Submission on behalf of the Suara Rakyat (SUARAM) to Mr. Maina Kiai, Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association ( March 26, 2012)

ANNEX: Questions on best practices that promote and protect the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association

It would be deeply appreciated if responses were brief. Responses in bullet-points are encouraged. For non-governmental organizations (NGOs), should they so wish, their identity will remain confidential (only the country where they operate will be disclosed).

Right to freedom of peaceful assembly: 1. Please a) describe positive legislative/institutional measures taken to facilitate the exercise of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly in your country; and b) provide one or more recent examples where the right to freedom of peaceful assembly in your country has been adequately enjoyed and the reasons for citing this example(s).

1. a) Article 10(1)(b) of the Federal Constitution on Malaysia guarantees the right to freedom of assembly peaceably and without arms. b) were allowed to peacefully assemble for the anti-Lynas

rally; the walk of the members of the Bar Council against Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011 and the walk in conjunction with International Human Days (18 March 2012)

There are regular assemblies and protests by diverse groups regarding a variety of issues and causes. These assemblies frequently make use of public space. There have been more concerning disruptions of peaceful protest activities (discussed further below) but only in few occasions groups are left alone to protest peacefully.

2. Please a) describe positive legislative/institutional measures taken to protect peaceful protesters, including against agents provocateurs and/or counter-demonstrators; and b) provide one or more examples where peaceful protesters were effectively protected. a) Under the section 17 (1) If the Officer in Charge of a Police District receives notifications for two or more assemblies to be organized, and the assemblies are proposed to be held at the same time, date and place, the assemblies may, subject to restrictions and conditions imposed under section 15, be held simultaneously. (2) If, in the opinion of the Officer in Charge of the Police District, the assemblies referred to in subsection (1) cannot be held simultaneously— (a) the Officer in Charge of the Police District shall give preference to the organizer who first submitted the notification to hold the assembly in the place of assembly stated in the notification, unless the place of assembly is traditionally or contractually to be used for the other assembly; or (b) in the case of notifications of assembly received at the same time, the Officer in Charge of the Police District shall give preference to the organizer whose name is extracted in a draw held by the Officer in Charge of the Police District to hold the assembly in the place of assembly stated in the notification. Counter assembly: If the Officer in Charge of a Police District receives a notification of a counter assembly and it is evident that the organization of the counter assembly will cause conflict between the participants of the assemblies, the Officer in Charge of the Police District shall give an alternative for the counter assembly to be organized at another time, date or place.

b) provide one or more examples where peaceful protesters were effectively protected.

There are certain issues where protests do tend to lead to counter-protests. For example, groups who demonstrate against people who support freedom of religion. But they will be usually or often confronted by the “Anti Conversion from Islam to other religion”. Another example is those who gathered and express support to sexuality rights are also often confronted by the extreme right wing and religious groups. To the best of our knowledge, police generally bias towards demonstrators that call for better human rights conditions and policy change in this country. Most of the time police never took appropriate actions against those created chaos or disruptions.

3. Please describe measures taken to ensure that any restrictions on the free exercise of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly are in accordance with your obligations under international human rights law (proportionality test and due process guarantees).

Please explain the legal status of spontaneous assemblies.

Spontaneous assemblies are not protected under the new act or under the police act (before the removal of the section 27). Under the current law, the government has established a notification process for marches and demonstrations, where 10 days advance notice is required where it is not reasonably practicable to give such notice. In some cases, failure to make use of these processes may result in curtailment of the right to peaceful assembly and punishment. This can be prohibitive for some groups wishing to engage in peaceful assembly activities.

4. Please a) describe positive legislative/institutional measures taken to ensure accountability for

i) arbitrary restrictions to hold assemblies;

Malaysia’s judicial system can provide some measure of accountability in addressing arbitrary restrictions on assemblies and is the main recourse for individuals who wish to challenge these restrictions. Unfortunately, the judicial process is not independent, not easily accessible to everyone and it can be costly and time consuming to litigate these issues.

ii.) arbitrary or excessive use of force by law enforcement officials against peaceful demonstrators; and

Anyone can make complaints to the disciplinary board of each enforcement agencies or to public complaint bureau or to the Home Affairs ministry. A complaint to one of these bodies could result in employment or disciplinary consequences for an officer where arbitrary or excessive use of force has been found. Complainants who are not satisfied with the manner in which a complaint has been handled may seek judicial review of the decision or otherwise have recourse to the courts. But most of the time the complainant was not told the results of investigation of complaints made by them against the officers involved Direct recourse to the courts is also possible where a civilian may choose to initiate a civil suit against police officers or a police service.

iii.) violence by agents provocateurs and/or counter-demonstrators; and see a(ii) above b) Provide one or more examples for each of these situations where such measures have been implemented.

A number of these accountability measures have been used in following up on the concerns arising out of the 2.0 attacks. Many complaints have been made to various police complaint bodies and, in some cases, it appears that these bodies view their jurisdiction quite narrowly. This has the potential to frustrate the accountability processes that exist. In addition, most civilian controlled police boards deal with policy matters but will not address operational issues. In some cases, this distinction has limited the effectiveness of these boards. As the BERSIH 2.0 by the national Human rights commission (SUHAKAM) inquiries remains ongoing, it still remains to be seen how effective these measures will be.

5. In this context, please describe positive legislative/institutional measures taken to build and strengthen the human rights capacity of administrative and law enforcement officials in your country

Initiatives to have consultations with police have been always taken place prior to and after major public events. For example, prior to the BERSIH 2.0 rally (electoral reform movement), organising committee met with inspector-general of police Ismail Omar, where the latter expressed his concerns over public safety if the rally were to go on as planned. The IGP was silent on their suggestion, but remains cautiously optimistic.

BERSIH 2.0 met with the IGP Tan Sri Ismail Omar on 7th July. BERSIH 2.0 reiterated their intention to hold the BERSIH 2.0 rally at Stadium Merdeka.. During the meeting, it was agreed that BERSIH 2.0 will first apply again to the Merdeka Heritage Trust for the premises and we will then apply through one of our member organisations for a permit (but on the 2nd July the Home Ministry declared the movement is illegal) • SUARAM (Human rights NGO based in Malaysia) and Human Rights Commission (SUHAKAM) in several occasions have conducted a number of police training sessions with officers focused on constitutional rights including the right to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression. • Government always “ignores” and very seldom engages with the respective civil societies that involved in the issues related FoA and expression in Malaysia. The CSO’s will be working together with SUHAKAM to engage in a consultation with a government Ministry regarding legislation like section 27 of the Police Act and the current Peaceful Assembly Act that use to restrict the freedom of assembly in Malaysia and to ostensibly justify a significant increase in police powers. SUARAM and others have called for repeal of this legislation and has engaged with the relevant Ministry about this proposal and the Ministry’s broader role in the policing of major events. • SUARAM has written to many letters and handover memorandum to the police especially and other officials regarding the need to respect and promote rights to peaceful assembly. SUARAM even has raised this issue at the Human Rights Council session on Universal Periodic Review (UPR) in 2009. This has included raising issues around vague permit requirements that may be open to the unfettered discretion of police officials and the need to engage in dialogue with groups participating in peaceful assembly activities where concerns are raised about sharing public space or about safety and/or public health issues. • The existing mechanisms for police accountability with respect to the national police force are inadequate and the miss use power by the police has been increasing; however there are ongoing discussions and campaign by the CSO’s about the need to reform these mechanisms and the shape that particular reforms should take.

6. Please describe one or more recent examples where the right to freedom of peaceful assembly may have not been respected and the reasons for citing this example(s). In particular, please describe challenges faced in the implementation of laws, policies or programmes for the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly in your country.

The passing of the Peaceful Assembly Act (PAA 2011) only imposes more unreasonable restrictions and does not fully respect the right to freedom of peaceful assembly. The Act is not “in line with international norms” by identifying several key differences of the Act with other jurisdictions' assembly acts or even Suhakam’s recommendations in its Report on Freedom of Assembly which produced in 2001. The government responded by calling the report “biased and idealistic” and influenced by “Western Liberal Thinking.”

 10 days advance notice for assemblies, except for those in designated areas as defined by the home minister  no street protests allowed  no protests in or anywhere in a 50-metre buffer zone around prohibited areas defined in a list, which includes dams, reservoirs, water catchment areas, water treatment plants, electricity generating stations, petrol stations, hospitals, fire stations, airports, railways, land public transport terminals, ports, canals, docks, wharves, piers, bridge, marinas, places of worship, kindergartens and schools.

 Section 9(5) allows the police to fine organizers up to RM10,000 if no advance notice of a planned assembly is given notice  Section 21(3) allows police to fine those arrested up to RM20,000  Section 20(1)(c) allows police to arrest anyone who brings, allows to come or recruits children for an assembly  Those 21 years old and above are not allowed to organize assemblies  Children under 15 are not allowed to take part in assemblies

This act dilutes the peoples’ right to peaceful assembly and in turn, the peoples’ power to collective voice concerns and apply public pressure.

The present mindset of political leaders is that assemblies are intrinsically dangerous and are liable to become a threat to national security or public order. This is seen from statements made by them and reported in the media each time a large gathering is proposed. On a more general note, it is found that the omnipresence of the Police, FRU trucks, water cannons, and the use of dogs at assemblies tend to create a hostile environment. Demonstrators, rightly or wrongly, regard the Police as partial and their omnipresence generates the perception that the Police are ready to strike at the moment an order of dispersal is made. In general, the amendments made via the Amending Act have the effect of broadening the scope of those who may be found guilty of an offence under the Police Act 1967, particularly in relation to the Police’s power to regulate assemblies, meetings and processions (In December 2011 this provision has been removed and replaced with the Peaceful Assembly Act). The Amending Act also added provisions that exclude the powers of the Court under sections 173A and 294 of the Criminal Procedure Code to discharge an offender conditionally or unconditionally, or to be lenient towards first offenders. [Sections 3(i), 4 of the Amending Act, sections 27(8A), 27A (7) PA 1967]

Recently 32 activists and human rights defenders were found guilty and were imposed unfair fined against them. On 22nd February 2012, the Sessions Court found 16 people guilty of taking part in an illegal assembly during an anti-ISA demonstration in 2009. The rally was organised by Gerakan Mansuhkan ISA (GMI) or Abolish ISA Movement (AIM) to demand abolishment of the draconian act. The 16 were arrested for participating in a rally against the Internal Security Act (ISA) on 1st August 2009 in . In her verdict, Judge Ainul Shahrin Mohamad said the prosecution had successfully proven beyond reasonable doubt that the 16 had participated in the illegal assembly. All were sentenced to one day of jail and fined RM2, 000 each. Ainul, however, allowed a stay of execution of the imprisonment pending an appeal. The 16 individuals were arrested before the assembly began on the assumption that they would participate in the assembly. Despite that, they continue to be charged for participating in an unlawful assembly under Section 27 (5)(a) of the Police Act. GMI, the rally organizers, had informed the police that this rally will take place and requested cooperation from the police to protect the safety of the participants. Instead of protecting the rights and safety of the participants, the police arrested participants. On the other occasion, on the 1st March 2012 the Kuala Lumpur High Court overturned the acquittal order by Session Court’s denying the freedom of the 16 people who were arrested in 2007 for participating in a rally and for imposing RM5,000 bail each.Batu MP Tian Chua, Padang Serai MP N Gobalakrishnan and PAS central committee member, , Mohd Salim Yeslam, Ahmad Razali Abd Rahman, Razali Abdul, Mohd Asri Ahmad, Muhd Harith Fatillah Shahabudin, Saleh Mohamad Tahir, Azahar Yusop, Sulaiman Ahmad, Taib Abdullah, Mohd Abi Salam Ariffin, Ishak Othman, Mohd Zad Abdullah, were arrested in December 2007 under the Police Act for participating in a rally organized by Coalition for Free and Fair Election (BERSIH 1) on 10th November, 2007. Judge Jagjit Singh on 19 November 2010 acquitted all of them after 3 years of trial stating there was no evidence of participation in illegal assembly. However, today Justice Ghazali Cha has overturned the acquittal order and has further ordered the 16 to enter their defence. The justice Ghazali Cha said there was obvious evidence of their participation in the said rally based on video evidence to support the testimony by police and based on the yellow t-shirt they were wearing.

The Bersih 2.0 rally in July of 2011 was a stark example of a failure to respect the right to peaceful assembly. Throughout the month of June and after the rally, peaceful protestors were subjected to unjustified searches and were arbitrarily detained and arrested. Police communications to the public prior to and during the event misled the public about their rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and expression and suggested that police had broader powers than was legally the case.

The Bersih 2.0 resulted in the largest mass arrest in the recent years. 1600 people were arrested and the vast majority was subsequently released without criminal charges being laid. In many cases detainees were held for long periods of time and not permitted to contact legal counsel. Multiple inquiries have been launched into the government and police actions over the course of the Bersih 2.0 many of which remain ongoing (for example: SUHAKAM Public Inquiry). Based on reports received by the SUARAM on other incidents, it appears that conditions at the detention centre where many peaceful protesters were detained had a disproportionate impact on certain groups including women, transgendered persons, and persons with disabilities. This could be seen when 30 members of Socialist Party of Malaysia were arrested on 24th June for practicing freedom of expression and assembly. Women in the detention centre reported that they were forced to change their clothes in the presence of male officers. There were reports that persons requiring medication were not given that medication.

Please provide details of any lessons learnt in that regard. Briefly evaluate, in both law and practice, the enjoyment of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly in your country, including by women, individuals facing discrimination or violence because of their sexual orientation and gender identity, as well as persons with disabilities, espousing minority or dissenting views or beliefs, and belonging to other groups at risk.

There are many lessons that can be learned from the events of the Bersih 2.0, ISA rally in 2009, Hindraf rally in 2007, Himpunan Hijau Stop Lynas, Mayday rallies. Since the above mentioned rallies involved police and security forces from multiple jurisdictions (cities, provincial police, national police), mechanisms of accountability are less clear. Meetings of international leaders raise police enforcement and accountability issues that are not generally seen on a day to day basis and the accountability and training mechanisms in place must be updated to address this. Another recent example of restrictions being placed on freedom of peaceful assembly is against the organisers of protests that took place in many cities across Malaysia in support of Anti Lynas campaign, electoral reform as well as students rally. Although many municipalities did not take action against them for some time, municipalities eventually decided that the assemblies had to come to an end and their reasons were not always clear or compelling. In some instances, the failure of orgnisers to obtain a permit/notification was cited by police. This failed to recognize that the nature of the protest and its dominant message may have been undermined if demonstrators had sought out permission from the police to protest.

Right to freedom of association:

7. Please a) describe positive legislative/institutional measures taken to facilitate the exercise of the right to freedom of association by national and international organizations (e.g. are associations free to decide on their objectives, activities and board composition?);

Article 10(1)(c) of the Federal Constitution on Malaysia guarantees all citizens have the right to form associations. But parliament may by law impose on theright conferred by paragraph (c) of clause (1), such restrictions as it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of the federation or any part thereof, or public order. Malaysia has a number of labour laws that further restrict the associational rights in the labour union context. There are regulatory systems in place that determine which organizations or associations may have special status (e.g. non-profit or charitable status). These regulations place restrictions on the activities that these organizations may engage in while maintaining their status.

and b) provide one or more recent examples where the right to freedom of association has been adequately enjoyed in your country and the reasons for citing this example(s).

Parti Kesejahteraan Insan Tanah Air (Kita), which was launched on Jan 19, has been officially registered as a political party under the Registrar of Societies (ROS). There are concerns about the extent to which union activity and associational rights in the labour context are not protected. Malaysian government has proceeded to table amendments to the Employment Act 1955 (and got it passed speedily in Parliament on 6 October 2011) the Employment (Amendment) Bill 2011 despite protests from workers, trade unions and civil society. The proposed changes to the Employment Act would be most detrimental to worker rights, trade unions and the existing just direct two-party employment relationship between worker and end-user (the principal). Malaysia’s action goes contrary to justice. In many countries, employers have been wrongly trying to avoid/disguise employment relationships by way of contracts/agreements and triangular relationships, and Malaysia rather than fighting against this negative trend is now trying to legalise it, hence showing itself to be anti-worker and anti-union. In addition, the Federal Court of Malaysia’s jurisprudence on the constitutional protection of collective bargaining rights has left open the possibility that particularly vulnerable workers may not be able to adequately protect their rights.

8. Please detail the procedures to be followed to establish an association in your country, including the legal grounds upon which an application for registration can be rejected, where applicable. Please a) describe positive legislative/institutional measures taken to ensure a non-discriminatory, expeditious, easily accessible and inexpensive registration process; and Although Malaysia signed the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Charter in 2007, pledging to uphold human rights and democratic principles, freedom of association and assembly came under duress in the country that year. Crackdowns worsened in the run-up to the 2008 general elections as the government became increasingly intolerant of criticism. Several organizations were denied permits to assemble and were met by police violence when they convened illegally. Also during the year, legislative amendments further restricted migrant workers' rights and workers' ability to form trade unions. Under the 1959 Trade Union Act (TUA), certain categories of workers are restricted from joining unions, including those in the electronics sector (the country's largest industry) and public-sector workers who are considered to be "confidential, managerial and executive.

b) provide one or more examples where such measures have been implemented. Are there effective remedies in case the registration is denied or delayed? Please indicate, if available, how many people have pursued these remedies, and the result thereof. Please specify the legal status of unregistered or de facto associations. Associations are often formed on an informal basis and are generally unregistered unless a specific status (charitable, etc) is sought.

9. Please explain the procedure available to suspend or dissolve an association in your country. Are there effective remedies in case an association suspended or dissolved? Please indicate, if available, how many people have pursued these remedies and the result thereof.

The Constitution provides for the right of association; however, the Government placed significant restrictions on this right and certain statutes limit this right. Under the Societies Act, only registered, approved organizations of seven or more persons may function as societies. The Government sometimes refused to register organizations or imposed conditions when allowing a society to register. Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are required to register with the government under the Societies Act of 1996. The act defines a society as any club, company, partnership, or association of seven or more people, including businesses, schools, trade unions, and political parties. The Registrar of Societies (RoS) may deny registration to organizations that it suspects of having unlawful purposes. The Communist Party and the Socialist Party of Malaysia have both been denied registration on the grounds that they pose a threat to national security. The RoS also retains the right to revoke registration of any existing society for violating the act. On the third Anniversary of the 25/11/2010 HRP formally submitted it’s full application to be a registered political party. But the Registrar of Societies refused to even reply to our application.This led us to on 6/4/2011 file a High Court Application for Judicial Review to compel the legal Registration of HRP. At the hearing date the Judge Y.A.Dato Rohana amended the prayers so that the Registrar of Societies (ROS) replies to our application.The Judge indicated that this may buy ROS some three month or so to reply to HRP.On the eve of the next Hearing date ie on 4/8/2011 the ROS rejected HRPs’ application to be registered at political party.The next day on 5/8/2011 even when we had submitted that it was not our fault that the ROS did not reply to us earlier and praying for no order as to costs as this matter has now become academic, the Judge punished P.Uthayakumar by imposing costs of RM2,500.00 payable to ROS. And then vide HRPs’ appeal letter dated 19/8/2011 to Dato Seri Hishamuddin Tun Hussein, the Home Minister, HRP appealed against the ROSs’ decision. And when the Home Minister refused to reply we again on 11/10/2011 filed another High Court Judicial review to Registrar HRP. On 17/11/11 Judge Abang Iskandar bin Abang Hashim recused himself and this matter is now “fixed” before the new UMNO Judge Y.A.Dato Rohana binti Yusof. The Government also has the power to revoke the registration of an existing society for violations of the Act, a power that it enforced selectively against political opposition groups. In 2001, Parliament amended the Registration of Businesses Act to enable the Registrar to revoke or refuse the registration of organizations deemed to be engaging in unlawful activities or with purposes that were incompatible with national security. Some human rights activists expressed concern that this could be used to restrict NGOs that were critical of the Government. Under the Companies Act, the Registrar of Companies may refuse to register a proposed company or disband an existing company if he is satisfied that the company is likely to be used for any purpose prejudicial to national security or the public interest. Opposition parties and NGO activists alleged that the sweeping powers granted to the Registrar of Companies were designed to stifle criticism. The Government denied these charges and stated that financial irregularities were the amendments' main target. The Universities and University Colleges Act also restricts freedom of association. This act mandates university approval for student associations and prohibits student associations and faculty members from engaging in political activity. Many students, NGOs, and opposition political parties called for the repeal or amendment of the act. A number of ruling coalition organizations and politicians also supported reexamination of the act, but the Government argued that the act still was necessary.

10. Please specify positive measures taken to ensure that any restrictions on the free exercise of the right to freedom of association are in accordance with your obligations under international human rights law (proportionality test and due process guarantees).

The Constitution provides for the right of association; however, the Government placed significant restrictions on this right and certain statutes limit this right. Under the Societies Act, only registered, approved organizations of seven or more persons may function as societies. The Government sometimes refused to register organizations or imposed conditions when allowing a society to register.

In assessing whether a limit on a right is reasonable, the Malaysian courts generally failed to consider rights provided under the Federal Constitution and give very narrow judgment and reject by giving excuses like national security or public order.

11. Please indicate under which conditions associations can receive domestic and foreign funds or resources in your country. Are there any specific limitations (including in practice) on receiving funds or resources? In general, associations are free to receive funds from anyone domestically or internationally. Associations with a particular status (e.g. political parties, charities) have different requirements in terms of contribution limits, reporting and documentation requirements, and guidelines regarding transparency in the receipt of funds. Certain associations and organizations are required to report suspicious transactions that may be related to money laundering or terrorist financing

12. Please a) describe positive specific legislative/institutional measures taken to promote and ensure the participation of associations in the decision-making process in your country; and b) provide one or more recent examples where such measures have been implemented.

a) In the process of considering whether to pass legislation, Canada’s Parliamentary committees will often hear from individuals and associations about their views on the proposed law and any suggested amendments or revisions. Similar systems are in place at provincial legislatures as well. Canadian courts generally allow for intervener or amicus status whereby organizations, associations and individuals may ask for permission to make submissions on a particular legal issue that will be before the Court. On occasion public inquiries will take place and organizations or associations may seek standing to participate or be invited to appear as witnesses. Consultations on legislation periodically take place which may involve roundtable discussions, conferences or dialogues whereby associations are asked to contribute

b) CCLA has participated in a number of processes looking into issues related to the Toronto G20 Summit. This includes consulting with Ministry staff on proposed revisions or amendments to legislation that provide for expanded police powers in certain locations. CCLA also participated in proceedings before the Toronto Police Services Board considering G20 issues. CCLA was concerned that, despite a number of discrete inquiries related to the G20, no full federal or joint federal-provincial public inquiry was being held. As a result, CCLA (in conjunction with a labour organization) held its own public hearings and heard from many members of the public about their own experiences during the G20.

While the Parliamentary committee process does allow associations to participate, decisions about which witnesses are allowed to appear are not transparent. Similarly, while some courts will provide reasons why interveners are permitted to participate or are denied the opportunity to do so, this is not always the case. In some instances, court decisions related to interventions are not transparent.

13. In this context, please a) describe positive specific legislative/institutional taken to build and strengthen the human rights capacity of administrative officials in charge of implementing the law in your country; and b) provide one or more recent examples where such measures have been implemented.

N/A/

14. Please describe one or more recent examples where the right to freedom of association may have not been respected and the reasons for citing this example(s). In particular, please describe challenges faced in the implementation of laws, policies or programmes for the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of association in your country. Please provide lessons learnt in that regard. Briefly evaluate, in both law and practice, the enjoyment of the right to freedom of association in your country, including by women, individuals facing discrimination or violence because of their sexual orientation and gender identity, as well as persons with disabilities, espousing minority or dissenting views or beliefs, and belonging to other groups at risk.

On 21 February 2012, appeal court endorsers union busting when it just took 20 minutes for three learned judges to allow an appeal by the Guppy Industries Bosses which resulted in the courts upholding an Industrial Court decision to dismiss three women unionist who tried to form a union fourteen years ago. The judges Abdul Wahab Patail, Anantham Kasinathan and Linton Albert did not show much compassion or empathy and gave thumbs up judgment favoring the union busting boss of Guppy. The three learned judges felt that the Industrial Court ruling against the three is correct. They felt that the High Court ruling favoring the three unionists was just a verdict to lessen the punishment which was harsh and therefore felt that the Industrial court ruling of the three being sacked as correct.

The court said that the three unionists were sacked for doing union work during work. This is absolutely not true and all the workers have testified against this lie. It was the employer’s words against the worker’s words. The Industrial court chairperson believed only the employer’s side and therefore the judgment was against the workers. Today the Appeal court seems to give a similar narrow verdict on this in spite of the Company boss in the witness box saying and admitting that he was doing union busting.

On 27 April 1998, the Guppy Employer suspended the entire Protem Committee of the newly formed Guppy Union. They did not conduct any domestic inquiry but when the case was brought up to the Industrial court, the bosses said that the workers admitted. This lie is made in spite of numerous police reports and complaint letters by the Union. The Company later sacked 3 main office bearers of the Union Koyilvani (chairperson), Roshamiza (Secretary) and Kanniamah (Treasurer). 5 out of 6 office bearers of the Kesatuan Guppy Plastic Industries Sdn Bhd loss their job to one of the most unscrupulous employer who can now be declared as a 'union-eater'. The employer sacked the union chairperson, Comrade Koyilvani with 24 hours’ notice on 18 Jun 1998. The allegation was that she carried out ‘anti-company’ activities!

o Suspend the deputy chair, Comrade Rahimah twice, on 4 Jun 1998 and 25 Aug 2001 o Sacking the union secretary with 24 hours’ notice on 18 Jun 1998, also alleged of anti-company activities o Sacking the union treasurer, Comrade Kanniamah with 24 hours’ notice on 18 Jun 1998, alleged of anti-company activities

Then in 2001, the union vice-chairperson - Rahimah Mansor and the assistant treasurer - Visaletchumy were sacked. In the latest incident, one of the main workers organiser in Guppy, Bukit Tengah - Kumaresan was sacked. On 14 December 2009, the Kuala Lumpur High Court found that the sacking of 3 Guppy Workers Union’s leadership is unfair, too harsh and wrong! This is a grand victory because these workers faced numerous harassment and threat from their employer, since they established the union in 1998.

The employer, Guppy Plastic Industries Sdn Bhd has also made history by refusing all attempts taken by the Industrial Relation Officers to reinstate any of the above workers neither agreeing in any of the industrial dispute referred by the Union. Nationwide Union membership has dropped to less than 7 percent. The Registrar of Trade Unions has failed to protect the right of the unions and more and more laws are made to ensure Union rights are eroded. The Court’s interpretation of the relevant labour legislation at issue in the case failed to provide sufficient protection for freedom of association. A majority of the Court did not find that the legislation required employers to consider employee representation in good faith, but it remains to be seen whether this will effectively protect associational rights for these vulnerable workers.

The rights to association by the sexual rights communities also always been denied. Generally the LGBT communities seldom being accepted by the communities and also the systematic attacks by the state has provided the space for the extreme and conservatives groups to keep attack the communities. This determination has a negative impact on students, particularly those who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender or questioning their sexuality. With the situation where religious and political leaders, as well as the media continue to demonise LGBTIQ activists and communities in Malaysia. In addition, LGBTIQ persons are frequently exposed to hate speech, attacks and harassment. We believe that everyone in Malaysia deserves to be free from discrimination, harassment and violence regardless of their sexual orientations and their gender identities. We believe it is our right to be responsible for our own body.

On 2 November 2011, the declared a ban on an event planned by Seksualiti Merdeka (SM), which aims to celebrate sexual diversity and disseminate information to the public on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) rights through art and public talks. They would not recognise any deviant movement that could destroy the practice of religious freedom.SM is a coalition of human rights defenders working to promote the rights of LGBTI individuals and communities in Malaysia. The yearly event has been held since 2008. Public officials and politicians have made inflammatory statements about SM, and the police have announced that they will detain anyone that participates in any such events on grounds including the disturbance of public order and threats to national security.

On 3 November 2011, Deputy Inspector-General of Police Datuk Seri Khalid Abu Bakar confirmed that police would take action “under Section 27 A (1) (C) of the Police Act as well as Section 298 A of the Penal Code to prevent any function relating to the programme”. Under Section 27 A of the Police Act, organisers of SM could be fined between 2,000 and 10,000 Ringgit (approximately 465 to 2322) and face one year's imprisonment, while Section 298 A states that they could be imprisoned for a term of between two and five years.

According to the Deputy Inspector-General, the police have received a number complaints from both Islamic and non-Islamic NGOs, “who feared that the programme could create disharmony, enmity and disturb public order”. It is reported that organisations that filed complaints include the Allied Coordinating Committee of Islamic NGOs (ACCIN) and the Anti-Liberalism of Religion Body (Badan Anti-Liberalisme Agama). In response, SM organisers have called off all public events, and they have requested to meet the Inspector-General of Police in order to clarify the festival objectives.

On 7 November 2011, several human rights defenders who have been identified as key figures in the organisation of the event were phoned by the police in order to collect statements. These individuals include Mr Pang Khee Teik, key organiser of the event, Ms Maria Chin Abdullah, Executive Director of Empower, Ms , Chairperson of Bersih 2.0, and Ms , Executive Director of Tenaganita.

Till today, SM has been the subject of verbal attack by the authorities. On, February 21, 2012 the Kuala Lumpur High Court decide on Seksualiti Merdeka’s leave of application on March 1, over a police ban imposed on its movement. On 1st March, the Kuala Lumpur High Court refused the application for a judicial review against the ban of Seksualiti Merdeka. the judgment delivered by the Justice Rohana who ruled that police have adequate power to stop an event to ensure the security of the country as 28 police reports had been lodged against the event by Christian, Muslim and Buddhist groups.

Cooperation with UN and regional human rights mechanisms:

15. Please indicate any cooperation your country has with the United Nations and regional human rights mechanisms aimed at maximizing the promotion and protection of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association.

Malaysia is one of the members of the UN Human rights council till 2013. But Malaysia's human rights record has been dismal, due to the arsenal of draconian legislation that the Executive has in its hands. The preconditions necessary for the reversal of this trend include:-

o The abolition or amendments of laws and provisions of laws that violate the fundamental freedoms of speech, assembly and association. These include the Sedition Act, the Printing Presses Publications Act, Section 15 and 16 of the University and University Colleges Act, the Official Secrets Act, the Police Act, the Societies Act and the Trade Union Act. In particular, we strongly call for the withdrawal of the newly-passed Peaceful Assembly Act, which severely restricts freedom of peaceful assembly. o Sign, ratify and implement domestically other key international instruments, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; the Convention Against Torture, and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; Convention on the Rights of the Child; Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.