Refugee Review Tribunal AUSTRALIA

RRT RESEARCH RESPONSE

Research Response Number: MYS34088 Country: Date: 1 December 2008

Keywords: Malaysia – Ethnic Indians – LTTE – Police treatment of people in custody

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. Please provide information on the Indian Tamil rally of 25 Nov. 2007? 2. Please provide information on the existence or otherwise of LTTE in Malaysia, their operations and activities and the alleged attempts to recruit members and extort donations from Tamils? (including government or police response to LTTE) 3. Is there any data that supports the assertions of the applicant regarding the harm and death of people in police custody, in particular for ethnic Indians? 4. Is there any information that ethnic Indians are targetted by authorities, particularly since the rally referred to above?

RESPONSE

1. Please provide information on the Indian Tamil rally of 25 Nov. 2007?

A previous Research Response from March 2008 provides detailed information concerning the demonstration held in on 25th November 2007. The rally was organised by the Hindu Rights Action Force (HINDRAF) and involved the participation of approximately 10,000 ethnic Indians. The Response refers to an analysis published in the Straits Times which attributed at least part of the discontent leading to the demonstration to the destruction of a number of Hindu temples

The Hindraf march on Nov 25 - only a few days before Deepavali - was triggered by the demolition of a 70-year-old Hindu temple in Kampung Jawa, Shah Alam.

In fact, insensitive temple demolition, rather than economic deprivation, seems to be at the heart of Indian anger. Before the Kampung Jawa temple demolition, state officials tore down some historic temples in Selangor, Kedah, , Negeri Sembilan and Malacca - all states with large Indian-Hindu concentrations. Such incidents have convinced many Indians that the Malay-Muslim elite wants to rid the country of places of non-Muslim worship. (Ramasamy, P. 2007, ‘Indians’ discontent has been boiling for a while’, Straits Times, 31 December – Attachment 1)

Similar views were also expressed by an Economist report of January, 2008:

The Indians' sense of missing out on the good life has helped to feed their mood of grievance. But what has most fuelled their anger in the past few years is a feeling that “creeping Islamisation” threatens their religious freedom. The issue that triggered Hindraf's formation, according to N. Surendran, one of the group's leaders, was the demolition of a number of “unauthorised” Hindu temples by local governments, often by state workers who were Malays and thus Muslims. The big rally in November came a few weeks after a temple in Shah Alam, west of the capital, was demolished just before Divali, another important Hindu festival, despite the temple committee's pleas to delay its destruction for a few more days.

Many of the threatened temples were constructed by migrant workers in colonial times, without formal permission, on plantations or by roads and railways built by the migrants. Now this land is being redeveloped. Hence the drive to demolish them, says A. Vaithilingam of the Malaysia Hindu Sangam, the main association of temples. The authorities could try harder to resolve disputes, he says, but they are too anxious to please rich developers (“Indian mutiny. A hitherto quiescent minority loses faith in the social contract” 2008, Economist, 24 January, http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=10566786 – Accessed 24 November 2008 – Attachment 2).

The Research Response referred to above includes reference to a number of reports including a summary analysis published by the South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre which puts forward a number of explanations for the demonstration:

Countless teargas canisters and water cannons were fired on a reportedly 10,000-strong rally of ethnic Indians as it attempted to march to the British High Commission in Kuala Lumpur. The police used extreme levels of force to arrest more than 240 of the protesters. The group, organised by the Hindu Rights Action Force (HINDRAF), had gathered near the famous Petronas Towers before the planned march to the Commission to demand reparations from the United Kingdom for sending Indians to Malaysia to work as labourers under colonial rule. However, it is widely acknowledged that their real protest was against discriminatory measures of the Malaysian government, which exclude them from job opportunities and leave them confined to a life of poverty.

…Ethnic Indians make up eight percent of Malaysia’s population. Ethnic Malays comprise about 60 percent while ethnic Chinese are 25 percent of the population. One of the key gripes of the HINDRAF protesters was the failure of the British Reid Commission Report of 1957, at the time of independence, to incorporate rights for the Indian community. Their concerns were valid. The source of marginalisation and discrimination in Malaysia today can be traced directly back to independence, which brought with it the recognition of a raft of special rights for the Malay population. These rights covered most aspects of life: from property ownership (special land rights) to employment (rights in relation to admission to public services and issuance of licences to operate particular businesses) and education (the right to scholarships and bursaries), Malays had preferential treatment (Voice of the Asia-Pacific Human Rights Network 2007, ‘It’s your problem too – Malaysia cannot wish away the fact of discrimination against ethnic Indians’, South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre (SAHRDC) website, 30 November http://www.hrdc.net/sahrdc/hrfeatures/HRF178.htm - Accessed 25 March 2008 – Attachment 3).

The Response provides further information concerning the release of arrested protestors and subsequent developments until March 2008 (RRT Research & Information 2008, Research Response MYS33129, 31 March – Attachment 4).

In May, the five HINDRAF leaders who had been detained under the Internal Security Act “filed an application for a judicial review of the Federal Court decision which rejected their habeas corpus appeal.” That appeal had been made against the decision that “the order for their detention at the ISA camp in Kamunting, Taiping, by Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, who was also the Internal Security Minister then, was lawfully executed.” (“HINDRAF leaders seek judicial review of their incarceration” 2008, Asian News International, 21 May –Attachment 5).

As reported in the Malaysia Sun following the May 14 decision,

The dismissal of their habeas corpus appeal against a high court verdict will probably ensure that the five - M. Manoharan, 46, P. Uthayakumar, 46, V. Ganabatirau, 34, R. Kengadharan, 40, and K. Vasantha Kumar, 34, - spend the next 19 months in jail. The Sultan of Malaysia had issued a royal decree against the five last month, confirming their detention. The three-man bench ruled that the detention of the five for two years under the ISA was legal. Outside court, Hindraf supporters and family members of the detainees said they accepted the court's verdict, but the struggle to seek the freedom of the five would continue. Indicating that as a second habeas corpus appeal would be filed, their lawyer Karpal Singh said an option available was for Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar to revoke the orders and set them free. The five had organised a protest rally last November that was joined by an estimated 10,000 Tamil Hindus, who form bulk of the 2.6 million population of ethnic Indians. The rally was forcibly dispersed. The government charged the five with sedition and of suspected terror links. Judge Alauddin Mohd Sherif said judicial commissioner Zainal Azman Ab Aziz, who heard their applications in the high court, had combed through the affidavits of respondents, including that of Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, who was then internal security minister. Sitting with Alauddin were judges Arifin Zakaria and Hashim Yusof. Alauddin said the decision by Abdullah to order the detention under ISA was not made in a 'mechanical manner', said Thursday. 'The detentions were made based on investigations and that the respondents had complied with procedural requirements under the act,' said Alauddin, who read the oral grounds in a packed courtroom. 'There was no misdirection in law by the judicial commissioner,' said Alauddin. A relative of Kenghadaran was seen sobbing uncontrollably outside the court. The lawyer-lawmaker said he regretted that the apex court did not address the legal issues raised during submission. 'They should have given a detailed judgement and not merely affirm the ruling of the high court,' said Karpal Singh, adding he would also file a review application on the decision next week. He would also apply that the judges make available their grounds of judgements as soon as possible. (“Malaysian court upholds Hindraf leaders’ detention” 2008, Malaysia Sun, 15 May, http://story.malaysiasun.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/48cba686fe041718/id/359587/cs/1/ - Accessed 26 November 2008 – Attachment 6).

On 28th October a further adjournment occurred because of the lack of a written judgement by the Federal Court (“Hindraf’s Review Adjourned, Federal Court Ordered to write Judgment” 2008, News Agency, 28 October, http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/news_lite.php?id=367653 – Accessed 26 November 2008 – Attachment 7). A third habeas corpus application made by detained adviser M. Manoharan was rejected by the Kuala Lumpur High Court in November (“Hindraf adviser’s third freedom bid rejected by Malaysian court” 2008, Indo-Asian News Service, 13 November – Attachment 8).

Earlier in the year, the Malaysian Police undertook to investigate the alleged misuse of funds donated to HINDRAF for the support of families of the five detained officials;

Hindraf coordinator R S Thanenthiran said the report had inflated the amount of funds allegedly misused but declined to name the exact amount. "The police and government are very welcome to investigate Hindraf and what we have done," he said. "This is yet another attempt by the government to divert people from the real issue of the marginalisation of Indians by trying to discredit us through the use of such investigations." He said the funds were donated by supporters at the various talks and prayer sessions organised by Hindraf in the last few months. (“Malaysia police probe alleged misuse of activist funds: Report” 2008, Times of India, 19 January, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2713021.cms - Accessed 24 November 2008 – Attachment 9)

On 2nd October, the wife of the HINDRAF chairman W. Vaishnavee, himself currently living in exile in Britain, attended the annual Prime Ministerial Hari Raya open house, accompanied by about 165 HINDRAF activists, where she presented him with a teddy bear and a card. It was later reported that the card asked Prime Minister Badawi to release the detained Hindraf leaders (“Hindraf supporters attend Malaysian PM’s Eid open house” 2008, Indo-Asian News Service, 3 October –Attachment 10). Resulting in considerable criticism from government authorities, with security concerns predominant, the organisation’s national co-ordinator R. S. Thanenthiran rejected claims that its presence at the open house was improper

"We sent a letter to Abdullah's office on Sept 22 for permission to greet the prime minister during the open house and to personally ask him to release all Internal Security Act (ISA) detainees," said Thanenthiran.

"The prime minister's senior personal assistant Ahmad Yaakob accepted our letter and told us that everyone was welcome at the prime minister's open house," he said.

Thanenthiran told Malaysiakini today that Ahmad was also informed that besides extending their Hari Raya greetings to the prime minister, the group also intended to personally request Abdullah to release all ISA detainees.

Commenting on the group's visit, he said no memorandum was submitted with only a greeting card and a teddy bear presented to the prime minister.

"Hari Raya Aidilfitri is a time to forgive and forget. Anybody can go (to the open house) regardless of what shirt we wear. We were not at all unruly," said Thanenthiran. Group purposely misled The Hindraf stunt has come under fire from various quarters who claim it was 'discourteous and disrespectful’ (“Hindu group explains reason to visit Malaysian PM’s open house” 2008, BBC, 6 October – Attachment 11).

On 15th October, the government declared the organisation to be illegal:

Home Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar yesterday issued a statement declaring Hindraf, which has been advocating Indian rights since late last year, an illegal organisation.

The declaration, he said, was a result of monitoring and investigations by the Registrar of Societies (RoS) since Hindraf was formed.

"As a result of the investigations, the Home Ministry, as per its authority under sections 3 and 5 of the Societies Act 1966, has declared Hindraf unlawful and detrimental to peace, public order, security and the moral values of Malaysia," he said in the statement.

"I feel that if we don't rein in their activities, they will continue to jeopardise security and public order, and our country's sovereignty, as well as upset the harmony among races."

Syed Hamid said the decision to ban the movement was not made based on only one or two misdemeanours committed by Hindraf, but covered the entire gamut of activities the group had been involved in since its organisation. (‘Hindraf ‘detrimental to peace and security’ 2008, New Straits Times, 16 October, Attachment 12)

The organisation’s chairman Waytha Moorthy said in a statement that HINDRAF would not be cowed or the ban ‘dampen the group’s spirits’ (“Hindu group slams Malaysia ban; crackdown looms”, 2008, Reuters, 16 October, http://in.reuters.com/article/topNews/idINIndia-35997020081016 - Accessed 24 November 2008 – Attachment 13)

One week later, 11 family members of HINDRAF lawyers were arrested for holding an illegal gathering after they attempted to petition the Prime Minister. They were released three days later on bail. When they returned to the district police headquarters on the 25th November as part of their bail conditions, they were informed they would not be charged (“No charge against Hindraf 10” 2008, New Straits Times, 26 November - Attachment 14).

2. Please provide information on the existence or otherwise of LTTE in Malaysia, their operations and activities and the alleged attempts to recruit members and extort donations from Tamils? (including government or police response to LTTE)

No information has been found to support the proposition that the LTTE is actively engaged in the recruitment of personnel in Malaysia. Research does indicate that LTTE has for a number of years actively obtained funds from overseas, predominantly from members of the Tamil diaspora living in Western countries such as Canada, the United Kingdom and Germany, Switzerland and France but also countries such as India in order to finance its activities within Sri Lanka (see e.g. Sarah Wayland, “Ethnonationalist networks and transnational opportunities: the Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora”, Review of International Studies, Vol. 30, 2004, pp. 421-22 – Attachment 15).

In an extensive report by Human Rights Watch published in 2006, it was stated that by the mid-1990s, “some experts believed that 80 to 90 percent of the LTTE’s military budget came from overseas sources, including both diaspora contributions and income from international investments and businesses.” It was further stated that:

The LTTE has for many years pressured members of the Tamil community to provide financial support for its operations. In late 2005 and early 2006, as armed violence escalated in Sri Lanka's North and East, threatening the four-year-old ceasefire between the government and the LTTE, the LTTE launched a massive fundraising drive in Canada and parts of Europe, pressuring individuals and business owners in the Tamil diaspora to give money for the "final war." Fundraisers for the LTTE and LTTE-linked organizations went from house to house, and approached businesses and professionals, demanding significant sums of money for their cause. In Canada, families were typically pressed for between Cdn$2,5002 and Cdn$5,000, while some businesses were asked for up to Cdn$100,000. Members of the Tamil community in the U.K., France, Norway, and other European countries were asked for similar amounts. (Human Rights Watch 2006, ‘Sri Lanka: Funding the “Final War”: LTTE Intimidation and Extortion in the Tamil Diaspora”, 15 March, – Attachment 16)

Other reports and sources consulted provide some evidence to indicate that at various times Malaysia has been a country used to channel funds to the LTTE, however none of these specifically identify what role, if any, was played by the Malaysian Tamil community in such activities. In 1996, the Malaysian government proscribed the LTTE as a terrorist organisation as was reported in a much earlier Research Response which also looked at the presence of the LTTE in Malaysia. The Response cited comments made in 1998 by the Malaysian Deputy Home Minister in response to questions in parliament

…Ong said there was no information or evidence that the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)…had made Malaysia their base to spread their wings in the region. However there were several individuals who sympathised with the LTTE by collecting contributions for them… Their activities were generally under control and not detrimental to the nation's security, he said (“Cops detain 2,250 foreign women involved in vice” 1998, Bernama, 6 May – Attachment 17).

The Response also referred to a 1996 report concerning the Malaysian government’s revocation of the permanent status of “foreigners involved in demonstrations supporting the Tamil Tigers, and that Malaysians conspiring with them would also be considered to be breaking the law” (RRT Country Research 2000, Research Response MYS14303, 7 September (Q 3-4)– Attachment 18).

Specific actions taken by Southeast Asian countries to combat the financing of terrorism are discussed in a 2007 article where it is noted that

The more developed economics of Singapore, Malaysia, and Thailand were the first to institute laws to combat money laundering and began the process in the late 1990s…Singapore, Thailand, and Brunei, together with Malaysia, have strong anti-money laundering regimes, partially because these countries have developed formal financial sectors and offshore financial centers (OFC). OFCs like Labuan in Malaysia and the Brunei IOFC are particularly exploitable for activities related to money laundering because they use anonymity as a major selling point. Therefore, these states have a strong interest in protecting their formal financial sectors not from terrorism in particular but from ill-gotten funds in general.

The article further comments in relation to regulation of the unregulated informal sector including IVTS [informal value transfer system], money changers, casinos, and charities that

Malaysia is a prime example of the extensive efforts made to regulate charities. The Registrar of Societies in Malaysia supervises and controls charitable organizations and mandates that every registered society of a charitable nature submits its annual returns. This ensures that financial transactions are recorded and reviewed. Activities, which are deemed suspicious, are reported to Malaysia’s FIU. In addition, tax laws encourage reporting of contributions by making them tax deductible (Croissant, Aurel & Barlow, Daniel, 2007, “Following the Money Trail: Terrorist Financing and Government Responses in Southeast Asia”, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, Vol. 30, pp. 146, 143 – Attachment 19).

Two other Research Responses provide some additional information relating to this question: RRT Research & Information 2008, Research Response MYS33843, 15 October - Attachment 20; RRT Country Research 2001, Research Response MYS14552, 7 March - Attachment 21.

The South Asia Terrorism Portal has also published a summary of major incidents involving the LTTE outside of Sri Lanka for the period 2006-2008. In two incidents which mention Malaysia (June 2008 and May 2006), neither relate to recruitment, intimidation, harassment or extortion of Tamil Indians in Malaysia (South Asia Terrorism Portal undated, “Major incidents involving the LTTE outside Sri Lanka” SATP website – Accessed 25 November 2008 - Attachment 30).

3. Is there any data that supports the assertions of the applicant regarding the harm and death of people in police custody, in particular for ethnic Indians?

Comments made in Jane’s Sentinel security assessment for Southeast Asia relating to the Malaysian police force (Royal Malaysian Police [RMP]) provide some relevant background;

Emphasis on the RMP’s paramilitary and public order function is often greater than on community policing. The force is also dominated by ethnic Malays, leading many members of the country’s other communities to mistrust the service. This sentiment was heightened following the distribution of a video in November 2005, allegedly showing an ethnic Chinese female prisoner forced to squat naked in front of ethnic Malay RMP personnel. The prisoner was in fact ethnic Malay, but the rapidity with which racial blame was cast is indicative of the mistrust in the RMP’s ethnic bias. The generally poor reputation has been reinforced by misconduct at all levels of the RMP in recent years, ranging from an assault on opposition politician while in custody by the then inspector-general of police to numerous accusation of brutality, including extra- judicial killings by individual officers. Public antipathy towards the police reduces the service’s effectiveness in all areas of its responsibility, including intelligence gathering and counter-terrorism (Jane’s Sentinel 2006, Security Assessment – Southeast Asia, Issue 19, Jane’s Information Group, Coulsdon, Surrey, 2006, p. 373 – Attachment 22).

Criticisms of the police force, its use of excessive force in the treatment of suspects and demonstrators and those in custody are long-standing. These criticisms have been sustained by documented reports by Malaysian civil society and non-government organisations and Suhakam, the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia.

In its 2003 human rights report Suhakam devoted a chapter to issues relating to police shootings and deaths in custody. It did refer to police having little regard for basic “civil, political, legal and constitutional rights” and that “little effort is made to ensure that the right person has been arrested for a criminal offence.”

Mass arrest is common, especially in cases connected to drug activities. Sometimes hundreds of suspected drug addicts are arrested or raids on entertainment outlets…Arrest of anyone remotely connected to the crime or crime victim is equally common, especially in high profile cases…In the name of ‘investigation’, police personnel easily arrest and apply for remand orders from magistrates who oftentimes comply. For more serious offences such as murder, rape or drug trafficking, the situation for the suspect is made even more onerous, as even less respect is given to their rights, well-being and dignity…They often target civil society groups, opposition parties and any member of the public who dares to exercise the right to free speech, peaceful assembly and association or other rights that are construed as forms of dissent. These persons are subjected to threats, harassment, arrest, detention and, in some cases violence. (Suaram 2004, Malaysia: Human Rights Report 2003: Civil and Political Rights, Chapter " Police Brutality, Police Shootings and Death in Custody” at AHRC website http://malaysia.ahrchk.net/ - Accessed 25 November 2008 – Attachment 23)

A Royal Commission of Inquiry was announced by the Prime Minister at the end of 2003 and following some preliminary findings, Amnesty International published an extensive report which assembled and analysed some of this material. As the report states, In Malaysia, concern over apparently unlawful police shootings have persisted over many years. In 1998 Raja Aziz Addruse, one of most senior members of the Malaysian Bar association and President of the human rights NGO, Hakam, issued a statement43 expressing concern that over 50 persons, suspected to have been armed robbers, had been shot dead by police since 1996. Noting that a police officer defending himself in a civil action in 1997 had stated that a police unit had orders to shoot dead suspected criminals if they are “armed and dangerous”, Raja Aziz Addruse expressed alarm at an apparent lack of proportionality and discrimination in police use of firearms, and at the possible existence of an unofficial police “shoot to kill” policy. He called for the creation of an independent investigation mechanism. Then Prime Minister Mahathir responded publicly by calling the statement “grossly unfair”and asserted that the police had no choice but to use firearms when faced with armed criminals. The report also notes that discrepancies existed in the reporting of the numbers of deaths in custody: According to government statistics 425 prisoners (including both prison inmates and detainees in police custody) died during their incarceration between January 2002 and July 2003.88 As regards those in police custody, six died in 2000, ten in 2001, 16-19 in 2002 and seven by September 2003.89 Officials claimed that that the majority of deaths occurred when detainees attempted to escape (Amnesty International 2005, “Malaysia: Towards Human Rights-Based Policing”, April, p. 39 –Attachment 24).

The US Department of State has indicated that in 2006 local NGOs reported that police killed 20 persons while apprehending them, up from nine such killings in 2005 and seven in 2004. Local NGOs also reported that 19 persons died in police custody during 2006, up from eight such deaths in 2005 and two in 2004. In its most recent report, for the year 2007,

…local nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) reported that police killed 16 persons while apprehending them, down from 20 such killings in 2006. Local NGOs also reported that 11 persons died in police custody, down from 19 such deaths in 2006. In November 2006 police charged police chief inspector Azilah Hadri and police corporal Sirul Azhar Umar with the October 2006 murder of Altantuya Sharibu, a Mongolian citizen and part-time translator. The prosecution also charged Abdul Razak Baginda, a well-known political analyst and advisor to the deputy prime minister, with abetting murder for allegedly ordering her death. The prosecution claimed the two police officers shot Altantuya in the head and then destroyed her body with explosives. The trial remained ongoing at year's end.

The federal criminal investigation department investigated 57 deaths in custody dating back to 2000. The authorities did not release any results of the investigation and were not expected to do so (US Department of State 2007, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2007 – Malaysia, March – Attachment 25).

Most of the people detained under the country’s Internal Security Act, numbering 83 in 2007 according to Amnesty International, were alleged members of Islamist groups, including Jemaah Islamiah. The report goes on to say that

• At least four suspected Jemaah Islamiah members were arrested in 2007, and at least 16 were released during the year, having all been detained for over four years. Many were given restricted residence orders. • Others arrested under the ISA included five leaders of the Hindu Rights Action Force, a group campaigning for the rights of ethnic Indian Malaysians, who were sent directly to Kamunting Detention Camp. Five others, arrested for allegedly spreading rumours of racial riots, were subsequently released. • In October 2007, Abdul Malek Hussain, an ex-ISA detainee, was awarded damages of 2.5 million ringgit (approximately US$746,000). The judge ruled that he was unlawfully detained in 1998 and that he had been assaulted and tortured in custody (Amnesty International 2008, Amnesty International Annual Report 2007 – Malaysia, May - Attachment 26).

The statistics page of the Royal Malaysian Police force which might provide additional relevant information has not been accessible, despite attempts over a number of days.

In 2007, the government introduced a bill to establish the Special Complaints Commission (SCC) which would have responsibility to investigate complaints of police misconduct, however as Amnesty International reported, the bill

prompted concerns that the recommendations of a 2005 Royal Commission of Inquiry were not adequately reflected, particularly as regards the proposed SCC’s independence and investigative powers. Not only did the Bill grant the Prime Minister broad powers to appoint and dismiss Commissioners, but it also included the Inspector-General of Police as a permanent SCC member. The SCC also did not have the power to oversee police investigation of complaints.The Criminal Procedure Code was amended to provide increased protection to people under arrest. It required the police to inform detainees arrested without a warrant of the circumstances of their arrest and, in most cases, to allow detainees to contact a family member or a lawyer (Amnesty International 2008, Amnesty International Annual Report 2007 – Malaysia – Attachment 26).

4. Is there any information that ethnic Indians are targetted by authorities, particularly since the rally referred to above?

In the background analysis of the November, 2007 demonstration published in the Straits Times referred to in question 1 above, it was argued that the various policies which have protected the interests of the native Malays (bumiputras) have tended to restrict opportunities available to the minority Tamil Indian community, with mainly only lower level positions occupied in the public sector.

Given this squeeze, many Indians turn to menial jobs. Others resort to crime and other anti- social activities. Meanwhile, conflict over access to scarce resources also often leads to fratricidal violence in the community.

Violence

IN THE 1990s and 2000s, the mainstream media began to imply that Indians had a 'cultural' disposition towards crime and drug abuse. Although recent studies suggest the crime rate among Indians is not as alarming as it is made out to be, security agencies like the police think differently. Given this perception, it is not surprising that many Indians are detained for suspected 'involvement' in crime.

In the Simpang Rengam detention centre, for example, about 60 per cent of the detainees are Indians. In recent years, many Indian youths have been shot dead for their alleged involvement in armed robberies and kidnappings.

Racial attacks

IN 2001, a group of Malay- Muslims attacked and killed six ethnic Indians without provocation. The incident took place in Kampung Medan, a suburb of Petaling Jaya. In the ensuing violence, many Indians were injured, some requiring months of hospitalisation. After the incident, many Indian organisations demanded that the government set up a royal commission to investigate. But to date, the government has not responded. (Ramasamy, P. 2007, ‘Indians’ discontent has been boiling for a while’, Straits Times, 31 December – Attachment 1)

On 21st November 2008, the government announced that it would double the quota of minority ethnic Indians in the civil service from 3.5 to 7 per cent. The Human Resource Minister D. S. Subramaniam said that Prime Minister Badawi “had also given an assurance that applications for the civil service would be approved on job descriptions and merit”. On the same day, according to this report

… ethnic Indian elected representatives of the opposition alliance held talks with India-based NGOs and local councillors yesterday to ascertain if the minority community's circumstances had improved after the March 8 general election in Malaysia and the November 25 rally by the Hindraf complaining of racial inequality.

Ethnic Indians, a majority of them Tamils, form eight percent of Malaysia's population.

Among topics discussed were the intake of Indians into the civil service and promotions possibilities, Tamil school issues, single mothers, stateless Indians and business opportunities for Indians.

While it was felt the community had seen changes, the group sought larger and more transparent changes. (“Malaysian civil service: Ethnic Indians’ quota @ 7%” 2008, Indian Express, 22 November, http://www.indianexpress.com/news/malaysian-civil-service-ethnic- indians-quota-7/389267/ - Accessed 25 November 2008 – Attachment 27)

In a recent Malaysian parliamentary forum, both the government and opposition were criticised for not doing enough to deal with problems faced by the ethnic Indian community:

Participants at the forum chaired by Charles Santiago, a lawmaker from Klang Valley, said neither the ruling (BN) nor the opposition Pakatan Rakyat (PR) have addressed the issues of poverty, unemployment, low wages and poor education facilities that face the Indian community.

They said that the rally by the Hindraf last year helped turn the tide against the ruling BN alliance, reducing its majority in parliament, and denying it control of five of the 13 states in the March elections.

However, their ire is as much against the opposition PR alliance, to which a majority of ethnic Indians were perceived to have voted.

According to them, the opposition alliance, which benefited from the vote swing, is also "dragging its feet" on resolving Tamil working class issues like poor education facilities and low wages, The Star newspaper said Tuesday.

…

The government has disregarded pleas for their freedom, fighting their habeas corpus and bail pleas, alleging that Hindraf has 'terror' links, particularly with the Sri Lankan Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) (“Malaysian government, opposition not doing enough for Tamils” 2008, Indo-Asian News Service,25 November – Attachment - 28).

A recent Research Response found limited information in relation to whether the government did target ethnic Indian Malays (RRT Research & Information 2008, Research Response MYS33843, 15 October - Attachment 20 - Q 3).

One year after the November 2007 rally, a much smaller gathering of a few hundred people returned to the Batu Caves temple where they chanted “‘makkal sakthi’ which means the people’s power”, and “climbed 272 steps to reach the top of the temple in pouring rain.”

Although the government has promised to look into their plight with higher allocation for their schools, ethnic Indians said progress has been slow.

S Jayathas, co-ordinator, Police Watch and Human Rights Watch, said: "We requested the 18- point demand in terms of education, job opportunities, business and scholarship. All these until today are still denied. Why don't they want to speak to us? We are not terrorists."

And with the economic downturn, many fear that their community will be neglected once again (“Malaysian ethnic Indians mark 1-year anti-discrimination rally” 2008, Channel News Asia, 26 November – Attachment 29).

List of Sources Consulted

Internet Sources:

Government Information & Reports UK Home Office http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ US Department of State http://www.state.gov/ Immigration & Refugee Board of Canada http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/ International News & Politics BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk The Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/global/ The Economist http://www.economist.co.uk Non-Government Organisations Amnesty International http://www.amnesty.org/ European Country of Origin Information Network http://www.ecoi.net/ Freedom House http://www.freedomhouse.org/ Human Rights Watch http://www.hrw.org/ Topic Specific Links Asian Human Rights Commission http://www.ahrchk.net/index.php Royal Malaysian Police website http://polismalaysia.brinkster.net/About.asp South Asia Terrorism Portal www.satp.org South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre http://www.hrdc.net/sahrdc/ Search Engines Google http://www.google.com.au/ Google Scholar http://www.googlescholar.com.au Clusty http://www.clusty.com Gigablast http://www.gigablast.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 University of New South Wales Library

List of Attachments

1. Ramasamy, P. 2007, ‘Indians’ discontent has been boiling for a while’, Straits Times, 31 December.

2. “Indian mutiny. A hitherto quiescent minority loses faith in the social contract” 2008, Economist, 24 January, http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=10566786 – Accessed 24 November 2008.

3. Voice of the Asia-Pacific Human Rights Network 2007, ‘It’s your problem too – Malaysia cannot wish away the fact of discrimination against ethnic Indians’, South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre (SAHRDC) website, 30 November http://www.hrdc.net/sahrdc/hrfeatures/HRF178.htm - Accessed 25 March 2008.

4. RRT Research & Information 2008, Research Response MYS33129, 31 March.

5. “HINDRAF leaders seek judicial review of their incarceration” 2008, Asian News International, 21 May. (FACTIVA)

6. “Malaysian court upholds Hindraf leaders’ detention” 2008, Malaysia Sun, 15 May, http://story.malaysiasun.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/48cba686fe041718/id/359587/cs/1/ - Accessed 26 November 2008.

7. “Hindraf’s Review Adjourned, Federal Court Ordered to write Judgment” 2008, Bernama News Agency, 28 October, http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/news_lite.php?id=367653 – Accessed 26 November 2008.

8. “Hindraf adviser’s third freedom bid rejected by Malaysian court” 2008, Indo-Asian News Service, 13 November. (FACTIVA)

9. “Malaysia police probe alleged misuse of activist funds: Report” 2008, Times of India, 19 January, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2713021.cms - Accessed 24 November 2008.

10. “Hindraf supporters attend Malaysian PM’s Eid open house” 2008, Indo-Asian News Service, 3 October. (FACTIVA)

11. “Hindu group explains reason to visit Malaysian PM’s open house” 2008, BBC, 6 October . (FACTIVA)

12. ‘Hindraf ‘detrimental to peace and security’ 2008, New Straits Times, 16 October. (FACTIVA)

13. “Hindu group slams Malaysia ban; crackdown looms”, 2008, Reuters, 16 October, http://in.reuters.com/article/topNews/idINIndia-35997020081016 - Accessed 24 November 2008.

14. “No charge against Hindraf 10” 2008, New Straits Times, 26 November. (FACTIVA)

15. Sarah Wayland, “Ethnonationalist networks and transnational opportunities: the Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora”, Review of International Studies, Vol. 30, 2004, pp. 405-426.

16. Human Rights Watch 2006, ‘Sri Lanka: Funding the “Final War”: LTTE Intimidation and Extortion in the Tamil Diaspora”, 15 March. (CISNET – CX149327)

17. “Cops detain 2,250 foreign women involved in vice” 1998, Bernama, 6 May. Note- this appears to be a Nexis article which cannot be found at present.

18. RRT Country Research 2000, Research Response MYS14303, 7 September. 19 Croissant, Aurel & Barlow, Daniel, 2007, “Following the Money Trail: Terrorist Financing and Government Responses in Southeast Asia”, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, Vol. 30, pp. 131-156.

20. RRT Research & Information 2008, Research Response MYS33843, 15 October.

21. RRT Country Research 2001, Research Response MYS14552, 7 March.

22. Jane’s Sentinel 2006, Security Assessment – Southeast Asia, Issue 19, Jane’s Information Group, Coulsdon, Surrey, 2006. (MRT-RRT Library)

23. Suaram 2004, Malaysia: Human Rights Report 2003: Civil and Political Rights, Chapter " Police Brutality, Police Shootings and Death in Custody” at AHRC website http://malaysia.ahrchk.net/ - Accessed 25 November 2008.

24. Amnesty International 2005, “Malaysia: Towards Human Rights-Based Policing”, April.

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

26. Amnesty International 2008, Amnesty International Annual Report 2007 – Malaysia, May.

27. “Malaysian civil service: Ethnic Indians’ quota @ 7%” 2008, Indian Express, 22 November, http://www.indianexpress.com/news/malaysian-civil-service-ethnic- indians-quota-7/389267/ - Accessed 25 November 2008.

28. “Malaysian government, opposition not doing enough for Tamils” 2008, Indo-Asian News Service,25 November. (FACTIVA)

29. “Malaysian ethnic Indians mark 1-year anti-discrimination rally” 2008, Channel News Asia, 26 November. (FACTIVA)

30. South Asia Terrorism Portal undated, “Major incidents involving the LTTE outside Sri Lanka” SATP website – Accessed 25 November 2008.