On the contrary, we are of the view that the intention of the framers of the Constitution is to provide for the continuance of all existing laws including the Act, subject to any modifications as may be made so as to bring it into accord with the Constitution. The existing law is only rendered void or invalid if it could not be brought into accord with the Constitution. This is to be contrasted with the treatment of post Merdeka Day legislation which by virtue of Art.4 (1) is rendered null and void to the extent of its inconsistency with the Constitution. [25] What we can gather from the above is that, it is thus the intention of the framers of the Constitution to ensure that the existing law will continue to be valid and enforceable upon the coming into operation of the Constitution on Merdeka Day. It follows therefore that the Act being the “existing law” at the material date should continue to be valid and enforceable post-Merdeka Day. For the above reasons, our answer to the second question is in the positive. [27] – [28] First question The first question before us is whether s.4 (1) of the Act is consistent with Art.10 (2) (a) of the Constitution. Art. 10 (1) (a) provides for freedom of speech, assembly and association. It is, however, commonly acknowledged that the rights conferred by the said Article are not absolute (see Public Prosecutor v Ooi Kee Saik & Ors [1971] 2 MLJ 108; Madhavan Nair & Anor v. Public Prosecutor [1975] 2 MLJ 264). This is clear from Art. 10(2) itself which states that the rights conferred by Art. 10(1) (a) (b) and (c) are subject to clauses (2), (3) and (4). What concerns us here is the kind of restriction which may be imposed under Art.10 (1) (a). [29] By Art. 10 (2), Parliament is given the right to impose such restrictions as it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of the Federation and other grounds enumerated in clause (2)(a). What this means is that Parliament or the legislature is not free to impose any restrictions as they fancy; the restrictions must fall within the parameters set out by clause (2) (a) of Art. 10. [30] The constitutionality of s.8A(1) of the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 came for consideration of the Supreme Court in Public Prosecutor v. Pung Chen Choon 6