KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 16 — While surveys show a growing trend of younger Malays identifying with their faith more than their race, many nevertheless feel that religion has been politicised and should be a personal matter.

The trend towards a stronger identification with religion could also pose new challenges for political parties as analysts say that it could reflect higher levels idealism and dissatisfaction with current affairs in this demographic group, many of whom will be voting for the first time.
A comprehensive survey on young Malaysian Muslims in 2010 showed that some four-fifths are concerned over Islamic radicalism in politics, and more than 70 per cent were concerned about corruption and lack of freedom of expression.

Azlee Nor Mahmud, 25 who works in Shah Alam, said that Islam has been politicised and some parties tried to use it for their own political agenda.

“This should not happen,” he told The Malaysian Insider which conducted a street poll on the issue last week.
Engineering student and registered voter Wan Djawad, 23, said religion should be a personal matter.

“I want the government to respect, truly respect individuality,” he said. “Race, religion should be something personal. It should not be forced upon, but guided to those who are ready to receive it. I believe that people need to be treated as an individual.”

Apostasy appeared to remain a matter of concern among many of the more conservative younger Malays but some however added that it should be a private matter.

Ipoh-born Muhammad Farid Zainuddin, 25, who now lives in Selangor’s capital, Shah Alam, said he felt that apostasy was a threat but it nevertheless was a personal issue.

“It is up to the individual, if the person’s faith is strong, apostasy would not be a problem because they would hold fast to their religion,” he said.
Many Malays also felt that not only religion but also race was being politicised which was not helpful to the cause of unity.

Rashaad Ali, 23, said what mattered most was that the practices and needs of each religion refrained from oppressing others.

He also suggested that race-based political parties were impeding the cause of national unity.

“I’m not a fan of race-based politics; I find there to be something intrinsically wrong in political parties being formed along racial lines,” said Rashaad, who plans to vote in the coming general election due to his desire to affect change.

“If we’re truly a single Malaysian country, then politicians wouldn’t find the need to constantly use the words ‘Malay’, ‘Chinese’ and ‘Indian’ when referring to any section of the country’s population, as mere mention of these ethnicities is an admission of racial divide and an exacerbation of differences.”
Ahmad Syafiq, 23, a recent graduate and first-time voter, said religion was a bigger deal to him than race.

“Religion is a huge matter for me, but race matters less for who I am, although I’ll never forget my roots,” he said. “I never liked race-based politics as it is impeding our ability to live in harmony with many different races in Malaysia.”

He said that while he appreciated the government’s efforts in trying to promote harmony through 1 Malaysia, leaders from both sides of the political divide “must walk the talk to show that they are not just talk with no action.”

For some Malays, the use of Islam for political agendas has led to divisions in the Malay community and amounted to a threat to the unity of the community.

Mohd Abdul Wahid Rosmat, 26, a warehouse worker in Sekinchan, Selangor, felt that the result of religion being used in politics was that Malays were being split.

“Islam in Malaysia has been politicised,” he said. “The result being Malays are split into different political tribes. The Malays should differentiate between politics and race as Malays are now not united.”

Ibrahim Suffian, head of opinion research firm Merdeka Center, said that surveys conducted by the centre show that younger Malays seem to be more inclined towards their faith.
He said it was not clear if it was something deep-seated among the youth or just something they felt was politically correct to say.

“Where is it coming from, I suspect a social bias,” he said.

Suffian said this inclination for religion could affect the outcome of the next election.

“The youth have higher levels of idealism which could play a role in their vote,” he said.

The report on the survey on Muslim youths conducted by Merdeka Center for the German Goethe Institut concluded that while the apparent social conservatism might be a cause of concern among observers who support a liberal democratic society, Malaysia’s Muslim youths are socially more diverse than meets the eye.
“Taken as a whole, the findings show both authoritatively conservative and liberally democratic trends among Muslim youngsters — which may possibly be due to the obvious juxtaposition of pressure and freedom young Muslims grow up with in Malaysia,” said the report.

Wan Saiful Wan Jan, chief executive of the Institute of Democracy and Economic Affairs (IDEAS), said that the apparent trend of growing religious identification among the youth could be the way they are expressing concern about the current state of affairs.

“Maybe they are expressing dissatisfaction and the only recourse is to go back to religion,” he said.

He said however that it would be difficult to assess the impact of the trend on the next election.

Any religious conservatism would also likely not be able to find an outlet, said Wan Saiful, as Malaysia lacks a true conservative party, with PAS now seen as the more Islamic but moderate party and Umno the more Malay-centric party but with moderate leaders.

“The conservatism might not come out in an election,” he said.

Source:  The Malaysia Insider 

Reuters 1 February 2012

Anwar Ibrahim is free and he knows how to work a crowd.

Wading into a throng of supporters at a rally near the capital Kuala Lumpur last week, the veteran Malaysian opposition leader was relishing his unexpected freedom after being acquitted on sodomy charges that could have ended his career.

Microphone in hand, he drew loud laughs and cheers as he wisecracked about government’s “cronyism” and what he said were its attempts to label him a homosexual.

The high court acquittal in January of the opposition’s only true unifying figure has given the three-party alliance a formidable campaigner in national elections expected within months, adding to its momentum after historic gains in 2008 elections.

Prime Minister Najib Razak is expected to call the election by June while economic growth remains relatively strong, well before his mandate ends in March 2013.

Halijah Ismael, a middle-aged woman watching from her stall selling traditional medicine, said it was time to give Anwar a chance at governing after 55 years of unbroken rule by the United Malays National Organization (UMNO) and its allies.

“Enough is enough,” said Halijah, who said she used to be active in a local UMNO political group before growing disillusioned.

The polls will be a test of whether Najib’s gradual efforts to reform the state-heavy economy and its race-based political system are enough to reverse 2008’s shock losses that deprived the ruling coalition for the first time of its prized two-thirds majority in parliament.

Backed by UMNO’s well-oiled election machine, Najib will probably win the election. The government controls most newspapers and television stations and has already started using its largesse, handing out cash payments to low-income families and raising pay and pensions for civil servants.

But the opposition and many analysts believe that weariness with the ruling coalition will enable Anwar’s coalition to extend its gains from last time, when it won five state governments out of 13 and 82 seats out of 222 in the national parliament.

That could prove politically fatal for Najib by prompting powerful conservative elements in UMNO to revolt, paving a future path to power for the opposition if the government swings too far to the right.

Anwar and other opposition officials told Reuters they have a two-pronged strategy for the election. First, they will make a stronger pitch to ethnic Malays in rural areas who have traditionally supported UMNO, hammering on recent corruption allegations against government officials.

“We have learnt from our failure to get support from the rural heartland,” Anwar told Reuters in an interview at his People’s Justice Party headquarters on Kuala Lumpur’s outskirts.

TWO-PRONGED STRATEGY

Second, they will tout what they see as economic success stories in states that have been governed by the opposition since 2008. The opposition government of Penang state in Malaysia’s northwest, for example, has dismantled preferential treatment for ethnic Malays in public tenders and attracted more investments than any other state in 2010.

Anwar says he would move quickly to reform the pro-ethnic Malay affirmative action system – enshrined in the 1971 New Economic Policy – that he says unnecessarily raises tensions with minority Chinese and Indians while mostly benefiting a well-connected, wealthy few.

“We have to go down and tell the Malays that our policy, a more transparent policy, would benefit them more than the New Economic Policy that is enriching the leaders and their cronies,” Anwar said.

Opinion polls show the majority of ethnic Malays support affirmative action policies, but Anwar aims to tap into a growing suspicion that the system mostly benefits elites and fuels corruption. He says he would introduce a policy based on economic need rather than race.

Malays account for about 56 percent of Malaysia’s 28 million population, with Chinese and Indians making up 33 percent and 11 percent respectively.

The opposition is placed to make big enough advances that “Najib will more or less lose his mandate within UMNO,” said Wan Saiful Wan Jan, the head of the IDEAS thinktank in Kuala Lumpur.

“The nationalist side within UMNO will become more vocal and that will destabilize Najib’s reforms,” he said.

Anwar pledges to make the judiciary independent, lift restrictions on the media and hold more open tenders for government contracts, which he says are too often handed out to UMNO “cronies.”

The government says the inexperienced opposition cannot be trusted with power and is making promises it can’t keep, such as writing off student loans and reducing fuel prices.

“This is a recipe for economic disaster. One need not be an economist to figure out that this will destroy the economy,” Najib was quoted as saying by state news agency Bernama last week.

BATTLE FOR “FRONTLINE” STATES

The charismatic Anwar’s acquittal allows him to write another chapter in his remarkable political comeback. The former student radical climbed the ranks of UMNO to be deputy prime minister before being fired in 1998 by then prime minister Mahathir Mohamad and charged with corruption and sodomy.

He spent six years in jail before a court overturned the charges, which Anwar said were politically motivated, only to face fresh allegations in 2008 that he sodomized a former male aide. State prosecutors quickly appealed his latest acquittal, meaning the issue will likely loom throughout the campaign.

The 64-year-old Anwar’s freedom to campaign adds an X factor to an election that was already tough to call given a scarcity of reliable opinion polls. Pollsters failed to predict the extent of opposition gains four years ago, a result that prompted a 10 percent one-day plunge in Kuala Lumpur’s main stock index as risk-averse investors took fright.

Anwar invokes the spirit of the Arab Spring in Malaysia, whose government is struggling to retain support among younger, urban voters and has some of the region’s strictest security laws. Najib last year repealed two of the most notorious laws, but a new bill that bans street protests has been criticized by human rights activists as repressive and cast doubt on his reformist credentials.

“I say an Arab Spring in terms of the spirit and enthusiasm of the masses to rise against a corrupt establishment, but we still have an avenue through elections,” Anwar told Reuters.

To improve on its 2008 performance, the opposition needs to make headway in three key states – Sabah and Sarawak on the eastern island of Borneo, and Johor, which borders Singapore.

The ruling coalition effectively won the election in those states in 2008, restricting the opposition to just three parliamentary seats out of 83. Anwar said that he was confident of winning 8-10 seats in Sarawak, where the opposition made strong gains in a state election in April.

Ong Kian Ming, a political scientist at Kuala Lumpur’s UCSI university, said voting trends suggested the opposition could win between 10 and 20 seats in those three “frontline” states – not enough to form a government, but maybe enough to prompt unrest within UMNO that would force Najib out.

Still, the opposition faces an uphill struggle in rural areas, where voters are more conservative and more likely to get their news from pro-government media than from websites like Malaysiakini.com that are the main outlet for critical reporting on the government.

“I think the country as a whole is just not ready yet for that change to happen,” said Wan Saiful.

source:  IDEAS 

This global study examined 6,545 think tanks from 182 countries around the world.

This year’s ranking is an improvement from last year, when IDEAS was ranked at number 18.

James McGann, director of the ranking research, says that this ranking is “the culmination of an eight-month process involving the support of think tanks and experts from every region of the world.” He added that his team’s “ongoing efforts with respect to the rankings are now defined by our drive to understand the role of think tanks in governments and civil societies globally, so that we can help to improve their capacity and performance.”

Commenting about this achievement, Datuk Seri Azman Ujang, member of IDEAS Advisory Board, says: “I congratulate the staff at IDEAS for this success which once again shows that with a high sense of commitment and professionalism, more and more Malaysian organisations can climb up the ladder of international recognition. The new year 2012 has just started and IDEAS has lined up a number of initiatives in the effort to raise the bar for good governance and democracy in Malaysia.“

YAM Tunku Zain Al-’Abidin ibni Tuanku Muhriz, Founder President of IDEAS, says: “IDEAS will be celebrating our second anniversary with an event on 11 February 2012 at Memorial Tunku Abdul Rahman, Kuala Lumpur. For such a young organisation, being recognised once again in this prestigious global ranking is a brilliant culmination of the hard work put in by our team. We are delighted with this achievement. My team and I will continue working hard to make our economy more open and our democracy more vibrant. We hope we will achieve more this year.”

The event to celebrate IDEAS achievements and to mark our second anniversary will be held on 11 February 2012 (9.30am to 1pm) at Memorial Tunku Abdul Rahman, Kuala Lumpur. Prominent individuals are scheduled to speak, including former Chief Justice Tun Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah, Kota Belud MP Dato Abdul Rahman Dahlan, and Lembah Pantai MP Nurul Izzah Anwar. The event is open to the public and is free to attend.

Inspired by the values of Almarhum Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra, IDEAS is Malaysia’s first independent free market think tank dedicated to promoting rule of law, limited government, free markets and individual liberty. IDEAS was officially launched on 8 February 2010, in an event attended by three generations of Almarhum Tunku’s family members.

source:  IDEAS 

Several experts attended this evaluation Seminar which focused on the future plans conducting the next Muslim Youth Survey. Our main objective was to find a good and reliable ASEAN-wide sponsor who will be willing to fully sor partially sponsor the survey. The countries that we want to involve in the next survey are not only Indonesia and Malaysia, but other ASEAN countries such as the Philippines, Thailand, and Singapore.

Besides the institutes which were involved in conducting the survey, the experts participating in the seminar amongst others others Prof. Klaus Hurrelmann (the author of the Shell Study, Germany), Dr. Marc Calmbach (Sinus Institute, Germany), Wan Saiful (IDEAS, Malaysia), Mr. Irfan Abubakar (Director of the Center for the Study of Religion and Culture/CSRC, Jakarta), Dr. Zainal Abidin Bagir (Director of the Center for Religious and Cultural Studies, Jakarta). All of them gave interesting reviews and comments on the survey, including giving their suggestions and ideas for the next plan of the conducting the survey.

Prof. Hurrelmann shared his presentation on his first steps on conducting the Shell study, an outlook on attitudes and viewpoint of German youth. The method and approach was somehow similar to what we have done, since the Muslim Youth Survey was mirroring some of the questions of the Shell Study. Dr. Calmbach from the German Sinus Institute on the other hand delivered a different approach and standing in his survey. His survey portrayed the different milleus in the life of youths in Germany. This even made it more interesting for the public tin understanding the countrie youth. Both experts have the opinion that such survey should best be conducted every 4 years so as to find a new interesting difference in the lives of the youth.

Since one of the aims of this seminar was to find some potential future sponsors for the next Survey, one of the decisions were to find a sponsor in the ASEAN scale that is willing to sponsor the whole survey. A national scale sponsor for each country is also a second option hat was also rconsidered. Further updates will soon be discussed again.

By FNF Indonesia 

IAF Guidelines 2012

Click here for the Registration Form

The process of enacting the Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011 and the public debate and disappointment this has engendered illustrate some of the worst, and yet also some of the most encouraging, aspects of the law and legal culture in Malaysia.

When Prime Minister Najib Razak announced on Malaysia Day this year his government’s plan to annul three of the four Proclamations of Emergency (those of 1966, 1969 and 1977) and the Emergency Ordinances made under them, replace the Internal Security Act 1960 with a more enlightened anti-terrorism law, and review or abolish laws inconsistent with the constitutional right to freedom of speech, assembly and association, many people dared to hope that his UMNO-led Barisan Nasional government had finally appreciated the magnitude of public disapproval, manifest in the reduced majority for UMNO in the March 2008 election, and the massive assembly of citizens rallying on July 9 this year to support Bersih 2.0’s campaign for clean and fair elections, to choose but two of many examples.

Hearing or reading his speech, and in the aftermath, as the Attorney-General’s Chambers began low-key and invitation-only consultations on law reform, people indeed allowed themselves to hope that UMNO really meant that it would work towards “creating […]a Malaysia that practices a functional and inclusive democracy where public peace and prosperity is preserved in accordance with the supremacy of the constitution, rule of law and respect for basic human rights and individual rights”.[1]

Yet when the Peaceful Assembly Bill was tabled in Parliament on 22 November 2011, that hope was replaced by bitter disappointment or outright cynicism, since it was apparent that the new law was in many ways worse than the old, despite the fact that it is modelled closely – but with telling differences – upon Queensland’s relatively progressive Peaceful Assembly Act 1992.

Under the previous law regulating assemblies, which is currently being repealed (sections 27-27C of the Police Act 1967), any rally or march that took place without a police permit was unlawful, and organisers of, and participants in, an unlawful assembly, or people who disobeyed police directions in relation to the gathering, could be fined between 2,000-10,000 ringgit (approximately AUD $626 – $3,130), and jailed for up to one year.

Police discretion to refuse a permit was more or less unfettered (the “security of Malaysia” and “disturbance of the peace” often being generously construed by the police), and there were no limitations upon the conditions police could place on a permit once granted.

In other words, the freedom of assembly guaranteed in article 10 of the Federal Constitution has long been severely curtailed by a statute that was arguably unconstitutional because it all but negated the right it purported to regulate, as critics such as human rights NGOs Suaram and Aliran, and the National Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) have repeatedly pointed out.

The Peaceful Assembly Bill, once it comes into force, will replace these sections of the Police Act with a more detailed, but even more restrictive, set of provisions. It might more aptly be called the Prevention of Assembly Bill. For example, only Malaysian citizens – and so not the more than 2 million foreign workers, refugees and asylum seekers currently resident in the country – can participate in an assembly.

Moreover, organisers must be at least 21 years of age, and participants 15 years of age or older. No such restrictions existed in the Police Act. Moreover this age restriction sits oddly alongside the noises the government is making about winding back the constraints the University and University Colleges Act 1971 places upon students participating in politics.

Street protests, defined as marches or rallies to advance a cause, rather than static gatherings, are now prohibited (although, confusingly, processions are allowed), whereas previously they were permissible. Section 4, which purports to set out the right to organise and participate in an assembly, in fact itemizes restrictions and completely fails to refer to, or in any way recognise, the entrenched constitutional basis of the right, or the purpose of the Act to further and protect, rather than diminish, the right.

This is in stark contrast with the Queensland law, which commences the parallel section (section 5) with a clear recognition that ‘a person has the right to assemble peacefully with others in a public place’ and that ‘the right is subject only to such restrictions as are necessary and reasonable in a democratic society’ and in the interests of public order, safety, and protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

In place of the application for a permit required by the Police Act, the Peaceful Assembly Bill requires advance written notice of the intended assembly to be given to the police, including precise information about time, duration, location, purpose, and identity of the organisers and all speakers, and the police have an almost unlimited discretion to impose conditions and restrictions.

The PM’s assertion that the Bill abolishes the requirement for prior police permission is thus not accurate – it only does so for gatherings that are already ‘private’ such as weddings, funerals, family occasions and the general meetings of societies (Schedule 3), or those to be held at places designated by the Minister. If the police do not impose conditions in response to the notification, it would appear that the assembly is deemed to be authorised. This is one of the few positive aspects of the Bill. Amongst the factors that the police may consider are ‘cultural or religious sensitivity’ and ‘the concerns and objections of persons who have interests’ (defined to mean people who own property, live, work or carry on a business in the vicinity of the proposed assembly).

While the list of factors is mostly based on section 11 of the fairly benign Queensland Act, one difference in application between the two is likely to be grounded in the lamentable and well-documented readiness of the Malaysian police to entertain the complaints and often outlandish allegations of right-wing pressure groups, such as Perkasa and similar ethno-supremacist organizations, that their religious or race ‘sensitivities’ are offended by the expression of alternative views. Police refusal to allow Seksualiti Merdeka to hold its annual gathering is a recent case in point.

Another significant difference is with the role of the courts. Whereas aggrieved Queenslanders may apply to a Magistrates Court to expedite an application, and the police must seek a court order to prohibit an assembly – thus interposing an independent layer of review between citizens and the executive – Malaysians are directed to appeal from the police to the relevant Minister, in other words from the executive to the executive, without any court oversight. (It may, however, be possible to seek judicial review of the Minister’s decision, since, unusually for a Malaysian statute, the Peaceful Assembly Bill does not oust the jurisdiction of the court.)

Apart from the prohibition on street marches, the Peaceful Assembly Bill also forbids public assemblies within 50 meters of a ‘prohibited place,’ itemized in the First Schedule to include utilities and petrol stations, fire stations, hospitals, schools, places of worship, airports, docks, bridges and piers, and railways. Furthermore the Minister may gazette additional places, thereby extending the prohibition. Likewise, the Minister may gazette certain areas as ‘designated assembly places’, a provision presumably designed to corral protestors into out-of-the-way sporting arenas or similar venues. Obvious anomalies aside, such as the apparent prohibition on members of a faith group holding an assembly in the vicinity of their own place of worship, it would appear from the extensive list of prohibited sites that it will be extremely difficult to hold a public assembly in an urban area.

Organizers and participants have extensive responsibilities to abide by all these requirements, and are liable for penalties of up to 20,000 ringgit (approximately AUD $6, 260) for non-compliance, double the Police Act penalties (although it seems that imprisonment has been dropped). Furthermore, the police may without warrant arrest any person failing to comply with a restriction or condition, and may also order the assembly to disperse if it becomes a street protest, encroaches on a prohibited area, or the participants fail to comply with stated conditions. In doing this, police may ‘use all reasonable force.’ In sum, the Bill does nothing to curtail the potential for arbitrary exercise of police powers, but much to enable it.

Aside from the obvious defects in the text of the Bill, what does this law ‘reform’ exercise, and the reactions it provoked, reveal about law and law-making in Malaysia? In the deficit column, we can place the irresolution, amounting to double-speak, of the government. Prime Minister Najib promised better alignment of Malaysian laws with both Malaysian constitutional foundations and international human rights principles (although, as lawyer Eric Choo pointed out, there are important discrepancies between the undertakings PM Najib made in the official Bahasa Malaysia text of his Malaysia Day speech and the English translation authorised by the PM’s office[2]), and yet the Bill manifestly does no such thing, as local commentators (such as Bersih 2.0,[3] Aliran,[4] The Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST)[5] and the Bar Council[6]) and international observers (such as LawAsia[7] and the Asian Human Rights Commission[8]) observed.

There is simply no reference to, or recognition of, human rights standards and principles for freedom of speech, assembly and association, either as they are expressed in article 10 of the Malaysian Constitution or in international instruments, let alone a harmonization of Malaysian law with constitutional and human rights principles. Indeed, as Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim stated in Parliament during the brief debate on the Bill,[9] citizens of Zimbabwe and Myanmar currently have greater protection of their freedom of assembly than do Malaysians.

The PM promised a ‘functional and inclusive democracy’, but the government did not undertake meaningful consultation before the Bill was first tabled (the Bar Council, which was consulted, was appalled at how few of its recommendations were incorporated); and, despite howls of public protest once the content of the Bill was first revealed, the government refused to establish a parliamentary select committee to consider amendments, but rather bulldozed the legislation through the lower house 7 days after it was first introduced, and with only minor tinkering to shorten some of the notification and response timelines. The Bill was passed in the absence of the opposition MPs who had walked out in protest at the limited time allowed them to debate the amendments. This haste, too, is not uncommon in Malaysian law-making.

The legal illiteracy of lawmakers on the government side was not an edifying spectacle either, from inaccurate claims by UMNO politicians such as de facto Law Minister Nazri Aziz that the Peaceful Assembly Bill advanced the human rights of Malaysians to the buffoonery of Perkasa president Ibrahim Ali and his Jo Bielke-Peterson style populist quips during the debate following the Second Reading Speech that his learning at Holiday Inn was preferable and more authoritative than what could be obtained at the Inns of Court, or the ominous warnings of former opposition MP turned ‘independent’ Zulkifli Noordin that freedom of assembly was linked with both the race riots of May 1969 and apostasy from Islam.[10]

To my mind, however, the legal tactics of opposition party PAS are also cause for concern. After the Bill was rammed through the lower house, PAS leaders announced that they would apply to the High Court in Kuala Lumpur for a declaration that the government had abused its power by tabling the Bill in the lower house, and also an order to compel the government to withdraw the bill from the Senate, or, in the alternative, to compel it to table amendments.[11]

While PAS is clearly correct that the provisions of the Bill ought ultimately be found to be unconstitutional because they exceed the legislature’s capacity to derogate from the article 10 guarantee of free assembly, I doubt this High Court application will succeed, and I believe there are fundamental democratic reasons why it should not. Asking the unelected judicial branch to restrain the parliament from exercise of its legislative function is a profound breach of the separation of powers (and not one the opposition parties would accept if the situation were reversed).

To ask the judiciary to take on this role is to further politicise courts that are struggling to regain credibility after the corruption and abuse scandals of the 1990s documented in the 2008 Royal Commission of Inquiry, as well as those associated with the prosecutions of former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim. Malaysian courts have undoubted jurisdictional competence to declare legislation or sections thereof invalid on constitution grounds, as the Court of Appeal did in October this year when it ruled s 15 of the University and University Colleges Act invalid because it infringed students’ right to free expression under article 10 of the Federal Constitution. The appropriate time to do this is when there is a statute to evaluate against the constitutional standard, in the proper exercise of the court’s function as guardian of constitutionality; not when parliament is still deliberating upon a Bill (however foregone the conclusion of those deliberations may appear).

More hopefully, this still unfolding episode has demonstrated the resilience of the Malaysian public, non-government organisations, and particularly the Malaysian Bar and its governing body, the Malaysian Bar Council, and their capacity to organise to defend and extend democratic values. When the Bill was first tabled, critics were able to air their views in the alternative, digital media such as Malaysiakini and Malaysian Insider, as well as via websites of their own organisations, and trenchant evaluations of the proposed law quickly circulated in the public sphere. An online petition was organised, along with a Facebook page. Within a few days, a public protest involving around 400 people took place in a park in the centre of Kuala Lumpur – an assembly that would be illegal under both the Police Act and the proposed Peaceful Assembly law, although the organisers kept breaking the gathering into smaller ‘private’ groupings like picnics and social outings to thwart security personnel. The group reassembled a week later, after the passage of the Bill through the lower house, and organisers announced that they would gather weekly until the law was satisfactorily amended. On this occasion the gathering was treated to poetry readings by national poet laureate A. Samad Said, whose support for the July 9 Bersih 2.0 rally is well known. A candle lit vigil in support of freedom of assembly – itself of course an assembly – was held outside the Bar Council Building on the evening of 27th November (the Malaysiakini TV video can be viewed HERE).

The largest public gathering so far has been the Bar Council’s Walk for the Freedom to Walk protest on 29 November.[12] This public –and strictly illegal, because unauthorised – march and the Bar’s various public appeals to the government and to MPs to revise the Bill in line with internationally accepted standards for freedom of assembly and expression[13] (which standards the Bar’s own alternative Peaceful Assembly Bill modelled[14]), placed the Malaysian Bar, once again, in the forefront of popular and public campaigns to defend democratic space and constitutional government from erosion by the authoritarian state.

When Bar Council President Lim Chee Wee called upon his colleagues in the profession to join the Walk, he began the appeal by inviting them to imagine themselves in the lineage of Dr Martin Luther King, daring to stand up for their principles. On the day of the march, as more than 1,000 lawyers and supporters gathered at the entrance to the private Lake Club to walk to Parliament with their memorandum, he placed their actions within the national and nationalist lineage of heroic resistance to colonialism, by reminding the gathering that the governing party itself was founded through UMNO leader Dato’ Onn Jaafar’s 1946 procession to protest the Malayan Union scheme of the British, thus highlighting the indigenous, rather than international, significance, not to say sacredness, of the right to assemble and march for a public cause, while also emphasising that such street demonstrations could demand, and achieve, social and political change by peaceful means.

Civil society groups and the alternative media drew parallels with the Bar’s own famous Walk for Justice in September 2007, when the lawyers effectively compelled the government to make proper inquiry into the evidence of judicial corruption revealed in the ‘Lingam Tapes’ (leading, eventually, to a Royal Commission of Inquiry and a permanent Judicial Appointments Commission). Commentators also drew parallels with the ‘people power’ displayed in the July 9 Bersih 2.0 rally for clean and fair elections, when perhaps 50,000 Malaysians, led by former Bar Council President Dato’ Ambiga Sreenevasan, braved tear gas and chemical-laced water canon to express their outrage at both the corruption of the electoral processes and the government’s refusal to let them assemble to articulate this grievance.

These contemporary and historical parallels and ancestries all clearly have important resonance for the Bar and others who joined them. Another protest precedent, perhaps only properly remembered by older members of the legal profession, took place in 1981. It, too, commenced at the Lake Club and ended at the Parliament, which is perhaps one of the reasons why this route was again chosen. On the earlier occasion, lawyers and others marched to protest the enactment of amendments to the Societies Act 1966 which, like the Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011 thirty years later, were being rushed through the legislature with little consultation or reflection, and which were designed to curtail, rather than enhance, freedom of expression, assembly and association. Forty-two of the lawyers who participated in the 1981 Lake Club march were prosecuted under section 27 of the Police Act, and the reported decision (Public Prosecutor v Cheah Beng Poh & Ors [1984] 2 CLJ 383) is still considered an important case on freedom of assembly. The lawyer-defendants enjoyed their time in the dock, considering it a badge of professional pride and achievement to be prosecuted for insisting upon constitutional liberties in the face of unconstitutional statutes.

Although this episode in the history of the Bar has not featured amongst the precedents and exemplars for legitimate and necessary public protest that are currently circulating to embolden lawyers and other Malaysians, nevertheless I think it is important (and I would be surprised if it were not being fondly recalled just now by those who participated in it). It demonstrates the important role that the organised Bar has long played in pressing for democratic rights and freedoms, and the importance, too, of the continuities between previous and present forms of action, even if those connections are not fully articulated.

So, to conclude on a positive note, creative, eloquent, rapid and well-organised responses to the Bill are an indication of the strength of civil society in Malaysia. They are also an indication of the important role that the Bar Council has long played, and continues to play, in defending democracy and human rights.

Amanda Whiting is Associate Director (Malaysia) Asian Law Centre, The University of Melbourne. She is currently writing a history of the Malaysian Bar.

source:  New Mandala 

Global recognition … Sisters in Islam representatives, Ratna Osman (fifth from right) and Zainah Anwar (fourth from left), receiving the award from Madam Teresa (middle, in blue). Photo courtesy of Sisters In Islam.

The award was given to SIS on Nov 7. The international award is given annually to individuals or organisations that promote dialogue, understanding and knowledge between Spain and the Asia Pacific region.

“Throughout its 21 years of life, Sisters in Islam (SIS) has opened a public space for debate in Malaysia and given voice to Malaysian women regarding their rights under Islamic law or Syariah,” Casa Asia Director-General Juan José Herrera de la Muela said, in his citation for SIS.

As a winner of this award, SIS has received a trophy and a cash award of 6,000 Euro.

The Casa Asia Award is given by a consortium comprising of the Agency for International Cooperation for Development (AECID), which is part of Spain’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation, the government of Catalonia and the city councils of Barcelona and Madrid.

Past recipients of the Casa Asia Award include Pakistani women’s rights activist Mukhtar Mai, who fought for the rights of women as well as justice and dignity for people in Pakistan; as well as Cambodia’s Kike Figaredo, who helped to rehabilitate victims of land-mines and contributed towards the nation’s human development.

SIS has made an impact on the local community through efforts such as the Muslim Family Law campaign, which was launched in 2007 and aims to change unjust provisions in the Islamic family laws.

Telenisa, SIS’ legal clinic, has also helped many women, particularly at the grassroots level, to address legal problems in the Syariah courts. The service was started in 2003 and has assisted 551 clients in 2010 – an average of more than one woman a day.

The work that SIS does has also made its mark in the international arena.

Its Musawah initiative, which brings together scholars and activists around the world, aims to promote justice and equality in the Muslim family. It became a worldwide movement by 2009 and is now known as a dynamic entity that gives visibility and a voice to Muslim women.

Executive Director Ratna Osman and co-founder Zainah Anwar represented SIS at the awards ceremony.

The duo also spoke at the annual Casa Asia 8th East-West Dialogue.

Earlier this year, SIS had already received international acclaim when its board members Datin Paduka Marina Mahathir and Zainah were listed among the 100 most inspiring people by Women Deliver, a New York-based global advocacy group championing the rights of women and girls.

Zainah was also chosen by Newsweek and The Daily Beast as one of the 150 women “who shake the world”.

Source:  Goodtimes.my

source:  The Malaysian Insider