Consultation on

PROMOTION & PROTECTION OF FREEDOM

OF RELIGION & BELIEF IN ASEAN

Hendrik (German Embassy), Marcel (EU), Saifuddin (GMM), Denison (Proham) & Asrul (GMM)
Planning Meeting held on May 23, 2014 at GMM, KL

Dates:               July 2 (Wednesday evening) & July 3 (Thursday), 2014

The ASEAN region made up of 10 nations with a population of about 585 million is a region with diverse ethnic, cultural and religious communities. ASEAN 2015 target of an integrated community with a charter of human rights seem promising.

Recently in Jakarata, Indonesia from Feb 19 and 20, 2014, there was a Regional Consultation on Promoting the Freedom of Religion or Belief in ASEAN which was organised by the Human Rights Working Group (HRWG) and the Indonesian Representative to the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR)

This consultation adopted a Policy document on Human Rights for the promotion and protection of freedom of religion & belief in ASEA. This is still a document in the drafting process and in due time will be presented to AICHR for this reflection, consideration and adoption.

Therefore it is proposed to host a Consultation to review this document and note our reflections and also discern its suitability to Malaysia.

This Consultation is jointly organised by PROHAM & the Global Movement of Moderators. Its co organisers are SUHAKAM, the Institute of Ethnic Studies, UKM, Bar Council Human Rights Committee, Department for National Unity and Integration, Prime Minister’s Department and the European Union.

Objectives

Review the draft ASEAN Guidelines for Promotion & Protection of Religious Freedom

Ascertain comparability and relevance for the Malaysian context 

Drawing out guidelines and framework from the Malaysian experience and perspectives

Provide input to guideline drafters from Malaysian perspective

Consultation Methodology

In each session a number of speakers are invited to provide their reflections on the theme between 7 to 10 minutes. All participants will have ample opportunities to share their input and reflections on all the themes through a 3 to 5 minutes intervention. Written submissions are most welcomed. We hope to publish the notes of discussions, submissions as a report emerging from the Consultation.

We like all speakers, commentators and participants to study thse two HRWG reports and make comments, observations and assessments 

The Consultation is a closed door event and participation is strictly by invitation. A media release will be issued jointly by Proham & GMM after the event.

The Consultation is jointly moderated by Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah (CEO GMM) & Datuk Dr Denison Jayasooria (PROHAM & KITA-UKM)

Two reports prepared by HRWG (Indonesia) as documents for the Consultation are:-

Policy Paper 1 –            Promotion & Protection of Freedom of Religion & belief in ASEAN (Baseline study, 2014)

Policy Paper 2-              Research Report Freedom of Religion in Southeast Asia, Legal framework, practices & international concern (2012)

Participation is by invitation only

Two ideas for the Election Commission – Rama Ramanathan

I would like to offer two ideas on how the Election Commission (EC) can respond to Bersih 2.0/Delineation Action and Research Team (DART) and Tindak Malaysia’s ongoing efforts to show Malaysians the oddities of EC-set electoral boundaries.

Six weeks ago, I wrote about the EC after attending a forum at the Malaysian Bar. In that article I mentioned Tindak Malaysia’s nationwide recruitment of scrutineers.
Two weeks ago, at a Proham-Global Movement of Moderates Foundation (GMMF) meeting, I watched Dr Wong Chin Huat and Thomas Fann of Bersih 2.0’s DART present strong evidence of gerrymandering and malapportionment.

 

The DART team displayed the sizes and shapes of several constituencies in West and East Malaysia. They pointed out oddities such as boundaries which divide local councils and communities. They pointed out instances where boundaries run along the middle-lines of roads and even divide homes.

The DART team explained the “Provisions Relating to Delimitation of Constituencies” contained in the Thirteenth Schedule of the Federal Constitution.

The DART team showed how they have taken the constitutional provisions, Malaysian historical practices, and insights gleaned from the EC to develop a “Constitutional Compliance Checklist” which can be used as a tool to evaluate whether the boundaries of any constituency show signs of malapportionment or gerrymandering.

Malapportionment means giving some constituencies a greater voice in legislation and policy-making than is warranted by their numbers. Malapportionment is evidenced by the relative sizes of constituencies, for example, 144,159 voters in Kapar have one MP, while 37,318 voters in Sabak Bernam also have one MP. That’s one of many examples of malapportionment.

Gerrymandering means taking account of how voters are likely to vote when drawing the boundary of each constituency. Gerrymandering results from a policy of creating politically like-minded groups of voters rather than the constitutionally prescribed policy of recognising communities who live together due to natural-geographical boundaries. Gerrymandering results in odd-shaped constituencies such as the present constituencies of Tebrau (Johor), Seputeh (Kuala Lumpur) and Alor Setar.

On gerrymandering, one member of the audience said the shape of the Subang Jaya constituency is now like a snake, going up to Sungai Buloh. A dignified and respected community leader, he noted that since 2008, citizens have become more alert to constituency delineation.

Those assembled learned that the EC has begun work to review the boundaries of each constituency. Though many well-informed persons were present, none knew of any timelines released by the EC to indicate when they will publish proposed changes and solicit public comment – as required by the Federal Constitution.

The EC is publicly funded to ensure fair representation, yet appears to have taken no initiatives to engage a willing public in its activities.

Conversely, Bersih 2.0, which receives no public funds, has, through DART, developed a process utilising information gleaned from the EC, Google Maps, and spreadsheets to work on redelineation of constituencies.

DART has developed and deployed a non-partisan training programme to enable ordinary Malaysians to develop and propose constituencies with natural boundaries. Within the next month, DART will be ready to display, in several states, maps of some of the proposed redelineated constituencies.

Those who have created and deployed DART are Wiki-members of the Wiki-minded: they work voluntarily work for the common good, using computers collaboratively.

Attendance at DART training shows the public are eager to participate. Their eagerness indicates a keen sense of responsible citizenship among Malaysians across ages, ethnicities and other associations. Their eagerness indicates inclusiveness and tolerance.

Idea #1: If you pro-actively engages the eager public, you could win public confidence.
Increasing the number of MPs. I was surprised to learn that previously, Parliament did not use criteria for cost (for example, salary, perks, staffing, office) and contribution (for example, number of hours participating in debates in the House or attending committee meetings) of MPs to determine the number of constituencies prior to delineating their boundaries.

It appears Parliament, with the complicity of the EC, put the cart before the horse, for it is effective representation which should come first. The EC should explain why such a decision was made previously, and say whether a similar decision will be made in the next redelineation exercise.

Idea #2: "The reason to retire is to try to avoid embarrassment; you ought to do it before people are dropping big hints. You want to be the first to come up with the idea. You don't want to wait until you trip and fall off the stage.” (Garrison Keillor). – May 31, 2014.

* Rama Ramanathan blogs at write2rest.blogspot.com.

Source: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/two-ideas-for-the-election-commission-rama-ramanathan

Proham calls on the Elections Commission to be transparent and collaborative

Proham calls upon the Elections Commission (EC) to explain the process used to define the boundaries of electoral constituencies.

Proham notes with concern the overwhelming evidence of gerrymandering and malapportionment during GE13.

On 15 May 2014, Proham organized a Roundtable Discussion (RTD) to discuss the delineation of electoral constituencies. The RTD was held at the Global Movement of Moderates Foundation (GMMF). The RTD was moderated by Mr Rama Ramanthan and Datuk Kuthubul Zaman (Proham Chairman) gave the welcome address.

At the RTD, Dr Wong Chin Huat and Mr Thomas Fann of Bersih 2.0’s Delineation Action and Research Team (DART) presented strong evidence of both gerrymandering and malappropriation displayed in the present sizes and shapes of electoral constituencies in West and East Malaysia.

The DART team displayed a high level of understanding of the “Provisions Relating to Delimitation of Constituencies” contained in the Thirteenth Schedule of the Federal Constitution.

The DART team showed how they have taken the constitutional provisions, Malaysian historical practices and insights gleaned from the EC to develop a “Constitutional Compliance Checklist” which can be used as a tool to evaluate whether the boundaries of any constituency show signs of malapportionment or gerrymandering.

Malapportionment means giving some constituencies a greater voice in legislation and policy-making than is warranted by their numbers. Malapportionment is evidenced by the relative sizes of constituencies, e.g. e.g. 144,159 voters in Kapar have one MP, while 37,318 voters in Sabak Bernam also have one MP. That’s one of many examples of malapportionment.

Gerrymandering means taking account of how voters are likely to vote when drawing the boundary of each constituency. Gerrymandering results from a policy of creating politically like-minded groups of voters rather than the constitutionally prescribed policy of recognizing communities who live together due to natural-geographical boundaries. Gerrymandering results in odd-shaped constituencies such as the present constituencies of Tebrau (Johor), Seputeh (KL) and Alor Setar.

On Gerrymandering, Datuk Vaithilingam (Proham) observed that the shape of Subang Jaya constituency is now like a snake, going up to Sungei Buloh and that since 2008, citizens have become more alert to constituency delineation.

The RTD learned that the EC has begun work to review the boundaries of each constituency, but has not released any timeline indicating when they expect to publish any proposed changes and solicit public comment as required by the Federal Constitution. The EC is publicly funded to ensure fair representation, yet appears to have taken no initiatives to engage a willing public in its activities.

Conversely Bersih 2.0, which receives no public funds, has, through DART, developed a process utilizing information gleaned from the EC, Google Maps and spreadsheets to work on re-delineation of constituencies. DART has developed and deployed a non-partisan training program to enable ordinary Malaysians to develop and propose constituencies with natural boundaries. Within the next month DART will be ready to display, in several states, maps of some of the proposed re-delineated constituencies.

Those who have created and deployed DART are members of the Wiki-generation, persons who believe in voluntarism for the common good, especially through using computer technology collaboratively.

Proham is gladdened by the interest the public have shown in DART. This indicates a keen sense of responsible citizenship amongst Malaysians across ages, ethnicities and other associations. This is an excellent indicator of inclusiveness and tolerance.

Proham is disappointed that there has been no formal meeting between the EC and Bersih 2.0/DART to work collaboratively. This is of course partly to be expected because of the delible ink and other fiascos for which no one at the EC has taken responsibility.

Yet, Proham is eager for the common good and the will of moderates to triumph.

Proham therefore urges the EC to share broadly the processes and the constraints it will use to conduct the re-delineation process. Proham urges the EC to begin a series of consultations with the public.

Proham believes the adoption of a pro-active stance by the EC will smoothen the acceptance of whatever decisions the EC will recommend in the coming months. Early and frequent Public Consultations will strengthen Public Confidence and National Unity.

Increasing the number of MP’s. The RTD was surprised to learn that previously Parliament did not use criteria for cost (e.g. salary, perks, staffing, office) and contribution (e.g. number of hours participating in debates in the House or attending committee meetings) of Members of Parliament to determine the number of constituencies prior to delineating their boundaries.

It appears Parliament, with the complicity of the EC, put the cart before the horse, for it is effective representation which should come first. The EC should explain why such a decision was made previously, and say whether a similar decision will be made in the next re-delineation exercise.

Therefore Proham also calls upon the EC to explain the logic behind that sequence of events, and whether the EC plans to do the same in the future.

Proham reiterates its commitment to participate in the process of ensuring fair and effective representation and willingness to mediate between all parties.

Issued on behalf of Proham by:-

Datuk Kuthubul Zaman (Proham Chairman) and Tan Sri Ramon Navaratnam (Proham Exco Member) June 1, 2014

Fixing the Boundaries of Electoral Constituencies

Datuk Kuthbul, Dr Chin Huat, Mr Thomas & Mr Rama

By Datuk Kuthubul Zaman

On behalf of PROHAM, let me once again welcome all of you to this Round Table Discussion on “Fixing the Boundaries of Electoral Constituencies”

Without doubt, this is a very current and interesting topic! As soon as we emailed the invitations, we received immediate response from all of you.

We have invited eminent speakers on this issue and I am sure you will be enlightened at the end of this discussion.

However, permit to touch on several aspects of the Boundaries of Electoral Constituencies.

There are several practices around the world on how boundaries of electoral constituencies are drawn. Some are based on the ‘First Past the Post’ electoral system, like Malaysia; some have abandoned that system and adopted the ‘Mixed Member Proportional’ electoral system like New Zealand. The ‘Mixed Member Proportional’ system is German based whereas the ‘First Past the Post’ system is British based.

Fixing the boundaries of Electoral Constituencies is most commonly associated with plurality or majority electoral systems. As such, this must be redrawn periodically to reflect changes in the population.

Countries that fix boundaries of Electoral Constituencies must establish a formal structure and a set of rules to do this process. In such a case, electoral legislation must address the following issues:-

a)    Who should be responsible for drawing up the boundaries
b)    Their independence and neutrality
c)    Public input in the process
d)    Criteria and how often this should be exercised

In the US, the responsibility lies with the Legislator, while most Commonwealth Countries task the responsibility with Independent Commissions.

We in Malaysia too have our commission simply named The Election Commission – Whether the Election Commission has played its role fairly is a question which would hopefully be answered by the end of this roundtable discussion.

Since fixing of the electoral constituencies varies greatly around the world, there are five universal principles which should guide those tasked with drawing the boundaries:-

a)    Representativeness
b)    Equality of voting strength
c)    Transparency
d)    Non Discrimination
e)    Independence and Impartiality of the Responsible Body

Of the 5 universal principles, I would like to focus on one, Equality of Voting Strength. What is Equality of Voting Strength? In simple terms, if a representative is elected from a constituency that has twice as many voters as another constituency, voters in the larger constituency will have half the influence of the voters in the smaller constituencies. Hence, constituencies that vary greatly in population is a condition referred to as ‘malapportionment’

This malapportionment violates a central tenet of democracy namely that all voters should be able to cast a vote of equal strength.

There are several standards developed to reflect this principle.

1.    By the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe [OSCE], the European Commission for Democracy through Law, better known as the Venice Commission

2.    By the UN Committee on Human Rights [UNHCR]

3.    By the Commonwealth Secretariat

4.    By the International Foundation for Electoral System

General Comment 25 of the UN Human Rights Committee highlights the Article 25 of the ICCPR which lies at the core of any democratic government based on the consent of the people. The Committee states that every citizen has “the Right to Participate in Public Affairs, Voting Rights and the Right to Equal Access to Public Service” and that states must adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to ensure that citizens have an effective opportunity to enjoy the rights it protects.” 

Hence, the principle of 1 person 1 vote must apply within the framework of the drawing up of the constituencies. The strength of the vote of one person must be equal to the strength of the vote of another.

The speeches today will touch on these issues to examine how we have fared in this effective opportunity to Voting Rights as enshrined in the ICCPR.

Allow me at this juncture to discuss 3 Court decisions on this matter.

The first is the US Supreme Court case of Reynold v Sims. Mr. Chief Justice Warren, in delivering the opinion of the court considered a previous opinion of the same court; Gray v Sanders where it was stated and I quote:

“How then can one person be given twice or ten times the voting power or another person in a statewide election merely because he lives in a rural area or because he lives in the smallest rural county? Once the geographical unit, for which a representative is to be chosen, is designated, all who participate in the election are to have an equal vote – Whatever their race, whatever their sex, whatever their occupation, whatever their income and wherever their home may be in that geographical unit”  

In the same case, the court held that the concept of ‘We the People’ under the Constitution visualizes NO preferred class of voter but equality among those who meet the basic qualifications. The idea that every voter is equal in his state, when he casts his ballot in favour of one of the several competing candidates, underlies many of our decisions.

In the Australian case of AG Ex rel McKinlay v the Commonwealth, Justice Murphy stated:

“The result of the glaring inequalities between the electoral divisions in each of the states, in my opinion, is that in those states, the election proposed to be held on 13^th December next, WILL NOT BE one in which the members will be chosen by the people as the constitution requires.”

And finally, in another US Supreme Court case of White v Regester, Justice Brennan, together with Justice Douglas and Justice Marshall held:

“…it is important to understand that the demand for precise mathematical equality rests neither on a scholastic obsession with abstract numbers a rigid insensitivity to the political realities of the reapportionment process. Our paramount concern has remained an individual and personal right in the right to an equal vote…

We have demanded equality in district population precisely to insure that the weight of a person’s vote will not depend on the district in which he lives”

And this will nicely lead me to the issue of gerrymandering

In 1812, the Governor of Massachusetts Elbridge Gerry, made an arbitrary arrangement of the electoral district to give one party an unfair advantage in the elections. This is how the popular term of “gerrymandering” was coined.

The speakers today will also share with us allegations of gerrymandering which essentially is a process where states/countries are divided into election districts in such a manner as to ensure one political party a majority in many districts while concentrating the voting strength of other parties into as few districts as possible.

On a personal note, I am a voter in Taman Pelangi, Johor Bahru. Taman Pelangi, if any of you have ever been there or even heard of it, is a Chinese Dominated area and is also one of the closest housing estates to the centre of Town. During one of the earlier general election, I found out that Taman Pelangi had been delineated into another Parliamentary constituency, a Malay majority area, far from the city of Johor Bahru. Thankfully, Taman Pelangi was subsequently brought back into the Johor Bahru parliamentary constituency. However, I must say, I do wonder, in the current political climate, which constituency I would be voting for in the next General Election!

I thank you all again for your eager participation, and will now pass you to the esteemed speakers whom I am sure all of you are raring to hear from. Thank you.

------------------------
Welcome speech by Proham Chairman at the Proham RTD to discuss the delineation of electoral constituencies held on May 15, 2014 at GMM, KL

Myanmar’s Appalling Apartheid

 

   

Minura Begum. Credit Nicholas Kristof/The New York Times

 

SITTWE, Myanmar — Minura Begum has been in labor for almost 24 hours, and the baby is stuck. Worse, it’s turned around, one tiny foot already emerging into the world in a difficult breech delivery that threatens the lives of mother and child alike.

 

Twenty-three years old and delivering her first child, Minura desperately needs a doctor. But the Myanmar government has confined her, along with 150,000 others, to a quasi-concentration camp outside town here, and it blocks aid workers from entering to provide medical help. She’s on her own.

Welcome to Myanmar, where tremendous democratic progress is being swamped by crimes against humanity toward the Rohingya, a much-resented Muslim minority in this Buddhist country. Budding democracy seems to aggravate the persecution, for ethnic cleansing of an unpopular minority appears to be a popular vote-getting strategy.

 

This is my annual “win-a-trip” journey, in which I take a university student on a reporting trip to the developing world. I’m with this year’s winner, Nicole Sganga of Notre Dame University, spotlighting an injustice that some call a genocide.

 

There are more than one million Rohingya in Rakhine State in the northwest of Myanmar. They are distinct from the local Buddhists both by darker skin and by their Islamic faith. For decades, Myanmar’s military rulers have tried systematically to erase the Rohingya’s existence with oppression, periodic mass expulsions and denials of their identity.

 

“There are no people called Rohingya in Myanmar,” U Win Myaing, a spokesman for Rakhine State, told me. He said that most are simply illegal immigrants from Bangladesh.

 

This narrative is absurd, as well as racist. A document as far back as 1799 refers to the Rohingya population here, and an 1826 report estimates that 30 percent of the population of this region was Muslim.

 

Since clashes in 2012 claimed more than 200 lives — including children hacked with machetes — the authorities have confined Rohingya to internment camps or their own villages. They are stripped of citizenship and cannot freely go to the market, to schools, to university, to hospitals.

 

Tens of thousands have made desperate attempts to flee by boat, with many drowning along the way.

This year, the Myanmar authorities have cracked down even harder, making the situation worse.

 

First, the government expelled Doctors Without Borders, which had been providing health care for the Rohingya. Then orchestrated mobs attacked the offices of humanitarian organizations, forcing them out.

 

Some kinds of aid are resuming, but not health care. That’s a sterile way of putting it. I wish readers could see the terrified eyes of Shamshida Begum, 22, a mom whose 1-year-old daughter, Noor, burned with fever.

 

Shamshida said that at home the thermometer had registered 107 degrees. Even after damp cloths had been placed on Noor to lower her temperature, the thermometer, when I saw it, still read 105 degrees.

 

What kind of a government denies humanitarians from providing medical care to a toddler?

Noor survived, but some don’t. We visited the grief-stricken family of a 35-year-old man named Ba Sein, who died after his tuberculosis went untreated.

“He died because he couldn’t get medicine,” said his widow, Habiba, as friends made a bamboo coffin outside. Now she worries about her four small children who, like other children in the camp, haven’t been vaccinated. The camp is an epidemic waiting to happen.

Minura, the woman with a breech delivery, survived a 28-hour labor and hemorrhaging, but lost her baby. The infant girl was buried in an unmarked grave — one of a large number of achingly small graves on the outskirts of the camp.
 

“Because I am Rohingya, I cannot get health care and I cannot be a father,” Minura’s husband, Zakir Ahmed, a mason, said bitterly after the burial.
 

The United States has spoken up, but far too mildly; Europe and Asia have tried to look the other way. We should work in particular with Japan, Britain, Malaysia and the United Nations to pressure Myanmar to restore humanitarian access and medical care.
 

President Obama, who visited Myanmar and is much admired here, should flatly declare that what is happening here is unconscionable. Obama has lately noted that his foreign policy options are limited, and that military interventions often backfire. True enough, but in Myanmar he has political capital that he has not fully used.

As a university student, Obama denounced apartheid in South Africa. As president, he should stand up to an even more appalling apartheid — one in Myanmar that deprives members of one ethnic group even of health care.
 

Myanmar seeks American investment and approval. We must make clear that it will get neither unless it treats Rohingya as human beings.

Source:http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/29/opinion/kristof-myanmars-appalling-apartheid.html?rref=opinion&module=Ribbon&version=context&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&pgtype=article


 

Regrets over the misperception of human rights – Suhakam

The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) regrets that the concept of human rights has been misperceived as a form of new threat to Islam in which its core beliefs are based on "humanism, secularism as well as liberalism".

While the Commission recognises that everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, it regrets that the universality concept of human rights has yet again been misperceived as "deviant" values that are confined to the promotion of the right to freedom of religion or belief as well as the rights of the LGBT groups in the context of rights claims.

This is not true as the universality concept, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which Malaysia as a responsible member of the United Nations is obliged to uphold, is the embodiment of values and principles that are subscribed to by the entire international community, including Islamic States which have also ratified or acceded to many of the core human rights treaties or instruments, with perhaps a small number of reservations that they are entitled to make, or with no reservations at all.

The Commission wishes to point out that in its efforts to comply with these universal principles and norms, Malaysia has participated in the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process and accepted 150 out of the 232 recommendations made by Member States of the United Nations during the recent second UPR session.

At the same time, it is developing a National Human Rights Action Plan (NHRAP), which is lauded by the international community.

Suhakam deems it important for all stakeholders to understand that human rights are the inherent rights and freedom to which all human beings are entitled, regardless of race, religion, sex, language, and any other status. It is the primary role of the State to ensure that human rights are fully enjoyed by its peoples without discrimination.

Suhakam is deeply concerned that this growing misperception about the concept of human rights will raise serious doubts on the position of Malaysia as regards its adherence to these universally accepted principles and will certainly hinder Malaysia from taking progressive steps towards realising its goal to become a developed nation by the end of this decade, as well as from being an exemplary nation in upholding human rights. – May 16, 2014.

Source: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/regrets-over-the-misperception-of-human-rights-suhakam

Proham thanks PM Najib for his clarification & subscribing to UDHR

Proham records with appreciation a clear clarification and commitment to human rights and the UDHR as per this statement which was emailed to us this evening as well as released on the PM’s facebook.  It reads as follows:-

“The Malaysian government is committed to the principles and values of human rights.

“Ours is a majority-Muslim nation. But our faith respects other faiths, and our commitment can be consistent with our constitution and our values.

“As Malaysians, we believe in human rights, and subscribe to the philosophy, concepts and norms of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights”. (https://www.facebook.com/#!/najibrazak)

Proham acknowledges this clear commitment by the Prime Minister and Government of Malaysia to human rights, respect for others faiths and adherence to the UDHR. However the confusing term such as “extreme human rights” and “humanrightism” is still not clarified.

Proham also calls on the PM’s office to issue this statement through Bernama and be made available through the PM’s website.

One way forward is for the Prime Minister to host a gathering of Human Rights organisations who have played and is playing a major role in the promotion and protection of human rights for a dialog on how to foster a culture of human rights consistent with UDHR as well as understanding the local history and context of Malaysia.

In addition Proham calls on the Federal Government to chart out a National Human Rights Action Plan which is long overdue, as well as ratify the core human rights conventions such as ICERD as discussed in the UPR process.

Issued on behalf of Proham by:-

Datuk Kuthubul Zaman (Proham Chairman) and Datuk Dr Denison Jayasooria (Proham Secretary General). May 16, 2014 / 11pm

 

 

 

 

Proham calls on PM to clarify Humanrightism or withdraw it

Proham is shocked with a recent speech by the Prime Minister Najib in which he made reference to a new threat to Islam and Muslims namely “humanrightism” and “extreme human rights”

Proham calls on the Prime Minister to provide greater clarity to these thoughts as this reference raises greater concerns to Putrajaya’s commitment to fostering human rights in contemporary Malaysian society.

The standard benchmark for human rights is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the United Nations Conventions and instruments on human rights. These have been drawn up by the global community through a participatory and consultative process which Malaysia is a party too. Human Rights is not “anti any religion” nor “pro a particular religion or ideology” but founded upon fundamental principles and values that is acceptable across nations, religious traditions and cultures.

Malaysia is already a party to a number of such UN human rights conventions. Malaysia has also played an active role in the UN Human Rights Council. Malaysia has used human rights principles to advocate justice for South Africa, Palestinians and other Muslim minorities in South Thailand, Myanmar and Philippines. Malaysia has also played an active role at the ASEAN level in human rights

Muslim majority nations through the OIC have issued the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights and have established an OIC Human Rights Commission. While there are a number of differences between the UDHR and Cairo Declaration, nonetheless the OIC has made a commitment to human rights including working with the United States in sponsoring Resolution 16/18 on Combating intolerance and violence against persons based on religion or belief. A majority of these Muslim nations including Indonesia have ratified human rights conventions thereby seeking to conform domestic laws consistent with global human rights values and standards.

The recent Universal Periodical Review (UPR) process saw a large number of countries calling on Malaysia to ratify the core human rights conventions. Some of these include the Convention of the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination (ICERD). Furthermore the United Nations process has opportunity for countries to place reservations due to religious, cultural or contextual views.

The Prime Minister and the Federal Government must make a clear commitment towards a strong political commitment towards human rights, democracy and good governance. As a nation we might have certain reservations on the basis of religion and culture but this we must be clarified, justified and reasoned out in public policy discussions both locally and abroad. However we cannot throw out human rights as if it is a new ‘ism’ threating the very core and existence of Malaysian society. In mounting this attack on human rights, Malaysia is in danger of isolating ourselves from the global community.

Therefore, Proham feels that the Prime Minister’s speech raises fundamental and ideological questions to the very basis of human rights in Malaysian society. It seems to be a speech driven by political expediency rather than good governance and democracy. It is not consistent with Malaysia’s international obligations. 

In this context Proham calls on PM to host a dialogue with all Malaysian Human Rights organisations such as SUHAKAM, Bar Council, Suaram, Komas, Hakam and Proham to provide greater clarity of these terms in the light of Malaysia’s commitment in the global community both at the United Nations and Asean.

Issued on behalf of Proham by:-

Datuk Kuthubul Zaman (Proham Chairman) and Datuk Dr Denison Jayasooria (Proham Secretary General). May 16, 2014  

CALLING ASEAN TO RESOLVE ROHINGYAN CRISIS IN MYANMAR

Wai Wai, Debbie, Denison, Saifuddin & Kuthubul at the April 17, 2014 RTD

ASEAN must give serious consideration to the plight of Rohingya in Myanmar especially as ASEAN heads of state and leaders will gather at Nay Pyi Taw on May 10th &11th, 2014 for the 24th ASEAN Summit

It is also an appropriate time as Myanmar serves as the Chair of ASEAN for 2014 and the theme is “Moving Forward in Unity to a Peaceful and Prosperous Community”.

Resolving inter-ethnic, inter-religious conflict especially being experienced by minorities across ASEAN requires some formal mechanism of reconciliation based on moderation. This must become a major task of the ASEAN body in order to build a people centred ASEAN where all communities irrespective of majority or minority can experience peace and prosperity.  This must be the ASEAN way.

Roundtable Discussion

Recently on April 17, 2014 the Global Movement of Moderates (GMM), Asian Muslim Action Network-AMAN) and PROHAM hosted a Roundtable Discussion entitled “Human Rights Violations & remedies: The Rohingya Case” at the GMM Conference Room.

About 50 people participated. We had a panel of speakers who had direct experience and data on the challenges, suffering and injustice faced by the Rohingya.

Among the panel were Ms Wai Wai Nu, the Founder of Women’s Peace Network (Arakan from Myanmar), Ms Debbie Stothard (Coordinator for Alternative Asean Network on Burma (ALTASEAN), Mr Suthep Kristanavarian (photo journalist and author of the publication Stateless Rohingya… Running on Empty and Mr Eraj Sabur (AMAN)

Also participating were Datin Marina Mahathir (Sisters in Islam), Mr Andrew Khoo (Bar Council), Ms Josie Fernandez, Dr Lin Mui Kiang (Proham) Mr Jamal Ibrahaim (Founder, Media Durian ASEAN), Dr Nora E. Rowley (Burma Human Rights), Mr Zafar Ahmed (Myanmar Ethnic Rohingya Human Rights Organisation Malaysia-MEHROM).

There were representatives from a number of organisations including ABIM, Tenaganita, Institute Kerjasama Islam Antarabangsa Malaysia (IKIAM), Union of the World Rohingya Organisations (UWRO) and Rohingya National Development Organisation.

The RTD was moderated jointly by Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah and Datuk Dr Denison Jayasooria with Datuk Kuthubul Zaman providing a historico-legal overview and setting the agenda for the discussion.

Findings of the RTD

In the course of the presentations and discussions we identified five major concerns which must be at the heart of ASEAN seeking to find an immediate solution to the Rohingya crisis.

FIRST, we recognise that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides a universal framework for the promotion and protection of human rights for all communities. This is especially so for both minorities and dominant-majority communities.

ASEAN demography presents a diversity of majority-minority human rights issues and concerns. Religious majorities in one country find themselves as minorities in another and vice versa. The UDHR and UN instruments such as the International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) provides rights for all with a strong obligation of the State to protect those whose rights are being denied or violated.

This is very relevant in Myanmar especially in the context of the dominant Buddhist majority and Muslim minority Rohingya. Interlinked with ethnicity and religion are other social issues pertaining to poverty, gender inequality and citizenship rights.

We also heard of the many difficulties and sufferings of Rohingya refugees in Malaysia whose basic rights as stated in Convention of the Rights of Children (CRC) are being denied especially in terms of access to education and health care.

SECOND, during the RTD we heard from both panel speakers and participants about major human rights violations being faced by the Rohingya in Myanmar.  We were briefed about the Al Jazeera documentary entitled “The Hidden Genocide” which chronicles the 2012 horrific violence in Arakan States between Muslim Rohingya and Buddhist Rakhines.

We heard stories of systematic oppression of the people including ethnic cleaning and violence against the Rohingya. We noted the politicization of the issues and State sponsored religious extremism. We were told of Rohingya being denied their identify and citizenship. In addition there is the confiscation of lands and property. There are many allegations of blatant disregard for human rights and claims that Rohingya are not treated as human beings.

THIRD, we adopted the three points highlighted by Ms Wai Wai Nu (Women Peace Network Arakan) in her presentation with regards to the role of Myanmar Authorities. These are:-

-      To protect Rohingya from violence and ensure that there is no denial of basic human needs. 

 

-      To recognise and include Rohingya as one of the  recognised ethnic groups as they are not listed as one of the 135 code numbers in the National Census.

 

-      To restore full citizenship and equal rights to Rohingya communities

FOURTH, we adopt the additional points highlighted by Ms Wai Wai Nu (Women Peace Network Arakan) in her presentation concerning the role of Malaysian government. These are:-

-      To provide access to education and health care facilities for Rohingya children currently in Malaysia as either undocumented people or as refugees base on the CRC.

 

-      To create space during the 2015 ASEAN chairmanship for ASEAN leaders and ASEAN civil society to talk about, deliberate on and resolve the human rights violations of Rohingyas.

FIFTH, that the ASEAN community especially the ASEAN Inter Governmental Human Rights Commission (AICHR) and the international community takes the violations very seriously as there is strong evidence that another Rwanda or another atrocity such as the Killing fields of Cambodia in the making. 

Prompt and concrete initiatives are urgently needed to solve the Rohingya crisis. This is the least we can do as human rights defenders and advocates.

Jointly issued by GMM & Proham:

Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah (GMM-CEO), Datuk Kuthubul Zaman (Proham-Chair) and Datuk Dr Denison Jayasooria (proham Secretary-General)

May 5, 2014

PROHAM-GMM Discussion: Fixing the boundaries of electoral constituencies

How was GE13 won? What can the EC do to influence the outcome of GE14? What role do citizens play in the process?

Should there be more seats in Parliament?

How many voters should there be in an Electoral Constituency?

 Who decides?

 What criteria are/should be used to decide?

 How can citizens contribute effectively to the process?

Proham and the Global Movement of Moderates (GMM) are jointly hosting this Roundtable Discussion.

Date:           May 15, 2014 (Thursday)

Time:           8 - 10 pm (7 – 8 pm coffee/tea and chat)

Venue:         Global Movement of Moderates,

                    15th Floor, Menara Manulife, No. 6, Jalan  Gelenggang, Damansara Heights, KL

Objectives

•Reveal the impact electoral boundaries played in determining the outcome of GE13 and the opportunities the GE13 results have provided for influencing the results of GE14, e.g. through increasing the number of seats in Parliament and through redrawing the boundaries of electoral constituencies.

•Consider the importance of this question: Which should come first, deciding the number of seats in Parliament or deciding where to draw the boundaries of constituencies?

•Describe a framework for an informed, ongoing public conversation about the differences in sizes of constituencies (e.g. 144,000 voters in the constituency of Kapar versus 37,000 voters in the constituency of Sabak Bernam). This will equip participants to direct good questions to the Election Commission.

•Discuss the DART method initiated by BERSIH 2.0 to enable citizens to contribute effectively to the necessary work of constituency delineation.

Program

 8.00 – 08.10pm   Introduction by Datuk Kuthbul Zaman (Proham Chairman)

 8.10 – 08.40                 Situation Overview by Dr Wong Chin Huat (see speaker profile below)

 8.40 – 08.50                 The DART method by Mr Thomas Fann (see speaker profile below)

 8.50 – 10.00                 Response by invited speakers (to be announced) and the floor

 Speaker profiles

Dr. Wong Chin Huat earned his PhD from University of Essex, UK with a thesis on electoral system and party system in Malaysia. He is now a fellow and Head of the Political and Social Analysis Section at the Penang Institute. His research interests covers ethnic politics and political institutions especially electoral system and federalism. He served Bersih 1.0 and 2.0 as a steering committee member from 2006 to 2013 and is now the resource person to the Delineation Action and Research Team (DART), a joint venture of Bersih 2.0 and Engage (a JB-based civil rights group).

Mr. Thomas Fann has been involved in community work for over 25 years, serving with non-profit organisations in Malaysia, Singapore and Africa. Currently he is the chairman of Engage, an NGO based in Johor that developed the DART programme to train and equip citizens to monitor and object to any unfair or unconstitutional re-delineation by the EC. He is also Bersih 2.0's vice-chair for Southern Peninsula. 

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

 Register for participation: email your name and organization (if any, alternatively indicate ‘concerned citizen’) to prohamsecretariat@gmail.com.