Malaysia's 'Joan of Arc' of abused migrant workers

 

 

OBITUARY A beacon of hope is extinguished and Malaysia is a darker place for its irreplaceable loss. News of the passing of Tenanganita co-founder and director Irene Fernandez was not what I had expected to read in Malaysiakini yesterday.

I am saddened by the death of a remarkable and irreplaceable woman, a towering and selfless Malaysian who devoted her life to helping the helpless, comforting the exploited and soothing the wounds of the tortured in a once bright place that is blackened by corruption and that has lost its way.

Often she faced insurmountable odds against the might of the powers-that-be and its institutions of persecution. The political tyrants made life unfairly difficult for this intrepid, irrepressible and humble Malaysian 'Joan of Arc' of maltreated migrants and repressed refugees in her country.

It is incredible how such an amazing woman who spoke out for the voiceless and right-less can be charged in court for doing good for others, and it is an indictment of ourselves that we allowed the good to be called evil and the evil good and Irene to be bullied by those who abuse their powers and disgrace their humanity and country.

It is hard to speak of Irene without recalling the hostile environment where the authorities are unwilling to be scrutinised and held accountable for their deeds. She overcame the untold hardships she suffered at the hands of the overbearing authorities that had harassed her.

I first learned of this amazing woman some years ago when news of her court case emerged in the local newspapers and Malaysiakini. This unassuming and soft-spoken woman had been unfairly persecuted and prosecuted for her role in highlighting the plight of migrant workers.

It was the irony of her plight and her unwavering commitment to her cause and forbearance under unfair persecution that earned her a place in my heart. She was my hero not found among men in her ‘jihad’ for the unjustly treated.

When proud men pursued gain and glory,  this woman of women chose to side with the poor and oppressed.

Twisted persecution

Malaysiakini co-founder Steven Gan, then a reporter for The Sun, and his colleagues had in 1995 written an incriminating report of the government on 59 primarily Bangladeshi inmates that had died of preventable and treatable diseases such as typhoid and beri beri at the Semenyih immigration detention camp.

The Sun had refused to publish the damning report so Gan turned to Irene who published information from it under the title, ‘Abuse, Torture and Dehumanised Conditions of Migrant Workers in Detention Centres’ and for that she was hounded for the rest of her life by the government.

She was arrested and charged in 1996 with “maliciously publishing false news” and found guilty in 2003 after a seven-year trial. But her trials, courtesy of the government, continued outside the court. They are well-documented in local newspapers and even some outside.

In this sort of twisted persecution when politicians abuse their powers in government to prosecute the innocent who help others against the politically connected, Irene is no different from Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng when he was jailed for not dissimilar reasons.

As with opposition leaders Anwar Ibrahim and Karpal Singh, what her political enemies could not achieve in the popularity stakes, they did by using the court to hamper her attempt to attain political office by turning her into a criminal, thus disqualifying her from running for parliament.

While the wielders of power in darkness tried to tarnish her name, the enlightened world saw differently, and she was chosen in 2004 to receive a Right Livelihood Award, also referred to as the 'Alternative Nobel Prize.'

A woman not filled with bitterness

I have met Irene twice, and regrettably, not more. The first was when my wife and I saw her in her office in Petaling Jaya when we visited Kuala Lumpur. My wife a medical doctor had always been interested in the plight of sex slaves and wanted to find out more from her about the subject.

Some months later, Irene and her husband and son were sitting in front of me as we shared dinner in a Chinese restaurant in Perth. I had asked her to give me a call when she visited her son in Perth and she did. Then I noticed that Irene had looked frail and had trouble walking and used a walking stick as aid.

During our dinner, my wife and I learned more about her work. I got a greater insight into her work and role and I remember a woman not filled with bitterness or one would expect to be full of acrid remarks for her cruel persecutors and political enemies after all the injustices she had been put through.

Instead she merely stated what was true regarding the plight of the migrants, what they were up against, and even in such normal discourses, it is difficult not to note the injustice of all she had undergone. But Irene had shown no ill-will toward her cruel persecutors and our conversation was about those who she helped.

She overcame what her persecutors had dished out to her and with her passing, the plight of the refugees becomes more urgent with the need for more people to stand behind the work of Tenanganita she began.

I had learned much from our brief time together and if I have regrets in life, surely one must be in failing to follow up with Irene because we were overtaken by other pressing things and soon lost touch with her.  

As I write, I recall the strength of this remarkable woman in whose stoic countenance were etched the sufferings of a saintly woman, sufferings not the fruit of personal making but from helping the helpless in their pitiful plight.

The troubles and sorrow of the suffering became as much hers. I was with greatness and regret not having realised it.

A life of many trials

Malaysia came to its senses when on Nov 24, 2008, justice Mohd Apandi Ali overturned Irene's conviction of 'maliciously publishing false news'.

For 13 years since her arrest and charging in 1996, Irene had lived a life of many trials, her passport was held by the court, she could not stand for parliament in 2004, and was the subject of many police visits to her office and questioning.

Yet I had observed she had not been shy in making timely and relevant comments when needed on the plight of migrant workers and refugees. In a place where many are cowed and timid, Irene roared like a lioness without fear and favour, and political correctness was not in her vocabulary.

In her quiet dignified manner, she seemed a tower of insurmountable strength on an unshakeable urgent mission. In fact I see in her a regal quality that only great  people like Nelson Mandela and Mother Teresa display. Such people of conviction are rare these days.

Malaysia has many women of noble character who make their country a better place. They are the salt of the nation. Irene stood tall among them, if not above most, and has left a legacy that will be a challenge to match, if at all possible.

With other Malaysians and those who have been beneficiaries of her compassion and commitment, I share the grief of the passing of a great Malaysian and I know would have been a great friend had we had not let that opportunity slip.

My wife and I pass on our condolences to Irene's family. Good night, Irene, good night - see you in the morning.
 
------------------------------
STEVE OH is author and composer of the novel and musical ‘Tiger King of the Golden Jungle’.

 

Source: http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/258722

Veteran activist Irene Fernandez passes away

 

Mkini March 31, 2014

 

 

Veteran activist Irene Fernandez today passed away after being hospitalised for heart failure since last Tuesday. She was 67.

Her sister Josie said that Irene died at 10.58am at the Coronary Care Unit at Serdang Hospital.

"Her organs were all fine but her heart stopped. The doctors tried their best to resuscitate her.

"Irene was very brave and courageous and as I speak to you now, I can see that her face is so serene, so calm," she told Malaysiakini after the family performed their prayers.

Josie, Irene's husband Joseph Paul (left) and the couple’s three children were with her at the time.

The founder of migrant rights NGO Tenaganita was admitted at the Serdang Hospital after complaining of breathing difficulties.

Her remains will be brought to her home in Seremban later today and a public wake will be held in Subang on Wednesday.

"Prayers and a mass to celebrate her life will be held on Thursday. We will announce the details later," Josie said.

The family will also honour her request to be cremated and have her ashes buried with her late parents in Sungai Petani.

A dedicate civil rights activist, Irene was on her way to hear the findings of the coalition for clean and fair elections (Bersih)'s tribunal when she faced breathing difficulties.

She gained international attention when she became the subject of the country's longest criminal trial after being charged with publishing falsehoods in a report on migrant detention centres.
          
She was once again investigated for her activism in 2012, when a sedition probe was launched over an interview about migrant rights with an Indonesian newspaper.

 

Source: http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/258659

 

The GE13 People’s Tribunal: remembering Sabra and Shatila

By Rama Ramanathan

There was intense disquiet after the 13^th General Election in May 2013.

There were mass gatherings. There were allegations of unequal access to media; of erasable ink; of wrongful use of government machinery; of vote-buying; of ‘directed’ postal votes and advance votes; of phantom voters; of unauthorized changes to voters’ constituencies; of mischief during vote-counting; and much more.

 

Politicians from all sides petitioned the Elections Court to nullify results.

Was the disquiet lit by moral arsonists or was it lit by moral outrage?

 

GE13 was remarkable because many members of civil society participated as monitors. They weren’t unemployed youths; they were from all walks of life, across all ages. NGOs (e.g. Tindak Malaysia) had trained Polling and Counting Agents. NGOs (e.g. Pemantau) had organized to collect feedback from across the nation about the conduct of the elections. NGOs (Bersih) had demonstrated en masse to express the disgust and horror they felt about the Electoral Register.

I wish I could write that the government’s response to the voice of the people was nothing more than to shower them with odium. Sadly I have to write that the government showered them with arrests, threats, tear gas and acid-laced water.

The Election Commission (EC) has not satisfactorily explained the erasable ink. No one has taken responsibility. Despite voluminous police reports, no one has been charged.

The Malaysian judiciary has placed technicality above morality. The majority of election petitions – from all sides – have been thrown out on technicalities. Worse, the courts have ordered unsuccessful petitioners to pay massive sums for petitioning the courts.

The police and the Attorney General are disinterested. No one has been prosecuted.

The EC lacks credibility and moral authority. The police look the other way. Judges (unlike their activist brethren in India) don’t want to be troubled by morality.

Citizens have only individual means to lodge protests and seek redress; there are thousands of reports, letters and comments directed to officialdom. All by individuals.

Until the People’s Tribunal, there was no mechanism to look objectively at the big picture and deliver a verdict on whether the disquiet is truth-based moral outrage. The final report of the Tribunal explicates the reason-for-being of the Tribunal:

“BERSIH 2.0 conceived the Tribunal as “essentially a citizen’s effort and a people’s platform to investigate the conduct of the last general election,” and as “a Tribunal of conscience, mandated with a moral force by the people to arrive at the truth.” It set up the Tribunal to investigate the truth and to give the people the opportunity “to make their voices heard” and to provide “a platform for evidence to be presented and scrutinized, while inaccuracies are exposed and facts sifted from a sea of allegations. The People’s Tribunal ensures that truth will not be a casualty.”” (Page 6)

A helpful analogy for the reason-for-being of the Tribunal has been suggested by Professor Gurdial Singh Nijar, lead counsel at the Tribunal. He says the Tribunal does what no other institution does: the Tribunal, comprised of eminent, credible, unbiased persons, looks at all the facets of the disquiet which arose in GE13. Looking from many angles, taking everything together, the Tribunal draws a conclusion.

The Tribunal convened a hearing over 5 days in September 2013. It was provided with much evidence.

The word “evidence” is appropriate, as it includes the personal testimony of witnesses, with cross-examination; it includes sworn affidavits, Statutory Declarations; it includes petitions filed by all sides in each disputed election outcome; it includes nation-wide reports and assessments by independent observers (as opposed to isolated cases).

The evidence was gathered, sifted and presented by Professor Gurdial and a team of about forty lawyers.

Note: Professor Gurdial who teaches law in University Malaya, was also the Chief Prosecutor for the Kuala Lumpur International War Crimes Tribunal (IWCT). The IWCT was sponsored by Tun Mahathir, architect and builder of guilt-ridden Malaysia.

The members of the Tribunal were not push-overs. At the close of the Tribunal’s hearings, the government-aligned The Star Online observed with glee:

“A heated argument erupted between the final witness, Ambiga and penal [sic] member Datuk Azzat Kamaludin, when the latter suggested that the duty to keep the elections fair and clean did not just fall on EC.

He insinuated that Malaysians, especially elected representatives, should do their pars [sic] to ensure that the whole process is credible, to which Ambiga strongly disagreed.”

The Tribunal took six months to draw a conclusion.

Tribunal members, lawyers, witnesses, and assistants all worked without emoluments; all they received was reimbursements for logistics expenses. They were not paid for their time before, during or after their service to the nation. They were beholden to no one.

The Tribunal was handicapped by the refusal of the EC and members of Barisan Nasional to participate in the hearings.

Prof. Gurdial explained that the rules of procedure and evidence applied during the proceedings conform to international standards, including those applied in the inquiries into the Sabra and Shatila massacre (on 16 September 1982 in Lebanon).

It is instructive to recall that the Israelis were outraged that the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) had instigated or at least stood by and watched, even smirked, as thousands of Palestinians were brutalized, murdered, buried and carted away.

Israelis turned out en masse to express their moral outrage over what had been done. On 25 September 1982, the Peace Now movement organized “the march of 400,000” (link to The Jerusalem Post article on 23 September 2012).

The voice of the Israelis was heard. Three days later Menahem Begin, the Prime Minister, responded to their moral outrage. He announced the Kahan commission. The Kahan report found the IDF, Ariel Sharon, Yitzhak Shamir, Rafael Eitan and others culpable.

The Kahan commission could call witnesses, including those to whom blame was eventually assigned. The GE13 Tribunal’s inability to call witnesses was lamented at yesterday’s public meeting at which the Tribunal handed over its report to Bersih 2.0.

The mood at the meeting was akin to that in a courtroom in which a mother accuses an absent father of abusing the children. It was akin to proceeding with the hearing despite the father’s refusal to attend or even make representations via counsel.

The multiple facets of the people’s disquiet have been reviewed by a panel of eminent persons including 2 persons trained in the law (Prof. Yash Pal Ghai from Kenya and Datuk Azzat), one former Deputy Chairman of the Election Commission of Indonesia (Prof. Ramlan Surbakti), one retired academic (Dr. Mavis Puthucheary) and one religious leader (Rev. Hermen Shastri).

A 92 page report and a Compact Disc with supporting evidence has been compiled. It will be sent to the Election Commission, parliamentarians and others.

The Tribunal concluded that the people’s disquiet was lit by moral outrage, not immoral arsonists; that the EC has been derelict in its duties, allowing itself to be used as an instrument for the ruling party to entrench itself. The report closes with these words:

“The . . . EC needs to be re-designed, and conceived as a truly independent body. Other countries have done it. It is from the EC that true change will come; without them no serious improvement will take place.

At present the system fails to meet international standards in many respects. Most important (and in violation of what those international standards are designed to achieve) it fails the people of Malaysia.”

After careful consideration the Tribunal has concluded that the disquiet was lit by the people’s moral outrage. How will the EC and the government respond? How will they measure up against the 1982 government of Israel?

 

Source:http://write2rest.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-ge13-peoples-tribunal-remembering.html

Simon says: Simon Sipaun, human rights defender

By Rama Ramanathan

 March 25, 2014 (Malaysian Insider)

Born in 1938 to illiterate farmers in the interior of Sabah, Tan Sri Simon Sipaun retired in 1993 as State Secretary of Sabah, a position he held for 5 years.

When the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) was formed in 2000, Simon was one of the first commissioners to be appointed. He served Suhakam for ten years, including 6 years as vice-chairman. Presently he is serving a second 3-year term on the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) advisory board; this appointment will end in February 2015.

In 2011 he became founding chairman of Persatuan Hak Asasi Manusia (Proham, Society for the Promotion of Human Rights), an NGO formed by former human Rights and Police Commissioners.

“Simon Sipaun: Human Rights Defender” is a collection of nineteen speeches Simon delivered while he served as chairman of Proham.

 

The book was a surprise tribute and gift to Simon at the Annual General Meeting of Proham on 17 March 2014, when Datuk Kuthubul Zaman was elected chairman of Proham for the next 3 years.

The speeches were collected and organized by Datuk Dr Denison Jayasooria, Secretary General of Proham, who also wrote the introduction. Tan Sri Hasmy Agam, current Chairman of Suhakam, contributed the Foreword.

Denison, a Principal Research Fellow at the Institute of Ethnic Studies (KITA) at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), explains that Tan Sri Simon always spoke from a written text which he supplied, in advance, to whoever invited him.

Seventeen of the speeches were delivered at Proham meetings. 2 were delivered at other meetings Simon was invited to during the period he served Proham.

The speeches are grouped under seven categories: Human rights concerns; Universal Periodic Review; social inclusion; citizenship; religious freedom; general elections; ethnic relations. Denison summarizes the value of this collection:

“The speeches . . . give a deeper insight into

(1) the issues which have beset our nation in the period 2011-2014;

(2) the critical yet constructive role civil society has played to help the State address the issues and

(3) the challenges on the path to establishing socio-economic inclusion for all individuals, groups and communities.” (Page 9)

Hasmy’s summary is also insightful:

“The issues that Tan Sri Simon touched on are wide-ranging – from a general yet incisive overview of the human rights situation in Malaysia to his bold and instructive commentary on Malaysia, its past, present and future, to the sensitive issues of illegal immigrants in Sabah and ethnic relations and religious freedom, among others.” (Page 5)

Denison and Hasmy have admirably summarized the book’s value.  I will merely introduce and cite a few key passages to demonstrate the tone and content of what Simon says.

Simon is alert to the messages in the signs which surround us, even in T-shirts:

“Recently I received an e-mail inviting me to buy a T-shirt to make people aware that Malaysia Day which falls on 16th September is in fact ‘Occupation Day.’ Inscribed on the T-shirt are slogans stating ‘oil and gas stolen, native rights trampled, civil service Malay-nized, 20-points violated, Labuan taken over, cabotage policy and project I.C.’ This is an indication of how some Sabahans feel about Malaysia today. It is one of disappointment. It is not the Malaysia they expected 50 years later.” (Page 26)

Simon’s speeches as chairman were designed to be backdrops for other speakers, and so are more diagnostic and descriptive than prescriptive. Yet, one speech, delivered in a law firm, includes his (28 item) wish list for Malaysia. In one item he equates Malay Supremacy – a theme which runs through the speeches – with Apartheid and Nazism:

“The political ideology of ‘ketuanan Melayu’ or Malay supremacy should be abandoned. It is akin to the Apartheid System of South Africa and Nazi Germany, which, thankfully, failed to survive in the end.” (Page 35)
Simon doesn’t mince his words. He stridently expresses his disappointment with political leaders, diplomats and world leaders who live in la-la lands:

“President Obama is reported to have said on 11th October 2013 that ‘Malaysia is a model of diversity, tolerance and progress.’ Either Obama was grossly misinformed – which is unlikely – or just playing politics.” (Page 51)

Simon, an administrator who ended his career at the apex of the Sabah civil service, clearly considers 1Malaysia to be smoke and mirrors, not a foundation or an elixir:

“When the PM took office in April 2009, he introduced the concept of 1Malaysia. I understand that inclusiveness is incorporated in the concept. Since then many programmes have been initiated based on the concept. Other ‘ones’ followed including 1Malaysia badge, t-shirt, Tupperware, note-book, clinic, housing, RM 500 cash aid and so on. Surprisingly, more than 3 years later the PM was reported to have stated that the concept was deliberately designed to be vague right from the beginning. How do you expect to achieve the desired results from vague concepts and policies? (Page 68)

Simon listened closely to the pulse of the nation by monitoring current events. When Parliament showed disdain for the judiciary, and put political expediency above justice, Simon didn’t hesitate to indict the government; he didn’t hesitate to name names:

“The New Sabah Times in its 9 June, 2001 edition reported that the High Court ordered former Chief Minister Datuk Yong Teck Lee to vacate his Likas seat because he won it in 1999 with the help of phantom voters. Justice Datuk Muhammad Kamil Awang said that the 1998 electoral roll for the constituency was illegal and the election held in March 1999 was null and void. The judge . . . stated that the evidence adduced was the tip of the iceberg . . . was fantastic.

“The next logical step would have been to clean the electoral roll. Instead, parliament amended the Election Act, whereby the electoral roll once gazetted cannot be challenged in any court of law. This is just not right.” (Page 83)

Simon, the patriot, administrator and visionary whose contributions were so often recognised by the King, calls Malaysia a racist nation with an authoritarian government:

“...I am unable to find one good reason why Malaysia should persistently continue to be not a party to ICERD [UN International Convention on Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination]. Any government which refuses to be a party to ICERD is a government that supports racism and racial discrimination. How else can I interpret such a state of affairs? 175 countries are currently party to ICERD including many Islamic countries. . . . [Malaysia] is in the company of countries like North Korea, Myanmar and . . . other authoritarian countries.” (Page 117)

Simon often reaches back into his memory of what life in North Borneo was like and could have remained. Police reports against his candid speeches don’t bother him:

“I spent 25 years of my life in North Borneo, as Sabah was then known, before it became part of Malaysia on 16 September 1963. There was no such problem [falsely labelling people as Muslims in their Mykads and causing them to live in fear that when they died their wealth would be distributed according to Islamic law and their bodies would be subjected to Islamic burial] then. Religion was not legislated... all these problems associated with race and religion are post Malaysia developments, man-made, and appear to be getting worse. I said something like this not too long ago and within hours 2 police reports were made against me by UMNO youth in Sabah. This could never have happened in North Borneo since there was no UMNO youth then.” (Page 131)

Simon Sipaun: Human Rights Defender is an appropriately titled book. I was present when he delivered several of the speeches. I think this 133 page book well represents the man: humble, bold, tireless, watchful.

Tan Sri Simon models what all of us, not just ‘retired patriots’ can do for Malaysia. – March 25, 2014.

 

* Rama Ramanathan is a Proham volunteer, and blogs at write2rest.blogspot.com.

Source: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/simon-says-simon-sipaun-human-rights-defender-rama-ramanathan

PROHAM DISCUSSION ON THE UPR RECOMMENDATION POST MARCH 20, 2014 DECISIONS

 Date:                April 10, 2014 (Thursday)

Time                 8 to 10pm (coffee served from 7pm)

Venue :             Global Movement of Moderates

15th Floor, Menara Manulife, No. 6, Jalan

Gelenggang, Damansara Heights, Kuala Lumpur.

 

Proham & GMM is hosting a discussion on the Malaysian government’s Report of the UPR Working Group tabled in Geneva on March 20, 2014. The objectives are:

To review the recommendations adopted and rejected by Malaysia

To chart out a plan of action so as to strengthen Malaysia’s compliance to Human Rights standards

Panel Discussion

Word of welcome :         Datuk Kuthbul (Proham Chairman)

Over view analysis & presentation - Mr Rama Ramanathan (Proham secretariat)

Reflection from Geneva discussions - Mr Jerald Joseph (KOMAS/COMANGO)

Others comments with reference to way forward on the UPR Follow up & monitoring:

-       Mr Andrew Khoo (Bar Council)  & Ms Ivy Josiah (Proham)

Moderated by Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah (GMM) & Datuk Dr Denison  Jayasooria (Proham)

------------

Register for participation: prohamsecretariat@gmail.com

Long way to go on human rights

Ying Hooi is attached with a local university. Her research interests cover the fields of civil society, social movements, protests, political participation, human rights and democratization.

The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) started in 2008 and is the only peer review process on the state of human rights in all United Nations member states.

Last week, Malaysia completed its second cycle of UPR in Geneva.

So, what is next for Malaysia?

 

In its first cycle in 2009, Putrajaya accepted 62 recommendations, rejected 22 and issued no clear position on 19 recommendations.

This time, Malaysia accepted 150 recommendations out of the 232 it received. This is a good sign but in terms of substance, Malaysia is still lacking.

Notably, Malaysia rejected all of the recommendations to accede to the remaining six of nine core international human rights treaties.

It is an embarrassment that Putrajaya has only ratified three treaties since 1995. These are the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).

On the ratification chart, Malaysia remains in the bottom 10 countries in the United Nations.
Although an Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) on human rights has been set up to determine how far Putrajaya could go in ratifying these remaining treaties, the process is too slow.
One of the favourite excuses trotted out is that it is better not to sign if the country is not ready to comply with the treaties. This is just lame excuse.

There had already been two rounds of the UPR process.

The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) had proposed a national human rights action plan in 2001.

After the first UPR session, Suhakam suggested the adoption of recommendations in the UPR into a national human rights action plan, since we do not have one.

Since then, Putrajaya has made promises to establish a human rights plan.

Malaysia made a commitment to develop its own human rights plan in 2009 at the UN.

But it was only three years later that a steering committee to coordinate the development of the plan was established by the Legal Affairs Division of the Prime Minister’s Department.

Many countries have accepted the UPR recommendations and turned them into a human rights plan.
From there, it is easy to monitor the progress and implement, apart from reporting in the next UPR cycle.

One good example is Finland. Finland, too, had no human rights plan. However, after its first UPR review, the Finns used the first report to initiate their human rights plan.
How did they do that?

It collected ideas and views from civil society groups in online discussion forums and social media, including Facebook and Twitter. Subsequently, a draft version of the plan was produced for further comments.

Another glaring weakness in the UPR process is the failure of Putrajaya to disseminate information to the public.

There is a public “spat” between the Coalition of Malaysian NGOs in the UPR Process (Comango) and the Coalition of Muslim NGOs in the UPR Process (Murpo) but not many are aware of what constitutes the UPR here.

It is undeniable that there are still issues when it comes to universal human rights and Islamic values.
What is lacking from these two UPR cycles is engagement by both Putrajaya and non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

Putrajaya has since the first cycle of UPR adopted a defensive approach. While NGOs, having little access to government machinery, remain an “outsider” in the UPR process.

One positive thing is that the UPR mechanism has created more awareness among NGOs with more NGOs taking part in the process.

Malaysia is represented by a large delegation to Geneva both from the government and NGOs.
After two cycles of UPR, both parties should have learned that apart from the human rights peer review, UPR is also a platform for both parties to build relationship for the same goals.
Unfortunately, the Malaysian delegations at Geneva are there more for “show” than work.

Therefore, in order to utilise the UPR mechanism, there is no point in being stubborn.
Putrajaya and NGOs need to reach consensus with a more compromising approach. – March 24, 2014. (Malaysian Insider)

Source: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/opinion/khoo-ying-hooi/article/long-way-to-go-on-human-rights

Batins: The weak link

The point of contact on administrative matters between the government and the Orang Asli in the peninsula is the Jabatan Kemajuan Orang Asli and they deal with the Tok Batin, the headman of each village. And the Tok Batin appears to be the weak link when it comes to fighting for the rights of the Orang Asli.

Why so? These headman are given an allowance by the government, they are tied by a set of guidelines in their appointment and there is suspicion that they are also bound by an 'Aku Ganji' or 'I Promise' declaration. All this put doubts on their loyalties -- to the government or their people?

 

The task force assigned to study Suhakam's recommendations submitted in August 2013 compromise of only 30% from the Orang Asal community. Many do not understand the documents for discussions laid before them especially those shrouded in legalese. 

 

 With the recent rejection by the Malaysian government of six, what could be considered as far-reaching recommendations, by member states of UNDRIP has brought disappointment to the Orang Asal community.

 The task force set up by the government to study the recommendations of human rights body Suhakam to look into their plight, is not likely to give them much reprieve. They feel though that the findings of the National Inquiry by Suhakam should be accepted and implemented.

 

http://www.kinitv.com/video/5029O18

 

Published on 20 March 2014 0:30

 

Human Rights Council adopts Universal Periodic Review outcomes of Malaysia

20 March 2014

The Human Rights Council during its noon meeting adopted the outcomes of the Universal Periodic Review of Malaysia.  The Vice-President of the Council said that that Malaysia had received 232 recommendations, including 150 that received support while the rest had been noted

 

Dato Mazlan Muhammad, Permanent Representative of Malaysia to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said Malaysia supported roughly 64 per cent of all recommendations proposed and had shown flexibility by supporting a number of recommendations on difficult issues. Malaysia had already taken steps to implement a number of recommendations, including on the establishment of a National Human Rights Action Plan. The Government acknowledged that more could be done to make human rights information in general, and the Universal Periodic Review process specifically, more widely available and was exploring ways to better disseminate information at the grass-roots level.

The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia also spoke.

In the discussion on Malaysia, speakers thanked Malaysia for its constructive participation during the review process and the acceptance of many recommendations. Satisfaction was expressed about Malaysia’s commitment to human rights, especially overcoming social inequality through the Government’s transformation programme. Progress made in the areas of education, health, combating poverty and to improvement in living standards, as well as women’s rights, the rights of the child, of persons with disabilities and of indigenous peoples was also highlighted. However, disappointment was expressed about the rejection of recommendations on equality and marriage, marital rape, the prohibition of corporal punishment, and the death penalty.

Speaking in the discussion on Malaysia were Senegal, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Thailand, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Algeria, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China and Cuba.

Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development, World Organization against Torture, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, Dignity International, Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, Human Rights Watch, Action Canada for Population and Development, Amnesty International and British Humanist Association also took the floor.

The Council then adopted the outcome of the Universal Periodic Review of Malaysia.

Consideration of Outcome of Universal Periodic Review of Malaysia
The Council has before it the report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review on Malaysia (A/HRC/25/10)

DATO MAZLAN MUHAMMAD, Permanent Representative of Malaysia to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said Malaysia supported roughly 64 per cent, or two-thirds, of all recommendations proposed and had shown flexibility by supporting a number of recommendations on difficult issues, which showed its commitment to improving human rights on the ground. The recommendations that did not enjoy Malaysia’s support this time may be reconsidered in the future. Malaysia had already taken steps to implement a number of recommendations, including on the establishment of a National Human Rights Action Plan. Mr. Muhammad said that on 4 December 2013 the Minister of Legal Affairs convened the first meeting of the National Steering Committee which was comprised of senior Government officials and representatives of academia and civil society, and was mandated to establish five technical sub-committees that would implement the action plan in five key areas.

The Government acknowledged that more could be done to make human rights information in general, and the Universal Periodic Review process specifically, more widely available and was exploring ways to better disseminate information at the grass-roots level. To improve the overall living conditions of people, in 2012 the Government for the first time implemented a direct cash transfer programme known as ‘BR1M’, in which payments were paid to the most vulnerable households and individuals, those earning three to four thousand Malaysian Ringgit per month. BR1M was considered to be a comprehensive social security safety net and on 22 February 2014 the Government rolled out the third round of BR1M payments to some seven million people. The Permanent Representative said he looked forward to hearing the views of stakeholders and partners on Malaysia’s second round of the Universal Periodic Review.

HASMY AGAM, National Human Rights Commission of Malaysia, hoped that the Government would diligently implement recommendations and urged it to give priority to accession to the core international human rights treaties. The Commission welcomed the establishment of a task force to look at the implementation of recommendation concerning the land rights of indigenous peoples, and expressed concerns about the enactment of security legislation. The Commission also welcomed the increased attention paid by non-governmental organizations to the review process, highlighting its importance for the promotion and human rights. Finally, the Commission also expressed concerns about reprisals taken against human rights activists cooperating with the Council.

Senegal thanked Malaysia for the additional information provided in the addendum to its report and welcomed the renewed commitment to ensure the full realisation of rights. Senegal believed that the protection of the rights of vulnerable people should be given priority in the implementation of recommendations.

Singapore thanked Malaysia for its constructive participation during the review process, including its acceptance of the recommendations made by Singapore. Recommending the adoption of the report, Singapore expressed the intention to continue to cooperate with Malaysia for the promotion of rights in the region, including as part of ASEAN initiatives.

Sri Lanka appreciated the comprehensive responses provided by Malaysia during the review and the acceptance of many of the recommendations. Sri Lanka noted that Malaysia had successfully harnessed its diversity for development, as enshrined in the One Malaysia concept, and recommended the adoption of the report.

Sudan thanked and commended Malaysia for its commitment, open approach and positive response to the Universal Periodic Review process and said Malaysia had made great efforts in the promotion and protection of human rights.

Thailand noted with appreciation Malaysia’s acceptance of Thailand’s recommendation on providing universal access to affordable healthcare services for poor, vulnerable and marginalized groups. It also welcomed Malaysia’s assertion that it may reconsider the recommendations it was unable to accept this time, in the future.

Uzbekistan welcomed that Malaysia had accepted so many recommendations, including its own. Those recommendations would strengthen and boost the human rights situation in Malaysia.

Venezuela welcomed with satisfaction the light shown on Malaysia’s commitment to human rights, especially overcoming social inequality through the Government’s transformation programme. Malaysia was commended for its resolve in implementing recommendations from its first cycle of the Universal Periodic Review.

Viet Nam welcomed Malaysia’s efforts to promote diversity and the protection of rights, as well as its constructive engagement during the review cycle and its efforts in accepting and implementing recommendations, including those submitted by Viet Nam.

Yemen welcomed Malaysia’s achievements in the field of human rights and commended the Government for accepting a large number of recommendations, which attested to its commitment to the promotion of all rights.

Algeria congratulated Malaysia for accepting most of the recommendations, in particular the two recommendations presented by Algeria concerning the ratification of human rights treaties and the combat of trafficking in persons.

Botswana commended Malaysia for accepting many recommendations. Botswana noted the introduction of the Government Transformation Programme, aimed at supporting efforts to promote and protect human rights, which demonstrated Malaysia’s commitment to improving the situation of its people.

Brunei thanked Malaysia for its firm commitment to the Universal Periodic Review process and commended it in particular for its initiatives in enhancing the well-being of women, empowering women in the labour force and ensuring the access of citizens to healthcare.

Cambodia said as a fellow ASEAN member Malaysia was commended for its commitment to human rights and was pleased to note its two recommendations had been fully accepted.

China thanked Malaysia for accepting its recommendations on pursuing regional and international cooperation and stepping up the fight against trafficking, as well as enhancing mutual respect among its different ethnic groups while maintaining its diversity.

Cuba congratulated Malaysia on the tangible results it had achieved in the implementation of the recommendations from its first Universal Periodic Review cycle. Cuba highlighted progress made in the areas of education, health, combating poverty, and improving living standards, as well as the rights of women, children, persons with disabilities and indigenous peoples.

Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development was disappointed that Malaysia had rejected recommendations concerning equality, marriage, and marital rape. Even if Malaysia had stated that child marriage had never been a trend, the legal age to marry for Muslim girls was 16.

World Organization against Torture regretted the rejection by Malaysia of the recommendations concerning the prohibition of corporal punishment and the death penalty and that it had refused to ratify some core human rights instruments. Malaysia should immediately establish a commission to investigate police conduct and abuse, and should take immediate steps to abolish the death penalty.

Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative said that COMANGO, a coalition of over 50 civil society organizations in Malaysia, had been declared illegal for their cooperation with the Universal Periodic Review process, even if this decision had been later reversed. Malaysia was in urgent need of an independent police oversight mechanism, which should be promptly established in accordance with the police reform plans.

Dignity International was disappointed that Malaysia had rejected recommendations that would ensure that its law and policies were in line with the Convention on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Dignity International condemned acts of reprisals against members of COMANGO by the Government and non-State actors who acted with tacit Government support.

Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, speaking in a joint statement, regretted that Malaysia had not accepted recommendations on upholding and promoting freedom of religion, as demonstrated by its ban on non-Muslims using the word ‘Allah’. The Forum also regretted the lack of judicial reform, the use of detention without trial and certain repressive laws.

Human Rights Watch regretted restrictions on peaceful and public assembly, as well as a law restricting the printing of publications. Malaysia should engage with the media and civil society to revise that law. The recent conviction of an opposition leader and human rights lawyer for sedition was emblemised of political repression.

Action Canada for Population and Development spoke about Malaysia’s rejection of recommendations to decriminalize same-sex relations, which rejected the right of people with diverse sexuality to live free from stigma, discrimination and violence. Further, the decriminalization of marital rape in law was a gross violation of women’s rights.

Amnesty International voiced concern about attempts to silence critical voices in civil society, and about human rights violations by the police, including torture, death in custody and excessive use of force, which took place with impunity. It expressed deep concern about the use of the death penalty as executions had been carried out in secret and without prior warning.

British Humanist Association noted restrictive legislation in Malaysia concerning the right to religion or belief and the right to freedom of expression. For example, the registration of religion on identity cards was obligatory and only major religions were recognised. The legislation remained the biggest obstacle to the freedom of thought and the Government should implement the Rabat Plan of Action to ensure that those rights were equally enjoyed by all Malaysians.

DATO MAZLAN MUHAMMAD, Permanent Representative of Malaysia to the United Nations Office at Geneva, expressed appreciation to delegations and stakeholders that offered observations and recommendations. All statements made today had been listened to carefully. The active participation and contribution of all partners and stakeholders was appreciated. All comments made and issues raised today would be studied and considered by the Government in the implementation of accepted recommendations. There remained challenges in the promotion and protection of human rights in the country and the Government would continue to take action on improvements in key areas. Certain issues raised by civil society representatives had been addressed in the detailed information contained in the report. In introducing the amendments to the Prevention of Crime Act and the Peaceful Assembly Act, safeguards in accordance with international law had been included. The Government of Malaysia reaffirmed its commitment to cooperate with the United Nations human rights mechanisms, in particular the Special Procedures, and invitations to the Special Rapporteur on the trafficking of persons and the Special Rapporteur on the right to health had been extended. The entire Universal Periodic Review process had been very beneficial to Malaysia and allowed for the evaluation of achievements and challenges. Malaysia remained steadfast in its commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights in the country.

The Council then adopted the outcome of the Universal Periodic Review of Malaysia

Source:  http://www​.ohchr.org​/EN/NewsEv​ents/Pages​/DisplayNe​ws.aspx?Ne​wsID=14414​&LangID=E

FIGHTING RACISM: SEEING ALL AS HUMAN BEINGS

In conjunction with UN International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (March 21, 2014)

By Datuk Dr Denison Jayasooria

Racism continues to be a real problem in contemporary societies. This is a global crisis not specific to a country but across major countries of the world. But when confronted most people would say they are not a racist. But we have witnessed and are witnessing inter-ethnic and intra community violence in many parts of the world.

In Malaysia too we are faced with this question. While violence like that experienced during the May 13, 1969 riots is not a feature today but hate speeches and intolerant actions are prevalent. The funny part of this is that different people are pointing fingers on who is a racist? The question before us who then is a racist?

When does defending ones ethnicity, religion, culture, language shift from claiming ones fundamental rights to becoming intolerant actions. When does it cross the line of defending ones rights to denying another their fundamental rights?

This is well defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). One must affirm that this document was drafted by the world leaders and adopted as part of the UN Charter. While some individuals and groups decry this, they must realise that Malaysia when it joined the UN and also was part of the UN Human Rights Council has made an international commitment to uphold these universal principles.

The UDHR in article 1 & 2 declare that “all human being are born free and equal in dignity and rights”. This is also the focus of article 1 in the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights adopted by OIC member countries from an Islamic perspective. It states that “all human being are equal in terms of basic human dignity and basic obligations and responsibilities”. In a similar way the Asean Human Rights Declaration states that “ all persons are born free and equal in dignity and rights”.

Therefore all these human rights documents have one thing in common namely the theme of “being human”. It is clear, whether we article our concerns from a universal, religious or regional perspective the theme of human rights is affirming that human being are free, equal and with dignity. Of course rights also include responsibilities but the focus is on rights and the obligation of the State/governments to uphold this for all people.

It is important to note that when we apply this human rights framework to ethnic or race relations we need to ask how does what we say or do affirm or undermine the rights of others. Do we view ourselves and our community or ethnic group as superior, dominant, powerful and others as inferior and insignificant?

The human rights approach affirms the rights of all individuals and groups on the basis of equality and that there should be no discrimination on the basis of the colour of one’s skin or religion or gender or age or where we come from.

This is fundamental not just from human rights but the corner stone of all the major religions of the world. A theme well developed by the theistic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

 However we need to ask but are socio economic situations equal for all to compete if some for historical reasons could be disadvantaged?  Could there be some provisions so as to ensure equal opportunities and equal outcomes can be protected.

Article 153 & Affirmative Action

One positive aspect of the Malaysian experience is the formulation of the Federal Constitution and the balance between equality before the law as protected in Article 8 and the special measures as provided for in Article 153

In social policy terms this is referred to as affirmative action or positive discrimination. This is a provision provided for by the founding fathers of Malaysia which comprised leaders from all the major ethnic communities in Malaysia through the Alliance political grouping and later affirmed through the Barisan National.

What many do not realise or often under emphasised is that the Federal Constitution provides clear provisions and limitations to the provisions. There are a number which will enhance our discussion on equality and positive discrimination in the context of historical disadvantage especially among the Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak including the Orang Asli indigenous communities.

One can identify four clear guidelines:-

First, Article 153 must be read in the context of Article 8 as this provision in article 153 is a special measure and not a matter of ethnic or racial superiority or dominance such as recent terms like Ketuanan or even dominance of the majority.

Second, Article 153 states the special measures for the Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak on the one hand but also affirms the legitimate interest of other communities. Therefore the spirit of the Federal Constitution is not an approach of denial of one and preference for another. The aspect of legitimate interest is not emphasised by groups advocating rights using 153. Furthermore it is the constitutional duty of the Yand Di Pertuan Agong to protect the rights of all the communities.

Third, article 153 indicates all the measures must be “reasonable”. It cannot be unreasonable quotas or conditions which might restrict or prevent the progress of other communities.

Four, that the special measures are restricted to three area namely civil service recruitment and not in promotions as article 153 (5) makes reference to article 136 on impartial treatment of federal employees; educational places and scholarships and business licenses. The Federal Constitution does not give a free hand but addresses clearly the position of disadvantage.

From a human rights point of view the question is not the provisions as per article 153 but the implementations. There must be open transparent discussion on who is really benefiting from the 153 provisions. The historical consensus is to address the historical disadvantage. This is an important aspect as we do not want a sizable section of the poor coming from the majority community and from among the indigenous communities. 

Open rational discussions including access to transparent data & analysis especially from disaggregated data is necessary. This will restore confidents in the implementation of these provisions and reduce the thoughts of being marginalised or discriminated or have limited access to the services

ICERD Provisions

The International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination(ICERD) was adopted by the United Nations in on Dec 21, 1965. Of the 192 UN member states 176 have ratified this convention. Only 8.3% or 16 countries have not and Malaysia is one of the countries that have not ratified this Convention.

Ratification of ICERD will be one of the best things Malaysia can do in order to highlight the positive way it has used affirmative action to address the poverty of a majority of the Malay community though a whole range of socio-economic development programs.

ICERD makes provisions for positive discrimination but the measures are not meant to be permanent. There must be transparency in the implementation and it is not based on racial or ethnic superiority but to address historical disadvantage. This objective or goal is similar to what the Malaysian founding fathers envisioned.

Therefore we must ask this very important question on the UN day for the elimination of racial discrimination why Malaysia remains among the very few countries of the world which has not ratified the ICED. This is the ‘One Malaysia’ and ‘Malaysian Boleh land’ and why if we are Truly Asia we remain alongside Anglo, North Korea and Myanmar

Ratification will not mean an end of article 153 provisions as these are needed to address socio economic inequalities and the provisions can be applied on the basis of human need especially for the bottom 40% and in the some cases on the basis of race so as to ensure not just equality of opportunities but also equality of outcomes so as to ensure that all communities have a share of the Malaysian heritage and equitable share of the wealth.

We must not just ratify ICERD but also establish a Commission for Equal Opportunities so as to ensure that all Malaysians will have a fair chance and opportunity in both the public and private sectors.

-----------------
Article by Datuk Dr Denison Jayasooria in conjunction with UN International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (March 21, 2014). Dr Denison is the Principal Research Fellow at the Institute of Ethnic Studies (KITA), UKM. He is also Secretary General of Proham (Society for the Promotion of Human Rights)

Regional Consultation on Promoting the Freedom of Religion and Beliefs in ASEAN

                              

                                                                                                            

 Regional Consultation on Promoting the Freedom of Religion or Belief in ASEAN

Indonesia, 19-20 February 2014

 

A Regional consultation on Promoting the Freedom of Religion or Belief in ASEAN was held in Jakarta from 19-20 February 2014 hosted by HRWG – Human Rights Working Group, a Coalition of Indonesian NGOs for International Human Rights Advocacy, in partnership with the Indonesian Representative for AICHR, Mr. Rafendi Djamin, and supported by Canadian Government. Participants included members of AICHR, ACWC, representatives of relevant governmental agencies from ASEAN Member States, National Human Rights Institutions (NHRI’s) from Indonesia and the Philippines, Think Tanks and academes, Human Rights NGOs, interfaith dialogue organisations, and religious organization from several ASEAN Member States and representatives from the diplomatic community in Jakarta.

Southeast Asia features a multicultural community that is diverse both in terms of ethnicity and of religion or belief. It is noted that religions and beliefs have been a significant aspect of Southeast Asian society’s life. Most ASEAN member states have committed to guarantee freedom of religion or Belief (FoRB), normatively, in their constitutions and domestic legal frameworks. In the ASEAN context, member states have also stressed their commitment in guaranteeing FoRB through the ASEAN Declaration on Human Rights. However, the picture of religious-based discrimination, intolerance, persecution and even violence has shed a doubtful light on Southeast Asian states’ commitment to this particular issue. Restrictions have been imposed and applied which are not in accordance with international law and standards regarding FoRB. Several challenges have been identified in upholding the FoRB and protecting the human right of religious minorities, including secular people, as well as vulnerable groups to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Among these challenges are:
1. Existing domestic law and policy that contradict international and constitutional standards and Member States’ commitment to uphold them;
2. Lack of understanding and misperceptions by the government as well as society as a whole regarding the right to Freedom of Religion or Belief and in particular the rights of religious minorities, including vulnerable groups to manifest their own religions and practise their traditions;
3. Widespread incitement to hatred, discrimination and violence against different religious groups have not been effectively prevented and punished by the state.
4. The lack of reference guide for implementing protection and promotion of FoRB by ASEAN human rights bodies, Member States and NHRI, and also civil society organization who involved in these issues.

Strong and effective legal and practical guarantees to FoRB and a culture of tolerance and equality would make ASEAN a more peaceful, stable and just region. Unjustified restrictions to FoRB have only encouraged religious-based hatred and violence. Religious majorities need to be more sensitive to the minorities, create an atmosphere of tolerance and eliminate discrimination within society. 

The Main objective of the Regional Consultation on Promoting the Freedom of Religion or Belief in ASEAN is to share best practices and experiences from ASEAN Member States regarding the implementation of constitutional rights on freedom of religion or belief in ASEAN countries. It is expected that the consultation will come up with recommendations on policy and programs to uphold the freedom of religion or belief in ASEAN.  This consultation will bring together the stakeholders of the freedom of religion or belief to include AICHR Representatives, ACWC Representatives, National Human Rights Institutions (NHRI), civil society organizations, religious leaders, etc.

Several of experts gave the speechs in this Consultation, some of them: Prof. W. Cole Durham, Jr (Susa Young Gates University Professor of Law and Director, International Center for Law and Religion Studies at BYU), Mr. Ahmad Taufan Damanik (Commissioner of ASEAN Committee on Protection of Women and Child), and Dr. Denison Jayasooria (Institute of Ethnic Studies (KITA), University Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) and Secretary General PROHAM, Society for the Promotion of Human Rights in Malaysia) as Discussant, Ms. Alissa Wahid (The Coordinator of Gusdurian) and Mr. K. V. Soon Vidyananda (Secretary General International Muslim-Buddhist Dialogue), and Mr. Jose Manuel S. Mamauag (Commissioner of Philippines NHRI).

 

Recommendation of the Consultation

This Regional Consultation have been resulted some recommendation on promoting of freedom of religion and belief, especially on strengthening ASEAN human rights bodies' role in the protection and promoting of human rights: 
1. There is a need to develop within ASEAN guiding principles on FoRB addressing relevant stakeholders, especially ASEAN human rights commissions (AICHR and ACWC);
2. AICHR is encouraged to implement its mandate to encourage member states to ratify international human rights instruments, especially ICCPR;
3. AICHR is encouraged to conduct a thematic study on the issue of FoRB;
4. ACWC is encouraged to monitor and to report on the implementation of the ASEAN Declaration on Elimination Violation against Women and Children focusing on religion based violence;
5. Member States should encourage education that fosters tolerance and respect for differences in religion or belief in the pluralistic society of ASEAN;
6. AICHR and ACWC should encourage all Member States to harmonize laws and policies relating to FoRB in compliance with AHRD and UDHR;
7. ASEAN governments and societies are encouraged to mainstream FoRB to build a common perception of the importance of guaranteeing FoRB to create a more peaceful and just society and a more stable region;
8. The legal recognition of particular religions or beliefs must be expanded to accommodate all existing religions and beliefs, including secular views, in a non-discriminatory manner;
9. Member States are encouraged to advance the effective prevention of advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence;
10. Any measures to advance the protection of FoRB by the ASEAN Member States must be taken in a non-discriminatory manner;
11. AICHR is encouraged to create a focal point on FoRB to monitor and evaluate progress on the advancement of FoRB in all Member States.

 

------------------------------------------------

Background Note of the Consultation

ASEAN region is a home for ethnic, cultural, religious and belief diversity. The region is also a projection of the avenue where the nation building project interplay with power and religion within the cultural complexity incidences. By 2015, ASEAN will launch its regional integrated community, which according to its Charter, human rights will the values, principles, and purposes of the Association, along with democracy, rule of law and good governance.
During the launch of the ASEAN Inter-governmental Commission of Human Rights (AICHR) in 2009, Thailand Prime Minister, in his capacity as the ASEAN Chair 2008-2009 stated,

“The history of Southeast Asia is clearly evidenced by the quest for freedom and the improvement of the lives of our peoples. Human right is an important component of our people's lives, and it is important for the people-based community we plan to build. But the success of AICHR goes beyond the advancement of human rights and fundamental freedoms as envisaged by the ASEAN Charter. Ultimately, it is all about the commitment of Member States to enhancing the quality of the life of ASEAN peoples, empowering and engaging them in ASEAN's community building process, all of which are the fundamental basis of a genuine community for peoples”. Complete statement here.

Universal Declaration on Human Rights guarantees the freedom of religion or belief, which includes the freedom, either alone or in community with others, in public or in private, to practice one’s religion or belief, whether through worship, observance of religious customs or teaching. Freedom of religion or belief also includes the right not to have a religion or belief, and to change one’s religion. The 2012’s ASEAN Human Rights Declaration (AHRD) states in its Article 22, “Every person has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. All forms of intolerance, discrimination and incitement of hatred based on religion or belief shall be eliminated”.
Despite that all Constitutions of ASEAN countries guarantee freedom of religion, however, in practice, the form of restrictions and reductions as well as the legalization of the restrictions and reduction are prevalent. In other word, laws and policies related to freedom of religion contradict its Constitutions. Although different in its forms, discrimination against certain religion is a common phenomenon in ASEAN countries nowadays, as expressed by Prime Minister Hun Sen during Cambodian chairmanship in ASEAN,

 “We have seen that religious conflict has been spreading in the world and it has just flowed into our ASEAN region... Practically, violence and mutually brutal killings among different religious believers in some of ASEAN member states in the recent past are a new event that is attracting interest from international community.” Full statement here

Vulnerable groups, especially minorities in a number of countries in ASEAN have experienced discrimination, violence, and all forms of human rights violations simply because of their ethnicity or belongin to certain religious minority. ASEAN region also witness that the violations against religious freedom will trigger or the result of violation of other rights. This is the case how freedom of religion is interlinked with the guarantee of freedom of expression.
It is with this backdrop, Human Rights Working Group (HRWG) in cooperation with Indonesia’s Representative to AICHR, to organize a two-day Dialogue bringing together AICHR Representatives, ACWC Representatives, civil society groups, victims organizations, national human rights institutions, UN Special Rapporteur, academes, media and government officials and the ASEAN Secretariat to discuss the status of freedom religion and belief and to come up with collective action plan as well as with recommendation for ASEAN organs to further respect the freedom of religion and belief. This regional consultation is a continuation from the regional meeting that was organized by HRWG on November 2012 with civil society organizations in ASEAN countries.

 

For further informations about this Consultation, including also related to materials meeting, powerpoint and paper please kindly concact Muhammad Hafiz, Program Manager UN-OIC Advocacy HRWG at hafiz@hrwg.org This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .


Source: http://hrwg.org/events/upcoming-event/item/248-regional-consultation-on-promoting-the-freedom-of-religion-and-beliefs-in-asean

Conference in Indonesia: Promoting the freedom of religion and beliefs in ASEAN

A Regional consultation on Promoting the Freedom of Religion or Belief in ASEAN was held in Jakarta from 19-20 February 2014 hosted by HRWG – Human Rights Working Group, a Coalition of Indonesian NGOs for International Human Rights Advocacy, in partnership with the Indonesian Representative for AICHR, Mr. Rafendi Djamin, and supported by the Canadian Government.

Participants included members of AICHR, ACWC, representatives of relevant governmental agencies from ASEAN Member States, National Human Rights Institutions (NHRI’s) from Indonesia and the Philippines, Think Tanks and academes, Human Rights NGOs, interfaith dialogue organizations, and religious organization from several ASEAN Member States and representatives from the diplomatic community in Jakarta.

Keynote speaker for this event was Prof. W. Cole Durham, Jr. (Susa Young Gates University Professor of Law and Director, International Center for Law and Religion Studies at BYU). Among the other experts who spoke in this Consultation were  Mr. Ahmad Taufan Damanik (Commissioner of ASEAN Committee on Protection of Women and Child), and Dr. Denison Jayasooria (Institute of Ethnic Studies (KITA), University Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) and Secretary General PROHAM, Society for the Promotion of Human Rights in Malaysia) as Discussant, Ms. Alissa Wahid (The Coordinator of Gusdurian) and Mr. K. V. Soon Vidyananda (Secretary General International Muslim-Buddhist Dialogue), and Mr. Jose Manuel S. Mamauag (Commissioner of Philippines NHRI).

Vulnerable groups, especially minorities in a number of countries in ASEAN have experienced discrimination, violence, and all forms of human rights violations simply because of their ethnicity or belonging to certain religious minority. The ASEAN region is also witness that the violations against religious freedom will trigger or result in violation of other rights. This is the case of how freedom of religion is interlinked with the guarantee of freedom of expression.

It is with this backdrop, Human Rights Working Group (HRWG) in cooperation with Indonesia’s Representative to AICHR, organized this two-day dialogue, bringing together AICHR Representatives, ACWC Representatives, civil society groups, victims organizations, national human rights institutions, UN Special Rapporteur, academes, media and government officials, and the ASEAN Secretariat to discuss the status of freedom religion and belief and to come up with a collective action plan as well as with recommendation for ASEAN organs to further respect the freedom of religion and belief. This regional consultation was a continuation from the regional meeting that was organized by HRWG on November 2012 with civil society organizations in ASEAN countries.

Read more about this event, including the Recommendation of the Consulation, here.
For further information about this Consultation, including also related to materials meeting, powerpoint and paper please kindly concact Muhammad Hafiz, Program Manager UN-OIC Advocacy HRWG at hafiz@hrwg.org.

Source: http://www.religlaw.org/index.php?pageId=19&contentId=217&blurbId=24428