Friday, February 26, 2016


See also earlier related post:-

Of Directorship, Peoples Reps, PKR-DAP, Penang Land Reclamation, Corruption, Similarities with BN, ALTERNATIVE 'Opposition'???

25 FEBRUARY 2016


The recent furore involving the sacking of the PKR duo from the Penang GLCs  Kebun Bunga assemblyman Cheah Kah Peng and Bukit Tengah assemblyman Ong Chin Wen from the boards of the Penang Hill Corporation, and InvestPenang and Island Golf Properties Bhd, respectively, has kicked up a storm that could have been avoided if there were good corporate governance measures disallowing elected representatives from partaking in the work of government linked companies (GLC) .

This statement however, aspires not to take sides nor play judge on who is right or wrong. Instead we at the Centre to Combat Corruption & Cronyism (C4) view with alarm the brand of factionalised politics – where elected representatives vote solely according to fraternity, thus diagnosing a severe lack in independence (on both sides of the divide) amongst the officials we elect to represent our needs and rights. This as we know is a prevalent practice in parliament, with the most recent example, being the vote on the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP).

What concerns us further is that this episode has raised a number of pertinent questions that ought to be answered by the political leadership at the State and Federal levels, on the real roles that GLCs play in the administration, its policies on governance, mode of operations, and financial accountability measures.
Should elected representatives and politically active individuals (even at the branch level) be rightful candidates appointed as directors of top management of GLCs? How will political connections play out? Will these GLCs compromise professional and impartial decision making if pressured? Of course there can be exceptions on very rare occasions where a particular politician’s professional expertise could be of immense value to a particular field, and hence his / her appointment could be explained and justified. But this should be the exception rather than the norm. The issue of conflict of interest must be clearly checked, for any which way it is plainly wrong.

It must be emphasised that the role of an elected representative, and primary responsibility is to serve his / her constituents, must be accountable to the people first and foremost, and should not involve in any business, commercial or any activities otherwise deemed detrimental, and one that could contradict the needs and aspirations of the people they represent.
Malaysia’s GLCs, have, in the past, been cited as among the most extensive and powerful in the world in terms of capitalisation, market presence and socio-political mandate – comprising more than 30 percent of the Malaysian stock exchange’s capitalisation. There are a multitude of issues that arise from the hiring of politically connected individuals to govern these critical entities, including the transparency of their appointment, their qualification for the responsibilities, (perceived) independence, and the risk of acting as political proxies, amongst others.

In line with the government’s GLC transformation programme, GLCs need to be devolved and privatised at a quicker rate, and allowed to appoint the most qualified and suitable candidates for their Board of directors and Top Management.

Further feuds and vengeful politics could be minimised in the future through the reduction of politically influenced individuals directing state-owned enterprises.

Perhaps some good will come out this feud, where an opportunity to restructure and for a real paradigm shift in Malaysia to allow for genuine transformation of governance in governments.

Released By The C4 Board of Directors
Tan Sri SImpon Sipaun – Chairman
Cynthia Gabriel – Executive Director
Richard Yeoh
Dato’ Dr Ahmad Farouk Musa
Professor Zaharom Nain

EMPOWER - Stop Censoring Information

Stop Censoring Information
Media Statement, 26 February 2016

Persatuan Kesedaran Komuniti Selangor (EMPOWER) is outraged at the blocking of The Malaysian Insider by the Multimedia Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC). We are alarmed that this is only the latest manifestation of an ongoing and worsening trend of Internet censorship in Malaysia.

Section 3(3) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (CMA 1998) indeed provides that “[n]othing in this Act shall be construed as permitting the censorship of the Internet.” However, the MCMC has historically relied on other provisions in the law, including Section 233 on “Improper Use of Network Facilities or Network Service”, to take actions which amount to censorship in practice.

The harassment of online news portals under these provisions is unfortunately not new. For example, in 2009 the MCMC ordered Malaysiakini to take down two videos of a protest during which residents of Section 23 in Shah Alam paraded a severed cow’s head as a show of anger against the relocation of a Hindu temple into their neighbourhood. Section 233 and Section 211 on “offensive content” were cited in 2009 to justify the order against Malaysiakini.

What we have seen since at least 2013, however, is an acceleration of arbitrary and disproportionate restrictions of online content including blocking. In 2013, users of a number of Malaysian Internet Service Providers could not access websites with content perceived to be critical of the government, including the website of a citizen election observation initiative. A number of YouTube videos were also blocked.0F[1]

More recently, the Sarawak Report has been blocked by the MCMC since mid-2015. At about the same time, the MCMC even issued a warning against the sharing of parodies and satire on 1MDB over social media, claiming that they were “false or defamatory” information. Earlier this year an entire writing platform (Medium) was blocked for carrying its content from Sarawak Report. A number of blogs, including Syed Outside the Box and Din Turtle were also blocked, as was the news portal Asia Sentinel.

The provisions in CMA 1998 relied upon by the MCMC to block Internet content are vague and overbroad, and even then are sometimes ignored altogether: when it banned websites carrying information on the Bersih 4 rally in 2015, the MCMC’s press statement did not cite any provisions in the law to justify its actions. In blocking The Malaysian Insider, the MCMC only provided a justification later. EMPOWER is concerned there is little transparency and consultation on the part of the MCMC with regards to standards and decision-making processes.

We have also seen actions taken by the MCMC which appear to be outside their purview. In August 2015, the MCMC issued a notice to Malaysiakini to take down two articles as the Commission “found the news in both articles to be untrue.” Determining the truth of any particular news article is not and should not be one of the MCMC’s functions. Journalistic ethics is a serious issue in Malaysia, but that is not for the MCMC to arbitrarily decide – there needs to a participatory, democratic conversation between the media, the public, and other stakeholders.

We are experiencing a severe erosion of the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of information in Malaysia, offline and online. The Internet, including social media and online news portals, certainly appears to be targeted for particularly repressive measures. Amendments to the Sedition Act in April 2015 explicitly include electronic media, and there has been news reports that amendments to the CMA 1998 will be tabled later in the year. The current trend of arbitrary and disproportionate restrictions does not augur well for the amendments to the CMA 1998.

EMPOWER calls on the Multimedia Communications and Multimedia Commission to cease arbitrarily blocking Internet content, including news portals, and introduce participatory, transparent processes into which the media, civil society, and the public could have input. Blocking online content should be an action of last resort, not the first. The blocking of The Malaysian Insider, the Sarawak Report, the Medium, and other online content must be lifted immediately.

Finally, we call on the Malaysian government to adopt this approach: the best way to counter alleged misinformation is more information, not the restriction of information.

Janarthani Arumugam
Persatuan Kesedaran Komuniti Selangor (EMPOWER)

[1] Access, “Tracking network interference around political content in Malaysia”, at:

TM blocks access to Malaysian Insider? Based on Multimedia Commission's request based on an alleged offence? Unjust and draconian?

Malaysian Insider is the latest victim of the draconian Communications And Multimedia Act 1998

Access to this site has been denied under Section 263(2) Communications And Multimedia Act 1998 as it violates the following Malaysian law: 

Reading on, we see the reason:-

Breached provision section 233 Communication and Multimedia Act 1998

So, there is an ALLEGATION that an offence has been committed under section 233 - but no details of what section, or what is the alleged offence. How can they say 'Breached'?

Has Malaysian Insider been charged in court? Well, apparently not yet..

Has the Malaysian government gone to court and obtained a court order that gives them the power to block access to the Malaysian Insider site? Apparently not..

Rightfully, the government should not act on their own - there must be a need for them to obtain a COURT ORDER, this is necessary to ensure Check and Balance, especially in a Democracy. For example a person arrested, can only be detained for 24 hours, for further detention, the police need to apply to court for a further remand order...

So, if the Malaysian government is going to block our access to Malaysian Insider and/or other websites, should they not be going to court and get an order - which rightly the court will grant or refuse after hearing both parties???

So, how is it that the Malaysian government is blocking our access to the Malaysian Insider website? They said they are relying on section 263(2) - which deals with licensees - what licensee? Well, it is the licensee Network Facilities Provider 

 "licensee" means a person who either holds an individual licence, or undertakes activities which are subject to a class licence, granted under this Act;

Well, TM is my internet service provider, and all that 263(2) requires is a 'written request by the Commission or any other authority' and they blocked access to Malaysian Insider. This is certainly not right, more so when it is stated 'Breached provision section 233 Communication and Multimedia Act 1998' 

How can they say 'BREACHED' - when the most they can say is 'ALLEGEDLY BREACHED' - for after all Malaysian Insider has not yet been charged, tried or convicted yet by a Court of Law. Remember, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Well section 263(2) states what the licensee need to do - " far as reasonably necessary in preventing the commission or attempted commission of an offence under any written law of Malaysia or otherwise in enforcing the laws of Malaysia, including, but not limited to, the protection of the public revenue and preservation of national security.

Is what TM or other service providers doing considered  'as far as reasonably necessary' - I do not think so. Reasonably necessary may be mere blocking access to the one or two news reports, but certainly blocking access to the entire site is unreasonable. In fact, even if service providers like TM, were to tell Malaysian Insider to remove a certain reports, I believe that Malaysian Insider will do so ... Did TM ask Malaysian Insider to do so? Or did they just block complete access to the site, without even any reference to Malaysian Insider..

"preventing the commission or attempted commission" - this sounds like preventive this is talking about crimes that may be committed or tried to be committed in the future. It may be alright if it was talking about continuing to commit a crime, implying the crime has been already committed and is still continuing - so steps taken to stop this from happening. 

'enforcing the laws of Malaysia' - that there has already been a trial and a conviction, and steps needed to stop continuing commissioning of the convicted offence. Or alternatively, a Court Order has been obtained - but site/report not removed and have to be removed or blocked.

'protection of the public revenue and preservation of national security' - this certainly is not something any enforcement body can decide - and certainly no service provider. This too is a matter for the Courts to decide.. Courts take time - they may say, but really Courts have the power to grant interim orders, and this can be done very fast... 

Now, all that is needed is the request by a 'Commission or any other authority' - not even the Minister. 

Malaysian Insider is a 'business', and it has many employees, and it has obligations to its advertisers, and its readers - it is, as such a GRAVE INJUSTICE, that the Service Provider blocks access to the site, on the request of a 'Commission' based on what really is an alleged wrongdoing. 

Malaysians may need to re-consider their service providers - and TM, as service provider, must not so easily abdicate its duty to its consumers. Section 263(2) gives the internet service provider a wide discretion - they need not just listen and do as requested (not an order) - all they need do is  assist as far as reasonable

Show us the request letter by the 'Commission...' - Yes, this should be placed on the blocked site.

In such case, reasonably they should just maybe at most block access to 'news report' in question - never the entire site. 

233  Improper use of network facilities or network service, etc

(1) A person who-

(a) by means of any network facilities or network service or applications service knowingly-
(ii) initiates the transmission of,
any comment, request, suggestion or other communication which is obscene, indecent, false, menacing or offensive in character with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass another person; or

(b) initiates a communication using any applications service, whether continuously, repeatedly or otherwise, during which communication may or may not ensue, with or without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass any person at any number or electronic address,
commits an offence.

(2) A person who knowingly-

(a) by means of a network service or applications service provides any obscene communication for commercial purposes to any person; or

(b) permits a network service or applications service under the person's control to be used for an activity described in paragraph (a),
commits an offence.

(3) A person who commits an offence under this section shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or to both and shall also be liable to a further fine of one thousand ringgit for every day during which the offence is continued after conviction.

263  General duty of licensees

(1) A licensee shall use his best endeavour to network that he owns or prevent the facilities provides or the network service , applications service or content applications service that he provides from being used in, or in relation to, the commission of any offence under any law of Malaysia.

(2) A licensee shall, upon written request by the Commission or any other authority, assist the Commission or other authority as far as reasonably necessary in preventing the commission or attempted commission of an offence under any written law of Malaysia or otherwise in enforcing the laws of Malaysia, including, but not limited to, the protection of the public revenue and preservation of national security.

Gov't blocks The Malaysian Insider

The Malaysian Insider news portal has been blocked by the Multimedia Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC).

Users of telco Celcom who tried to access the site were shown the official MCMC page for a blocked site, with the message saying the website was barred because "it violated national laws".

According to the notice, The Malaysian Insider had violated Section 233 of the Act, which deals with improper use of network facilities or network service.

The website is still accessible via other Internet Service Providers (ISP).

Malaysiakini discovered the block for Celcom users at around 4.45pm.

The Malaysian Insider, which turned eight today, said its readers who use the Unifi ISP also complained that they could not access the website.

“This is an unpleasant surprise. I've tried to contact MCMC but the officers are in a meeting," the editor and chief executive Jahabar Sadiq was quoted as saying.

When contacted, Jahabar said that MCMC told him it would be issuing a statement on the matter.

Malaysiakini is contacting Communications and Multimedia Minister Salleh Said Keruak for their response.

The MCMC in a statement later today confirmed the block for producing content that allegedly violated Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act.

It also warned other news portals not to circulate what it described as "unverified" information.

The government last week said it plans to table amendments to the Communications and Multimedia Act to introduce heavier penalties for offences under the Act.

The government is also mulling mandatory registration for bloggers.

MCMC confirms TMI ban, warns against unverified reports

Published     Updated  
The Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) today confirmed that it has blocked access to news portal The Malaysian Insider, via Malaysian internet service providers (ISPs).

However, it did not mention how the portal flouted Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act, which deals with abuse of communications networks.

The MCMC in a statement said the ban was following “public complaints” and reminded news portals not to publish unverified reports.

“MCMC reminds news portals not to spread or publish articles whose veracity has yet to be confirmed.

“This could invite confusion and cause unwanted situations,” it said in a statement.

While MCMC did not specify it, among articles published by The Malaysian Insider today cited a source as saying that the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) has “credible evidence to frame charges” against Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak.

The report cites an unnamed MACC operations review panel member.

"The MACC investigators had collected sufficient evidence to prove a prima facie case against Najib," the panel member told The Malaysian Insider.

As at 7.17pm, The Malaysian Insider is only inaccessible to readers via Celcom and Unifi ISPs.

Worse yet to come

Meanwhile, Malaysiakini editor-in-chief Steven Gan warned that the worst has yet to come.

“If it’s true that TMI was blocked because it published a story on MACC having enough proof to charge the prime minister over the SRC money, then that's a cavalier use of the law,” he said.

According to Gan, Malaysiakini is preparing for the eventuality that the country’s number one website could be similarly blocked by the government.

“Should this be the case, we urge our readers to go to Malaysiakini’s Facebook page for the latest updates.”

Thursday, February 25, 2016

HRD Lena Hendry - 10/3/2016 - Court decides on ACQUITAL or Enter Your Defence - call your witnesses?

Well, the court have heard submissions from both parties at the end of the Prosecution's case - Decision on whether Lena has to enter her Defence will be 10/3/2016..

For, those who what is happening at this stage - well section 180 of the Criminal Procedure Code will give you an idea of what is happening now...

180  Procedure after conclusion of case for prosecution.
(1) When the case for the prosecution is concluded, the Court shall consider whether the prosecution has made out a prima facie case against the accused.

(2) If the Court finds that the prosecution has not made out a prima facie case against the accused, the Court shall record an order of acquittal.

(3) If the Court finds that a prima facie case has been made out against the accused on the offence charged the Court shall call upon the accused to enter on his defence.

(4) For the purpose of this section, a prima facie case is made out against the accused where the prosecution has adduced credible evidence proving each ingredient of the offence which if unrebutted or unexplained would warrant a conviction.
So, on 10/3/2016, we will all know whether Lena Hendry will ACQUITTED or will the call on her to enter her defence - that means, Lena will have to call her witnesses, etc ..

Wednesday, 24 February 2016 | MYT 6:31 PM

Court sets Mar 10 to hear defence in Lena Hendry case

KUALA LUMPUR: The court has set Mar 10 for activist Lena Hendry to enter a defence against a charge of screening “No Fire Zone”, a documentary that had not been approved by the Censorship Board.

Magistrate Mohd Rehan Mohd Aris said on Wednesday he would deliver a verdict after going through the submissions by the prosecution and defence.

Lawyer New Sin Yew, who acted for Hendry, said the activist was entitled to an acquittal, as the ingredients of the charge were not proved.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Muhammad Farith Muhammad Faizal said that Hendry was present during a raid at the Kuala Lumpur Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall and she was the one who handed over a DVD of the film to the police.

In his submission, New, however, said there was no evidence to show that Hendry was the one who screened the film as there is also a possibility that the film was screened by others present.

He added that the two main witnesses also could not confirm if Hendry was inside the screening hall or not.

“Hendry should not be charged just simply because her name is in the application form to use the hall,” New said, adding that there was no proven direct conduct but only circumstantial evidence.

He said Hendry was a representative from Komas at the event and there is no clear evidence on who distributed the DVD and who controlled the laptop for the screening.

Hendry, the programme coordinator for a human rights group Pusat Komas, claimed trial in a magistrate’s court on Sept 19, last year to illegally screening “No Fire Zone”.

Under Section 6(1)(b) of Film Censorship Act, 2002, Hendry faces up to three years’ jail or a fine not exceeding RM30,000, if convicted.

Hendry filed the application at the High Court registry to quash the charge on Nov 25, 2014.

On July 3, 2013, three Pusat Komas activists – Anna Har, Arul Prakkash and Hendry – were arrested in a raid by the Home Ministry, when they attempted to screen the controversial documentary.

The film, “No Fire Zone”, directed by British national Callum Macrae, explores the alleged oppression by the Sri Lankan government of Tamils in the island nation. - Star, 24/2/2016

For Star Video

 See earlier posts: -

Lena Hendry - Drop Charges says ICJ, Article 19, FIDH, Front Line, OMCT & 116 other groups

ARTICLE 19, ALIRAN, PROHAM, NUBE,WH4C & 111 Others say Drop Charges against Lena Hendry

Wednesday, February 24, 2016

HRD Lena Hendry Case - 24/2/2016, 2pm,Magistrate Court 6 - Drop Charges Against HR Defender?

Lena Hendry's case submission will take place tomorrow. 

Date: 24th February 2016
Time: 2pm
Place: Majistret Criminal Court 6, Left Wing, 2nd Floor, Duta Court Complex, Kuala Lumpur.

Pusat KOMAS hope you could support Lena at court to witness the closing of prosecution case brought up against her. Your presences is much appreciated. 

Lena Hendry was charged in September 2013 for allegedly screening an award winning human rights documentary called No Fire Zone. She was charged under section 6 of the 2002 Censorship Act which says;
(1) No person shall-

(a) have in his possession or in his custody or under his control; or
(b) circulate, exhibit, distribute, display, manufacture, produce, sell or hire,

any film or film-publicity material which has not been approved by the Board.

If convicted, she faces fine up to RM 30 000 or imprisonment not exceeding 3 years.The magistrate will be deciding tomorrow whether the prosecution have provided enough evidence and established prima facie against Lena to call for defense.

More information of the case can be obtained at

See earlier posts: -

Lena Hendry - Drop Charges says ICJ, Article 19, FIDH, Front Line, OMCT & 116 other groups

ARTICLE 19, ALIRAN, PROHAM, NUBE,WH4C & 111 Others say Drop Charges against Lena Hendry

Joint Statement – 2/10/2013(as of 15/10/2013)


We, the  116  undersigned  civil society groups, trade unions and organizations are shocked that the Malaysian government, after the recent General Election has resorted to charging human rights defender Lena Hendry on 19 September 2013 for being involved in the screening of a documentary "No Fire Zone: The Killing Fields of Sri Lanka" at a human rights event in Kuala Lumpur on  9 July 2013.
Lena Hendry was charged for an offence under the Film Censorship Act 2002, in connection with the screening of a video  which  was not  vetted and approved by the Film Censorship Board of Malaysia. If convicted, she faces the sentence of a ‘…fine of not less than five thousand ringgit and not more than thirty thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both…’ She is charged under Section 6 of the Act that makes it an offence to, amongst others, to produce, manufacture, have in one’s possession, circulate, distribute and display such film or film-publicity material which has not been approved by the Board. This may include video material ranging from family videos, videos of political and human rights material including recordings of forums and speeches, videos about citizen rights including the right to free and fair elections or worker rights, and even videos about rights violations in other countries including Palestine.
A ‘…videotape, diskette, laser disc, compact disc, hard disc and other record of a sequence of visual images, being a record capable of being used as a means of showing that sequence as a moving picture, whether or not accompanied by sound…”, is also included in the definition of ‘film’ as provided for in Section 3 of the Film Censorship Act. It is absurd that in Malaysia, the law requires one to get approval of the Malaysia’s Film Censorship Board for all such material.

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

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

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

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

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

Article 1 of the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms states clearly that “Everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to promote and to strive for the protection and realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms at  national and international levels.”
Lena Hendry, has the right to ‘…freely  publish, impart or disseminate to others views, information and knowledge on all human rights and fundamental freedoms…’, and that should include the right to use films, documentaries and other video materials. 
To advocate a policy or a law that says that film or video material must be pre-approved by the government before it can be used is in itself a violation of principles of human rights and the UN Human Rights Defender Declaration. 
Therefore, we
a)    Call on the Malaysian Government to immediately and unconditionally drop the criminal charges against Lena Hendry;

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

c)  Call on the Malaysian government to recognize, promote and respect human rights, including those contained in the UN Human Rights Defenders Declaration
Charles Hector
Pranom Somwong
For and on behalf the 116 organisations listed below
All Women’s Action Society (AWAM), Malaysia
Angkatan Rakyat Muda (ARM), Malaysia
Aksi  For Gender, Social And Ecological Justice, Indonesia
ASEAN Youth Assembly
Asia Pacific Forum on Women, law and Development (APWLD)
Academy of Tamil Studies, Malaysia
Boat People SOS
Burma Partnership
Cambodian Human Rights Association ( ADHOC )
Campaign for a Life of Dignity for All (KAMP), Philippines
Civil Right Committee of Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall, Malaysia
Center for Orang  Asli Concerns (COAC), Malaysia
Centre of Education. Research and Development (CEDAR) Malaysia
Centre for Independent Journalism, Malaysia
Child Development Initiative Malaysia
Committee for a Workers' International (CWI), Malaysia
Community Action Network, Malaysia
Community Resource Centre
Council of Temples Malaysia
Dapur Jalanan Kuala Lumpur
Dignity International
Empower Foundation, Thailand
Federation of Indian Non-Governmental Organisations
Foundation for Women, Thailand
Friends of Burma, Chiang Mai
Gabungan Pertubuhan-pertubuhan Masyarakat India Selangor
Gender and Development Advocates (GANDA) Filipinas
Group of Concerned Citizens Malaysia
Human Rights Ambassador for, UK
Human Rights Working Group (HRWG) Indonesia
Indian Malaysian Active Generation (IMAGE) Malaysia
Islamic Renaissance Front (IRF) , Malaysia
JERIT, Malaysia
Kelab Bangsar Utama, Malaysia
Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja Pekerja Perusahaan Alat Alat Pengangkutan Dan Sekutu(NUTEAIW)
Kesatuan Sekerja Industri Elektronik Wilayah Selatan Semenanjung Malaysia (KSIEWSSM)
Kuala Lumpur Indian Entrepreneurs and Professionals
Law and Society Trust, Colombo Sri Lanka
LLG Cultural Development Centre, Malaysia
MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)
Malaysian Association of Indian University Graduates
Malaysian Dravidian Association
Malaysians for Beng Hock
Malaysian Hindu Youth Council
Malaysian Indian Business Association
Malaysian Indian Development & Unity Association
Malaysian Indian Entrepreneurs and Professionals
Malaysian Indian Historical Association
Malaysia Indian Progressive Educational Society
Malaysian Indian Youth Development Foundation
Malaysian Physicians for Social Responsibility
Malaysia Youth & Students Democratic Movement
Malaysia Tamil Artiste Association
MAP Foundation, Thailand
MARUAH, Singapore
Migrant CARE
MTUC(Malaysian Trade Union Congress) Pahang
National Union of Bank Employees, Malaysia (NUBE)
Nationwide Human Development And Research Centre Malaysia
Network of Action for Migrants in Malaysia ( NAMM)
Network for Democracy and Development
Parti Rakyat Malaysia(PRM)
Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM)
Pax Romana ICMICA
Peace Institute of Cambodia
Peace Women Across the Globe Indonesia
Peoples' Empowerment Foundation (PEF), Thailand
Peoples Service Organisation (PSO) , Malaysia
Perkumpulan Tafena Tabua, Kupang - Indonesia
Persahabatan Semparuthi Johore, Malaysia 
Persatuan Alumni PBTUSM KL & Selangor
Persatuan Kesedaran Komuniti Selangor (EMPOWER)
Persatuan Masyarakat Selangor & Wilayah Persekutuan (PERMAS)
Persatuan Sahabat Wanita, Selangor (PSWS), Malaysia
Projek Dialog, Malaysia
SABM Melbourne, Australia
Sahabat Rakyat Working Committee, Malaysia
SALT(School of Acting Justly Loving Tenderly and Treading Humbly), Malaysia
Sarawak Dayak Iban Association
Saya Anak Bangsa Malaysia (SABM)
Selangor Indian Entrepreneurs and Professionals
Semparuthi Iyakkam Malaysia
Sisters In Islam, Malaysia
SUARAM (Suara Rakyat Malaysia)
Tenaganita, Malaysia
The Asian Muslim Action Network (Aman) Indonesia
The Association of Women Lawyers, Malaysia
The Filipino Women's Organization in Quebec, Canada
VIVAT International-Indonesia
WH4C (Workers Hub For Change)
Women's Centre for Change (WCC) Penang
Women's Network for the Advancement and Peace, Thailand
Women's Rehabilitation Center (WOREC) Nepal
World Tamil Federation – Malaysian Chapter
Writer Alliance for Media Independence (WAMI), Malaysia
Yaung Chi Oo Workers Association, Thailand
Yayasan LINTAS NUSA Batam - Indonesia
Youth for Peace Cambodia
Advocacy and Policy Institute (API), Cambodia
Labour Behind the Lablel, United Kingdom
Forum for Democracy in Burma
Bersihkan Malaysia Perth, Australia
Women's Aid Organisation, Malaysia
WAC, Phillipines
Housing Rights Task Force, Cambodia.
NLD LA Malaysia
Tourism Employees Association of Maldives" (TEAM)
CEREAL (Centro de Reflexión y Acción Laboral)
Cividep India
Think Centre, Singapore
Kesatuan Pekerja Pekerja Polyplastics Asia Pacific, Malaysia
PROHAM -Persatuan Promosi Hak Asasi Manusia