Search Results

The passing of the CMA amendments and Online Safety Act marks a dark chapter for freedom of expression and democratic accountability in Malaysia, underscoring the urgent need for systemic reform. Of the 184 MPs present during the CMA amendments vote, only 100 participated. Similarly, the Online Safety Bill vote saw 132 MPs participate, reflecting marginal improvement. This absenteeism undermines parliamentary credibility, leaving critical decisions on regressive laws to a fraction of elected representatives. All MPs voting in favour of the CMA amendments came from the ruling coalition, including 62.7% from Pakatan Harapan that pledged to amend draconian laws including the CMA. Our policymakers also failed to fully utilise parliamentary mechanisms during the CMA amendments debate. While MPs from both sides of the political divide suggested referring the Bill to a Parliamentary Special Select Committee (PSSC), no motion was filed under Standing Order 54 to initiate the process. This was also seen in the MCMC (Amendment) Bill 2024, yet the Communications Minister deferred it to two PSSCs—underscoring the arbitrary and inconsistent use of the PSSC referral process. This selective approach undermines equitable legislative scrutiny and raises concerns about the impartiality of decision-making in Parliament. The MPs’ failure to refer the CMA amendments to a PSSC reflects a missed opportunity to leverage this accountability mechanism to review and repair legislations, especially those that expand state power at the expense of fundamental liberties. Such inconsistencies raise serious doubts about policymakers’ commitment to ensuring consistent and effective scrutiny of Bills and protecting constitutional rights and freedoms. The tabling of both Bills exposed the longstanding issue of unstandardised timeframes between first and second readings. For the CMA amendments, MPs were given just one week to examine the Bill, and for the Online Safety Bill, only a day—both insufficient periods for meaningful deliberation. These rushed processes undermine the quality of policy debates and reinforce executive dominance over legislative procedures. SUARAM reiterates calls by civil society to refer the CMA amendments and Online Safety Act to a Select Committee of the Dewan Negara for further review and consultation. Urgent action is needed to repeal Sections 211 and 233 of the CMA, address MCMC overreach, and ensure the law aligns with Article 10 of the Federal Constitution and international freedom of expression standards. Restoration of legislative integrity requires concerted efforts by both MPs and Parliament. This includes establishing a mandatory two-week period between first and second readings of Bills to allow MPs sufficient time for substantive debates. SUARAM also urges MPs to critically reflect on their roles as legislators and fulfil their responsibility to leverage parliamentary mechanisms, including PSSCs, effectively—ensuring public interest and fundamental freedoms are prioritized over partisan loyalty.

Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) expresses deep concern over the police custodial death of Callum Luxton during the documentation process at KLIA Terminal 1. This incident highlights persistent shortcomings in ensuring transparency and accountability in investigating police custodial deaths. Callum’s sudden collapse during the documentation process raises serious questions about the circumstances leading to his death. Crucially, neither the police nor Callum’s family have disclosed any pre-existing health conditions that might explain his collapse, suggesting the possibility of unwarranted injuries sustained during custody. The police claimed that Callum resisted arrest, yet there has been no explanation as to whether the use of force applied during his detention was proportionate or justified, nor has there been any mention of injuries, particularly head trauma, that he may have sustained. These troubling gaps in information demand urgent clarification. Furthermore, the police stated that only "first aid" was administered when Callum lost consciousness, raising concerns about the adequacy and timeliness of medical attention provided, particularly if head injuries were involved.   Despite these glaring uncertainties, the case has been prematurely classified as a "sudden death" without conclusive evidence. The post-mortem findings, which remain undetermined, further emphasize the lack of basis for this classification. Callum’s case reflects a troubling pattern seen in other custodial deaths, such as the case of Mohd Hafiz Salleh, where the police prematurely classified his death as "sudden death" despite post-mortem findings revealing blunt force trauma to the head. It was only after the family’s intervention through the media that the case was reclassified as murder. Such patterns highlight systemic failures in how custodial deaths are handled, demanding immediate reform to prevent further miscarriages of justice.   The two-day delay between Callum’s death on November 23 and its public disclosure on November 25 raises significant concerns about transparency. Compounding this, more than a week after the initial announcement, there have been no meaningful updates on the progress of investigations, with the family receiving no clear information about the circumstances of Callum’s death or investigative findings. This lack of communication mirrors the recent case of Norazman Me, where the family received no substantive updates even after repeated follow-ups with the police, who merely claimed the matter was being handled by Bukit Aman. It was only after the family went to the media in September that the police issued a public statement, claiming they had "nothing to hide" and that investigations were ongoing. Delayed and inadequate communication reflects deeper systemic issues in how custodial deaths are addressed, further compounding public mistrust.   Investigations into custodial deaths, led by the Integrity and Standards Compliance Department (JIPS) and the Deaths in Custody Investigation Unit (USJKT), raise fundamental concerns about the lack of independence in investigations. Both bodies are internal to the police institution, creating inherent conflicts of interest that undermine public trust. Critically, USJKT’s practice of issuing prompt press statements upon custodial deaths ceased in September 2022, further eroding transparency. While the IPCC has been tasked with investigating severe misconduct, its authority is narrowly defined. From 1 July 2023 to 30 September 2024, the IPCC received 466 complaints, but only seven were classified under Section 25(c) of the IPCC Act, which permits full investigations. This is further substantiated by the Home Minister’s clarification during today’s official launch of the Independent Police Conduct Commission (IPCC), Police, Friends and Collaborators programme that complaints falling under existing police regulations are redirected to the police for handling, while the IPCC intervenes only in cases that explicitly require its investigative functions. This practice calls into question the concept of police integrity, as referring complaints of misconduct back to the accused institution undermines public trust in the system’s ability to ensure accountability. Additionally, in cases involving severe injuries, sexual violence, or deaths in custody, the IPCC’s role is restricted to "establishing procedures to monitor investigative processes," further emphasizing systemic gaps in ensuring independent investigations. These overlapping roles between JIPS, USJKT, and the IPCC undermine public trust and accountability, raising significant questions about the IPCC’s utility as an independent oversight body. For meaningful reform, the IPCC’s mandate must be expanded to enable independent investigations into severe misconduct, injuries, and deaths in custody.   SUARAM urges that a second, independent post-mortem be immediately conducted to address the undetermined cause of death and clearly establish the cause and manner of Callum's death. Investigations into Callum’s death must be independent, swift, and transparent, with findings disclosed to both the family and the public. A thorough and independent inquest must also be expedited without delay, in line with Section 334 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which mandates inquests for police custodial deaths. To address the systemic lack of accountability and ensure truly independent investigations, the IPCC’s mandate must be revisited and strengthened to allow for direct investigation of all cases involving severe injuries or deaths in custody.

In 2024, Malaysia's human rights landscape reflected a government grappling with the balance between reformist aspirations and entrenched systemic challenges. While the unity government continued to highlight human rights as integral to the Malaysia Madani concept and Malaysia’s international commitments, the persistence of laws and practices curtailing freedoms revealed a disconnect between rhetoric and reality. In 2024, use of security laws continued to reflect challenges in safeguarding fundamental rights while addressing security and crime concerns. SUARAM documented marked trends in arrests under the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act (SOSMA) in 2024. This includes a resurgence in terrorism-related detentions and an almost ten-fold increase in organised crime-related detentions. Following the precedent set in 2023 with the detention of drug syndicate members, SOSMA’s use has expanded into organised commercial crime via the Heist Syndicate case this year. The surge in terrorism-related arrests following the Ulu Tiram police station attack revealed a reactionary response, underpinned by weak evidentiary thresholds such as expressing support for terrorist groups on social media. This raises further questions about the government’s proclaimed terrorism monitoring and rehabilitation capabilities. Despite multi-stakeholder engagements last year, amendments to SOSMA passed in 2024 failed to address key violations of the right to a fair trial, such as the lack of access to bail. This perpetuates the procedural law’s systemic misuse. In November, Deputy Home Minister Shamsul Anuar announced the introduction of POCA amendments in the next parliamentary sitting. However, the scope and details of these amendments remain unclear, raising concerns about whether structural issues such as judicial oversight of preventive detention will be addressed. SUARAM also notes 416 arrests under the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act (DD(SPM)A) so far this year, with Johor and Sabah seeing potential upward trends in DD(SPM)A arrests. Systemic gaps in Malaysia's law enforcement and justice system persist in 2024. SUARAM documented 170 police misconduct cases involving over 190 specific instances of misconduct such as corruption, extortion as well as physical and sexual violence. Half of the cases saw no action beyond the investigation stage, underscoring a systemic lack of accountability. Notably, chain remand practices escalated, with all 92 individuals rearrested under SOSMA mostly for organised crime. The number of police shooting incidents more than doubled this year, with more than triple the fatalities. Transparency on custodial deaths remains critically inadequate, with media-reported cases plummeting from 14 last year to five this year. This opacity, coupled with systemic delays in inquests and inadequate healthcare in detention facilities, continues to deny justice to detainees and their families. The government's establishment of a special task force on custodial deaths signals political will, but without addressing entrenched structural barriers, meaningful reform remains distant. The Sedition Act (SA), Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act (CMA), and the Printing Presses and Publications Act (PPPA) remained key tools for restricting freedom of expression in 2024, with their enforcement reflecting swifter prosecutions under the SA, sustained targeting of journalists and activists under SA and Section 233, and intensified use of the PPPA for targeted raids and arrests. Legislative progress on reforming these laws was marked by mixed signals—proposed amendments to the CMA and PPPA raised fears of expanded regulatory overreach, while the SA remained untouched, with the government framing its retention as essential for managing 3R issues. New measures, such as social media licensing, amplified concerns over online censorship, while film festivals faced heightened scrutiny and censorship from authorities. Restrictions to exercise freedom of assembly persist. Out of 68 assemblies that took place this year, close to 40% of them were investigated. This included both rallies that were critical of Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s leadership, reflecting selective enforcement against dissenting voices. The number of individuals investigated increased by more than 50%, and arrests by over 60% in 2024. Among those arrested, nine were remanded, including three minors for as long as eight days. Contrary to the government’s claims of respecting the right to assemble, systemic disregard for the constitutional right to assemble remains prevalent, through mischaracterisation of assemblies as needing approval from occupiers of public spaces and intimidation of protesters during rallies, among others. SUARAM also documented an instance of police manhandling of protesters during the Walk of Justice outside Parliament, marking the first since 2021, with no updates on investigations into the incident. Institutional oversight and governance reforms in 2024 saw a mix of progress and stalled efforts. The passing of the Audit Bill, which strengthens the Auditor-General’s independence, marks a significant step forward. However, the delayed tabling of the Ombudsman Bill and the reintroduction of the Parliamentary Services Act highlight the uneven pace of reforms. While the Auditor-General’s expanded mandate under the Public Accounts Committee now allows public interest inquiries, its effectiveness is curtailed by the government’s prerogative over defining “public interest.” Progress on the Government Procurement Bill remains stagnant, perpetuating opacity in awarding government contracts. The freedom of religion or belief landscape faced significant developments. Public discourse around religious sensitivities intensified, driven by blasphemy laws, boycotts, and far-right mobilisation, which polarised society and heightened social tensions. Meanwhile, the GISBH case exposed systemic abuse under religious pretexts, casting a spotlight on the need for stronger protections against exploitation within religious institutions. These trends reflect a growing divide between efforts to strengthen Islamic authority and the need to uphold civil liberties, highlighting the urgency for a balanced approach that respects Malaysia’s pluralistic society. Systemic issues persist for the Orang Asli community, particularly regarding land rights and encroachments. Despite legal precedents affirming their customary land rights, communities continue to face displacement, such as in the Nenggiri Dam project, and confront challenges like inadequate compensation and lack of free, prior, and informed consent. While amendments to the Aboriginal Peoples Act (APA) are underway, limited consultation with the Orang Asli raises concerns about the inclusivity and effectiveness of these reforms. Malaysia underwent its CEDAW review in May this year, spotlighting critical and longstanding gaps in the advancement of gender equality. Key concerns raised include the domestication of CEDAW principles within domestic laws and adequate access to redress for survivors of human trafficking. While recent constitutional amendments now enable Malaysian mothers to confer citizenship to children born abroad, their non-retroactive nature excludes the children of affected mothers from access to education, employment and healthcare. Within family rights, the continued legality of child marriage and systemic challenges faced by Muslim women in navigating the Syariah legal system, including unequal divorce and custody rights, underscore the pressing need for reform.

The response by Immigration Director-General Datuk Zakaria Shaaban to the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC) investigation findings on abuse at the Bidor Immigration Detention Centre seems to be taking on an all-too-familiar trajectory. In the case of the foreign worker agency director assaulted by an immigration officer in June 2024 where the victim also filed a police report on the assault, similar statements of “zero tolerance” for abuse of power and the need to first wait for the full report were made by his predecessor Datuk Ruslin Jusoh. Similar tactics were also seen in the death of Nigerian student Thomas Orhions Ewansiha in 2019. In both cases, no action was taken against officers involved in perpetration of violence and negligence. The Immigration Department’s reliance on procedural justifications continues to undermine any effort toward real accountability. Despite claims of adherence to international standards in detainee treatment and healthcare, as well as regulations in managing immigration depots, reports of violence, squalid detention conditions including limited healthcare access, and extortion have been consistently highlighted by local and international newspapers, NGOs—including Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) in our annual Malaysia Human Rights reports—and even the National Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM). These abuses are exacerbated by the chronic under-prioritisation of resources to improve detention conditions, deeply entrenched xenophobia, and where refugees and asylum seekers are concerned, state refusal to recognise the status of these vulnerable groups via accession to the 1951 Refugee Convention. Activists such as Heidy Quah and the late Irene Fernandez who spoke out against these abuses have faced judicial harassment and intimidation, exemplifying the lengths to which the system goes to silence criticism while perpetrators of abuse continue to act with impunity. A cycle of denial and inaction is at play here. Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution’s defensiveness in rejecting the findings of independent reports, such as those by Human Rights Watch on abuses in immigration detention centres, has only perpetuated this cycle, stifling much-needed reform. It is time for Saifuddin to own up to the reality of the torture, abuse, and inhumane conditions that detainees face in immigration detention, and commit to comprehensive reforms that break this damaging cycle of evasion and neglect. We urge the Home Minister to ensure that the Immigration Department immediately implements EAIC’s recommendations on disciplinary action against the officers involved in the Bidor abuses, with these efforts publicly disclosed for transparency and accountability. A Royal Commission of Inquiry—similar to the one established for police reform in 2005—should also be undertaken to thoroughly address systemic factors, both in legislation and in practice, that perpetuate abusive immigration detention conditions. Furthermore, Saifuddin must prioritise empowering the EAIC by granting it disciplinary powers to directly address institutional failure to take proportionate and effective corrective action against officers who committed misconduct.

The police’s commitment to justice in the GISBH case has been commendable, marked by significant progress in rescuing children, charging perpetrators, and identifying and/or seizing domestic and overseas assets—all within just a month, while adhering to due process under the Criminal Procedure Code. However, the invocation of the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 to rearrest 58 individuals undermines this commitment.  The police had already been investigating multiple leads early in the GISBH case, including human trafficking. By mid-September, investigations pointed to organised criminal activities, with detailed updates on the group’s modus operandi shared with the public. During this time, remand extensions were granted for the 58 individuals to facilitate ongoing investigations. There is, therefore, no legitimate need for the use of SOSMA in this case, as the police would have had adequate time to gather the necessary evidence to proceed with charges under the Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act and Section 130V of the Penal Code. The ongoing challenges in addressing increasingly complex organised crime and terrorism—compounded by factors such as advancements in technology and fast-evolving criminal networks—require a nuanced approach. However, cracking down on those involved at the expense of fair trial standards is not the way forward. The use of SOSMA in the GISBH case builds on dangerous precedents established within the past two years. More importantly, it diverts attention from the critical need for capacity-building that enhances police resilience in tackling fast-evolving crime methods, enabling them to conduct effective investigations whilst upholding the right to fair trial. This over-reliance on punitive measures via SOSMA can also dilute long-term crime prevention efforts - in the GISBH case, implementation of robust monitoring and early-stage intervention mechanisms by law enforcement and religious authorities. Prioritising these long-term strategies, which strengthen institutional capacities to combat organised crime and terrorism, would render the retention and use of SOSMA unnecessary, fostering political will to repeal this procedural law. While addressing the complex challenges posed by organised crime and terrorism, Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution must also decisively on SOSMA reforms, rather than defending its continued use in the GISBH case. Recommendations for SOSMA amendments have been on the table since August last year, submitted to the Home Ministry after extensive stakeholder consultations led by the Prime Minister’s Department on Law and Institutional Reform. Despite these efforts, Saifuddin has yet to act on the necessary amendments, among which included the critical issue of bail for detainees. Instead of justifying SOSMA’s application, his focus should now shift towards expediting these reforms, ensuring justice is served without compromising fundamental rights to fair trial.

Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) strongly condemns the Madani Government’s deportation of Cambodian domestic worker Nuon Toeun. On grounds of respect for fundamental rights in the Federal Constitution and the non-refoulement principle, the state must immediately halt such unlawful deportations, alongside other actions by enforcement authorities that exacerbate risks to life of those individuals, namely activists, human rights defenders (HRDs) and defectors. Nuon’s deportation is alarming on multiple fronts. In view of Nuon’s valid work visa and the absence of a criminal record in Malaysia, by deporting her, Malaysia has blatantly violated her fundamental right to life and personal liberty enshrined in Article 5 of the Federal Constitution – a right, which by right, should not discriminate on the basis of citizenship status. This action also makes the Madani Government no different from its predecessor that deported Bangladeshi migrant worker Mohamad Rayhan Kabir in 2021 for criticisms of our authorities’ treatment of undocumented persons during the pandemic – demonstrating not only state intolerance towards criticism, but also failure to consistently uphold and respect freedom of expression. The implications involved are both far-reaching and chilling. Domestically, the lives of defectors and HRDs seeking protection here as refugees or asylum seekers from wellfounded fears of persecution hang more precariously in the balance. In the case of Egyptian HRD Ahmed Hassanine Mohamed Mousa who is currently detained by the Immigration Department, he experiences grave risks of arbitrary detention and worse, torture by Egyptian authorities once deportation takes place. At the broader level, by deporting Nuon, Malaysia also plays an active role in creating an increasingly repressive socio-political environment in the Southeast Asian region, where state violence is legitimised, and people would no longer feel safe to practise their fundamental rights and advocate for justice for others. A scrupulous and democratic government would not stoop to such human rights violations in the name of upholding a nation’s right to extradition. As we reiterate our call for cessation of all violations of non-refoulement including forced deportations, we also urge the Madani Government to implement a national stance of zero tolerance against transnational repression, with the following measures taken: Immediately release defectors, HRDs, refugees and asylum seekers who are still in immigration detention Prioritise addressing transnational repression at the regional level, including strengthening the role of the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights in protecting HRDs, as Malaysia assumes chairmanship of ASEAN in 2025 Undertake thorough reform in immigration policy to end the use of arbitrary detention, with the long-term aim of gradually abolishing immigration detention in full. Safe screening processes should be put in place to enable responsive identification of atrisk detainees, with enforcement officers adequately trained to support these individuals and refrain from engaging in actions that may exacerbate their risks.

SUARAM lodged a complaint with the French authorities in 2010 regarding alleged corruption/ bribery of Malaysian Officials pertaining to the Scorpene deal with DCNS. SUARAM continues to actively follow proceedings in France, which are ongoing. Recent developments in the French proceedings have seen the French Public Prosecutors make recommendations that 4 individuals (including one Malaysian) and 4 legal entities, are referred to the Criminal Court of Paris for trial.  Closer to home, SUARAM refers to developing investigations as published in the following news reports:  New Straits Times (25 April 2024) entitled ‘ MACC says 22-year probe into Scorpene submarine case still ongoing ’; and  Malay Mail (29 July 2024) entitled ‘ MACC to summon four individuals next week for Scorpene submarine probe ’ .  The MACC is commended for its uncompromising stand on corruption, having unrelentingly pursued these investigations over the years. In view of the recent disclosure by the MACC of ‘new leads being discovered, focusing on the misappropriation of RM42 million’, we seek further disclosure of the current status of investigations.  It is hoped that the MACC will leave no stone unturned in the face of yet another scandal plaguing Malaysia. Thorough and decisive investigations are non-negotiable to maintain transparency and accountability. Public trust must never be eroded, nor the rule of law weakened.  Malaysia’s reputation is once again at stake and we call upon the Government of Malaysia, under the leadership of the Madani Government, to address allegations of corruption, potentially, implicating the integrity of the Malaysian Government. This Government must extend all cooperation necessary to facilitate ongoing investigations by authorities, locally or abroad, as a testament to its commitment to eradicate corruption at all costs. In this regard, it is fitting to revive the call by our current PMX as reported on 28 April 2022 in Malaysiakini and 28 April 2022 in The Malaysian Insight , wherein he is reported to have urged Putrajaya (then) to ramp up its probe into the Scorpene scandal, in line with the escalation of the French probe into the allegations of corruption in relation to the sale of submarines to Malaysia in 2002.

The inquest decision of the death of Roopan a/l Karnagaran, who died in custody at Kajang Prison three years ago, was finally delivered after a delay by over a year, with the decision postponed seven times within that period. Whilst Coroner Rasyihah Ghazali held that there was no negligence by Kajang Hospital and Kajang Prison behind Roopan’s ‘natural’ death, issues that critically reflected longstanding contributing factors to custodial deaths due to health issues were also highlighted, namely poor prison conditions and inadequate health infrastructure in the prison health clinic. With due respect to the Coroner’s Court, Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) opines that the absence of negligence by Kajang Hospital does not detract from the possibility that Roopan’s life might have been saved had the D-dimer test results indicating thrombosis been made available and acted upon. In Kajang Hospital, the D-dimer test was not a routine one administered to patients at the time, and yet it was ordered for Roopan – thus suggesting grounds for the provisional diagnosis of thrombosis. The two doctors who respectively prepared the discharge report and discharged Roopan also testified that had they seen the D-dimer results, they would have taken relevant measures to ascertain whether the aforementioned provisional diagnosis still stood. Knowing who ordered that D-dimer test for Roopan would thus provide the conclusive answer to whether and to what extent had there been oversight on Kajang Hospital in detecting and responding to Roopan’s thrombosis condition. Unfortunately, the alleged lack of witnesses and hospital documentation have hampered this critical lead from being explored. Whilst the court was unable to identify the cause of Roopan’s thrombosis, the fact remains that poorly ventilated and unsanitary detention facilities can increase the vulnerability of detainees to diseases. On-duty healthcare professionals who are unavailable at the material time and inadequate medical equipment in prison clinics are persisting issues that contribute to delays in identifying and responding to critical health conditions among detainees – also notably highlighted by the Parliamentary Special Select Committee on Human Rights, Election and Institutional Reform in their 2023 report on prison conditions in Malaysia. State commitment to upholding detainees’ right to health, as enshrined in the Lockup Rules 1953 and the Nelson Mandela Rules, should be concretised. On this note, SUARAM calls on the government to prioritise allocations in the upcoming Budget 2026 to the Prisons Department and the Ministry of Health to address these longstanding infrastructure shortcomings.

On 14 August 2024, the Kuala Lumpur High Court swiftly granted a stay of deportation for Egyptian human rights defender and asylum seeker, Ahmed Hassanine Mohamed Mousa, in the hearing for Ahmed’s habeas corpus application this afternoon. The court also granted Ahmed access to his lawyers, and for the purpose of completing his refugee registration application lodged on 20 October 2023, representatives from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.     Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) applauds the Kuala Lumpur High Court for this decision. Deportation would significantly threaten Ahmed’s life and freedom, as he has been arrested, tortured and arbitrarily detained* by Egyptian authorities for his involvement in peaceful protests prior to seeking asylum in Malaysia. The court decision is also crucial in enabling Ahmed to exercise his fundamental right of access to justice, which has been systematically denied by Immigration authorities whilst in detention.    The Malaysian Government has demonstrated itself to be capable of operationalising the principle of non-refoulement, via acceptance of the 29 May consent judgement to not detain or remove Bangladeshi UNHCR-registered refugee MA Quayum. Political will to improve rights of refugees and asylum seekers in the country, being evident in the state’s full acceptance of recommendations received from Canada and Germany in the Fourth Universal Periodic Review cycle to implement a legal and policy framework to recognise and protect this marginalised community. As a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council, Malaysia should lead by example by concretising these promising efforts.     SUARAM is thus hopeful to see the full compliance of the court order by the Immigration Department and Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution - by immediately ceasing any plans to deport Ahmed, alongside providing Ahmed access to his lawyers and UNHCR representatives. Such actions would be significant steps in the direction of institutionalising a more compassionate and rights-based approach towards all refugees and asylum seekers, regardless of their registration status.

Pencadang:  Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) Penyokong:  Pusat Pembangunan Rakyat Mandiri (MANDIRI) Bahawa forum “Hak Asasi Manusia Di Bawah Saifuddin Nasution” ini menggesa Kementerian Dalam Negeri (KDN) untuk: Resolusi Berkenaan Kewarganegaraan: Gugurkan dua pindaan Perlembagaan Persekutuan berhubung kewarganegaraan yang regresif: Perkara 14(1)(b) Seksyen 1(a) Bahagian II Jadual Kedua: Ayat “mastautin secara tetap” jangan mansuhkan dari teks asal Jangan pinda Perkara 26(2) berkaitan dengan Perkara 15(1): “Tarikh perkahwinan” jangan digantikan kepada “Tarikh mendapat kewarganegaraan” Mewujudkan sebuah jawatankuasa khas, libatkan semua pemegang taruh seperti badan guaman, pakar akademik, badan-badan bukan kerajaan (NGO), kumpulan masyarakat sivil (CSO), aktivis, ketua-ketua komuniti tempatan, dan wakil-wakil dari pihak Kerajaan Persekutuan dan Kerajaan Negeri untuk menangani isu tanpa kewarganegaraan, khususnya di Sabah. Melaksanakan reform di peringkat pejabat Kerajaan, khususnya Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara (JPN), memastikan tatacara pengendalian piawai (SOP) yang telus, bersifat manusiawi, dan berlandaskan dengan Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Resolusi Mendesak Pemansuhan Akta Hasutan 1948 Moratorium Penggunaan Akta Hasutan: Kerajaan hendaklah mengenakan moratorium segera ke atas semua pendakwaan di bawah Akta Hasutan sehingga semakan menyeluruh dapat dijalankan. Semakan Menyeluruh Kes Siasatan: Semua kes yang sedang disiasat di bawah Akta Hasutan hendaklah disemak semula secara menyeluruh oleh pihak berkuasa yang berkaitan. Semakan ini hendaklah memastikan bahawa setiap dakwaan adalah berasas dan mematuhi prinsip keadilan serta tidak menyalahgunakan undang-undang untuk menyekat kebebasan bersuara. Resolusi Mendesak Pelaksanaan Suruhanjaya Bebas Aduan dan Salah Laku Polis (IPCMC) Pendedahan Data Kematian dalam Tahanan: Kerajaan hendaklah memastikan semua data mengenai kematian dalam tahanan dibuat secara terbuka dan boleh diakses oleh orang awam. Data ini hendaklah dikemas kini secara berkala dan merangkumi maklumat terperinci seperti punca kematian, lokasi, dan status siasatan. Penubuhan Jawatankuasa Semakan: Kerajaan hendaklah menubuhkan sebuah jawatankuasa untuk menilai semula rekomendasi mengenai pindaan Akta Suruhanjaya Bebas Kelakuan Polis (IPCC), selari dengan cadangan peruntukan di bawah Rang Undang-Undang Suruhanjaya Bebas Aduan dan Salah Laku Polis (IPCMC) untuk memperbaiki ketelusan dan akauntabiliti polis. Rasional: Resolusi ini digubal sebagai respons terhadap isu-isu mendesak berkaitan hak asasi manusia di Malaysia, terutamanya di bawah kepimpinan Menteri Dalam Negeri, Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution. Ia bertujuan untuk menangani masalah kewarganegaraan yang berlarutan, khususnya di Sabah, dan untuk melindungi hak asasi individu yang terancam oleh Akta Hasutan yang lapuk. Selain itu, resolusi ini menggesa pelaksanaan IPCMC dan penggunaan kamera badan (body cam) bagi meningkatkan akauntabilitidan ketelusan pihak polis, serta memulihkan kepercayaan orang ramai terhadap institusi penguatkuasaan undang-undang.

One thing is clear from the Prime Minister Office’s reply to YB Yuneswaran Ramaraj’s oral question in Parliament on custodial deaths – its understanding of transparency and accountability in addressing and eliminating custodial deaths needs a significant overhaul. Making accurate data on all custodial deaths accessible at all times and re-opening investigations into past cases of custodial death and violence in custody perpetrated by law enforcement should be no-brainers compared to other systemic custodial death prevention efforts – implement them now without delay.  Inconsistencies worryingly still emerge between figures disclosed by different policymakers. Just last week, Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution stated that there were 24 deaths in police custody between January 2022 and May 2024. This statistic makes no sense, when the government disclosed the same number last year for police custodial deaths for the year of 2022. It also does not account for the 22 deaths disclosed by the Prime Minister Office’s parliamentary reply for the year of 2023.  Furthermore, glaring discrepancies between media-reported prison and immigration custodial deaths and official figures persist. Suara Rakyat Malaysia’s (SUARAM) documentation and monitoring efforts yielded only one media-reported prison custodial death, and none for immigration in 2023 – which is significantly underreported considering the case numbers disclosed by the government. Having streamlined and openly accessible data that reflects actual death-in-custody prevalence sends a strong message to the public and families of victims of the state’s stance of zero tolerance against the phenomena, as well as allows for more constructive interagency and multisectoral crosstalk to effectively address the relevant root causes.  Whilst we commend the government’s disclosure of the prevalence of convictions for murder and manslaughter in custodial deaths, greater transparency is needed in terms of the proportion of law enforcement and the nature of neglect in cases of manslaughter.  The government’s non-committal stance to the question of reopening investigations of past custodial deaths allegedly caused by law enforcement is also highly concerning. Access to justice is usually obstructed for families of the deceased. Getting an inquest done is already a persistent challenge, what is more having a satisfactory one that also investigates the manner of death including the presence/omission of unlawful acts that caused or contributed to the condition of the deceased. Civil suits, unfortunately, constitute the primary recourse for many families who seek justice such as S Balamurugan’s or Karuna Nithi’s, dragging across at least  5 to 10 years before any closure is reached. These families should not be deprived of their fundamental right to equality before the law enshrined in Article 8 of the Federal Constitution.  This non-committal stance is also chillingly apparent in cases of survivors who were tortured in custody by law enforcement. 16-year-old Ang Kian Kok in 2017 who was also an eyewitness to Balamurugan’s death in police custody, and 18-year-old Mitheswaran a/l Kumar in 2021 are crucial examples. Despite intervention by the National Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM), the government has not conducted independent and impartial investigations into their ordeals, punished the perpetrators involved, nor provided reparations to these boys.  A new commission to reopen investigations on past cases is not necessary at this stage, when there are existing oversight mechanisms in place.  On deaths and torture in the custody of enforcement bodies other than the police, we have the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC). EAIC has demonstrated commendable investigation expertise back when police custodial deaths were still under its jurisdiction, as evidenced by the comprehensive investigations done on the deaths of S Balamurugan and Soh Kai Chiok.  For police custodial deaths, however, renewed investigations must go hand in hand with amendments to the Independent Police Conduct Commission (IPCC) Act to broaden IPCC’s scope of investigative powers. Unlike EAIC, IPCC’s investigative powers are limited, which would hamper the effectiveness of investigations conducted. Gaps that need to be addressed include IPCC being unable to conduct search and seizures without warrant, nor unconditionally compel persons to attend hearings and disclose sensitive information that are relevant for the investigation.  Notably, in May 2024, the government committed to setting up a special task force to fully implement EAIC’s recommendations to prevent custodial deaths, with the recommendations based on EAIC’s study covering the police and other enforcement agencies. Findings from renewed investigations by EAIC and IPCC of deaths and torture in custody can be used to improve the recommendations implemented by this special task force. It is also crucial that IPCC and the police be engaged as key stakeholders in the implementation process, as police custodial deaths are consistently among the top three in prevalence.  One cannot expect to effectively and holistically address custodial deaths by addressing longstanding factors on a selective basis. As we resound our calls for improved data transparency and renewed investigations on past cases of custodial deaths and torture in custody, we also strongly urge the government to initiate medium and long-term legislative and policy efforts to eradicate custodial deaths, among which include amending the IPCC Act to grant the Commission adequate investigative and disciplinary powers, amending relevant laws such as the Penal Code to concretise zero tolerance against torture, and ratifying the United Nations Convention Against Torture.

KEPADA AHLI PARLIMEN / To Members of Parliament DISEDIAKAN OLEH / Prepared by : SUARA RAKYAT MALAYSIA (SUARAM) 4 JULAI / JULY 2024 Note: The English version of this memorandum can be found below the Malay version. Mansuh Akta Hasutan Sekarang Kami, organisasi masyarakat sivil yang menandatangani ini, mengutuk tindakan kerajaan yang menyalahgunakan Akta Hasutan terhadap pengasas Borneo Komrad, Mukmin Nantang. Situasi ini jelas menunjukkan bahawa kebebasan bersuara - hak yang termaktub di dalam Perkara 10 Perlembagaan Persekutuan semakin terhakis. Kami menuntut Akta Hasutan, akta zaman penjajah ini untuk dimansuhkan dengan segera. Penangkapan dan Siasatan Terhadap Mukmin Nantang Membuka Jalan kepada Tindakan yang Lebih Autoritarian Siasatan hasutan yang dikenakan terhadap Mukmin Nantang menimbulkan kekhuatiran dari pelbagai aspek: Sejak terbentuknya kerajaan perpaduan, buat pertama kalinya undang-undang era kolonial digunakan untuk mendiamkan pembela hak asasi manusia. Sepanjang tahun 2023, Akta Hasutan banyak digunakan terhadap penentang politik yang mengkritik. Walhal, Perdana Menteri, Anwar Ibrahim pernah memberi jaminan kepada orang awam pada tahun lalu bahawa Akta Hasutan tidak akan digunakan terhadap mereka yang mengkritik beliau atau kerajaannya - termasuklah Menteri Dalam Negeri, Saifuddin Nasution, yang pada Mac tahun ini turut menyatakan bahawa kerajaan ‘tidak mahu menggunakan Akta Hasutan dalam isu-isu politik’. Sudah terang lagi bersuluh, janji-janji ini tidak ditepati. Kerajaan Perpaduan seperti juga kerajaan-kerajaan yang lepas, jelas  menggunakan Akta Hasutan ini untuk mendiamkan kritikan dan kebebasan bersuara.  Melihat kepada siasatan terhadap Mukmin, selepas penangkapan dan penahanan seorang guru dan lapan pelajar, ianya adalah sebahagian daripada taktik sistematik yang bukan sahaja menyekat suara komuniti Bajau Laut tetapi wacana awam yang lebih luas bagi memastikan kerajaan bertanggungjawab di atas pelanggaran hak asasi manusia  terhadap komuniti ini.  Malah, penangkapan Mukmin Nantang semasa beliau hadir untuk siasatan pada 27hb Jun 2024 secara sukarela, adalah perbuatan mala fide dan satu tindakan yang tidak berprofessional daripada pihak polis.  Dalam konteks ini, siasatan terhadap Mukmin membangkitkan kerisauan terhadap peningkatan penindasan yang lebih zalim dan tidak berperlembagaan terhadap kebebasan bersuara, satu hak yang dijamin dalam Perkara 10 Perlembagaan Persekutuan.    Akta Hasutan Menjadi Alat Pemerintahan Autoritarian dan Kebal dari Hukuman Selepas kerajaan perpaduan memegang tampuk kuasa, ruang awam menjadi terhad - salah satu faktor yang menyumbang adalah peningkatan salah guna Akta Hasutan. Pada tahun 2023 (sebanyak 121 kes), siasatan di bawah undang-undang ini meningkat kepada 133% berbanding tahun sebelumnya. Ini mengatasi bilangan kes tertinggi yang dicatatkan pada tahun 2020 (sebanyak 117 kes) dalam tempoh lapan tahun kebelakangan ini. Sepanjang tempoh enam bulan pertama tahun 2024, 18 kes baru berkaitan Akta Hasutan dilaporkan oleh media, dimana ini adalah lebih banyak daripada apa yang dilaporkan oleh organisasi masyarakat sivil, dimana empat pertuduhan dan satu didakwa - memecahkan rekod kerajaan terdahulu diantara tahun 2015 hingga 2023, yang secara konsisten setiap tahun hanya satu atau dua kes yang dituduh dan didakwa. Semua ini atas alasan melindungi negara daripada fitnah yang merosakkan, berita palsu dan penyebaran kebencian.  Pindaan Akta Hasutan tidak membantu untuk ‘mengurus isu-isu berkaitan 3R secara efektif’, termasuk membendung ucapan kebencian. Sebaliknya, peruntukan di dalam undang-undang tersebut menjadi alat kepada salah guna kuasa oleh kerajaan - tiada definisi khusus mengenai apa yang dianggap sebagai ucapan yang mempunyai ‘kecenderungan menghasut’ malah tiada keperluan membuktikan niat oleh pihak pendakwaan bagi memulakan siasatan dan pertuduhan. Meminda undang-undang kuno ini tidak akan mengubah status quo selama 76 tahun - dimana kerajaan hari ini mentakrifkan sendiri apa bentuk ekspresi yang sah mengikut kehendak mereka. Ini hanya akan mengukuhkan lagi sikap penapisan kendiri (self-censorship)  dimana akan menghalang perdebatan awam yang konstruktif dan penyertaan demokratik.  Malah, kerajaan harus memahami bahawa, sebarang percakapan hanya boleh disekat sekiranya ia membawa ancaman atau bahaya. Ini ternyata dalam piawaian hak asasi manusia antarabangsa. Menurut Artikel 19 (3) Waad Antarabangsa mengenai Hak Sivil dan Politik (ICCPR) , apabila sesuatu percakapan perlu disekat kerana ianya bahaya atau membawa ancaman, ianya harus mengikuti 3 ujian ini (i) Ianya diperuntukkan di bawah undang-undang dan undang-undang itu tidak boleh berat sebelah (provided by law) ; (ii) untuk tujuan yang sah – seperti keselamatan negara, keselamatan awam dan isu kesihatan (legitimate aim) ; dan (iii) perlu dan berkadar (necessary and proportionate) .  Mengambil pendekatan yang lebih menghukum (punitive approach)  dengan memperkukuhkan penggunaan Akta Hasutan juga mengurangkan keterbukaan kerajaan kepada libat urus konstruktif dengan pihak berkepentingan lain yang mempunyai sudut pandang berbeza seperti masyarakat sivil, sekaligus menjadikan pelanggaran hak asasi manusia yang kritikal mencabar atau bahkan mustahil untuk ditangani. Misalnya, Kementerian Dalam Negeri (KDN) sukar untuk diakses oleh organisasi masyarakat sivil dimana Saifuddin kekal tidak membalas pelbagai permintaan untuk mesyuarat bagi isu-isu pindaan regresif seperti hak pemberian kerakyatan kepada ibu yang berwargenegara Malaysia dan individu tanpa kerakyataan dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan, pengusiran paksa masyarakat Bajau Laut, pindaan kepada Akta Kesalahan Keselamatan (Langkah-Langkah Khas) 2013 dan keperluan reformasi kepada Suruhanjaya Bebas Tatakelakuan Polis (IPCC). Kebebasan bersuara dan berekspresi adalah nadi kepada demokrasi. Halangan yang terlalu luas, sembarangan dan tidak berperlembagaan ini adalah sifat autoritarianisme. Dalam erti lain, Akta Hasutan tidak dapat diselamatkan dan tiada tempat di Malaysia. Ia perlu dimansuhkan.  Tuntutan Kami kekal dengan tuntutan kepada pihak kerajaan untuk memansuhkan Akta Hasutan. Kami juga mendesak agar usah ini disempurnakan dengan: Melaksanakan moratorium ke atas penggunaan undang-undang ini sementara menunggu pemansuhan, dan; Menerima sepenuhnya dan melaksanakan enam cadangan mengenai pemansuhan Akta Hasutan yang diterima semasa kitaran keempat Penilaian Berkala Sejagat atau (Universal Periodic Review) .  Selain daripada menggunakan Akta Hasutan sebagai alat untuk mendiamkan aktivis yang menyuarakan kebenaran dan penindasan terhadap komuniti terpinggir, sudah tiba masanya KDN bertindak dengan prinsip kemanusiaan dan menegakkan hak asasi manusia.  Kami menegaskan bahawa pentingnya untuk pihak KDN melakukan dialog dan kerjasama yang konstruktif dengan pihak berkepentingan akar umbi termasuk organisasi masyarakat sivil sebagai usaha berkesan dan kolaboratif merentas sektor bagi menangani pelanggaran hak asasi manusia dalam isu-isu berkaitan kewarganegaraan, migrasi, jenayah dan keselamatan negara.  (English version) Repeal the Sedition Act Now We, the undersigned civil society organisations, are alarmed by the increasing erosion by the state of the public’s constitutional right to freedom of expression through abuse of the Sedition Act, especially seen in last week’s arrest and investigation of Borneo Komrad founder Mukmin Nantang. We demand the immediate repeal of the Sedition Act.  Arrest and Probe of Mukmin Nantang Sets Precedent for More Authoritarian Crackdowns   The sedition probe of Mukmin Nantang is chillingly significant on many fronts.  This is the first time, since the unity government came into being, that the colonial-era legislation is used to silence a human rights defender.  Throughout 2023, the Sedition Act was limited to clampdowns on criticisms by political dissenters. Notably, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim has assured the public last year that the Sedition Act would not be used against those who criticise him and the government, as did Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution in March this year that the government ‘does not want to use the Sedition Act in political issues’. These promises are all already broken. The unity government thus is no different from its predecessors in using the Sedition Act to suppress criticism and stifle freedom of expression. The sedition probe mirrors the slew of repressive actions by the Perikatan Nasional government using the Sedition Act to silence members of the media and activists.  Significant examples include investigations against Cynthia Gabriel for her letter titled ‘Anti-corruption rhetoric will never purify the unelected Perikatan Nasional government’, and the raid of the Al-Jazeera office following their broadcasted documentary on the poor handling of undocumented migrants during the Movement Control Order in 2020.  The sedition probe against Mukmin, given the arrest and detention of a teacher and seven students, are part of systematic tactics to stifle not only the voices of the Bajau Laut community but also wider public discourse that can hold the state accountable  in its human rights violations against this community.  Moreover, the arrest of Mukmin Nantang during his voluntary appearance for investigation on June 27, 2024, was an act of bad faith ( mala fide ) and unprofessional conduct by the police. In this context, the investigation of Mukmin raises concerns about the escalating and unconstitutional oppression of free speech, a right guaranteed under Article 10 of the Federal Constitution. Sedition Act Breeding Ground for Authoritarian Rule and Impunity After the unity government came into power, civic space has become more restricted, with the increase in abuse of the Sedition Act as one of the main contributing factors. Investigations in 2023 (at 121 cases) spiked by a whopping 133% compared to the previous year, surpassing even the highest record in 2020 (at 117 cases) over the last eight years. Within just the first six months of 2024, there are already 18 new media-reported Sedition Act cases, which is more than that documented by civil society within the same period last year. Out of these 18 media-reported cases, there are already 4 charges and 1 conviction – breaking even the government’s own records of Sedition Act charges and conviction numbers between 2015 and 2023, which has consistently been at one or two cases annually.   In this context, the investigation against Mukmin thus marks a concerning precedent for increasingly draconian and unconstitutional infringements on freedom of expression, a fundamental right that is guaranteed in Article 10 of the Federal Constitution - all in the perverse name of shielding the nation from destructive slander, fake news and seeds of hatred. Amending the Sedition Act does not help ‘effectively manage 3R issues’, including to curb hate speech. On the contrary, its provisions are breeding grounds for abuse of power by the state - having no specific definition of what constitutes speech with ‘seditious tendency’, and not at all requiring proof of intent by the prosecution to initiate investigations and charges. Amending this archaic law will not change the 76-year-old status quo - whereby the government of the day defines at its whims what are ‘legitimate’ forms of expression. This will only further entrench the climate of self-censorship, which hampers constructive public debate and democratic participation.  Moreover, the government must understand that freedom of expression can only be restricted if it poses a threat or danger to others. This is clearly enshrined in international human rights standards. According to Article 19(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), an interference with freedom of expression is only legitimate when it meets the three-part test: (i) it is provided by law and the law must not be biased, (ii) it serves a legitimate aim, such as national security, public safety or health issues, and (iii) it is necessary and proportionate.  Taking a more punitive approach via strengthened implementation of the Sedition Act also reduces the government’s receptivity towards constructive engagement with other stakeholders that have disparate viewpoints such as civil society, thereby making critical human rights violations challenging or even impossible to address. The Ministry of Home Affairs, for instance, has been inaccessible to civil society, whereby Saifuddin has remained unresponsive to the multiple requests for meetings submitted by civil society organisations on issues such as regressive amendments to the Federal Constitution on citizenship conferral rights of Malaysian mothers and statelessness, forced eviction of the Bajau Laut community, amendments to the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2013 and need for reform to the Independent Police Conduct Commission (IPCC). Freedom of speech and expression is the lifeblood of democracy. Restrictions against this fundamental freedom that are overly broad, arbitrary and unconstitutional are thus tantamount to authoritarianism. In short, the Sedition Act is unsalvageable and has no place in Malaysia. It must be repealed. Demands As we resound our calls to the government to abolish the Sedition Act, we also urge that this effort be concretised by: Implementing a moratorium on application of the legislation pending repeal, and Fully accepting and implementing the six recommendations on repealing the Sedition Act that were received during the fourth cycle of the Universal Periodic Review Instead of weaponising the Sedition Act to silence activists who speak up on truth and against oppression of the marginalised, it is high time that the Ministry of Home Affairs adopts a human rights-based approach as it discharges its mandate. We thus call on the Ministry of Home Affairs to prioritise consistent and constructive dialogues with grassroots stakeholders including civil society, as part of effective and collaborative cross-sectoral efforts to address human rights violations in citizenship, migration, crime and national security. Memorandum ini disokong / This memorandum is endorsed by : Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) Buku Jalanan Chow Kit Dewan Muda Alternatif (DMA) Pusat Pembangunan Rakyat Mandiri (MANDIRI) TEROKA by MUDA Suara Mahasiswa UMS HAYAT ARTICLE 19 Shah Fariq Aizal, IRI Generation Democracy (Malaysia) Liga Rakyat Demokratik Young Lawyers Movement CIVICUS Undi18 Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM) Gabungan Marhaen MISI: Solidariti Saya Anak Bangsa Malaysia (SABM) Potere al Popolo! (PaP) Italy Pemuda Sosialis (PS) Pertubuhan Siragugal Sungai Siput (U) Perak  Tindak Malaysia  Teoh Beng Hock Association for Democratic Advancement Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ) MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) Pertubuhan Jaringan Kebajikan Komuniti (JEJAKA) Borneo Komrad Persatuan Kebangsaan Hak Asasi Manusia Malaysia (HAKAM) Empower  Justice for Sisters  Parti Ikatan Demokratik Malaysia (MUDA) Lawyers for Liberty (LFL) Women in Power  Amnesty International Malaysia (AIM) Gabungan Pilihan Raya Bersih dan Adil (BERSIH) KRYSS Network