HUMAN RIGHTS IN MALAYSIA
According to Human Rights Watch: In Malaysia, human rights are partially enshrined in the Federal Constitution. Among others, the Constitution guarantees the right to life; freedom of movement; freedom of speech, assembly and association; freedom of religion; and rights in respect of education. Every Malaysian citizen should be aware of his or her rights as enshrined in the Constitution. The lead agency in the education and advocacy of human rights, the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) was established by Parliament under Act 597, Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999. [Source: Malaysian Government]
Despite government promises of reform and relaxation of controls in some areas, human rights in Malaysia remain tightly constrained. On September 15, 2011, Prime Minister Seri Najib Tun Razak announced the government’s intention to repeal the Internal Security Act (ISA), revoke three emergency proclamations that underpin many of Malaysia’s most repressive laws, and review the Restricted Residence Act. In the same speech, however, he committed to introducing two new laws under article 149 (“Special Laws against Subversion”) of the Federal Constitution, which allows parliament to enact sweeping security provisions that deny basic freedoms. [Source: Human Rights Watch, World Report 2012: Malaysia]
On July 9, police in Kuala Lumpur, the capital, broke up a peaceful rally organized by Bersih 2.0, the Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections, arresting nearly 1,700 demonstrators demanding electoral reforms. Police fired teargas at close range at protesters in an underground tunnel, injuring several, and into the Tung Shin and Chinese Maternity hospital courtyard. Detention without Charge or Trial
The ISA permits indefinite detention without charge or trial of any person that officials deem a threat to national security or public order. While use of the ISA has declined over the years, government figures released in connection with Najib’s speech said 37 people were in ISA detention. The government continues to detain thousands under the Emergency (Public Order and Crime Prevention) Ordinance (EO) and the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act. However, in October parliament repealed the Restricted Residence Act and 125 people previously confined under the act were released.
The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention singled out the EO for criticism in its February 2011 report, noting the law permits indefinite detention “without the need to sustain evidence or probe penal responsibility.” Malaysian authorities arbitrarily applied the ISA in October 2010 against immigration officers allegedly involved in human trafficking despite the availability of Malaysia’s Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act, but abruptly released all but one of the accused in August 2011. The last detainee was released on November 10. On July 2, police used the EO to detain six leaders of the Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM) on the bogus charge that they were responsible for planning the Bersih rally and, until their July 29 release, subjected them to lengthy interrogations, isolation, and blindfolding.
See Drugs, Religion, Homosexuality, Media
Freedom of Expression, Assembly, and Association
According to Human Rights Watch: Rights of expression, peaceful public assembly, and association —guaranteed in Malaysia’s Constitution—continued to be violated in 2011. On May 21 Bersih announced a July 9 “Walk for Democracy” to call for reform of the electoral system. In mid-June the police announced that no police permit, required by section 27 of the Police Act, would be issued for the march. Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Ismail Omar threatened that “stern action” would be taken against anyone involved in an “illegal rally.” [Source: Human Rights Watch, World Report 2012: Malaysia]
Throughout June police mounted repeated shows of force, arresting activists distributing leaflets, wearing yellow Bersih shirts, or coordinating gatherings to promote the rally. On June 29 a plainclothes police unit without a warrant raided Bersih’s secretariat, confiscating Bersih materials and detaining some of those present for questioning; on July 1 the Home Ministry declared Bersih an illegal organization under the Societies Act. On the day before the march police obtained a court order prohibiting 91 rally leaders from entering downtown Kuala Lumpur. Although the thousands who eluded police blockades were peaceful and well-disciplined, but police broke up the rally using baton charges, chemically infused water cannons, and teargas barrages. Nearly 1,700 people were arrested. Journalists and ordinary citizens released photographs and video documenting much of the abuse.
On June 25, police stopped a bus carrying PSM activists to a planned rally, detaining 30 on suspicion of “preparing to wage war against the king.” They were released from pre-trial detention on July 2, but police immediately re-detained six of their leaders under the EO. All 30 were charged under the Societies Act and a section of the ISA outlawing possession of subversive documents. On September 19 the attorney general released them and on October 10, a court affirmed the release as a “discharge not amounting to an acquittal,” which makes them subject to future prosecution. On October 28, six PSM leaders were granted the same discharge
Trial of Anwar Ibrahim
According to Human Rights Watch: The trial of Anwar Ibrahim, parliamentary leader of Malaysia’s political opposition, has raised serious human rights concerns. Anwar is charged with “sodomy” for allegedly engaging in consensual homosexual conduct on June 26, 2008. Court rulings have denied Anwar’s legal team access to the prosecution’s witness list, critical forensic samples needed for independent examination, and medical examiners’ notes from hospital examinations of the accuser, in violation of international fair trial standards. In a September 23, 2011, affidavit to the court, Prime Minister Najib affirmed he had met Saiful, the accuser, two days before the alleged incident of sodomy. [Source: Human Rights Watch, World Report 2012: Malaysia]
See History
Migrant Workers and Refugees in Malaysia
The Malaysian Immigration Act 1959/1963 fails to differentiate between refugees, asylum seekers, trafficking victims, and undocumented migrants. The government is not a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention and lacks domestic refugee law and asylum procedures. A 2011 program to register all migrant workers lacked transparency regarding which migrant workers will be permitted to remain in Malaysia.[Source: Human Rights Watch, World Report 2012: Malaysia]
Some 300,000 migrant domestic workers are excluded from key protections under Malaysia's Employment Act, including limits on working hours, a mandatory day off per week, annual and sick leave, maternity protections, and fair termination of contracts. NGOs and embassies of labor-sending countries handle hundreds of complaints involving unpaid wages, physical and sexual abuse, and forced confinement. Indonesia and Malaysia signed a Memorandum of Understanding that guarantees a weekly day off and allows domestic workers to keep their passports rather than surrendering them to employers. However, the agreement perpetuates recruitment fee structures that leave workers deeply indebted. Malaysia is one of only nine states that did not vote for International Labour Organization Convention No. 189 on Decent Work for Domestic Workers.
See Foreign Workers in Malaysia
Human Rights Under Mahathir
The Mahathir government of the 1980s and 90s banned rallies, took police away from their normal jobs and used them to intimidate members of the opposition, and had people arrested on trumped up charges of terrorism, murder and robbery. asked about the American concept of freedom and human rights," Mahathir Mohamad roared, "Free for whom? For rogue speculators. For anarchists wanting to destroy weak countries in their crusade for open societies."
Under Mahathir many ordinary Malaysians were afraid of openly criticizing the government out of fear of what might happen to them. Civil servants were forced to sign “good behavior” document that makes it easier for the government to fire them if the criticize the government. Students have been kicked out of university and a lecturer was fired and 47 other were disciplined. for engaging in “anti-government” activities.
Human rights abuses haven’t been such an issue under the new leader, Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, who took office in October 2003. And in any case, most Malaysians try to avoid trouble and don’t care that much anyway about the issue.
Use Tear Gas and Water Cannons to Break Up Protests in Malaysia
Malaysia has also experienced periodic protests and riots, for several reasons. Governmental limits on freedom of expression and political participation have contributed to such events. Perhaps even more troubling is that after these events there has been some evidence of increased ethnic divisiveness, including a rise in support for political parties with specific ethnic or religious constituencies. However, other evidence suggests that Malaysia has managed ethnic differences better than other pluralistic societies in Asia.
Describing a crack down on a protest in the summer of 2009, AFP reported: “Malaysian police fired tear gas and water cannons, and arrested dozens of demonstrators in an attempt to disperse a mass street protest against draconian internal security laws. Thousands of police backed by riot squad officers and helicopters cracked down at three rallying points in Kuala Lumpur - two major mosques and a popular shopping district. Online news portal Malaysiakini said some 200 people had been arrested as police tried to disperse crowds at the rallying points and scupper their plans to march to the royal palace or the city's Independence Square. [Source: AFP, August 1, 2009]
At least 50 rounds of tear gas were fired and water cannons were directed at a crowd of around 10,000 people who gathered at the Sogo shopping complex in downtown Kuala Lumpur. An AFP reporter saw at least 25 people arrested there before the huge group began marching down a main thoroughfare towards the royal palace, triggering the police offensive.
At the national mosque, where an AFP reporter saw at least 50 detained, opposition legislator Siti Mariah Mahmud, from the Islamic PAS party, criticised the arrests of protesters as they attempted to enter the mosque. "This is not reasonable. It's prayer time and this action is a breach of our religious freedom and duty," she said. When prayers were completed, those who had managed to enter the mosque streamed out, joining a crowd of at least 5,000 which began marching towards Independence Square before being confronted by tear gas and water cannons.
Malaysia Court Rules Against Student Politics Ban
In October 2011, a Malaysian court ruled that a law banning college students from political activities was unconstitutional, in a move hailed by the ban's opponents as a landmark decision. AFP reported: “Students have long campaigned for a repeal of the 1971 Universities and University Colleges Act (UUCA), which bars them from joining political parties and trade unions, saying the ban violates human rights and free speech. [Source: AFP, October 31, 2011]
“Malaysia's Court of Appeal ruled that the law contravened constitutionally protected freedom of expression. "This is a landmark decision... the net effect is that students are free to participate in political activities now," lawyer Ashok Kandiah, who represented four former political science students in challenging the ban, told AFP. However, a lawyer representing Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (the International University of Malaysia), which the four students had attended, told the court the decision would be appealed to the Federal Court, Malaysia's highest. The Kuala Lumpur High Court had earlier upheld the ban's constitutionality.
“The students launched the court challenge last year following university threats to take disciplinary action against them after they were accused of campaigning for the opposition in a local by-election. The students were eventually cleared of any wrongdoing. Ahmad Syukri Abdul Razab, who heads the student organisation umbrella group SMM, told AFP the ruling validated the long fight against the act. "The decision shows to the people, to the government, that whatever the students have been fighting for for a long time is relevant. The government should pay attention to the students' demands," he said.
The UUCA, which deals mainly with administrative matters, was amended in 1975 to add the student politics ban following large demonstrations the previous year by university students protesting government economic policies. The section that was found unconstitutional says that no student "shall express... support for or sympathy with or opposition to any political party, whether in or outside Malaysia."
Freedom of the Press on the Internet in Malaysia
According to AFP: “Malaysia's media operates under a publishing permit system, which allows the government to shut down outlets at will. However, in 1996 it pledged not to censor online content as part of a campaign to promote its information technology sector and make Malaysia be a high-tech center. Despite occasional raids, bans and government criticism, the online media remain relatively free.
However, Leading members of the ruling coalition, Barisan Nasional (the National Front) have suggested making amendments to its media laws, such as to punish bloggers who publish materials that are deemed controversial and "anti-government". In 2008, Shawn Crispin, senior Southeast Asia representative of Committee to Protect Journalists, noted in a special report, "Malaysia's Risk-Takers," that the government had not lived up to its promise not to censor the Internet. Three years after Shawn's analysis, and eight years after the end of strongman Prime Minster Mahathir Mohammed's 22-year authoritarian rule, Malaysia has yet to emerge as a country with a truly free press.
According to Freedom House: “The internet remained the one bright spot in the media landscape in 2011, as the country was formally committed to a policy of refraining from online censorship, enshrined in Section 3(3) of the Communications and Multimedia Act (CMA) and the Multimedia Bill of Guarantees. With around 61 percent of the population accessing the internet in 2011, Malaysia is home to many websites and blogs that offer competing points of view. Although not all of these internet news organizations are politically independent—many have suspected affiliations with politicians from either the opposition or the ruling coalition—they nevertheless offer an array of political opinions that cannot be found in the traditional media, and play a growing role in the media landscape. Social-networking sites such as Facebook continued to flourish in 2011, hosting vigorous debates on political issues and government policies. The internet has also been a place to challenge corruption and other human rights concerns, but bloggers are still required to tread carefully. In 2011, a Malaysian subsidiary of the manufacturer Asahi Kosei Japan brought a defamation lawsuit for 10 million ringgits ($3.3 million) against Malaysian activist Charles Hector over blog posts in which he criticized the company’s treatment of Burmese migrant workers. The firm dropped the lawsuit after Hector agreed to retract his statements. [Source: Freedom House ==]
“Media observers have voiced concern about an announcement from the Home Ministry that a new law would be introduced to govern sedition in cyberspace. Although this had not occurred by the end of 2011, advocacy groups such as the Centre for Independent Journalism continued to view it as a threat to free expression online. Temporary blocking and censoring of internet content was reported during the year; several opposition and news websites were inaccessible in the days leading up to the April state elections in Sarawak, and a few months later, another episode of “denial of service” occurred surrounding the Bersih 2.0 demonstrations. ==
Censorship and Freedom of the Press in Malaysia
Malaysia does not have a free and independent press, especially when compared to other countries in the region. In the 1980s, Mahathir muzzled the free press and promoted the notion of “developmental journalism”—the idea that the press should help him in his quest to develop the nation. Reporters printed verbatim what he said. Newspapers that dared to criticize him risked losing their operating licenses. Reporters Without Border ranked Malaysia at 105 out of 166 countries in terms of press freedom.
Newspapers need an annual license to publish. This license can be taken away if the government so deems it. Editors of newspapers that have been overly critical of the government have been arrested and the newspapers themselves, in some cases, have been taken over by groups more friendly to the government. At one point disillusionment with the state-sponsored media became so great the circulation of the main newspaper dropped from 200,000 to 130,000.
According to Freedom House: The constitution guarantees freedom of expression under Article 10, but allows for a host of limitations to this right. The Sedition Act, the Internal Security Act (ISA), and harsh criminal defamation laws are used regularly to impose restrictions on the press and other critics of the government. Violations of these laws are punishable by several years in prison, in many cases without trial. Although the opposition-controlled states of Selangor and Penang passed freedom of information laws in April and November 2011, respectively, Malaysia has no federal freedom of information legislation, and officials remain reluctant to share controversial data with journalists for fear of being charged under the colonial-era Official Secrets Act. [Source: Freedom House ==]
“In July 2011, tens of thousands of peaceful protesters took to the streets of Kuala Lumpur in the “Bersih 2.0” rally to demand changes to the voting process, including free and fair access to mainstream media during campaigns. They were forcibly dispersed by police, prompting an inquiry by the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia. In the wake of the rally, Prime Minister Najib Razak in September pledged to repeal the ISA and called for a review of existing media censorship laws, stating that they were no longer “effective.” He said he would also eliminate a provision in the 1984 Printing Presses and Publications Act (PPPA) that requires all publishers and printing firms to obtain an annual operations permit, but would leave all other restrictions in place, including the government’s authority to grant or deny license applications and to revoke licenses at any time without judicial review. Despite these promises, official action to reform the media laws had not occurred by year’s end, and a new Peaceful Assembly Act passed by Parliament in late 2011 was considered more draconian than its predecessor. ==
“Also during 2011, the Home Ministry continued to deny the online news website Malaysiakini a print publishing license, stating that such a permit is “a privilege,” not a right. Malaysiakini’s challenge to this decision was expected to be reviewed by the High Court in 2012. The Home Ministry may issue “show cause” letters, which require newspapers to explain certain articles or face suspension or revocation of their permits. In August, the Star newspaper was asked to explain a food supplement called “Ramadan Delights” that included non-halal eateries. Although the paper twice issued public apologies, Star editors were summoned to the Home Ministry on two separate occasions and asked to account for the error. ==
“The 1988 Broadcasting Act allows the Information Ministry to decide who can own a broadcast station and what type of television service is suitable for the Malaysian public, leading to considerable self-censorship among broadcast journalists. In September 2011, the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) issued a directive banning the broadcast of a four-minute video clip aimed at increasing voter registration. The video featured prominent BN lawmaker Tengku Razaleigh as well as other Malaysian politicians and celebrities. ==
“Physical harassment and intimidation are less of a danger for journalists in Malaysia than arbitrary arrest or threats of legal action. However, several instances of extralegal harassment were noted in 2011, including a case of police intimidation of a Malaysiakini reporter in August. The perils of journalistic independence were evident in an April guilty verdict against National Union of Journalists (NUJ) president Mohamed Ha’ta Wahari, who was convicted of tarnishing his employers’ image and revealing their “secrets.” In September 2010, Ha’ta, a senior journalist with the Malay-language daily Utusan Malaysia, had publically criticized the paper for its lack of independence from its owner, the United Malays National Organization (UMNO), the party at the core of the BN. ==
“Although the media industry is for the most part privately owned, the majority of both print and broadcast outlets are controlled either by political parties in the ruling coalition or by businesses with political connections. The largest media conglomerate is Media Prima, which owns half of the Malay and English newspapers as well as many television channels, and is believed to be closely linked to UMNO. Huaren Management—which is associated with another BN member, the Malaysian Chinese Association—monopolizes Chinese newspapers. Despite the BN’s insistence that mainstream newspapers are impartial, owners’ political and business interests often lead to self-censorship by journalists. Foreign print media are occasionally censored or banned. For example, a July Economist piece on the Bersih 2.0 demonstration was censored, with parts of the report blotted out by the Home Ministry.
Crackdowns on Malay Editors and Foreign Journalists
According to Human Rights Watch: “In his September speech, Prime Minister Najib promised to amend the Printing Presses and Publications Act but only to end the mandatory annual licensing requirement. The minister of home affairs would retain broad authority, without judicial review, to refuse permission to publish anything he determines “likely to be prejudicial to public order, morality, security … or national interest.” On July 14 the High Court in Kuala Lumpur upheld the ban on seven books by Malaysiakini cartoonist Zunar and threatened revocation of printers’ licenses if they produced his books. In September the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission ordered broadcasters not to show a non-partisan voter education public service announcement created by well-known film producer and musician Peter Teo. [Source: Human Rights Watch, World Report 2012: Malaysia]
In November 2003, the editor-in-chief of Malaysia’s New Straits Times group said he has lost his job after publishing comments that upset the Saudi royal family. Reuters reported: “The New Straits Times, the country’s oldest newspaper group and one of the biggest, is linked to Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s said the company was issuing a statement later today to say that “his term has ended.” He said the move was linked to his November 12 article about the Saudis. Media executives said the story, which criticised the kingdom’s royal family, had sparked a strong but previously unpublicised protest from the Saudi government. NST executives said the decision came after the Prime Minister, who is currently acting party president, met senior UMNO leaders yesterday. They said there were several grounds for the sacking, the main one being the Saudi protest, which has soured otherwise warm ties and embarrassed Malaysia’s new administration. [Source: Reuters, November 21, 2003]
In 1994, Mahathir placed sanction on British companies after British newspapers ran stories about bribery among high officials. The Economist was criticized by the Malaysian government for running an article critical of the government’s policies against foreign workers.
Murray Hilbert, a correspondent with the Far Eastern Economic Review, was imprisoned for four weeks for contempt of court for an article he wrote in 1997 that criticized way the Malaysian justice system handled the case of 17-year-old boy dropped from his school debating team that also happened to be the son of a judge.
Image Sources: Wikimedia Commons
Text Sources: New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Times of London, Lonely Planet Guides, Library of Congress, Malaysia Tourism Promotion Board, Compton’s Encyclopedia, The Guardian, National Geographic, Smithsonian magazine, The New Yorker, Time, Newsweek, Reuters, AP, AFP, Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic Monthly, The Economist, Foreign Policy, Wikipedia, BBC, CNN, and various books, websites and other publications.
Last updated May 2026