ANALYSING MINISTERIAL REASONS FOR BANNING BOOKS UNDER THE PRINTING PRESSES AND PUBLICATIONS ACT 1984

The publication of books reflects the advancement of a country’s civilisation. This right is affirmed by Article 10(1) of the Federal Constitution (FC), which guarantees every person the right to freedom of speech and expression. However, this right is subject to certain limitations that may be imposed by Parliament, as prescribed in Article 10(2) of the FC. Among the laws governing this freedom is the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 (Act 301) (PPPA 1984). Section 7(1) of the PPPA 1984 empowers the Minister to prohibit publications whose content is, or is likely to be, prejudicial to public order, morality and security or other specified interests. An issue arises from Section 7 of the PPPA 1984, which lacks clarity regarding the requirement for the Minister to provide reasons when banning a publication. This research adopts a doctrinal approach, involving detailed analysis of the FC, the PPPA 1984, relevant case law, and scholarly writings in this area. The research finds that, although Section 7(1) of the PPPA 1984 does not explicitly require the Minister to provide reasons for issuing a ban, judicial decisions have established the necessity of doing so when executive discretion is exercised. The research proposes amending the section, considering the Court of Appeal’s case of Menteri Dalam Negeri & Anor v Chong Ton Sin (t/a Gerakbudaya Enterprise) & Anor (2024) 1 MLJ 611, where not only must the Minister state the reason for a ban as provided in section 7 of the Act, but also briefly explain it. Such a requirement would enhance transparency in governance by ensuring that ministerial decisions are clear and comprehensible, thereby aligning with the principles of natural justie.