Mental Illness – Corruption – Domestic Violence – State Protection

Refugee Review Tribunal AUSTRALIA

RRT RESEARCH RESPONSE

Research Response Number: MYS33296 Country: Malaysia Date: 21 May 2008

Keywords: – Malaysia – Divorce – Sikhs – Divorced women – Discrimination – Religious extremists – Violence – Rape – Honour killings – Mental illness – Corruption – Domestic violence – State protection

This response was prepared by the Research & Information Services Section of the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) after researching publicly accessible information currently available to the RRT within time constraints. This response is not, and does not purport to be, conclusive as to the merit of any particular claim to refugee status or asylum. This research response may not, under any circumstance, be cited in a decision or any other document. Anyone wishing to use this information may only cite the primary source material contained herein.

Questions 1. How easy is it to obtain a divorce in (a) Malaysia and (b) as a Sikh in Malaysia? 2. Is there significant social stigma and ostracism attached to divorced and/or separated women in Malaysia? If so, what form does the discrimination take? 3. Are divorced women likely to be targeted by religious extremists or any other actors? 4. Is a divorced woman and/or woman separated from her husband more vulnerable to violence in general and rape in particular? 5. Is there evidence of ‘honour killings’ in circumstances where a woman has separated from her husband in Malaysia? 6. Is there much social stigma attached to people suffering from mental illness in Malaysia? If so, how does this manifest and to what extent? 7. Please provide an update on the status of police (and general) corruption in Malaysia - is this gendered? (i.e. are women more likely to be affected by such corruption?) 8. Is there state protection for victims of domestic violence (including spousal rape)? Is there a gap between law/policy and practice in this regard?

RESPONSE

1. How easy is it to obtain a divorce in (a) Malaysia and (b) as a Sikh in Malaysia?

A States parties report dated 12 April 2004 by Malaysia to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women indicates that:

In Malaysia, family law matters are governed by a combination of Civil, Syariah (Islamic laws) and Adat (customary) laws. The concept of women’s equality in Malaysia is based on the culture and traditional beliefs of its various ethnic groups with the influence of religious values. As such, there is little room for negotiation or deviation from the normal norms or practices… For instance, in all cultures in Malaysia, a wife is expected to obey her husband who includes the husband’s family and to behave according to their wishes.

The report indicates that in relation to Muslims, “[u]nder the Federal Constitution, Islam falls under the purview of the State” and “[e]ach State, therefore, has its own set of Islamic laws”. It is stated in the report that:

383. In terms of family law for Muslims the basic principle is almost the same with other states within the Federation with slight differences in the wordings and practices as well as implementation. Therefore, the Islamic Family Law (Federal Territories) Act 1984 (IFLA) will be mentioned specifically in this report wherever there is a reference to such legal provisions besides comparing it with the other State Enactments (laws that are passed by State Authorities) whenever necessary.

In relation to non-Muslims in Malaysia, “the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act (LRA) 1976, will be applicable.” That Act “has been described as:

“An Act which seek to lay down a uniform law on marriage and divorce and matters incidental thereto, applicable to all non-Muslim residents in Malaysia, as well as to all citizens of or domiciled in Malaysia residing abroad.”

The report includes the following information on divorce for Muslims and non-Muslims in Malaysia:

Non-Muslim Divorce

420. The LRA requires that all divorces be registered. The various stages of the process of divorce generally do not discriminate women.

421. The LRA provides that couples may seek a divorce and determine the terms of the divorce by mutual consent. In such cases, the court may make a decree of divorce upon being satisfied that, inter alia, proper provision is made for the wife and the children. Judges usually do not intervene in mutual consent divorces unless it appears that the provision made for the children’s maintenance is insufficient.

422. Divorce can also be obtained on the grounds that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. Generally, the courts will accept that the marriage has broken down in any of these situations:

a) The respondent has committed adultery and the petitioner finds it intolerable to live with him/her;

b) The respondent has behaved in such a way that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with him/her;

c) The respondent has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of at least two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition;

d) The parties to the marriage have lived apart for a continuous period of at least two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition.

Muslim Divorce

423. Divorce among Muslims in Malaysia must be pronounced in court. Section 47 of the IFLA provides that whoever desire divorce shall file in an application for divorce to the Syariah Court. It is an offence under the IFLA if the divorce is pronounced outside court.

424. However, if the talaq is pronounced outside the court, the parties may still refer the matter to court for verification to the termination of the marriage. In Malaysia, a Muslim wife can divorce her husband on grounds based on the prescribed ta’lik (a promise expressed by the husband after solemnisation of marriage), on grounds of failure to maintain the wife or on the ground of the absence of the husband for more than four months and on the ground of violence against the wife.

425. A woman may also petition to court for fasakh or khuluq which has the effect of dissolving the marriage. The court after hearing the application may order the husband to pronounce talaq.

426. Under the IFLA, if the husband wishes to ruju’ (resume conjugal relationship) with his divorced wife, the recohabitation must take place by mutual consent and without force (United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women 2004, ‘Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 18 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women – Combined initial and second periodic reports of States parties – Malaysia’, United Nations Division for the Advancement of Women website, CEDAW/C/MYS/1-2, 12 April, pp. 105 & 110-111 http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/35sess.htm – Accessed 16 May 2008 – Attachment 1).

A copy of Malaysia’s Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, as amended to 1 January 2006, is attached (Government of Malaysia 1976, ‘Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 (Incorporating all amendments up to 1 January 2006)’, Act 164, Attorney- General’s Chambers of Malaysia website, March http://www.agc.gov.my/agc/oth/Akta/Vol.%204/Act%20164.pdf – Accessed 21 May 2008 – Attachment 2).

A legal profile of Islamic family law in Malaysia which includes information on divorce for Muslims in Malaysia is also attached (‘Islamic Family Law – Legal Profile – Malaysia’ (Undated), Emory University School of Law website http:/ /www.law.emory.edu/ifl/legal/malaysia.htm#text – Accessed 25 January 2008 – Attachment 3).

The US Department of State report on religious freedom in Malaysia for 2007 refers to the treatment of Muslim women in Shari’a courts, including in relation to divorce. According to the report:

Shari’a laws are administered by state authorities through Islamic courts and bind all Muslims, most of whom are ethnic Malays. Shari’a laws and the degree of their enforcement varied from state to state. Shari’a courts do not give equal weight to the testimony of women. Several nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) dedicated to advancement of women’s rights complained that women did not receive fair treatment from Shari’a courts in matters of divorce and child custody. In December 2005 Parliament passed the Islamic Family Law Act (IFLA) in an effort to harmonize Shari’a laws throughout the country. The IFLA would have weakened a Muslim wife’s ability to control her private property during marriage, as well as enhanced the ability of Muslim men to divorce, take multiple wives, and claim an existing wife’s property upon taking a new wife. Following protests from women’s rights advocates about these and other provisions of the IFLA, the attorney general commenced a review of the law. As of June 30, 2007, the law had not been gazetted; the attorney general’s chamber continued to review proposed amendments to the IFLA (US Department of State 2007, International Religious Freedom Report 2007 – Malaysia, September, Section II – Attachment 4).

The US Department of State report on human rights practices in Malaysia for 2007 notes that “a review of amendments” to the Islamic Family Law Act “continued at year’s end.” The report also indicates that “[t]here was a small but steadily increasing number of women obtaining divorces under the provisions of Shari’a that allow for divorce without the husband’s consent” (US Department of State 2008, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2007 – Malaysia, March, Sections 2(c) & 5 – Attachment 5).

An article in The Straits Times dated 4 April 2006 refers to Datin Paduka Marina Mahathir, the daughter of former Malaysian premier, Mahathir Mohamad, declaring that “Malaysia’s Muslim women are second-class citizens, held back by discriminatory family laws that do not apply to non-Muslims.” The article also refers to Islamic family laws allowing “an easier divorce procedure for men than women.” It is stated in the article that:

Muslims are governed by Islamic family laws that set the rules for marriage, divorce, guardianship and inheritance.

Among others, they permit men to marry up to four wives and allow an easier divorce procedure for men than women. While divorced women may get custody of children, fathers retain guardianship and decision-making rights.

This has been branded ‘legal discrimination’ by some - Ms Marina among them.

The article also notes that “[t]he irony is that, when Malaysia’s Islamic family law was first codified in 1984, it was one of the most progressive in the Muslim world.” According to the article:

It expanded the grounds of divorce for women. It made it illegal for men to obtain a divorce by merely uttering the word ‘talaq’ (divorce) without court consent. Strict conditions were also imposed for men to take multiple wives.

But amendments through the 1990s saw, among others, a reduction in the conditions a man must fulfil before he can take another wife.

New interpretations sparked controversy: the recognition of divorce via cellphone SMS messages, for example.

Women who initiated divorce frequently faced delays when the Syariah Court refused to proceed if the husband did not turn up.

The article also refers to the concerns of supporters of “the liberal Kuala Lumpur-based group, Sisters in Islam” in relation to “extensive amendments to the Islamic family law of the Federal Territory last December, making polygamy easier for men and allowing a man to claim a share of matrimonial property when he remarries.” It is stated in the article that:

The Federal Territory - which comprises Kuala Lumpur, Putrajaya and Labuan - was actually the last to adopt the amendments, as Malaysia’s other states had done so quietly over the years.

But only in Kuala Lumpur did the move cause a furore. Following protests from a range of women’s groups and politicians, the amendments have been shelved pending further changes.

...In Johor, where the changes are already in force, a woman found her bank accounts frozen by court order when her ex-husband sought a share as matrimonial assets. The case is pending (Hong, Carolyn 2006, ‘Muslim Sisters fight for their rights’, The Straits Times, 4 April – Attachment 6).

Another article in the New Sunday Times dated 2 April 2006 indicates that Siti Esah Bakar, a Muslim woman whose “husband was sentenced to jail for pouring acid on her” took “five years to get a divorce. It took Aida Melly Tan Mutalib seven years to end her estranged marriage.” According to the article:

They are just two of many Muslim women who have expended time, money and energy to obtain divorces. Had they been non-Muslims, the procedure would have been far less onerous. Under the law, a non-Muslim woman’s right to divorce is equal to that of a man.

When a Muslim woman wants to file for divorce, she has to prove that the divorce falls under one of three types.

Under fasakh, a woman may seek to annul her marriage by judicial decree if she can prove that her husband violated one of 12 conditions, which includes desertion, lack of maintenance and abuse. A woman can apply for a ta’liq divorce if her husband violates one of the three conditions listed in the ta’liq (marriage contract). Khul is a form of divorce available, generally by compensating the husband.

A Muslim man can divorce his wife with a simple unilateral pronouncement of the talaq.

The final hurdle is waiting for a case to be finalised by a judiciary system that many claim is plagued with gender bias and delays due to a shortage of judges.

“In Siti Esah’s case, the Syariah Court refused her application for divorce through fasakh and insisted that her husband utter the talaq even though he was serving a 10-year jail sentence,” says Nora Murat, legal officer and campaign co-ordinator at Sisters In Islam.

A Muslim woman can also be divorced outside of court in contravention of the law. The husband is subject to a small fine but the divorce stands. For a non-Muslim woman, divorce proceedings can only occur under judicial supervision (Subki, Sofianni 2006, ‘Different strokes for different folks’, New Sunday Times, 2 April – Attachment 7).

An earlier article in the New Straits Times dated 18 November 2002 in relation to the case of Aida Melly Tan Mutalib who “had to wait seven years to obtain a divorce” in a syariah court in Malaysia, indicates that a representative of one of the women’s groups who had supported her divorce application, Dr Anizan Isahak, the programme co-ordinator for WIJADI (Wanita Inovatif Jaya Diri) had said that:

Although there have been reports where divorce cases have been dealt with in an expeditious manner – as demonstrated recently in the Kajang syariah court – there are also instances where cases are delayed due to the lack of judges, unwillingness of judges to hear cases ex- parte, or simply due to very slight aberrations on the part of the plaintiffs, i.e. the women, when answering questions posed by the judges (Subki, Sofianni 2002, ‘Time for syariah system to buck up’, New Straits Times, 18 November – Attachment 8).

2. Is there significant social stigma and ostracism attached to divorced and/or separated women in Malaysia? If so, what form does the discrimination take?

An article in the New Straits Times dated 20 March 2008, which provides statistics showing an increase in the number of divorces for both Muslims and non-Muslims in Malaysia between 2000 and 2005, notes “that there is less stigma in being a divorced woman today.” According to the article:

Society’s open secret today is that marriages do not last as long as those in our parents’ generation.

“The early days after a divorce are difficult because of adjustment to a different lifestyle, loss of self-esteem (both in the workplace and amongst family members), loss of companionship, loneliness, helplessness, negative feelings and the need to take on more responsibilities,” says Dr Chiam Heng Keng, a commissioner with the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (or Suhakam, its Malay acronym).

“During this period of adjustment, the person needs support, like someone to talk to. Both the Government and NGOs can help provide this,” she added.

It does help that society these days accepts the fact that marriages do not last a lifetime. Anecdotal evidence suggest this. The result is that there is less stigma in being a divorced woman today (Dass, Francis & Pillay, Suzanna 2008, ‘Picking up the pieces’, New Straits Times, 20 March – Attachment 9).

An article in The Straits Times dated 14 May 2006 indicates that opposition MP Fatah Harun had been criticised after referring to divorcees in Malaysia as “gatal”, which “has also been translated as promiscuous, flirtatious or lustful, with a predatory instinct of going all out to snare a man or woman.” It is stated in the article that:

The backlash came immediately, and from all directions, not just from women. Even his own party, which holds less than liberal views about women, quickly distanced itself.

…Yet, in reality, the views of Mr Fatah are merely an extreme version of the prejudice that plagues divorced women.

Some say this is more noticeable in the Malay community because a high value is placed on marriage.

Ms Dina Zaman, a writer who was recently divorced, says being married is intrinsically tied to many women’s self-esteem and the community’s regard for them.

From her own experience, she found out that women tend to see their divorced friends as a threat and men perceive them as easy prey.

She recounted how many of her married Malay women friends shunned her after her divorce, and one e-mailed her to tell her that the Malays looked down on ‘your kind’.

Since Malay men can have up to four wives, ‘they felt that I’ve become a threat, and am out to get their husbands’, she said.

She said the experience came as a shock, especially since it was those who lived in sophisticated Kuala Lumpur who seemed to be the most judgmental.

Her family from the conservative east coast states of Kelantan and Terengganu took her divorce in their stride as twice- or thrice-divorced women are not uncommon there.

Ms Dina is not alone in her experience. The Star newspaper on Friday ran interviews with divorced women of different races who spoke of the prejudice they too had faced from men and women friends.

‘Society views women as being weaker, and that a divorced woman needs to find herself a husband,’ the newspaper quoted Ms Janet Paul, a divorcee, as saying (Hong, Carolyn 2006, ‘Malaysia’s Desperate Ex-housewives?’, The Straits Times, 14 May – Attachment 10).

The article in the New Straits Times dated 18 November 2002 in relation to the previously mentioned case of Aida Melly Tan Mutalib, indicates that a representative of one of the women’s groups who had supported her divorce application had referred to “a value system that does not recognise the basic right of a Muslim woman to divorce.” Ivy N. Josiah, the executive director of the Women’s Aid Organisation [WAO] had commented that:

WAO has counselled several women who have not just faced an unsympathetic court system and received unsolicited advice from court officials but have also faced danger. Some have even been abducted by abusive husbands who do not want them to appear in court to proceed with the application for a divorce.

Underlying this discrimination against women is a value system that does not recognise the basic right of a Muslim woman to divorce.

Although the law clearly provides for conditions whereby a Muslim woman is entitled to file for divorce, she faces prejudice and bureaucratic obstacles. In frustration, many women compromise their rights by agreeing to divorce conditions laid out by their husbands in order to be free from their unhappy marriages.

This sexist belief that women are not entitled to divorce is further supported by a discriminatory practice or a privilege enjoyed by Muslim men. We have made it too easy for Muslim men to pronounce divorce and this conditional privilege is much abused.

Maria Chin Abdullah, the executive director of the Women’s Development Collective also said that:

In the areas of syariah law, besides the ordeal that one has to go through in a divorce, Muslim women also face other hardships in their search for redress, in cases of polygamy, custody, maintenance and division of matrimonial property. The problems lie in two major areas:

i) The inefficient and unprofessional implementation of the syariah laws. Officials implementing the syariah laws are generally prejudiced against women because of their personal belief that men and women are not equal in Islam. This, therefore, affects their enforcement and often results in selective and discriminatory approaches and attitudes against women.

ii) The lack of uniformity in family laws among the various states that lead to differing legal provisions and differing standards of implementation (as stated in the Women’s Agenda for Change, 2000).

To top it all, there is no time limit set for each process to be completed. The end result is what we witness in Aida Melly’s case - a long wait and much stress. The point to highlight is that poor implementation and a lack of uniformity and clarity in the syariah laws have led to delays in the administration of justice for those seeking legal redress (Subki, Sofianni 2002, ‘Time for syariah system to buck up’, New Straits Times, 18 November – Attachment 8).

3. Are divorced women likely to be targeted by religious extremists or any other actors?

A search of the sources consulted did not locate specific information on divorced and/or separated women being targeted by religious extremists or other actors.

4. Is a divorced woman and/or woman separated from her husband more vulnerable to violence in general and rape in particular?

A search of the sources consulted did not locate specific information on whether a divorced woman and/or a woman separated from her husband is more vulnerable to violence in general and rape in particular.

The States parties report dated 12 April 2004 by Malaysia to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women includes information on court orders that can be made to protect persons divorced or separated from their spouses. The report indicates that in relation to non-Muslims:

430. During matrimonial proceedings or when a decree of divorce, judicial separation or annulment is granted, the court is empowered to order any person to refrain from forcing his/her society on his/her spouse or former spouse and from other acts of molestation. This is especially beneficial for women, as they are generally the victims of molestation. A person who wilfully fails to comply with such an order may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment.

The report also provides information on the Domestic Violence Act 1994, which “aims to provide protection for victims of violence in homes pending investigation or other criminal proceedings in court.” The law has “extensive provisions relating to protective orders (POs) which can be issued by the courts” including POs prohibiting a person from using domestic violence against a spouse while an investigation or court proceeding in relation to a complaint of domestic violence takes place. Additional orders that can be attached to a protection order include:

i) granting of the right of exclusive occupation to any protected person of the shared residence by excluding the person against whom the order is made;

ii) prohibiting or restraining the person against whom the order is made from entering the protected person’s place of residence, school or other institution;

iii) requiring the person against whom the order is made to allow the protected person to enter his place accompanied by an enforcement officer for the purpose of collecting the protected person’s belongings; and

iv) not to make written or telephone communications with the protected person; and allowing the protected person to have continued use of a vehicle which has previously been ordinarily used by him or her.

In relation to Muslim women, the report indicates that:

458. Muslim wives who are in abusive marriages can also apply for divorce. Alternatively, a wife can apply to the Syariah Court for a restraining order against her own husband. Section 107(1) of the IFLA empowers the court to order any person to refrain from acts of molestation pending any matrimonial proceedings or on or after the grant of an order of divorce or annulment. Usually, to obtain such an order, the applicant must prove that there has been molestation in the past or that the wife is in a dangerous situation and that an order is necessary for her protection.

The report also indicates that although “Malaysia does not have a provision on marital rape... there are three instances in which a man who has sex with his wife can be charged for rape”, including “[w]here the wife is living separately from her husband under a decree of judicial separation or a decree nisi not made absolute.” It is stated in the report that:

453. The law also stipulates that sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife is not rape and Malaysia does not have a provision on marital rape. However, there are three instances in which a man who has sex with his wife can be charged for rape:

(i) Where the wife is living separately from her husband under a decree of judicial separation or a decree nisi not made absolute;

(ii) Where the wife has obtained an injunction restraining her husband from having sexual intercourse with her; and

(iii) In the case of a Muslim woman living separately from her husband during the period of ‘iddah which is approximately a period of three months (United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women 2004, ‘Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 18 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women – Combined initial and second periodic reports of States parties – Malaysia’, United Nations Division for the Advancement of Women website, CEDAW/C/MYS/1-2, 12 April, pp. 112 & 116-117 http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/35sess.htm – Accessed 16 May 2008 – Attachment 1).

The US Department of State report on human rights practices in Malaysia for 2007 indicates that:

The report also indicates that:

Women’s groups criticized the act as inadequate and called for amendments to strengthen it. In their view the act fails to protect women in immediate danger because it requires separate reports of abuse be filed with both the Social Welfare Department and the police, causing delay in the issuance of a restraining order. Cases also require visible evidence of physical injury, despite its interpretation to include sexual and psychological abuse (US Department of State 2008, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2007 – Malaysia, March, Section 5 – Attachment 5).

Sources indicate that statistics show a rise in violence against women in Malaysia. An article dated 12 March 2007 refers to “concern over a sharp rise in gender-related violence - especially rape and domestic abuse” in Malaysia. The article also refers to “Shahrizat Jalil, minister for women, family and community development” agreeing “that abuse of women was often concealed because women were ignorant of their rights or were mistakenly acting in accordance with cultural practices.” According to the article:

“Reported incidences of violence against women are only the tip of the iceberg,” said Irene Fernandez who heads TENAGANITA, a leading human rights organisation. “Many cases go unreported because of fear and a conservative value system that pervades our society.”

Even the government is alarmed by the statistics which show that 6.6 women are raped every day and is urging victims to come forward and report so as to ensure that the perpetrators are punished.

...The All Women’s Action Society or AWAM, a grouping of women’s non government organisations (NGOs), said rising violence against women is a primary concern of many women’s groups. “Violence against women has escalated, going by reported cases alone. Besides rape, incidences of domestic violence have also increased year-on-year,” said Honey Tan Lay Ean, executive director of AWAM (Kuppusamy, Baradan 2007, ‘Malaysia-Women: Gender-related violence goes largely unpunished’, Inter Press Service, 12 March – Attachment 11).

5. Is there evidence of ‘honour killings’ in circumstances where a woman has separated from her husband in Malaysia?

A search of the sources consulted did not locate information on honour killings having occurred in circumstances where a woman has separated from her husband in Malaysia.

An RRT research response dated 11 April 2007, which looked at how prevalent honour killings were in Malaysia for women who had become westernised and who had married outside the family prescription, indicates that no information was found “about honour killings having occurred in Malaysia” (RRT Research & Information 2007, Research Response MYS31609, 11 April – Attachment 12).

6. Is there much social stigma attached to people suffering from mental illness in Malaysia? If so, how does this manifest and to what extent?

The US Department of State report on human rights practices in Malaysia for 2007 indicates that “[n]either the constitution nor other laws explicitly prohibit discrimination based on physical or mental disabilities, but the government promoted public acceptance and integration of persons with disabilities” (US Department of State 2008, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2007 – Malaysia, March, Section 5 – Attachment 5).

An article in the New Straits Times dated 16 September 2006 refers to “[t]he Raja Muda of Perak Raja Dr Nazrin Shah” saying that “mental disorders, ranging from anxiety to depression and neurological and behavioural problems, were plaguing many Malaysians today.” It is stated in the article that:

He said the effects of mental illness on society and the economy were long lasting and wide- ranging.

He was therefore pleased that under the Ninth Malaysia Plan, mental health promotion would be emphasised to improve the overall health status of Malaysians.

He said increasing the awareness of mental health and early diagnosis of psychological disorders would help in the successful treatment and rehabilitation of patients.

However, he noted that there were only 240 psychiatrists in the country, which translates to less than one psychiatrist per 100,000 population.

This, he said, was a far cry from the 3.4 psychiatrists per 100,000 population ratio recommended by the World Health Organisation.

Raja Nazrin said the stigma attached to psychological disorders was also another barrier to positive mental health.

He urged the media to help educate society and provide information on treatment and rehabilitation options.

“The media can be a powerful tool in eradicating negative stereotypes.

“The public should be guided to view mental health as akin to physical health - something to be looked after and protected,” he said.

The public, he added, should view mental patients just like other sick patients - as human beings deserving of care and compassion (‘Nazrin: Seek help to treat mental illness’ 2006, New Straits Times, 16 September – Attachment 13).

An article dated 10 July 2006 notes that Malaysia was “expected to launch a month-long campaign in August” of that “year to arouse the public’s awareness on mental illness, the organizer said on Monday.” According to the article, “[t]he Mental Health Month campaign is also aimed at urging the public to assist the patients of mental illness, while correcting their negative perception of the illness and patients, Malaysia’s Mental Health Foundation said” (‘Malaysia to launch month-long campaign against mental illness’ 2006, Xinhua News Agency, 10 July – Attachment 14).

Another article in the New Straits Times dated 18 November 2005 indicates that Malaysia’s Health Minister Datuk Dr Chua Soi Lek had said that halfway houses for mental patients, that were to be established, “were to reduce society’s negative perception of mental illness as currently, patients discharged from psychiatric institutions faced numerous problems.” Dr Chua also said that the number of people with psychological problems in Malaysia who sought treatment was “believed to be less than 20 per cent, as they do not want society to label them as a “mental patient”… “Their reluctance is also due to lack of understanding that mental problems could be solved through counselling and treatment.” Dr Chua said society’s perception that all mental patients were “crazy” and “aggressive” was incorrect” (Ng, Eileen 2005, ‘Halfway houses for mental patients’, New Straits Times, 18 November – Attachment 15).

An article by the president of the Malaysian Mental Health Association in the New Straits Times dated 24 October 2005 refers to “[t]he stigma faced by people with mental illness” as “immense.” According to the article:

People with severe enduring mental health problems are unwanted by society, unemployable, uninsurable and exist on the fringes of society. As yet, they are not even officially regarded as being disabled, although this is now in the pipeline.

We have first-hand knowledge of numerous people with mental health problems who are afraid to disclose their condition on health insurance declarations and employment questionnaires for fear of discrimination.

The stigma faced by people with mental illness is immense. The fact is that the majority of people with mental illness are more of a danger to themselves than to others. Thankfully, only a minority commit crimes but, unfortunately, it is these tragic and “sensational” cases that are reported in the media.

The media cannot be faulted for this as they are acting in the public’s interest. However, more sensitive reporting of such cases is required to help reduce the stigma (Gonzaga, Dr Rabin 2005, ‘He had patient’s welfare in mind’, New Straits Times, 24 October – Attachment 16).

7. Please provide an update on the status of police (and general) corruption in Malaysia - is this gendered? (i.e. are women more likely to be affected by such corruption?)

A search of the sources consulted did not locate specific information on women being more likely to be affected by corruption in Malaysia, although the US Department of State report on human rights practices in Malaysia for 2007 does indicate that “[t]here were allegations of corruption among law enforcement personnel” in relation to trafficking in persons in Malaysia. This included the trafficking of “mostly women and girls from China, Indonesia, Cambodia, Thailand, the Philippines, and Vietnam… to the country for commercial sexual exploitation… and the trafficking abroad of “[s]ome Malaysian women, primarily of Chinese ethnicity… for sexual exploitation.” According to the report, “[t]rafficking in persons was a serious problem.” Malaysia “was a destination, and to a lesser extent, a source and transit point for men and women trafficked for the purposes of sexual exploitation and forced labor.”

In relation to police corruption, the US Department of State report indicates that “[r]eported police offenses included accepting bribes, theft, and rape; punishments included suspension, dismissal, and demotion.” The report also indicates that:

Police officers are subject to trial by the civil courts. Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi, who was concurrently minister for internal security, reported that there were 25 disciplinary actions against police officers during the year.

The government continued to focus police reform efforts on improving salaries, quarters, and general living conditions of police officers. The status of other reforms recommended in a 2005 police commission report, including the formation of an independent police complaints and misconduct commission, remained uncertain. NGOs complained that the government’s efforts to implement the 2005 commission’s recommendations lacked transparency.

In relation to government corruption, it is stated in the report that:

The law provides criminal penalties for official corruption. Government commitment to the effective implementation of the law remained unclear, and the media reported numerous cases of alleged official corruption. There was a broadly held perception of widespread corruption and cronyism within the governing coalition and in government institutions. The World Bank’s worldwide governance indictors reflect that corruption was a problem. As of 2006 the ACA employed approximately 1,800 staff members nationwide. According to the ACA director general, the agency initiated the arrest of 492 individuals during the year. In August the government announced that civil servants who refuse or fail to declare their assets would face disciplinary actions and would be ineligible for promotion.

A deputy prime minister-headed panel investigating allegations of log smuggling by a member of parliament (MP) had not completed its investigation by year’s end (US Department of State 2008, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2007 – Malaysia, March, Sections 1(d), 3 & 5 – Attachment 5).

An article in The Straits Times dated 17 May 2008 refers to a Royal Commission of Inquiry finding “evidence of an ‘insidious’ conspiracy involving top government and judicial figures - including former premier Mahathir Mohamad - to influence the appointment of judges, the government said yesterday.” According to the article:

It also said it had agreed to follow the commission’s recommendation to investigate individuals named in the report, who include Tun Dr Mahathir and former chief justices Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim and Tun Eusoff Chin.

Others mentioned are Malaysian tycoon Vincent Tan, former minister Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor and lawyer V.K. Lingam.

The damning report, which will be available for sale to the public next week, was prepared by a five-member commission, which investigated a sensational video clip allegedly showing Lingam brokering judicial appointments.

...In Malaysia’s legal system, the chief judge recommends candidates for senior judicial appointments and promotions to the prime minister, who can accept or reject those names.

Malaysia’s judiciary has long been plagued by claims of corruption. Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi announced last month that an independent panel would be set up to select judges as part of reforms (Hassan, Hazlin 2008, ‘‘Insidious’ conspiracy in appointment of judges’, The Straits Times, 17 May – Attachment 17).

An Associated Press Newswires article dated 21 April 2008 indicates that “Malaysia’s prime minister said Monday he will make the state anti-graft agency independent and more than triple its number of officers as part of sweeping reforms to battle corruption.” It is stated in the article that:

Critics say Malaysia’s judiciary and Anti-Corruption Agency, which is under the prime minister’s office, are heavily politicized and prone to influence by power-brokers.

Malaysian leader Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said in a speech the anti-graft agency will be turned into a commission.

Abdullah also said he will increase the number of anti-corruption officers from fewer than 2,000 now to more than 7,000 over the next five years and propose new laws to protect whistle-blowers and witnesses.

Abdullah’s efforts to reform his administration are a direct response to the March 8 general elections in which his ruling coalition lost its traditional two-thirds majority. The loss was attributed to public anger over a host of social and political issues but also over growing corruption.

...“Despite our best efforts we seem to have fallen short of public expectation,” Abdullah said.

“There is a strong perception that the anti corruption enforcement has protected “so-called big fish ... while only the small fry face the full brunt of the law,” he said.

... Abdullah said the government has already stepped up the fight against corruption, noting the conviction rate for corruption arrests last year was 78 percent, a rise of 28 percentage points since five years ago.

The number of arrests itself had risen by 54 percent over the last seven years, he said (Yoong, Sean 2008, ‘Malaysia PM announces reforms to boost fight against corruption’, Associated Press Newswires, 21 April – Attachment 18).

According to an article dated 18 January 2008, the opposition had criticised the government for failing to curb a rise in Malaysia’s crime rate. Parliamentary opposition leader Lim Kit Siang had said that crime was “rising because of police corruption, inefficiency and unaccountability.” The article indicates that Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi had announced new measures, but had “not offered any solution to combat corruption in the force and the lack of skills to fight crime -- two setbacks that experts say are fueling the escalation in violent crime.” The article also indicates that:

Many experts say a key reason for the crisis is Badawi’s failure to set up an independent police misconduct commission and follow a key recommendation made by a royal commission in 2005 to overhaul the police force.

In December, Badawi offered a heavily watered-down version of an independent oversight commission that was heavily criticized because senior police personnel would be running it.

“The key issue is who polices the police surely not the police themselves,” said opposition lawmaker Murugesan Kulasegaran. “It has got to be done by independent, non-police persons of high caliber and integrity” (Kuppusamy, Baradan 2008, ‘Malaysia: Opposition parties pledge to deal with rampant crime’, Inter Press Service, 18 January – Attachment 19).

An Agence France-Presse article dated 6 December 2007 refers to Ramon Navaratnam, the president of Transparency International (TI) Malaysia, saying that Malaysia needed “to have “stronger political will” to combat corruption,”... warning it is the country’s poor who will suffer.” According to the article:

“We also need to amend the legislation on corruption and enforce it, in order to make it much more effective,” he added after releasing a worldwide survey on the public’s perception to corruption in their country.

Navaratnam said the 1,250 Malaysian people surveyed for TI’s Global Corruption Barometer felt the police and political parties were among the most corrupt.

...The results of the TI survey came after Malaysia’s white-collar crime police chief was charged with abuse of power last month after already facing corruption charges for not declaring shares and property.

Ramli Yusoff is the most senior police officer in the country to be charged for corruption. If convicted, he could face a possible 20-year jail term and up to 10,000 ringgit (3,000 dollars) in fines.

Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmand Badawi was elected on an anti-corruption ticket in March 2004, but opposition leaders say progress has been slow, with few meaningful reforms (‘Political will required to fight corruption in Malaysia: watchdog’ 2007, Agence France-Presse, 6 December – Attachment 20).

An Associated Press Newswires article dated 21 November 2007 indicates that “[a] judge has become the first senior member of Malaysia’s Islamic law system to face a corruption trial after he was charged with accepting bribes, a court official said Wednesday.” It is stated in the article that:

Hassan Basri Markum, a Shariah High Court judge in the northern state of Perak, pleaded innocent Tuesday in a civil court -- which is under the secular judicial system -- to five charges of soliciting or receiving about 5,200 ringgit (US$1,500; euro1,000) in bribes, said his lawyer, S. Theivanthiran.

The government’s Anti-Corruption Agency accused Hassan of demanding bribes between August and September this year in various Shariah cases, including helping two couples marry without fulfilling Shariah requirements, Theivanthiran said (Zappei, Julia 2007, ‘Islamic law judge becomes Malaysia’s first such official to face corruption trial’, Associated Press Newswires, 21 November – Attachment 21).

An article dated 26 September 2007 notes that Malaysia had “moved up by one rung in this year’s Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), ending a five year downward trend, Transparency International Malaysia (TI-Malaysia) president, Tan Sri Dr Ramon Navaratnam said today.” According to the article:

Malaysia was ranked 33rd in 2002, 37th in 2003, 39th in 2004, 39th in 2005 and 44th in 2006.

“We are ranked at 43rd spot but with minimal improvement in the score, from 5.0 to 5.1,” he told reporters here.

Although it was a small improvement it must be sustained, he said adding TI-Malaysia urged the government to step up the fight against corruption which was perceived to be a serious concern, especially among the public, officials and politicians (‘M’sia at 43 of corruption perceptions index 2007, up one rung’ 2007, Bernama Daily Malaysian News, 26 September – Attachment 22).

An Associated Press Newswires article dated 15 June 2007 indicates that “Malaysian human rights groups said Friday that police abuse and corruption in the country have not stopped despite an independent commission’s recommendations for sweeping changes.” It is stated in the article that:

“Human rights continue to deteriorate,” Yap Swee Seng, executive director of local organization Suaram, said at a meeting of human rights groups. “The culture of impunity is growing.”

…A royal commission, set up in 2004, made 125 recommendations for changes in the police force to reduce crime, stop corruption and observe human rights.

Last year, Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi announced that 81 recommendations had been implemented, 19 more would be implemented and 25 were still being studied.

But Suaram and Amnesty International Malaysia said few of the recommendations on human rights have been implemented. The implementation of the others has been unsatisfactory, they said.

…Opposition leader Lim Kit Siang, who also joined the panel discussion, said politicians pointed fingers at each other instead of cracking down on police abuse and corruption. …But Denison Jayasooria of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia expressed cautious optimism. “The progress has been slow and in some cases extremely slow ... (But) The police tone has changed... There are changes. There is light, even if it’s just twinkles” (Zappei, Julia 2007, ‘Malaysian groups say police abuse, corruption continue despite calls for change’, Associated Press Newswires, 15 June – Attachment 23).

An RRT research response dated 8 June 2007 includes information on corruption in Malaysia (RRT Research & Information 2007, Research Response MYS31873, 8 June, (Question 1) – Attachment 24).

8. Is there state protection for victims of domestic violence (including spousal rape)? Is there a gap between law/policy and practice in this regard?

The US Department of State report on human rights practices in Malaysia for 2007 indicates that “[v]iolence against women remained a problem. During the year police received 3,264 domestic violence reports.” The report notes that “[a]lthough the government, NGOs, and political parties maintained shelters and offered other assistance to battered spouses, activists asserted that support mechanisms for victims of domestic violence remained inadequate… Police responses and sensitivity to complaints of domestic violence continued to improve, but women’s rights activists claimed that police needed additional training in handling domestic abuse and rape cases.” It is stated in the report that:

Violence against women remained a problem. During the year police received 3,264 domestic violence reports. Reports of rape and spousal abuse drew considerable government, NGO, and press attention. Under the Domestic Violence Act, anyone who willfully contravenes a protection order by using violence against a protected person may be punished by imprisonment of up to one year and a maximum fine of $556 (2,000 ringgit). In extreme cases, involving “grievous hurt” inflicted using a deadly weapon, the maximum imprisonment increases to 20 years. Women’s groups criticized the act as inadequate and called for amendments to strengthen it. In their view the act fails to protect women in immediate danger because it requires separate reports of abuse be filed with both the Social Welfare Department and the police, causing delay in the issuance of a restraining order. Cases also require visible evidence of physical injury, despite its interpretation to include sexual and psychological abuse.

Although the government, NGOs, and political parties maintained shelters and offered other assistance to battered spouses, activists asserted that support mechanisms for victims of domestic violence remained inadequate. There was a sexual investigations unit at each police headquarters to help victims of sexual crimes and abuse. Police responses and sensitivity to complaints of domestic violence continued to improve, but women’s rights activists claimed that police needed additional training in handling domestic abuse and rape cases.

The report also indicates that “[s]pousal rape is not a crime, although a husband may be charged for causing hurt to his wife while attempting to force sexual relations with her.” According to the report:

Many government hospitals had crisis centers where victims of rape and domestic abuse could make reports without going to a police station. NGOs and political parties also cooperated to provide counseling for rape victims, but cultural attitudes and a perceived lack of sympathy from the largely male police force resulted in many victims not reporting rapes. According to the Ministry of Women, Family, and Community Development (MWFCD) and a leading women’s NGO, only 10 percent of rape cases were reported to police. Women’s groups noted that while some rapists received heavy punishments, including caning, other rapists received inadequate punishments.

Some Shari’a experts urged Muslim women to become more aware of the provisions of Shari’a that prohibit spousal abuse and provide for divorce on grounds of physical cruelty. Provisions in state Shari’a laws, however, generally prohibit wives from disobeying the “lawful orders” of their husbands and presented an obstacle to women pursuing claims against their husbands in Shari’a courts. Muslim women were able to file complaints in civil courts (US Department of State 2008, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2007 – Malaysia, March, Section 5 – Attachment 5).

An Associated Press Newswires article dated 14 September 2007 refers to Malaysia making “it an offense for a husband to beat or threaten his wife to force her into having sex, but activists said Friday it failed to make marital rape a crime.” It is stated in the article that:

Under amendments to the penal code, which took effect last week, a husband who is found guilty of causing his wife “hurt or fear of death” to have sex with him can now face up to five years in jail.

The change, however, stops short of making marital rape a crime because another provision -- that a husband has the right to have sex with his wife -- had not been removed, said Maria Chin Abdullah, executive director of the Women’s Development Collective, a nongovernmental group.

“(The amendment) doesn’t really help to resolve the whole issue of marital rape. It’s like they have made an amendment, but at the same time there is a way out,” she told The Associated Press. “The law doesn’t want to deal head-on with marital rape.”

Chin Abdullah said the change also did not provide for a minimum sentence, meaning those found guilty could be imprisoned for “as little as a day” (‘Malaysia stops short of criminalizing marital rape, activists say’ 2007, Associated Press Newswires, 14 September – Attachment 25).

An RRT research response dated 21 October 2005 includes information on community attitudes to domestic violence in Malaysia and state/non-government protection available to women who suffer domestic violence (RRT Country Research 2005, Research Response MYS23726, 21 October, (Questions 7 & 8) – Attachment 26).

An Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada response to information request dated 22 August 2005 includes the following information on domestic violence in Malaysia:

Malaysia has enacted the Domestic Violence Act (1994) (Malaysia 1994; The Daily Star 7 Jan. 2005), has ratified the United Nations (UN) Women’s Convention (with some reservations) but as of 2005 had not yet signed the Optional Protocol to the UN Women’s Convention (AI 2005). Please see the attachment for a copy of the Domestic Violence Act of Malaysia 1995. Moreover, according to Country Reports 2004, the Domestic Violence Act addresses only violence perpetrated against women in the home, a restriction which women’s groups believe makes the act inadequate (28 Feb. 2005, Sec. 5). Country Reports 2004 also cited the Women’s Aid Organisation (WAO) as stating in June 2004 that legal protection was hindered due to a lack of cooperation between police, the social welfare department, and the judiciary (28 Feb. 2005, Sec. 5).

Several sources have noted a rise in the number of domestic violence cases in Malaysia (Malaysian Bernama 2 Aug. 2005) and have stated that violence against women is a problem in Malaysia (Freedom House 2005; Country Reports 2004 28 Feb. 2005, Sec. 5). On the other hand, statistics of domestic violence cases released by the Royal Malaysian Police show that there were 3,468 reported cases of domestic violence in 2000, 3,107 in 2001, 2,755 in 2002, 2,555 in 2003, and 1,207 in the first five months of 2004 (WCC n.d.a). For further details on the yearly number of reports of domestic violence by state, ethnicity, or age, please consult the Website of the Women’s Centre for Change: (WCC n.d.a).

The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia has reportedly complained that there is a shortage of “adequate, well-funded and safe shelter homes for victims of domestic violence in [the states of] Sabah and Sarawak” (Malaysian Bernama 2 Aug. 2005). Citing activist organizations, Country Reports 2004 indicated that the support network for victims of domestic violence was deemed inadequate, and that police required additional training to handle cases of violence against women, despite recent improvements in this area (28 Feb. 2005, Sec. 5).

Citing the WAO, AFP claims that of the 700 cases of domestic violence that it addresses annually, a tenth complain of spousal rape, although many more cases apparently go unreported (23 Aug. 2004). According to Malaysian law, spousal rape is not a criminal offence, and despite the fact that a man who rapes his wife could in theory be charged with assault, Country Reports 2004 claimed that as at the end of 2004 no man had been convicted under this clause (28 Feb. 2005, Sec. 5). The Malaysian Human Rights Commission (AFP 23 Aug. 2004; BBC 23 Aug. 2004) and the Joint Action Group Against Violence Against Women (AFP 27 Aug. 2004) have called on the government to criminalize marital rape (ibid.; ibid. 23 Aug. 2004), a position that has met with opposition from some of the country’s leading Muslim clerics (AFP 23 Aug. 2004; ibid. 27 Aug. 2004; BBC 23 Aug. 2004). The mufti of Perak state, Harussani Zakaria, feels that making marital rape a crime is against Islam (ibid.; AFP 23 Aug. 2004), and publicly stated that “‘[a] husband has the right to be intimate with his wife and the wife must obey’” (AFP 27 Aug. 2004; BBC 23 Aug. 2004). Some Islamic lawyers supported the mufti’s view, claiming “a woman may only refuse her husband sex if he has a sexually transmitted disease” (ibid.). This, in turn, led to the outrage of women’s groups (ibid.) (Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada 2005, MYS100433.E – Malaysia: Recourse available to women who are victims of sexual or physical abuse (January 2003 – August 2005), 22 August – Attachment 27).

The States parties report dated 12 April 2004 by Malaysia to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women indicates that:

450. In terms of protection against violence, women (and men) have recourse to two main legal instruments –

i) the body of laws on various violent crimes such as assault and rape in the Penal Code; and

ii) the Domestic Violence Act 1994. These laws are applicable to Muslims and non- Muslims.

The report provides information on the Domestic Violence Act 1994, which “aims to provide protection for victims of violence in homes pending investigation or other criminal proceedings in court.” The law includes “provisions relating to protective orders (POs) which can be issued by the courts.” In addition, “the court may also order the parties concerned to be referred to bodies providing counseling, rehabilitation therapy, psychotherapy and reconciliatory counseling.” The report also indicates that:

459. It is also an offence under the Islamic Family Law for a husband who ill-treated his own wife either mentally, emotionally or physically. The IFLA provides that any person who ill- treats his wife commits an offence and is liable to be punished with a fine not exceeding RM1000 or with imprisonment not exceeding six months or both.

The report includes the following information in relation to spousal rape:

(i) Where the wife is living separately from her husband under a decree of judicial separation or a decree nisi not made absolute;

(ii) Where the wife has obtained an injunction restraining her husband from having sexual intercourse with her; and

(iii) In the case of a Muslim woman living separately from her husband during the period of ‘iddah which is approximately a period of three months.

The report refers to the Malaysian police setting up of a Sexual Offences Unit in 1986 “to deal with rape and other sexual offences. In 1989, the legal penalties for rape were enhanced such that any person convicted for this offence faces an imprisonment term of not less than five years and not more than 20 years and is also liable to whipping” (United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women 2004, ‘Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 18 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women – Combined initial and second periodic reports of States parties – Malaysia’, United Nations Division for the Advancement of Women website, CEDAW/C/MYS/1-2, 12 April, pp. 115-117 http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/35sess.htm – Accessed 16 May 2008 – Attachment 1).

List of Sources Consulted

Internet Sources: Government Information & Reports Immigration & Refugee Board of Canada http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/ UK Home Office http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ US Department of State http://www.state.gov/ Attorney-General’s Chambers of Malaysia website http://www.agc.gov.my/agc/index.htm United Nations (UN) UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Refworld website http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refworld/rwmain United Nations Division for the Advancement of Women website http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/ Non-Government Organisations Human Rights Watch http://www.hrw.org/ Amnesty International http://www.amnesty.org International News & Politics BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk Region Specific Links Search Engines Copernic http://www.copernic.com/

Databases: FACTIVA (news database) BACIS (DIAC Country Information database) REFINFO (IRBDC (Canada) Country Information database) ISYS (RRT Research & Information database, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, US Department of State Reports) MRT-RRT Library Catalogue

List of Attachments

1. United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women 2004, ‘Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 18 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women – Combined initial and second periodic reports of States parties – Malaysia’, United Nations Division for the Advancement of Women website, CEDAW/C/MYS/1-2, 12 April http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/35sess.htm – Accessed 16 May 2008.

2. Government of Malaysia 1976, ‘Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 (Incorporating all amendments up to 1 January 2006)’, Act 164, Attorney-General’s Chambers of Malaysia website, March http://www.agc.gov.my/agc/oth/Akta/Vol.%204/Act%20164.pdf – Accessed 21 May 2008.

3. ‘Islamic Family Law – Legal Profile – Malaysia’ (Undated), Emory University School of Law website http:/ /www.law.emory.edu/ifl/legal/malaysia.htm#text – Accessed 25 January 2008. (CISNET Malaysia CX192036)

4. US Department of State 2007, International Religious Freedom Report 2007 – Malaysia, September.

5. US Department of State 2008, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2007 – Malaysia, March.

6. Hong, Carolyn 2006, ‘Muslim Sisters fight for their rights’, The Straits Times, 4 April. (FACTIVA)

7. Subki, Sofianni 2006, ‘Different strokes for different folks’, New Sunday Times, 2 April. (FACTIVA) 8. Subki, Sofianni 2002, ‘Time for syariah system to buck up’, New Straits Times, 18 November. (FACTIVA)

9. Dass, Francis & Pillay, Suzanna 2008, ‘Picking up the pieces’, New Straits Times, 20 March. (FACTIVA)

10. Hong, Carolyn 2006, ‘Malaysia’s Desperate Ex-housewives?’, The Straits Times, 14 May. (FACTIVA)

11. Kuppusamy, Baradan 2007, ‘Malaysia-Women: Gender-related violence goes largely unpunished’, Inter Press Service, 12 March. (FACTIVA)

12. RRT Research & Information 2007, Research Response MYS31609, 11 April.

13. ‘Nazrin: Seek help to treat mental illness’ 2006, New Straits Times, 16 September. (FACTIVA)

14. ‘Malaysia to launch month-long campaign against mental illness’ 2006, Xinhua News Agency, 10 July. (FACTIVA)

15. Ng, Eileen 2005, ‘Halfway houses for mental patients’, New Straits Times, 18 November. (FACTIVA)

16. Gonzaga, Dr Rabin 2005, ‘He had patient’s welfare in mind’, New Straits Times, 24 October. (FACTIVA)

17. Hassan, Hazlin 2008, ‘‘Insidious’ conspiracy in appointment of judges’, The Straits Times, 17 May. (FACTIVA)

18. Yoong, Sean 2008, ‘Malaysia PM announces reforms to boost fight against corruption’, Associated Press Newswires, 21 April. (FACTIVA)

19. Kuppusamy, Baradan 2008, ‘Malaysia: Opposition parties pledge to deal with rampant crime’, Inter Press Service, 18 January. (FACTIVA)

20. ‘Political will required to fight corruption in Malaysia: watchdog’ 2007, Agence France- Presse, 6 December. (FACTIVA)

21. Zappei, Julia 2007, ‘Islamic law judge becomes Malaysia’s first such official to face corruption trial’, Associated Press Newswires, 21 November. (FACTIVA)

22. ‘M’sia at 43 of corruption perceptions index 2007, up one rung’ 2007, Bernama Daily Malaysian News, 26 September. (FACTIVA)

23. Zappei, Julia 2007, ‘Malaysian groups say police abuse, corruption continue despite calls for change’, Associated Press Newswires, 15 June. (FACTIVA)

24. RRT Research & Information 2007, Research Response MYS31873, 8 June.

25. ‘Malaysia stops short of criminalizing marital rape, activists say’ 2007, Associated Press Newswires, 14 September. (FACTIVA)

26. RRT Country Research 2005, Research Response MYS23726, 21 October.

27. Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada 2005, MYS100433.E – Malaysia: Recourse available to women who are victims of sexual or physical abuse (January 2003 – August 2005), 22 August. (REFINFO)