Proham & Re-delineation

Proham calls for a special sitting of Parliament to discuss Constitutional and legislative guidelines to ensure the Independence of the Election Commission especially in undertaking re-delineation and conduct of elections

Proham is shocked with the recent statement by Tan Sri Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman that the “three re-delineation exercises of the electoral borders … were done … had ensured Malays remained in power”.

This statement raises many questions and concerns on the independence, credibility and neutrality of the Election Commission (EC). The EC is expected to uphold the principles set by the Federal Constitution in the spirit of the universal principles on democracy and conduct of delineation exercises.

The revelation of the ‘hidden agenda’ is now being made by someone who had been associated with the EC for a long time not just as the EC Secretary (1979 to 1999) but also as EC Chairman (2000 to 2008). He had been the public face of the EC over six general elections and three re-delineation exercises.

Political parties, academics and civil society have been raising many issues pertaining to the independence of the Election Commission. The media coverage of a speech by Tan Sri Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman revealing these details further confirms the suspicion of a majority of Malaysian voters.

Proham calls on Parliament to have a special sitting on this matter and also to draw up new legislative guidelines on the appointment of Election Commission Chairman and members that will ensure that the Federal Constitution, democracy and human rights of all citizens are honoured. The selection committee should be a by-partisan exercise in nominating individuals who ‘enjoy public confidence’ for the Yang di Pertuan Agong’s consideration

This process is of utmost importance as the Federal Constitution clearly indicates that the members of the Election Commission must “enjoy public confidence” (Article 114-2). There is a public deficit of trust at present which is further damaged with the new revelations. Therefore a public and open discussion on these matters is essential to restore public confidence on the individuals and the institution appointed to carry out the duties without fear or favor.

This is no simple matter as the EC is currently undertaking a re-delineation exercise and therefore this matter is of great public urgency. Parliament must ensure that there is a public discussion on this matter and that this process must be transparent and open to public participation.

Issued on behalf of Proham by:

 

Tan Sri Simon Sipaun (Proham Chairman), Prof Datuk Hamdan Adnan (Proham Deputy Chairman) and Datuk Dr Denison Jayasooria (Proham Secretary General)

Nov 28, 2013 Kota Kinabalu, Sabah

After Malay-power disclosure, critics want checks on polls redelineation exercise

Malaysia

After Malay-power disclosure, critics want checks on polls redelineation exercise

November 28, 2013

A recent statement by former EC chairman Tan Sri Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman had raised questions over the EC's neutrality when carrying out redelineation exercise. - The Malaysian Insider pic, November 28, 2013.A human rights group and an opposition lawmaker have asked for a special Parliament sitting to ensure the Election Commission (EC) remained independent and neutral following a recent statement made by its former chairman that has cast doubts on whether electoral boundary redelineation exercises were conducted fairly.

The Association for the Promotion of Human Rights Malaysia (Proham) wants a bipartisan special committee put in place to nominate EC members to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong while Serdang MP Dr Ong Kian Ming has called for a parliamentary select committee to carry out the redelineation exercise to prevent gerrymandering.

Proham said the recent statement by former EC chairman Tan Sri Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman that three redelineation exercises were done to ensure Malays remained in power, had raised questions over the EC's credibility.

Proham wants a special Parliament meeting to be held including for the purpose of drawing up new legislative guidelines on the appointment of the EC chairman and its members.

"A by-partisan committee should be created to nominate individuals who ‘enjoy public confidence’ for the Yang di-Pertuan Agong’s consideration," said the statement by Proham chairman Tan Sri Simon Sipaun, deputy chairman Prof Datuk Hamdan Adnan and secretary-general Datuk Dr Denison Jayasooria.

It further pointed out that the Constitution clearly states that members of the EC must enjoy this public confidence, adding that currently there was a public deficit of trust, further damaged by the new revelations.

The statement said that the EC was supposed to uphold the principles in the Federal Constitution in the spirit of democracy when undertaking the redelineation exercise.

"This revelation of a 'hidden agenda' is now being made by someone who has been associated with the EC for a long time, as secretary from 1979 to 1999 and as its chairman for eight years from 2000.
"He has been the face of the EC for six general elections and three redelineation exercises," Proham said in the statement.

It further noted that political parties, academics and the civil society had been raising many concerns over EC's independence, adding that Abdul Rashid's statements, which were reported in the media, confirms the suspicion of the majority of Malaysian voters.

According to Proham, this warranted a public and open discussion in order to restore public confidence in the EC.

"This is no simple matter as the EC is currently undertaking a redelineation exercise and therefore this matter is of great public urgency.

"Parliament must ensure that there is a public discussion on this matter and that this process must be transparent and open to public participation," the statement said.

Recently, Abdul Rashid who joined Malay-rights group Perkasa, had said that the three redelineation exercises on electoral borders, which were done during his time with the EC, had ensured Malays remained in power.

"We did it in a proper way. Not illegally. The people who lost in the past general elections claimed that we did it wrong. But if we did, how did Barisan Nasional lose to the opposition in Kelantan, Penang and Selangor?" he had said.

He had also said that his experience could help the majority race keep power.

Ong wants a parliamentary select committee to be established on the soon-to-be-carried-out redelineation exercise to prevent gerrymandering.

A select committee is made up of members from the government and opposition and its recommendations are generally accepted by the government.

He said based on what Abdul Rashid had said, the latter was clearly taking instructions from the Barisan Nasional during the 2003 redelineation exercise.

“The exercise was done in order to increase the political dominance of BN/UMNO and not to increase Malay political dominance,” he said.

Ong said if Abdul Rashid wanted to maintain Malay political dominance, why was it that no Parliament seats were added to the Malay majority states of Kedah, Kelantan and Terengganu in the 2003 delineation exercise?

He said seats were not added in these states despite the fact that the number of voters in some seats was already quite high, like Tumpat with 69,948 voters, Kuala Terengganu with 65,900 voters, Kuala Kedah with 73,942 voters and Baling with 72,387 voters.

“The reason for the non-addition of Parliament seats in these three states is simple. PAS had performed tremendously well in the 1999 general election in all three states, winning eight out of 15 Parliament seats in Kedah, 13 out of 14 seats in Kelantan and all eight seats in Terengganu. The BN was fearful that if more seats were added in these states, it would benefit the opposition, specifically PAS. If Tan Sri Abdul Rashid really wanted to increase Malay political dominance, he would have added more Parliament seats in Kedah, Kelantan and Terengganu in 2003 but he did not do so in order to protect BN/UMNO’s political interest,” he said in a statement today.

Ong said he was part of an IKMAS (Institute Kajian Malaysia dan Antarabangsa) study team from UKM which looked at the redelineation process during that period.

“I remember distinctly Tan Sri Abdul Rashid telling the members of the study team that he had received instructions from the then Prime Minister (Tun Dr) Mahathir (Mohamad) not to add any seats in the three northern states and also to create more ethnically ‘mixed’ seats,” he said. -

November 28, 2013.

Copyright © 2013 - The Malaysian Insider

Parliament should ensure independence of EC

Parliament should ensure independence of EC

Proham 2:46PM Nov 28, 2013 Malaysiakini

COMMENT The Human Rights Promotion Association (Proham) urges a special sitting of Parliament to discuss constitutional and legislative guidelines to ensure the independence of the Election Commission (EC) especially in undertaking redelineation and conduct of elections.

Proham is shocked with the recent statement by Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman that the “three re-delineation exercises of the electoral borders... were done... had ensured Malays remained in power”.

This statement raises many questions and concerns on the independence, credibility and neutrality of the EC.

The EC is expected to uphold the principles set by the federal constitution in the spirit of the universal principles on democracy and conduct of delineation exercises.

The revelation of the ‘hidden agenda’ is now being made by someone who had been associated with the EC for a long time not just as the EC secretary (1979 to 1999) but also as EC chairperson (2000 to 2008).

He had been the public face of the EC over six general elections and three redelineation exercises.

Political parties, academics and civil society have been raising many issues pertaining to the independence of the Election Commission.

The media coverage of a speech by Abdul Rashid revealing these details further confirms the suspicion of a majority of Malaysian voters.

Proham urges Parliament to have a special sitting on this matter and also to draw up new legislative guidelines on the appointment of Election Commission chairperson and members that will ensure that the federal constitution, democracy and human rights of all citizens are honoured.

The selection committee should be a by-partisan exercise in nominating individuals who ‘enjoy public confidence’ for the Yang di Pertuan Agong’s consideration

This process is of utmost importance as the federal consultation clearly indicates that the members of the Election Commission must “enjoy public confidence” (Article 114-2).

There is a public deficit of trust at present which is further damaged with the new revelations.

Therefore a public and open discussion on these matters is essential to restore public confidence on the individuals and the institution appointed to carry out the duties without fear or favour.

This is no simple matter as the EC is currently undertaking a redelineation exercise and therefore this matter is of great public urgency.

Parliament must ensure that there is a public discussion on this matter and that this process must be transparent and open to public participation.

---

This statement was issued on behalf of Proham by: Simon Sipaun (Proham chairperson), Prof Hamdan Adnan (Proham deputy chairperson) and Dr Denison Jayasooria (Proham secretary-general).

The Universal Periodic Review and the case for a global standard of human right

BY SHERIDAN MAHAVERA
November 17, 2013 (Malaysian Insider)
 

A session of the Universal Periodic Review at the European headquarters of the United Nations in Geneva, last October. - Reuters pic, November 17, 2013.
























During the recent Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process, Finland got some harsh words on its treatment of ethnic minorities, and the critic was none other than Malaysia.

Malaysia wanted the Nordic nation to combat racism, intolerance and growing xenophobia in its society. It also urged Finland do more to promote multi-culturalism and protect religious minorities.
Malaysia even lambasted, using diplomatic language, the United Kingdom. Putrajaya said Britain must do more to address negative attitudes towards minority groups which include Muslims, and to stop racial profiling.

 

If you’re feeling nauseated, you’re not alone. A former member of Human Rights Commission of Malaysia, or Suhakam, was quite beside himself when he was told of the above statements, during a recent meeting in Petaling Jaya by local human rights group Proham.

It smacked of the Malaysian government's hypocrisy, coming at a time the country barred its own Christian minority from using the word Allah, and the stoking of racial tensions, particularly against the Chinese, in the wake of the 13th general election.

According to the Suhakam commissioner, Malaysia’s hypocrisy reflected the futility of the whole UN process.

This year's UPR was held at the United Nations headquarters in Geneva, involving 104 countries.
Proham secretary-general Datuk Denison Jayasooria. - The Malaysian Insider pic by Afif Abd Halim, November 17, 2013.

According to Proham secretary-general Datuk Denison Jayasooria, the UPR is a peer-review process with participating countries scrutinising each other's human rights situation.

He explained that the UN conventions on universal human rights act as the yardstick which all member countries have agreed to in the UPR process.

The UPR calls attention to problems and recommends actions that should be taken to solve those problems in each country.

So Malaysia gets to point out other countries’ problems and to recommend solutions. In turn, these countries draw attention to Malaysia’s human rights.

The countries can then decide whether to accept the recommendations, or simply ignore them completely.

It is this point that struck critics of the UPR.

“So it’s like a meeting where everybody lives in a glass house and throws stones at each other,” said the Suhakam member, sarcastically.

Such cynicism is not unqualified.

What’s the point of participating when there is no real international pressure for Malaysia to improve its human rights record?

Would it not be better to just concentrate on pushing for change from within the country?

Bar Council human rights committee co-chairman Andrew Khoo. - The Malaysian Insider pic by Afif Abd Halim, November 17, 2013.Lawyer Andrew Khoo explained that the peer review process of the UPR was essentially a forum for countries to talk frankly about their neighbours without seeming to interfere in each other’s affairs.

“For Asean countries, especially, it’s one of the rare ways in which they can point to each other's problems since Asean has a very strong principle of non-interference.







“Because what happens in one country affects others,” added Khoo, a co-chair of the Bar Council’s human rights committee who was in Geneva to attend the UPR session on Malaysia on October 24.
This is illustrated in the comments made by Indonesia, Bangladesh, the Philippines and Nepal on Malaysia’s treatment of migrant workers.

In total, Malaysia received 232 recommendations from Asian, African, Latin American and European countries.

There were 20 recommendations for Malaysia to improve access to healthcare in rural areas. This is while the country boasts of its success in eradicating poverty.

According to Khoo, most of the recommendations want Malaysia to do more to protect political and civil liberties, including freedom of assembly and speech, as well as rights of religious minorities.
They urge Malaysia to endorse the nine main international treaties on human rights, including a convention to end all forms of racial and gender discrimination, to protect civil rights, to end torture, and to provide for disabled persons, migrant workers and refugees.

Malaysia is signatory to only three of them, while Indonesia has signed eight.

Khoo stressed that every recommendation was important, and not just the sectors which got the most attention.

“Malaysia can’t take for granted that it is doing well in certain areas and can ignore other aspects of human rights. The overall message is that it must push forward in all areas,” he cautioned.

Bringing human rights home

Does the country’s image on the world stage matter to ordinary Malaysians?
Of late, some local Muslim groups have spoken out against the UPR process, claiming it was part of a “Western, liberal” agenda to undermine Islamic values.
An officer from the Department of Islamic Development Malaysia or Jakim addressing a seminar last month on the 'dangers of liberalism'. - The Malaysian Insider pic by Nazir Sufari, November 17, 2013.

They zeroed in on recommendations touching on freedom of sexual orientation and freedom of religion as examples of this “Western, liberal agenda”.

Yet, Denison pointed out that these were not the main recommendations made to Malaysia.

Missing from the argument were the recommendations from other Muslim countries urging Malaysia to protect freedom of expression and assembly, migrants' welfare and indigenous rights, as well as to end gender discrimination and human trafficking.

In an article published by The Malaysian Insider, Rama Ramanathan wrote that 35 Muslim countries including Indonesia, Egypt, Lebanon, Morocco and Turkey had sent 77 recommendations to Malaysia.
  
Denison pointed out that the whole idea of a global human rights standard has the full support of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, which has its own independent and permanent human rights commission.

“The OIC is the second largest intergovernmental organisation... If the OIC takes a strong position on human rights, why is there a portrayal (in Malaysia) that human rights is a western agenda?” asked Denison.

This human rights standard has been the basis for the OIC to campaign for European countries to protect the rights of Muslim minorities there and to end discrimination against them.

“So if the OIC uses the framework of human rights to press for the protection of Muslims, Muslims in Malaysia cannot turn around and say human rights is a ‘Western agenda’,” added Denison.

The whole concept of a universal standard for human rights is to protect the individual from oppression, he said, whether it comes from individuals or governments.

It is the foundation upon which modern societies for the past 67 years have been built on. Even societies slacking in human rights have recognised its importance and try to adopt the standard.  

Such a standard has largely kept peace and harmony between different peoples and religions, especially in a diverse society such as Malaysia, protecting Muslims and non-Muslims.

Herein lies the importance of universal human rights to ordinary Malaysians. - November 17, 2013.

What did G20 nations tell Malaysia at the UN Periodic Review?

By Rama Ramanathan

Most Malaysians don’t know about the G20, so I will begin by introducing this grouping of nations.

Sadly for those who like simple generalizations, the nations which belong to the G20 economic grouping are not ‘Western’ or “Christian,’ or ‘developed.’

Two of the G20 nations are Muslim dominated, and very different from each other. Saudi Arabia allows only Wahhabi expressions of Islam. Turkey is home of Rumi (Mevlana) and, with typical Sufi generosity, allows many expressions of Islam – though it is arguable whether the same generosity extends to other faiths.

Another of the G20 nations, South Africa, home of Desmond Tutu, that international icon of human rights, has unemployment exceeding 30 %.

So, if you hear someone make generalizations about G20 nations, recognize a fool and act accordingly. That said, let me tell you why the G20 are important.

G20 members account for about 85 per cent of the world economy, 75 per cent of global trade, and two-thirds of the world’s population. They have the world’s largest economies: if their economies catch a cold, people around the world sneeze.

Voters in G20 member nations with less of a gap between rich and poor, and with true democracies (i.e. where the ruling party is voted out every now and then) expect the same human rights to apply worldwide. They reject the idea of different rules for different folks, e.g. Muslims in Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib, or refugees or LGBT.

Voters in G20 member nations expect their leaders to work actively to make the world a better place for all. That’s the reason why diplomats from countries like Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, UK and USA are less likely to beat around the bush when they speak to nations like Malaysia about human rights.

19 nations (not counting the EU) are members of the G20. During the Universal Periodic Review at the United Nations in Geneva last month, 16 of them provided Malaysia with a total of 47 recommendations.

The recommendations are their advice on what actions we should prioritize, what actions we should abandon and what actions we should initiate in order to ensure that all persons in Malaysia have world class human rights.

In the following list of the G20 member nations I have included the number of recommendations provided by each nation.

Argentina (2), Australia (4), Brazil (2), Canada (5), China (2), France (4), Germany (4), Indonesia (2), India (0), Italy (3), Japan (2), Republic of Korea (0), Mexico (3), Russia (3), Saudi Arabia (2), South Africa (0), Turkey (4), United Kingdom (2), United States (3).

3 of the sixteen G20 nations who gave us recommendations – Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and Turkey – are also members of the Organization for Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which I have discussed elsewhere.

In my first article I gave an overview of the 79 recommendations given to us by 35 OIC nations. In that article I included 8 recommendations from Indonesia, S. Arabia and Turkey in my count of ‘OIC recommendations.’ Therefore I will deduct them from my count for ‘G20 recommendations.’

For convenience, I will use the acronym ‘OG20’ (‘O’ for ‘Other’) to designate the group comprising the G20 minus the OIC nations (Indonesia, S. Arabia and Turkey).

The thirteen OG20 members gave us 39 recommendations, i.e. 50 % less than the number given to us by 35 OIC members. Much of what the OG20 members recommended is the same as what the OIC members recommended.

In my earlier analysis, I identified 5 major categories in the ‘OIC recommendations’: gender discrimination, treatment of foreigners, freedom of expression, trafficking in persons, international agreements (sub-divided into Suhakam and UN conventions).

Now I will lay out the major categories in the ‘OG20 recommendations.’ For ease of comparison, I present the first 5 in the same order as in my earlier analysis:

1. Gender discrimination (6) [also OIC].

 

Argentina draws our attention to discrimination against migrant women; Argentina, Canada, France and Germany urge us to eradicate discrimination based on sexual orientation (LGBTI), prohibit violence against LGBTI and to repeal laws which criminalize same-sex relations. Canada urges us to criminalize marital rape.

2. Treatment of foreigners (3) [also OIC].

 

Canada urges us not to return persecuted persons to the nation which persecuted them; Germany – a country which once had many Turkish foreign workers – urges us to give the full protection of law to all foreign workers; Mexico urges us to allow foreigners to register the children born in Malaysia.

3. Freedom of expression (4) [also OIC].

 

Canada urges us to amend the Peaceful Assembly Act (which I have previously argued is more accurately labelled “Restrictions on Freedom of Assembly”); Russia appears to urge us to continue with current restrictions; the USA urges us to repeal the Sedition Act (also UK) and the Printing Presses and Publications Act in addition to removing restrictions on freedom of association and assembly.

4. Trafficking in persons (1) [also OIC].

 

This, from the USA, is not only brief, self-explanatory and significant, but also actionable: “Cease the practice of detaining trafficking victims, and allow them to travel, work and reside outside government facilities.”

5. International Agreements (10) [also OIC].

 

Australia, Brazil, France, Italy, Japan, Russia, UK and the USA urge us to sign the covenants, and implement them. We are also urged to pay more than lip service to Suhakam and to welcome visits by UN Rapporteurs (investigator/reporters). The agreements include covenants applicable to indigenous peoples.

6. Children’s rights (2).

 

Australia urges us to promptly register all new-born children, while Italy urges us to discourage the practice of early and forced marriages.

7. Persons with Disabilities (1).

 

Surprisingly only China has a recommendation in this category.

8. Police, courts, punishment (8).

 

Australia, France, Germany, Japan, Mexico and the UK’s recommendations touch on (1) the death penalty, (2) detention conditions (3) independent investigations of allegations of police misconduct, (4) detainees rights to fair trial, (5) curbs on use of excessive force by the police, (6) discretionary sentencing for drug-related offences.

9. Respect and Tolerance (4).

 

Canada, China, Russia and the USA provided recommendations which I have placed in this category. Suffice to say our G20 friends recognize we have opportunities to improve inter-ethnic relations and religious tolerance. Chinese diplomacy is exemplified by this: “In accordance with national circumstances, continue to strengthen mutual respect and tolerance and different cultures among religions and maintain social plurality while maintaining improved family harmony and respect for women.” How actionable is that?

Note: Turkey urges us to conclude the investigations related to conduct of elections by the Elections Commission.

I do not know how significant it is that the OIC countries express little concern about children, persons with disabilities, police, courts, punishment, respect and tolerance. The root cause may be the predominance of (OG20 supported!) dictatorships in OIC nations. It is also possible that OIC members remained silent about these issues because they ‘knew’ the OG20 would speak on the other issues. Turkey is a notable exception!

In my second article on the Universal Periodic Review, I reviewed the 16 recommendations given by the ASEAN nations. In that article I sifted through the recommendations and concluded that the regional politicians have concluded their vote banks don’t care about human rights in other countries. Nevertheless, the data did indicate they think we should prioritize guest workers, trafficked persons and refugees.

After sifting through the data and writing 3 articles, it is abundantly clear to me that the international community has formed a clear assessment of Malaysia.

 

When the diplomatic clothing is removed, the message to Malaysia is clear: We’re tired of your hypocrisy. You’re insane if you think we’re going to pretend everything is ok.

I am drawn to meditate on what Ray Bradbury said about insanity: “Insanity is relative. It depends on who has who locked in what cage.” Would you care to name the cages?

 

 Source: http://write2rest.blogspot.com/

What did ASEAN nations tell Malaysia at the UN Periodic Review?

By Rama Ramanathan

      

What follows is a review of recommendations given to Malaysia by members of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) last month at the United Nations Periodic Review (“Universal Periodic Review”) of Human Rights in Malaysia. I will also provide a synopsis of what Malaysia recommended to 4 ASEAN nations.

Although ASEAN presents itself as a regional cooperative for purposes of security and prosperity, the reality is that ASEAN member nations compete with each other. We’re all trying to attract investments and we’re all trying to protect our own industries.

It is also an open secret that no ASEAN nations are paragons of human rights – we use the cover of “mutual respect for sovereignty” to severely limit criticism of each other.

The more self-righteous members like Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines think the bad guys are Cambodia (Pol Pot!), Vietnam (Uncle Ho!), Laos (whoever!), Myanmar (the Generals!), Thailand (they hurt Muslims!).

No ASEAN nation accepts the moniker ‘police state.’ We just say we put community rights above personal rights. So, what advice did our ASEAN neighbours give us?

Malaysia plus 9 other nations make up ASEAN. 8 of these nations provided a total of 16 ‘recommendations’ to Malaysia:

Brunei (2), Cambodia (2), Indonesia (2), Myanmar (2), Philippines (3), Singapore (2), Thailand (2) and Vietnam (1). Only Lao PDR didn’t pitch in.

I’ve put ‘recommendations’ in quotation marks because some of the statements sound more like ‘you scratch my back, I’ll scratch your back.” Here’s my analysis:

1. Children’s rights (1).

Myanmar suggests we share our good practices in ‘easing child burden which disproportionately affects women.’ Go figure.

2. Education (1).

Brunei suggests we continue ‘promoting the right to education.’ Okay.

3. Foreign workers (2).

Indonesia and Philippines, being purveyors of labour to Malaysia (and to other nations), want us to step up and expand the safety, welfare and working conditions of our guest workers.

We are asked to look especially at domestic workers and undocumented migrants (perhaps this is a veiled reference to our practice of caning ‘illegals’).

We are asked to ‘step up’ and ‘expand’ our efforts in these areas. These recommendations are so vague that it is unclear what would constitute success.

4. Freedom of expression (1).

Indonesia suggests we continue efforts to enhance the rights of citizens to assemble peaceably. What specifically do they think we should do?

5. Gender discrimination (3).

Brunei suggests we continue our efforts in safeguarding the rights of women and children (yes, Brunei said that).

Singapore suggests we continue promoting gender equality and empowering women.

Vietnam suggests we share best practices in promoting gender equality through education and training. Huh?

6. General (1).

Singapore suggests we continue our efforts to increase ‘enjoyment of human rights’ and living standards. Are you feeling helped?

7. Healthcare (1).

Thailand suggests we step up efforts to provide universal access to affordable health care. I wonder why.

8. Income inequality & poverty (2).

Cambodia and Myanmar suggest we continue and share what we are doing to alleviate the needs of vulnerable and disadvantaged groups. Okay.

9. International agreements (2).

Philippines and Thailand ask us to consider becoming parties to the core UN covenants on human rights and monitoring protocols.

The ICRMW (refugees and migrant workers) is especially called out. I guess this means they’re hoping we’ll accept more refugees.

10. Trafficking in persons (2).

Cambodia suggests we continue and share our efforts in this area.

Philippines asks us to enhance implementing 2 UN conventions: CRC (children’s rights) and CEDAW (discrimination against women).

I think you will agree with me that our neighbour’s benign recommendations indicate they placidly wish us to just give lip service to human rights. This is either because they intend to do the same, or they intend to overtake us.

Our neighbours have closed their eyes to the vast disenfranchisement of indigenous peoples which is going on in East Malaysia – and documented by SUHAKAM, Malaysia’s NHRI (National Human Rights Institution);

They have closed their ears to the reports of mistreatment of Shiites, the Allah Judgment, etc.; they are determined to say nothing about our Home Minister’s ‘shoot first’ policy.

Malaysian diplomats did us proud, as you can see in this synopsis of the recommendations we provided to Indonesia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand:

We told Indonesia to improve partnership with its equivalent of SUHAKAM and civil society - which includes NGO’s - and to put more effort into law enforcement (July 2012).

We told Singapore to make housing more affordable, to share the burden of refugees in the region and to improve human rights domestically (July 2011).

We told the Philippines to put more resources into improving the rights of women and to do more to address income inequality and poverty (July 2012).

We told Thailand to continue its efforts in dealing with trafficking of persons, to implement the recommendations of “the Truth and Justice Commission” and to develop the justice process in South Thailand (December 2011).

The foregoing shows that ASEAN nations put human rights on the fringes of their national agendas. Their chief concern is domestic security and prosperity. They pay lip service to human rights, except when it impacts the well-being of their own nationals working in Malaysia, and when it impacts the choices refugees make about where to seek asylum.

ASEAN nations see no evil, hear no evil, make only benign remarks. The leaders of ASEAN nations appear to have concluded that their vote banks care nothing about the dignity of human beings in other countries..

I am more impressed by the recommendations from the Muslim-majority nations which I discussed in my previous analysis.

In my next analysis, I will review the G20 nations’ recommendations for Malaysia, which I believe are more vigorous and more actionable.

Source: http://write2rest.blogspot.com/
 

HUMAN RIGHTS DAY DISCUSSION: HUMAN RIGHTS PRIORITIES FOR MALAYSIA BEYOND 2013 UPR TO 2018

Proham & Global Movement of Moderates (GMM)

 

Date:                      Dec 9, 2013 (Mon)

Time:                      2.30pm to 5.30pm

Venue                    15th Floor, Menara Manulife,  

No. 6, Jalan Gelenggang, Damansara Heights, Kuala Lumpur,

 

Malaysia recently underwent the second UPR Review on Oct 24, 2013. During the session at the Geneva based Human Rights Council, 104 UN member states made 249 specific comments and recommendations which are recorded in 232 paragraphs.

The UPR process which is a global peer group review by UN member states provides a global standard setting exercise. This process enables the nation state to review each other and be held accountable for human rights compliance. Each country makes global commitments and therefore is morally and legally obligated to fulfil the obligations they agree to.

For the 2013 Human Rights Day event Proham is jointly organising a discussion with GMM on this theme of setting human rights priorities for Malaysia for the period 2014 to 2018. Malaysia will undergo a three UPR in 2018 and therefore we can collectively ensure Malaysia fulfils its obligations.

 

Objectives

 

In this discussion:-

 

We will appreciate Malaysia’s achievements and critically review the weakness, gaps and draw out some pointers toward the formulation of a human rights action plan for Malaysia.

 

We will review the UPR comments and recommendations by member UN nations and draw out a priority list for Malaysia’s focus.

 

We will reflect critically on Malaysia’s slowness and non-ratification of remaining 6 core human rights conventions and chart an action plan

 

We appreciate Malaysia’s global commitments for human rights in Asean and the International stage through a number of good initiatives such as GMM and note future commitments

 

We recognise the importance of Human Rights from an Islamic perspective and note the commitments made by the OIC through its Independent Human Rights Commission and its commitment through UN Resolution 16/18 on Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization…”

 

PANEL

 

UPR Review and implications for Malaysian Human Rights Agenda - Datuk Dr Denison Jayasooria (Proham Secretary General)

 

Malaysia& Ratification of UN Human Rights Conventions - Dr Lin Mui Kiang (Former UN Coordination Specialist)

 

Islam and Human Rights - Prof Dr Shad Faruqi  (UITM)

 

Malaysia, OIC Human Rights Commission & Commitments - Assoc. Prof. Dr. Raihanah Abdullah Director, UM Centre for Civilisational Dialogue

 

Malaysia’s Asean & International Human Rights Obligations - Tan Sri Michael Yeoh (ASLI & CPPS)

 

Moderator: Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah, CEO, GMM

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

For registration please confirm participation with Rama Ramanathan Email: ramajoyce@gmail.com.

For directions and parking please contact: GMM Tel: 03-2095 1115

What did OIC members tell Malaysia at the UN UPR?

Rama participated at the Proham discussion on Nov 14, 2013

sideviews

What did OIC members tell Malaysia at the UN UPR? – Rama Ramanathan

November 16, 2013

 

Those who love to hate Islam won’t like the outcome of last month’s United Nations Universal Periodic Review (UN UPR) because of the concern about human rights expressed by many nations which are members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).

I wrote the last sentence after studying a UN report which lists recommendations given to Malaysia by UN member nations about how we can improve our position in the global ranking of Human Rights. In case you’re unaware, we came out pretty badly.

I’ve chosen to write about recommendations from Muslim majority nations because the image of Malay-Muslims, has taken a beating in recent days due to the Malaysian Court of Appeal denying Christians (in October) the right to continue calling God Allah and also because some Malaysian groups have been misleading Malaysians about the outcome of the UNPR.

The Malaysian Government sent 36 delegates to the 2013 UPR to represent our progress on commitments we have made over the years to the UN. The status of our conformance and the sincerity in uplifting our conformance with universal agreements on Human Rights will make a huge impact upon investment in our nation and in our global status. We cannot deny that as a nation we have, for many years, funded local and international efforts to move us closer to our goals.

The Malaysian government delegation took pains to ‘explain’ the Allah Judgment. It needed to be explained because the conclusions of the court – and Malaysia’s official Islamic authorities – were considered laughable not only by secular nations, but also by Muslim-majority nations worldwide. For Muslims around the world, Malaysia’s arguments sound as strange as the last century’s claims of racial superiority by white South Africans.

I won’t discuss the differences between the UN and the OIC. Suffice to say that in 1990, the OIC – which now has 57 members – produced the Cairo “Declaration on Human Rights in Islam” as the next level up from the UN Declaration on Human Rights. We will not be far of the mark if we think of the UPR as a stepping stone to compliance with the Cairo declaration.

So, what did these Muslim-dominated countries have to say to Malaysia about Human Rights?

First, let’s note the names of the 35 OIC nations who gave us recommendations and the number of recommendations from each nation:

Afghanistan (2); Albania (3); Algeria (2); Azerbaijan (3); Bahrain (3); Bangladesh (2); Benin (2); Brunei Darussalam (2); Chad (1); Djibouti (2); Egypt (3); Indonesia (2); Islamic Republic of Iran (4); Kazakhstan (3); Kuwait (2); Kyrgystan (1); Lebanon (2); Maldives (3); Mauritania (2); Morocco (x1); Mozambique (2); Nigeria (1); Oman (1); Pakistan (2); Qatar (2); Saudi Arabia (2); Senegal (2); Sierra Leone (4); State of Palestine (2); Sudan (2); Tunisia (2); Turkey (4); Turkmenistan (2); Uzbekistan (3) and Yemen (1).

In summary, 35 OIC member nations provided Malaysia with 77 recommendations. This compares with an overall total of 104 UN member nations and 249 recommendations.

Therefore, in percentage terms, 34% of the nations which provided Malaysia with recommendations are members of the OIC; these nations contributed 31% of all recommendations.

Note: Although there are 232 paragraphs in the section of the report which is titled Recommendations/Conclusions, there are actually 249 recommendations. This is because some of the paragraphs contain multiple recommendations.

What did the member countries of the Organization for Islamic Cooperation tell Malaysia? In my analysis I created categories for the subjects they spoke about. Here’s the breakdown:
Children’s rights (3); education (4); education (4); treatment of foreigners (5); freedom of expression (1); gender discrimination (7); general (6); healthcare (10); income inequality and poverty (4); international agreements (20); persons with disabilities (1); police, courts and punishment (2); respect and tolerance (3); trafficking in persons (9).

I have presented the breakdown in alphabetical order to stress that everything in the list is important and interconnected, i.e. the fact that freedom of expression occurs once while international agreements occurs twenty times does not entitle us to conclude that the second is twenty times more important than the first.

Due to space constraints, I will restrict my discussion to 6 categories. I have selected them because of the clear way in which they reveal the human rights aspirations of Muslim-majority nations:

1. Gender discrimination (7). This category is mainly about women’s rights. The recommendations include assuring equal opportunities for men and women, safeguarding women’s rights and enforcing laws on violence against women. The OIC nations said nothing about Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transexuals and Gays (LGBT).

2. Treatment of foreigners (5). Not surprisingly the recommendations came from Bangladesh and Indonesia, 2 countries which supply Malaysia with the vast majority of our guest workers. (We are the Asian nation with the largest number of guest workers). Bangladesh urges us to monitor our recruitment agencies and urges us to give guest workers the protection of the law. Indonesia asks us to treat our guest workers more humanely.

3. Freedom of expression (x1). Indonesia – a region in which some islands are predominantly non-Muslim, e.g. Bali and Timor – tells us we need to be more tolerant of freedom of expression, including the right to peaceful assembly. Indonesia, like other nations, must have noticed how the Malaysian government responds to protesters (e.g. Bersih), dissenters (e.g. Namewee) and pranksters (e.g. Alvivi).

4. Trafficking in persons (9). The recommendations in this category were submitted Algeria, Djibouti, Egypt, Iran, Kazakhstan, Mozambique, Senegal and the UAE. The world recognizes Malaysia as a major hub in the trafficking of persons.  Perhaps the OIC nations are diplomatically telling Malaysian NGO’s to get off their efforts to imprison words and instead work to liberate exploited and needy women and children.

5. International agreements (20). The operative words in this category of recommendations are “sign, ratify, accede, join, implement, and legislate.” There are essentially two sub-topics:

a. Suhakam

6 recommendations I put in this category can be sub-titled “implement Suhakam’s proposals.” Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, S. Arabia, Turkey, Uzbekistan and Yemen speak for all nations who see through the mere lip-service given to Suhakam whose annual reports aren’t even debated in Parliament. These nations are pleading for once moderate Malaysia to show how to move from rhetoric to compliance, first to the UN level, then to the Cairo level.

b. UN Conventions

Many OIC member nations know we will ask for their support for us to gain a seat on the UN Security Council in 2015. They are telling us now that they will find it hard to support us if we don’t at least develop, implement and monitor a plan with dates for signing and implementing 6 of the 9 core UN conventions which concern race, torture, refugees, foreign workers, Orang Asli, etc. They are also telling us we can’t expect to indefinitely defer visits of UN rapporteurs.

6. Healthcare (10). Healthcare is mentioned in 10 recommendations. This probably shows the effectiveness of the UN in raising awareness of healthcare opportunities worldwide as much as it shows Muslim concerns about uniform access to healthcare.  It’s worth noting that only of the 10 recommendations mentions HIV/AIDS and that one recommendation (by Sierra Leone) warns that acceding to the TPPA may make medicines more expensive.

Overall, the OIC nations have demonstrated they took the UNPR process seriously and have shown deep concern about human rights. They recognize that we must have established covenants to appeal to when we protest injustice, whether in Gaza, Abu Ghraib or Afghanistan. They are rightly and especially embarrassed that Malaysia has set no date to sign the UN Convention on Torture.

More importantly for Malaysia, the recommendations offered by OIC member nations indicate (1) Malaysia’s reputation as a model for other Muslim-majority nations is in tatters; (2) Muslims worldwide have nowhere else to look for ‘tolerant Islam;’ (3) our reputation and leadership can be restored if we move from rhetoric to action, from delegations that talk to institutions that change. – write2rest.blogspot.com, November 16, 2013.

* The writer reads The Malaysian Insider.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.

 

Copyright © 2013 - The Malaysian Insider

Proham: Public demos show M'sia lacks human rights

 

By Malaysiakini

1:49PM Nov 15, 2013

 

The Human Rights Promotion Association (Proham) has urged Malaysia to seriously tackle lagging political and civil rights and not just pay lip service to its economic and social progress which has rewarded only a small group of people.

In a scrutiny of last month's Universal Periodic Review (UPR), where Malaysia defended its human rights record before most of the 193 UN members, Proham chairman Simon Sipaun said that government officials had ignored the rights of the poor minority.


















Sarawak sent JC Fong, the former State Attorney-General and now state legal consultant to Geneva represented the state. But he painted "a very rosy picture" of the life of displaced natives, Sipaun said.

If what JC Fong claims are true why are the natives filing cases against the state government in court? Why are they making blockades in protest? Why are they holding demonstrations? These are not the behaviour of happy and satisfied people," he said in a statement.

Sipaun's (right) views echoed that of Sarawak PKR chairperson Baru Bian, who had called for Fong's removal as state consultant. Baru's legal firm has filed more than 200 Native customary rights (NCR) land claims against the government, not to mention the others filed by other legal firms.

Proham's Sipuan noted that he was speaking out based on his own visits to rural Sarawak and dialogues with the Penan people, who are now protesting the construction of dams which destroyed their homes.

"It should be remembered that human rights are indivisible. Civil and political rights cannot be suppressed in return for more economic, social and cultural rights. It is clear that in Malaysia political and civil rights are lagging far behind," he said.

Sipaun also slammed the "diplomatic hypocrisy" of the US, seen by some as a global champion of human rights.

"President Obama was 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," he said.

Sipaun noted that in Asia, Malaysia was believed to be second only to Papua New Guinea in terms of income disparity.

Sabah and Sarawak, even though rich in natural resources, were still among Malaysia's poorest states. He noted that more than 50 percent of the total number of poor people in the country live in Sabah.

"About 39 percent of wealth in Malaysia is in the hands of 10 percent of rich people. In short, the rich are filthy rich and the poor are really poor and destitute," Sipaun said.

As the nation progresses, human rights must march along, he added.

"What is certain at present is that awareness of human rights is far greater than before due to the higher standard of literacy and more and better access to the internet.

As a result, expectation is rising and it is becoming difficult, if not impossible, for the government to hide the truth," he said.

Negara Islam desak Malaysia lebih prihatin hak asasi manusia

bahasa

Negara Islam desak Malaysia lebih prihatin hak asasi manusia

OLEH DIYANA IBRAHIM
November 15, 2013

Andrew Khoo ketika berucap di majlis diskusi pasca UPR anjuran Proham di MBPJ. Gambar The Malaysian Insider oleh Afif Abd Halim, 15 November, 2013.























Selain negara Barat, negara-negara Islam turut mendesak Malaysia untuk melindungi hak etnik dan agama minoriti serta mengambil lebih perhatian terhadap isu hak asasi manusia dan kebebasan bersuara serta berpersatuan, kata peguam.

Ini membuktikan bahawa menandatangani perjanjian laporan hasil Semakan Berkala Sejagat (UPR) bukan sebahagian daripada agenda Barat yang kononnya cuba menggugat kedudukan Islam di negara ini seperti didakwa sesetengah badan bukan kerajaan (NGO) Islam.

Ahli Jawatankuasa Hak Asasi Manusia Majlis Peguam, Andrew Khoo, berkata  kontroversi mengenai perjanjian itu tercetus akibat tindakan NGO tersebut dikatakan cuba memperbesarkan isu seperti LGBT atau hak kebebasan beragama sedangkan ia bukan agenda utama dalam perbincangan UPR.
"Berdasarkan senarai  negara yang menyertai persidangan berkenaan kebanyakannya ialah negara Islam seperti Mesir, Tunisia dan Algeria.

"Mereka juga menolak dakwaan bahawa konvensyen antarabangsa seperti UPR adalah agenda Barat dan ia langsung tidak menjejaskan kedudukan umat Islam," katanya selepas program diskusi berhubung laporan UPR di Ibu Pejabat Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya (MBPJ) semalam.

Diskusi bersama kumpulan hak asasi manusia Proham ditubuhkan oleh bekas anggota Suruhanjaya Hak Asasi Manusia Malaysia (Suhakam) seperti Tan Sri Simon Sipaun, Prof Datuk Hamdan Adnan dan Datuk Dr Denison Jayasooria.

Khoo  berkata, ketika di Geneva, Switzerland baru-baru ini, negara Islam juga menggalakkan Malaysia lebih aktif  dalam konvesyen antarabangsa bagi mengukuhkan imej global di kalangan masyarakat antarabangsa.

"Dalam terma hak asasi, pembabitan Malaysia dalam persidangan antarabangsa masih kurang berbanding Indonesia dan dalam tempoh berpuluh tahun, kita hanya menandatagani tiga daripada sembilan perjanjian melibatkan hak asasi," katanya.

Sebelum ini NGO Islam, Ikatan Muslimin Malaysia (Isma) lantang membantah proses UPR yang dikatakan mengugat kedaulatan dan kedudukan  Islam di negara ini.

Pertubuhan itu mendakwa,  syor atau cadangan yang dikemukakan kepada UPR adalah pakatan kumpulan NGO bersifat liberal yang dikatakan ejen barat.

Khoo berkata, imej Malaysia tercemar kerana pelaksanaan Akta Pencegahan Jenayah  PCA yang menggantikan Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negara (ISA).

"Pelaksanaan PCA yang membenarkan tahanan ditahan tanpa memberi peluang untuk dibicara menjejaskan rekod hak asasi Malaysia di peringkat antarabangsa.

"Perkara itu sendiri diakui beberapa delegasi negara lain apabila pada mulanya memandang tinggi pada kerajaan Malaysia menghapuskan ISA bagaimanapun ia berubah apabila Parlimen meluluskan PCA," katanya.

Sebanyak 104 negara anggota Pertubuhan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu (PBB) mengambil bahagian dalam UPR.

Sepanjang tempoh semakan, sebanyak 232 syor dikemuka kepada Malaysia oleh negara Asean yang mengutarakan pelbagai komen dan cadangan. - 15 November, 2013.

 

Copyright © 2013 - The Malaysian Insider

Muslim nations nudging Malaysia’s human rights agenda, critics told

malaysia

Muslim nations nudging Malaysia’s human rights agenda, critics told

By Zurairi AR

November 15, 2013

A girl looks on before prayers in Kuala Lumpur. Some 19 countries, including Muslim-majority Egypt, Algeria, Chad, Tunisia and Sierra Leone, wanted Malaysia to sign one or more of the six core international conventions on human rights which the Southeast Asian nation has yet to ratify. — AFP pic

PETALING JAYA, Nov 15 — Muslim critics of human rights defenders are “barking up the wrong tree” by accusing the latter of furthering a Western-backed or Christian conspiracy, a forum on Malaysia’s future in human rights was told last night.

According to Bar Council member Andrew Khoo, Muslim-majority countries were among those which have asked Malaysia to obey international human rights standards in the United Nations’ Universal Periodic Review (UPR) last month.

“These are not Western, European-centric recommendations... For anyone to attempt to say this is a Western agenda, sorry you’re barking up the wrong tree,” said Khoo, who is the co-chairman of the Bar Council’s Human Rights Committee.

“I would say specifically to the likes of Muslim Lawyers’ Association and Isma (Ikatan Muslimin Malaysia), if you’re saying this is a Christian plot, then why is it that you have Algeria, Chad, Tunisia talking about signing international conventions?” he asked, of two vocal Muslim activist groups, the latter referring to Ikatan Muslimin Malaysia.

In a presentation last night, Khoo told the discussion organised by Human Rights Movement (Proham) — a watchdog group made up of former human rights commissioners — that the bulk of the recommendations by other countries was for Malaysia to ratify those treaties.

Out of the 232 paragraphs of 249 individual recommendations for Malaysia, 48 paragraphs or 20.7 per cent was about the ratification.

(From left) Proham secretary-general Datuk Dr Denison Jayasooria, Proham chairman Tan Sri Simon Sipaun, Bar Council Human Rights Committee co-chairman Andrew Khoo.

Some 19 countries, including Muslim-majority Egypt, Algeria, Chad, Tunisia and Sierra Leone, wanted Malaysia to sign one or more of the six core international conventions on human rights which the Southeast Asian nation has yet to ratify.

Since 1995, Malaysia has ratified only three conventions: the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

“If you think that Islam is going to be threatened by any way by signing of the international conventions, then are you questioning the sincerity of Islam when it comes to those countries?” Khoo asked.

Ahead of the UPR, several Muslim non-governmental organisations (NGOs) had lobbied Putrajaya to not accede to certain international conventions and treaties despite proposals made by the Coalition of Malaysian NGOs in the UPR process (Comango).

Islamist group Isma has been at the forefront of attempts to discredit Comango, which has also come under fire from other Muslim activists here who claim the group’s human rights recommendations to the United Nations ran counter to the “true” teachings of Islam and the sovereignty of the Federal Constitution.

Isma and the Muslim Lawyers Association had since signed on with a coalition of Muslim NGOs called MuslimUPRo, and had also accused Comango of attempting to spread “liberalism teachings” backed by Western powers.

Comango’s 22-page report deals with issues such as the administration of justice; freedom of religion, expression and participation; rights to work, health and education; indigenous and migrants’ rights; and discrimination involving sexual orientation and race.

Khoo however dismissed the Muslim NGOs last night, labelling them as fringe voices that must be countered by alternative opinions from moderate Muslims.

“I cannot accept anybody who says I cannot speak about Islam in this country because it affects me as much as it affects Muslims,” said Khoo.

“But I also acknowledge the reality that I have to find and support Muslim of moderate views and encourage them to speak up and to say that this is the alternative voice to those we only hear from government, through Friday sermons.”



Khoo labeled the Muslim NGOs as fringe voices that must be countered by alternative opinions from moderate Muslims.Malaysia must respond to the recommendations on or before the next time the Human Rights Council convenes, which is scheduled for March 2014.

Malaysia first came under the UPR review on February 2009, and consequently accepted 62 of the 103 recommendations issued by the UPR working group.

 

 

Copyright © 2013 | The Malay Mail Online