Imagine that a local cartoonist by the pen name of Tarzan is accused by the police and other governmental authorities of crossing the line of decency by indulging in unwarranted attacks against governmental policies, offending racial and religious sensitivities and other social and national norms via his cartoons.

Over the years, the cartoonist has faced numerous criminal charges and went to jail several times and had his cartoons seized and confiscated by the relevant authorities and subjected to restrictions on his right of travel. The last straw that broke the camel's back was inflicted when his international passport was withdrawn by the Immigration Authority recently.

Tarzan's main defences are that sometimes he is forced by circumstances to take a critical stance against the government when the general public is seen to be so frightened to speak up against injustices caused by the government's policies and that his works are solely satirical in nature. The primary objective of his cartoons is to mock and make fun of things and people but not to offend any racial and religious sensitivities! To attack and offend people's sensitivities and social and national norms is or was never his intention at all. The more he is able to mock and made fun of people's daily activities, the more his fans love his works and the more popular are his cartoons. It is also a matter of livelihood for him because the more sales he can make from the sale of his cartoons, the more money he can earn.

You are the chairman of the Malaysian Association of Artists and Cartoonists. Your association is fully aware of the problems faced by Tarzan. Assuming that there is such an association, the said association intends to take the government and the relevant authorities to court on behalf of Tarzan because they are solely responsible for making the aggrieved cartoonist's life and work unbearable and had confiscated his works of art and his international passport withdrawn without any reasonable basis. Such actions by the relevant authorities are, according to the association andits members, wholly unwarranted!

The High Court allows the action to be filed subject to the following questions to be answered satisfactorily by the association and the aggrieved cartoonist:

(a) Whether the association has the locus standi to sue on behalf of its aggrieved members?

(b) What is the cause of action against the government and the relevant authorities?

(c) What are the basic or fundamental rights of the aggrieved cartoonist?

(d) Have those rights of the aggrieved cartoonist been infringed by the governmental authorities?

(e) Assuming that the rights of the aggrieved cartoonist have been infringed, what are the appropriate remedies to be granted by the court?