Search Results

We, the undersigned organisations, strongly condemn the arrest of two protesters during a spontaneous, peaceful protest held outside the US Embassy at noon today in response to Israel’s interception of the Global Sumud Flotilla and the detention of hundreds of activists, including 23 Malaysians. As a spontaneous assembly responding to unfolding events, the protest was entitled to adaptive facilitation—not punitive policing. Police had a positive obligation to facilitate the assembly; instead, their conduct was marked by unlawful and disproportionate force and clear breaches of due-process guarantees. These arrests—reportedly for obstruction of civil servants from performing their duties (Section 186 of the Penal Code)—are unjustifiable when the police themselves actively obstructed the protesters’ constitutional right to peacefully assemble. Instead of enabling safe use of the pedestrian walkway outside the U.S. Embassy, officers blocked access and displaced protesters onto the roadway, manufacturing the very disruption later cited. Contrary to media reports, police are seen provoking the scuffle: a plainclothes Special Branch officer feigns being pushed by one of the arrestees while blocking him from rejoining fellow protesters. The second protester—seen attempting to de-escalate—was arrested nonetheless. The force used by the police was unwarranted—arising from conditions the police themselves created. Both protesters were dragged and restrained by multiple police officers, held by both arms and around the neck, before being handcuffed. Other protesters who were attempting to defuse the situation were also manhandled without warning—shoved, pushed and forcibly restrained—needlessly endangering participants’ physical safety. Both active provocation and use of excessive force mark a clear deterioration from the already restrictive approach seen at recent assemblies outside Parliament. For four hours after the arrests, the authorities did not disclose where the two protesters were held. At the point of arrest, they were not informed where they would be taken and have been denied access to legal counsel, in breach of basic rights for arrested persons. It also remains unclear whether they have been given access to medical examination and treatment for the injuries sustained. We demand for the immediate and unconditional release of both protesters. We also call on the Home Ministry to review police protocols and ensure that all officers adopt a facilitative, rights-based approach to managing assemblies. Amidst ongoing amendments to the Peaceful Assembly Act, the Madani government must ensure that assembly policing practices reflect—not undermine its stated commitment to reform. Endorsed Organisations: Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) Amnesty International Malaysia Justice for Sisters GEGAR Malaysian Protest 4 Palestine (MP4P) Angkatan Kesatuan Siswa Sosialis (AKSI) JEJAKA Students Against Genocide Malaysia (SAGM) Women’s Aid Organisation (WAO) Reproductive Rights Advocacy Alliance Malaysia (RRAAM) SIUMAN Collective Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM) Artivist

*The Malay translation of this statement is available below, following the English version. Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) condemns the police handling of student activist Aliefah as an abuse of power and a breach of due process.  Aliefah's arrest was wholly unnecessary. A summons to appear voluntarily for questioning would have sufficed. Instead, like student activist Abdul Qayyum who was also arrested under similar circumstances ten days ago, Aliefah was taken to IPD Tawau and denied access to exercise her right to legal counsel. In contrast, UMNO Youth Chief Akmal Saleh - under investigation last month under the Sedition Act, Section 506 of the Penal Code and Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act - was allowed to present himself at a scheduled time with his lawyer and provide his statement. The unequal treatment raises legitimate concerns about selective enforcement and compromise of procedural fairness.    After completing her 112 statement, Aliefah was confined alone in a room and further questioned by a group of special branch (SB) officers. This is not the first time this has happened — just two months ago, three youth activists in Sabah, including university students Muhammad Fadhil Kasim and Aliff Danial Badrul Akmal, were subjected to the same treatment after the Gempur Rasuah Sabah 2.0 protest. Under the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), only a Section 112 statement is allowed in routine criminal investigations. Forcing a second “intelligence statement” outside this process an unlawful and coercive tactic that undermines the basic protections CPC provides to witnesses and suspects — including the right to be questioned lawfully, clearly, and fairly.  SUARAM calls for the immediate and unconditional release of Aliefah. We demand an immediate explanation from the Royal Malaysian Police as to why due process was violated, blatantly contravening Aliefah's constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 5 of the Federal Constitution.  In solidarity, Azura Nasron Executive Director at SUARAM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUARAM: SIASATAN OLEH CAWANGAN KHAS SELEPAS RAKAMAN KENYATAAN 112 ADALAH PENYALAHGUNAAN KUASA POLIS Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) mengecam tindakan pihak polis terhadap aktivis mahasiswa Aliefah sebagai satu penyalahgunaan kuasa dan pelanggaran proses hak. Penahanan Aliefah jelas tidak perlu. Satu arahan untuk hadir secara sukarela bagi tujuan soal siasat sudah memadai. Walau bagaimanapun, Aliefah dibawa ke IPD Tawau dan dinafikan hak untuk mendapatkan khidmat guaman – sama seperti aktivis mahasiswa Abdul Qayyum yang turut ditahan sepuluh hari lalu. Sebaliknya, Ketua Pemuda UMNO Akmal Saleh — yang disiasat bulan lalu di bawah Akta Hasutan, Seksyen 506 Kanun Keseksaan dan Seksyen 233 Akta Komunikasi dan Multimedia — dibenarkan hadir pada waktu yang dijadualkan bersama peguamnya untuk memberikan kenyataan. Layanan yang berat sebelah ini menimbulkan persoalan mengenai penguatkuasaan terpilih serta menjejaskan keadilan prosedur sedia ada. Setelah menyelesaikan kenyataan 112, Aliefah telah dikurung seorang diri dalam sebuah bilik dan disoal siasat lagi oleh sekumpulan pegawai cawangan khas (SB). Ini bukan kali pertama perkara sebegini berlaku — hanya dua bulan lalu, tiga aktivis belia di Sabah termasuk mahasiswa universiti Muhammad Fadhil Kasim dan Aliff Danial Badrul Akmal turut dikenakan layanan sama selepas protes Gempur Rasuah Sabah 2.0. Di bawah Kanun Tatacara Jenayah (CPC), hanya kenyataan Seksyen 112 dibenarkan dalam siasatan jenayah rutin. Memaksa kenyataan “risikan” kedua di luar proses ini adalah tidak sah dan bersifat paksaan yang meruntuhkan perlindungan asas yang tersedia dalam CPC kepada saksi dan suspek — termasuk hak untuk disoal secara sah, jelas, dan adil. SUARAM menggesa agar Aliefah segera dibebaskan tanpa syarat. Kami menuntut penjelasan segera daripada Polis Diraja Malaysia mengapa proses hak telah dicabuli secara terang-terangan, sekali gus bercanggah dengan jaminan di bawah Perkara 5 Perlembagaan Persekutuan terhadap kebebasan diri.   Dalam solidariti, Azura Nasron Pengarah Eksekutif SUARAM

Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) mengalu-alukan penegasan Perdana Menteri bahawa orang awam mempunyai hak untuk berhimpun secara aman di hadapan Parlimen. Pendiran yang jelas ini menegaskan bahawa perhimpunan aman adalah satu hak perlembagaan — bukan satu kesulitan logistik — dan mengukuhkan kepentingan akses orang awam kepada institusi kuasa. Namun begitu, kami bimbang dengan penekanan terhadap isu trafik dan koordinasi sebagai syarat untuk melaksanakan hak perlembagaan ini. Kedua-dua perhimpunan aman pada 22 Julai dan 13 Ogos menyaksikan pihak polis menggunakan langkah-langkah sekatan seperti rantai dan halangan fizikal, ketika para peserta cuba mencabar sekatan pencegahan menyeluruh yang dilaksanakan sejak pandemik. Di bawah sekatan ini, kumpulan hanya dibenarkan berkumpul di kaki bukit dengan pintu Parlimen kekal tidak boleh diakses — sekali gus menafikan keterlihatan dan jarak dekat yang diperlukan bagi menyampaikan suara mereka kepada ahli parlimen. Gangguan trafik diiktiraf di peringkat antarabangsa sebagai satu akibat biasa, malah tidak dapat dielakkan, daripada perhimpunan berhampiran institusi politik. Ambang untuk menyekat perhimpunan kerana isu trafik oleh itu adalah tinggi: hanya apabila kesesakan menimbulkan risiko jelas terhadap keselamatan awam, atau apabila gangguan adalah tidak seimbang dengan tujuan protes, barulah sekatan boleh dibenarkan. Menghalang akses ke pintu Parlimen atau mengalihkan semua protes ke kaki bukit jelas sekali gagal memenuhi piawaian ini. Tanggungjawab negara adalah untuk secara aktif memudah dan membolehkan perhimpunan diadakan dalam jarak bermakna kepada sasaran mereka, bukan menundukkan hak untuk berhimpun kepada keselesaan trafik atau koordinasi birokrasi. SUARAM menggesa pihak polis dan Kementerian Dalam Negeri untuk segera menyemak dan menyelaraskan semula protokol penguatkuasaan agar mencerminkan pendirian Perdana Menteri, dengan memastikan perhimpunan difasilitasi melalui langkah yang berpatutan — seperti pengalihan trafik secara berunding atau akses berperingkat — dan bukannya sekatan menyeluruh. Pendekatan sebegini akan melengkapi usaha kerajaan yang dinyatakan untuk meminda Akta Perhimpunan Aman, memastikan bahawa reformasi bukan sahaja pada tahap legislatif tetapi turut tercermin dalam amalan penguatkuasaan yang menegakkan hak perlembagaan serta mengukuhkan akauntabiliti demokratik. Dalam solidariti, Azura Nasron  Pengarah Eksekutif SUARAM

*The Malay translation of this statement is available below, following the English version. Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) strongly condemns the arrest of Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM) Deputy Chairperson S. Arutchelvan (“Arul”) under Sections 353 and 427 of the Penal Code. This arrest amounts to a clear abuse of police powers and process and reflects a longstanding pattern of intimidation against activists for exercising their constitutional right to peaceful assembly.  Arul had already fully cooperated with the police, having presented himself at IPD Dang Wangi last Thursday (14 August) for questioning. The arrest was thus wholly disproportionate, as there are no justifiable grounds to believe that Arul would not comply with any further police summons. Moreover, there is no basis to continue the investigation, when publicly available footage of the 13 August assembly shows no use of criminal force, and when the police themselves imposed unnecessary restrictions that obstructed protesters from submitting the proposed Estate Workers Housing Scheme Act directly to lawmakers outside the Parliament gates. Arul’s arrest marks at least the third case this year in which activists have been arrested for exercising the constitutional right to peacefully assemble – following the arrests of SUARAM’s former Executive Director Sevan Doraisamy in February under the Protected Areas and Protected Places Act, as well as of Fadhil Kasim, Aliff Danial and Sabir Syarifuddin in June under the Sedition Act. These incidents form part of an alarming trend where outdated and draconian laws are repeatedly weaponised to silence dissent, stifle legitimate advocacy, and instill fear among those who speak truth to power. It is deeply concerning that the Madani government continues to repeat the very repressive practices of past administrations, despite its promises of reform and commitment to democratic values. SUARAM calls for the immediate and unconditional release of S. Arutchelvan, and reiterates that investigations under Sections 353 and 427 of the Penal Code must be dropped without delay. We further urge the government and the police to respect the constitutional right to peaceful assembly, and to immediately end the cycle of arbitrary arrests and investigations against activists.  In solidarity, Azura Nasron Executive Director at SUARAM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HENTIKAN SALAH GUNA KUASA POLIS TERHADAP PEMBELA HAK ASASI MANUSIA Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) mengecam sekeras-kerasnya penahanan Timbalan Pengerusi Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM), S. Arutchelvan (“Arul”), di bawah Seksyen 353 dan 427 Kanun Keseksaan. Penahanan ini merupakan satu penyalahgunaan kuasa serta proses polis yang jelas mencerminkan pola intimidasi berpanjangan terhadap aktivis yang melaksanakan hak perlembagaan mereka untuk berhimpun secara aman. Arul telah memberikan kerjasama sepenuhnya kepada pihak polis dengan menghadirkan diri ke IPD Dang Wangi pada Khamis lalu (14 Ogos) untuk disoal siasat. Justeru, penahanan tersebut adalah sama sekali tidak seimbang kerana tiada asas munasabah untuk mempercayai bahawa Arul tidak akan mematuhi sebarang arahan lanjut daripada polis. Tambahan pula, tiada asas untuk meneruskan siasatan apabila rakaman perhimpunan pada 13 Ogos menunjukkan tiada sebarang penggunaan kekerasan jenayah, sedangkan pihak polis sendiri telah mengenakan sekatan tidak wajar yang menghalang peserta protes daripada menyerahkan cadangan Rang Undang-Undang Skim Perumahan Pekerja Estet secara langsung kepada Ahli Parlimen di pintu pagar Parlimen. Penahanan Arul menandakan sekurang-kurangnya kes ketiga tahun ini di mana aktivis ditahan kerana melaksanakan hak perlembagaan mereka untuk berhimpun secara aman – selepas penahanan bekas Pengarah Eksekutif SUARAM, Sevan Doraisamy, pada Februari di bawah Akta Kawasan Larangan dan Tempat Larangan, serta penahanan Fadhil Kasim, Aliff Danial dan Sabir Syarifuddin pada Jun di bawah Akta Hasutan. Insiden-insiden ini adalah sebahagian daripada trend membimbangkan di mana undang-undang lama yang zalim terus digunakan sebagai senjata untuk membungkam bantahan, mengekang advokasi yang sah, dan menanam rasa takut terhadap mereka yang bersuara menegur kuasa. Adalah amat membimbangkan bahawa kerajaan Madani masih mengulangi amalan represif pentadbiran terdahulu, meskipun berjanji untuk melaksanakan reformasi dan menegakkan nilai-nilai demokrasi. SUARAM menggesa pembebasan segera dan tanpa syarat terhadap S. Arutchelvan, serta menegaskan bahawa siasatan di bawah Seksyen 353 dan 427 Kanun Keseksaan mesti dihentikan serta-merta. Kami turut menggesa kerajaan dan pihak polis agar menghormati hak perlembagaan untuk berhimpun secara aman, dan segera menghentikan kitaran penahanan serta siasatan sewenang-wenangnya terhadap aktivis. Dalam solidariti, Azura Nasron Pengarah Eksekutif SUARAM

*The Malay translation of this statement is available below, following the English version. Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) condemns the use of Section 353 of the Penal Code to investigate Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM) Deputy Chairperson S. Arutchelvan over a peaceful assembly involving more than 500 estate workers to meet policymakers to submit the proposed Estate Workers Housing Scheme Act outside Parliament on 13 August 2025. The use of Section 353—criminal force or assault to deter a public servant from performing their duties—is grossly disproportionate, given that police were actively blocking peaceful protesters from approaching Parliament. Under the current Madani administration, at least four peaceful assemblies have been investigated under Section 186 of the Penal Code for obstruction of public servants. The invocation of Section 353 marks a troubling escalation—shifting blame onto citizens exercising their constitutional right to peaceful assembly, while failing to hold police accountable for their failure to facilitate the protest effectively. Public assemblies outside Parliament long predate the Peaceful Assembly Act and have been part of Malaysia’s democratic tradition. Public roads and spaces—especially just outside the Parliament gates—must remain accessible for protest, particularly during sitting periods. Yet despite over a decade of managing assemblies under the PAA, the police have, since 2020, increasingly pushed protesters further away from Parliament gates to the base of the hill—undermining the core purpose of peaceful assembly: to deliver public demands directly to elected representatives. SUARAM therefore urges the police to immediately drop the investigation against S. Arutchelvan and cease all forms of intimidation against peaceful protesters. We also call on the Home Ministry to review police protocols and ensure that all officers adopt a facilitative, rights-based approach to managing assemblies — including at high-security locations such as Parliament. Amidst ongoing amendments to the Peaceful Assembly Act, the Madani government must ensure that assembly policing practices reflect—not undermine its stated commitment to reform. In solidarity, Azura Nasron Executive Director of SUARAM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUARAM: HENTIKAN SIASATAN SEKSYEN 353 TERHADAP ARUL Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) mengecam penggunaan Seksyen 353 Kanun Keseksaan untuk menyiasat Timbalan Pengerusi Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM), S. Arutchelvan, berhubung perhimpunan aman yang melibatkan lebih daripada 500 pekerja estet bagi bertemu dengan ahli parlimen untuk menyerahkan cadangan Rang Undang-Undang (RUU) Skim Perumahan Pekerja Estet di hadapan Parlimen pada 13 Ogos 2025. Penggunaan Seksyen 353 iaitu kekerasan jenayah bagi menghalang penjawat awam daripada menjalankan tugas adalah sama sekali tidak adil, memandangkan pihak polis secara aktif menghalang para peserta perhimpunan aman daripada menghampiri Parlimen. Di bawah kerajaan Madani ketika ini, sekurang-kurangnya empat perhimpunan aman telah disiasat di bawah Seksyen 186 Kanun Keseksaan atas dakwaan menghalang penjawat awam. Penggunaan Seksyen 353 menandakan permasalahan lain iaitu mengalihkan kesalahan kepada orang awam yang menggunakan hak mereka untuk berhimpun secara aman di samping kegagalan untuk meletakkan akauntabiliti pihak polis atas kegagalan untuk mengendalikan perhimpunan secara efektif.   Perhimpunan melibatkan orang awam di luar Parlimen telah lama wujud sebelum Akta Perhimpunan Aman (APA) dan telah menjadi sebahagian daripada tradisi demokrasi Malaysia. Jalan raya dan ruang awam terutamanya kawasan di luar pintu pagar Parlimen mesti kekal dibuka sebagai akses untuk tujuan protes, khususnya ketika sidang Parlimen berlangsung bagi memudahkan urusan perjumpaan bersama menteri sebagai contoh untuk penyerahan memorandum dan lain-lain. Namun, meskipun lebih sedekad menguruskan perhimpunan di bawah APA, pihak polis sejak tahun 2020 semakin kerap menolak serta menyekat peserta protes lebih jauh dari pintu pagar Parlimen ke kaki bukit, ini sekali gus menjejaskan tujuan utama perhimpunan aman: menyampaikan tuntutan rakyat secara langsung kepada wakil rakyat. Sehubungan itu, SUARAM menggesa pihak polis untuk segera menghentikan siasatan terhadap S. Arutchelvan dan segala bentuk intimidasi terhadap peserta perhimpunan aman. Kami juga menyeru Kementerian Dalam Negeri untuk mengkaji semula protokol polis dan memastikan semua pegawai mengamalkan pendekatan berasaskan hak asasi dalam mengendalikan perhimpunan termasuk di lokasi yang mempunyai kawalan keselamatan tinggi seperti Parlimen. Di tengah proses pindaan APA, Kerajaan Madani harus mengukuhkan pengurusan perhimpunan selari dengan perlembagaan, dan tidak menjejaskan komitmen reformasi yang diikrarkan. Dalam solidariti, Azura Nasron Pengarah Eksekutif SUARAM

*The Malay translation of this statement is available below, following the English version. Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) is gravely concerned by the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia’s (SUHAKAM) hesitation to lodge police reports against prison officers who have lied under oath during SUHAKAM’s ongoing public inquiry into the 17 January assault at Taiping Prison this year. SUARAM has observed that several staff from Taiping Prison who have testified thus far began by denying under oath any involvement in hitting and/or kicking detainees. These denials were flatly contradicted by CCTV recordings shown during the inquiry. When shown the recordings, only some officers admitted to their actions - after repeated warnings from the inquiry panel that they were under oath. Others continued to downplay their conduct using euphemistic terms such as “ sentuh ”, or by citing intent such as “ menakut-nakutkan ”. For some, this is not the first instance of false testimony: their sworn statements to SUHAKAM in March 2025 similarly omitted or denied any involvement, despite evidence to the contrary. In Wednesday’s (5 August 2025) proceedings, family counsel Shashi Devan made an urgent and justified call for SUHAKAM to act. He emphasised that delaying action until the inquiry concludes will send the wrong message to witnesses who are yet to testify. SUARAM agrees. Repeated breaches of the oath should not be allowed to accumulate unchecked. Each dishonest testimony risks obscuring case details that are not visible in the CCTV recordings, which lack audio. Such details are essential for SUHAKAM to establish a complete picture of the events, institutional dynamics and underlying causes necessary for credible findings and effective reform recommendations. The argument that lodging a police report would create an “investigation within an investigation” is also misplaced. A police report does not interfere with SUHAKAM’s inquiry—since the inquiry focuses on uncovering systemic failures through the assault in Taiping Prison and recommending critical prison reforms, while a police investigation of a report focuses on specific violations of the law. We maintain that by acting against false testimony, SUHAKAM will be safeguarding the integrity of the inquiry. To illustrate the extent and seriousness of this issue, we provide two examples. Firstly, on Day 11 of the inquiry, prison officer Raja Masuri bin Mansor repeatedly denied using his phone to record the assault, despite CCTV footage clearly showing that he did: no further evidence is required to prove that he was lying, since no one has questioned the veracity of the CCTV recording. We note that although four weeks have passed since Masuri testified,  SUHAKAM has not recovered the phone he used. Secondly, there was a striking similarity in the testimonies of all five officers in Week 4 of the inquiry. All the officers cited utterances of profanities, and death or rape threats by detainees as the reason why they “lost it.” and thrashed the detainees. These near-verbatim patterns raise serious concerns of coaching or collusion. We note that there is sworn evidence that they had met together in a room to watch the recordings before they came to testify. The inquiry panel, conducting officers and observers have had to spend much time and effort establishing truths that should have been voluntarily disclosed. Yesterday’s (7 August 2025) testimony by Khairol Azmeer Ibrahim underscores this. He was later recalled for further questioning on key inconsistencies, including his purported knowledge of deceased detainee Gan Chin Eng’s history of heart problems and whether he had met other Taiping Prison officers while lodging the police report on Gan’s death. In the face of such protracted attempts to untangle misleading accounts, SUHAKAM’s continued inaction is untenable. If SUHAKAM fails to act now despite what appears to us glaring evidence of false testimony, it risks setting a damaging precedent for its future inquiries it holds—and by extension, dents the independence, effectiveness and integrity of its human rights protection mandate as an A-status national human rights institution. SUARAM therefore calls on SUHAKAM to immediately lodge a police report to commence an independent investigation into the pattern of false and misleading testimony observed during the inquiry. If SUHAKAM is to play a serious role in holding enforcement authorities accountable, it must demonstrate that its processes cannot be manipulated. Delaying action only sends the wrong signal about institutional tolerance for false testimony under oath and weakens public confidence in the inquiry’s outcome. In solidarity, Azura Nasron Executive Director of SUARAM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUHAKAM PERLU BUAT LAPORAN POLIS TERHADAP KETERANGAN PALSU OLEH PEGAWAI PENJARA SEGERA Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) berasa bimbang terhadap keberatan pihak Suruhanjaya Hak Asasi Manusia Malaysia (SUHAKAM) untuk membuat laporan polis terhadap pegawai penjara yang tidak bercakap benar di bawah sumpah dalam Inkuiri Awam SUHAKAM berhubung insiden serangan di Penjara Taiping pada 17 Januari lalu. Berdasarkan pemerhatian SUARAM, beberapa kakitangan Penjara Taiping yang telah memberikan keterangan setakat ini memulakan testimoni mereka dengan penafian (walaupun telah mengangkat sumpah) bahawa sebarang penglibatan dalam memukul dan/atau menendang tahanan.  Apabila rakaman ditayangkan, hanya sebahagian pegawai yang akhirnya mengakui perbuatan mereka, setelah berulang kali diingatkan oleh panel inkuiri bahawa mereka berada di bawah sumpah. Pegawai penjara yang lain juga berterusan meremehkan perbuatan mereka dengan menggunakan istilah berlapik-lapik seperti  “sentuh”  atau dengan memberi alasan niat seperti “menakut-nakutkan” .  Bagi sesetengah pegawai, ini bukan kali pertama mereka memberikan keterangan palsu: kenyataan bersumpah mereka kepada SUHAKAM pada Mac 2025 juga tidak menyebut atau menafikan sebarang penglibatan, walaupun wujud bukti yang bercanggah. Dalam prosiding 5 Ogos (Rabu), peguam kepada keluarga, Shashi Devan telah membuat gesaan kepada pihak SUHAKAM untuk mengambil tindakan. Beliau menegaskan bahawa menangguhkan tindakan sehingga inkuiri selesai akan memberikan isyarat yang salah kepada saksi yang masih belum memberi keterangan. SUARAM bersetuju.  Pelanggaran sumpah secara berulang tidak sepatutnya dibiarkan berlarutan tanpa tindakan.  Setiap keterangan yang tidak jujur berisiko menutup butiran kes yang tidak kelihatan dalam rakaman CCTV, yang tidak mempunyai audio. Butiran seperti ini penting untuk membolehkan SUHAKAM mendapatkan gambaran penuh berhubung kejadian, dinamik institusi dan punca asas yang diperlukan bagi menghasilkan dapatan yang berwibawa serta cadangan pembaharuan yang berkesan. Hujah bahawa membuat laporan polis akan mewujudkan “siasatan dalam siasatan” juga adalah tidak tepat. Laporan polis tidak akan mengganggu inkuiri SUHAKAM—kerana inkuiri memberi tumpuan untuk mengenal pasti kegagalan sistemik melalui insiden serangan di Penjara Taiping dan mengesyorkan pembaharuan penjara yang kritikal, manakala siasatan polis terhadap laporan tertumpu kepada pelanggaran undang-undang secara khusus. Kami berpendirian bahawa dengan mengambil tindakan terhadap keterangan palsu, SUHAKAM akan mempertahankan integriti inkuiri tersebut. Bagi menggambarkan tahap dan keseriusan isu ini, kami kemukakan dua contoh. Pertama, pada hari ke-11 inkuiri, pegawai penjara Raja Masuri bin Mansor berulang kali menafikan menggunakan telefonnya untuk merakam serangan, walaupun rakaman CCTV jelas menunjukkan beliau berbuat demikian: tiada bukti tambahan diperlukan untuk membuktikan beliau berbohong memandangkan tiada sesiapa yang mempertikaikan ketulenan rakaman CCTV tersebut. Kami juga mengambil maklum bahawa walaupun empat minggu telah berlalu sejak Masuri memberi keterangan, SUHAKAM masih belum mendapatkan telefon yang digunakan beliau. Kedua, terdapat persamaan yang ketara dalam keterangan kelima-lima pegawai pada minggu ke-4 inkuiri. Semua pegawai memberi alasan kononnya tahanan mengeluarkan kata-kata kesat serta ugutan bunuh atau rogol sebagai sebab mereka “hilang sabar” dan memukul tahanan tersebut. Pola keterangan yang hampir sama ini menimbulkan kebimbangan serius tentang kemungkinan wujudnya latihan atau pakatan. Kami juga mengambil maklum bahawa terdapat keterangan bersumpah bahawa mereka telah berkumpul dalam sebuah bilik untuk menonton rakaman sebelum memberi keterangan. Panel inkuiri, pegawai pengendali dan pemerhati terpaksa menghabiskan banyak masa dan tenaga untuk mendapatkan kebenaran yang sepatutnya didedahkan secara sukarela. Keterangan semalam (7 Ogos 2025) oleh Khairol Azmeer Ibrahim menguatkan perkara ini. Beliau kemudiannya dipanggil semula untuk ditanya lebih lanjut berhubung percanggahan utama, termasuk dakwaannya mengetahui sejarah kesihatan - masalah jantung tahanan yang telah meninggal dunia, Gan Chin Eng dan sama ada beliau telah bertemu pegawai Penjara Taiping lain ketika membuat laporan polis mengenai kematian Gan. Dalam menghadapi usaha yang begitu panjang untuk menyelesaikan keterangan yang mengelirukan, kegagalan SUHAKAM untuk bertindak adalah tidak dapat diterima. Sekiranya SUHAKAM gagal bertindak sekarang walaupun terdapat bukti yang jelas mengenai keterangan palsu, ia berisiko mewujudkan duluan yang buruk untuk inkuiri-inkuiri pada masa akan datang—dan seterusnya menjejaskan kebebasan, keberkesanan serta integriti mandat perlindungan hak asasi manusia SUHAKAM sebagai institusi hak asasi manusia kebangsaan berstatus A. Oleh itu, SUARAM menggesa SUHAKAM untuk segera membuat laporan polis bagi memulakan siasatan bebas terhadap pola keterangan palsu dan mengelirukan yang diperhatikan sepanjang inkuiri. Sekiranya SUHAKAM mahu memainkan peranan serius dalam memastikan pihak berkuasa penguatkuasaan bertanggungjawab, ia mesti menunjukkan bahawa prosesnya tidak boleh dimanipulasi. Penangguhan tindakan hanya akan menghantar isyarat yang salah mengenai toleransi institusi terhadap keterangan palsu di bawah sumpah dan melemahkan keyakinan awam terhadap hasil inkuiri tersebut. Dalam solidariti Azura Nasron Pengarah Eksekutif Suara Rakyat Malaysia

*The Malay translation of this statement is available below, following the English version. Sekretariat Himpun and the undersigned organisations condemn the obstruction by the police against peaceful protesters outside Parliament today as they submitted memoranda on the amendments to the Peaceful Assembly Act and the repeal of the Sedition Act. The right to peaceful assembly is enshrined under Article 10 of the Federal Constitution. Obstruction and disproportionate police response—especially when protesters are seeking to deliver human rights-centred legal reforms to the Members of Parliament (MPs) undermine democratic freedoms and public trust in state institutions. This morning, protesters were met with a heavy police presence consisting of over 60 officers, including members of the Light Strike Force (LSF). A human barricade was set up less than a hundred metres from the Parliament gates, preventing participants from proceeding any further. Despite the peaceful nature of the assembly and the protesters’ clear intent to submit memoranda, police refused to permit passage. No clear explanation was provided other than Parliament was a “prohibited area”.  Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, peaceful assemblies were permitted to take place past the Parliament gates to submit memoranda. Since then, access has been arbitrarily curtailed, with protestors confined to the public road outside Parliament grounds, undermining the democratic function of assemblies.  As asserted by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Assembly, protests include the right to demonstrate “within sight and sound” of the intended audience. This is a key democratic function of protest - bringing public demands directly to those in power.  Further, authorities have a duty to facilitate these assemblies at the designated location. In this instance, the police not only failed to facilitate the event but also made the space unavailable for organisers and participants due to a heavy police presence. As a result of the obstruction, MPs and/or their representatives had to leave the Parliament compound to receive the memoranda directly.  Even where restrictions are in place, they must be weighed against Malaysia’s constitutional guarantees and internationally recognised principles of necessity and proportionality. Blanket prohibitions on presence in Parliament fall short of these standards and send the wrong message—that public input must remain at the margins rather than at the heart of decision-making.  The sheer scale and posture of the police presence, including the deployment of the LSF—reflected a presumption that protest is inherently disruptive rather than democratic. This is especially troubling given the absence of any threat to public order. The intimidating display of force can chill civic engagement and erode confidence in the police as facilitators of the constitutional right of Malaysians to peacefully assemble, frustrating those who seek to peacefully protest. Notably as well, negotiations were ongoing between organisers and the police just behind the barricade when a female protester—part of the negotiation team—was pushed by a female officer, reportedly following vague instructions from a male commanding officer. Sekretariat Himpun unequivocally affirms and defends the right to peacefully assemble to demand justice and reform. No one should face any form of intimidation or obstruction for exercising their constitutional rights. We call for:  The immediate reinstatement of meaningful public access to Parliament, including clear, reasonable protocols for assemblies to approach Parliament for memorandum handovers in line with international human rights standards; Commitment by the Home Ministry to ensure that upcoming amendments to the Peaceful Assembly Act include a comprehensive review of all sections that impose restrictions on assemblies in line with international human rights standards;  Improved police training that focuses on managing peaceful assemblies in a facilitative, rights-based approach, and emphasises restraint in the deployment and use of force.  Endorsed by: 1. Mandiri 2. Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) 3. Bersih 4. Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ) 5. Federasi Pemuda Kebangsaan 6. Liga Mahasiswa Malaysia 7. Mahasiswa Demokratik Malaysia 8. Gerakan Perempuan Melawan 9. Justice For Sisters 10. Amnesty International Malaysia 11. Center To Combat Corruption & Cronyism (C4 Center) 12. Pro-Siswa Kolej Komuniti Malaysia Photo by: Mandiri --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Suara Rakyat Wajib Didengari: Polis Harus Memudahkan, Bukan Menghalang, Akses Ke Parlimen Sekretariat Himpun bersama organisasi yang menandatangani kenyataan ini mengecam sekeras-kerasnya tindakan pihak polis yang menghalang peserta protes aman di luar Parlimen hari ini semasa penyerahan memorandum berkaitan pindaan Akta Perhimpunan Aman dan pemansuhan Akta Hasutan. Hak berhimpun secara aman dijamin di bawah Perkara 10 Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Tindakan menghalang dan tindak balas polis yang tidak seimbang—lebih-lebih lagi apabila peserta protes membawa tuntutan reformasi undang-undang berteraskan hak asasi manusia kepada Ahli Parlimen—telah mencabul kebebasan demokratik dan menghakis kepercayaan awam terhadap institusi negara. Pada pagi ini, peserta protes telah dihalang oleh kehadiran lebih 60 anggota polis, termasuk Pasukan Light Strike Force (LSF). Satu barisan manusia (human chain) dibentuk kurang 100 meter dari pintu pagar Parlimen, menghalang peserta daripada mara lebih jauh. Walaupun perhimpunan berlangsung secara aman dan tujuan peserta jelas untuk menyerahkan memorandum, pihak polis tetap enggan memberi laluan. Tiada penjelasan munasabah diberikan selain dakwaan bahawa Parlimen ialah “kawasan larangan”. Sebelum pandemik COVID-19, perhimpunan aman dibenarkan melepasi pintu pagar Parlimen untuk penyerahan memorandum. Namun sejak itu, akses telah dihadkan secara sewenang-wenangnya, dan peserta protes kini hanya dibenarkan berkumpul di jalan awam di luar kawasan Parlimen, sekali gus menjejaskan fungsi demokratik perhimpunan awam. Seperti ditegaskan oleh Pelapor Khas PBB mengenai Kebebasan Berhimpun, hak untuk memprotes merangkumi hak untuk berada “dalam jarak penglihatan dan pendengaran” kepada audiens yang disasarkan. Inilah fungsi demokratik utama protes—menyampaikan tuntutan rakyat terus kepada pemegang kuasa. Pihak berkuasa mempunyai tanggungjawab untuk memudahkan perhimpunan di lokasi yang relevan. Namun dalam kes ini, bukan sahaja polis gagal memudahkan, malah kehadiran mereka yang berlebihan telah menghalang ruang buat penganjur dan peserta. Akibat halangan ini, Ahli Parlimen dan/atau wakil mereka terpaksa keluar dari kawasan Parlimen untuk menerima memorandum secara langsung. Sekalipun ada sekatan, ia mesti seimbang dengan jaminan Perlembagaan Malaysia serta prinsip keperluan dan keseksamaan yang diiktiraf di peringkat antarabangsa. Larangan menyeluruh ke atas kehadiran di Parlimen bukan sahaja gagal memenuhi piawaian ini, malah menghantar mesej yang salah—bahawa suara rakyat hanya layak di pinggiran dan tidak di pusat pembuatan dasar. Skala dan sikap kehadiran polis, termasuk penugasan LSF, jelas berpunca daripada andaian bahawa protes adalah ancaman, bukannya proses demokratik. Ini sangat membimbangkan kerana tiada sebarang ancaman terhadap ketenteraman awam wujud. Tindakan mempamerkan kekuatan sedemikian berupaya menakut-nakutkan masyarakat, sekaligus menghakis keyakinan rakyat terhadap peranan polis sebagai pemudah hak perlembagaan untuk berhimpun secara aman, dan mengecewakan mereka yang ingin bersuara secara beradab. Lebih membimbangkan, ketika rundingan masih berlangsung antara penganjur dan polis di sebalik halangan, seorang peserta wanita—ahli pasukan rundingan—telah ditolak oleh anggota polis wanita, dipercayai atas arahan samar seorang pegawai lelaki. Sekretariat Himpun menegaskan dan mempertahankan hak berhimpun secara aman untuk menuntut keadilan dan reformasi. Tiada sesiapa wajar diugut atau dihalang hanya kerana melaksanakan hak perlembagaan mereka. Kami menuntut: Pemulihan segera akses rakyat ke Parlimen, termasuk protokol jelas dan munasabah bagi membolehkan penyerahan memorandum kepada Parlimen oleh peserta perhimpunan, selaras standard hak asasi manusia antarabangsa; Komitmen Kementerian Dalam Negeri agar sebarang pindaan Akta Perhimpunan Aman akan melalui semakan menyeluruh ke atas mana-mana seksyen yang menghadkan hak berhimpun supaya selaras dengan piawaian hak asasi manusia antarabangsa; Penambahbaikan latihan polis agar tumpuan diberi kepada pengurusan perhimpunan secara fasilitatif dan berasaskan hak asasi manusia, serta penekanan terhadap kawalan diri dalam penggunaan kuasa. Disokong oleh: 1. Mandiri 2. Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) 3. Bersih 4. Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ) 5. Federasi Pemuda Kebangsaan 6. Liga Mahasiswa Malaysia 7. Mahasiswa Demokratik Malaysia 8. Gerakan Perempuan Melawan 9. Justice For Sisters 10. Amnesty International Malaysia 11. Center To Combat Corruption & Cronyism (C4 Center) 12. Pro-Siswa Kolej Komuniti Malaysia

*The Malay translation of this statement is available below, following the English version. Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution’s remarks on 16 July that the Federal Court decision to strike down Section 9(5) of the Peaceful Assembly Act (PAA) weakens police capacity to manage assemblies are concerning. The constitutional right to assemble cannot - and should not - be made contingent on police convenience. Saifuddin’s claim that police must now “mobilise all available police resources just to prepare for unknown scenarios” for assemblies misconstrues the Court’s decision and overstates the operational impact. Spontaneous or urgent assemblies are part and parcel of democratic life. Police forces are expected to plan adaptively, respond proportionately, and rely on discretion and intelligence—not blanket deployments. The absence of criminal penalties for non-notification does not eliminate the possibility of prior notice altogether. Suggesting otherwise implies a false choice between facilitation and chaos, and undermines public confidence in the police’s ability to facilitate assemblies efficiently while upholding constitutional freedoms. The track record of Section 9(5) further undermines its necessity. Between 2020 and 2024, only four were charged under Section 9(5) out of 636 investigated—highlighting its limited prosecutorial value and waste of enforcement resources. Section 9(1) has also been repeatedly invoked to investigate organisers even when notice is properly given—particularly for assemblies addressing corruption or human rights violations. This pattern of selective enforcement fosters a climate of fear that deters legitimate expression and diverts police efforts away from their core duty to facilitate - not restrict - peaceful assemblies. Saifuddin’s statement that organisers are still required to obtain permission from venue owners contradicts Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s announcement in February 2025 that a moratorium on Section 11 investigations was in effect — a discrepancy SUARAM had already flagged in our 2 July statement. The government must urgently clarify its position on the enforcement of Section 11, as continued ambiguity risks misleading organisers and deterring legitimate assemblies. We urge the government to engage civil society in transparent consultations—not only on the content of the upcoming PAA amendments, but also on improving police facilitation practices in line with constitutional obligations and operational realities. This is an opportunity to build institutional capacity for enabling peaceful expression, while reducing reliance on punitive measures. In solidarity, Azura Nasron Executive Director of SUARAM Film Screening and Discussion at Dataran Merdeka on 12th July 2025. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PENGURUSAN HIMPUNAN YANG BERKESAN TIDAK MEMERLUKAN SEKSYEN 9(5) Kenyataan Menteri Dalam Negeri, Saifuddin Nasution pada 16 Julai bahawa keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan untuk membatalkan Seksyen 9(5) Akta Perhimpunan Aman (APA) melemahkan keupayaan polis untuk menguruskan perhimpunan adalah membimbangkan. Hak perlembagaan untuk berhimpun tidak boleh — dan tidak sepatutnya — bergantung kepada kesenangan pihak polis. Dakwaan Saifuddin bahawa pihak polis kini perlu “menggerakkan semua sumber polis yang ada semata-mata untuk bersedia menghadapi senario yang tidak diketahui” mencerminkan salah faham terhadap keputusan Mahkamah dan melebih-lebihkan kesannya dari segi operasi. Perhimpunan yang spontan atau mendesak merupakan sebahagian daripada kehidupan demokrasi. Pasukan polis seharusnya bersedia merancang secara adaptif, bertindak secara berkadar dan bergantung kepada budi bicara serta risikan — bukan dengan pengerahan besar-besaran secara melulu. Ketiadaan hukuman jenayah atas kegagalan memberikan notis tidak bermakna notis awal tidak akan diberikan langsung. Malah, ini sebaliknya memberi gambaran palsu seolah-olah satu-satunya pilihan adalah antara fasilitasi dan kekacauan, serta menjejaskan keyakinan awam terhadap kemampuan polis untuk memudahkan perhimpunan secara cekap sambil mempertahankan kebebasan yang dijamin oleh Perlembagaan. Rekod pelaksanaan Seksyen 9(5) juga menimbulkan persoalan terhadap keperluannya. Sejak dari tahun 2020 hingga 2024, hanya empat individu didakwa di bawah Seksyen 9(5) daripada 636 kes yang disiasat — menunjukkan nilai pendakwaannya rendah dan pembaziran sumber penguatkuasaan. Seksyen 9(1) juga sering digunakan untuk menyiasat penganjur meskipun notis telah diberikan dengan sewajarnya — terutama bagi perhimpunan yang membangkitkan isu rasuah atau pelanggaran hak asasi manusia. Corak penguatkuasaan secara terpilih ini mewujudkan rasa takut yang menghalang ekspresi sah dan mengalih fokus tugas polis daripada peranan utama mereka iaitu untuk memudah cara — bukan menyekat sesuatu perhimpunan aman. Kenyataan Saifuddin bahawa penganjur masih perlu mendapatkan kebenaran daripada pemilik premis juga bercanggah dengan pengumuman Perdana Menteri Anwar Ibrahim pada Februari 2025 mengenai pelaksanaan moratorium terhadap siasatan di bawah Seksyen 11 — satu percanggahan yang telahpun dibangkitkan SUARAM dalam kenyataan bertarikh 2 Julai. Kerajaan mesti segera menjelaskan pendiriannya berhubung penguatkuasaan Seksyen 11 memandangkan kekeliruan yang berterusan hanya akan mengelirukan penganjur dan menghalang perhimpunan yang sah. Kami menggesa kerajaan untuk melibatkan masyarakat sivil dalam perundingan yang telus — bukan sahaja mengenai kandungan pindaan APA yang akan datang, tetapi juga dalam usaha memperbaiki amalan pemudahan polis selaras dengan tanggungjawab perlembagaan dan realiti operasi. Ini adalah peluang untuk memperkukuh keupayaan institusi dalam menyuburkan ekspresi secara aman, sambil mengurangkan kebergantungan terhadap langkah-langkah berbentuk hukuman. Dalam solidariti, Azura Nasron Pengarah Eksekutif SUARAM

*The Malay translation of this statement is available below, following the English version. Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) is deeply concerned by Kuala Lumpur City Hall’s (DBKL) statement that all public activities at Dataran Merdeka require a “permit” from the mayor and “approval” from the police—citing by-law 8 of the 1992 Dataran Merdeka By-Laws and Section 63 of the Local Government Act 1976 (LGA). These claims raise serious legal and constitutional concerns, particularly in light of the moratorium on Section 11 of the Peaceful Assembly Act (PAA) and the guaranteed right to peaceful assembly under Article 10 of the Federal Constitution. DBKL’s authority to manage Dataran Merdeka—derived from Section 63 of the LGA and exercised through by-laws—is not absolute and must be exercised within the limits of higher laws. Under Article 75 of the Federal Constitution, any state or local law that conflicts with federal legislation is void to the extent of the inconsistency. The PAA, as federal law, governs public assemblies and only requires organisers to notify the police, not to obtain “prior approval”. Any DBKL regulation requiring “prior approval” must therefore be interpreted in harmony with the PAA: while DBKL may impose reasonable conditions as caretaker of the space, it cannot prohibit an assembly solely because it lacks a “permit”. With the Prime Minister’s announcement of a moratorium on Section 11 of the PAA in February 2025—which suspended the requirement for consent from the “owner or occupier of the place of assembly”— DBKL has no legal basis to reintroduce such a requirement through by-laws or the Local Government Act. Attempts to do so risk undermining the primacy of federal law and violating the constitutional right to peaceful assembly. Furthermore, framing civic activities through the language of ‘approval’ reflects a regressive approach that contradicts the post-2012 shift towards facilitation under the PAA. This narrative risks normalising bureaucratic barriers that restrict the exercise of the constitutional right to peaceful assembly in practice and civic participation in general. Local authorities must act as facilitators of civic engagement, not gatekeepers against it. SUARAM urges DBKL and all local councils to bring their by-laws and enforcement practices in line with the moratorium on Section 11 and the facilitative framework of the PAA. We also call on the federal government to initiate a comprehensive review of federal and local laws that contradict the spirit and letter of the Peaceful Assembly Act—including Sections 141 to 143 and 145 of the Penal Code, as well as overlapping restrictions under the Protected Areas and Protected Places Act (PAPPA). Amendments to both the PAA and PAPPA should be especially considered to ensure that the right to organise and participate in a peaceful assembly is not denied for assemblies held near government buildings and ministries. In solidarity, Sevan Doraisamy ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUARAM: DBKL PERLU SELARASKAN UNDANG-UNDANG KECIL (UUK) DENGAN AKTA PERHIMPUNAN AMAN (APA) DAN MORATORIUM SEKSYEN 11 Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) mengambil berat kenyataan oleh Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) bahawa aktiviti-aktiviti di Dataran Merdeka memerlukan ‘permit’ daripada Datuk Bandar dan kebenaran pihak polis seperti yang dinyatakan dalam UUK Kerajaan Tempatan (Dataran Merdeka) (WPKL) 1992 dan Akta Kerajaan Tempatan 1976. Tuntutan ini membangkitkan kebimbangan serius dari sudut perundangan dan perlembagaan, terutamanya moratorium pada seksyen 11 Akta Perhimpunan Aman dan hak untuk berhimpun yang termaktub di bawah Perkara 10 Perlembagaan Persekutuan.  Bidang kuasa DBKL untuk mengendalikan Dataran Merdeka seperti yang ditetapkan dalam seksyen 63 AKT dan pelaksanaan melalui UUK bukanlah mutlak dan perlu dilaksana berdasarkan had undang-undang tertinggi. Di bawah Perkara 75 Perlembagaan Persekutuan, mana-mana undang-undang negeri dan tempatan yang bercanggah dengan perundangan persekutuan adalah tidak sah malahan tidak konsisten. APA sebagai undang-undang persekutuan, mentadbir perhimpunan aman dan hanya memerlukan pengajur untuk memaklumkan pihak polis, bukan untuk mendapatkan ‘pengesahan awal’. Sebarang peraturan DBKL memerlukan ‘pengesahan awal’ perlu ditafsirkan secara harmoni dengan APA sementara itu DBKL boleh mengenakan syarat munasabah sebagai penjaga ruang berkenaan dan ia tidak boleh melarang perhimpunan semata-mata hanya kerana tidak mempunyai ‘permit’. Pada Februari 2025 lalu, Perdana Menteri mengumumkan moratorium kepada seksyen 11 APA - penggantungan keperluan untuk mendapatkan kebenaran daripada ‘pemilik premis bagi kawasan perhimpunan’ - DBKL tidak mempunyai asas undang-undang untuk memperkenalkan semula syarat melalui undang-undang kecil atau Akta Kerajaan Tempatan. Percubaan untuk berbuat demikian berisiko menjejaskan keutamaan undang-undang persekutuan dan melanggar hak perlembagaan untuk berhimpun secara aman. Selain itu, merangka aktiviti-aktiviti sivik dengan bahasa seperti ‘kebenaran’ mencerminkan pendekatan regresif yang bercanggah dengan perubahan pasca 2012 ke arah fasilitasi di bawah APA. Naratif sebegini berisiko menormalisasikan halangan birokratik yang menghalang pelaksanaan hak untuk berhimpun seperti yang wujud dalam perlembagaan sama ada dalam bentuk amalan dan penglibatan sivik secara am. Pihak berkuasa tempatan perlu bertindak sebagai fasilitator untuk penglibatan sivik dan bukan penghalang.  SUARAM mendesak DBKL dan semua majlis perbandaran untuk melihat undang-undang kecil dan amalan penguatkuasaan selari dengan moratorium di bawah seksyen 11 dan membentuk rangka kerja berkaitan dengan fasilitasi berdasarkan APA. Kami juga menyeru kerajaan persekutuan untuk memulakan semakan komprehensif bagi undang-undang persekutuan dan tempatan yang bercanggah dengan semangat serta peruntukan dalam APA—termasuk Seksyen 141 hingga 143 dan 145 Kanun Keseksaan, serta sekatan bertindih di bawah Akta Kawasan Larangan dan Tempat Larangan 1959 (PAPPA). Pindaan APA dan PAPPA ini. Pindaan kepada kedua-dua PAA dan PAPPA perlu dipertimbangkan terutamanya untuk memastikan hak untuk menganjurkan dan mengambil bahagian dalam perhimpunan aman tidak dinafikan untuk perhimpunan yang diadakan berhampiran bangunan kerajaan dan kementerian. Dalam solidariti, Sevan Doraisamy

Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) welcomes Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution’s prompt acknowledgement of the Federal Court’s landmark ruling that Section 9(5) of the Peaceful Assembly Act (PAA) is unconstitutional, and his Ministry’s commitment to consider corresponding legislative amendments in line with the court’s decision. We further note the government’s reaffirmed commitment to amend Section 11 of the PAA during the upcoming parliamentary sitting. These are encouraging steps toward building a culture of facilitation—by addressing the longstanding overreliance on procedural controls that have enabled intimidation, selective enforcement, and the suppression of peaceful dissent. While the move to amend Section 11 of the PAA is necessary, it must not distract from the urgent need to repeal Section 9(5) in full. Sections 9(5) and 11 have long operated in tandem to entrench an authorisation-centric culture, where peaceful assemblies are treated as privileges subject to approval rather than inalienable constitutional rights. Amending one without repealing the other leaves the underlying legal framework fundamentally flawed and impairs the development of a culture grounded in the presumption that peaceful assemblies are lawful. Under international norms, restrictions on peaceful assembly must be the exception—not the rule—and must meet strict tests of necessity and proportionality. The continued existence of Section 9(5) undermines this principle and obstructs the full realisation of the right to assemble under Article 10(1)(b) of the Federal Constitution. While the Home Minister highlighted that 98–99% of assemblies in 2023 and 2024 proceeded without restrictions, this statistical framing risks obscuring persistent structural barriers. Assemblies critical of government-linked corruption or human rights violations remain more vulnerable to surveillance, investigation, and administrative obstruction. These figures do not reflect the chilling effect of selective enforcement, nor do they counteract the entrenched perception—enabled by laws like Section 9(5)—that peaceful assembly is conditional on state approval. We also urge the government to formally clarify the status of the moratorium. While the Home Minister referenced a moratorium on Section 9(5) prosecutions, it remains unclear whether this is a new policy shift or a misstatement of the existing Cabinet decision, which previously focused only on Section 11. A moratorium on Section 9(5) must be explicitly announced and enforced—covering all ongoing investigations and prosecutions—until formal legislative repeal is completed. The government must not miss this critical opportunity to deliver the ‘comprehensive reform of laws related to the right to assemble’ that it has pledged to implement. To this end, we call on the government to: Ensure that the moratorium on Section 9(5) is immediately implemented, and not confined to Section 11; Include full repeal of Section 9(5) among the amendments to the PAA tabled in the upcoming parliamentary sitting, aside from the deletion of Section 11; Swiftly consult with civil society before the next parliamentary sitting on the proposed PAA amendments to ensure that they reflect lived realities and international human rights standards Review and amend other provisions of the PAA that are incompatible with international standards —including Section 4(d), which unjustifiably prohibits individuals below 21 years old from organising assemblies. In solidarity, Azura Nasron Executive Director of SUARAM

Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) welcomes the Federal Court’s landmark decision today striking down Section 9(5) of the Peaceful Assembly Act (PAA) as unconstitutional. This ruling restores constitutional balance and affirms the right of all Malaysians to assemble peacefully without fear of criminal sanction. For 13 years since the PAA was first enforced, Section 9(5) has contributed to entrenching not only an approval-centric approach by authorities to assemblies, but also an ‘unlawful’ narrative against assemblies that fail to fulfil the 5-day notice requirement. Section 9(5) has also been consistently used as a tool of intimidation against assembly organisers, especially human rights defenders – most recently seen in the charge against Fadhil Kasim for coordinating the Gempur Rasuah Sabah protest in December 2024 that was later dropped. Section 9(5) thus stands in stark contradiction to the very purpose of the PAA – which is to decriminalise peaceful assemblies and affirm the constitutional right to assemble. The judgement thus rightfully affirms what civil society has advocated for all along – that the right to peaceful assembly is a right and not a privilege granted at the discretion of authorities, and that prior notification should serve to facilitate and not restrict the exercise of this right under Article 10(1)(b) of the Federal Constitution. Crucially, it also reiterates the state’s positive duty to facilitate and create enabling environmental conditions for assemblies, including those that are urgent and spontaneous. In doing so, the ruling brings long-overdue clarity to the legal limits of state power over assemblies and rejects the misuse of notice requirements as a proxy to criminalise dissent. Beyond its immediate legal implications, this ruling also presents the government with a renewed opportunity to better uphold its democratic mandate by ensuring that the right to peaceful assembly is fully protected – both in law and in practice – as a foundation of participatory governance and the rule of law. To this end, we call on the government to honour this landmark decision by immediately imposing a moratorium on the use of Section 9(5) and ensuring its full repeal in the upcoming PAA amendments slated for October this year. We also urge the Royal Malaysia Police to incorporate clear, rights-based guidelines on facilitating peaceful assemblies into its human rights training module developed jointly with the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) – in line with the recommendation from Kazakhstan that Malaysia fully accepted during the fourth Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process.   In solidarity, Azura Nasron (Executive Director at SUARAM) Amir Hadi (in black and white shirt) stands with members of civil society organizations and lawyers at the Palace of Justice following the judgement, capturing a moment of solidarity and advocacy.

Sempena Hari Antarabangsa Menyokong Mangsa-Mangsa Penyeksaan dibawah Pertubuhan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu (PBB) pada 26 Jun, SUARAM melancarkan satu petisyen dalam talian bertajuk “Tunjuk Rakaman Di Parlimen! Gubal RUU Pencegahan Penyeksaan Sekarang!”  bagi mendesak reformasi institusi dan perundangan yang mendesak di Malaysia. Walaupun bertahun-tahun isu penyeksaan dalam tahanan telah dilaporkan dan didokumentasikan, Malaysia masih belum mempunyai undang-undang khusus untuk mencegah penyeksaan.  Kes terbaru yang mengejutkan berlaku pada 17 Januari 2025 di Penjara Taiping  - lebih 60 pegawai penjara ‘bertopeng dan bersenjata’ menyerbu Dewan (tempat tahanan ditempatkan sebelum ke blok tahanan) mengarahkan semua tahanan untuk tunduk dan tangan dibelakang kepala. Mereka mengalami penderaan yang terlalu ekstrem sehingga mengakibatkan kecederaan fikizal berikutan dipukul dengan cota, rotan dan kayu, malahan ada yang ditendang, diseret dan digari. Tidak cukup dengan itu, bahagian anggota badan yang luka akibat dipukul telah dikenakan semburan lada. Salah seorang tahanan bernama Gan, berusia 60-an telah meninggal dunia selepas dipercayai dipukul dan tidak menerima rawatan segera. Pengalaman gelap Operasi Lalang, penyeksaan mangsa-mangsa tahanan ISA dan banyak lagi kes-kes kematian dalam tahanan sepatutnya memberi pengajaran besar dan kerajaan perlu lebih komited menunjukkan komitmen menegakkan hak-hak orang yang ditahan. Paling mengecewakan, Malaysia masih enggan meratifikasi Konvensyen Menentang Penyeksaan dan Layanan atau Hukuman Lain yang Zalim, Tidak Berperikemanusiaan atau Menjatuhkan Maruah (UNCAT) . Menteri Dalam Negeri, Saifuddin Nasution, mempertahankan keputusan ini dengan alasan bahawa sistem perundangan Malaysia membenarkan hukuman rotan di bawah undang-undang sivil dan Syariah. Beliau menyatakan bahawa ratifikasi akan memerlukan pindaan undang-undang yang besar. Namun alasan ini mengelak daripada isu utama — penyeksaan dalam tahanan semakin parah dan dibiarkan berlarutan tanpa penyelesaian.  Merujuk kepada data terkini oleh Global Torture Index , Malaysia berada di tahap berisiko tinggi - dengan mempertahankan amalan seperti rotan, kerajaan berisiko menghalalkan bentuk penyeksaan dan layanan tidak berperikemanusiaan yang lebih meluas dalam sistem tahanan. Kes Penjara Taiping bukan kes terpencil.  Ia melambangkan krisis sistemik dalam institusi penguatkuasaan undang-undang yang dibelenggu budaya impuniti. Pelaku masih bertugas tanpa tindakan susulan, sementara mangsa-mangsa dan ahli keluarga terus dinafikan keadilan. Menerusi petisyen ini, SUARAM mengemukakan tuntutan berikut: SUHAKAM membentangkan rakaman CCTV dan dokumen siasatan awam  berkaitan insiden di Penjara Taiping kepada rakyat dan ahli Parlimen; Kerajaan Malaysia menggubal dan membentangkan Rang Undang-Undang Pencegahan Penyeksaan (RUUPP)  di Parlimen sebagai langkah awal reformasi menyeluruh; Mengambil tindakan serta-merta terhadap pegawai  yang terlibat dalam kes penyeksaan di Penjara Taiping; Membuka semula siasatan ke atas kes-kes penyeksaan terdahulu  dan memberikan keadilan kepada semua mangsa. Penyeksaan bukan sahaja melanggar maruah manusia, malah bertentangan dengan Perlembagaan Persekutuan  dan prinsip hak asasi antarabangsa. Setiap individu berhak untuk selamat semasa dalam tahanan. Tanpa undang-undang khusus, mangsa terus menderita, dan pelaku terus terlepas. Kami menyeru orang awam untuk menandatangani petisyen ini dan mendesak kerajaan Malaysia agar mengambil tindakan tegas dan bermakna. Keadilan tidak boleh ditangguhkan lagi. 🖊️ Tandatangani petisyen dan kongsikan bersama : https://www.change.org/DesakSUHAKAM_GubalRUUPP   📷 Bacaan penuh infographik kejadian di Penjara Taiping: 🔗 https:// www.instagram.com/p/DLWrLtwRZOV/?igsh=MmNoYnNhMjNoc281 Untuk pertanyaan, sila hubungi: Jernell Tan, Penyelaras Dokumentasi dan Pemantauan SUARAM documentation@suaram.net #SelamatDalamTahanan #HariMenyokongMangsaPenyeksaan #RUUPP