Dec 3, 2015 | News
The ICJ condemned the passage of the National Security Council bill by Malaysia’s House of Representatives today. The passage of the bill underlines the need to establish reforms in the lawmaking processes in the country, the Geneva-based organization says.
The ICJ calls on the Government of Malaysia to undertake these reforms immediately.
The bill, hastily tabled at the House of Representatives on 1 December 2015 by the Government, was passed by a vote of 107 in favour and 77 against the proposal.
Members of the ruling party, Barisan Nasional, voted overwhelmingly in its favor.
The vote took place despite repeated calls from Malaysian civil society, opposition lawmakers, and human rights advocates to delay consideration to allow for extensive debate and adequate consultations on the draft legislation.
The ICJ deplored the manner in which the government steamrolled the bill to passage.
“The same rushed maneuvers occurred when the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) and amendments of the Sedition Act were hastily passed in parliament earlier this year,” observed Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia.
“There seems to be a disturbing pattern of avoiding deliberative care on legislation that is both addressed to serious security concerns that have the greatest implications for human rights,” she added.
The ICJ considers that the poorly conceived legislation gives overbroad powers to the Prime Minister and the security forces which is inconsistent with the rule of law and could lead to serious human rights violations
The bill establishes a National Security Council (NSC) that will be the central authority in the government on matters pertaining to national security.
The NSC will be headed by the Prime Minister and composed of the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Defence, Minister of Home Affairs, Minister of Communication and Multimedia, Chief Secretary, the Commander of the Armed Forces, and Inspector-General of Police.
Under the bill, the Prime Minister is granted the power to declare any part of Malaysia as a “security area” if it is found by the NSC that such area is under serious threat from any person or entity that could harm the general public, the economy, infrastructure or other national interests.
Any part of the country may be declared a “security area” by the Prime Minister for up to six months and the declaration may be renewed an infinite number of times.
A Director of Operations is also to be appointed to oversee the operations over the “security areas”.
The specific powers of the Director of Operations are left vague, but they are overbroad and therefore prone to abuse.
They apparently include authority to prevent any person from entering these “security areas”, to transfer persons out of these areas, to impose curfews, and at least temporarily, to take possession of any property necessary in the interest of national security or for the accommodation of the security team.
The security team under the Director of Operations will have the power to conduct warrantless arrests and warrantless searches and seizures.
There are no processes specified by which affected persons may challenge such actions, either before a court or administrative body, nor are there other procedural safeguards.
Any members of the security team would be authorized to “use any amount of force against a person or entity to the extent that is reasonable and necessary within the circumstances to protect national security”.
The ICJ notes that under international law, lethal force may only be used to the extent strictly necessary to protect life.
Finally, the draft law provides immunity from any legal proceeding for members of the NSC, the Director of Operations, the security team, and other government staff involved in the administration of the “security area” for carrying out their duties and functions under the law.
There is no exception even in cases involving serious violations of human rights and crimes under international law, for which immunity is not permitted.
“The wide ranging powers conferred to members of the NSC and the security team clearly lack any form of safeguards and will inevitably lead to arbitrary exercise of authority, in contravention of the rule of law. This bill could very likely be used to further restrict freedom of expression and opinion and other rights in the country,” said Emerlynne Gil.
Vague and overbroad language in laws are inconsistent with the rule of law, contravening the principle of legality, the ICJ says.
This poses particular hazards in respect of national security legislation.
The bill will now need to be passed by the Senate and thereafter, the Malaysian King will have to assent to it so that it becomes law.
The ICJ expects the bill to be passed by the Senate and assented to by the King without thorough deliberations.
Nevertheless, it still calls on both the Senate and the King to reject the present draft, with a view to returning it the House to make necessary reforms in line with the rule of law.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser (Bangkok), t: +66840923575, e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Sep 14, 2015 | News
The ICJ expressed disappointment over the decision made today by the Malaysian Federal Court to refer human rights defender Lena Hendry for trial, after dismissing the constitutional challenge on section 6(1)(b) of the Film Censorship Act 2002.
The ICJ said this provision is being applied in a manner inconsistent with the right to freedom of expression, which includes the right to seek and impart information of all kinds.
“The decision by the Federal Court is incompatible with the commitment to the rule of law and respect for human rights which was expressed by Malaysia during its last Universal Periodic Review at the UN Human Rights Council in 2013,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific.
“Lena Hendry is clearly a human rights defender and Malaysia has the special duty not only to respect her right to freedom of expression, but to protect her exercise of this right through the exposure of human rights violations in Sri Lanka,” he added.
The constitutional challenge was brought by the lawyers of Lena Hendry who was charged under section 6(1)(b) of the Film Censorship Act 2002 for screening the film “No Fire Zone: the Killing Fields of Sri Lanka” on 3 July 2013.
Authorities allege that she violated section 6(1)(b) of the law for showing a film that had not been approved by the Board of Censors.
The lawyers of Lena Hendry are now preparing for the trial before the Magistrate’s Court.
The ICJ calls on the Government of Malaysia to drop all charges against Lena Hendry and to undertake steps to make its laws consistent with the country’s obligations and commitments under international law.
Background:
Section 6(1)(b) of the Film Censorship Act 2002 states that “No person shall circulate, exhibit, distribute, display, manufacture, produce, sell, or hire any film or film publicity material, which has not been approved by the Board [of Censors].”
On 14 September 2015, the Federal Court of Malaysia dismissed the constitutional challenge on Section 6(1)(b) of the Film Censorship Act 2002. The question posed to the Federal Court was: “Whether section 6(1)(b) of the Film Censorship Act 2002 read together with section 6(2)(a) violates Article 10 read together with Article 8(1) of the Federal Constitution and therefore should be struck down and void for unconstitutionality.”
The Federal Court answered the question in the negative and ordered that the case be sent back to the High Court. The High Court, in turn, will transfer the matter back to the Magistrate’s court for trial. The Magistrate’s Court is where the matter initially originated.
If convicted, under section 6(2)(a) Lena Hendry could be fined up to RM30,000 (approximately US$6,900) and/or sentenced to up to three years imprisonment.
The right to freedom of expression is guaranteed in the Federal Constitution of Malaysia under Section 10(1)(a), which states that “every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression.”
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders also affirm the duty of all states to respect and facilitate freedom of expression, particularly as regards information or opinions about human rights.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, Senior International Legal Adviser of ICJ for Southeast Asia, t: +66 840923575 ; e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Aug 28, 2015 | News
The Malaysian authorities must take effective measures to actively protect the rights of participants at the Bersih 4.0 rally in Kuala Lumpur this weekend, and ensure that the rally takes place without violent obstruction by counter demonstrators, said the ICJ today.
On 29 and 30 August, BERSIH 2.0, a coalition formed in 2005 to push for electoral reforms in Malaysia, will be organizing a 34-hour public assembly to address allegations of corruption against the Malaysian Prime Minister. The public assembly is commonly called Bersih 4.0.
The Malaysian government has declared the rally illegal and the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission has decided to block websites that are spreading information about the Bersih 4.0 rally, claiming that they are a threat to national stability.
“Under international law, the Malaysian government has the positive obligation to create an enabling environment and to facilitate the exercise of the right to free expression and free assembly,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Regional Director on Asia and the Pacific.
“Instead of respecting these rights, the government’s actions such as declaring the protest illegal and blocking information on the internet, are likely to enflame the situation and are in violation of Malaysian law and international standards,” he added.
International law and standards, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantee the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and the right to seek, receive and impart information, which is also an essential element of the right to freedom of expression.
Furthermore, the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association highlighted the important role of the internet as a basic tool for individuals to organize peaceful assemblies, and emphasized that governments must ensure access to the Internet at all times, including during times of unrest.
Any determination on what website content should be blocked must be undertaken by a competent judicial authority or a body that is independent of any political, commercial, or other unwarranted influences.
“The Malaysian authorities must ensure that the people of Malaysia are able to exercise their right to peacefully assemble and to freely express their opinion, including regarding matters of good governance and democracy,” Zarifi said.
“The job of the police is not to dispel the protesters, but rather to ensure their protection – such as from possible violence from counter demonstrators.”
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Regional Director on Asia and the Pacific, t: +668 0781 9002 ; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Aug 6, 2015 | News
Malaysian authorities must stop using vague and poorly defined laws to arrest and harass people for participating or organizing peaceful demonstrations, the ICJ said today.
The ICJ called for the repeal of Section 124B of the Penal Code, or its amendment in line with international standards.
At least 37 people have been swept up in arrests in recent days, many on 1 August at a rally organized in Kuala Lumpur by Demi Malaysia (For Malaysia) – a youth group comprised of activists from civil society groups, political parties and student organizations.
“As an immediate matter, the Malaysian government must ensure that no charges are brought against some 37 people who were arrested and detained this week for organizing a peaceful public demonstration,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser on Southeast Asia. “As the government faces a wave of public criticism, it seems to be resorting to new legal mechanisms to block peaceful assembly and free expression—but these are guaranteed human rights and a crucial component of parliamentary democracy.”
At least 30 people were detained in the past few days under Section 143 of the Penal Code, which addresses “unlawful assemblies”.
Another seven people were arrested and held under Section 124B of the Penal Code, which states:
“Whoever, by any means, directly or indirectly, commits an activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to twenty years.”
The seven individuals arrested under Section 124B were Adam Adli, Shukri Abdul Razab, Mandeep Singh, Safwan Anang, Hishammudin Rais, Vince Tan, and Fahmi Zainol. They were arrested before the public assembly occurred and are alleged to be involved in organizing the event.
“The use of Section 124B against people organizing a peaceful protest is particularly alarming, as the law’s language is impermissibly vague and broad, and the punishment of 20 years imprisonment is disproportionately harsh,” said Gil. “The Malaysian government must immediately move to substantially amend or repeal this problematic law, and meanwhile ensure that it is not used to charge any peaceful protesters.”
Gil further said: “An activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy’ is defined under Section 130A of the Penal Code to mean actions that are violent or unconstitutional, conditions clearly not present with this group of people arrested”.
“Section 124B has never been used before and the Malaysian government should ensure that this is never used in the future,” she added.
All 37 individuals arrested were released on police bail, except for Adam Adli, Shukri Abdul Razab, and Mandeep Singh, who were released after their lawyers successfully obtained an order from the High Court to review the order to remand them.
“Malaysia’s current political situation will likely see more public demonstrations critical of the government; it is the government’s responsibility to allow these peaceful protests to take place and to defend the rights of the protesters, not to trample on their rights,” Gil said. “Malaysia has the positive obligation under international human rights law not only to protect peaceful assemblies, but also to facilitate the exercise of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly.”
The right to freedom of peaceful assembly is guaranteed in key international human rights instruments.
The UN Human Rights Council underscored its commitment to promote and protect the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association by adopting several resolutions on this issue, the most recent of which is Resolution 24/5, which was adopted in October 2013.
In Resolution 24/5, the UN Human Rights Council reminded States of their obligation to respect and fully protect the rights of all individuals, including human rights defenders, to assemble peacefully.
Background
On 1 August 2015, youth group Demi Malaysia (For Malaysia) organized a rally in Kuala Lumpur to call for the resignation of Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak for having failed to provide adequate responses on how 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), a strategic government fund, will be able to repay its debts that have amounted to billions of ringgit. Recently, Prime Minister Najib Razak has been facing allegations that he misappropriated RM 2.6 billion (USD 700 million) of 1MDB funds.
Adam Adli, Shukri Abdul Razab and Mandeep Singh were arrested and detained under s.124B of the Penal Code a day before the rally, while four others, Safwan Anang, Hishammudin Rais, Vince Tan and Fahmi Zainol were arrested and detained under the same provision on 1 August before the rally begun.
Contact
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser, (Bangkok); t: +668 409 23575; e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org.
Photo: Zikri Kamarulzaman / Malaysiakini
May 13, 2015 | News
The ICJ today condemned the decisions of the governments of Indonesia and Malaysia to turn away and push back boats carrying hundreds of Bangladeshis and Rohingyas, including women and children, out to sea.
The ICJ emphasized that the increase in the number of Rohingya arrivals in Indonesia and Malaysia underscores the need to address the root causes that drive these people to set off on these perilous journeys, including the longstanding human rights abuses to which Rohingyas are subjected.
The decision by the two governments to return the boats to sea came after the arrival of about 2,000 people, mostly believed to be Rohingya and Bangladeshi nationals, onto the shores of Malaysia and Indonesia earlier this week.
“This should be a wake-up call to ASEAN that human rights is not an internal affair of one Member State,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific.
“Had there been action on the part of ASEAN early on to protect the rights of Rohingyas in Myanmar, this looming humanitarian crisis would not have happened,” he added.
The large majority of Rohingyas have fled Myanmar because of the discrimination and deadly violence they face there as members of a religious minority.
Many of them had no choice but to resort to callous smugglers.
However, a recent crackdown on human trafficking in both Thailand and Malaysia has spooked smugglers who, in order to avoid arrest, have abandoned boatloads adrift at sea instead of taking them ashore.
It is reported that approximately 6000 Rohingyas and Bangladeshi are now on boats adrift in the Andaman Sea in poor and overcrowded conditions.
“The decisions of the Indonesian and Malaysian governments constitute an abject failure of their duty to increase search-and-rescue efforts at sea and to provide humanitarian relief to those in need. Moreover, pushing these people back out to sea is a life-endangering practice and in no way does it provide a safe and effective solution,” said Zarifi.
Under international law, the act of pushing those boats back to the high seas constitutes a collective expulsion and may constitute a violation of the principle of non-refoulement.
Such a practice is also likely to lead to violations of the right to seek and enjoy asylum from persecution, of the right not be subjected to torture and other ill-treatment, and of the right to life.
On 29 May 2015, senior officials and representatives from at least 6 ASEAN member states will be in Thailand to have a “Special Meeting on Irregular Migration in the Indian Ocean”.
“ASEAN member states must ensure that any regional decision taken on this issue will be one that adequately and meaningfully protects the lives of people who embark on those desperate journeys across the Indian Ocean,” added Zarifi.
The ICJ urges ASEAN member states to stop the practice of returning boatloads of asylum-seekers and migrants to the sea and to immediately adopt effective regional measures in line with international human rights standards.
The ICJ also urges ASEAN to strengthen its regional human rights mechanism so that it would be able to effectively address violations of human rights in the region.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser, in Bangkok, email: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org or mobile: +66 84 092 3575
Picture: EPA/Zikri Maulana
