Is the Melaka election campaign ban lawful under Section 24B?

Question

Accepted Answer

The Melaka Election Campaign Ban is Unlawful Under Section 24B of the Election Offences Act 1954

A blanket prohibition on election-related activities during the Melaka state election campaign period is unlawful, particularly concerning Section 24B of the Election Offences Act 1954. This primary legislation permits candidates and their agents to conduct election campaigns, including public meetings and rallies, provided they obtain a police permit. The National Recovery Plan (NRP) Regulations, being subsidiary legislation, cannot supersede the provisions of the Election Offences Act. Therefore, enforcing Regulation 10 of the NRP Regulations to prohibit candidates from campaigning is an unlawful application of the law.
Election Candidates Have Legal Rights to Campaign

Section 24B of the Election Offences Act 1954 explicitly grants election candidates or their appointed agents the right to organise and hold various campaign activities during the designated campaign period. These activities can include open public meetings, rallies, displays, and lectures within their contesting constituency, contingent upon securing a necessary permit from the police. This provision acknowledges the fundamental need for candidates to engage with the electorate directly in the lead-up to an election.
Subsidiary Legislation Cannot Override Primary Legislation

The legal basis for the ban appears to stem from Regulation 10(1) of the Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures within Infected Local Areas) (National Recovery Plan) Regulations 2021. However, these NRP Regulations are classified as subsidiary legislation, created under the broader Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases Act 1988. As such, they do not possess the authority to override primary legislation enacted by Parliament, such as the Election Offences Act 1954. Consequently, any attempt to enforce the NRP Regulations in a manner that contradicts or negates the rights established by the Election Offences Act is legally unsound.
Blanket Prohibition Contradicts Constitutional Rights

Beyond the specific provisions of the Election Offences Act, a complete ban on election activities also infringes upon fundamental rights guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. Article 10 of the Constitution enshrines the rights to freedom of speech and expression, peaceful assembly, and association. While Parliament may impose restrictions on these freedoms in the interest of national security or public order, such restrictions must be proportionate and cannot amount to a complete prohibition. Public health, while a valid concern, is not listed as a ground for restricting freedom of assembly under Article 10(2). Therefore, a blanket ban is disproportionate and arbitrary, especially when compared to the relaxation of restrictions in most other economic and social sectors.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Is the Melaka election campaign ban lawful under Section 24B?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends