Campaigners push for anti-racism legislation in India

Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-26222350

Campaigners in India are pushing to introduce anti-racism legislation after the recent killing in Delhi of a college student.

Nido Tania, 19, came from north-east India and was beaten by shopkeepers who had ridiculed his appearance. He died the next day.

Indigenous people from the north-east are ethnically closer to Burmese and Chinese people, and many report racism and discrimination in the rest of the country.

Protesters say India's existing anti-discrimination laws are not enough to tackle racist hate crimes.

Sanjoy Majumder reports

Feb 17, 2014

 

Start behaving like world-class universities, Ambiga tells local varsities

BY ELIZABETH ZACHARIAH
April 09, 2014 Malaysian Insider

Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan was scheduled to speak at the Law Faculty’s Law Career Convention on Public Interest Litigation on March 29. – The Malaysian Insider pic, April 9, 2014.Malaysian institutions of higher learning should start behaving like world-class universities, says Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan, following Universiti of Malaya's (UM) refusal to allow the prominent lawyer to speak at its law convention last week.

Claiming it was a ridiculous move by the university, the former Bersih co-chair said UM was setting a bad example by curtailing the rights of students and clamping down on academic freedom.
"This has to stop. We cannot have narrow-minded people up there telling us this. Public institutions of higher learning  should start behaving like world-class universities," she told The Malaysian Insider.

Ambiga, who is the former Bar Council president, was scheduled to speak at the Law Faculty’s Law Career Convention on Public Interest Litigation on March 29.
A student representative said an official letter was sent to the university's deputy vice-chancellor of Student Affairs to seek permission for Ambiga to deliver the lecture on March 25.
The university had initially agreed on condition that there should also be a pro-establishment speaker at the convention to make it more balanced.

However, the approval was retracted with the excuse that Ambiga's lecture was not part of the programme, which was organised by the UM Law Society.

A group of UM students handed a memorandum to Pakatan Rakyat (PR) MPs yesterday to protest the university's decision and its attempt to violate their rights.

Student group Progressive University Malaya president Richtyne Yusuf said the university seemed to be practising double standards when it came to speakers allowed to deliver lectures.

“When Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad was invited to give a lecture, there were no issue. But when Ambiga was invited, the seminar was cancelled. This seems unfair,” he said.
Ambiga praised the students who stood up against the university's move, noting that it shows that there is still "hope in the country".

"I was pleasantly surprised that the students are not letting this go. I feel encouraged by what they are doing now, that they will not let their right to academic freedom be taken away.

"I am happy that they realise the world is at their feet," said the lawyer.

Ambiga said she has not faced such a situation before but was told that students were afraid of inviting her for fear of getting into trouble with university officials.
"I learnt that previously, students had wanted to invite me to speak but backed down because they knew they will run into trouble with the university.
 "This shows that they are practising self-censorship and this is wrong," she said.

Meanwhile, Association for the Promotion of Human Rights (Proham) chairman, Datuk Kuthubul Zaman, also took a swipe at UM, saying the university should have considered Ambiga's vast experience as a top lawyer than her "presumed political inclination".

"Proham calls on the university to reconsider their decision and to allow Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan to address the law students on Public Interest Litigation. It is a clear violation of the students’ rights and a contravention of a universal human right to freedom of speech and expression.

"Ambiga herself had personally appeared as counsel in the High Court, Court of Appeal and the Federal Court on issues concerning public interest. Her valuable experience is an asset for her to share with the law students. In the circumstances, the decision by the university in refusing her to address the law students is puzzling," he added in a statement.

The Malaysian Insider sent emails and made telephone calls to the offices of the university vice-chancellor Professor Datuk Dr Mohd Amin Jalaludin and the Dean of the Law Faculty, Associate Professor Dr Johan Shamsuddin Sabaruddin, but they have not responded at press time. – April 9, 2014.

Source: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/start-behaving-like-world-class-universities-ambiga-tells-local-varsities

Chat with UNICEF Team

Dr Victor, Pro Lo, Dr Anuar & Denison

UNICEF Malaysia& MOE Malaysia is undertaking a regional study a 3-country study (Malaysia, Thailand and Myanmar) on Language, Education and Social Cohesion (LESC).

 

For Malaysia, the focus is on the theme of 'national integration', which is understood in different ways by different individuals, is tied to the issues of who is seen to belong to the state, to the notions of unity within the diverse framework of the nation, and to language and how this leads to success in school and beyond. This study is led by Prof. Joseph Lo Bianco from the University of Melbourne, Australia.

Yesterday, Datuk Dr Denison Jayasooria had an opportunity to meet up and chat with Prof. Lo Bianco (Professor of Language & Literacy Education, University of Melbourne). Also present at the informal discussion was Dr Victor Karuna and Dr Nur Anuar Abdul Muthalib of UNICEF Malaysia

Prof Lo shared with Denison about his immediate reflections on his visit to the Vision Schools in Subang. He noted this as an innovative approach which has must potential and therefore could be better enhanced for an integration dimension.

 

Prof Lo is in Malaysia to conduct a workshop on Language, Education and Social Cohesion from 9-10 April, at Parkroyal Hotel, Kuala Lumpur. Dr Lin Mui Kiang will be representing Proham at this workshop

The findings of both the study as well as the workshop will enhance the Right to Education and for diversity in our educational system.

Proham calls on University Malaya to stop violating students’ rights & allow space for Law students to hear Dato Ambiga

 

 

  
The decision by University Malaya in refusing to allow Dato Ambiga Sreenevasan to speak at the Law Faculty’s Law Career Convention on Public Interest Litigation is a clear violation of the students’ rights and a contravention of a universal human right to freedom of speech and expression.

 PROHAM calls on the University to reconsider their decision and to allow Dato Ambiga Sreenevasan to address the law students on Public Interest Litigation. Ambiga herself had personally appeared as counsel in the High Court, Court of Appeal and the Federal Court on issues concerning Public Interest. Hence her valuable experience is an asset for her to share with the law students. In the circumstances, the decision by the University in refusing her to address the law students is puzzling.  Her ability to impart knowledge should be a far better consideration than her presumed political inclination.

PROHAM also calls on the University to allow space for the students in organising their activities and to grant autonomy to the student body and faculties.

 

Issued on behalf of Proham by Datuk Kuthubul Zaman (Proham Chairman)

April 8, 2014

Students decry UM's bar on lecture by Ambiga

April 7, 2014 Mkini
Students from Malaysia's oldest university today submitted a memorandum to parliamentarians over what they believe to be academic interference in Universiti Malaya (UM).

 This followed UM's refusal to allow veteran lawyer Ambiga Sreenevasan to speak at the Law Faculty's Law Career Convention.

Ambiga, a former Bar Council president, was to speak on public interest litigation.

UM allegedly allowed the Law Society to invite Ambiga if a "pro-government" speaker was also invited but retracted this approval at the last minute on Mar 27.

According to student representative Richtyne Yusuf, this was the second cancellation, the other being a briefing by PKR-linked legal aid NGO, Lawyers for Liberty.

The briefing was on the PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim's sodomy trial.

Double standards

Richtyne said UM practiced double standards as the faculty was allowed to host former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, without the need for the society to call another person to balance out his views.

He also said this was a contravention of universal human rights on freedom of expression and Article 10 of the Federal Constitution.

In the memorandum, received by PKR's Bayan Baru MP Sim Tze Tsin (right), the students demanded the following:

- No interference by university in student organisation activities;

- No double standard by university in approving student activities;

- Liberalisation of bureaucracy on student activities;

- For the university to focus on quality of education instead of policing student activities;

- Automony to the student body and faculties; and

- No withdrawal for activities already approved.

Source: http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/259359

 

 

Malaysia's 2nd UPR: We got a peanut, not a coconut

By Rama Ramanathan  

 

 

On 21^st March the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia, Suhakam, issued a press statement which said:

 

“Of the 232 recommendations received from UN Member States during the review held on 24 October 2013, Malaysia has accepted 150 recommendations, 113 of which are accepted in full, 22 accepted in principle and 15 accepted partially. Malaysia did not support 83 recommendations which call for immediate changes to existing laws, regulations and policies or matters which it is not prepared to consider or commit to implement at this juncture.”

A day earlier, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights website said:

“Jordan had accepted 126 recommendations and noted the remaining 47; . . . Malaysia had received 232 recommendations, including 150 that received support while the rest had been noted; and that the Central African Republic had accepted 177 and noted one.”

When was the last time you heard or read the word ‘recommendation’? What do you think are the features of recommendations? Consider these questions: Why would you seek or offer recommendations? Does ‘recommendation’ imply a call to change something? Does a sentence beginning with “continue” constitute a recommendation?

Take a moment to answer those questions before you continue reading.

This is how an online Oxford dictionary defines recommendation:

“A suggestion or proposal as to the best course of action, especially one put forward by an authoritative body.”

Notice it doesn’t say anything about change. After my medical check-up I may ask my Doctor whether the results indicate a need for me to change my eating or exercise habits. My doctor may say “I recommend you continue doing everything you are doing just the way you are doing it now.” That’s a suggestion from an authoritative person. That’s a recommendation: a recommendation to continue as-is.

Recommendations to continue current practices are the best possible outcome of any independent examination of a business. It’s the outcome every manager wants. It’s a great compliment. It’s confirmation by an authoritative person that I’m doing the right things and I have no need to change anything.

If a recommendation is in truth a compliment, should we give credit for ‘accepting’ or ‘supporting’ such a recommendation? That’s the first problem I have with the UPR accounting process: it doesn’t differentiate between compliments and calls to action.

The second problem I have with the UPR accounting process is the language used to describe the responses to the recommendations. Why did Suhakam say “accepted 150 recommendations” and then add that the acceptance fell into 3 levels: fully, in-principle, and partially? Why did the UN say Jordan and the Central African Republic “accepted” recommendations whereas Malaysia “supported” recommendations?

The third problem I have with the UPR process is that the UN does not have a mechanism to call a lie a lie. For instance, the Malaysian government conditionally accepted or rejected some recommendations because we have an EAIC (Enforcement Agencies Integrity Commission). Yet, every Malaysian knows the EAIC is comatose. Similarly, the Malaysian government said our police are being trained in human rights by Suhakam – though most Malaysians believe the training is totally ineffective. And Suhakam has been trying for years to get the Malaysian government to listen to it.

The UPR is a standard process designed to identify gaps in human rights compliance and to recommend changes. But it depends upon diplomats, persons who practice the art of diplomacy, which Ambrose Bierce (1842 – 1914) defined in his The Devil’s Dictionary:

“The patriotic art of lying for one's country.”

Don’t get me wrong. I’m a big supporter of the UPR process. The UPR process enables us to measure the enjoyment of human rights in our nation against global norms.

I like that the UPR process requires not only the government of the state under review, but also invites NGO’s and others, including UN agencies (“Special Procedures”) and non-national groups (e.g. Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International) to submit reports.

The government, with its almost unlimited resources will paint a rosy picture on a large canvas. The others will paint small bleak pictures targeted to get the attention of other nations’ diplomats – who will offer recommendations during the UPR process. (Whether these diplomats are “authoritative” is a matter I will leave for another time.)

The UPR gives citizens a platform to raise and debate human rights issues. It gives civil society the opportunity to draw attention to gross violations of human rights, and to campaign for change. But we must understand the process in order to benefit from it.

So, what does it mean when the UN says Malaysia “supports” 150 recommendations?

I used “first word analysis” to study the recommendations. I separated all the recommendations which are really compliments and called them weak recommendations, the acceptance or support of which matters little.

I won’t try your patience by going into the details of my analysis. Let me just say that I fragmented some compound recommendations, so according to me there are 249 recommendations. According to my methodology, only about 50 % of the recommendations are ‘strong.’

I found the recommendations could be grouped into 9 major categories. The following list shows the 3 categories which drew the most number of recommendations. This is how to read the list: Category (total number of recommendations, number of strong recommendations, number of “fully accepted” recommendations). Comment.

(1) International agreements (80, 51, 2). The world overwhelmingly told us, through 80 recommendations, to ratify the UN’s core human rights instruments. 51 of those recommendations were in stark, non-diplomatic language such that they could be classified as “do it now.” Our government fully accepted 2 recommendations.

(2) Special groups (70, 31, 11). We accepted 11 recommendations, spread across (1) birth registration, (2) gender training, (3) migrant workers, (4) trafficking in persons and (5) women’s rights. This is the only category in which our government seems to recognize a need for urgent actions – though what the actions will be remains to be seen.

(3) Police, courts and punishment (31, 23, 1). The world, which watches how our government attacks peaceful protesters, which observes how our government detains people without trial, which grieves over those who die in custody, told us in stark language that we have an out of control police force. Our government disagrees.

What the world told us can be seen in my UPR Map. Each blue tip shows the number of recommendations (compliments + calls to action) in that category. Each red tip shows the number of calls to action (strong recommendations). The green callouts are necessary because our government accepted so few recommendations, they are too small to be seen as points on the map.

We were hoping for a large coconut. Our government said we were being given a mid-size coconut (150/232 = 65 %). I say we got a peanut since by my reckoning there are only 121 strong recommendations, and of these we accepted only 15 (12 %).

 

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

 

 

Stateless Rohingya Running on empty

ORANG ASLI THIRSTING FOR WATER

There is water shortage all around and for the Orang Asli the problems are magnified. A visit by Yayasan Kajian dan Pembangunan Masyarakat on 29 March 2014  revealed that  Orang Asli  are thirsting for water.

The Jakun Orang Asli (OA)  community consisting of  30 families from Kampung OA Tanjong Keruing located in the district of   Pekan, Pahang  are desperately short of clean water and are  living in a state of perpetual thirst.  The Orang Asli  reported that there   has been no rain in their village  since late January. But even this is not enough and the available  water arising thereto   contaminated.

The greatest danger is the impact this has on their health. It was also reported   that many of their people are  suffering from diarrhoea, in particular the children and elderly. This is compounded further as the OA can ill afford to purchase  drinking water from the shops.

One of the  OA Mohamad Sulong   said  “The water level in the wells are low and quickly used up. After the water is used up, the OA families  have to wait until the water level rises again in the well before they can get their source of water. But as soon as it  rises, it is used up. The families have to wait long periods for their water.  Due to the scarce source of clean  water,  there is never enough. 

By the time the well water level rises significantly , one family  will have scooped up all   the water leaving  other waiting  families without sufficient water to  draw from. The next family in line will have to wait for the water level to rise and then the next family in line faces the same cycle of waiting and probably thirsting before the level  rises sufficiently for collection.  The wait is both tiring,  frustrating  and a strain on community harmony.”

The OA also said    the Pahang Department of  Water Supply  had laid underground water pipes  in their village and to their houses sometime back in September 2013. For a short time,  there was water supply but it stopped due to low water pressure.  The water supply agency   then embarked on building a water pump which was  completed in February 2014.   However, there has been no water supply  to date. 

The Prime minister’s office have promised to look into this water crisis  and have found that the contractor in charge of connecting  the water supply has absconded and the project abandoned. The Pekan office of the Prime Minister is working on a relief plan.

It is clear that the OA are a most vulnerable group and that special attention needs to be given to the basic needs of the OA. It is very probable that OA communities  in the surrounding  areas are also suffering from similar  hardships.  An unusually high number of water projects have been abandoned leaving the OA  communities with serious  access to clean water. Access  to clean water is a right every community in Malaysia should be entitled to and high priority be given to redress this urgent crisis.

We urge the Department of  Development for  Orang Asli (JKOA) to pro-actively  look into these cases so that they need not  suffer from such unnecessary  illness and hardships. The award of  contracts to water projects for the most vulnerable groups have to be reviewed. The resources provided by the government will otherwise be wasted and the poor remain  impoverished.  Worse still, it gives the false impression to the public and  policy makers that the OA have already been provided with such basic facilities when the reality is that they are still suffering from inability to access clean water.

Proham is  deeply concerned  that the human rights and Basic Needs of the OA, who are the most  Vulnerable  in Malaysian Society - have  been grossly  violated  by  negligence and low  priority   given to meet  their  humanitarian  requirement.

Issued on behalf of Proham by Tan Sri Ramon Navaratnam (Proham Member) and Datuk Dr Denison Jayasooria (Proham Secretary General) April 2, 2014