[2015] 8 CLJ A B C D E F G H I PP v. Azmi Sharom 923 (4) It was 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 followed therefore that the Act being the ‘existing law’ at the material date should continue to be valid and enforceable post Merdeka Day. Thus, the second question was answered in the positive. (para 27) (5) Article 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. By art. 10(2), Parliament is given the right to impose such restrictions as it deemed necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of the Federation and other grounds enumerated in cl. (2)(a). However, Parliament or the Legislature is not free to impose any restrictions as they fancy; the restrictions must fall within the parameters set out by cl. (2)(a) of art. 10. (paras 29 & 30) (6) Since the Court of Appeal’s decision in Dr Mohd Nasir Hashim v. Menteri Dalam Negeri Malaysia, the court had imposed a further restriction on the law touching on the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution by applying the ‘reasonable’ and ‘proportionality’ tests in determining whether the impugned law was consistent with the Constitution. The reasoning cited in Dr Mohd Nasir Hashim was flawed. It was fallacious to use the reasoning in Ooi Ah Phua as warranting this court to insert the word ‘reasonable’ before the word ‘restriction’ in art. 10(2). That would be rewriting the provisions of art. 10(2). For these reasons, the court departed from the view of the Court of Appeal in Dr Mohd Nasir Hashim. This court was inclined to agree with the view of the Supreme Court in Pung Chen Choon, that it was not for the court to determine whether the restriction imposed by the Legislature pursuant to art. 10(2) was reasonable or otherwise. That is a matter strictly within the discretion of the Legislature and not within the purview of the court. (paras 32, 37 & 40) (7) The restriction that may be imposed by the Legislature under art. 10(2) is not without limit. The law promulgated under art. 10(2) must pass the proportionality test in order to be valid. That was in line with the test laid down in Pung Chen Choon. Section 4(1) of the Act is directed to any act, word or publication having a ‘seditious tendency’ as defined in s. 3(1) paras. (a) to (f) of the Act. This is consistent with art. 10(2)(a) and art. 10(4) of the Constitution, as it cannot be said that the restrictions imposed by s. 4(1) is too remote or not sufficiently connected to the subjects/objects enumerated in art. 10(2)(a). Furthermore, this is not a total prohibition as it is subject to a number of exceptions as provided in s. 3(2) of the Act. As legislated, it is not seditious to show that any Ruler had been misled or mistaken in any of his measures, or to point out errors or defects in any Government or constitution as by law