Brad Adams, Human Rights Watch (Asia Division): Creating a Culture of Fear

The Criminalization of Peaceful Expression in Malaysia

Highlights of the Report:

'They are creating a culture of fear. If you engage in any talk of public interest, the police may come to your house, you may be arrested, taken to the police station, remanded. Even members of Parliament are treated that way.
—Yap Swee Seng, former executive director of Suara Rakyat Malaysia (Suaram), Kuala Lumpur, April 14, 2015'

'Freedom of expression and assembly in Malaysia are currently under attack, aided by the existence of broad and vaguely worded laws that the government can wield to arrest, investigate, and imprison its critics. The recent increase in use of laws that criminalize peaceful expression is a step backward for a country that had seemed to be making progress on the protection of rights. This report examines how the Malaysian government is using and abusing such laws, and the ways in which the laws themselves fall short of international standards.'

'As long-time activist Hishamuddin Rais told Human Rights Watch:

When the ISA was abolished, there was a sense of freedom. I thought Malaysia was going in the right direction. When Najib promised to abolish the Sedition Act, I thought: “We have arrived. We are on the right path.”

That optimism has now evaporated. Faced with declining popularity and rising public discontent on a range of issues, the prime minister has responded by cracking down on critics and supporting new laws, such as the 2015 Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), that replicate many of the flaws in the laws that were repealed. In November 2014, Najib reneged on his promise to repeal the Sedition Act and announced that the law would instead "be strengthened and made more effective," with "a special clause to protect the sanctity of Islam, while other religions also cannot be insulted." In April 2015, the government pushed through amendments providing for harsher penalties and further restrictions on speech, particularly on social media.'


Overly Restrictive Laws as a Tool for Repression

Since the end of colonial rule in 1957, Malaysia has been ruled by coalitions dominated by the United Malays National Organization (UMNO). The current coalition, Barisan Nasional (BN) (National Front), has ruled since 1974. Throughout its more than 40 years in power, BN has used a wide range of overly broad and vaguely worded laws to harass and silence critics and political opponents. Some of these laws have been in place since Malaysia gained independence from the United Kingdom in 1957, while many others have been more recently adopted or amended.

(Summary of some issues touched on):
Targeting the Political Opposition
Targeting Civil Society
Targeting the Media
Targeting Social Media Users
Restrictions on Freedom of Assembly
Abusive Police Tactics and Selective Prosecution

'Key Recommendations

Malaysia is an active member of the United Nations and, in October 2014, was reelected as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council after a 15 year hiatus. The country has also served three terms on the UN Human Rights Council and has repeatedly reaffirmed its commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Indeed, the official website of the Malaysian attorney-general states that Malaysia, “by virtue of being a member [of the UN], has subscribed to the philosophy, concepts and norms provided by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which sets out the minimum and common standard of human rights for all peoples and all nations.”[1]

The current repression of critical speech makes a mockery of those affirmations. If Malaysia wants to be taken seriously as a rights-respecting member of the United Nations, it must bring its laws and policies into line with international norms and standards, including by implementing the following recommendations: ...'


'Methodology

This report was researched and written between March 2014 and October 2015. It is based primarily on in-depth analysis of Malaysian laws used to restrict freedom of expression and assembly and on the interviews described below. It also draws on court judgments and news reports concerning criminal proceedings in relevant cases, and public statements by the government.

Human Rights Watch went to Kuala Lumpur in August 2014 and April 2015, where we interviewed 38 lawyers, opposition politicians, journalists, activists, members of civil society organizations, and academics, some of them multiple times. Further in-person interviews were conducted in London. Telephone interviews and email correspondences continued until the time of publication. Interviews were conducted in English; no incentives were offered or provided to interviewees.

On August 10, 2015, Human Rights Watch sent a letter to four members of the Malaysian government requesting their input. The letter, a copy of which is contained in Appendix 1, was sent by fax, email, and registered mail to Minister for Home Affairs Zahid Hamidi, Attorney General Haji Mohamed Apandi bin Haji Ali, Inspector General of Police Khalid bin Abu Bakar, and Chairman of the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission Dr. Halim Shafie. Unfortunately, none of those contacted responded.

The report is not meant to be a comprehensive list of all laws that criminalize free speech in Malaysia, but discusses the laws that have proven to be most prone to misuse and abuse.'

Rest of the detailed report:
https://www.hrw.org/report/2015/10/27/creating-culture-fear/criminalization-peaceful-expression-malaysia
Link

Thomas Fann: The days after the vote of no-confidence

'Even the most optimistic political observers would admit that to oust Najib via the no-confidence vote or the rejection of the Budget is a long shot. But it must surely be worth a shot, if for nothing else, it is the right thing to do. An attempt to reject Najib would also register for posterity in the Parliament’s record those who, by their support for Najib, are complicit in the ruination of Malaysia.

For a vote of no-confidence to succeed, there has to be a simple majority of those present. Assuming that all Members of Parliament were present, that would mean having 112 votes out of the total of 222 seats. The Opposition, including PAS, has only 88 MPs; that means 24 are needed from the ruling coalition Barisan Nasional to crossover for the vote. Another configuration would be for 47 BN MPs to abstain or absent themselves during the vote or a combination of crossing over and absenteeism.'

- See more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/opinion/thomas-fann/article/the-days-after-the-vote-of-no-confidence#sthash.ii2OUrdn.GMgINMlc.dpuf

It is already wishful to expect a successful no-confidence vote against Najib, to expect institutional reforms as well? Let's hope more people will agree and accept the fact that reforms are necessary for us to progress in a democracy.

BN MPs should be reminded how they vote this time is of paramount importance to the well being of the country. This will be reflected in the next general election.
Link

How people are coping with rising prices

Food and drinks sellers are known to have increased their prices and/or reduced their food portions or diluted or substituted ingredients in their drinks.

I noticed satay sellers have excluded onions, while 'ketupat' is now replaced with 'nasi impit' in plastic bag. Soon the art of making 'ketupat' will be lost. The portion sizes can easily be adjusted down instead of increase in prices, to please customers. Roti canai is already downsized together with increases in price over the years.

In relation to the above picture in Facebook, I put myself in the position of someone who did not have one for some years: 'Roti satu! Wah, so small one ah? Lagi satu roti!'

Recently, there were reports of dubious meats used to pass off as mutton in some mamak shops. This is serious because cheaper beef or buffalo meat is against some religious beliefs like Hinduism and Buddhism.

A health-conscious retired teacher said it is better to have 'teh-C' instead of 'teh' which is already sweetened because it is made with sweetened condensed 'milk'. I corrected her that the so-called 'milk' is actually creamer: sweetened condensed creamer and evaporated creamer instead of the usual milk. Besides being difficult to find, actual milk products are more expensive than those made from palm oil. So how can we expect the coffee shops to use milk like before? It is funny how 'C' was derived: evaporated milk used to be supplied by Carnation! Now it is difficult to find real evaporated milk from Carnation. You are more likely to find them from Ideal or Marigold brands.

The consumers, on the other hand, are resorting to substitution too. Not that they are following Najib's past advice on 'change your lifestyle', but out of necessity. Imagine an average salaried employee trying to budget his or her daily expenses.

Top on the list is likely to be cutting down on eating in restaurants and stick to economy rice in coffee shops. To economise further, expensive items will have to be substituted with cheaper ones. Some households decide to cook at home instead of eating out. Besides, drinks, they can save on petrol and parking too. Even petrol has to be downgraded from Ron97 to Ron95! Instead of driving the kids to school or tuition centres, I have seen the kids cycling instead!

While the ordinary public suffer, some politicians are still living it up, instead of changing their lifestyles as examples to the people. When GST was about to be introduced, over-simplistic examples were used to show minimum impact on prices of goods and services. But now, almost everything, including some medication and insurance, are added on with GST. It has a compounding effect on inflation.

Once, I managed to calculate one hour parking charges at KLIA2 using Touch n Go (unlike at the toll booths, you cannot see your balances before or after parking): Parking Rm4.00 + 40 sen (10% surcharge for using TnG) + .03 sen GST! Many people complained why TnG charges 10% extra for users at the airports, discouraging instead of encouraging them. If not for the difficulty in finding the machine after locating the car, I would not have used TnG at KLIA2.

A friend who is having a company secretarial practice said she decided not to provide accounting services relating to GST, simply because she would rather have peace of mind by just focusing on her core business. It seems some of her fellow practitioners (and most accounting firms) who did, actually lost some clients because they just could not cope with the problems arising from the introduction of GST. Staff had to work long hours and spending time with clients, sorting out GST-related problems. This caused them to neglect their core business work. Some employees left after that. She said it is so difficult getting the right staff and it can be a real problem losing her experienced ones. She would rather not risk it.

As I have mentioned before, a small business would need to incur at least Rm10,000 extra in overheads per year, because of the GST software and follow-up services provided. So to whom does he pass on the extra costs?

Link

P.Ramakrishnan: Mr Speaker, Sir: You are primarily responsible for Kit Siang’s suspension!

Excerpt from his article in Aliran:

'The Speaker, Pandikar Amin Mulia, stated that the MPs, not the Speaker, made the decision to suspend Getang Patah MP Lim Kit Siang from the Dewan Rakyat. His claim is not entirely true. He is trying to extricate himself and convey the impression that he was blameless in this episode. But he had a hand in this unjust suspension.'

'Mr Speaker, Sir, you said, “Please tell Gelang Patah, the next time he comes, he must apologise unconditionally and retract his remarks as he had said that I abused my powers as Speaker. This is an insult of the first degree. If he refuses, a motion will be tabled and he will be suspended if the House passes it.”

Evidence shows that you initiated this suspension, Mr Speaker Sir. It was your insistence that resulted in Kit Siang’s suspension. You wanted a motion to be tabled if there was no apology. And so a motion was tabled to suspend Kit Siang.'

'According to Kit Siang, “What I said when I sought clarification from the MP for Sepang, Mohamed Hanipa bin Maidin, who was speaking on the debate on the appointment of the Chairman of Public Accounts Committee was whether he agreed that the Speaker has no powers under the Standing Orders to stop the Public Accounts Committee, in the absence of a PAC Chairman, from continuing with its 1MDB investigations and which was therefore an abuse of power.”

Mr Speaker Sir, had you accepted Kit Siang’s explanation in good faith as to what he meant by his remarks, the matter would have ended there and then. But no, you wanted that apology that you demanded irrespective of Kit Siang’s clarification, and it seems that you had achieved your declared intention to suspend him.'

'If Kit Siang had been referred to the Rights and Privileges Committee under Section 80(A) of the Standing Orders, Malaysians would have accepted the outcome because Kit Siang would have been given a chance to defend himself. As it were, he was convicted without the benefit of defence which was totally unfair to him.'

More:
http://blog.limkitsiang.com/2015/10/25/mr-speaker-sir-you-are-primarily-responsible-for-kit-siangs-suspension/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+limkitsiang%2Frss+%28Lim+Kit+Siang%29

Link

Aliran: P. Ramakrishnan: The Speaker, the Deputy Speaker, the BN MPs – are they fools?

'The Speaker, the Deputy Speaker and the BN MPs took exception to Lim Kit Siang’s remarks which rightly criticised the lack of seriousness shown in the investigation of the 1MDB scandal.

Consequently, Kit Siang was unfairly suspended without the benefit of defending himself – which went against natural justice.

In all fairness, he should have been referred to the Rights and Privileges Committee under Standing Order 80 for it to probe and establish whether Kit Siang had indeed insulted the Speaker and Parliament. ..'


'On 22 October 2015, Parliament was, as it were, baying for blood and it succeeded in its effort. As a result, Parliament has lost a voice that had always spoken with conviction and conscience, without fear or favour, to raise issues that reflect the concerns of the people. Much input into the budget debate has been denied – which is a pity.

The outcome of the motion that suspended Kit Siang from Parliament has been described, as we are made to understand, as the work of fools!

Gerakan Youth chief Tan Keng Liang tweeted: “You fools just gave Lim six months of holiday plus gaji buta.”

Who are these fools that he was referring to? There is no doubt about it – all those who played a role in suspending Kit Siang have been labelled as fools.

And who played this role? It was the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker and the BN MPs – 107 of them. All of them were the ones responsible for Kit Siang’s suspension. All of them have been called fools. What are they going to do about this scandalous reference to them?'


'It wasn’t only Kit Siang but the people at large are also angry that so much effort had been put in ad nauseam to delay and obstruct the investigation into the 1MDB scandal. They are wondering why there is so much hindrance to keep this matter under wraps.

Like the Altantuya case, will the truth ever be known with regard to the 1MDB scandal?'

More:
http://aliran.com/media-statements/2015-media-statements/the-speaker-the-deputy-speaker-and-the-bn-mps-are-they-fools/
Link