 of the Federal Constitution
to use the word "Allah" in the Herald -The Catholic Weekly, and that the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 did not empower the respondents to impose its condition which was ultra vires the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984.
This Herald case to be told by the ministry that observed that the Herald - The Catholic Weekly, which is accessible "online" can be read by both Muslims and non-Muslim, explicated that it is unlawful as the Allah word is "Terhad" and can only be use by the Muslims.
Final verdict given that Application filed for leave to appeal to the Federal Court pertaining to the Federal Court, that its administration and jurisdiction in allowing the Home Ministry to ban the use of the word Allah for the Herald - The Catholic Weekly.
May 23 2012 the first appellant (Jabatan Agama Islam Wilayah Perseketuan) conducted a search at the Bookstore at the Gardens, Mid Valley Mall, Jalan Syed Putra, Kuala Lumpur. Officers of the 1st Appellant were accompanied by a group of reporters and photographers.
first appellant seized several books under two titles by an internationally known author,
IrsyadManji, entitled “Allah, Kebebasan dan Cinta” and “Allah, Liberty and Love” (the Books) after checking them at the Bookstore

The first appellant then examined the second and the third respondents at the premises and issued orders compelling them to be present at the first appellant’s office for further examination and investigation.
May 29 2012
(prohibition order against the publication and sale of the books was issued by the second appellant (Minister of Home Affairs)
The Prohibition Order was known as the Printing Presses and Publications (Control of Undesirable Publications) under the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 (the PPP Act), banning the publication and sale of the Books

Issues Argued
Whether seizure of books lawful
Whether High Court has jurisdiction to hear application
Whether s 13 of the Syariah Criminal Offences (Federal Territories) Act 1997 ultra vires of Federal Constitution
Whether raid tainted with elements of mala fide
The first appellant for the purpose being examined and investigated further by the first appellant under the Section 58 of the Syariah Criminal Procedure (Federal Territories) Act 1997.
The seizure of the books by Irsyad Manji had the offence of 'disseminating and distributing by way of selling the Books deemed contrary to hukum syarak'. There was no fatwa, declaration, announcement or circular issued by the first appellant or by any other religious authority banning the publication and sale of the books on the ground that it was in breach of hukum syarak.

And On 29 May 2012, the second appellant issued the case as a prohibition order against the publication and sale of the books. The issue is fall under the Printing Presses and Publications (Control of Undesirable Publications) (No 3) Order 2012 which is under the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984, as if it is found guilty banning the publication and sale of the books can be done.
The appellant for this case is Dato’ Seri Syed Hamid bin Syed Jaafar the Home Minister for Malaysia between 2008 until 2009 and the respondent for this case is SIS Forum (Malaysia), also known as Sisters In Islam, a Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) formed in year 1988 and registered in year 1993 under the name SIS Forum Malaysia
Dato’ Seri Syed Hamid time as the Home minister, he has made a decision under s 77(1) of the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 to ban a book entitled ‘Muslim Women and the Challenges of Islamic Extremism
The book was banned on the ground it was prejudicial to public order although it had been in circulation for about two years before the ban.
Issues Argued
Whether any evidence book prejudiced public order when in circulation
Whether decision to ban book on ground it was prejudicial to public order irrational and reeked of Wednesbury unreasonableness.
The appellant's decision to ban the book was flawed and not exercised in accordance with s 7(1) of the Act.
If in the two years the book was in circulation no prejudice to public order had occurred, it fol-lowed that the book was in the first place unlikely to be prejudicial to public order. To be satis-fied the book was prejudicial to public order in face of the fact no such prejudice had occurred during the two years it was in circulation was so outrageous in its defiance of logic that it fell squarely within the meaning of Wednesbury unreasonableness and of irrationality.
Even if the book infringed JAKIM guidelines, that did not address the issue of it being prejudicial to public order.
Ties between media institution and government is unbreakable.
The government deliver their information or ideologies, through media.
Media highlight itself and the publications.
Media is increasingly turned into an industry which eventually sought to maximize.
Media institution has strong ties with the government
Lim published 5,000 copies of a pamphlet which contained the words 'Victim imprisoned, criminal free'.
The appellant (Lim) was charged with the first charge that the words 'Mangsa dipenjarakan' ('Victim imprisoned') amounted to false news that had been maliciously published, contrary to s 8A(1) of the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 ('the PPPA').

The appellant was alleged to have made a speech in which he said that he was dissatisfied with the laws of Malaysia because of the double standard which resulted in the rape case involving Tan Sri Rahim Tamby Chik ('Rahim'), the former Chief Minister of the state of Melaka, who was charged with having sexual relations with a girl below the age of 16 ('the minor'). However, there was inadequate evidence to proceed with the case against him and the charges were withdrawn.

The evidence showed that at one point in time the minor was detained by the police. However, according to her own evidence, she was not placed in a lock-up. She was then placed in protective custody pursuant to an order made by a magistrate's court.
Rahim not being brought to court and with the fact that the court had ordered the minor to be detained for three years whereas Rahim, who should have been imprisoned for violating the law, was instead set free. These two comments resulted in the second charge against the appellant, that he had committed sedition contrary to s 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act 1948.

The appellant was found guilty on the first charge and sentenced him to a fine of RM10, 000 in default to six months’ imprisonment. On the second charge, judge has imposed a fine of RM5, 000 in default to the three months’ imprisonment. The appellant appealed against both convictions and sentences passed upon him. At the same time, there were two cross-appeals by the Public Prosecutor who complained that the sentence passed upon the appellant in respect of each proved offence was inadequate.

Whether appellate court can substitute fine with imprisonment
Whether there was actual malice
Whether judge had misdirected himself in convicting the accused
Whether judge had erred in principle
Whether sentence imposed adequate

Issues Argued
'Mangsa dipenjarakan' conveyed the meaning that the minor had been imprisoned despite her innocence, although prosecution evidence showed that the minor had never been imprisoned and that even during her detention by the police, she was not kept in a lock-up. Further, the evidence supported the inference that the appellant was actuated by actual malice in publishing those words. There was, therefore, no misdirection by the judge of himself upon the law or the evidence and the first appeal, which related to the conviction upon the first charge, were without merit.

In a case where it is alleged that a speech was made containing two or more passages that are seditious, it is fairly open to a trial court to order an acquittal in respect of one passage and yet enter a conviction in respect of the other.
A term of 18 months' imprisonment would be the appropriate sentence to be passed upon the appellant on the first charge.
On the evidence adduced, it was clear that the words uttered by the appellant at the meeting were seditious, and the appellant had not sought to argue otherwise. Having regard to the facts of this case, the sentence imposed by the judge must be set aside in favour of a term of imprisonment of 18 months on the second charge.
The Implications of Laws towards Society and Media Practitioner
Society did not get the overall story as the writer was silenced by law
PPPA existed to educate the society, protect the writers’ right
The press freedom of media is limited
PPPA will make media practitioner to avoid writing seditious/defamation statement which could lead to legal action.
Interview Session with a Law Practitioner,
Jastina Zainal
Full transcript