Muslim countries also pressing Malaysia to do more for human rights, says lawyer

malaysia

Muslim countries also pressing Malaysia to do more for human rights, says lawyer

BY SHERIDAN MAHAVERA
November 15, 2013

Apart from Western nations, Muslim countries also want Malaysia to protect the rights of ethnic and religious minorities, and to do more for freedom of expression and assembly by signing on to more United Nations conventions on human rights, a Malaysian lawyer has revealed.

Bar Council human rights committee member Andrew Khoo (pic, top left) said the message to Malaysia from countries such as Egypt, Tunisia and Algeria is that these conventions do not threaten the position of Islam in Malaysia.

The international calls to Malaysia were revealed in a list of recommendations in the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Malaysia’s human rights record at the United Nations Headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland on October 24, said Khoo who attended the review.

He said the recommendations from Muslims countries and several African and Asian nations refuted the claims made by local Muslim groups that the review of Malaysia’s human rights record is a “Western, Christian” agenda.

“Malaysia has signed up to only three of the nine major human rights treaties. Compared to Indonesia, the largest Muslim country, which has signed up to five or six of them.

“So it’s not just Western countries that are making these recommendations. Every recommendation is important... Malaysia cannot take for granted that it is doing well in certain areas and that it can ignore other aspects of human rights,” Khoo told The Malaysian Insider after a meeting last night with local human rights group PROHAM to discuss the UPR report.

PROHAM is a human rights group made of ex-human rights commissioners such as Tan Sri Simon Sipaun, Prof Datuk Hamdan Adnan and Datuk Dr Denison Jayasooria.

Of late, a group of Malaysian Muslim NGOs have attacked the UPR process as a threat to Malaysian sovereignty and the position of Islam in the Federal Constitution. The group has claimed that recommendations made by a coalition of local human rights groups to the UPR were a campaign backed by Western powers to undermine Islam in Malaysia.

But Khoo said that in the UPR, Muslim countries also made recommendations to Malaysia to improve its human rights record.

These recommendations included that Malaysia sign treaties to protect the rights of minorities, migrant workers, the disabled and refugees, to end torture, and to allow special rapporteurs to come and assess the country’s human rights situation.

The meeting last night was to review, analyse and chart the way forward for the promotion of human rights awareness in Malaysia. The recommendations said Khoo, made up the bulk or 20.7% of a total of 232 stated in the UPR.

About 104 countries participated in the UPR which sees each country commenting on each other’s human rights record.

Khoo said Malaysia’s record on civil rights was also tarnished when other countries noted how Putrajaya backtracked on plans to end detention without trial that culminated in the passing of the Prevention of Crime Act 2013. Critics have derided the PCA as being a revised version of the Internal Security Act 1948 which the Najib administration had repealed last year.

“We had talked to several countries and they said they had to rework their statements commending Malaysia’s repeal of ISA. This was because we passed the PCA…” added Khoo. – November 15, 2013.
 

Copyright © 2013 - The Malaysian Insider

POST UPR: THE FUTURE OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN MALAYSIA: REFLECTIONS

Denison, Tan Sri Simon, Andrew & Wan Kassim

BY TAN SRI SIMON SIPAUN (PROHAM CHAIRMAN)
(Thoughts shared at the Proham discussion on the Post UPR on 14th November, 2013)

Diplomatic Hypocrisy

A few years ago, I had the opportunity to ask a foreign diplomat what was the main role of a diplomat. He jokingly told me that a ‘diplomat is an honest person telling lies about his or her country.’ Joke or otherwise there is some element of truth in the statement. In international relations, sometimes diplomatic hypocrisy is unavoidable to promote and maintain cordial relations between governments and countries for the sake of perceived or real mutual benefits.

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. When the US Secretary of State was in Malaysia he echoed similar sentiments. So were leaders of some western countries notably the UK and Australia.

The UN is a gathering place of diplomats representing all the 193 member-states. International matters and issues are traded and exchanged including those associated with human rights. In the process, very often the principles and spirit of human rights are given less attention. Praises are heaped upon Malaysia and its leadership in preference for political, economic, business, commercial and other considerations at the expense of realistic recognition of the sad state of human rights situation in the country.  The promotion and protection of human rights is pushed to the back seat.

Another constraining factor is the inadequate or lack of effective enforcement mechanism. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for example, is just a list of principles and there is very little, if any, the UN can do if countries choose to violate or ignore them. Winston Churchill was quoted to have said that ‘the UN was not set up to get us into heaven, but only to save us from hell.’

The UPR process

The UPR process provides a unique forum for the rest of the world to examine, criticise and suggest improvement to the human rights situation in the country but the government still has the option to do as it pleases in the name of national interests which will prevail over its international human rights obligations in the event that the two clash. National interests are the prerogative of the government to identify and define. One can only hope that the weight of world opinion could help to prick the conscience of the government if it has any.

At the international stage such as the UN, the government has the advantage because it has the financial resources, facilities, strength and capacity to undertake marketing, diplomatic and public relations exercise which non-state actors and stakeholders could only dream of.

During the PROHAM discussion on the UPR and human rights on 22nd October, 2013 just 2 days before Malaysia was to appear for the 2nd time for the UPR process on 24th October, 2013, I argued that the last UPR process on 11th February, 2009 involving Malaysia made very little, if any, impact in the promotion and protection of human rights in the country. In many ways, the human rights situation in the country has deteriorated.

The second UPR for Malaysia took place in Geneva on 24th October, 2013. The government’s presentation as expected focussed on Malaysia’s commitment to pursue a national development agenda. It gave itself marks on certain marginal and incremental progress in the field of economic and social rights especially the initiatives on housing, the eradication of poverty and access to educational, medical and health facilities.

The 13th general elections was mentioned and portrayed in good light without mentioning public unhappiness over alleged electoral frauds, excessive gerrymandering and very uneven playing field. There was no mention of the fact that the government which was formed represents the minority. What was portrayed did not reflect the true human rights situation.

Deterioration of Human Rights in Malaysia

Admittedly Malaysia had made progress especially at the national and aggregate level. However the picture is different if the assessment is based on a disaggregated basis. For example, in Asia Malaysia is believed to come second to Papua New Guinea in terms of income disparity, Papua New Guinea being the worst.

According to the World Bank and UNDP 2010 report Sabah is the poorest state despite its status as producer of oil and gas. Poverty rate exceeds 30% whilst poverty rate for children exceeds 42%. More than 50% of the total number of poor people in the country live in Sabah. About 39% of wealth in Malaysia is in the hands of 10% of rich people. In short, the rich are filthy rich and the poor are really poor and destitute.

Sarawak sent JC Fong, the former State Attorney-General and now state legal consultant to Geneva to represent Sarawak at the last UPR hearing. He portrayed a caring and responsible state government. He painted a very rosy picture of the life of displaced natives and that their standard of living had improved and were handsomely compensated.

According to Baru Bian he misled the UPR process. I too have a different impression of things based on my visits to rural Sarawak and dialogues with the natives including the Penans who were affected by the construction of dams. 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.

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.

Specific Reference on the UPR Comments & Recommendations

104 countries made comments and statements using words such as ‘noted, commented, highlighted, concerned, welcome’ and so on. The Malaysian   response was generally defensive of the government position claiming that what was done was in line with the laws of the country and in the best interest of the government, the people and the country.

232 specific recommendations were directed at Malaysia which will have to be responded on or before the 25th session of the Human Rights Council in March 2014.

The recommendations which should be given priority include the following:

·         Signing and ratification of all the core human rights conventions still not ratified by Malaysia.

·         Repeal of all laws which allow arrest without trial.

·         Implementation of an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission.

·         Formulation and implementation of a National Human Rights Action Plan.

·         Review of legislative framework to ensure religious freedom for all Malaysians including Muslims.

·         Repeal of the Printing Presses and Publication Act.

·         Ensure that laws on indigenous peoples and their implementation comply with the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

·         The establishment of an independent body to investigate disputes over land, territories and resources.

·         To issue a standing invitation to all Special Procedures and UN Special Rapporteur and accept their requests when they seek to visit Malaysia.

Future Human Rights Agenda in Malaysia (2014 to 2018)

Post UPR has just begun. Will we see the desired improvement in the human rights situation in the country during the period between the 2nd UPR process and the 3rd due in 2018? Only time will tell. In the meantime the ball is at the feet of the government. People have high expectation that the government will be serious and walk the talk.

I am delighted to note that the government delegation to Geneva, COMANGO, JOAS and the Bar Council Human Rights Committee agree that there is still a lot more to be done in the promotion and protection of human rights in the country. This being the case, it would be a good idea for these groups to initiate the establishment of a permanent consultative body to identify, amongst others, outstanding matters in terms of priority and to continuously monitor the follow-up actions to be taken by the government following the adoption of the outcome report on Malaysia. Such body could be headed and coordinated by Suhakam.

 At the same time more awareness programme associated with the UPR process could be organized. For such effort to succeed it must get the support of all levels of society especially civil society organizations. Confrontational approach should be avoided. Constructive views and criticisms should be welcomed and appreciated. Any improvement in the promotion and protection of human rights is good for the government, the country and its citizens.

 I sincerely hope that history will not repeat itself in the case of the outcome of the 2nd UPR process on 24th October, 2013. To help to prevent this from happening, everyone must play his or her role especially civil society groups, human rights activists, human rights institution, and so on by continuously reminding the government of its obligations through the UPR process. Everyone should take maximum advantage of this UN mechanism.

Finally, the future of human rights in this country depends on what the government does today and plan for the future. If the above priorities could be acted on between now and the next UPR hearing human rights would be assured of a bright future. 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.

Nov 14, 2013

Interview with Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights -

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, joins Lateline live from New York to discuss her recent week-long fact-finding mission to Sri Lanka.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2013/s3858234.htm

 

Transcript

EDITOR'S NOTE (October 10): The interview below contains an inaccurate paraphrase of the Prime Minister’s statements earlier that day, The ABC acknowledges a question that better paraphrases Mr Abbott's comments that day would have been: "How do you feel about a world leader describing the boats issue as a passing irritant between Australia and Indonesia?".

EMMA ALBERICI, PRESENTER: Our guest tonight is Navi Pillay, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

She was born and raised in South Africa where she rose to become the first non-white female judge of the high court. She's also served as a judge of the International Criminal Court and president of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.

She has just returned from a week-long visit to Sri Lanka. Navi Pillay is the most senior UN official to visit the north since Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in 2009.

She joins us now from UN headquarters in New York. Navi Pillay we're so pleased you could be with us.

NAVI PILLAY, UN HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS: Good evening and thank you for having me Emma.

EMMA ALBERICI: During your fact finding mission to Sri Lanka, did the Tamils feel free and safe to tell you their stories?

NAVI PILLAY: Let me say regularly how pleased I was that the Sri Lankan Government did not place any obstacles in my seeing whoever I wished to, going wherever I went to. And that enabled me to meet both Tamil and Sinhalese communities both sides lost family - sons, husbands, fathers. Both families from both sides just wept and asked for my help in tracing their relatives.

EMMA ALBERICI: What did they tell you about what life has been like in the four years since the end of the civil war?

NAVI PILLAY: The Tamils in particular in the north have huge complaints. For instance they feel completely threatened by the very heavy military presence there, the military have been positioned over Tamil lands, so that's the seconds complaint that lands have been taken away.

I met about 700 people in IDP camps, all of them has been fishing folk or planted rice on paddy fields and their lands have been confiscated without compensation, some of them said that the military have built their structures over that.

Huge levels of insecurity, fear, surveillance and I saw that for myself. People whom I'd interview such as a Jesuit priest, a Christian father were immediately visited by the military even while I was still in the country and I complained to the Government about this.

EMMA ALBERICI: What evidence did you specifically uncover that led you to express deep concern that the Government of Sri Lanka was heading toward what you called "authoritarian rule"?

NAVI PILLAY: What concerned me is that previously there were various independent commissions and it was the commissions who made recommendations on who should be sitting as judges, who should be sitting on Electoral Commissions and so on and these commissions have been disbanded and all the selection now is in the hands of the President himself.

He recently created new ministry of law and order and he's placed that under him in the presidency, similarly defence is under the presidency.

I'm also concerned that NGOs now have to undergo a registration system and that goes through the defence and obviously under the presidency so these are the authoritarian trends I was concerned about in a country that calls itself a socialist democracy, these just are totally inappropriate.

EMMA ALBERICI: This week you criticised Sri Lankans for not properly investigating allegations of war crimes during the country's civil war. You said that if they didn't show progress on this by March of next year that the international community would have to establish its own inquiry. That has already drawn a rebuke from Sri Lanka's ambassador to the UN, so what happens next?

NAVI PILLAY: Let me say that all this stems from the commission set up by the Sri Lankan Government itself, called the LLRC, the lessons learnt, and the rehabilitation committee. It's their own committee who made various recommendations including the investigation of crimes, during the conflict, and justice for victim, reparation for victims and memorial to be erected for all those who lost their lives.

And this is where the human rights council comes in, they have urged Sri Lanka to implement their own recommendations and I then reported to the council that that has not happened. Now, the LLRC recommendations fall short of our expectations on what should be done for proper accountability.

Nevertheless, they have not fulfilled even their own recommendations, I view this with some seriousness and this is why I am urging the human rights council to consider that if implementation is not carried out, say, by March next year when I will filing my further report, then the council should consider credible international investigations.

EMMA ALBERICI: Now, some of your concerns about Sri Lanka specifically where you talk about Tamils telling you of their fear and insecurity, those sorts of reports are at odds with what Australia's own Immigration Minister found when he visited the north himself six months ago.

He said Tamils were most likely seeking asylum in Australia, not for fear of persecution but rather than they were looking for better job, a change in lifestyle?

NAVI PILLAY: I just heard your news report just before your program, Emma and here, there we heard a very public transparent harassment and violence against a candidate who eventually won in those elections. Now if something can happen where in the eye of the public you can imagine how much more is happening.

I have spoken to actual victims, I did not - I went with an open mind, I wanted to hear from the people themselves so definitely there are huge grounds for fear, people are disappearing, journalists, activists, NGOs are being harassed. These have to be investigated and stopped.

I would urge Australia and particularly the immigration department, to review each case on its merits, when they're looking at a refugee or an aslyum seeker. and not follow the Government statement on this.

EMMA ALBERICI: More than 1,000 people from Sri Lanka have already been sent back by the Australian Government, that's the previous Australian Government. They say they couldn't find any evidence to justify claims of persecution. Do you think that's likely to be because the situation has improved dramatically over the past four years or could it be because the Sri Lankan authorities have become better at covering up their misdeeds?

NAVI PILLAY: The Sri Lankan Government is justly proud of all the reconstruction, the building of roads, and other physical structures that they've put in place. These are obviously of benefit and it's very visible improvement in the north, that with the help of other Governments including Australia, including the United Nations, they were able to achieve a physical reconstruction.

But that is totally incomplete if you do not address the human rights situation, address the concerns of people and this is not the image then that Australia should take on board when they're looking at refugees. According convention on refugees, the 1951 convention to which Australia is a party, there has to be an individual case by case review of refugees and aslyum seekers.

For instance, when I was in Australia, in 2011, and visited the detention centres, I found a sizeable number of Sri Lankan refugees being held there, there was a group being held indefinitely, allegedly because of security concerns, now that is a cause for concern in August this year, the human rights committee ruled against Australia on this and requested Australia to release those detainees.

EMMA ALBERICI: Just today our very new Prime Minister Tony Abbott has expressed the hope that aslyum seekers that arrive by boats would be no more than a passing irritant for his Government and for the Indonesians. How do you feel about a world leader describing aslyum seekers as irritants?*

NAVI PILLAY: I am deeply concerned by statements such as that because they promote a stigmatisation of a whole group of people and totally against the vision and concept of the convention on refugees to which Australia is a party.

Australia is actually known for having provided sanctuary and safety for many refugees, from the region and other parts of the world, Australia is known for readily rescuing people who are in distress, in boats that are unsafe and against this good record I am appalled at statements such as this which justify discrimination against a whole group, a minority group, people who are coming to Australia, because conditions in their own countries are unbearable.

And let me emphasise again - these are poor marginalised men, women and children who are seeking safety in Australia, they should be rehabilitated and will be of benefit, migrants, refugees, must be seen for the value they can add to a country, rather than as some kind of irritants or toxic waste.

EMMA ALBERICI: Is it though not legitimate for a Government to want to protect its formal immigration processes including an orderly humanitarian intake?

NAVI PILLAY: This is what the refugee convention is about. It understands the legitimate interest of a country, of Australia and Government, the Australian people, that they're not flooded with refugees, I know that in every state nationals are very wary that their jobs are being taken away by immigrants or migrants which actually is not factually correct.

Nevertheless there is that fear I understand then that Governments do have to protect their own citizens against an influx of outsiders, but international human rights standards must be observed at all times, because these are human beings we are dealing with, they're entitled to fundamental rights and one of them is individual screening to understand their situation and obviously no indefinite detention of people on so-called security grounds which the human rights committee has ruled against Australia in August.

EMMA ALBERICI: Finally, the intergovernmental panel on climate change which reported just in the past hours, says it's now 95 per cent certain that global warming is a result of human activity. What to you is the most urgent human rights challenge that that presents?

NAVI PILLAY: Let me say as High Commissioner for Human Rights how concerned I am that it is the poorest women, men and children who are most affected by climate change, who have least contributed to the causes of climate change, who have the weakest voices and the least influence on policies and this is one of the rights I espouse which is the human rights of participation and consultation.

The protection of their rights must be paramount in all climate change policies. In the islands around Australia, there is deep concern, in Fiji, Kiribati for instance where they have identified hundreds of communities who will be affected by climate change.

EMMA ALBERICI: Navi Pillay we've run out of time. I thank you so much for taking your time to speak to us.

NAVI PILLAY: Thank you Emma.

Proham POST-UPR Discussion - FUTURE OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN MALAYSIA

On Oct 24, 2013 at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, 104 countries participated in the interactive session on Human Rights in Malaysia.

Malaysia received praises for its socio-economic development and achievement of MDG targets, however on other aspects pertaining to civil and political rights dimensions Malaysia was asked to strive for higher compliance with global human rights standards.

A total of 232 recommendations were addressed to Malaysia. The UN document : “Draft report of the Working group on the Universal Periodic Review – Malaysia (A/HRC/WG.6/17/L.8) dated Oct 28, 2013 provides a summary report of all the presentations and a list of the recommendations.

Please refer to : http://www.upr-info.org/IMG/pdf/a_hrc_wg.6_17_l.8_malaysia.pdf

This Proham Post UPR - Discussion will provide an opportunity to determine:-

·         What were the major human rights challenges identified by member UN countries?

·         What were Malaysia’s responses to the issues highlighted?

·         What are the 232 recommendations and which of these did Malaysia agree to adopt for the next few years before the next UPR?

·         What are areas which we feel Malaysia should focus over the next five years (2014- 2017/18)?

Therefore our discussion will undertake a review, analysis and chart the way forward in determining what is the key agenda for the promotion and protection of human rights in Malaysia especially is setting a national plan of action for human rights in Malaysia (2014- 2017/18)

Date:                Nov 14, 2013 (Thursday)

Time:                8pm till 10.30pm

Venue:              Bilik Bunga Mawar 1st Floor, Bangunan Utama/HQ MBPJ,

Jalan Yong Shook Lin, Petaling Jaya

 PANEL

Tan Sri Simon Sipaun

Ms Juanita Lourdes Joseph (UN Malaysia Special Coordinator) (Invited)

Tan Sri Hasmy Agam ( Suhakam Chairman) or representative (Invited)

Mr Andrew Khoo (Bar Council Human Rights Committee)

Panel discussion moderated by Datuk Dr Denison Jayasooria (Proham Secretary General)

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

For participation - register with denisonproham@gmail.com

Proham blog: http://proham.blogspot.com/

IHRN Training 2014 - Justice Sector Reform: Applying Human Rights Based Approaches

Programme Title: Justice Sector Reform: Applying Human Rights Based Approaches

 

Dates: Monday 16th to Friday 20th June 2014

 

Venue: National University of Ireland, Maynooth, Ireland

 

This annual IHRN training programme aims at enhancing the skills of justice sector personnel, consultants, managers etc., in applying Human Rights Based Approaches to Justice Sector Reform. 

 

The programme is designed for people working in the justice sector (with state or non-state institutions) or undertaking Rule of law/Governance assignments (e.g. UN, EC Framework Contract Lot 7 - Governance and Home Affairs) as well as justice sector personnel wishing to adapt their expertise for international consultancy work.

 

Knowledge and skills enhanced include:

 

•             The legal principles, policies & practice underpinning human  rights based approaches to justice sector reform

 

•             The inter-linkages between justice sector roles (law enforcement, judiciary, corrections/rehabilitation, etc.)

 

•             The relationship between the justice sector and related terms; 'security sector', 'rule of law', 'good governance'

 

•             Human Rights Based needs assessment, programme design, implementation, as well as monitoring & evaluation

 

•             Programming tools & checklists (including benchmarks & indicators of human rights change)

 

•             Case studies from national contexts as well as international field missions (including conflict and post-conflict)

 

•             Teamwork, advocacy, strategic partnerships and consulting opportunities

 

IHRN Scholarship

 

For the above programme in 2014 IHRN is offering a scholarship to enable a suitably qualified person to participate who would not otherwise be able to do so.

 

An IHRN Scholarship is designed for an individual from a non-OECD country, an activist or someone working with a civil society organisation in an area relevant to the training programme. IHRN scholarships are not generally offered to officials of inter-governmental organisations or state bodies.

 

Further information and application details can be found at the following link: Justice Sector Reform

 

 

Pamela Harney - Administrator International Human Rights Network Glenboy House, Oldcastle, County Meath, Ireland Tel: +353 49 8542934 pharney@ihrnetwork.org www.ihrnetwork.org

Proham join hands with 115 other organisations calling AG to drop the charges against Human rights defender - Lena Henry

NO TO PRE-CENSORSHIP OR PRIOR APPROVAL FOR USAGE OF FILM/VIDEOS

We, the  116  undersigned  civil society groups, trade unions and organizations are shocked that the Malaysian government, after the recent General Election has resorted to charging human rights defender Lena Hendry on 19 September 2013 for being involved in the screening of a documentary "No Fire Zone: The Killing Fields of Sri Lanka" at a human rights event in Kuala Lumpur on  9 July 2013.

 

 

Lena Hendry was charged for an offence under the Film Censorship Act 2002, in connection with the screening of a video  which  was not  vetted and approved by the Film Censorship Board of Malaysia. If convicted, she faces the sentence of a ‘…fine of not less than five thousand ringgit and not more than thirty thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both…’ She is charged under Section 6 of the Act that makes it an offence to, amongst others, to produce, manufacture, have in one’s possession, circulate, distribute and display such film or film-publicity material which has not been approved by the Board. This may include video material ranging from family videos, videos of political and human rights material including recordings of forums and speeches, videos about citizen rights including the right to free and fair elections or worker rights, and even videos about rights violations in other countries including Palestine.

 

 

A ‘…videotape, diskette, laser disc, compact disc, hard disc and other record of a sequence of visual images, being a record capable of being used as a means of showing that sequence as a moving picture, whether or not accompanied by sound…”, is also included in the definition of ‘film’ as provided for in Section 3 of the Film Censorship Act. It is absurd that in Malaysia, the law requires one to get approval of the Malaysia’s Film Censorship Board for all such material.


The Act is also discriminatory as it does not apply, amongst others, to “...any film sponsored by the Federal Government or the Government of any State...”. The government does not need to obtain approval from the Censorship Board, but everyone else is expected to do so. 

At present, the practice of getting approval from the Film Censorship Board usually applies to films screened in cinemas and cineplexes to a paying audience. Even when it comes to television, it is believed that there may be no pre-requirement for getting approval from the Censorship Board for all that is shown except for feature movies.



The charging of Lena Hendry in September 2013 by the Malaysia government is seen as an effort to limit access to information and alternative views particularly those highlighting human rights violations and alternative perspectives. This violates individual and civil society and public rights to information, freedom of expression and opinion. 

If the screening and usage of such material incites a criminal act, or violates another person’s rights, there are existing laws to address this. There is no requirement for any prior government approval or ‘censorship’.

In Reporters Without Borders’ 2013 World Press Freedom Index, Malaysia has fallen to its lowest-ever position because of the decreasing access to information. Malaysia embarrassingly dropped 23 places, and now ranks 145 out of 179.


Article 1 of the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms states clearly that “Everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to promote and to strive for the protection and realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms at  national and international levels.”
 

Lena Hendry, has the right to ‘…freely  publish, impart or disseminate to others views, information and knowledge on all human rights and fundamental freedoms…’, and that should include the right to use films, documentaries and other video materials. 

To advocate a policy or a law that says that film or video material must be pre-approved by the government before it can be used is in itself a violation of principles of human rights and the UN Human Rights Defender Declaration. 

Therefore, we

a)    Call on the Malaysian Government to immediately and unconditionally drop the criminal charges against Lena Hendry;

b)    Call for the repeal of provisions in the Film Censorship Act 2002 that obligates persons to seek approval of the government vis-à-vis the Film Censorship Board before a film, videotape, diskette, laser disc, compact disc, hard disc and other record of a sequence of visual images can be used;

c)  Call on the Malaysian government to recognize, promote and respect human rights, including those contained in the UN Human Rights Defenders Declaration

 

Charles Hector

Pranom Somwong

For and on behalf the 116 organisations listed below

ALIRAN

All Women’s Action Society (AWAM), Malaysia

Angkatan Rakyat Muda (ARM), Malaysia

Aksi  For Gender, Social And Ecological Justice, Indonesia

ASEAN Youth Assembly

Asia Pacific Forum on Women, law and Development (APWLD)

Academy of Tamil Studies, Malaysia

Boat People SOS

Burma Partnership

Cambodian Human Rights Association ( ADHOC )

Campaign for a Life of Dignity for All (KAMP), Philippines

Civil Right Committee of Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall, Malaysia

Center for Orang  Asli Concerns (COAC), Malaysia

Centre of Education. Research and Development (CEDAR) Malaysia

Centre for Independent Journalism, Malaysia

Child Development Initiative Malaysia

Committee for a Workers' International (CWI), Malaysia

Community Action Network, Malaysia

Community Resource Centre

Council of Temples Malaysia

Dapur Jalanan Kuala Lumpur

Dignity International

Empower Foundation, Thailand

ENGAGE

Federation of Indian Non-Governmental Organisations

Foundation for Women, Thailand

Friends of Burma, Chiang Mai

Gabungan Pertubuhan-pertubuhan Masyarakat India Selangor

Gender and Development Advocates (GANDA) Filipinas

Group of Concerned Citizens Malaysia

Human Rights Ambassador for Salem-News.com, UK

Human Rights Working Group (HRWG) Indonesia

Indian Malaysian Active Generation (IMAGE) Malaysia

Islamic Renaissance Front (IRF) , Malaysia

JERIT, Malaysia

Kelab Bangsar Utama, Malaysia

Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja Pekerja Perusahaan Alat Alat Pengangkutan Dan Sekutu(NUTEAIW)

Kesatuan Sekerja Industri Elektronik Wilayah Selatan Semenanjung Malaysia (KSIEWSSM)

Kuala Lumpur Indian Entrepreneurs and Professionals

Law and Society Trust, Colombo Sri Lanka

LLG Cultural Development Centre, Malaysia

MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)

Malaysian Association of Indian University Graduates

Malaysian Dravidian Association

Malaysians for Beng Hock

Malaysian Hindu Youth Council

Malaysian Indian Business Association

Malaysian Indian Development & Unity Association

Malaysian Indian Entrepreneurs and Professionals

Malaysian Indian Historical Association

Malaysia Indian Progressive Educational Society

Malaysian Indian Youth Development Foundation

Malaysian Physicians for Social Responsibility

Malaysia Youth & Students Democratic Movement

Malaysia Tamil Artiste Association

MAP Foundation, Thailand

MARUAH, Singapore

Migrant CARE

MTUC(Malaysian Trade Union Congress) Pahang

National Union of Bank Employees, Malaysia (NUBE)

Nationwide Human Development And Research Centre Malaysia

Network of Action for Migrants in Malaysia ( NAMM)

Network for Democracy and Development

Parti Rakyat Malaysia(PRM)

Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM)

Pax Romana ICMICA

Peace Institute of Cambodia

Peace Women Across the Globe Indonesia

Peoples' Empowerment Foundation (PEF), Thailand

Peoples Service Organisation (PSO) , Malaysia

PERGERAKAN Indonesia

Perkumpulan Tafena Tabua, Kupang - Indonesia

Persahabatan Semparuthi Johore, Malaysia 

Persatuan Alumni PBTUSM KL & Selangor

Persatuan Kesedaran Komuniti Selangor (EMPOWER)

Persatuan Masyarakat Selangor & Wilayah Persekutuan (PERMAS)

Persatuan Sahabat Wanita, Selangor (PSWS), Malaysia

Projek Dialog, Malaysia

SABM Melbourne, Australia

Sahabat Rakyat Working Committee, Malaysia

SALT(School of Acting Justly Loving Tenderly and Treading Humbly), Malaysia

Sarawak Dayak Iban Association

Saya Anak Bangsa Malaysia (SABM)

Selangor Indian Entrepreneurs and Professionals

Semparuthi Iyakkam Malaysia

Sisters In Islam, Malaysia

SUARAM (Suara Rakyat Malaysia)

Tenaganita, Malaysia

The Asian Muslim Action Network (Aman) Indonesia

The Association of Women Lawyers, Malaysia

The Filipino Women's Organization in Quebec, Canada

VIVAT International-Indonesia

WH4C (Workers Hub For Change)

Women's Centre for Change (WCC) Penang

Women's Network for the Advancement and Peace, Thailand

Women's Rehabilitation Center (WOREC) Nepal

World Tamil Federation – Malaysian Chapter

Writer Alliance for Media Independence (WAMI), Malaysia

Yaung Chi Oo Workers Association, Thailand

Yayasan LINTAS NUSA Batam - Indonesia

Youth for Peace Cambodia

Advocacy and Policy Institute (API), Cambodia

Labour Behind the Lablel, United Kingdom

ARTICLE 19

Forum for Democracy in Burma

Bersihkan Malaysia Perth, Australia

Women's Aid Organisation, Malaysia

WAC, Phillipines

Housing Rights Task Force, Cambodia.

NLD LA Malaysia

Tourism Employees Association of Maldives" (TEAM)

CEREAL (Centro de Reflexión y Acción Laboral)

Cividep India

Think Centre, Singapore

Kesatuan Pekerja Pekerja Polyplastics Asia Pacific, Malaysia

PROHAM -Persatuan Promosi Hak Asasi Manusia