Democracy

"True democracy cannot be separated from holistic development. Each is essential for the attainment of the other.

Democracy is more than the ritual casting of a ballot once every few years. True democracy involves ongoing participation by the people at all levels so that the people can determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, cultural and spiritual development.

Participatory democracy must permeate all levels of human living - the home, the workplace, the local community and the nation."

Malaysia can be described as a severely restricted democracy. Many key civil and political rights remain circumscribed. An armoury of laws which provide for detention without trial and restrictions over basic freedoms of expression, association and public assembly support an authoritarian state. The government maintains control with a sophisticated combination of draconian laws, controls on civil liberties, with social and economic policies favouring elite and middle class sectors of the numerically dominant Bumiputras as well as economically advantaged non-Bumiputras.

The redeeming feature of the political landscape is that elections are held regularly every four to five years. However whether these elections are genuinely free and fair by internationally accepted standards is quite questionable. The very context of severely restricted freedoms in which the elections are conducted would itself make the elections an unfair process.

Malaysia has not ratified any significant international human rights treaty on civil and political rights. In particular, it has not ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the Convention Against Torture. The Malaysian government has argued both at home and abroad that it prefers so-called "Asian values" of human rights to the standards set out in what it considers to be treaties of western origin. On the other hand, Asian philosophers and religious leaders would be most concerned to know that "Asian cultural values" prevent a prohibition on the use of torture!

On the positive side, the Malaysian government has taken steps to ratify the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, albeit with many reservations. These conventions are amongst the eight most significant human rights treaties of the United Nations. Their ratification marks an important acceptance by the Malaysian government that the global community does share common standards and values on human rights, regardless of cultural and geographical origins.

The Malaysian government has also advanced the principle of the indivisibility and interdependence of human rights in international forums particularly to criticise the narrow focus of certain nations or international organisations on civil and political rights. The important principle of indivisibility and interdependence of human rights is now beyond dispute and is set out in clear terms in the 1993 Vienna Declaration as follows:-

"All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated. The international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis. While the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind, it is the duty of States, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms. "

The Vienna Declaration was endorsed by at least 180 countries including Malaysia who actively participated in the debates preceding it.

The indivisibility and interdependence of human rights means that the state has the obligation to protect all human rights at all times. No set of rights is to be bargained of against another. It means that civil and political rights cannot be violated in the name of development, in the name of promoting rights to economic and material needs. It means that the state cannot justify detaining its citizens without trial in the name of the the necessity of building schools and feeding its citizens. For human beings, appropriate and holistic development has as an essential component, the protection and promotion of civil and political rights. Without these rights, corruption increases, wrong and damaging development decisions are made, and citizens live in fear and without dignity.

The Malaysian government has yet to honour the principle of the indivisibility of human rights as the following sections will show the severe limitations faced in the areas of civil and political rights. Key areas of concern are the continuing use of emergency laws in de facto non-emergency times, use of detention without trial, deaths in custody, abuses of police powers, the use of the death penalty, violations of freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly, an electoral process which is not free and fair, a legislature that is very much executive controlled and a judiciary that is not independent.

"Everyone has the right to live in peace and be from fear of arbitrary arrest and detention without fair and public trial.

No person shall be tortured or subjected to cruel or degrading treatment or punishment by individuals, police, military or any other state agency.

Every one has the right to legal counsel forthwith upon arrest, to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, to be equally protected by the law and to be given a fair and public trial.

Everyone has the right to freedom from persecution and to obtain asylum in other countries.

Everyone shall have the right to move freely in and out of the country."

"No government shall declare a state of emergency except where a real danger exists to the very existence and life of the nation; and all declarations of states of emergency shall be abrogated immediately when the need for their perpetration no longer exists.

Even under a validly declared emergency, governments shall not deny nor violate the following rights and freedoms: right to life, right to recognition of personal dignity and legal personality, freedom of conscience and religion, freedom from torture, retroactive penal measures, and cruel punishment, the right to leave and return to one’s country, the right to habeas corpus, the right to access to civil courts and to fair, public and speedy trial."

The Malaysian Constitution provides a guarantee against arbitrary arrest and detention without trial under Article 5. Unfortunately it also contains Article 149 which allows Parliament to make valid laws which contravene Article 5. The left hand giveth while the right hand taketh away... One finds this recurring theme in the Constitution in which rights are provided in qualified language with many provisos and exceptions.

Article 149 allows laws to be passed by Parliament that negate rights to due process, freedom of speech, assembly and association merely by stating in the law itself that "action has been taken and further action is threatened by a substantial body of persons inside and outside of Malaysia to cause a substantial body of citizens to fear organised violence against persons and property." This can be done without a declaration of emergency. It is interesting to note that one of the members of the Reid Commission, the body of five persons entrusted to draft the first Constitution, Justice Abdul Hamid from Pakistan objected to this Article 137 as it then was, in the following language:

"If there exists any real emergency, and that should only be emergencies of the type described in Article 138 (now Article 150), then and only then should such extraordinary powers be exercised. It is in my opinion unsafe to leave in the hands of Parliament power to suspend constitutional guarantees only by making a recital in the Preamble that conditions in the country are beyond reach of the ordinary law. Ordinary legislation and executive measures are enough to cope with a situation of the type described in Article 137."

Justice Hamid’s forewarning of abuse has been proved correct.

Today, Article 149 provides the constitutional legal basis for two laws which provide for indefinite detention without trial - the Internal Security Act (ISA) 1960 and the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act (DDA) 1985. A third law also providing for detention without trial is the Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969. This was made by decree under emergency powers given under Article 150 after the declaration of emergency in May 1969. Although full civilian government and rule by Parliament was reinstated in 1971, such emergency laws continue to be used as the emergencies have not been revoked. In real terms, no actual state of emergency exists.

According to the Home Affairs Ministry, 2,008 persons were detained without trial under these three laws as at the end of 1996 with the majority detained under the DDA (US Department of State 1996). Figures for 1997 are not available except for the ISA.

Detention without trial generally operates in two stages – an initial detention of up to sixty days upon the authority of the police and then a two year renewable order by the authority of the Minister for Home Affairs. During the first sixty days, detainees are typically held in solitary confinement and denied basic necessities such as their underclothes, spectacles and watches. No contact with lawyers is allowed. Round the clock interrogation is common particularly for the first few days. Family visits and basic necessities may be allowed if detainees "co-operate" during interrogation. Physical and psychological torture of detainees has been well documented in respect of detainees in the infamous detentions under Operation Lallang in October 1987. There are no known instances of investigations opened against police officers for such abuses.

Judicial review of detentions without trial is very limited as the judiciary has chosen to apply the test of "subjective discretion" to determine the legality of the detention. As long as the Minister for Home Affairs files an affidavit to state that the detainee is a threat to national security, the Court will not investigate the detention further. Habeas corpus applications have therefore usually succeeded only on technical irregularities. In 1989, all these three laws were amended to reduce the use of such technical objections narrowing the scope of habeas corpus further. In any event, detainees freed by the Court are frequently re-arrested immediately by the police using the same law.

Over the last two to three years, the number of ISA detainees in detention has ranged from between one hundred to two hundred. Most of these arrests are not publicised. The government has regularly refused to provide answers to questions in Parliament asking for details of the detainees including grounds of arrest. Only total numbers of detainees are provided.

On occasion, the police have provided details of highly publicised detentions such as the detentions of 14 Al-Arqam members in 1996 or the very recent (November 1997) detentions of 10 male Muslims on the alleged grounds of practising Shia Islam.

The 14 Al-Arqam members were detained for purportedly attempting to revive the movement which the government had banned in 1994. The Al-Arqam movement was also subjected to ISA detentions in 1994. The founder of the movement, Ashaari Mohamed, his wife and other leaders were detained. They were then produced on television where they "confessed" to deviationist teachings and agreed to stop the movement.

Very little is known about the 10 persons detained for purportedly being Shia Muslims apart from their names, age and date of detentions. Two of them are over 75 years in age. They were detained, according to the police, for " activities prejudicial to national security and Muslim unity". Two of them, university lecturers filed successful habeas corpus applications in the High Court but were re-arrested immediately after their release in court in December 1997. Subsequently the police released two of the 10 detainees (not those re-arrested). The remaining 8 are believed to be detained in Kamunting under 2 year detention orders. Opposition political parties including PAS and non-governmental organisations have called for their immediate release or for the authorities to charge them in open court.

As at 31 December 1997, there were 223 persons in detention under the ISA. Most of the ISA detainees currently held in Kamunting Detention Centre are detained for purportedly criminal offences such as forging documents, passports and identity cards. According to a government statement in October 1996, there were 171 of such detentions at that time (New Straits Times 11 October 1996).

No evidence of the use of violence has been publicly produced by the government in respect of these detainees. In any event, there exist many laws under which these detainees could be charged if the government believed that they were organising for violence.

In early 1996, the government indicated its intention to review the ISA. No amendments have been presented to date. Non-governmental organisations and opposition political parties have consistently pressed for the repeal of all laws that allow detention without trial.

In December 1996, the Inspector-General of Police, the Deputy Minister for Home Affairs and the Prime Minister as Home Affairs Minister threatened to use the ISA against non-governmental organisers and participants of a public meeting convened to present cases of abuses of police powers to which the police had been invited. The organisers were labelled as "Marxist" (see also under freedom of expression below).

In August 1997, the government also threatened to use the ISA against stockbrokers and financial analysts and any individuals who were involved in purported "currency speculation" trading after the Malaysian ringgit took a sudden dip in value. Implied threats of arrest were used to warn persons speaking or writing to present a negative picture of the Malaysian economy.

This law came into being after the declaration of emergency as a result of communal riots in May 1969. A National Operations Council ruled by decree and passed various emergency laws including POPO. Although Parliament was subsequently restored in 1971, the government has still not formally revoked the 1969 declaration of emergency.

Under this law, the Home Affairs Minister can issue a detention order for up to 2 years against a person if he deems it necessary to protect public order or to suppress violence or prevent crimes of violence. The police have used it routinely to detain without trial persons suspected of criminal activity.

Government figures suggest that 56 people remain detained under this Ordinance in 1996 compared to 447 in 1995 (US State Department Country Report 1996). The government has not made public the number of persons detained under this law in the year 1997.

A documented case of abuse of this law concerned detentions of two men in February 1994 in Temerloh, Pahang. Reports received show that the two men were detained after assisting and advising workers in a worker-management dispute in Sungei Kawang Estate near Temerloh. One of the two men had also filed a defamation suit against the estate management. Reports suggest that the estate management then instigated the arrests. The investigating groups say that the two men had no history of involvement in any sort of criminal activity. The two men were released after the initial 60 day detention period and were then placed on restriction orders confining them to towns in other states.

In 1985, the government passed the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act (DDA) promising in Parliament that it would only be used to arrest and detain without trial the big drug traffickers. The rationale provided was that the police often lacked sufficient evidence to put away these traffickers using the existing Dangerous Drugs Act which already provided the death penalty for trafficking.

Thousands of Malaysians have been detained since 1985 under this law. The scale of the drug problem in terms of drugs seized and numbers of registered addicts has in the meantime increased several times.

As of September 1996, 1,876 suspected drug traffickers remained under detention or under restriction orders equivalent to house arrest under this Act (US State Department Country Report 1996). No figures are available for the number of detainees in 1997 apart from the figure of 1,081 persons arrested under these provisions which apparently is an increase of 24 % over 1996 (US State Department Country Report 1997).

In so far as the extent of the drug use problem is concerned, the number of known new addicts grew from 7,154 in 1980 (Parliamentary reply 8 November 1993) to 13,140 in 1995 (Economic Report 1996/97). The total number of known drug addicts in Malaysia from 1988 to 1995 was 194,797 (Economic Report 1996/97). If all these detainees were large scale traffickers as claimed by the authorities, then why is the drug use problem growing instead of lessening?

Anecdotal reports of corruption involving officers enforcing these laws have been known to be made from some time now. In April 1997, the police arrested a group of persons including officials from the Home Ministry, lawyers and a police officer for extorting money from families of prisoners held under the Emergency Ordinance.

The Restricted Residence Act of 1933 is another law violating fundamental principles of due process before punishment. The authorities use this law to issue "banishment" orders for so-called criminal suspects forcing them to live in areas remote from their homes for up to two years at a time. The banned person is required to restrict his movements within a small police district unless permission is obtained to allow him or her to go beyond the restricted zone . Such orders are made without judicial hearings and can be renewed indefinitely. This law was initially promulgated by the British colonial government essentially to control pro-independence movements.

No figures have been made public as to how many persons are now subject to such restrictions. The police have used this law to "banish" footballers accused of involvement in fixing of football matches. In July 1997, they proposed extending it to persons accused of copyright piracy. In August 1997, the Deputy Home Minister made a proposal that the Act be extended to " dishonest traders" who were involved in manufacturing fake medicine or selling adulterated gasoline and importing pigs without a licence.

Immigration laws permit investigative detention of non-citizens at police stations for up to 30 days and a further 30 days with a magistrate’s order. They can then be detained in immigration holding centres indefinitely until deportation or until their stay in Malaysia is legalised for release from the centre. Such detentions are without any administrative or judicial hearings. At any one time there are about 10,000 detainees in the nine detention centres around the country. There is serious concern about the conditions in such centres which are discussed under the topic of custodial deaths and in the chapter on employment (Chapter 2). No human rights groups or monitors have been permitted to visit these centres.

Article 150 of the Federal Constitution permits the declaration of an emergency to prevent threatened or actual danger to the security of Malaysia. This effectively means the suspension of Parliament and rule by executive decree issued in the name of the King but upon advice of the Prime Minister. Under Article 40 of the Constitution, the King acts in all instances of exercise of his powers, apart from three specific issues, on the advice of the Prime Minister or the Cabinet. Therefore, whilst a first-time reader of the Constitution will find that the King is given powers to appoint various commissions, judges etc. , these acts are all done in accordance with the "advice" or instructions of the Prime Minister.

Under emergency rule, wholesale abrogation of all constitutional rights is permitted. Article 150 has been invoked on at least 4 separate occasions by the government to issue declarations of emergency with the most significant being the emergency declared in 1969. As mentioned above, under this 1969 Emergency, laws such as the Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969 which provides for detention without trial and many other draconian laws were created by decree.

Although Parliament reconvened in 1971 and has continued to function until today, none of the four declarations of emergency have been revoked. The conditions in which Malaysian society have functioned since 1971 show no basis whatsoever to justify the continued existence of these declarations. In 1981, the government amended the Constitution to prevent any challenge in the Courts to the validity of any declaration of emergency or of any law made by decree pursuant to such declaration as long as the declaration remained in effect.

This continued existence and purported validity of emergency declarations has permitted the government the use of draconian legislations which violate even the minimum protection provided in the Federal Constitution. This abuse of Article 150 clearly violates international legal standards of human rights which recognise that certain restrictions of fundamental rights are permitted only in times of grave national danger. Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that the emergency must "threaten the life of the nation" and be officially proclaimed, and "any derogation’s from international standards must be strictly required by the exigencies of the situation."

The combined use of Article 149 and 150 of the Federal Constitution has ensured that fundamental rights such as the right to fair and public trial provided under the Constitution are virtually non-existent.

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinions and responsible exercise of the freedom of expression without interference and persecution.

Everyone is entitled to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through an independent and responsible mass media free of political censorship and monopoly.

The media of mass communications shall not be subject to licensing at the discretion of the government.

Mass communication media owned by the state must be governed and run by an autonomous impartial board made up of representatives appointed by the state, the non-governmental sector and opposition political parties."

Article 10 (1) (a) of the Federal Constitution provides for freedom of expression. But this freedom is immediately restricted by Article 10 (2) and 10 (4) as well as Article 149, which allows curbs on grounds of public order, security, morality, defamation and sedition.

A number of laws have been passed by the government to control and limit freedom of expression to the extent that freedom of expression is very restricted.

The Sedition Act 1969 contains very broad definitions of so-called "seditious tendencies". These include a tendency to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite "disaffection" against any Ruler, the government or the administration of justice. They also include a tendency to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the inhabitants of the country. Sedition is also the promotion of feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Malaysia. The Act also prevents the questioning of the special position of Malays and the citizenship rights of the non-Malays provided under the Federal Constitution. It provides for penalties of jail for up to three years and/or fine for any offences under the Act.

The Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 requires an annual renewable licence for any regular publication to be lawful. Anyone operating a printing press is also required to have such a permit. It was further amended in December 1987 to increase the government’s power to ban or restrict publications and to prohibit court challenges to the government’s actions. Section 8A of the Act was included which states that it is an offence to maliciously publish false news. Malice is presumed if the accused failed to prove that prior to publication, reasonable measures were taken to verify the truth of the news. However, what constitutes reasonable measures has not been defined. The Act provides for penalties of jail sentences up to three years and fines of up to MR 20,000 for any offences.

Laws like the ISA also contain various provisions that curtail freedom of expression. Restrictive conditions such as a ban on public speaking can be imposed with criminal sanctions on ISA detainees. Broad powers of search and seizure and powers of banning are also provided under the Act.

In July 1997, a new Prevention of Corruption Act was passed in Parliament which made it a criminal offence for anyone to make false or inconsistent statements to an office of the Anti-Corruption Agency in the course of an investigation with a penalty of up to MR 100,000 fine and up to 10 years jail. The Act also made it a criminal offence for anyone lodging a report alleging corruption to publicise it until the subject of the allegation was charged in court. Given the difficult nature of securing information on offences of corruption, it is conceivable that these provisions will actually encourage corruption instead of preventing or reducing it!

These laws, and in particular, the ISA and the Printing Presses and Publications Act have been used regularly to intimidate persons against speaking out on issues of public interest. Two recent cases are detailed below.

Lim Guan Eng, a member of parliament for Kota Melaka and Deputy Secretary General of the Democratic Action Party (DAP) was charged in early 1995 under the Sedition Act and the Printing Presses and Publications Act for publicly criticising the government’s handling of the allegations of statutory rape against the former Chief Minister of Melaka, Tan Sri Rahim Tamby Cik in 1994. Lim Guan Eng criticised the "double standards" meted out by the Attorney General in not prosecuting Tan Sri Rahim Tamby Cik for statutory rape when he had charged 15 other men. During the investigation, the police had applied to court and obtained an order placing the 15 year old schoolgirl involved under "protective custody" in January 1995. Guan Eng was charged on 28 February 1995 under the Sedition Act for prompting "disaffection with the administration of justice in Malaysia". The penalty for the offence upon conviction is up to three years in jail, a RM5,000 fine or both. On 17 March 1995, Lim Guan Eng was further charged under Section 8A (1) of the Printing Presses and Publications Act for "maliciously printing" a pamphlet containing allegedly "false information", specifically for using the term "imprisoned victim". Both charges are punishable by jail and/or fines.

During the trial, the under-aged girl involved gave evidence on oath that Rahim Thamby Chik had sex with her. Nonetheless, Lim Guan Eng was found guilty and fined RM10,000 and RM5,000 for the publication and sedition charges respectively. He has appealed. He now stands to be disqualified from continuing as a Member of Parliament because of the fine if his appeal is dismissed.

It appears that the charges against Lim Guan Eng are politically motivated. Prior to his statements over the selective omission to prosecute the former Chief Minister of Melaka, women’s groups and other NGO’s had strongly criticised the Attorney General for his public disclosure of the victim’s sexual history in breach of the Evidence Act and his decision not to prosecute Rahim Tamby Cik for statutory rape due to "insufficient evidence".

The second case is the prosecution of Irene Fernandez under Section 8A (1) of the Printing Presses and Publications Act for "maliciously publication" of a memorandum titled "Abuse, Torture and Dehumanised Treatment of Migrant Workers at Detention Camps" (See section on "abuses and deaths in detention camps" under Foreign Labour in Chapter 2 on Employment for details with regard to the alleged abuses).

The memorandum disclosed the alleged systematic abuses suffered by migrant workers in detention. Copies of the memorandum were also submitted to the Deputy Prime Minister, Home Affairs, Foreign and Human Resources ministries in August 1995. After the New Straits Times published a front page report on the memorandum, a senior official of the Police Field Force (PFF) lodged a report alleging criminal defamation under section 499 of the Penal Code. The PFF are a section within the police force which provide the administrative, security and logistical support to the immigration authorities in running the detention centres. The police then subjected her to questioning which lasted about 10 days. They also questioned Tenaganita staff and volunteers and also tried to take statements from her lawyers. Her lawyers with Bar Council support objected to this.

The case of Irene Fernandez and several other recent instances have shown an increasing aggressiveness of the police force in reaction to criticism directed publicly at them. In early 1996, a popular radio deejay Patrick Teoh had a police report lodged against him by the federal traffic police chief, SAC Supian Amat. The report was over a telephone discussion on the air between him and a listener who described how a traffic policeman took a bribe from him. Patrick Teoh was subsequently questioned on three separate occasions by the police over the report.

Several other instances occurred in mid-1997. The police lodged a report against the journalist who wrote a story alleging corruption by an Assistant Superintendent of Police in Penang. Another newspaper report in "Watan" which had described how construction work on a golf course run by the police in Gombak, Kuala Lumpur was causing problems for nearby residents was met with a similar response of police report lodged under section 8A by the police themselves. In July 1997, after a journalist in the English daily, the New Straits Times, had written a newspaper analysis complaining of inadequate police attention to domestic violence reports, the police again lodged a section 8A report. An investigation paper was opened and the journalist and several women’s activists she had quoted in her article were interrogated under section 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Again in October 1997, the police investigated Asiaweek magazine under the same provision after lodging a report over an article alleging that some foreign diplomats had voiced concern over police inaction to burglaries in diplomats’ homes.

Contempt of court has also been used within the arena of court cases to restrict freedom of expression. A correspondent of the Far Eastern Economic Review, Murray Hiebert, was summoned for contempt of court in an application moved by the plaintiff in a civil suit who was the wife of a prominent judge. He wrote an article implying that she had received preferential treatment in obtaining an early trial date for her civil suit for damages brought on behalf of her son against two teachers in a local "international" school for dropping her son from the school’s debating team. The suit was settled by issuance of a statement by the teachers. Yet the plaintiff was able to subsequently successfully move the court for a finding of contempt against the journalist and he was sentenced to 3 months’ imprisonment. He has appealed. The events around this suit raise serious questions about judicial impartiality and freedom of the press.

A disturbing trend using libel actions claiming damages in the region of tens of millions of ringgit has emerged which has serious implications for freedom of expression. The previous practice in libel actions was not to quantify the amount of damages sought but now plaintiffs specify the amount immediately in their suits at the outset, a practice which has been approved by recent judicial decisions.

After an article appeared in a business magazine called "Euromoney International Commercial Litigation Magazine" in November 1995 containing adverse comments on the independence of the judiciary in Malaysia revolving around the conduct of a particular civil suit, the "Ayer Molek case", libel suits were filed by several large companies, a prominent businessman (Dato’ Vincent Tan) and a lawyer (Dato’ V.K. Lingam) against the magazine, the writer of the article and several persons quoted in the article. Among those sued included the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of the Judiciary Datuk Param Coomaraswamy and Tommy Thomas who was at that time the secretary of the Bar Council. All of Thomas’s partners in his law practice were also named as defendants. In total, 15 suits have been filed seeking some MR 700 million in damages for libel.

Param applied to court to have the suits struck off on the grounds of his immunity as a U.N. special rapporteur. After his application was dismissed, more suits were filed against him in October and December 1997. Param’s appeals to the appellate courts were also dismissed. The Malaysian courts have refused to accept a written statement from the U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan which confirms that under international law and UN rules which bind Malaysia, Param has unconditional and absolute immunity for the purported libellous statements.

Freedom to publish is controlled through the Printing Presses and Publications Act. All major daily newspapers are controlled by companies connected to political parties in the ruling government. In 1990, Bernama, a government controlled news agency was made the sole distributor of foreign news in the country. The Islamic opposition party PAS which controls the state of Kelantan is allowed to run a twice weekly paper which sale is prohibited to the public and is allowed only to be sold to party members.

Broadcasting is completely regulated by the Broadcasting Act which requires licensing for operation of radio and television stations. Such electronic media which play a key role in shaping public consciousness are either completely government controlled or run by companies close to ruling political parties. The content of private channels nonetheless is closely monitored by the authorities.

No opposition party is allowed to run a daily newspaper, radio or television station. It is important to note that in a purported parliamentary democracy, the Leader of the Opposition who had held that position for up to 20 years has not had a full minute on television at any time during that period.

NGO’s such as Aliran and the Consumer Association of Penang produce licensed periodicals which have critical views on government policies. However these are monthly or fortnightly publications with correspondingly less impact on public consciousness. Furthermore, the requirement for annual renewal of publication permits continues to hang like a sword of Damocles over these publications with some impact upon their content.

Distribution of audio-visual material such as cassettes, videotapes and films is also controlled by licensing. Under the FINAS Act 1981, production, distribution and sale of such materials require a licence and it is a crime to do so without a licence, with penalties of imprisonment and fine. Possession of more than three copies of such materials raises a presumption of distribution or sale.

The Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 violates freedom of expression of both university students and academics in universities. It controls the content of statements that can be issued and the kinds of activities (meetings, demonstrations etc.) that may be conducted on campuses by requiring prior approval of campus authorities. For example, in November 1997, the government banned academics from speaking publicly about the haze problem which was affecting tourism. Earlier, academics had been interviewed regularly by the media and were providing facts and opinion on the problem.

Access to public information or information connected to public interest issues is severely restricted by the Official Secrets Act 1972 which was amended extensively in 1983 . Under this Act, departmental heads have broad powers to classify all their documents as "secret" and therefore inaccessible to the public. This classification is completely subjective and not subject to any independent scrutiny. The Act also provides for mandatory custodial sentence for violations of the Act. In 1995, two reporters were arrested and detained for alleged contravention of the Act. However they were not charged and subsequently released.

The OSA has been used to prevent public access to important information on national scandals such as Bank Negara’s RM 30 billion forex losses in 1994.

"Everyone is entitled to organise or participate in meetings, forums, gatherings, discussions and other peaceful activities without having to obtain the prior permission of any state body.

Everyone has the right to join or form any organisation including political organisations of their choice and conduct peaceful activities."

The rights to freedom of assembly and association are provided for in Article 10 (1) of the Malaysian Constitution. As with other rights, significant restrictions are permitted in "in the interest of security and public order". The Police Act 1967 requires a police permit 14 days before any public assembly is held. The police have refused permits to particular public assemblies organised by the political opposition and non-governmental organisations. The Police Act does not specify any particular number of persons as "an assembly" but the Penal Code provides that any assembly of five or more people may be considered an assembly. Failure to disperse is a criminal offence with a minimum mandatory fine of RM 2000 for the first offence.

The Police Act was further amended in 1989 to allow the police to break up large gatherings on private premises if the police were of the opinion that there was a threat to public order or a breach of the peace could be occasioned.

Public rallies for electoral campaigning have been banned by the government since 1978. Opposition parties are therefore forced to apply for permits to have small meetings or "ceramahs". Opposition parties have complained that they have been denied permits for such gatherings. Ruling party politicians usually use the media, government held events and also government machinery for their campaigns whilst opposition candidates, unable to access any form of media are forced to do house-to-house campaigning or organise small gatherings.

Non–governmental organisations and opposition parties are accustomed to having their public gatherings held both indoors and outdoors stopped by the police. Such actions by the police also clearly indicate a set of double standards as often public protests, gatherings and assemblies by ruling party supporters are not stopped by the police.

The police regularly break up public gatherings and assemblies with force. The following incidents are some examples of such actions by the police which took place in late 1996 and during 1997, including the break-up of a private closed door meeting. They are by no means a comprehensive list of all such incidents for the entire country.

1. 9 November 1996 – the break-up by rioters and police of the Second Asia Pacific Conference on East Timor ( APCET II ).

This was a closed door private meeting to which the media were included by invitation and acknowledged as a perfectly legal meeting by the Deputy Minister of Home Affairs, Dato Megat Junid. Organisers of the meeting were warned publicly by the authorities not to proceed and that they would face action if there was a backlash (against Malaysian interests in Indonesia). In a private meeting between representatives of the organisers and the Deputy Minister, he said that he could sabotage the meeting if he had to.

Soon after the meeting started about 9 a.m. with opening prayers for peace, it was broken up at about 9.30 a.m. by a mob of about 600 persons calling themselves the Malaysian People’s Action, comprising youth members of Barisan Nasional, viz. UMNO, MCA and MIC and led by the UMNO Youth assistant secretary, Saifuddin Nasution Ismail. They broke down the door to the meeting room, ransacked the room, assaulted and threatened participants and verbally abused them. These actions were defended by UMNO Youth head, Datuk Ahmad Zahid Hamidi as "justifiable" as the movement’s priority was to stop the conference (The Star 17 November 1996). However, he later claimed that violence was not part of the plan by UMNO Youth to stop the meeting (New Straits Times 16 November 1996).

Police worked in concert with the mob as special branch and other police who were monitoring the meeting the previous day and from 7 a.m. that morning did nothing to stop the mob. A larger contingent of police from the local police district station about 10 minutes away then arrived only about 11 a.m. after the mob was allowed to rampage unrestricted to intimidate the conference participants. The police then asked members of the mob to leave and arrested 7 persons from the mob who refused to leave after 3 to 4 repeated requests. The police then cordoned off the premises and subsequently arrested and detained 46 foreign and 57 local conference participants. The foreigners were deported over the following days while the 57 participants were held in detention for periods of two to six days. Ten participants successfully challenged their detention in the High Court and were released by order of the High Court. In contrast, the seven rioters who were arrested were released immediately on the same day by the police.

Four of these rioters were charged in court for their role in disrupting the meeting and fined $1,500 ringgit after pleading guilty.

2. 16 December 1997 – the "Police Tribunal" on abuses of police powers.

Malaysian NGOs concerned about increasing instances of abuses of police powers organised a forum to commemorate International Human Rights Day on the theme: "People’s Tribunal on Abuse of Police Power". The one-day forum was to be attended by about 100 people comprising estate workers, urban poor, indigenous peoples, migrant workers and social activists to investigate cases of abuse of powers by the police and to dialogue with the police. The police were invited to participate in the forum.

The police response together with the Deputy Home Minister’s was to threaten to use the ISA to detain participants and organisers of the forum if the event proceeded. As a result of the threat, the event was postponed indefinitely. The Inspector General of Police said that "the forum would lead to public disorder " (New Straits Times 15 December 1996). Police subsequently interrogated activists over the organising of the event.

3. 13 March 1997 – Detention of Penans in Sarawak

Four Penans were detained in Sarawak whilst a larger group was negotiating in a stand-off with land surveyors. They were subsequently charged with illegal assembly.

4. 4 April 1997 – Protesters against Israeli cricket team detained

Police teargassed and used violence against about 500 university students and members of the public who protested at the participation of the Israeli cricket team at an International Cricket Competition in Kuala Lumpur. Over a hundred persons were detained. About 55 were subsequently charged in court for unlawful assembly.

5. 17 April 1997 – Ibans defending their native customary land arrested

Nine Ibans were arrested in Sarawak by Police Field Force (paramilitary police) for obstructing what the Ibans considered to be encroachment of their native customary land by a private company Nation Mark Sdn., the Land Development Custody Authority (LCDA).

6. 31 May 1997 - Burma Solidarity activists detained

9 activists from the Burma Solidarity Group Malaysia were arrested and detained overnight when holding a press conference outside the hotel after handing over a memorandum of protest to the ASEAN Foreign Ministers Meeting to protest the inclusion of Burma in ASEAN.

7. 25 June 1997 - Ibans opposing land encroachment detained

Forty two Ibans were arrested and detained in Sarawak when gathering to show opposition to surveying activity on their native customary land by the Land and Survey Department on behalf of an oil palm plantation company. The Ibans alleged that armed police acted aggressively and violently against them by using machine gun butts on some of them.

8. 25 September 1997 – Haze protest broken up by police

Sixty persons were dispersed upon threat of arrest by local authority officers and policemen at Dataran Merdeka, Kuala Lumpur while gathering to protest inaction by the authorities on the haze problem.

9. 30 November 1997 - Protesters over ISA arrests of Shiites harassed

Fifty persons were dispersed by about 100 policemen and FRU personnel using threat of arrest in a peaceful protest over the arrest of 10 Shiites under the ISA. Police harassed protesters by following them to their cars and threatening to arrest them.

10. 17 December 1997 - Demonstration by Kedah farmers warned

Farmers in Kedah were warned not to take part in a proposed mass gathering in Alor Setar to push for an increase in the price of their padi supplied to middlemen millers. Despite the warning, about 500 farmers proceeded with their demonstration in the presence of about 300 policemen.

11. 28 December 1997 - Orang Asli detained in Rompin

Twenty six Orang Asli were arrested and detained overnight in Rompin for a public gathering to protest logging on their customary land.

The right of association has been limited by laws such as the Societies Act 1966, under which any association consisting of seven or more members must register as a society. The government may refuse to register a new society, impose conditions in registering new societies or de-register a society. Once a society has been refused registration, it cannot challenge the decision in court.

A fundamental problem in the Societies Act is the distinction drawn between "political" parties and societies and other "non-political" societies. Persons holding office in registered societies are prevented from holding office in political parties. Similar restrictions in breach of fundamental rights of freedom of association are imposed on trade union officials through the Trade Unions Act. Officers of trade unions cannot hold office in political parties unless exemptions are sought. Likewise, officials of professional associations such as the Bar Council are similarly prohibited by various laws.

A society may also have to wait a long time before its registration is approved by the government. For example, Persatuan HAKAM (National Human Rights Organisation) took about two years to get itself finally registered in 1989 after several unsuccessful attempts in the early eighties.

Malaysian members of Amnesty International have been trying unsuccessfully for the last five years to register themselves as a society under the Societies Act. Two applications and an appeal to the Home Minister have been rejected. Apparently their explanations to the Home Ministry that AI members in Malaysia will not take up local human rights issues and problems with the exception of the death penalty may not have been understood fully or the authorities are not prepared to have any form of organised AI activity within Malaysia.

Given the difficulties created by the Societies Act, some non-governmental organisations have registered as companies or businesses. This practice has also been criticised by the government which in early 1997 threatened to force NGOs to register under the Societies Act. Registration as companies or businesses has not completely protected NGOs from harassment by the government. Institut Pengajaran Komuniti (IPK), an NGO in Sarawak taking up the issue of rights of indigenous peoples was de-registered by the Registrar of Business Names, Sibu District in early 1996 using a technicality under the law.

IPK was an active member of a group of 40 non-governmental organisations opposed to the implementation of the Bakun Dam and has done a lot of work in aid of the indigenous communities in Sarawak. It is believed that the deregistration of IPK is an attempt by the Sarawak state government to silence protest to the Bakun Project.

In another case, in January 1997 officers of the Registrar of Companies raided the offices of Tenaganita, the NGO which exposed the inhuman conditions in immigrant detention centres, and confiscated documents. Tenaganita and two directors were subsequently charged in the Magistrates Court in March 1997 under the Companies Act for late filing of audited financial statements filed in 1994 which should have been filed earlier. Very unusually, the charges were prosecuted by a Deputy Public Prosecutor from the Attorney General’s Chambers instead of the usual officers of the Registrar. Also unusual was charging the company and two directors for the same offences which has the effect of tripling the fines payable upon conviction. The usual practice was to charge only the company. The charges were subsequently withdrawn on 9 July 1997 when it was pointed out in court that the Registrar had already compounded the offences and accepted payment of a fine through Tenaganita’s accountants. Then on 5th September 1997 , the Registrar again issued fresh charges against Tenaganita and two directors on minor technicalities. This time, the Registrar refused to compound the alleged offences for a fine. After Tenaganita mounted a legal challenge to the prosecutions alleging mala fide prosecution, the charges were withdrawn on 25 November 1997.

The Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 is another law violating freedom of association for university students and academics. Under Section 15 (3) of this law, students and faculty members are not allowed to express or do anything which may be construed as expressing support, sympathy or opposition to any political party or trade union. Students may not join political parties whilst on campus.

The rights of workers to organise, to collective bargaining and to strike action are covered under Chapter 2 on Employment.

General elections, which must be called every five years, have been held since 1957. The United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) dominates the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition of ethnic-based parties which has been continually in power since Independence. The question arises whether these elections are free and fair with votes recorded accurately.

In the context of the severe restrictions on political freedom which have been described above, it would be obvious that any political opposition faces formidable obstacles in their political work and any political contest would be an unequal and unfair contest. Communication with the electorate is fundamental in the process of political work but this remains difficult for opposition political parties. It must be remembered that the functioning of democracy is not just the ritual casting of a vote every five years (Article 5 of the Malaysian Charter of Human Rights). The inherent unfairness in the conduct of political activity which is continuous in the period in between elections also spills over into the conduct of the elections themselves.

Several serious structural problems undermine the fairness of the elections. In terms of fairness, access to the media remain a serious problem (see Kua Kia Soong 1990). Very short notice of elections is given and campaign periods are now as short as 10 days from the date of nomination to balloting. For the ruling coalition with its media control and substantial access to government machinery, this is not a problem. Opposition parties cannot therefore take their issues to the electorate or respond effectively to challenges from the ruling parties. Opposition candidates at a local level without media access cannot communicate in the short campaign period with all the thousands of voters in a particular constituency.

Unfair constituency delineation or gerrymandering has also made a mockery of the one-person one-vote democracy that is fundamental in any electoral system that claims to be democratic. For the one-person one-vote system to function, the disparity in numbers of voters between constituencies (whether at state or parliamentary level) must be controlled. The original 1957 Federal Constitution provided such guarantees – it said that the disparity shall not exceed fifteen percent (15 %). However these fundamental guarantees have been removed by constitutional amendments. Today opposition-supporting parliamentary constituencies in Kuala Lumpur have up to 100,000 voters whilst the smallest parliamentary constituencies may have about 20,000 to 25,000 voters. The difference intended originally to be limited to 15 % has now become 400 – 500 %!

In 1990 for example, while Penang (which has traditionally been an opposition bastion) had an average of about 50,838 voters per constituency, Perlis had an average of 33,032 voters per constituency.

Further gerrymandering occurs in the provision of state seats within parliamentary constituencies. In the 1995 elections, while every parliamentary constituency in Selangor was allocated three state seats, the Opposition held constituencies of Klang and Petaling Jaya were allocated only two state constituencies.

Such gerrymandering means that the opposition parties whilst obtaining the support of a substantial portion of the electorate will only still obtain a small number of seats in Parliament. In the 1990 elections, the opposition parties together secured about 48 % of the vote, but had less than 20 % of the seats in Parliament.

Complaints about the unsatisfactory conduct of voter registration were present during the 1995 elections. There were also complaints about phantom voters (New Straits Times 10 August 1995).

The use of money by candidates during campaigns has been a problem in some areas. The practice of vote buying in internal UMNO elections was openly acknowledged at the UMNO General Assembly in 1994 and specific cases were publicised in 1995 (New Straits Times 9 August 1995). In the 1996 state elections in Sarawak for the seat of Bukit Begunan, the unsuccessful candidate successfully mounted an election petition in court to challenge the result using evidence of vote buying.

The ruling Barisan Nasional also blatantly promises public funds to win electoral support. For example, during the Sarawak state elections campaign from 15 August - 8 September 1996, a state government grant of RM600,000 for street lights was given to the Satok/Kg. Patingan area, RM315,000 was distributed to 52 local organisations in Kuching, RM 1.6 million was announced to improve infrastructure in the Lambir constituency, RM 1 million (in state and federal grants) was announced for the rehabilitation of a tiger prawn aquaculture project at Mukah, licences for the use of trawl nets were given to 105 people from 13 villages in Kuching district and licences for boats to 278 people from 18 villages (See Aliran Monthly 1996: 16 (9) for a more detailed list).

Government agencies, civil servants and government vehicles are also readily available to ruling parties during the campaign period. Opposition parties often find that they are denied the use of public halls or fields for their campaign as happened in the general election in 1995 in Penang when the Penang Municipal Council prevented the opposition parties from using the Esplanade for a gathering although it had earlier allowed a dinner function organised by the ruling party, Barisan Nasional on 9 April 1995.

Observers have described Malaysian elections as generally free whilst agreeing that they are not fair elections. Most voters would vote in a reasonably free context without the problem of threats or undue influence. The problem of monetary or development inducements has been mentioned above. For many voters, the threat of denial of development benefits is a very real factor especially with the new vote counting system which can identify whether a particular village, kampung or several blocks of streets within a constituency voted opposition or ruling party.

However the practice of "postal votes" continues to raise serious questions about the actual casting of ballots for these votes. The large majority of voters vote at centres after having their registration verified. They then vote in sight of observers but inside a voting booth. Votes are then counted in front of representatives of candidates. For a lot of military and police personnel and their spouse, their votes are cast through "postal ballots" where the actual marking of ballots is unscrutinised. Only the opening of postal ballots and the counting is done in a transparent way. Postal ballots can constitute up to 4 – 5 % of the total ballots cast in the whole elections. This number though apparently small can be significant as in the 1995 general elections, the ruling party coalition secured about 52 % of the vote with the opposition parties securing the other 48 %, a difference of only 4 % !

There is no justification whatsoever for continuing the practice of postal ballots for military or police personnel. None or very few of the police stations or military bases are situated in areas where for security considerations voting centres cannot be set up. Voting centres can be set up just as easily for these persons so that voting is done in a free and transparent manner as is done with other voters.

The Legislative

The importance of the elected Legislative for the defence of civil and political freedoms is considerably diminished by the sustained two-thirds majority of the ruling coalition in the Federal Parliament. As argued above, this two-thirds majority is obtained in elections which are not free and fair and not a genuine reflection of the political will of the electorate.

As a result of its parliamentary dominance, the ruling coalition does not take Parliament seriously as a forum for accountability. Many Ministers including the Prime Minister are not present during sittings. For example, from December 1990 to May 1994, during the Eight Parliament, out of 246 sittings, the Prime Minister attended only 20 sittings (Hansard 7 July 1994).

Other obstacles are also put in the way of the opposition parties. Important Bills are often presented hours before they are debated, for example, the Land Acquisition Act 1993, the Domestic Violence Bill 1994 and various Constitutional Amendments during the same period, making it difficult to respond effectively. When the recent Education Bill 1996 was tabled, the opposition was only given a day to read it (Sun Megazine 11 August 1996).

In amendments to Parliament rules in 1995, the power of the Speaker was strengthened and the parliamentary procedures heavily used by the opposition curbed. With the amendments, the Speaker is empowered to ban opposition Members of Parliament considered "disruptive" for up to 10 days. The amendment have also imposed limits on the ability of members to pose supplementary questions and imposed restrictions on the tabling of questions of public importance.

The Judiciary

The Judiciary continues to operate in the shadow of the unprecedented events of 1988 when the Executive held closed door tribunals and removed the then Lord President (the highest judicial position in the country) Tun Salleh Abas and two other Supreme Court judges. This move resulted in international condemnation and the refusal of the Malaysian Bar to recognise the next Lord President who had, in flagrant breach of natural justice, sat in judgement of his superior and recommended his removal.

The removal of the Lord President came about after his directive in March 1988 that the entire Supreme Court would sit later that year to hear the controversial UMNO case challenging the legality of UMNO and that five Supreme Court judges would sit to hear an appeal on the detention under the ISA of Karpal Singh. The outcome of the UMNO case was then unpredictable to some extent which was of great concern to the Executive whose hold on power could be reversed overnight. The five-man bench for Karpal’s ISA case was also unprecedented and was an indication that the judiciary might review the standing legal precedents on the operation of the ISA. After the removal of the Lord President in May 1988, the UMNO and ISA cases were disposed of later in the year by the usual three-men quorum with predictable outcomes – both appeals were dismissed.

The judiciary was again immersed in controversy when in December 1995 and January 1996, a High Court judge distributed two anonymous letters (called "surat layang") containing details of some 112 allegations of abuse of power, corruption and misconduct against 12 judges. The existence of the letter was admitted publicly by the Attorney-General in March 1996. The identity of the judge and his reasons for writing the letter was never disclosed. The Attorney-General contended that investigations showed no basis for the allegations but did not disclose the allegations or the details. The judge involved resigned in June 1996. The Bar Council called upon the Attorney General to review the complaints from the standpoint "not only of criminal wrong but whether they disclosed grounds of judicial misconduct rendering a judge unfit for judicial office" (Aliran Monthly 1996: 16(5)). The Bar Council pointed out further that this incident raised the need for a more open, transparent and accountable system of appointments and promotions of judges and proposed the setting up of a Judicial Commission to recommend the appointment of judges.

The recent Ayer Molek case which embroiled the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court in confrontation has also raised questions about the issue of corruption in the Judiciary. The Court of Appeal strongly criticised the acts of the High Court in the case and spoke of a court of law causing an injustice. The Court of Appeal concluded its judgement with a well-known line from Hamlet "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark", alluding to the presence of the High Court premises in the building called Denmark House. The Federal Court ordered parts of the judgement of the Court of Appeal expunged which had strongly criticised the High Court.

The Bar Council subsequently questioned the constitutionality of the sitting of the Federal Court which had breached constitutional requirements as to its composition. The current Lord President, Tun Eusoff Chin, had in this case convened a quorum including himself, a Court of Appeal judge and a High Court judge to reverse the Court of Appeal decision. The Bar Council argued that the presence of the High Court judge was ultra vires the Federal Constitution.

The case of the journalist Murray Hiebert, discussed above, has also raised questions of judicial impartiality.

Structural problems of independence remain with the lower judiciary which are made up of the Sessions and Magistrates Courts. Sessions Court judges and magistrates are part of the Judicial and Legal Service and are part of the same civil service structure with officers of the Attorney General’s Chambers. Officers from both parts are mutually transferable from one to the other. A magistrate will often find her/himself transferred to do prosecution work within the A.G.’s Chambers and subsequently promoted to a Sessions Court judge. Questions of independence would emerge particularly when senior prosecutors prosecute before their junior colleagues who are magistrates or sessions court judges.

The Executive

The Executive shows limited responsibility and accountability to the electorate. Essential information is not freely available even to elected representatives in Parliament. For example, statistics with ethnic breakdown are disallowed on grounds of sensitivity, information on defence purchases are not forthcoming on grounds of security, while requests for Environmental Impact Assessment reports on controversial projects are ignored (e.g. the Pergau dam).

The use of the Official Secrets Act (OSA) renders the most innocuous information "confidential". It prevents public access to important information on national scandals, for example, the Central Bank’s RM30 billion forex losses in 1994. It has also been used to detain journalists for reporting on issues classified as confidential.

A number of laws in Malaysia provide for offences which carry a mandatory death penalty. These include murder under section 302 of the Penal Code (F.M.S. Cap 45), section 57 of the Internal Security Act 1960 for possession of a firearm or part of a firearm and section 39B (2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 for possession of proscribed drugs above a certain specified quantity i.e. 15 grammes for heroin and 200 grammes for cannabis. The death penalty is also provided for the offence of treason under section 121 of the Penal Code and possession of firearms under the Firearms (Increased Penalties) Act 1971.

In prosecutions under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, after possession above the specified amounts is proved to the required standard by the prosecution, a presumption then arises that the accused is trafficking in drugs which has to be disproved by the accused to avoid a conviction and the resulting death sentence. Section 40A (1) of the same Act provides that the evidence of an informer or agent provocateur is admissible in court even when the informer has encouraged the commitment of the offence.

From the period between 1970 and March 1996, there have been 349 executions in Malaysia, the majority of which were for drug offences. Since 1993, 50 new death sentences have been recorded. Based on news reports, in 1993, there were 29 executions, the highest ever for any single year; in 1994 there were 10 executions; 5 executions in 1995; 3 executions in 1996, and 2 executions in 1997. (Amnesty International Annual Report 1997). These figures are based only on press reports, so the actual executions may be higher. It is encouraging to note that the trend is towards a decreasing number of executions.

However official statistics show that the death penalty has been ineffective in combating the drug problem in Malaysia. The number of known new addicts has been on the rise from 7,154 in 1980 (Parliamentary reply 8 November 1993) to 13,140 in 1995 (Economic Report 1996/97). The total number of known drug addicts in Malaysia from 1988 to 1995 was 194,797 (Economic Report 1996/97). It is believed that the number of known new addicts rose by 18 % in 1995.

Offences under the Penal Code, such as murder under section 302, were tried until December 1994 by juries of 7 persons. However, in December 1994, the Malaysian Parliament amended the Criminal Procedure Code to abolish jury trials in these cases. The Bar Council and other NGOs complained that they were not consulted by the government before the tabling of such an important amendment to the law.

The death penalty is an inhuman form of punishment and violates Article 12 (2) of the Malaysian Human Rights Charter as well as Article 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The presumption of trafficking in cases under the Dangerous Drugs Act also violates international norms of fair trial in which all elements of the offence have to be proven by the prosecution.

Caning/whipping is a supplementary form of punishment to imprisonment for some 40 crimes including drugs offences, rape and attempted rape, kidnapping, firearms offences, attempted murder, causing grievous injury, child abuse, robbery and theft. The authorities are of the opinion that caning/whipping has a deterrent effect on criminals. During the nineties, the authorities have, at various times, suggested caning/whipping for white collar crimes, illegal racers and its organisers, illegal workers and employers found harbouring them, pimps, as well as for wife battering and juvenile delinquency. In December 1994, caning for economic crimes such as embezzlement, tax fraud and bribery was introduced. In 1996, the Immigration Act was amended to make caning a mandatory part of the sentence for those convicted of using forged passports and other immigration offences.

This form of punishment contravenes Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as Article 12 (2) of the Malaysian Human Rights Charter which states:

"No person shall be tortured or subjected to cruel or degrading treatment or punishment by individuals, police, military or any other state agency."

According to official statistics, a total of 151 prisoners have died while being held in remand between 1980 and 1990 (Parliamentary reply 18 July 1991). No further details as to cause of death or action taken have been given. There has been no comprehensive monitoring of deaths in custody or physical abuse in custody. However some reported instances in the media and informal sources include the following cases in the last few years.

Lee Quat Leong, a 42 year old mechanic, arrested on suspicion of involvement in the robbery of a bank, was beaten to death in police custody on 12 May 1995. A judicial inquiry by a magistrate found 11 policemen, including a superintendent and three other senior police officers, criminally responsible for the death. An autopsy carried out found that Quat Leong had "suffered at least 45 external injuries all over his body and seven fractured ribs"(Far Eastern Economic Review 14 December 1995). Regrettably, despite the magistrates finding that 11 police officers were found to be criminally responsible, only two of the most junior police officers were prosecuted. They pleaded guilty and were sentenced to 18 months jail each.

A letter from the President of the Peninsular Malaysia Orang Asli Association (POASM) to the Chief Police of Pahang dated 4 March 1996 revealed that an Orang Asli (indigenous person) Sudan a/l Lolam, was found dead in police custody on 20 June 1995. The police alleged that he committed suicide while in the lock-up by hanging himself with his singlet.

In mid-1995, the country also learnt of a shocking high number of deaths of migrant workers in detention centres run by the immigration authorities and the police. After the expose by Tenaganita, a non-governmental organisation, the former Deputy Home Minister Datuk Megat Junid Megat Ayob confirmed in Parliament that 46 detainees had died in these detention centres with one centre at Semenyih having 42 deaths. Information supplied showed that about 10 detainees were certified as having died from beriberi. About a dozen others were certified as having died from "gastric". Many were young men in their twenties and thirties. No post-mortem reports have been made public.

In August 1995, journalists from the Sun, an English daily, who went into the Semenyih detention centre, published an article stating that they had observed that camp statistics on a board in the administrative office showed 59 deaths in the camp. In a phone interview immediately after, the camp commandant did not challenge the figure when asked about it. The accuracy of the figures given in Parliament by the Deputy Home Minister must therefore be seen in this context.

The official figures for deaths in detention centres have continued to rise. In response to questions raised in Parliament in April 1997, the Government confirmed that 98 detainees had died in detention as at 31 March 1997.

Non-governmental organisations have voiced strong concern about the deplorable conditions and particularly the deaths in the camps. The Malaysian Medical Association has said that these deaths were due to "highly treatable diseases". To date no officials in charge of these detention centres have been prosecuted for criminal negligence leading to the deaths. No new data has been made available by the government in respect of the situation in 1997.

In January 1997, it was reported that the father of a suspect found hanged in his cell while being detained without trial under the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985, after being acquitted by a court on criminal charges, had filed a complaint alleging police abuse. In June 1997, a suspected serial rapist whilst being escorted by four policemen to a scene of an alleged incident was shot and killed "after a struggle". In August 1997, a handcuffed Indonesian suspected of theft died of severe head wounds after he fell to the ground while being escorted by police officers. On 17 Dec 1997, Othman Mohd Hashim, was found hanged in a police lock-up in Parit, Perak. His father has alleged police responsibility. No investigations into these incidents have been publicly reported by the police authorities.

Over the three months from October to December 1997, monitoring of some media reports showed at least six instances of reports of assaults by police personnel in breach of the law. Four instances were assaults in custody including a sexual assault. Two assaults were outside police stations. Police personnel involved in one of the incidents in which two reporters were beaten up have been prosecuted.

A trend causing much serious concern pertains to the regular reports of police opening fire on alleged criminal suspects who apparently opened fire first. The typical report states that the suspects opened fire, the police returned fire and the deaths of the suspects resulted. It appears that over 50 persons may have been killed in this way by police personnel over the last two years. Over the months of October to December 1997, at least five persons were shot dead by police in this manner. There are no public reports of details of police investigations into these shootings.

Investigation into alleged police misconduct unfortunately remains a purely internal police matter. Serious questions can be raised about the independence and objectivity of such inquiries. There is no reported protocol requiring an independent investigation whenever a policeman discharges a firearm, regardless of whether injury or death is caused, as exists in other countries as a check on police powers. Human rights groups concerned with increasing instances of police abuse of power have called for an independent institution to investigate alleged police misconduct and instances of such shootings.

A number of instances have been reported by different communities of abuses of power by police personnel. These abuses have occurred in the context of the disputes of these communities with various parties. For urban settlers, these are usually disputes with developers over long-term occupation of land. For indigenous peoples, these are usually disputes either with developers or with logging companies encroaching on their native customary land. For estate workers, such disputes would be with the estate management.

The experience of these communities as reported below is that the police do not play a neutral role in ensuring peace and public order. According to the incidents as reported, the police personnel have tended to use their powers unlawfully and taken on a partisan role in favouring the developers, logging companies or estate management as the case may be.

1. Cases involving Indigenous Peoples

Chapter Four on Indigenous peoples has set out the details of three incidents involving indigenous communities in Sarawak. One of these cases involving incidents on 9 February 1996 and 29 January 1998 involved the Penan from Long Lamai in the Ulu Baram area in their dispute with loggers. A second incident involved Police Field Force personnel and the Penan in Long Sepigen, Serunggoh, Ulu Baram. A third incident involved Iban natives at Sungai Nat, Tinjar Baram on 29 March 1996.

As a result of these incidents and the continuing encroachment into native customary land, a delegation of leaders of indigenous peoples came to Kuala Lumpur in August 1996 to highlight the land problem and to call for the withdrawal of the police field force from those areas.

2. Cases involving urban settlers

Kampung Chekkadi, Buntong, Perak

On the morning of 10 March 1996, the residents of Kampung (Kg) Chekkadi, a large settler community in Buntong, Ipoh proceeded peacefully to the Buntong Police Station to lodge a police report regarding an attempt by a contractor to demolish a few houses the previous week.

The residents of Kg. Chekkadi have been staying there for 40 to 60 years. They had been promised several times by the authorities in the past 14 years verbally and in writing that they would be given land lots in Buntong. Despite these assurances from the authorities, a bulldozer arrived on 29 February 1996 and would had demolished a few houses if not for the timely intervention of the residents’ Land Committee.

The residents decided to lodge police reports concerning their land problems to forestall any other attempts to evict them without warning. Thus, around 160 of them went as a group to the police station at around 10:25 am. Ten committee members went into the station building while the rest remained outside the station compound as requested by the police officer on duty. The situation was calm and relaxed and two of the committee handed over their written reports to the police officers.

Then at about 10:45 am, the Chief Inspector of the police station arrived. Without pausing to find out what was happening, he yelled:

"Buka lock-up. Buka lock-up. Arrest semua!" (Open the lock-up. Arrest all of them).

Within 5 minutes, he shoved six men into the lock-up and ordered the handcuffing of a woman. The attempt by other residents to explain the situation was not heeded by the Inspector. Instead, he told them that they were all under arrest and that they should get out of the police station. The FRU (riot police) then arrived; cleared the station and closed the grill gate in front. Following this, the Chief Inspector went to the front of the station where the people were assembled, climbed up on a bench and said:

"This is my balai (station)! This is a protected area. You have not taken a permit to come here. I am going to charge all of you. You can do what you want. I don’t care! You can call Karpal (a prominent lawyer) if you like. I am not afraid. You can complain to Bukit Aman too. The most that can happen is that I may get transferred."

A crowd soon gathered outside. With sirens sounding, the arrival of the FRU trucks, the sound of people protesting and the Inspector’s histrionics, other Kg. Chekkadi residents and the families of those detained also began to arrive when they heard of the detention.

The Officer in Charge of Police Department (OCPD) arrived in the afternoon, conferred with his officers and gave a press conference at about 3:00 p.m. He presented a totally different sequence of events, creating a negative impression of the residents and representatives of Alaigal (the non-governmental organisation that had responded to the residents’ request to help them in the land problem). In his version of events, all the people wanted to lodge their reports simultaneously and had crammed into the station despite pleas from the Inspector. This left the Inspector with no choice but to make the arrests. This was the version mainly reported in the press stories.

Initially, the 1000 strong crowd had decided not to disperse until all the seven arrested (six men and a woman) were released. However, after the State Assemblyman and several committee members had assured the residents that the seven would be released on police bail after their statements were recorded, they began to disperse peacefully. Despite this, around 35 to 40 FRU personnel charged into the crowd without any warning. At least 15 people were hit or kicked by the FRU in the fracas. One old man had an epileptic fit after being hit on the head. A young man had lip lacerations and a torn ear drum after being assaulted by the FRU (See Aliran Monthly 1996: 16(3) for a detailed account).

In the incident, 166 persons were arrested and released on police bail under section 90 of the Police Act allegedly for unruly behaviour at the police station. In response, 15 persons from Kg. Chekkadi lodged police reports against the FRU for assault at the Central Police Station. One of the police reports is as reproduced below:

Name: Sebastian a/l Someteh

On the morning of 10/3/96, my mother Sarojini, went to the Buntong police station to lodge a police report on the land problem confronting the residents. I went to the police station at around 3:30pm to wait for my mum. At around 4:00pm when those who were waiting outside the police station started to withdraw, 3 FRU trucks suddenly arrived. Approximately 35 FRU personnel jumped from the lorries and came after those who were waiting outside the police station. They did not give any warning but charged at us straight away and hit us.

I jumped across the drain and walked from Jalan Pari. A member of the FRU chased and caught me 50 feet from the road and pulled at my collar. "You are stubborn", he said, and proceeded to pull me towards a FRU lorry. My necklace snapped and I did not know what happened to it. He used my helmet to push me hard when I climbed up the lorry. After I boarded the lorry, a FRU personnel slapped the left hand side of my cheeks. After that, another FRU personnel punched my face and tore my lips. At that very moment, YB Yik came, opened the door of the lorry and asked me to get out. I came down the lorry and proceeded home.

I do not understand why the FRU was called to attack us. Many of us were waiting for our relatives who were arrested inside the police station. Why didn’t the police release them? I am not satisfied with the actions of the police on 10-3-96. My left ear is still ringing and I cannot hear well.

Kg. Chubadak Tambahan, Sentul, Kuala Lumpur

This kampung was involved in a dispute over their land with a developer Sentul Murni Sdn. Bhd. Litigation between the two parties had been pending in court since 1993.

The residents were upset over the allegedly unsafe construction done by the developer which was threatening the safety of their homes and some fencing of the developer was torn down. The settlers complained that on 13 February 1995, a large police party from the local police station at Sentul raided the village and arrested 11 men, 3 women and 4 children in an aggressive and violent manner. A couple suffered cuts and bruises on their faces. The Muslim settlers were also angered by the use of a police dog in the raid which happened in Ramadan.

Reports were lodged against the police by the kampung residents. Questions were raised as to why the police had intervened when the developer could have sought legal remedies in court. The police maintain that their actions were lawful and within their powers.

Kg. Udara, Kuala Lumpur

The residents of Kg. Udara had an eviction dispute with a developer Faber Merlin over land they occupied. The residents have reported the following incident: When about 30 residents went to the Brickfields police station on 17 August 1995 to lodge a complaint against the developer, Faber, the police closed the front door to prevent the residents from entering the station. When the residents explained that they are facing problems and pointed out that a police station is a public place meant to serve, they were scolded by the police. The Deputy OCPD Halim used obscene language against an activist who had accompanied the residents there. When the activist protested against such treatment, he was arrested, detained overnight and charged the next day for the offence of "rioting" at the police station.

Thirteen residents were also arrested on 12 September 1995 in an incident involving the demolition of their homes by workers of Kuala Lumpur City Council (DBKL). They allege the order for arrest came from one Encik Shariff, who was there on behalf of the developer. The residents were handcuffed and brought to the police station. They say the women were sexually harassed by being called "bohsia" (loose women) and the men threatened.

The residents have made 15 police reports against the Brickfields police for violence, unfairness and "conspiring" with the developer. Their reports were lodged at the Jalan Bandar police station as the residents of Kg. Udara had lost faith in the Brickfields police. The residents remain dissatisfied with the lack of police investigations into their reports.

Kg. Aman, Petaling Jaya, Selangor

This incident happened when several hundred FRU personnel together with Petaling Jaya Municipal Council and Land Office staff arrived at the kampung to demolish about 50 to 100 houses which were in the path of the Light Rail Transit (LRT) Project. Ronnie Liu, the Democratic Action Party Socialist Youth (DAPSY) National Secretary and Dr. Syed Husin Ali, President of Party Rakyat Malaysia (PRM) who were at the scene introduced themselves to the FRU officers present and asked if the authorities had court orders or legal authority to demolish the houses. Immediately Dr. Syed Husin was kicked and pushed aside, whilst six to eight FRU personnel attacked Ronnie Liu with truncheons. Ronnie Liu was badly beaten until he was unconscious. To date, the police have not taken any actions to suspend, arrest and charge the FRU personnel who had publicly and brutally assaulted Ronnie Liu for asking whether the FRU had legal authority to enforce the demolition of the houses. Ronnie was taken to hospital under arrest. After his release from hospital a few days later, he was charged for obstructing a police officer. He has since filed a civil suit against the police seeking damages for assault and battery.

Brooksland Estate, Selangor

In Brooksland Estate, plantation workers who had worked for generations for the company and had earlier been promised house ownership by the management were subsequently confronted by management attempts to evict them. The police intervened by arresting three activists who were assisting the workers in their dispute. The activists were arrested in August 1996 during a meeting with the workers in the temple on the estate. The workers protested and lodged a police report against the wrongful arrest as the three were there by their invitation and hence had not committed criminal trespass. The three activists also lodged a police report alleging wrongful arrest.

"We have lodged this report because we regard our arrest as wrongful. We went to Brooksland Estate on the invitation of the plantation workers to come for a discussion. The discussion was held at the temple of the estate belonging to the plantation workers. We did not enter the estate through illegal channels, hiding or deceiving the security guards. The security guards also knew of our intention to go to the estate for a discussion.

Before this incident, the police had come a few times after receiving complaints from the employer. Each time, we explained our stand. The police agreed and understood that this was a problem between the employer and workers and had nothing to do with the police. If we had trespassed, the employer should have charged us in court in a civil case. What is unexplainable is the attitude of the police whereby after receiving a complaint from the employer, they immediately arrested us without listening to our explanation. Prior to this, we had also written to the employer with a copy sent to the police, informing them that we had been invited to the plantation by the workers themselves. We left our telephone number and address for the employer to contact us if necessary. The letter was not responded to.

The workers and us had lodged a few reports against the employer but these had not been classified as criminal despite of the presence of criminal threats and elements of crime. Some of our complaints were of threats by the employer to demolish the houses of the plantation workers, to cut the water and electricity supply, actual cutting of their water and electricity supply and preventing the invitation by the plantation workers.

We also did not bring any weapons. Besides that, the security guards had told us that they did not want to be involved in matters arising between the employer and workers and had requested us to use our discretion".

Braemar Estate, Kajang, Selangor

In this estate, plantation workers had refused to shift out as the promises of houses to be given to them which were made by the estate management had not yet been fulfilled. As in Brooksland Estate, the police failed to play their role as arbitrators of peace and public order but were partial toward the developer. On 16 December 1994 at about 3:00 am, a group of 12 police officers purportedly from Police H.Q. at Bukit Aman came to Braemar Estate and entered five workers’ houses. They demanded that the workers complied with the developer’s request to them to vacate the area although they had not received any legal notices of eviction or court orders. Numerous police reports have been lodged against the police concerning this matter but until now no action has been taken.

Article 12 (4) of the Malaysian Human Rights Charter states that:

"Everyone has the right to freedom from persecution and to obtain asylum in other countries".

The Malaysian government has not officially recognised the right to political asylum. It has consistently maintained that it does not recognise political refugees or the right to political asylum. Responses to movements of political refugees or for political asylum are often determined by a variety of factors which include consideration of the bilateral relationships with particular countries to factors such as the religion of the particular refugee. For some groups who are tacitly accepted as political refugees, for example a small group of political exiles from Brunei , work permits and some state support are made available. However such support remains unofficial and discretionary without any long-term guarantees.

The following paragraphs detail some of the experiences of the Achenese and Vietnamese refugees. The experiences of other groups such as the Rohingyas from Burma and the Sri Lankan Tamils are not as well-known or publicised.

Achehnese

Possibly up to 600 Achehnese refugees have been detained in various prisons in Penang, Bukit Mertajam, Taiping, Alor Setar and Sungai Petani since 1991 (Hak 1992: 7 October - December). Over this period, some 300 have been sent back to Indonesia and it is believed that many have been extra-judicially executed by the Indonesian regime (Ibid).

Conditions in these jails are deplorable. In July 1993, it was reported that in the detention centre in Langkap where refugees and illegal immigrants are held, 23 persons were found to be suffering from beriberi and two of the victims had died. In October 1993, it was reported that more than 100 Achehnese in Malaysian prisons had alleged gross mistreatment. Details of their alleged abuse in the hands of the Malaysian prison authorities were contained in a letter signed by three with thumbprints of 69 other detainees smuggled out from a prison in Perak.

On 22 June 1992, 43 Achehnese men, women and children went to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) office in Kuala Lumpur demanding political refugee status. They were issued refugee identity cards. However, they were told that the UNHCR could give no guarantee that the Malaysian authorities would recognise their refugee status and that they could face arrest and deportation if they left the compound of the UNHCR. In May 1994, the Malaysian government offered them one-year visas which were extendible. However, their request for political refugee status was not met. According to the UNHCR, the Achehnese now 43 in number with an additional child left the UNHCR compound in 1995.

On 25 December 1996, 31 Achehnese scaled the fences of several embassies to seek political asylum from the respective governments. Nearly all of the embassies denied the Achehnese refugees’ request for political asylum. A total of 23 who sought refuge in the United States (five), Britain (eight), Italy (four), and France (six) were turned over to the Malaysian police for "trespassing" (New Straits Times 27 December 1996). The Swiss and Dutch missions did not turn over the eight Achenese who climbed their walls. These 8 were subsequently released into the custody of the UNHCR. All of the Achehnese claimed to be political refugees and it was reported in the newspapers that those detained at the United States and British High Commission vicinity were carrying placards with the message, "We are Free-Acheh, Sumatra Movement Activists". They alleged that there was violence in Acheh between Indonesian security forces and the separatist movement.

Non-governmental organisations have voiced concern at the action of the embassies in handing over claimants for political asylum to the local police and have called for the intervention of the UNHCR.

It is believed that a number of Achehnese have been able to secure work permits and permanent residence status by utilising connections with informal pockets of support within the Malaysian government. However the official Malaysian position has remained hard-line against any recognition of Achenese as political refugees. The official position is certainly a direct result of maintaining friendly relations with Indonesia and the ASEAN policy of "non-interference in each other’s internal affairs".

Vietnamese

Since 1975, the Malaysian government has provided first asylum to more than 254,000 Vietnamese boat refugees. About 249,000 of them who were established as genuine refugees by the UNHCR were resettled in third countries. The Comprehensive Plan of Action (CPA) adopted for the Indochinese refugees by the UNHCR defined a refugee as a person fleeing due to fear of persecution on grounds of race, religion, nationality and membership of political or social groupings. Those who did not meet the criteria were considered as economic migrants and it was the responsibility of Vietnam to accept them back. According to statistics provided by the UNHCR, since 1989, 9,377 Vietnamese had been denied refugee status.

There were two repatriation plans for those denied refugee status. One was the voluntary repatriation programme undertaken by the UNHCR. The other was the so-called "orderly repatriation" programme which was non-voluntary, carried out by the Malaysian government with the agreement of the Vietnamese government. This forced repatriation programme has given rise to several incidents of violence in the refugee camps.

A mass demonstration involving approximately 4,650 Vietnamese residents at the Sungai Besi camp, Kuala Lumpur took place on 5 June 1995. The demonstrators were forced back into the camp by security forces using tear gas and water cannons. A subsequent "raid" conducted by the riot police found knives, bows, sharpened iron rods, parangs, choppers, saws, scissors and home-made daggers. Twenty Vietnamese were detained in the incident (New Straits Times 8 June 1995).

On 18 January 1996, violence erupted when more than 1,000 members of the FRU and PFF entered the Sungai Besi camp to conduct a weapons search at dawn. The raid was conducted in preparation for repatriation and was resisted by the Vietnamese. In the violent incident, police fired tear gas and shots while the Vietnamese set ablaze two blocks of building in the camp, hurled molotov cocktails and threw stones. A total of 24 persons were injured, including seven policemen. A Vietnamese later died from injuries. It was subsequently reported that the 84 Vietnamese held for the incident were subsequently released when they volunteered to go home (Sun 7 February 1996).

On 30 April 1996, a few days prior to being repatriated, around 100 Vietnamese at the Kerayong camp organised a demonstration to protest their forced repatriation (Sun 15 May 1996). In the protest, 14 Vietnamese had to be admitted to the hospital through self-inflicted injuries (Ibid). Resistance to the orderly repatriation programme was also evident when it was reported in the newspapers that a woman who was carrying a child had tried to jump into the sea while boarding the ship but was stopped by security personnel (Sun 3 May 1996). A man had to be physically carried on board the ship that was to take him home (Sun 10 May 1996).

The main reason for those Vietnamese refusing to go home was the fear of persecution by the Vietnamese government despite assurances to the contrary as contained in the CPA (New Straits Times 11 November 1993). The transit camp for the Vietnamese in Sungai Besi was officially closed on 1 July 1996 after 8,278 Vietnamese were sent back to Vietnam under the voluntary repatriation programme and 839 under the orderly repatriation programme (The Star 19 October 1996). It is believed that a small number of Vietnamese asylum seekers still remain in Malaysia in various detention centres.

Other communities

It is believed that substantial numbers of Rohingyas from Burma who are both political and economic refugees are allowed entry into Malaysia. They are given access to the UNHCR and are provided work permits etc. The more benevolent policy towards Rohingyas is a result of the fact that they are largely Muslims. Secondly, the SLORC government does not appear to have the dominant influence which the Indonesians appear to have over the Malaysian state.

Small groups of Cambodians and Sri Lankan Tamils are also in the country. Their official status is largely that of economic migrants.

"Everyone shall have the right to move freely in and out of the country."

Malaysian Charter on Human Rights, Article 12 (5)

Malaysians generally have the right to travel within the country and to travel abroad (with the exception of Israel) and to live and to work wherever they wish. However, there are some critical restrictions on this right.

Since the formation of Malaysia in 1963, the East Malaysian states of Sabah and Sarawak require West Malaysians to present their passports or identity cards at immigration points. The movement of ISA detainees who have been released under restriction orders are subject to police regulation. Those suspected of gaming and vice activities can have their movement limited under two year renewable orders under the Restricted Residence Act 1933. The Home Ministry can issue the restricted residence order for a period of two years. Such orders are not subject to any judicial hearings or scrutiny. A number of instances have taken place over the last few years when activists have been prevented from leaving Malaysia or from entering it.

Jok Jau, an indigenous peoples community leader, was prevented to leave for Peru and his passport withheld at the Kuching international airport in August 1993. Subsequently, he was informed that his passport had been withdrawn by a decision of the Minister of Home Affairs. A court challenge by Jok Jau in the High Court failed in January 1996. Sarawak Immigration Department Director, Rambli Adros Yahya in his affidavit said that Jok Jau’s passport was withdrawn due to his active involvement in anti-logging activities, participation in an international forum which accused the Malaysian government of destroying its forests indiscriminately and had asked the forum to boycott Malaysia’s timber and tropical wood products (Borneo Post 28 December 1995). Jok Jau has filed an appeal.

In July 1994, Cecil Rajendra, a lawyer and poet, active in public interest legal work was prevented from leaving the country to attend a reading tour in the United Kingdom on the basis of national security and alleged involvement in "anti-logging activities". His passport was returned to him after a world-wide campaign which included President Nelson Mandela of South Africa writing a letter of support for him.

Wong Meng Chuo, active on the issue of the indigenous peoples’ land rights in Sarawak, applied to renew his passport on 20 May 1995. Instead of renewing his passport, the immigration office in Sibu detained it. He has been unable to travel out of the country to date.

In 1995, a foreign academic, Weilou Wang, was denied entry into Sarawak twice. Sources believe that Weilou Wang, a lecturer of Dormund University, Germany was denied entry because of his critical views of the Bakun Dam project. Several committee members of the NGO Coalition Against the Bakun Dam project have likewise been denied entry into Sarawak.

In August 1996, authorities rejected the application of Gara Jalong, an indigenous person from Long Geng, Belaga Sarawak, to renew his passport which expired on 5 July 1996. Gara had been involved in campaigns against logging encroachment on native customary land. No reason was given for the refusal to renew his passport. Prior to this, Gara had also been stopped from leaving Malaysia to attend the Asian Conference on the Rights of Indigenous/Tribal Peoples in Thailand in 1993.

Jannie Lasimbang, an indigenous woman from Sabah, arrived in Miri on the night of 8 December 1996 to attend an indigenous peoples workshop. She was not allowed to stay and had to take the next flight to Sabah the following morning.

In December 1997, the Sabah State government ordered the expulsion of a West Malaysian lawyer Sugumar Balakrishnan who had been practising in Sabah for about twenty years and who had been involved in a number of suits against the Sabah State Government. His challenge of the expulsion in the Sabah High Court failed. He has since appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal.

Amnesty International (1996) Amnesty International Report 1996. London: Amnesty International Publications.

Kua, K.S. (ed) (1990) Mediawatch: The Use and Abuse of the Malaysian Press. Kuala Lumpur: The Resource and Research Centre, Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall.

Ministry of Finance Malaysia (1996) Economic Report 1996/97.

Parliament of Malaysia (1994) Hansard 7 July 1994.

US State Department Malaysia Country Report on Human Rights Practices 1996 and 1997.

Aliran Monthly 1996: 16(9).

Aliran Monthly 1996: 16(5).

Aliran Monthly 1996: 16(3).

Borneo Post 28 December 1995.

Far Eastern Economic Review 14 December 1995.

Hak 1992: 7 October – December.

New Straits Times 27 December 1996.

New Straits Times 15 December 1996.

New Straits Times 16 November 1996.

New Straits Times 11 October 1996.

New Straits Times 10 August 1995.

New Straits Times 9 August 1995.

New Straits Times 8 June 1995.

New Straits Times 11 November 1993.

Sun 15 May 1996.

Sun 10 May 1996.

Sun 3 May 1996.

Sun 7 February 1996.

Sun Megazine 11 August 1996.

The Star 17 November 1996.

The Star 19 October 1996.