CHARLES HECTOR

Good consumers choose to buy products made in respect of human rights worker rights - something about Apple

2012-01-27T12:04:00.000+08:00

In the past, most consumers were only concerned with product quality and pricing BUT today people are also concerned whether the products they choose to purchase are made in compliance with human rights worker rights and environmental rights standards. Were workers oppressed and their rights violated? Was there contamination that polluted the environments? Was there sexual harassment? Was there discrimination?

The concern about compliance of human rights and worker rights is not just limited to the place where the final product is manufactured but with regards the entire supply chain, i.e. from the point of extraction of minerals and raw products, from the person that makes the various components that is used in making the end products.....

The rationale is that if you were to buy consumer or commercial products which came into being as a result of rights violations and other injustices, then you, the consumer, is in fact condoning such violations and injustices - not just condoning but may also be considered 'guilty' of such violations.

Today, in the market, we have many choices compared to the past... and as such we really can choose to only buy products produced in respect of human rights, worker rights and environmental rights...

Came across an article about Apple, which was published in the New York Times online, which is an interesting read...[Note that I have copied and pasted this article here, and there may be inadvertent errors, and as such it best to visit The New York Times website to read the original]

The iEconomy
In China, Human Costs Are Built Into an iPad
By CHARLES DUHIGG and DAVID BARBOZA

Published: January 25, 2012 (The New York Times)
The explosion ripped through Building A5 on a Friday evening last May, an eruption of fire and noise that twisted metal pipes as if they were discarded straws.

When workers in the cafeteria ran outside, they saw black smoke pouring from shattered windows. It came from the area where employees polished thousands of iPad cases a day.

Two people were killed immediately, and over a dozen others hurt. As the injured were rushed into ambulances, one in particular stood out. His features had been smeared by the blast, scrubbed by heat and violence until a mat of red and black had replaced his mouth and nose.

“Are you Lai Xiaodong’s father?” a caller asked when the phone rang at Mr. Lai’s childhood home. Six months earlier, the 22-year-old had moved to Chengdu, in southwest China, to become one of the millions of human cogs powering the largest, fastest and most sophisticated manufacturing system on earth. That system has made it possible for Apple and hundreds of other companies to build devices almost as quickly as they can be dreamed up.

“He’s in trouble,” the caller told Mr. Lai’s father. “Get to the hospital as soon as possible.”

In the last decade, Apple has become one of the mightiest, richest and most successful companies in the world, in part by mastering global manufacturing. Apple and its high-technology peers — as well as dozens of other American industries — have achieved a pace of innovation nearly unmatched in modern history.

However, the workers assembling iPhones, iPads and other devices often labor in harsh conditions, according to employees inside those plants, worker advocates and documents published by companies themselves.

Problems are as varied as onerous work environments and serious — sometimes deadly — safety problems.
Employees work excessive overtime, in some cases seven days a week, and live in crowded dorms. Some say they stand so long that their legs swell until they can hardly walk. Under-age workers have helped build Apple’s products, and the company’s suppliers have improperly disposed of hazardous waste and falsified records, according to company reports and advocacy groups that, within China, are often considered reliable, independent monitors.

More troubling, the groups say, is some suppliers’ disregard for workers’ health. Two years ago, 137 workers at an Apple supplier in eastern China were injured after they were ordered to use a poisonous chemical to clean iPhone screens. Within seven months last year, two explosions at iPad factories, including in Chengdu, killed four people and injured 77. Before those blasts, Apple had been alerted to hazardous conditions inside the Chengdu plant, according to a Chinese group that published that warning.

“If Apple was warned, and didn’t act, that’s reprehensible,” said Nicholas Ashford, a former chairman of the National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health, a group that advises the United States Labor Department. “But what’s morally repugnant in one country is accepted business practices in another, and companies take advantage of that.”

Apple is not the only electronics company doing business within a troubling supply system. Bleak working conditions have been documented at factories manufacturing products for Dell, Hewlett-Packard, I.B.M., Lenovo, Motorola, Nokia, Sony, Toshiba and others.

Current and former Apple executives, moreover, say the company has made significant strides in improving factories in recent years. Apple has a supplier code of conduct that details standards on labor issues, safety protections and other topics. The company has mounted a vigorous auditing campaign, and when abuses are discovered, Apple says, corrections are demanded.

And Apple’s annual supplier responsibility reports, in many cases, are the first to report abuses. This month, for the first time, the company released a list identifying many of its suppliers.

But significant problems remain. More than half of the suppliers audited by Apple have violated at least one aspect of the code of conduct every year since 2007, according to Apple’s reports, and in some instances have violated the law. While many violations involve working conditions, rather than safety hazards, troubling patterns persist.

“Apple never cared about anything other than increasing product quality and decreasing production cost,” said Li Mingqi, who until April worked in management at Foxconn Technology, one of Apple’s most important manufacturing partners. Mr. Li, who is suing Foxconn over his dismissal, helped manage the Chengdu factory where the explosion occurred.

“Workers’ welfare has nothing to do with their interests,” he said.

Some former Apple executives say there is an unresolved tension within the company: executives want to improve conditions within factories, but that dedication falters when it conflicts with crucial supplier relationships or the fast delivery of new products. Tuesday, Apple reported one of the most lucrative quarters of any corporation in history, with $13.06 billion in profits on $46.3 billion in sales. Its sales would have been even higher, executives said, if overseas factories had been able to produce more.

Executives at other corporations report similar internal pressures. This system may not be pretty, they argue, but a radical overhaul would slow innovation. Customers want amazing new electronics delivered every year.

“We’ve known about labor abuses in some factories for four years, and they’re still going on,” said one former Apple executive who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of confidentiality agreements. “Why? Because the system works for us. Suppliers would change everything tomorrow if Apple told them they didn’t have another choice.”

“If half of iPhones were malfunctioning, do you think Apple would let it go on for four years?” the executive asked.

Color China Photo, via Associated Press
An explosion last May at a Foxconn factory in Chengdu, China, killed four people and injured 18. It built iPads.

Apple, in its published reports, has said it requires every discovered labor violation to be remedied, and suppliers that refuse are terminated. Privately, however, some former executives concede that finding new suppliers is time-consuming and costly. Foxconn is one of the few manufacturers in the world with the scale to build sufficient numbers of iPhones and iPads. So Apple is “not going to leave Foxconn and they’re not going to leave China,” said Heather White, a research fellow at Harvard and a former member of the Monitoring International Labor Standards committee at the National Academy of Sciences. “There’s a lot of rationalization.”

Apple was provided with extensive summaries of this article, but the company declined to comment. The reporting is based on interviews with more than three dozen current or former employees and contractors, including a half-dozen current or former executives with firsthand knowledge of Apple’s supplier responsibility group, as well as others within the technology industry.

In 2010, Steven P. Jobs discussed the company’s relationships with suppliers at an industry conference.
“I actually think Apple does one of the best jobs of any companies in our industry, and maybe in any industry, of understanding the working conditions in our supply chain,” said Mr. Jobs, who was Apple’s chief executive at the time and who died last October.

“I mean, you go to this place, and, it’s a factory, but, my gosh, I mean, they’ve got restaurants and movie theaters and hospitals and swimming pools, and I mean, for a factory, it’s a pretty nice factory.”

Others, including workers inside such plants, acknowledge the cafeterias and medical facilities, but insist conditions are punishing.

“We’re trying really hard to make things better,” said one former Apple executive. “But most people would still be really disturbed if they saw where their iPhone comes from.”

The Road to Chengdu
In the fall of 2010, about six months before the explosion in the iPad factory, Lai Xiaodong carefully wrapped his clothes around his college diploma, so it wouldn’t crease in his suitcase. He told friends he would no longer be around for their weekly poker games, and said goodbye to his teachers. He was leaving for Chengdu, a city of 12 million that was rapidly becoming one of the world’s most important manufacturing hubs.

Though painfully shy, Mr. Lai had surprised everyone by persuading a beautiful nursing student to become his girlfriend. She wanted to marry, she said, and so his goal was to earn enough money to buy an apartment.
Factories in Chengdu manufacture products for hundreds of companies. But Mr. Lai was focused on Foxconn Technology, China’s largest exporter and one of the nation’s biggest employers, with 1.2 million workers. The company has plants throughout China, and assembles an estimated 40 percent of the world’s consumer electronics, including for customers like Amazon, Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Nintendo, Nokia and Samsung.

Foxconn’s factory in Chengdu, Mr. Lai knew, was special. Inside, workers were building Apple’s latest, potentially greatest product: the iPad.

When Mr. Lai finally landed a job repairing machines at the plant, one of the first things he noticed were the almost blinding lights. Shifts ran 24 hours a day, and the factory was always bright. At any moment, there were thousands of workers standing on assembly lines or sitting in backless chairs, crouching next to large machinery, or jogging between loading bays. Some workers’ legs swelled so much they waddled. “It’s hard to stand all day,” said Zhao Sheng, a plant worker.

Banners on the walls warned the 120,000 employees: “Work hard on the job today or work hard to find a job tomorrow.” Apple’s supplier code of conduct dictates that, except in unusual circumstances, employees are not supposed to work more than 60 hours a week. But at Foxconn, some worked more, according to interviews, workers’ pay stubs and surveys by outside groups. Mr. Lai was soon spending 12 hours a day, six days a week inside the factory, according to his paychecks. Employees who arrived late were sometimes required to write confession letters and copy quotations. There were “continuous shifts,” when workers were told to work two stretches in a row, according to interviews.

Mr. Lai’s college degree enabled him to earn a salary of around $22 a day, including overtime — more than many others. When his days ended, he would retreat to a small bedroom just big enough for a mattress, wardrobe and a desk where he obsessively played an online game called Fight the Landlord, said his girlfriend, Luo Xiaohong.

Those accommodations were better than many of the company’s dorms, where 70,000 Foxconn workers lived, at times stuffed 20 people to a three-room apartment, employees said. Last year, a dispute over paychecks set off a riot in one of the dormitories, and workers started throwing bottles, trash cans and flaming paper from their windows, according to witnesses. Two hundred police officers wrestled with workers, arresting eight. Afterward, trash cans were removed, and piles of rubbish — and rodents — became a problem. Mr. Lai felt lucky to have a place of his own.

Foxconn, in a statement, disputed workers’ accounts of continuous shifts, extended overtime, crowded living accommodations and the causes of the riot. The company said that its operations adhered to customers’ codes of conduct, industry standards and national laws. “Conditions at Foxconn are anything but harsh,” the company wrote. Foxconn also said that it had never been cited by a customer or government for under-age or overworked employees or toxic exposures.

“All assembly line employees are given regular breaks, including one-hour lunch breaks,” the company wrote, and only 5 percent of assembly line workers are required to stand to carry out their tasks. Work stations have been designed to ergonomic standards, and employees have opportunities for job rotation and promotion, the statement said.

“Foxconn has a very good safety record,” the company wrote. “Foxconn has come a long way in our efforts to lead our industry in China in areas such as workplace conditions and the care and treatment of our employees.”

Apple’s Code of Conduct
In 2005, some of Apple’s top executives gathered inside their Cupertino, Calif., headquarters for a special meeting. Other companies had created codes of conduct to police their suppliers. It was time, Apple decided, to follow suit. The code Apple published that year demands “that working conditions in Apple’s supply chain are safe, that workers are treated with respect and dignity, and that manufacturing processes are environmentally responsible.”

But the next year, a British newspaper, The Mail on Sunday, secretly visited a Foxconn factory in Shenzhen, China, where iPods were manufactured, and reported on workers’ long hours, push-ups meted out as punishment and crowded dorms. Executives in Cupertino were shocked. “Apple is filled with really good people who had no idea this was going on,” a former employee said. “We wanted it changed, immediately.”
Apple audited that factory, the company’s first such inspection, and ordered improvements. Executives also undertook a series of initiatives that included an annual audit report, first published in 2007. By last year, Apple had inspected 396 facilities — including the company’s direct suppliers, as well as many of those suppliers’ suppliers — one of the largest such programs within the electronics industry.

Those audits have found consistent violations of Apple’s code of conduct, according to summaries published by the company. In 2007, for instance, Apple conducted over three dozen audits, two-thirds of which indicated that employees regularly worked more than 60 hours a week. In addition, there were six “core violations,” the most serious kind, including hiring 15-year-olds as well as falsifying records.

Over the next three years, Apple conducted 312 audits, and every year, about half or more showed evidence of large numbers of employees laboring more than six days a week as well as working extended overtime. Some workers received less than minimum wage or had pay withheld as punishment. Apple found 70 core violations over that period, including cases of involuntary labor, under-age workers, record falsifications, improper disposal of hazardous waste and over a hundred workers injured by toxic chemical exposures.

Last year, the company conducted 229 audits. There were slight improvements in some categories and the detected rate of core violations declined. However, within 93 facilities, at least half of workers exceeded the 60-hours-a-week work limit. At a similar number, employees worked more than six days a week. There were incidents of discrimination, improper safety precautions, failure to pay required overtime rates and other violations. That year, four employees were killed and 77 injured in workplace explosions.

“If you see the same pattern of problems, year after year, that means the company’s ignoring the issue rather than solving it,” said one former Apple executive with firsthand knowledge of the supplier responsibility group. “Noncompliance is tolerated, as long as the suppliers promise to try harder next time. If we meant business, core violations would disappear.”

Apple says that when an audit reveals a violation, the company requires suppliers to address the problem within 90 days and make changes to prevent a recurrence. “If a supplier is unwilling to change, we terminate our relationship,” the company says on its Web site.

The seriousness of that threat, however, is unclear. Apple has found violations in hundreds of audits, but fewer than 15 suppliers have been terminated for transgressions since 2007, according to former Apple executives.

“Once the deal is set and Foxconn becomes an authorized Apple supplier, Apple will no longer give any attention to worker conditions or anything that is irrelevant to its products,” said Mr. Li, the former Foxconn manager. Mr. Li spent seven years with Foxconn in Shenzhen and Chengdu and was forced out in April after he objected to a relocation to Chengdu, he said. Foxconn disputed his comments, and said “both Foxconn and Apple take the welfare of our employees very seriously.”

Apple’s efforts have spurred some changes. Facilities that were reaudited “showed continued performance improvements and better working conditions,” the company wrote in its 2011 supplier responsibility progress report. In addition, the number of audited facilities has grown every year, and some executives say those expanding efforts obscure year-to-year improvements.

Apple also has trained over a million workers about their rights and methods for injury and disease prevention. A few years ago, after auditors insisted on interviewing low-level factory employees, they discovered that some had been forced to pay onerous “recruitment fees” — which Apple classifies as involuntary labor. As of last year, the company had forced suppliers to reimburse more than $6.7 million in such charges.

“Apple is a leader in preventing under-age labor,” said Dionne Harrison of Impactt, a firm paid by Apple to help prevent and respond to child labor among its suppliers. “They’re doing as much as they possibly can.”
Other consultants disagree.

“We’ve spent years telling Apple there are serious problems and recommending changes,” said a consultant at BSR — also known as Business for Social Responsibility — which has been twice retained by Apple to provide advice on labor issues. “They don’t want to pre-empt problems, they just want to avoid embarrassments.”

‘We Could Have Saved Lives’
In 2006, BSR, along with a division of the World Bank and other groups, initiated a project to improve working conditions in factories building cellphones and other devices in China and elsewhere. The groups and companies pledged to test various ideas. Foxconn agreed to participate.

For four months, BSR and another group negotiated with Foxconn regarding a pilot program to create worker “hotlines,” so that employees could report abusive conditions, seek mental counseling and discuss workplace problems. Apple was not a participant in the project, but was briefed on it, according to the BSR consultant, who had detailed knowledge.

As negotiations proceeded, Foxconn’s requirements for participation kept changing. First Foxconn asked to shift from installing new hotlines to evaluating existing hotlines. Then Foxconn insisted that mental health counseling be excluded. Foxconn asked participants to sign agreements saying they would not disclose what they observed, and then rewrote those agreements multiple times. Finally, an agreement was struck, and the project was scheduled to begin in January 2008. A day before the start, Foxconn demanded more changes, until it was clear the project would not proceed, according to the consultant and a 2008 summary by BSR that did not name Foxconn.

The next year, a Foxconn employee fell or jumped from an apartment building after losing an iPhone prototype. Over the next two years, at least 18 other Foxconn workers attempted suicide or fell from buildings in manners that suggested suicide attempts. In 2010, two years after the pilot program fell apart and after multiple suicide attempts, Foxconn created a dedicated mental health hotline and began offering free psychological counseling.

“We could have saved lives, and we asked Apple to pressure Foxconn, but they wouldn’t do it,” said the BSR consultant, who asked not to be identified because of confidentiality agreements. “Companies like H.P. and Intel and Nike push their suppliers. But Apple wants to keep an arm’s length, and Foxconn is their most important manufacturer, so they refuse to push.”

BSR, in a written statement, said the views of that consultant were not those of the company.

“My BSR colleagues and I view Apple as a company that is making a highly serious effort to ensure that labor conditions in its supply chain meet the expectations of applicable laws, the company’s standards and the expectations of consumers,” wrote Aron Cramer, BSR’s president. Mr. Cramer added that asking Apple to pressure Foxconn would have been inconsistent with the purpose of the pilot program, and there were multiple reasons the pilot program did not proceed.

Foxconn, in a statement, said it acted quickly and comprehensively to address suicides, and “the record has shown that those measures have been successful.”

A Demanding Client

Every month, officials at companies from around the world trek to Cupertino or invite Apple executives to visit their foreign factories, all in pursuit of a goal: becoming a supplier.

When news arrives that Apple is interested in a particular product or service, small celebrations often erupt. Whiskey is drunk. Karaoke is sung.

Then, Apple’s requests start.

Apple typically asks suppliers to specify how much every part costs, how many workers are needed and the size of their salaries. Executives want to know every financial detail. Afterward, Apple calculates how much it will pay for a part. Most suppliers are allowed only the slimmest of profits.

So suppliers often try to cut corners, replace expensive chemicals with less costly alternatives, or push their employees to work faster and longer, according to people at those companies.

“The only way you make money working for Apple is figuring out how to do things more efficiently or cheaper,” said an executive at one company that helped bring the iPad to market. “And then they’ll come back the next year, and force a 10 percent price cut.”

In January 2010, workers at a Chinese factory owned by Wintek, an Apple manufacturing partner, went on strike over a variety of issues, including widespread rumors that workers were being exposed to toxins. Investigations by news organizations revealed that over a hundred employees had been injured by n-hexane, a toxic chemical that can cause nerve damage and paralysis.

Employees said they had been ordered to use n-hexane to clean iPhone screens because it evaporated almost three times as fast as rubbing alcohol. Faster evaporation meant workers could clean more screens each minute.

Apple commented on the Wintek injuries a year later. In its supplier responsibility report, Apple said it had “required Wintek to stop using n-hexane” and that “Apple has verified that all affected workers have been treated successfully, and we continue to monitor their medical reports until full recuperation.” Apple also said it required Wintek to fix the ventilation system.

That same month, a New York Times reporter interviewed a dozen injured Wintek workers who said they had never been contacted by Apple or its intermediaries, and that Wintek had pressured them to resign and take cash settlements that would absolve the company of liability. After those interviews, Wintek pledged to provide more compensation to the injured workers and Apple sent a representative to speak with some of them.

Six months later, trade publications reported that Apple significantly cut prices paid to Wintek.

“You can set all the rules you want, but they’re meaningless if you don’t give suppliers enough profit to treat workers well,” said one former Apple executive with firsthand knowledge of the supplier responsibility group. “If you squeeze margins, you’re forcing them to cut safety.”

Wintek is still one of Apple’s most important suppliers. Wintek, in a statement, declined to comment except to say that after the episode, the company took “ample measures” to address the situation and “is committed to ensuring employee welfare and creating a safe and healthy work environment.”

Many major technology companies have worked with factories where conditions are troubling. However, independent monitors and suppliers say some act differently. Executives at multiple suppliers, in interviews, said that Hewlett-Packard and others allowed them slightly more profits and other allowances if they were used to improve worker conditions.

“Our suppliers are very open with us,” said Zoe McMahon, an executive in Hewlett-Packard’s supply chain social and environmental responsibility program. “They let us know when they are struggling to meet our expectations, and that influences our decisions.”

The Explosion

On the afternoon of the blast at the iPad plant, Lai Xiaodong telephoned his girlfriend, as he did every day. They had hoped to see each other that evening, but Mr. Lai’s manager said he had to work overtime, he told her.

He had been promoted quickly at Foxconn, and after just a few months was in charge of a team that maintained the machines that polished iPad cases. The sanding area was loud and hazy with aluminum dust. Workers wore masks and earplugs, but no matter how many times they showered, they were recognizable by the slight aluminum sparkle in their hair and at the corners of their eyes.

Just two weeks before the explosion, an advocacy group in Hong Kong published a report warning of unsafe conditions at the Chengdu plant, including problems with aluminum dust. The group, Students and Scholars Against Corporate Misbehavior, or Sacom, had videotaped workers covered with tiny aluminum particles.

“Occupational health and safety issues in Chengdu are alarming,” the report read. “Workers also highlight the problem of poor ventilation and inadequate personal protective equipment.”

A copy of that report was sent to Apple. “There was no response,” said Debby Chan Sze Wan of the group.

“A few months later I went to Cupertino, and went into the Apple lobby, but no one would meet with me. I’ve never heard from anyone from Apple at all.”

The morning of the explosion, Mr. Lai rode his bicycle to work. The iPad had gone on sale just weeks earlier, and workers were told thousands of cases needed to be polished each day. The factory was frantic, employees said. Rows of machines buffed cases as masked employees pushed buttons. Large air ducts hovered over each station, but they could not keep up with the three lines of machines polishing nonstop. Aluminum dust was everywhere.

Dust is a known safety hazard. In 2003, an aluminum dust explosion in Indiana destroyed a wheel factory and killed a worker. In 2008, agricultural dust inside a sugar factory in Georgia caused an explosion that killed 14.

Two hours into Mr. Lai’s second shift, the building started to shake, as if an earthquake was under way. There was a series of blasts, plant workers said.

Then the screams began.

When Mr. Lai’s colleagues ran outside, dark smoke was mixing with a light rain, according to cellphone videos. The toll would eventually count four dead, 18 injured.

At the hospital, Mr. Lai’s girlfriend saw that his skin was almost completely burned away. “I recognized him from his legs, otherwise I wouldn’t know who that person was,” she said.

Eventually, his family arrived. Over 90 percent of his body had been seared. “My mom ran away from the room at the first sight of him. I cried. Nobody could stand it,” his brother said. When his mother eventually returned, she tried to avoid touching her son, for fear that it would cause pain.

“If I had known,” she said, “I would have grabbed his arm, I would have touched him.”

“He was very tough,” she said. “He held on for two days.”

After Mr. Lai died, Foxconn workers drove to Mr. Lai’s hometown and delivered a box of ashes. The company later wired a check for about $150,000.

Foxconn, in a statement, said that at the time of the explosion the Chengdu plant was in compliance with all relevant laws and regulations, and “after ensuring that the families of the deceased employees were given the support they required, we ensured that all of the injured employees were given the highest quality medical care.” After the explosion, the company added, Foxconn immediately halted work in all polishing workshops, and later improved ventilation and dust disposal, and adopted technologies to enhance worker safety.

In its most recent supplier responsibility report, Apple wrote that after the explosion, the company contacted “the foremost experts in process safety” and assembled a team to investigate and make recommendations to prevent future accidents.

In December, however, seven months after the blast that killed Mr. Lai, another iPad factory exploded, this one in Shanghai. Once again, aluminum dust was the cause, according to interviews and Apple’s most recent supplier responsibility report. That blast injured 59 workers, with 23 hospitalized.

“It is gross negligence, after an explosion occurs, not to realize that every factory should be inspected,” said Nicholas Ashford, the occupational safety expert, who is now at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “If it were terribly difficult to deal with aluminum dust, I would understand. But do you know how easy dust is to control? It’s called ventilation. We solved this problem over a century ago.”

In its most recent supplier responsibility report, Apple wrote that while the explosions both involved combustible aluminum dust, the causes were different. The company declined, however, to provide details.

The report added that Apple had now audited all suppliers polishing aluminum products and had put stronger precautions in place. All suppliers have initiated required countermeasures, except one, which remains shut down, the report said.

For Mr. Lai’s family, questions remain. “We’re really not sure why he died,” said Mr. Lai’s mother, standing beside a shrine she built near their home. “We don’t understand what happened.”

Hitting the Apple Lottery

Every year, as rumors about Apple’s forthcoming products start to emerge, trade publications and Web sites begin speculating about which suppliers are likely to win the Apple lottery. Getting a contract from Apple can lift a company’s value by millions because of the implied endorsement of manufacturing quality. But few companies openly brag about the work: Apple generally requires suppliers to sign contracts promising they will not divulge anything, including the partnership.

That lack of transparency gives Apple an edge at keeping its plans secret. But it also has been a barrier to improving working conditions, according to advocates and former Apple executives.

This month, after numerous requests by advocacy and news organizations, including The New York Times, Apple released the names of 156 of its suppliers. In the report accompanying that list, Apple said they “account for more than 97 percent of what we pay to suppliers to manufacture our products.”

However, the company has not revealed the names of hundreds of other companies that do not directly contract with Apple, but supply the suppliers. The company’s supplier list does not disclose where factories are, and many are hard to find. And independent monitoring organizations say when they have tried to inspect Apple’s suppliers, they have been barred from entry — on Apple’s orders, they have been told.

“We’ve had this conversation hundreds of times,” said a former executive in Apple’s supplier responsibility group. “There is a genuine, companywide commitment to the code of conduct. But taking it to the next level and creating real change conflicts with secrecy and business goals, and so there’s only so far we can go.”

Former Apple employees say they were generally prohibited from engaging with most outside groups.
“There’s a real culture of secrecy here that influences everything,” the former executive said.

Some other technology companies operate differently.

“We talk to a lot of outsiders,” said Gary Niekerk, director of corporate citizenship at Intel. “The world’s complex, and unless we’re dialoguing with outside groups, we miss a lot.”

Given Apple’s prominence and leadership in global manufacturing, if the company were to radically change its ways, it could overhaul how business is done. “Every company wants to be Apple,” said Sasha Lezhnev at the Enough Project, a group focused on corporate accountability. “If they committed to building a conflict-free iPhone, it would transform technology.”

But ultimately, say former Apple executives, there are few real outside pressures for change. Apple is one of the most admired brands. In a national survey conducted by The New York Times in November, 56 percent of respondents said they couldn’t think of anything negative about Apple. Fourteen percent said the worst thing about the company was that its products were too expensive. Just 2 percent mentioned overseas labor practices.

People like Ms. White of Harvard say that until consumers demand better conditions in overseas factories — as they did for companies like Nike and Gap, which today have overhauled conditions among suppliers — or regulators act, there is little impetus for radical change. Some Apple insiders agree.

“You can either manufacture in comfortable, worker-friendly factories, or you can reinvent the product every year, and make it better and faster and cheaper, which requires factories that seem harsh by American standards,” said a current Apple executive.

“And right now, customers care more about a new iPhone than working conditions in China.” -

[A version of this article appeared in print on January 26, 2012, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: In China, the Human Costs That Are Built Into an iPad.]

SAFETY PRECAUTIONS After a rash of apparent suicide attempts, a dormitory for Foxconn workers in Shenzhen, China, had safety netting installed last May. Foxconn said it acted quickly and comprehensively to address employee suicides.

Anwar's case:- Why appeal to Court of Appeal? Was it for the correct reasons or....

2012-01-20T21:21:00.000+08:00

The reason for a filing of an appeal to the Court of Appeal is because the High Court judge had erred in law and/or facts - and when it is the Public Prosecutor (the Attorney General) who is filing an appeal - he must do so NOT because he has been instructed to do so by Najib and his BN government, not because the alleged victim wants him to do so, not because some people (or NGO) pressured him to file it .....BUT because the prosecution team after listening to the judgment and reevaluating the evidence and law came to the position that the learned High Court judge had erred in law and fact, and if the necessary facts and law was taken into consideration, then Anwar would have been found guilty...

As the question of whether the Attorney-General's Chambers will appeal the Sodomy II verdict or not hangs over the nation, complainant Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan has made a passionate plea for an appeal.

With the prosecution having until Wednesday, Jan 25, to lodge the appeal, Saiful (left) in a last-ditch effort wrote to attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail to appeal to preserve his dignity and honour.

Saiful told his blog followers late yesterday evening that he had, through legal firm Zamri Idrus & Co, written to Gani to Appeal Anwar Ibrahim's acquittal in the Court of Appeal.

"I have to sent an official letter as there is no feedback for his open application to file the appeal. Time is winding down.

"The appeal is important as it involves my honour and dignity, and also my future. If I can file the appeal myself, I would have done so, without burdening others." - Malaysiakini, 20/1/2012, Saiful's last-ditch plea to AG to save his honour

It is learnt that this afternoon, 30 people from non-governmental organisation Jaringan Melayu Malaysia (JMM) had met with attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail to urge that a notice of appeal against Anwar’s acquittal be filed. - Malaysiakini, 20/1/2012, AG's Chambers files appeal against sodomy verdict

Hopefully, the decision to appeal was not a political decision - but one of law, i.e. a strong belief that the High Court judge had made a mistake...

Hopefully, the decision to appeal was not because of ego - but was motivated by justice. Sad today, not just in Malaysia but also some other countries, the worry is that public prosecutors are driven to win - not to ensure that justice is done. In the past, there have been even cases in England where the prosecutors even concealed facts and/or documents that were favourable to the accused persons. Remember that a public prosecutor must be motivated by justice - for a trial is not a competition between the prosecutors and the accused.

The judgment is not out yet - and the AG may, after reading the grounds of judgment, withdraw the appeal. Maybe, what they are doing now is just safeguarding the right to appeal - and we really should not jump to any conclusions as to the reasons they filed this appeal at this stage. We must wait...

22 December 2011 - the day the Senate passed the anti-worker amendments to the Employment Act 1955

2012-01-19T04:43:00.000+08:00

Well, on 22 December 2011, the last day of the Senate sitting, the Barisan Nasional government got the 'draconian' anti-worker anti-union Bill to amend the Employment Act 1955 passed....now it will go to the King for his approval and thereafter it will become law...

Anger and disappointment with the leadership of the Malaysian Trade Union Congress (MTUC) is because they failed to provide effective leadership and actions to stop these amendments which will now enable factories/plantations/workplaces to evade employment relationships with the workers that work for them.

Now this amendments will make 'labour suppliers' (contractors for labour/manpower outsourcing companies) into employers...The question now is whether the MTUC will just 'give up' on this struggle to retain employment relationships as it is...Will they gather hundreds of thousands of workers and petition the King... Will they still put pressure on Najib and his BN government not to start using this 'law' - or for the repeal of those draconian anti-worker anti-justice provisions...

MTUC represents more that 802,000 workers who are members of its member unions, and is also the representative of all workers in Malaysia in all negotiations with the Malaysian government and/or the ILO.

Of course, the fact of the amendment being approved by the Senate was 'down-played' and not given much media coverage ... and I too was not too certain whether it was passed or not.. (Extracts of the Hansard on 22/12/2011, where this matter was discussed from 11.40am and was passed by about 4.00pm...)

1140
RANG UNDANG-UNDANG
RANG UNDANG-UNDANG KERJA (PINDAAN) 2011
Bacaan Kali Yang Kedua dan Ketiga
11.41 pg.
Timbalan Menteri Sumber Manusia [Dato'Maznah Mazlan]: Terima kasih. Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya mohon mencadangkan supaya Rang Undang-undang Kerja (Pindaan) 2011 iaitu
satu rang undang-undang buruh utama yang mengawal hubungan antara majikan dan pekerja di sektor swasta serta mengandungi peruntukan-peruntukan mengenai hak-hak pekerja dan
standard-standard minimum pengajian dibacakan bagi kali yang kedua sekarang. .....

1600
[Tuan Yang di-Pertua mempengerusikan Mesyuarat]
Tuan Yang di-Pertua: Ahli-ahli Yang Berhormat, sebagaimana yang telah pun dipohon
untuk belah bahagian, penghitung telah membuat pengundian dan keputusannya adalah seperti
berikut:
Ahli-ahli yang bersetuju 36 undi... [Tepuk]
Ahli-ahli yang tidak bersetuju 8 undi.
Tuan Yang di-Pertua: Dalam perkara ini, izinkan saya memperingatkan. Sungguhpun
demokrasi dalam peraturan ada, saya merayu – sudah merayu pun. Selepas ini saya akan tegas
dalam keputusan saya. Sebagai Yang di-Pertua, keputusan muktamad adalah di tangan saya dan
saya harap Yang Berhormat semua akur dan patuh. Dalam persidangan ini saya cuba memberi
ruang. Jangan lupa bahawa sekarang ini jam pukul 4.02 petang. Kita ada lagi sembilan rang
undang-undang. Selepas ini kalau sistem yang saya cuba benarkan – nampaknya tidak dihiraukan,
tidak diambil berat bersama tanggungjawab. Majlis kita bersidang ini terpaksa kita sudahkan.
Malam tadi kita sudah tapi belah bahagian ini sudah satu trend nampaknya. Saya terima, saya
akur, patuh kepada peraturan tetapi fikirlah baik-baik apa faedahnya kepada kita.
DN 22.12.2011
66
Dalam suasana demikian, kita membuat keputusan begini hanya membuang masa. Inilah
contohnya... [Tepuk] Kepada Ahli Yang Berhormat...
Dr. Syed Husin Ali: [Bangun]
Tuan Yang di-Pertua: Tidak payah Yang Berhormat. Beri saya bercakap dahulu. Izinkan
saya bercakap dahulu. Bila saya bercakap ini, ini bukan emosi, tetapi untuk bersama-sama kita
bertanggungjawab cuba hendak menyelesaikan. Kita hari terakhir hari ini. Kita hanya tidak sampai
beberapa jam lagi dan kita buat keputusan tadi usulnya sampai habis. Sampai habis itu maknanya
tidak lebih daripada 12 tengah malam. Oleh demikian, saya teruskan.
Ahli-ahli Yang Berhormat, oleh kerana lebih suara yang bersetuju, maka rang undangundang
ini dibacakan kali yang kedua sekarang.
Rang undang-undang dibacakan kali yang kedua dan diserahkan kepada Dewan sebagai
Jawatankuasa.
Majlis bersidang dalam Jawatankuasa.
[Tuan Yang di-Pertua mempengerusikan Jawatankuasa]
Fasal-fasal dikemukakan kepada Jawatankuasa.
Fasal 1 hingga 33 diperintahkan jadi sebahagian daripada rang undang-undang.
Rang undang-undang dimaklumkan kepada Majlis sekarang.
Majlis Mesyuarat bersidang semula.
Rang undang-undang dilaporkan dengan tidak ada pindaan; dibacakan kali yang ketiga
dan diluluskan.

MTUC president, sec-gen to face no-confidence motion

2012-01-19T01:42:00.000+08:00

This is democracy - and when leaders fail to be seen to do their job in leading the struggle for rights, they will face the wrath of the membership...the 'ever-vigilante' membership who demands action - What is happening in the MTUC also happens at the Malaysian Bar - but sadly a similar attitude and reaction does not happen much at the level of local government or the State government or the Federal government... power must be vested with the people to be able to express disappointment and even the power to remove 'bad leaders'

Being confronted with a 'no-confidence motion' is not necessarily bad - but it is a clear indication that some of the members of MTUC - the workers want the MTUC to do more to protect their rights...

MTUC president, sec-gen to face no-confidence motion tomorrow

By Clara Chooi

January 17, 2012

SHAH ALAM, Jan 17 — The Malaysian Trades Union Congress (MTUC) is expected to debate a no-confidence motion tomorrow against its president and secretary-general for failing to affect a withdrawal of the controversial Employment Act, Sinar Harian reported today.

The Malay daily, however, said the controversy had forced the body to split into three factions, with each camp taking differing views on the motion.

But KTM Berhad Workers’ Union president Abdul Razak Md Hassan, who leads the faction in support of the motion, expressed confidence that it would gain enough votes to be passed.

MTUC is holding its general council meeting at its headquarters in Subang Jaya tomorrow morning.

“We will moot a no-confidence motion against the president and secretary-general as both have not played their roles effectively; as was entrusted to them. As a result of their disregard of the unions’ interests, we were defeated in the Employment Act issue.

“The MTUC leadership did not work hard enough,” Abdul Razak was quoted as saying in Sinar Harian.

MTUC president Khalid Atan and secretary-general Abdul Halim Mansor are facing flak from a number of union bodies for failing to convince the government to retract the Employment Act, which was passed in the Dewan Rakyat on October 6 last year and subsequently in the Dewan Negara on December 12.

The umbrella body of 390 labour unions representing 802,323 members has picketed several times against the labour law changes, including a nationwide protest on November 3 that the body said saw some 2,000 people taking part in 18 locations across the country.

It first protested against the amendments on October 3, drawing hundreds of workers to the gates of Parliament.- Malaysian Insider, 17/1/2012, MTUC president, sec-gen to face no-confidence motion tomorrow

Judges’ declaration of assets will enhance public confidence in Judiciary - but really this is insufficient to fight corruption

2012-01-16T20:56:00.000+08:00

Declaration of assets may be one of the steps towards ensuring the independence of the Judiciary..... and maybe it should also extend to immediate family members.

But, corruption has become creative today - and it takes on different forms.... appointment as a Director of a Company or a Commissioner or into some Board or another after retirement. Maybe, it also takes the form of employment as a highly paid Consultant in some law firm. The Malaysian Bar had called before for a 'cooling off' period of three years from the date of retirement but is this enough...

What really is the problem? I believe that the problem is the salary and pension - it is too low. I believe that when judges retire, their income be it from salary or other allowances should be maintained as their pension, with maybe a steady increment thereafter to reflect inflation and increased cost of living. Note that today, judges many a times do not even receive 50% of their last drawn salary - because their pension is calculated using another formula, which takes into account the number of months they sat as judges. This is not right.

Below the Bar's statement:-

Press Release

Judges’ declaration of assets will enhance public confidence in Judiciary

The Malaysian Bar applauds the Chief Justice’s announcement that superior court judges will be required to declare their assets, as well as his reminder to judges to uphold the independence of the Judiciary and reject interference of any kind.

The involvement of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (“MACC”), a third party, will enhance the perception of impartiality in the verification of the declaration of assets.

These are important steps towards increasing public confidence in the Judiciary, which the Bar supports.

Lim Chee Wee
President
Malaysian Bar

16 Jan 2012

Revoke the 3 semester suspension against Adam Adli for replacing the 'Najib' flag with the academic freedom flag for a few minutes..

2012-01-10T18:15:00.000+08:00

Adam Adli - what did he do? Well, when the students went to hand over a protest memorandum to the Deputy Higher Education Minister on academic freedom, Adam Adli also decided to lower a clothe bearing Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak's face that was hanging on a flagpole and replace it with the 'academic freedom' flag. Within 5 minutes, apparently the Najib flag was again up the pole - and for this he was suspended for 3 semesters by his University.

Note this was not the Malaysian flag - not the BN flag - not the UMNO flag even but a 'Najib flag' - looking at some pictures, I believe there was a few other flags bearing the images of past Prime Ministers. Was there any flag bearing the image of the King...flying higher than this image of the PM or even at the same level? I wonder whether these flags bearing images of the PMs is also something that is right and acceptable from the point of view of principles, values and even the law? What do you think?

Adam Adli was exercising his freedom of expression...freedom of opinion - wonder even the bringing down of this Najib's flag would even give rise to a possible charge of Sedition - I believe not. So, why now is he being suspended for 3 semesters - it is wrong. If he had broken the law or even a 'university rule', then worse case scenario may be a fine or a reprimand - never a suspension of his studies in this manner. Malaysians are mature enough to be able to appreciate that this was nothing more than an act of free expression at most... and the thing with expressions and opinions is that there will be those that agree with you and those that disagree with you - certainly not an act that warrants a retaliation by an institute of higher learning by the imposition of suspension not just for a few days or weeks but for 3 whole semester.

Was the flag damaged...burned...no, it was not since he climbed the pole again in a few minutes.

Hence, I call for the said University to immediately review and revoke the said suspension of this 22 year old young student.

Is Najib demanding an apology? I have not seen or heard that he was... so is not the university going overboard? Is the police and the AG pursuing the matter? I believe not.. so why is the university doing so.

The government and Najib says that it is for freedom of expression and assembly - and that is also the reason they said why they have pushed for a Peaceful Assembly Act - so, is not the suspension of this student contrary to the current government's position...

I do not know what the charge the university levied against the said student - may be interesting to see the exact wording...but it is all so absurd. We are talking about a student - not even a civil servant or even a military personnel. In Malaysia, a 22-year old university student is treated like a 'child' not even having the ability to campaign in general elections, let alone stand as a candidate for MP or ADUN. So, again I say - suspension is wrong. Reprimand if need be - or being a 'child' just ground him by sending him off to his room without dinner - not destroy his education and future...

The 22-year-old Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI) student, Adam Adli Abdul Halim, who lowered a flag depicting Najib Abdul Razak at the Umno headquarters at the Putra World Trade Centre, said he would not apologise to the prime minister for his actions.

Telling Sinar Harian in an exclusive interview today, Adam said his actions were to drive a point that the present situation in the country was getting worse and hoped his actions would create awareness.

“I will never apologise (to the prime minister). Since the thing had happened till today, now I am asked to apologise. I will never do that. How about my friends and the struggle? ” he asked.

“I do not want my friends to be demoralised if I apologise.

"It is not that I will never apologise at all, as maybe someday I may have to say sorry to some people for my actions,” he said when asked whether he will apologise to the prime minister.

Adam (left) said he wanted to convey the message that university students should not be afraid as they are aware that discrimination and mismanagement do exist.

“Why should university students be afraid of those whom we have elected. They should work for us. Do not be afraid to criticise our leaders, no matter who they are.

“I do not want university students to be aggressive in their protests but be creative,” he said, adding that he is prepared to face any repercussion.

Tracing back the moments that led him to lower Najib's flag, Adam said that while the memorandum was being handed to Deputy Higher Education Minister Saifuddin Abdullah, the situation was getting dull as the students marched from the Malaysian Human Rights Commission, and only Saifuddin had agreed to meet them at PWTC.

Adam said he felt there was no desired impact with the handover of the memorandum as they marched And pictures were taken.

“All that was insufficient as we have been shouting academic freedom along the way and we only shook hands with the deputy minister and took pictures.

“For me that is insufficient and I decided to take our flag and lower down Najib's flag and replace it with the academic freedom flag.

“Some students who saw this shouted victory. I felt that victory was not in managing to meet a deputy minister but to make a strong statement,” he said.

The student said his parents supported his actions and it was not right to label him and his family as opposition sympathisers.

Meanwhile, the paper also reported that Adam’s father had sought PKR Youth’s help protect his son who had received various threats following his action.

“It has become a serious issue and Adam has also lodged a police report at the Tanjung Malim police station. I hope police would do the necessary to protect him,” said PKR Youth chief Shamsul Iskandar Mohd Akin.- Malaysiakini, 22/12/2011, Adam: I will not apologise to the prime minister

Live telecast of Parliamentary proceedings - if not TV then at least through radio

2012-01-10T17:20:00.000+08:00

When will this happen - so that we really will be able to follow what is happening in Parliament.

There is no need for editing ...or interviews...or even commentary - just transmit the CCTV recordings, which is now available in the lobby and canteen in the Parliament building straight to the homes of Malaysians - to their TV (and if not their radio sets).

We have a right to see (or at least hear for ourselves) what is happening in Parliament - that will allow us to see if our MP is even present in the Dewan, and whether he is participating in the debate. Is he/she asking questions or making good points for and on our behalf.... They make a lot of promises to get voted - and then there is silence ....

It is sad that parliamentary reports in the media is so lacking in quantity and quality - and most of the time we only get what the government is saying.. We are really more interested in the debate - the points for and against and the decisions...

Why are Malaysians being deprived of this basic right - why are we being kept in the dark?

Will a new alternative government be any different - we must make sure that it is... and that they will be open and transparent with the people.

Can the Pakatan Rakyat and the Opposition parties promise that we will get live coverage once they voted into power?

Of Adam Adli and the UCCA

2012-01-10T17:11:00.000+08:00

Press Statement: 10 January 2012

Government must Repeal the UUCA Now!

Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) condemns the suspension of student activist Adam Adli by the University Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI). He has been suspended for three semesters, amounting to a total of 18 months over charges of damaging the reputation of Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI).

Adam’s disciplinary action was taken under the infamous Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 (UUCA) in reaction towards his act of lowering a flag bearing Prime Minister Najib Razak’s portrait to replace it with a flag which bears the words “Academic Freedom”. The UUCA restricts students from participating or getting involved in any political or human rights related activities. SUARAM views that the suspension of Adam Adli is a violation of freedom of expression and is politically motivated with the intention to use his case to serve as a warning for other students who may be involved or intend to get involved in the academic freedom movement. The incident reflects on the lack of freedom and independence by the students in expressing their view without prejudice and fear.

SUARAM views this development as a serious concern to the development of human rights in Malaysia. The recommendation to suspend Adam reflects the practice of selective punishment on university campuses. There is a double standard which insists that one can protest to support the university to take action against Adam but one cannot voice disagreement on university policies or to defend academic freedom in the campus. This gross injustice undermines the fundamental values of academic freedom, critical thinking, and freedom from discrimination, all of which are presumably the hallmark of higher learning and democratic society.

SUARAM calls upon the Chancellor of UPSI to withdraw this unjust decision and to restore the integrity of the academy. The Chancellor of UPSI should be mindful that this decision will establish the university’s reputation as the university that silences dissent and represses student activism. We also call for an end to the continued harassment, threats and intimidation against student activists, which became apparent after a recent student-led protest.

We also urge the government to repeal the UUCA and recognise students’ right to participate in the democratic processes and any right guaranteed to all under the Malaysian Constitution.

Released by,

Nalini.E

Program Manager

SUARAM

Background

On 17 December 2011, Adam Adli a second-year student at Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI) had lowered a flag bearing Prime Minister Najib Razak’s portrait to replace it with a flag which bears the words “Academic Freedom”. Reports stated that the protest flag was raised for five minutes, taken down and the flag with the PM's face was raised again. Many UMNO supporters denounced the action, targeting their fierce criticism at Adam. Since then, Adam has been attacked and threatened by some group of individuals via SMS, phone calls and videos.

On 19 December 2011, Adam lodged a police report at the Bukit Aman police headquarters with regards to the said harassment including threats to his personal safety. After speaking to police officials about the harassment, he held a press conference at the entrance to the Bukit Aman headquarters. A minor scuffle broke out, during which an unidentified man who later introduced himself to be Ruslan Mokhtar, tried to punch Adam. Adam suspected that the assailant was a plainclothes policeman who was present when Adam met with the police officers earlier. He also noted that none of the uniformed personnel tried to break the scuffle.

He lodged a report with the Tun HS Lee police station in regard to the scuffle as well as the harassment he and his family in Penang are facing.

On 9 January 2012, he was suspended for 18 months by the university administration.

Anwar not guilty - what about compensation for innocent persons dragged through the criminal justice system?

2012-01-09T18:00:00.000+08:00

Anwar Ibrahim has been acquitted - he is not guilty. Remember that all persons are innocent until proven guilty....it is sad that there are some reports (or news titles) that seem to imply that it is not that he is innocent but that there was insufficient evidence to convict and, this, I believe, is very wrong.

Looking at the evidence adduced in court by the prosecution in this case, one wonders whether he should have been charged at all in the first place -- remember, the prosecution has a duty to thoroughly investigate and evaluate the evidence that they have, and only if there is sufficient evidence for a conviction (according to the prosecution) should they charge any person in court. The court process should not be used as a tool of 'punishment' when they themselves know that there is insufficient evidence to satisfy the 'beyond reasonable doubt' test.

Now, let us talk about compensation for victims of the criminal justice system. Should they not be compensated? I believe that they should be compensated for their losses - not just for their legal expenses but also for the sufferings they had to endure. More so, when they have been incarcerated (in detention), resulting in loss of liberty. We still do not have this in Malaysia - but it is time that we do have some form of criminal compensation, which may be nominal fair sum not excessive, which will compensate victims of the criminal justice system.

Is the acquittal evidence that the Malaysian judiciary is independent? No, we cannot say so just based on one case - maybe it was just the judge who acted justly. There is more that is needed before the Malaysian judiciary will be perceived as just and independent by many....

There is still much to be done to ensure strengthen the independence of the Malaysian judiciary...(1) the selection process; (2) increment of judges salary and pensions; (3) restraining the use of transfer and elevation as tools of 'controlling' judges; (4) removal of this 'probation judge' system - i.e. now persons are appointed first as Judicial Commissioners for a short term before they may or may not be elevated as judges - they should be directly appointed as judges (remember security of tenure is one of the tools to ensure independence); (5) the 'cooling off period' & higher retirement benefits to judges so that they would not have to worry about money - or getting appointed as some other Commissioners or Directors...

Anwar is acquitted - but should we now go after the alleged victim? The answer is 'No' - for we do not want victims to be scared to lodge police reports and other complaints against persons...That is their right. We all know when it comes to cases of rape and other sexual offences, many a time the victims are just to afraid to come forward to lodge complaints and this is not what we want.

It is done - Anwar has been acquitted, and as such he is innocent, and that is that - it is how the law works and no one will be convicted unless the prosecution is able to proof the allegation 'beyond reasonable doubt'. In this case, I wonder why the Judge was reported as saying:-

Justice Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah said that after going through the evidence, the court could not be 100% certain the integrity of the DNA samples was not compromised....- Star, 9/1/2012, Sodomy II: Anwar acquitted

I wonder why he said this, i.e. could not be '100% certain..' when requirement clearly was less that 100% certainty but just 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Was this statement made to provide the prosecution with a reason to appeal? This is my opinion. But note, we have to look at the final grounds of judgment to really know what the judge said...This we have to wait. Maybe, what he said was mis-reported - this could also be the case.

Let us start lobbying for compensation for accused persons who at the end of the day is found not guilty. This would certainly improve the criminal justice system and stop the police/prosecutors from simply charging people without first doing a thorough investigation and ensuring that there is sufficient credible evidence before they do charge and drag innocent persons through the criminal justice system.

Enough of BN - time for an alternative government

2012-01-07T17:26:00.000+08:00

Let's us not forget that the primary goal is to end the rule of the Barisan Nasional in Malaysia - it is time for us to have an alternative government formed by the Opposition political parties...

Let's us also be clear that many Malaysians only take the position of being pro-BN or anti-BN....

One argument against ending the BN rule was that our Malaysian Opposition parties just did not have the capacity to govern...to rule... only to be Opposition..BUT now after 2008, we have clear proof that the Opposition parties have the capacity to rule and govern effectively States like Penang, Kedah, Selangor... (despite attempts of 'sabotage' by the BN Federal in the form of money flow, etc ... to States, etc). Kelantan has long been effectively governed by the Opposition but many considered it as 'insufficient' proof of the capacity to govern. Today - it has been proven.

Do we have to worry about who will be the 'new' Prime Minister now if and when Barisan Nasional is defeated - I think not. Should Anwar be the Prime Minister? Should it be Hadi? Should it be Kit Siang? Should it be N Surendran? Again, I say it is not the time to think of such things.... Let Barisan Nasional be defeated first - and then we will decide on who will the PM. (Remember also that a 'bad' PM can at any time be removed - i.e. the moment he loses the confidence of the majority of MPs....)

* Personally, I believe that even when the Opposition wins, maybe it be best that their existing leadership, be it Anwar, Hadi or Kit Siang or others not be the new Prime Minister - I am sure that there will be other more acceptable choices...Remember, what we want is the promised reforms - so hopefully the Opposition parties or personalities understand this and it is not about who gets to be PM?

Malaysian Bar: Government’s respect for the constitutional right of freedom of assembly is welcomed

2012-01-07T17:06:00.000+08:00

Press Release: Government’s respect for the constitutional right of freedom of assembly is welcomed

Friday, 06 January 2012 04:29pm

The Malaysian Bar welcomes the recent announcement, by the Minister of Home Affairs and the Inspector General of Police, that the Government will allow and facilitate the proposed assembly on 9 January 2012 in connection with the decision of the trial for sodomy of Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim. Today’s statement by the Kuala Lumpur police chief that the proposed gathering can be held at the car park of the Kuala Lumpur Court Complex is also commendable.

This approach reflects a positive change in the mindset of the Government, and is an outlook that the Malaysian Bar hopes will continue and be expanded further. It is crucial that the Government learns from its past mistakes in responding to public assemblies, and clearly acknowledges that the rakyat’s desire to exercise the fundamental freedom of assembly guaranteed under the Federal Constitution must be recognised and respected.

The announcements reflect a correct understanding of the law – that protesting against a court decision, in itself, is not wrong, nor tantamount to contempt of court. Subject to a restriction described below, assembling in anticipation of a court decision is also not wrong. In other words, the courts themselves do not prohibit expression of discontent or objection against their decisions.

As Lord Atkin so eloquently said in Ambard v Attorney-General for Trinidad and Tobago [1936] AC 322, at page 355:

… whether the authority and position of an individual judge, or the due administration of justice, is concerned, no wrong is committed by any member of the public who exercises the ordinary right of criticising, in good faith, in private or public, the public act done in the seat of justice. The path of criticism is a public way: the wrong headed are permitted to err therein: provided that members of the public abstain from imputing improper motives to those taking part in the administration of justice, and are genuinely exercising a right of criticism, and not acting in malice or attempting to impair the administration of justice, they are immune. Justice is not a cloistered virtue: she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of ordinary men.

Hence, where criticism against a court decision is malicious, ascribes improper motive or impairs the administration of justice, then it may amount to contempt of court for scandalising the court. However, courts these days rarely, if ever, wield their powers in this manner, for the simple reason that they recognise the need for freedom of expression and that upholding such freedom serves the greater good.

In respect of the argument that a rally may constitute undue and illegal pressure on the Judiciary, professional judges – who decide on law and facts, as opposed to a jury system – must not be influenced by any external pressure, whether by way of demonstration, executive influence or criticism, when discharging their judicial duty. The Malaysian Bar is confident that our Judiciary will remain steadfast, and be indifferent to the proposed public gathering.

In Attorney-General v Times Newspapers Ltd [1974] AC 273, at page 301, Lord Reid examined the pressure that publication of comments of court decisions may impose on the Judiciary and said:

But I must add to prevent misunderstanding that comment where a case is under appeal is a very different matter. For one thing it is scarcely possible to imagine a case where comment could influence judges in the Court of Appeal or noble and learned Lords in this House. And it would be wrong and contrary to existing practice to limit proper criticism of judgments already given but under appeal.

The Malaysian Bar therefore calls on the Government, police and other law enforcement agencies to work together with the organisers of any proposed assemblies on 9 January 2012, to ensure that the rakyat’s constitutional right to peaceful assembly will be honoured, protected and upheld.

Lim Chee Wee

President

Malaysian Bar

6 January 2012

SUHAKAM: THE RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE AND THE SAFETY OF ALL PEOPLE MUST BE SAFEGUARDED

2012-01-07T17:01:00.000+08:00

PRESS STATEMENT

THE RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE AND THE SAFETY OF ALL PEOPLE MUST BE SAFEGUARDED

The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (the Commission) welcomes the efforts taken by the Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Ismail Omar to initiate a dialogue between the Police and the organisers of the planned assembly of 9th January 2012. The Commission has on several occasions called upon the authorities to allow and to facilitate the right of the people to exercise their right of public assembly. The willingness of the Police to facilitate and ensure an orderly and peaceful assembly is therefore applauded and supported by the Commission. Such facilitation will ensure the exercise of the right to assemble without jeopardising the rights of others to conduct their daily lives and affairs with minimum disruption. In this regard, if required, the Commission is willing to offer its assistance, as a neutral and impartial body, at the dialogue to faciliate an orderly and peaceful assembly on 9th January.

The Commission also wishes to reiterate its stand that while it acknowledges that peace and stability are paramount and that public order needs to be maintained at all times, it is also of the view that public assemblies provide an avenue for the public to express themselves on issues that are of concern. These rights are provided for under Article 10(1)(b) of the Federal Constitution and Article 20(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), and Article 19 of the UDHR on freedom of expression.

Nonetheless, in the demand for democracy, the Commission urges all parties to exercise their rights responsibly in ensuring that peace and safety of all involved are safeguarded and importantly, that the rights of other people who are indirectly involved must also be respected and protected. In this regard, the Commission looks forward to the Government’s continued support and commitment towards the protection and promotion of human rights.

“HUMAN RIGHTS FOR ALL”

TAN SRI HASMY AGAM
Chairman
The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM)

5/1/2012

Sad news as Senate passes Peaceful Assembly Bill - now all up to the King

2011-12-21T13:18:00.000+08:00

KEMPEN KEBEBASAN BERHIMPUN

Press Statement: 21 December 2011

Passing of the PA Bill 2011: 10 steps backwards and against the Fundamental Liberties!

The committee of Campaign for Freedom to Assemble strongly condemns the passage of the Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011 by the Senate yesterday. We comprised of 30 over Civil Society groups and individuals are disappointed at the passage of the bill despite protests from civil society groups from around the country and internationally. The passage of the Bill is now a foregone conclusion and it is expected to become law by next year after the Yang di-Pertuan Agong signs it and it gets gazetted.

The Bill is Politically Motivated

The hotly contested Bill was first tabled at parliament on the 22^nd of November 2011 at the Dewan Rakyat (House of Representative) and then the bill was passed by the House on the 29^th of November. Presently, the bill has just been passed by the Senate with only a day of debate.

The Bill was meant to replace Section 27 of Police Act that governed the need for a police permit to hold any assemblies, meetings and processions. Although the bill which has been passed in the Senate is the amended version; it still bans street protests, there is no room for spontaneous protest, there is a prohibition for non-citizens and citizens under 21 years of age to assemble peacefully, there is a conditional access to media for public gatherings, and it provides a wide range of power to the police.

This new Peaceful Assembly Bill will pose a threat to democracy. The limitation of the right to freedom of assembly is unreasonable and unjustifiable in a democratic society. The move by the government of Malaysia is fully politically motivated and is ten steps backwards in terms of human rights. This is an outright disgrace for the Malaysia government despite being a member of the UN Human Rights Council.

UN Experts Condemn the Bill!

The Bill also came under fire by a group of United Nations independent experts who warned that a new Peaceful Assembly Bill in Malaysia may “arbitrarily and disproportionately restrict the right to assemble peacefully”.

The Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, Maina Kiai, expressed his deep regret that “neither the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM), nor civil society was meaningfully consulted in the drafting of this Bill.” He also claimed that many of these restrictions are not justifiable under international law. The UN Experts warned the government of Malaysia and stressed their position that, under international human rights law, “everyone” has the right to freedom of assembly and association, without distinction of any kind, including nationality, and appeal to the Government of Malaysia to urgently review the Bill to ensure its compliance with fundamental human rights.

Withdraw the Bill Immediately and repeal Section 27 of Police Act!

The BN/UMNO government has used its Parliamentary majority to force through a bad law that risks doing more harm than good. It sets a worrying precedent for this Parliament. The Bill is constitutionally inconsistent as well as being illiberal. It has also codified the recent approach of the government towards demonizing peaceful assemblies (such as by reference to the rights of third parties).

Malaysia’s Senate should have shown leadership and upheld the rights of all in Malaysia by rejecting this reprehensible bill. If the bill becomes law, this measure would put a wide range of people at risk of criminal sanctions for exercising their basic rights. This includes ordinary citizens with legitimate reasons to protest, students, indigenous peoples opposing land encroachment, and workers, as well as human rights defenders and their friends, families and colleagues.

We are concerned about the repercussion of these proposed legislative changes on the work of Malaysian NGOs, civil society groups, political parties and citizens. The new proposed legislation while recognising the need for peaceful assembly merely acts to further limit this fundamental right.

We hereby urge the government to adopt the recommendations made by SUHAKAM in its 2001 special report on ‘Freedom of Assembly’ to the Parliament. In the report, SUHAKAM proposed several noteworthy recommendations based on the findings and best practices in other countries and through various discussions with the police and other interested parties.

We oppose the Bill and urge the government to withdraw the Bill immediately. We also urge the government to remove restrictions under the Section 27A of the Police Act and Penal Code and establish an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) as per the recommendations made by the 2005 Royal Commission on Policing without further delay.

Please contact Miss Nalini at 03 77843525 or 019 3758912 for any queries.

Released by,

SUARAM

Secretariat of the Campaign for the Freedom to Assemble

Happy Human Rights Day & Congrats to Tijah and SUARAM

2011-12-10T18:56:00.000+08:00

Congrats to Tijah and SUARAM, the recipients of SUHAKAM's 2011 Human Rights Awards... and continue to struggle for human rights all you the many other Human Rights Defenders in Malaysia, some who have been involved in the struggle for over 30-40 years, many of whom are media-shy and do their work for human rights without fear or favour sacrificing their own time, effort and even money...Syabas...

M'sia 'lagging far behind' Indonesia on human rights

6:05PM Dec 10, 2011

The Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) today proposed that parliamentary select committees give more focused and informed consideration to basic rights issues.

Suhakam chairman Hasmy Agam said this would bolster parliamentary democracy in the country.

"Every policy or law being formulated in the interest of the country must not only comply with the provisions in the Federal Constitution but also universal principles and human basic rights norms," he said at the inaugural Basic Human Rights Award 2011 presentation ceremony.

"The voice of the people must be acknowledged and accorded priority, regardless of whether they are government or opposition supporters, when drafting policies and implementing certain programmes, particularly with regard to women, children, senior citizens and the Orang Asli in the peninsula and natives in Sabah and Sarawak," he stressed.

Suaram honoured with award

He said Malaysia should be a forerunner among Asean nations in upholding basic human rights.

"Malaysia is lagging far behind in the aspect of human rights compared to other countries like Indonesia although we are progressing fast economically," he said.

Meanwhile, the Special Award went to Integrity School (a school of six set up within a prison for juvenile offenders based in Kajang, Kluang, Marang, Sungai Petani, Kota Kinabalu and Kuching).

Suara Rakyat Malaysia (Suaram) received the award in the Organisation Category and Tijah Yok Chopil of the Semai Orang Asli, in the Individual Category.

A ‘Young Maid for Sale’ report of ntv7's Mandarin version of ‘Edisi Siasat’ hosted by Kong Lik Hwan won in the Media Category.

- Bernama - Malaysiakini, 10/12/2011, M'sia 'lagging far behind' Indonesia on human rights

TIJAH Yok Chopil is one of the most important voices of the Orang Asli.

TIJAH still remembers her first day of school in 1976. The traumatic events that unfolded that day are etched in her memory. Her reflections of those events and subsequent experiences made her into what she is today.
That day, the orang asli children of Kampung Chang in Perak were bussed out of their settlement to be schooled in a national school in Bidor town, some 30 minutes away.

“When we got down from the bus all the other kids looked at us like we were aliens. They were afraid of us and we were afraid of them. Then they jeered and teased us. We felt so ashamed,” recalls Tijah who was eight then and now is in her early 40s.

Subsequent negative experiences with people outside of her community made her ask why her people were so alienated in the country that ironically, recognised them as the “original people” or orang asli.

Preserving her identity: Tijah Yok Chopil has worked tirelessly to empower and unite the orang asli community.

“I realised the answer is not to run and hide but to stand our ground, to unite to empower ourselves and to explain to the outside world who we are.”

With 18 diverse ethnic groups numbering 150,000, Tijah has the challenge of empowering and uniting the orang asli to speak in one voice. She started with the people closest to her – her family and community.

At 17, she started teaching her siblings and neighbours’ kids to read and write. Due to the many negative experiences in school, and having no money to buy food or books, many orang asli children dropped out of school. But through sheer effort and determination, Tijah managed to continue schooling despite having to help her mother farm and tap rubber to support her nine siblings when her father died when she was only 12.

As a result of her classes, which eventually included adults, almost no one in her village is illiterate today. Tijah also began to join discussions with orang asli leaders on the problems besetting the community. But she realised soon enough that the menfolk could not accept a young, vocal woman who speaks her mind.

“I found the men who claimed to be our leaders were not really engaging with the community or finding creative ways to solve our problems. So instead of waiting for them, I decided to start my own group. I decided to engage with the womenfolk and we called ourselves Kumpulan Ibu-Ibu Kampung Chang (Kampung Chang’s Women’s Group).

“After many years, the young people who had been my students and the womenfolk became my strong allies. They helped me organise the community when there are land incursions or when we need to voice our demands to the government.”

The men eventually joined the women in the village and together they changed the name of the group to Sinui Pai Nanuk Sngik (SPNS), which means New Life, One Heart in 1995. Through this organisation, they ran classes and workshops for the community on activities ranging from weaving baskets to paralegal training on land rights.

From those humble beginnings, the SPNS model spread to other villages. Over the years it became a network linking five states in Peninsular Malaysia and SPNS evolved to what is now known as the Village Network of Peninsular Malaysia Orang Asli. (Jaringan Kampung Orang Asli Semenanjung Malaysia).

The Village Network has over the years become a powerful force in voicing for orang asli rights. Through their collective efforts, they managed to stave off several threats of land incursions into their native customary territories. Their latest struggle is to protest against the new land policy that was approved without consultation with the orang asli grassroots by the National Land Council last December.

The title of the policy – “Policy of Awarding Land Titles” – is in itself misleading and offensive to the orang asli, says Tijah. “It assumes that the orang asli have no land ... but we have been here from the beginning. All we need is the Government to recognise our customary land territories. We don’t need the Government to sympathise with us or to give us what we already have.”

Most of the orang asli were unaware of the Policy and Tijah took it upon herself to inform the community throughout Peninsular Malaysia. Together with the members of the Village Network, they went on a roadtrip to inform and gather the opinions of the grassroots.

“We found that all of us are very angry about the policy, and we wanted to express our feelings to the Government. So that’s where the protest came about. We managed to organise 3,000 people from all over the country to demonstrate at Putrajaya. This is the first time in Malaysian history that so many orang asli have come together in a show of strength to protest a government policy.”

The Village Network is facing its biggest challenge yet as penetration into orang asli territory is growing aggressive. – Wild Asia

Heroes

BOTH Tijah Yok Chopil and the Persatuan Prihatin Konservasi, Kebudayaan, Sosial dan Kebajikan Lubok Bongor have been nominated as Wild Asia Heroes in recognition of their efforts to promote sustainable practices and empower local communities. Short films on the heroes will be screened on Oct 17 during the Eco Film Fest at Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur. For details, go to wildasia.org and ecoknights.com. - Star, 28/9/2010, A Semai woman overcomes all odds

Bar Council's Human Rights Programme 2.00pm, 10/12/2011 - Admission is free

2011-12-10T00:37:00.000+08:00

Bar Council Human Rights Committee Celebrates Human Rights Day 2011

Wednesday, 07 December 2011 08:11am

Date: 10 Dec 2011 (Saturday)

Time: 2:00 pm to 7:30 pm

Venue: Auditorium, Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee, Level 10, Wisma Kraftangan, No 9 Jalan Tun Perak, 50050 Kuala Lumpur

Human Rights Day 2011 is just around the corner. For this year’s celebration, the Bar Council Human Rights Committee (”BCHRC”) is organising a programme that focuses on two issues.

The first part will take a look at the use of death penalty in Malaysia and the impact on society, through a forum on the death penalty, and the screening of the documentary film “Death in Dilemma: The Final Curtain”, directed by Seira Sacha Abu Bakar and Khaizan Sharizad Ab Razak Dali (Sherrie), members of BCHRC.

The second part will focus on participatory democracy and the need for society to get involved, through #IdolaDemokrasi Gameshop — An Experience in Malaysia’s Democracy and Citizen Action. The Gameshop will be conducted by Edmund Bon, human rights lawyer.

Admission is free. For more details or to register, please contact Adi Irman ( 03-2050 2102 ) or Adilah Ariffin ( 03-2050 2091 ; adilah@malaysianbar.org.my)

A candle light vigil at Dataran Merdeka at 8pm on 10th Dec, Human Rights Day

2011-12-10T00:34:00.000+08:00

Well, it looks like we will be having candle light vigil this HR Day

Each year we see the rights of Malaysians stripped away.

In 2011, we have been faced with so many violations of our rights and have seen much injustice served. Some of these faced by us, the rakyat of Malaysia, include no justice for Teoh Beng Hock, Aleesha Farhana & Ahmad Sarbani, the “illegalisation” of Bersih 2.0 and victimisation of the EO6, the outrageous Malaysia-Australia Refugee Swap Deal, the environmental nightmare of Lynas, the banning of Seksualiti Merdeka and, of course, the most recent, the Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011. In spite of all these happenings, the rakyat has shown great spirit in speaking up for their rights.

In conjunction with Human Rights Day 2011, UndiMsia! would like to invite you to join us to celebrate and reclaim our rights.

Let us come together this Saturday (10th Dec) 8pm at Dataran Merdeka for a candlelight vigil.

Spread the word. Bring a friend and some candles!

The people united will never be defeated.

UN: Malaysia: new Bill threatens right to peaceful assembly with arbitrary and disproportional restrictions

2011-12-08T19:11:00.000+08:00

Malaysia: new Bill threatens right to peaceful assembly with arbitrary and disproportional restrictions

Thursday, 08 December 2011 09:02am

GENEVA (7 December 2011) – A group of United Nations independent experts warned that a new Peaceful Assembly Bill in Malaysia may “arbitrarily and disproportionately restrict the right to assemble peacefully.” The restrictions range from a ban on street protests and a prohibition on non-citizens and citizens under 21 years of age to assemble peacefully, to conditional access for media to public gatherings.

“Many of these restrictions are not justifiable under international law,” said the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, Maina Kiai, expressing his deep regret that “neither the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM), nor civil society was meaningfully consulted in the drafting of this Bill.”

According to the proposed legislation, which contains a vague definition of assembly, there would also be broad restrictions and conditions on gatherings and a restrictive notification procedure. The Bill gives excessive authority and power to law enforcement officials and the Minister in charge of home affairs on matters related to assemblies, as well as full discretion to the police to make any form of recording of assemblies.

“The right to assemble and protest peacefully is an essential safeguard for the defence of human rights and fundamental freedoms in any pluralistic society,” said the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders, Margaret Sekaggya. “I am particularly alarmed by the provision prohibiting citizens under 21 years of age to assemble. Political and social participation through peaceful protests are not only an educational experience for children, youth and students but also an investment for society as a whole.”

The Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of expression, Frank La Rue, urged the Government of Malaysia to seriously reconsider the adoption of the bill, which would contravene international human rights standards. “The ability of all individuals to express themselves freely, including in the form of peaceful assemblies, is a litmus test for the level of democracy in any country,” he said recalling a previous call of concern on the Government’s response to the Bersih 2.0 demonstrations in November.*

“Under international human rights law, ‘everyone’ has the right to freedom of assembly and association, without distinction of any kind, including nationality,” said the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, François Crépeau. “I am deeply concerned at the provision of the draft law which prohibits non-citizens to organize or participate in a peaceful assembly. I appeal to the Government of Malaysia to urgently review the Bill to ensure its compliance with fundamental human rights.”

The group of UN independent experts warned that “with this legislation, people in Malaysia may not be able to express their dissent in public spaces without fear of being detained or sanctioned.”

(*) “Malaysia: Government risks undermining democratic progress, say UN experts”

ENDS

Thai Union leader and labour activist for exercising right of peaceful assembly - Let us campaign for an end of State persecution of HR Defenders

2011-12-08T18:36:00.000+08:00



Cet appel sera publié dans la section française de note site web dans quelques jours: www.frontlinedefenders.org/fr
Este llamamiento será publicado en breve en la versión española de nuestra página web: www.frontlinedefenders.org/es
Данное сообщение сейчас переводится и появится на русскоязычной версии сайта через несколько дней www.frontlinedefenders.org/ru
سيتم ترجمة هذه المناشدة وستظهر في القسم العربي من موقعنا الالكتروني خلال بضعة ايام
www.frontlinedefenders.org/ar

7 December 2011

Re: Thailand – Human rights defenders Jittra Kotchadej, Boonrod Paiwong, and Soonthorn Boonyord to appear in pre-trial hearing on 23 December

Human rights defenders Ms Jittra Kotchadej, Ms Boonrod Paiwong, and Mr Soonthorn Boonyord are due to appear in a pre-trial hearing on 23 December 2011 to decide on the dates of their trial. The human rights defenders are officially charged under Section 215 and 216 of the Criminal Code for leading and organising a peaceful assembly in front of the Parliament House in Bangkok. Jittra Kotchadej is an adviser of the Triumph International Labour Union. Boonrod Paiwong is the former Secretary-General of the Triumph International Labour Union. Soonthorn Boonyord is a labour activist affiliated with the National Congress of Thai Labour. Each of them could face a maximum jail term of five years and/or each be fined up to 10,000 baht (USD 325).

On 27 August 2009, the Triumph International Labour Union organised a demonstration to follow up on the government's promise to find a remedy for 2,000 workers who were dismissed by Triumph International factories. The members of the Labour Union had earlier met with the secretary of then Prime Minister Abhisit Vejajiva, who promised that he would look into the dismissal. The demonstration consisted of around 400 women labour activists from the Triumph International Labour Union, the Electronic and Mechanic Labour Union, and the World Garment Factory Labour Union, as well as human rights defenders from non-governmental organisations working on labour rights.

When the workers arrived at the Government House, no government official came out to talk to them so they moved to the parliament and received the same treatment. In response to their peaceful demonstration, the police used Long Range Acoustic Devices (LRAD) as a means to forcefully disperse the demonstration. Many of the labour activists were later diagnosed with ear problems as a result of the usage of the LRAD machine by the police.

On 27 January 2011, the public prosecutor officially charged Jittra Kotchadej, Boonrod Paiwong, and Soonthorn Boonyord. They submitted assets worth 200,000 Thai Baht (USD 6,490) each as a guarantee in order to be granted bail. All three human rights defenders had submitted assets worth 100,000 Thai Baht (USD 3,245) each after the police at Dusit Precinct issued arrest warrants against them.

The human rights defenders are charged under Section 215 and 216 of the Criminal Code. Section 215 states that “If the offender is leading an act [which threatens violence or to cause a breach of peace], he/she shall be punished for the maximum of five years imprisonment or fined not exceeding ten thousands baht or both”. Section 216 states that “[w]hen an official orders any person assembled under section 215 to disperse and such person does not disperse, he/she shall be imprisoned for the maximum of three years or fined for the maximum of six thousands baht or both”.

Front Line believes that the charges against Jittra Kotchadej, Boonrod Paiwong, and Soonthorn Boonyord are directly related to their work in the defence of human rights, in particular in demanding compensation for the 2,000 workers who were dismissed from their work.

Front Line urges the authorities in Thailand to:

Immediately drop all charges against Jittra Kotchadej, Boonrod Paiwong, and Soonthorn Boonyord as it is believed that they are solely motivated by the human rights defenders' legitimate and peaceful work in defence of human rights;
Take all necessary measures to guarantee the physical and psychological integrity and security of the aforenamed human rights defenders;
Refrain from using section 215 and 216 of the Thai Criminal Code as a mean to persecute human rights defenders holding peaceful demonstrations in the promotion and protection of human rights;
Guarantee in all circumstances that all human rights defenders in Thailand are able to carry out their legitimate human rights activities without fear of reprisals and free of all restrictions including judicial harassment.

200 brave water sprinklers to protest Assembly Bill (Malaysiakini)

2011-12-04T00:36:00.000+08:00

200 brave water sprinklers to protest Assembly Bill

Nigel Aw
4:18PM Dec 3, 2011

Despite what appeared to be attempts by the KLCC management to cause inconveniences, some 200 people converged at its park off Jalan Ampang in a carnival-like gathering to oppose the Peaceful Assembly Bill.

Instead of being met by police batons and water cannons on its second Saturday afternoon protest, the group of about 200, clad in yellow, were met with water sprinklers.

The group moved close to some trees in the park after the KLCC management, again, cordoned off its compound for a cleaning operation, including the area the protesters used last week.

There, they stood around national laureate A Samad Said, who is popularly known as Pak Samad, as he recited his poems. Then, the complex management turned on water sprinklers on the ground where they stood.

Undaunted, those who were caught in the sprays shielded themselves with umbrellas and continued to listen to Pak Samad, who recited his latest poem in tribute to the occupy movement, Merindu Ruang (Missing Space) after reciting his Bersih poem, 'Unggun Bersih'.

"Let us fight violence with the beauty of literature," declared one of its organisers, Wong Chin Huat, who is also a steering committee member of Bersih.

Top leaders from DAP also threw their weight behind today's rally, with the presence of DAP supremo Lim Kit Siang and several MPs and state assemblypersons from the party, including Teo Nie Ching, Charles Santiago, Tony Pua, Teresa Kok, Ean Yong Hian Wah and Ronnie Liu.

"We must have a parliamentary select committee before the Peaceful Assembly Bill becomes law, we want public consultation. All of us want to give our views in a real democracy," said Lim.

The bill, which was passed by Parliament despite stringent opposition, is seen to be far more draconian than section 27 of the Police Act.

It bans all street protests, imposes far stricter requirements on rally organisers as well as higher fines for more offences and gives blanket powers to the police.

'PM's game changer not enough'

Samad later concluded his poem with the words:

Ada sang perubah permainan
kami perubah kekuasaan
Inilah tekad generasi baru
akarnya keadilan syahdu

(There is a game changer
But we are changers of the powers
This is the young generation's determination
its root is noble justice)

Asked what he meant by "game changer", Samad said he was referring to the prime minister's speech at the Umno general assembly earlier this week.

"The prime minister' speech said he needs a game changer, but what we need is regime change," he said.

The celebrated poet added that he was there to lend a hand in opposing the Peaceful Assembly Bill.

"We saw just now, even when we wanted to recite poem, that we need a letter of permission. That is not democracy. I'm doing this to help create a freer atmosphere."

Protest disrupted by KLCC security

Earlier, when the protesters were taking turns to recite poems at the gathering, a KLCC security officer intervened and said that they needed permission from the management, despite the place being a public park.

When the crowd began to boo, Wong stepped in and queried if the crowd would require permission if they gathered inside KLCC to look at its Christmas decorations, to which the security officer replied: "No".

"Then next week, we will gather inside KLCC to appreciate the beauty of Christmas trees," declared Wong, cheekily.

The crowd later adhered to the demands of the security officer and dispersed in an orderly fashion.

Speaking to reporters later, Wong said the crowd was smaller than last week because the KLCC management had cordoned off their intended location.

However, he brushed aside any intention of ill-will over the move and the fact that water sprinklers were turned on where the protesters had gathered.

"KLCC is secretly supporting Bersih, we are heartened that it has supported our action in the last two weeks," he quipped.

Wong vowed that the protests to oppose the Peaceful Assembly Bill would continue, even after it becomes law.

"Don't expect us to back down. We are waiting to be arrested and put behind bars, and I'm sure enough people are willing to take a stand to defend our freedom to assemble."

VIDEO l 12.23 mins - Malaysiakini, 3/12/2011, 200 brave water sprinklers to protest Assembly Bill

So no mainstream media covers MTUC protest - giving the false impression that the labour amendments is a non-issue...

2011-12-03T16:33:00.000+08:00

As expected I did not see the mainstream print or electronic media carry stories of the MTUC protest of 1,000 plus strong in a hall.... see earlier post:-MTUC's 3rd protest action against Labour Law amendments in Shah Alam by more than a 1,000

MTUC desak tarik balik Akta Kerja

Muhammad Faizal

SHAH ALAM, 2 Nov: Kongres Kesatuan Sekerja Malaysia (MTUC) hari ini mendesak kerajaan menarik balik Akta Kerja 1955 yang telah diluluskan pada 6 Oktober lalu di Parlimen.

Pengerusi MTUC Selangor dan Wilayah, N.Gopal Krishnan sewaktu berucap menjelaskan akta tersebut bersifat akta 'bapa ayam' yang jelas zalim dan bersikap kuku besi.

"Saya nyatakan dengan perlaksanaan akta ini kerajaan akan mengembalikan sistem kontrak yang telah dihapuskan sebelum ini dan dengan perlaksanaan ini jelas menunjukkan kerajaan bersifat zalim malah umpama 'bapa ayam'.

"Kita tidak mahu pekerja dinafikan hak di negara ini dan secara tidak langsung taraf pekerja warganegara kita hanya setanding dengan pekerja warga asing," jelasnya.

Beliau menyatakan bantahan it akan terus dilakukan kerana hak pekerja itu perlu ada pada tahap yang sepatutnya.

"Kita tidak mahu pekerja ditekan dan terus ditekan oleh pemerintah sekarang, kita akan terus mendesak serta menentang habis-habisan sehingga kerajaan menarik balik akta tersebut," sambung beliau lagi.

Sementara itu Ahli Parlimen Hulu Langat, Abdullah Sani yang turut hadir berkata, selama ini menentang perlaksanaan akta tersebut di Parlimen memberitahu akta tersebut bersifat 'rejim Israel'.

"Apa yang ingin saya katakan akta ini bersifat seperti 'rejim Israel' yang sikap ganas serta memijak kepala pekerja.

"Secara jelas saya membantah akta tersebut dan semua pasti tidak mahu masalah menimpa anak-anak mereka yang sudah pasti mangsanya mereka.

"Kita tahu akta ini sudah berulang kali ingin dibentang tetapi gagal, dan disebabkan majoriti yang besar penyokong kerajaan Barisan Nasional maka ia diluluskan pada sesi Parlimen kali ini," ucapnya.

Beliau berkata akta itu akan dimansuhkan jika berlakunya perubahan politik negara pada masa akan datang.

"Ini janji saya dan juga rakan-rakan dalam Pakatan Rakyat, jika berlakunya perubahan lanskap politik di negara ini, maka hak pekerja akan dipenuhi selain memansuhkan akta yang zalim ini.

"Kita mahu meletakkan pekerja pada tempat yang sepatutnya ia berada bukannya di bawah tapak kasut kerajaan sekarang," sambungnya lagi.

Mantan Presiden MTUC, Syed Shahir Syed Mohamud memberitahu dengan terteranya akta itu maka pada masa akan datang tidak akan ada lagi pekerja tetap dan syarikat-syarikat swasta akan menggunakan khidmat pekerja kontrak.

"Akibat dan kesan kepada perlaksanaannya menyebabkan pada masa akan datang tidak akan ada lagi pekerja tetap dan semua akan menjadi pekerja kontrak.

"Kita pasti ini semestinya akan berlaku kerana pihak swasta dapat menjimatkan kos operasi mereka, jadi apa hak yang kita akan dapat dan apa akan jadi kepada anak-anak kita nanti.

"MTUC bersama pekerja serta Pakatan Rakyat akan terus mendesak agar akta ini ditarik balik, kita mahu kerajaan yang kejam serta menindas rakyat itu faham apa yang di alami oleh pekerja," ucapnya.

Sebelum itu perhimpunan bantahan yang diadakan di Dewan MBSA Seksyen 19 Shah Alam merupakan susulan bantahan yang diadakan di seluruh negara sebelum ini.

Turut hadir ahli Parlimen Ampang, Zuraida Kamaruddin, Presiden MTUC, Malaysia Mohd Khalid Atan dan juga kesatuan-kesatuan pekerja kilang di seluruh Shah Alam.

Satu resolusi dan ikrar telah dibaca oleh seribu pekerja dan akan dibawa ke peringkat MTUC Malaysia bagi membincangkannya. - Harakah Daily, 2/12/2011, MTUC desak tarik balik Akta Kerja

MTUC's 3rd protest action against Labour Law amendments in Shah Alam by more than a 1,000

2011-12-03T05:08:00.000+08:00

MTUC had its 3rd protest against the proposed amendments to the Employment Act 1955 in a hall in Shah Alam, which was attended by more than 1,000 - but surely it would have been better if it was done somewhere public where the other Malaysians and the world could see. In-door gatherings and letters somehow do not put sufficient pressure on the BN government or the Prime Minister.

Wonder whether there will be any media coverage by the mainstream print and electronic media. Hopefully MTUC do not give up the fight - and would do more public protests - intent also in convincing the non-worker non-union members to support in the struggle to stop the Employment Act being amended... the consequence of the proposed amendments becoming law is most detrimental to trade unions and workers...

Presiden MTUC akui sistem kontraktor pekerja boleh hakis undi BN

Oleh G Manimaran

December 02, 2011

Ahli-ahli kesatuan gabungan MTUC yang menghadiri perhimpunan membantah pindaan Akta Kerja 1955 di Shah Alam petang ini. ― Foto oleh Jack Ooi

SHAH ALAM, 2 Dis - Presiden Kongres Kesatuan Sekerja Malaysia (MTUC) tidak menolak kemungkinan pindaan Akta Kerja, khususnya yang berkaitan sistem kontraktor tenaga kerja, akan memberi kesan ke atas populariti kerajaan Barisan Nasional (BN) dalam pilihan raya umum.

Khalid Atan berkata, lazimnya pekerja-pekerja mengharapkan perlindungan daripada kerajaan dan oleh itu, jika ada apa-apa penggubalan ataupun pindaan menjejaskan kepentingan mereka, ia akan mengganggu sokongan atau undi ketika pilihan raya.

“Mungkin, mungkin ada,” kata beliau ketika ditanya mengenai kesan sokongan para pekerja, yang dianggarkan lebih lima juta orang merupakan pengundi jika kerajaan enggan memenuhi desakan MTUC agar jangan meneruskan pindaan Akta Kerja.

Rang Undang-undang Kerja 2011 sudah pun diluluskan oleh Dewan Rakyat pada 6 Oktober lalu tanpa mempedulikan piket kongres itu tiga hari sebelum itu.

Ia kini menunggu giliran untuk diluluskan di Dewan Negara.

Ketika ditanya sama ada MTUC akan membincangkan syor agar badan induk kesatuan sekerja itu mengisytiharkan perang ke atas kerajaan BN jika Rang Undang-undang Kerja diluluskan juga, Khalid berkata, “saya tidak boleh membuat keputusan seorang diri.”

“Bagaimanapun jika dibawa ke majlis am, MTUC akan membincangkan, kita serah kepada majlis am,” katanya lagi sambil menambah, ini bukan keputusan individu.

Beliau juga menekankan MTUC merupakan sebuah badan yang tidak memihak mana-mana parti politik.

Perhimpunan membantah pindaan Akta Kerja hari ini, yang disertai lebih 1.000 pekerja dari Kuala Lumpur dan Selangor, turut disertai wakil rakyat Pakatan Rakyat termasuk Zuraida Kamaruddin dan Abdullah Sani masing-masing Ahli Parlimen Ampang dan Kuala Langat.

Pada 27 November lalu, Setiausaha Kewangan MTUC Alias Awang Ibrahim menegaskan, badan induk pekerja itu akan mengisytihrkan perang ke atas kerajaan BN jika Rang Undang-undang Kerja 1955 dipinda di Dewan Negara kelak.

MTUC sebelum ini membantah pindaan terbaru yang menyediakan peruntukan kontroversial sistem kontraktor bagi tenaga kerja.

Alias Awang berkata, badan induk itu yang dianggotai 390 kesatuan akan menyokong mana-mana parti politik yang berjanji akan meminda pindaan-pindaan dibawa ke atas Akta Kerja sekarang.

“Jika ia diluluskan di Dewan Negara maka MTUC akan mengisytiharkan perang ke atas mereka (kerajaan). Tiada ruang untuk berkompromi,” kata beliau.

MTUC telah menulis surat kepada Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Najib Razak dan timbalannya Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin tetapi belum ada perkembangan positif setakat ini.

Ketika ditanya sama ada MTUC mahu mengadakan piket kedua di pekarangan Parlimen menjelang pembentangan di Dewan Negara, Khalid berkata, ia juga akan diputuskan oleh majlis am kelak.

“Piket ini sama ada perlu atau tidak akan diputuskan oleh majlis am,” katanya dan menjelaskan mesyuarat badan tertinggi MTUC belum diputuskan.

Pada perhimpunan pekerja peringkat Selangor dan Wilayah Persekutuan hari ini, peserta berikrar bahawa “MTUC menentang sepenuhnya pindaan Rang Undang-undang Kerja yang diluluskan oleh Dewan Rakyat pada 6 Oktober 2011, sehingga pindaan ini ditarik balik dari Dewan Negara supaya ia tidak boleh dilaksanakan.”

Mereka juga berikrar untuk memberi sokongan kepada parti-parti politik yang sanggup menolak pindaan ke atas Akta Kerja dan yang menyokong perjuangan pekerja.

“Dengan ini kami tetap teguh dan terus berjuang dengan tegas menentang mereka yang menzalimi kaum pekerja serta menuntut supaya dikembalikan hak pekerja seadilnya,” bunyi ikrar itu.- Malaysian Insider, 2/12/2011, Presiden MTUC akui sistem kontraktor pekerja boleh hakis undi BN

Another event in KLCC this Saturday to protest Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011

2011-12-02T19:22:00.000+08:00

Event: Malaysians can walk freely with Pak Samad in KLCC without police permit

http://www.facebook.com/events/165918530172416/

The battle against the 'Peaceful Assembly Bill' is not over yet. They have only passed it in the Lower House. This means we can still force them to withdraw or hold back until the bill is passed in the Upper House (Senate) and eventually signed by the King. Even if they pass it, we can still defeat it by mounting a campaign of civil disobedience.

Last Saturday, we had a wonderful yellow event in KLCC Park where people gathered without permit in yellow, with yellow balloons, yellow flowers, and flags. (All Videos on protest against the #PA2011: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFaNZThZiuY&list=PL154F568EAED5E432&index=5&feature=plpp_video)

This week, we will do it again. And Pak Samad is joining us and would read us some poems. Let us flood the KLCC without police permit. Let us defy stupid laws. Let us defend our freedom.

Last week we had 400 people coming, this week we aim to make it 800.

We need to grow the momentum. This is only possible with your help. If you show your support by bringing your friends & family to the event!

Have a picnic together at KLCC park (in front of the fountains - its a family-friendly event).

Please help by spreading the news and invite all your friends on Facebook. Just install this programme on your Chrome and everything can be done with a click (5 seconds): https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ofcnbnhefnmjancehemliplicihbcjjb

Pak Samad to lead Public Assembly Bill protest

Koh Jun Lin
9:48AM Dec 2, 2011

National laureate A Samad Said will lead the second round of protest at KLCC Park tomorrow, defying the Public Assembly Bill that the Lower House of Parliament passed on Tuesday and is now awaiting Senate approval.

The park was the scene of a similar protest last Saturday, with some 400 protesters - many of them clad in yellow in support of the Bersih movement - singing songs, distributing balloons and flowers, blowing soap bubbles and practising yoga to demonstrate against the "unconstitutional" Bill.

"This week, we will do it again. And Pak Samad is joining us to read us some poems. Let us flood the KLCC without police permit. Let us defy stupid laws. Let us defend our freedom," wrote one of the organisers, Wong Chin Huat, on his Facebook wall.

The 76-year old poet and novelist, popularly known as Pak Samad, is no stranger to protests, having led the Bersih 2.0 rally on July 9 and the anti-PPSMI rally in 2009 (on left).

The 2pm event, again organised through Facebook, calls for the Bill's immediate withdrawal and to allow postal voting for all overseas Malaysians.

Organisers hope to double the number of participants to 800. As of writing, close to 300 Netizens have confirmed their participation.

Unlike last week, organisers are urging participants to bring food for the "afternoon picnic", along with the usual flags, balloons and flowers, and to dress in yellow.
Banners, placards are discouraged

Banners and placards are discouraged by organisers at the demonstration, to show the police that protests can happen without them, and because those carrying these are likely to be denied entry into the park.

In addition, the organisers are discouraging participants from bringing political party T-shirts or flags to maintain a non-partisan campaign.

When the group gathered last Saturday to demonstrate, police kept watch from a distance, while park security men disrupted speeches.

Nevertheless, before being dispersed, Wong vowed to return on the following Saturday, to which the crowded cheered, "Yes!"

Despite this protest and a much larger march by the Bar Council on Tuesday, the Public Assembly Bill 2011 was passed by the Dewan Rakyat on the same day.

The Bill will still need to be passed by the Dewan Negara and get the approval of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong before it can be gazetted as law.

Once gazetted, organisers of public assemblies must notify police beforehand and can only operate under under restrictive conditions.

These include a blanket ban on street demonstrations and any assembly within 50 metres of places of worship, schools, public transport terminals and other "prohibited places". - Malaysiakini, 2/12/2011, Pak Samad to lead Public Assembly Bill protest

PM has not yet replied letter of 107(now 115) groups caling for withdrawal of employment law amendments ...

2011-12-02T18:20:00.000+08:00

When the Joint statement 107 organizations and groups, from all over the world, dated 28/10/2011, entitled “Malaysia Must Protect Worker and Union Rights, and withdraw proposed unjust amendments to Employment Act - Labour Suppliers Should Not Be Employers”, was issued, it was also sent to the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Dato' Sri Mohd Najib Bin Tun Haji Abdul Razak, vide letter dated 28/10/2011(which I posted personally) which also urged the Malaysian government to immediately withdraw the proposed amendments to the Employment Act 1955.

The letter also contained the following words, that makes it clear that a reply was expected...

Kindly acknowledge receipt, and we would appreciate being kept informed of steps taken in response to this statement.

Sadly, to date, I have not yet received a reply from Prime Minister Najib - not even a letter acknowledging receipt of the said letter send for and on behalf of the said 107 civil society organisations, groups and trade unions... (In the past, there were times when letters were received - even if it was a letter of acknowledgement stating that it will be directed to this or that person for further action...).

It is simple courtesy just to send a note acknowledging receipt...and better still a response but alas when the Prime Minister fails to even reply, it sets a very bad example to other Ministers and Ministries, and departments. The Prime Minister must set the best example for others... and I do hope that the letter from our Malaysian Prime Minister is on the way ...and I will keep you all informed of the said letter if and when it does arrive..

The Malaysian Barisan Nasional government do not like public protests and processions, so at the very least they should be responding to the 'other channels of communications' between persons and the Malaysian government. The failing to respond to even letters paints a very bad picture of the current PM and government, and the perception that may arise is that they just do not want to listen to the people - and will do as they please only, and if so, one may start wonder whether Malaysia is only a democracy in name but in practice is in fact a dictatorship or feudalistic government.

Now, the statement is by 115 organisations and groups, and about 10,000 workers also have come out in protest nationwide on 3/11/2011 - and we still need to continue to call on the Prime Minister and this BN government to withdraw the proposed amendments to the Employment Act 1955. My fear is that this amendment to the Employment Act 1955 and the Peaceful Assembly Bill will be hurriedly rushed and passed by the Senate who will be sitting this month. After the BN government amended the law, the Yang Di Pertuan Agung really do not have any effective power to stop it from becoming law... (previously without the King's actual assent, it could not become law...in a way it was a last check to prevent abuse by any ruling party/coalition having the majority in Parliament) . [Note Malaysian Senators are not elected by the people, they are appointed...Hence most Senators, save a few are BN appointed Senators...]

Media Statement – 28/10/2011 (107 Groups), now 115

Malaysia Must Protect Worker and Union Rights, and withdraw

proposed unjust amendments to Employment Act

- Labour Suppliers Should Not Be Employers -

We, the undersigned 115 organizations, groups and networks are disturbed that the Malaysian government has proceeded to table, and get it passed speedily on 6/10/2011 at the Dewan Rakyat (House of Representative) the Employment (Amendment) Bill 2011 despite protests from workers, trade unions and civil society. The proposed changes to the Employment Act would be most detrimental to worker rights, trade unions and the existing just direct 2-party employment relationship between worker and end-user (the principal). Malaysia’s action goes contrary to justice. In many countries employers have been wrongly trying to avoid/disguise employment relationships by way of contracts/agreements and triangular relationships, and Malaysia rather than fighting against this negative trend is now trying to legalize it, hence showing itself to be anti-worker anti-unions.

We note also that the amendments would result in discrimination at the workplace, as many workers at a factory, plantation or any workplace would end up being no longer employees of the owner-operator of the said workplace, also referred to as the principal or end-user, but would remain employees of the supplier of workers, known as ‘contractor for labour’. Workers doing the same work at the factory, would be treated differently in terms of wages, work benefits and even rights by reason of the fact that their employers are different. This will also go against the Malaysian Federal Constitution that guarantees equality of persons. We advocate that all workers working at a factory or workplace are entitled to be treated equally in terms of wages, work benefits, rights, union rights, reliance on collective agreements and other entitlements.

The proposed amendment would also destroy direct employment relationships between owner-operator of workplaces, being the principal, and the workers that work there producing the product or providing the services from which these principals derive their profits. A just employment relationship dictates that all workers should be employees of the owner-operator employer not some other third party labour supplier, whether they be known as ‘contractor for labour’, outsourcing agent or by any other name. The relationship must be a direct relationship, to the exclusion of all third parties, between the employer who needs workers to do the work to produce the goods of their business for profits, and the workers directly who provide the necessary labour as required in exchange for fair wages and other benefits. The availability of short-term employment contracts is another reason why there is no need to legalize triangular or other employment relationships in Malaysia through the creation of the ‘contractor for labour’.

To fight for decent wages and rights, and to be able to negotiate and get better working conditions and other work benefits, workers at a workplace would generally come together collectively or as a union to be able to negotiate from a stronger position with employers, and this would result in agreements or ‘collective agreements’ between employers and workers (or their unions). If the amendments proposed become law, then many workers at the factory would effectively lose their rights to be able to form or be members of the trade union at the workplace, or the right to directly and effectively negotiate with the principal who effectively controls the work place, working conditions and benefits.

If the proposed amendment becomes law, effectively it will also weaken existing workers and unions, by reducing their negotiating power for now when a strike or a protest in called, there will be other workers of other third party employers who will continue to work normally thus making worker struggle for better rights almost impossible. This proposed amendment is a ‘union busting’ exercises and allows employers to utilize ‘divide and rule’ tactics to counter legitimate demands of their workers and avoid employer obligations and responsibilities. Another unjustifiable proposed changed is the delay of payment of overtime and work on rest days by a month.

With regard to sexual harassment, the new provision provides only for inquiry by employer even when the alleged perpetrator is a member of the management, a partner, shareholder and/or director of the employer’s business, and provides no clear right of appeal to the Labour Courts or the High Court. Note that other worker rights violations are currently all dealt with by the definitely more independent Labour Department or Industrial Relations Department. Remedy for the victim of sexual harassment is also absent, save maybe the right to resign without the need to give the required notice when the perpetrator is a sole proprietor.

The Malaysian Trade Union Congress (MTUC), which represents over 800,000 workers of member unions, who is also is the accepted workers representative in Malaysia, picketed calling for the withdrawal of the amendments on 3/10/2011, and apparently despite the Minister assuring them that the amendment will only be tabled at the end of the month, was suddenly rushed and passed at the Lower House of Malaysia’s Parliament on 6/10/2011.

Malaysia has the Private Employment Agencies Act 1971, whereby these agencies rightfully get workers for employers, who then pay them a fee for the service, and once workers are received by the employer, these workers immediately become employees of the said employer. The amendments will creates a new kind of labour supply companies who will continue as employers of the workers even after they start working at the workplace of the principal, and this is unacceptable. All companies in the business of finding workers for companies that need workers to produce their products or for their business must be private employment agencies, and must never assume or retain the role of employers.

As the said Bill still needs to be passed by the Senate and receive royal assent, before it becomes law, we call on the Malaysian government to act in the best interest of workers and their unions and immediately withdraw this unjust proposed amendments to Employment Act 1955.

We call on Malaysia to immediately discontinue its policy of recognizing outsourcing agents, and act immediately against practices of some employers and outsourcing agents that try to avoid/disguise employment relationships to the detriment of workers and unions.

We call on countries and regional bodies, companies, ILO, trade unions and persons to do the needful to ensure that worker and union rights, not just of local but also migrant workers, are protected in Malaysia, and that the employment relationship continue to be between owner-operator end user employers who actually need workers to do work and the workers that work there to the exclusion of any third party labour suppliers or ‘contractors for labour’.

Charles Hector

Pranom Somwong

For and on behalf of the 115 Organisations listed below:-

Abra Migrant Workers Welfare Association - Hong Kong (AMWWA)

Abra Tinguian Ilocano Society - Hong Kong (ATIS-HK)

ALIRAN, Malaysia

All Women's Action Society (AWAM), Malaysia

Asian Migrants Center (AMC), Hong Kong

Asia Monitor Resource Centre (AMRC), Hong Kong

Asia Pacific Mission for Migrants (APMM)

Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development (APWLD)

Asian Migrants' Coordinating Body - Hong Kong (AMCB)

Association for Community Development-ACD, Bangladesh

Association of Concerned Filipinos in Hong Kong (ACFIL-HK)

Association of Indonesia Migrant Workers in Indonesia (ATKI-Indonesia)

Association of Migrant Child & Family, Bangladesh.

Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU)

BAYAN Hong Kong

Building and Wood Worker's International (BWI) Asia Pacific

Burma Campaign, Malaysia

Cambodian Human Rights and Development Association (ADHOC)

Cambodian League for the Promotion and Defense of Human Rights (LICADHO)

Center for Indonesian Migrant Workers (CIMW)

Center for Trade Union and Human Rights (CTUHR)

Clean Clothes Campaign (CCC)

Coordination of Action Research on Aids and Mobility (CARAM-ASIA)

Committee for Asian Women (CAW)

Community Action Network (CAN), Malaysia

Confederation of Voluntary Associations (COVA), Hyderabad, India

Cordillera Alliance Hong Kong (CORALL-HK)

Democratic Party For A New Society (DPNS), Burma

Dignity International, Malaysia

Education and Research Association for Consumers Malaysia (ERA Consumer Malaysia)

Filipino Friends Hong Kong (FFHK)

Filipino Migrants Association - Hong Kong (FMA)

Filipino Migrant Workers' Union - Hong Kong (FMWU)

Filipino Women Migrant Workers Association - Hong Kong (FILWOM-HK)

Foundation for Women, Thailand

Friends of Bethune House (FBH), Hong Kong

GABRIELA Hong Kong

GABRIELA Philippines

Good Shepherd Sisters, Malaysia

Health Equity Initiatives (HEI), Malaysia

Housing Rights Task Force, Cambodia

Human Rights & Legal Aid (LHRLA) Pakistan

Human Rights Education Institute of Burma (HREIB)

Human Security Alliance (HSA)

International Metalworkers' Federation (IMF)

IMA Research Foundation, Bangladesh

INFID (International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development)

Institute for National and Democratic Studies (INDIES)

International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC)

Jakarta Legal Aid Institute, Indonesia

JERIT, Malaysia

Karmojibi Nari , Bangladesh

Kalyanamitra, Indonesia

Kav La'Oved , Israel

Kilusang Mayo Uno Labor Center

Komite Independen Pemantau Pemilu (Independent Committee for Election Monitoring), Indonesia

Lawyers for Human Rights & Legal Aid (LHRLA) Pakistan

Legal Support for Children and Women (LSCW), Cambodia

LLG Cultural Development Centre, Malaysia

Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (MADPET)

Malaysian Election Observers Network (MEO-Net)

MakeItfair

MAP Foundation, Thailand

Maquila Solidarity Network, Canada

May 1st Coalition for Worker & Immigrant Rights, NY-USA

Migrant CARE, Indonesia

Migrant Forum in Asia (MFA)

Migrant Trade Union, Korea (MTU)

Migrante International

MTUC (Malaysian Trade Union Congress)

National Alliance of Women Human Rights Defenders, Nepal

Network of Action for Migrants in Malaysia (NAMM)

National League For Democracy (Liberated Area )[ NLD(LA)], Malaysia

Pakistan Rural Workers Social Welfare Organization (PRWSWO)

Peduli Buruh Migran, Indonesia

Penang Watch, Malaysia

People's Green Coalition

Pergerakan Indonesia

Perkumpulan PRAXIS, Indonesia

Persatuan Kesedaran Komuniti, Selangor (EMPOWER)

Persatuan Masyarakat Selangor & Wilayah Persekutuan (PERMAS)

Persatuan Sahabat Wanita Selangor

Pinatud a Saleng ti Umili (PSU)

Pusat KOMAS, Malaysia

Quê Me: Action for Democracy in Vietnam

Saya Anak Bangsa Malaysia (SABM)

Sedane Labour Resource Center/(Lembaga Informasi Perburuhan Sedane), Indonesia

Serikat Buruh Migran Indonesia (SBMI)

Shan Women Action Network (SWAN), Thailand

Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition

Solidaritas Perempuan (Women's Solidarity for Human Rights), Indonesia

SOS(Save Ourselves), Malaysia

Suaram, Malaysia

Tenaganita, Malaysia

Thai Committee for Refugees Foundation (TCR)

The Filipino Women's Organization in Quebec, Canada

The GoodElectronics Network

The International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers' Associations (IUF)

Think Centre (Singapore)

UNI Apro, Singapore

UNI Global Union

UNIMIG (Union Migrant Indonesia)

United Filipinos in Hong Kong (UNIFIL-MIGRANTE-HK)

United Pangasinan in Hong Kong (UPHK)

Urban Community Mission (UCM Jakarta), Indonesia

Vietnam Committee on Human Rights

WARBE Development Foundation, Bangladesh

Women Forum for Women, Nepal

Women Legal BUREAU, Philippines

WOREC, Nepal

Workers Assistance Center, Inc (WAC), Philippines

Workers Hub For Change (WH4C)

War on Want , United Kingdom

Yasanti

Yayasan LINTAS NUSA (Batam Indonesia)

EMPOWER opposes strongly to the proposed Peaceful Assembly Bill (2/12/2011)

2011-12-02T16:08:00.000+08:00

Persatuan Kesedaran Komuniti Selangor (EMPOWER)

Press Statement

2 December 2011

EMPOWER opposes strongly to the proposed Peaceful Assembly Bill as it is an affront to all Malaysians since Article 10 of the Federal Constitution fully guarantees every citizen the right to speech, assembly and association.

EMPOWER demands the total and immediate withdrawal of the proposed Peaceful Assembly Bill.

EMPOWER is deeply disappointed that the government has viewed the citizens’ voices and their assertion of rights as threats rather than as a resource to build democracy and human rights.

As it stands, police are already authorised to break up demonstrations, arrest participants, and may use brute force if orders to disperse are not promptly obeyed. Public rallies are routinely denied permits. Such a proposal is completely out of step with the demands of democracy; calls for freedom will ring hollow if the government continues to repress and oppress critical expressions.

The introduction of the proposed Peaceful Assembly Bill will only serve to increase the powers of the police, which might lead to more abuses. This Bill is an excuse by the government to further control and stifle expressions of constructive and critical opinions on political and social issues.

There are many ways to deal with the issue of assembly and public rallies. To begin with, amend section 27 of the Police Act which requires police permits. It should be sufficient that a notification of seven days from the organisers will enable the police to conduct preparations of traffic control and security.

Practical training on human rights and negotiation skills should be conducted for law enforcement officers, with the view to changing mindsets and attitudes in relation to the public’s right to peaceful assembly. The principle of upholding human rights should be instilled into law enforcement officers in order that peaceful assemblies can happen in a democratic and open atmosphere.

In addition, the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) should be set up to monitor the implementation of enforcement. This will ensure the proper conduct of the law enforcement officers at all times and will eliminate any potential for abuse of powers.

Malaysia is a young emerging democracy and its citizens are increasingly mindful of their rights to speech, assembly and association. Attempts to suppress their democratic rights will be truly unjust and can only backfire on the government.

The withdrawal of the Bill can only serve the government well given its position on the United Nations Human Rights Council. Once again, EMPOWER calls for the withdrawal of the proposed Peaceful Assembly Bill.

--
Empower
(Pusat Kesedaran Komuniti Selangor)
Address:13, Lorong 4/48E,
   Seksyen 4,
   46050 Petaling Jaya,
   Selangor, Malaysia.
Tel: 03 - 7784 4977
Fax: 03 - 7784 4978
Email: empower05@gmail.com
Website:www.empowermalaysia.org

Front Line Defenders:- Malaysia – New assembly law will violate the legitimate right of human rights defenders to peaceful assembly

2011-11-30T22:31:00.000+08:00

The Malaysian government can at any time withdraw this Bill, and prevent it from becoming law. The Malaysian Senate is also filled with Barisan Nasional appointed Senators, and they like the Barisan Nasional Members of Parliament also generally do not have the independence or the guts to reject a Bill that is being tabled by the Barisan Nasional government...Even, if the government do withdraw this Peaceful Assembly Bill, they can always re-table a Bill at a later date... The option thus lies with the government...



Cet appel sera publié dans la section française de note site web dans quelques jours: www.frontlinedefenders.org/fr
Este llamamiento será publicado en breve en la versión española de nuestra página web: www.frontlinedefenders.org/es
Данное сообщение сейчас переводится и появится на русскоязычной версии сайта через несколько дней www.frontlinedefenders.org/ru
سيتم ترجمة هذه المناشدة وستظهر في القسم العربي من موقعنا الالكتروني خلال بضعة ايام
www.frontlinedefenders.org/ar

30 November 2011

Re: Malaysia – New assembly law will violate the legitimate right of human rights defenders to peaceful assembly

On 29 November 2011, the lower house of the Malaysian Parliament approved a Peaceful Assembly Bill. This Bill will severely effect the right of human rights defenders (HRDs) to exercise peaceful assembly to campaign for human rights. The Bill will be reviewed by the Senate on 7 December 2011.

HRDs in Malaysia have been subjected to violence when they exercise their rights to peaceful assembly to raise public concerns on human rights. Front Line has issued a number of urgent appeals on behalf of HRDs whose right to peaceful assembly were violated, including the raid on the secretariat of Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections (Bersih 2.0) and the brief detention of their staff prior to the peaceful assembly that the coalition was holding.

In July 2011, Front Line issued an urgent appeal after Malaysian authorities banned fifteen prominent human rights leaders from entering Kuala Lumpur during the time of a demonstration. During a mission to the country in July-August 2011, a Front Line representative witnessed the direct intimidation and harassment of HRDs by riot police and special branch police during a peaceful assembly which called for the release of individuals who were subjected to arbitrarily detention under the Emergency Ordinance.

According to the Bill, street protests will be outlawed. Organisers are obliged to inform authorities 10 days prior to the dates on which the assembly will be held. It is reported that the Bill also gives ultimate power to police and the Ministry of Home Affairs to authorise peaceful demonstrations. The police will have the power to impose conditions, including date, time, and the venue of the assembly.

Front Line is also informed that under the law no one under the age of 21 will be permitted to organise an assembly, while persons under the age of 15 will not be allowed to participate in peaceful assemblies. The police will be allowed to fine the organiser up to RM 10,000 (€ 23,733) if they receive no advance notice of a planned assembly. In addition, the police will be allowed to fine those arrested for organising an unauthorised assembly a maximum of RM 20,000 (€ 47,465).

Front Line is concerned by the lack of transparency in the process of drafting this Bill as the draft Bill was only made known to the public last week, while the version which will be reviewed by the Senate has not yet been released to HRDs. Front Line is alarmed that the law will further restrict the rights of HRDs in Malaysia to peacefully assemble. Front Line considers that the components making up the the law are contradictory to Article 10 (1) (b) of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Convention to the Rights of the Child which Malaysia is a party to.

Front Line urges the authorities in Malaysia to:

Extend the review process by the Senate by at least three months to ensure proper scrutiny of the Peaceful Assembly Bill in order to ensure that it conforms with international human rights standards;
Hold proper consultations with human rights defenders and organisations and seriously take their concerns into account;
Guarantee in all circumstances that human rights defenders and organisations in Malaysia are free to carry out their legitimate activities in defending and protecting the rights of others, without fear of reprisals and free of all undue restrictions.

There wouldn't have been time to even do a peaceful protest - because the Freedom Assembly was passed so fast

2011-11-30T13:18:00.000+08:00

The Malaysian Barisan Nasional government tabled the Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011, I believe on 22/11/2011, and despite protest including by the Bar Council who also had the 'Freedom Walk" on on 29/11/2011, the government hurriedly amended and passed the said Bill on the 29th itself. It may be of interest to see the Alternative Bill that was proposed by the Bar Council...

This was a Bill introduced and passed so quickly, that even under the provisions of the said new Bill which requires 30 days (now 10 days) notification to the police before a peaceful assembly could be carried out would NOT have worked - for the Bill would have been passed even before permission could have been given for a peaceful assembly - that is the best example of the absurdity of this PA Bill - and why it must immediately be withdrawn and not made into law...

Bar Council's Alternative Assembly Bill

12:17PM Nov 29, 2011

The Bar Council has proposed a Peaceful Assembly Act 2011 (“the proposed Act’), which it says takes a significantly different approaches from the Bill drafted by the government.

According to the council, the differences in the policies and principles include:

The government’s Bill approaches the right of peaceful assembly from a very limited and restrictive stand point that does not accord with international norms, the current rapid developments around the world on such fundamental rights, as well as the aspirations of the Malaysians.

On the other hand, the Bar Council’s draft Bill approaches the matter with an understanding of the urgent need to change the mindset of how such matter has been dealt with by the authorities in the past half a century, and the democratic necessity to fulfill the Rakyat’s growing expectations of greater fundamental liberties in line with international practices and developments.

The Bar Council’s draft Bill is intended to promote and facilitiate the freedom of the right of peaceful assembly, whereas the government’s Bill, while providing small improvements in certain limited aspects, continues to constrict the space for freedom of peaceful assembly that the people ought to have.
In some aspects, such as the total prohibition of street protest, the government’s Bill contains conditions or restrictions which are not currently expressly provided for.

The Bar Council’s draft Bill complies with international conventions and norms, whereas the government’s Bill does not.

For instance, the government’s Bill prohibits assemblies in motion (processions or street protests) which no other progressive jurisdiction does.
The governement’s Bill vests excessive powers and control with the police whilst imposing onerous duties and responsibilities on organisers and participants of public assemblies.

The Bar Council’s draft Bill takes into account the internationally accepted principle that the exercise of the right of peaceful assembly is part of “public order”, whereas the government’s Bill appears to view such exercise of fundamental right as antagonistic to public order.

The government’s Bill continues to retain the unacceptable practice of allowing the police to be its own judge and jury on matters relating to freedom of assembly. On the other hand, the Bar Council’s draft Bill has removed this unacceptable practice, by the creation of an independant Peaceful Assembly Board.

Extracts of the Bar Council’s Alternative Peaceful Assembly Bill
An Act relating to the promotion and facilitation of the right to assemble peaceably and without arms, to provide necessary and reasonable conditions relating to such right in the interest of public safety or public order, including giving due regard to the rights and freedoms of other persons, and to provide for related matters.
Objects
2. The objects of this Act are –

(a) to reaffirm, promote and facilitate the right of peaceful assembly for all persons; and
(b) to ensure that persons may exercise the right to participate in public assemblies free from unnecessary or unreasonable conditions, restrictions or hindrance; and
(c) to ensure that the exercise of the right to participate in public assemblies is subject only to such restrictions as are necessary and reasonable in a democratic society in the interests of –
(i) public safety; or
(ii) public order; or
(iii) the giving of due regard to the rights and freedoms of other persons; and
(d) to ensure that the right of persons to participate in public assemblies may be exercised without payment of a fee, charge or other amount for a licence, permit or other authorisation.

Right to organise and participate in public assembly
5. (1) Everyone has the right to organise a public assembly, and the right to participate in a public assembly peaceably and without arms; provided that the right to organise a public assembly shall not extend to a person below the age of 18 years unless it is a religious, social, educational, family or cultural assembly.

(2) The right to organise a public assembly and the right to participate in a public assembly peaceably and without arms are subject only to such conditions and restrictions as are necessary and reasonable in a democratic society in the interest of –
(a) public safety; or
(b) public order; or
(c) the giving of due regard to the rights and freedoms of other persons.

Legal immunity for participant in public assembly
6. A person who participates in a public assembly does not, merely because of his peaceful participation, incur any civil or criminal liability.

Assembly notice
7. (1) When a public assembly is to be held, the organiser shall notify the OCPD of the same in writing at least 5 days before the assembly.

(2) No assembly notice is required to be given for a public assembly where it is not possible or reasonably practical to do so, or in respect of an election campaign.

(3) Where an assembly notice is to be given to the OCPD, it may be done by leaving it at, or by delivering it to, the appropriate police station. Any police officer receiving an assembly notice shall state on the organiser’s copy of the assembly notice the date and time of receipt of such notice, failing which the organiser or the person serving the notice shall be entitled to state the same.

Formalities and contents of assembly notice
8. (1) An assembly notice must –
(a) be in writing; and
(b) be addressed to the OCPD; and
(c) be signed by the organiser or a representative of the organiser.
(2) Where an assembly notice is required to be given, it must contain the following particulars –
(a) the name and address of the organiser and his representative or representatives who must be reachable in the communication of all matters relating to the public assembly; and
(b) the local address for service, e-mail address and mobile telephone number of the organiser and his representative or representatives; and
(c) the day on which the public assembly is to be held; and
(d) the place at which the public assembly is to be held; and
(e) the time at which the participants are likely to assemble to participate in the public assembly; and
(f) the times at which the public assembly will likely commence and end; and
(g) if the public assembly is a procession –
(i) the proposed route of the procession; and
(ii) any place at which the procession is likely to stop; and
(iii) the length of time the procession is likely to remain at each such place; and
(h) the expected number of participants; and
(i) the purpose of the public assembly; and
(j) the expected number of persons to be appointed by the organiser to assist in maintaining order in the public assembly; and
(k) a description of any sound amplification or audio visual equipment proposed to be used by the organiser during the public assembly.

Procedural compliance
9. (1) Where an assembly notice is required to be given, a public assembly is taken to have complied with the requirements under this Act if, after the giving of the assembly notice –
(a) an acknowledgement notice of the public assembly is received by the organiser of the public assembly from the OCPD or his representative; or
(b) no acknowledgment notice of the public assembly is received by the organiser, and no order of the Board made under section 18 prohibiting the holding of the public assembly is received by or communicated to the organiser, before the holding of the public assembly.

(2) No assembly notice is required to be given in respect of any of the following –
(a) a private assembly; or
(b) a public assembly falling under section 7(2); or
(c) an election campaign; or
(d) a public assembly falling under the First Schedule.

Acknowledgment notice may specify certain conditions
11. (1) The OCPD may, in an acknowledgment notice given under section 9(1)(a), specify conditions relating to the holding of the public assembly. An acknowledgment notice containing conditions must be served on the organiser or his representative within 48 hours of the receipt by the OCPD of the assembly notice, at the address for service stated in the assembly notice.

(2) Except where the organiser has (through consultation or negotiation) agreed in writing to a condition, a condition may not be specified by the OCPD unless –

(a) it is consistent with the objects and spirit of this Act; and
(b) it concerns one of the matters stipulated in subsection (3); and
(c) it is non-arbitrary and does not give rise to any unequal treatment between different organisers or groups of organisers; and
(d) the negotiations required by subsection (4) have been held.

(3) A condition specified by the OCPD must necessarily and reasonably relate to a significant matter concerning –
(a) public safety; or
(b) public order; or
(c) the giving of due regard to the rights and freedoms of other persons.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (2)(d), the OCPD shall forthwith and expeditiously negotiate with the organiser to reach an agreement, where possible, before specifying any condition.

(5) For the purposes of this Act, the expression “public order” relates to the sum of rules which ensure the functioning of a democratic society, and the set of fundamental principles on which a democratic society is founded. Respect for human rights and constitutional rights, including the right of freedom of expression and the right to assemble peaceably, is a part of public order.

(6) For the purposes of this Act, “public safety” relates to protection
against danger to the safety of persons, or against serious damage to their property.

(7) Any organiser dissatisfied with a condition specified by the OCPD may forthwith make an application in writing to the Board to revoke or vary such condition.

Application to prohibit public assembly
12. If an assembly notice is given to the OCPD in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the OCPD may apply in writing, within 48 hours of the receipt of the assembly notice, to the Board for an order that the proposed public assembly be prohibited, stating in sufficient detail the reasons for his application; and shall forthwith notify the organiser regarding such application.

Restrictions affecting application to prohibit public assembly
13. The OCPD is not entitled to apply under section 12 for an order from the Board unless –

(1) the OCPD has in good faith given due regard to the objects and spirit of this Act; and

(2) the OCPD has formed the opinion, on reasonable and disclosed written grounds, that if the public assembly were to be held –
(a) there will be real and serious risk to public safety; or
(b) serious public disorder will likely happen; or
(c) there will likely be excessive and prolonged interference with the rights or freedoms of other persons; and

(3) the OCPD has negotiated with the organiser, but failed to achieve an agreement on the matter.

Simultaneous assemblies
14. (1) If two public assemblies are notified to be held in the same place at the same time and date (or approximately the same time and date), and their simultaneous arrangement is not possible, the organiser who first submitted his assembly notice shall have precedence, unless the place of assembly is traditionally to be used by the other organiser on that date. In this event, the OCPD shall, after consulting with the other organiser, move the other public assembly to be held at another time or to another place that is suitable having regard to the purpose of the other public assembly.
(2) If more than two public assemblies are notified to be held in the same place at the same time and date (or approximately the same time and date), the foregoing provisions shall apply mutatis mutandis.

Counter assemblies
15. If, after receiving an assembly notice for a public assembly, the OCPD receives an assembly notice for a counter public assembly, and it is evident that the counter public assembly will result in conflict between the participants of the two public assemblies at the place of assembly (of a nature that is likely to disrupt public order or endanger public safety), the OCPD shall propose an alternative for the counter public assembly to be organised at another time, date or place.

Establishment of a Peaceful Assembly Board
16. (1) There shall be established a body to be known as the Peaceful Assembly Board (in this Act referred to as “the Board”).

(2) It shall be the duty of the Board –
(a) to hear any application from the OCPD or the organiser; and
(b) to promote greater understanding by the general public of issues concerning peaceful public assembly; and
(c) to ensure uniformity of treatment of different organisers or different groups of organisers; and
(d) to keep itself generally informed as to the conduct of public
assemblies.

(3) The Board shall comprise a Chairman, a Deputy Chairman and 23 other members. The 25 members of the Board shall be appointed as follows –
(a) 5 members by the Prime Minister; and
(b) 5 members by the Leader of the Opposition in Parliament; and
(c) 5 members by SUHAKAM; and
(d) 5 members by the Chief Justice of Malaysia; and
(e) 5 members by the President of the Malaysian Bar.

(4) The term of each member of the Board shall be for a period of 2 years but he or she may be reappointed.

(5) No member of the Board shall be appointed from the public service or the judiciary.

(6) Any vacancy on the Board howsoever arising shall be filled by a person appointed by the same appointing body or person specified in subsection (3) who had made the earlier appointment in respect of which the vacancy has arisen.

Duties of the police at a public assembly
19. A police officer on duty at a public assembly –
(1) shall have a duty to take appropriate measures to enable the public assembly to take place and conclude peacefully, and at all times uphold the objects and spirit of this Act; and

(2) shall be uniformed; and

(3) may only issue an order to disperse if there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is real and imminent danger to public safety, or significant and prolonged interference with public order; and

(4) in exercising the power to disperse a public assembly, may only use reasonable and proportionate force and may do so only after reasonable and sufficient time and opportunity have been given to the participants to disperse voluntarily and peaceably; and

(5) may make any form of audio or visual recording of a public assembly, and shall not prevent, obstruct or restrict any other person from doing the same.

Presence of police at private assemblies
20. No police officer (whether uniformed or otherwise) shall be present at, attend, observe or participate in a private assembly, meeting or event, unless invited or allowed to do so by the organiser of such private assembly, meeting or event.

Role of the media
21. The police in discharging their duties in relation to a public assembly shall at all times facilitate the performance by all members of the media of their duties and functions.

Offences
22. (1) An organiser who has wilfully breached a condition lawfully imposed under this Act on a public assembly, or caused another to breach the same, shall be guilty of an offence and shall upon conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding RM5,000.00. It is a valid defence under this subsection if the organiser is able to show that he has taken all reasonable and available steps to prevent the commission of the breach, or that the occurrence of the breach was beyond his reasonable control.

(2) A police officer who has wilfully breached a provision of this Act, or a duty imposed on him under this Act, shall be guilty of an offence and shall upon conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding RM5,000.00. It is a valid defence under this subsection if the police officer is able to show that he has done everything in his power to prevent the commission of the breach, or that the occurence of the breach was beyond his reasonable control.

Peaceful Assembly Bill tabled 22/11/2011 - passed 29/11/2011 despite protests - Why the rush?

2011-11-30T03:38:00.000+08:00

The Peaceful Assembly Bill(PA Bill) was suddenly tabled on 22/11/2011, and on 29/11/2011 it was passed by the Lower House of Parliament (Dewan Rakyat), despite much public protest...

SEVEN(7) days - not enough time for MPs to consult their constituents - it was just shoved down the throat of Malaysians...

It is still needs to be passed by Senate and receive the King's royal assent...

The new PA Bill just made it impossible for foreign nationals to protest any wrong doing. If there is a wrongdoing in Burma, now the Burmese in Malaysia will not be able to protest... Migrant workers also lose their right to protest ...Children lose their rights to protest despite the fact Malaysia has ratified the Child Rights Convention....

Why did the BN government do this and in this manner without consultations...and despite protests of its people...and this is not the first time it has done this. The same was done for the Employment Act amendments despite protests from workers, the Malaysian Trade Union Congress (that represents all workers in Malaysia, and who have over 800,000 members), and 100s of civil society groups not just from Malaysia...

Dictatorship - that is all one can say about the Malaysia's BN government led by Prime Minister Najib Razak....It certainly does not have the elements of Democracy... Control of almost all media, both print and electronic, ensures that only the government position gets to the public....

There is no time for rebuttal...no time for debate...As an example, the PM said no need for notification/permission of police if the peaceful assembly is to be done in 'designated places' - but alas the Act only says that the Minister will fix these designated places later... we do not even have examples of these designated places...There was just no time for even public discussion of the amendments to the Bill - Why? They amended and passed it within hours...

Government amends Assembly Bill

Hazlan Zakaria
11:58AM Nov 29, 2011
As announced by de facto law minister Nazri Abdul Aziz last Saturday, the government will table amendments to the Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011 during the committee stage of the debate for the Bill in the Dewan Rakyat, later today.

The draft amendments distributed to parliamentarians today includes six specific amendments to four sections which will see reductions in notification, appeals and response periods:

- 30 days notice period reduced to 10 days;
- Police must notify stakeholder within 24 hours of notice by organisers instead of 48 hour as proposed;
- Stakeholders can complain about proposed assembly within 48 hours, from five days previously;
- Police to reply to organisers within five days, as opposed to twelve days previously;
- Appeal to rejection or police discretionary orders to organisers can be done within 48 hours of receipt, from four days mandated prior to the amendments;
-Home Minister to answer any appeals within 48 hours instead of six days originally.

The amendments came in the footsteps of widespread opposition to the proposed Bill and was decided in a cabinet meeting last Friday, after consultations with the Attorney-General's Chamber.

Nazri had told reporters that he will prevail upon Dewan Rakyat Speaker Pandikar Amin Mulia to waive the notification period for amendments, considering that the Bill is already in its second reading.

Nazri said he will also seek to insert the changes to the Bill in the committee stage later today, after the initial debate which is ongoing now.

Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak tabled the Bill for second reading last Thursday, though debate was postponed until today. Parliament will not end today until the Bill and five other minor bills to amend other laws are passed.- Malaysiakini, 29/11/2011, Government amends Assembly Bill

Done deal - Peaceful Assembly Bill passed

Aidila Razak
4:42PM Nov 29, 2011

The Dewan Rakyat passed the contentious Peaceful Assembly Bill after less than four hours of debate by six parliamentarians.

The Bill, which bans street demonstrations but allows regulated assemblies, was passed by voice vote, in the absence of Pakatan Rakyat MPs who had staged a walkout in the middle of the second reading.

Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim (PKR-Permatang Pauh), Abdul Rahman Dahlan (BN-Kota Belud), Lim Guan Eng (DAP-Bagan), Abdul Hadi Awang (PAS-Marang), Ibrahim Ali (IND-Pasir Mas) and P Kamalanathan (BN-Hulu Selangor) had debated the Bill.

Debate began at about 11am and resumed after lunch. The Bill was passed at 4.15pm.

The amendments tabled at committee stage were also passed by voice vote without the presence of Pakatan MPs.

The opposition MPs were absent when Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz, the Minister in the Prime Minister's Department, wound up on points raised during the debate.

Referring to the opposition’s absence as "cowardice", Nazri (left) said the Bill is not unconstitutional as Section 2(b) of the federal constitution allows Parliament to enact legislation to protect public order and safety.

He also took on the Bar Council, which had marched in protest this morning, for going against the provision calling for advance notice of demonstrations by organisers.

"If (the Bar Council) calls the Bill messed up, then I think their heads are messed up....They don't agree with the provision for advance notice but they gave the police seven days’ notice for their assembly this morning.

"Why did they give notice? They want protection from police for fear of provocation....The provision for advance notice is not to block the assembly but to protect the demonstrators. The Bar Council knows this.”

He said the government had followed a European standard in deciding the length of advance notice, which says it should not be "unnecessarily lengthy but allow adequate time to allow authorities to allow fulfill necessary obligations".

"(The standard was not from) Zimbabwe or (Burma) as claimed by opposition. Europe. If Europe is not good enough then who should we follow? The moon? The stars?" he asked.

Burma's new law on public assembly requires five days’ notice, while the UK requires six days’ notice.

Under an amended provision, Malaysia’s Peaceful Assembly Bill requires 10 days’ notice.

Bar Council in line of fire

Raging against the Bar Council again, Nazri took on council president Lim Chee Wee who had told the press earlier that the Bill goes against the nation's history of street protests, including that led by Onn Jaafar against the Malayan Union.

"But Lim, that was a colonial government, not one chosen by the people... If you're unhappy then fight it out in an election. Let me tell you than the BN government has been chosen (to form) the government for 12 elections," he said.

Like Mohamad Aziz (BN-Sri Gading) who had interjected during the debate, Nazri said that if the Bar Council is so brave (anak jantan) then it should register itself as a political party and contest in elections.

Nazri also said that the opposition has been misleading the rakyat by harping on the maximum fines provided by the Bill for those involved in illegal assemblies.

"The fine is up to RM10,000. Section 27 of the Police Act has a maximum fine of RM10,000 a minimum fine of RM3000.

"This Bill does not state a minimum...so it can be RM1 or RM3. The Bagan MP said the court should decide on an appeal if an application (to assemble) is rejected. He should be consistent.

"How can he support that the court is to decide on this but not allow the court to decide whether to fine up to RM10,000? What is this?"

He added that the Police Act had provided for a jail term upon conviction, but this is not so in the Bill, where the provision has been replaced with a maximum fine of RM20,000 for certain offences.

"The opposition and the NGOs are not ready (to be free), that is why we have this Bill," he added. - Malaysiakini, 29/11/2011,Done deal - Peaceful Assembly Bill passed

The anger of the people is not just about the contents of PA Bill 2011 but also the manner in which it was suddenly, and without notice introduced, and so hurriedly passed despite public protests.

Lawyers Walk For Freedom (29/11/2011)

2011-11-29T13:41:00.000+08:00

- some pics from Malaysiakini

More than 1,000 Lawyers begin 'Walk for Freedom'

2011-11-29T13:24:00.000+08:00

Lawyers begin 'Walk for Freedom'

Team Malaysiakini
10:28AM Nov 29, 2011

Members of the Bar Council and supporters are marching to Parliament House from the Lake Gardens in Kuala Lumpur, to protest the Peaceful Assembly Bill which is expected to be voted on tonight in the Dewan Rakyat.
Describing the draft law as legislation that would rob the rakyat off their constitutional right, Bar Council president Lim Chee Wee has vowed that lawyers cannot watch it enter the statute books without standing up to it.

The crowd exceeding 1,000 began the two-kilometre 'Walk for Freedom' at 12.19pm to submit a memorandum opposing the law.

Action is expected in front of Parliament House as activists have called on the public to gather there for three consecutive days, with effect from 11am in an 'Occupy Parliament' move.

The group - the KL People's Assembly - has been behind the 'Occupy Dataran' movement.
LIVE REPORTS

10.05am: About 40 police personnel, including 10 light strike force officers, are standing by in front of the entrance to Parliament House.
10.38am: Reporters have gathered in front of Royal Lake Club in the Lake Gardens. Several lawyers are in sight.
There is no police presence here, although about 10 were seen earlier at the National Monument, across the street.
10.45am: A member of the Bar Council secretariat tells reporters that the gathering has been shifted to the junction of the road leading to the Royal Lake Club approximately 300m away.
10.56am: Several police patrol cars pass by, but do not stop. The crowd has grown to about 80.
11am: Former Bar Council president Ambiga Sreenevasan arrives.
11.01am: Bar Council president Lim Chee Wee says he is "feeling good" and that he will address the crowd at 11.30am. The march will begin at 12.30pm.
11.03am: More than 100 people are present - the lawyers are wearing suits and many of the supporters are in yellow.
11:05am: A traffic police officer arrives to regulate traffic.
11.10am: Ambiga tells reporters: "I hope the government will look into the Bill. There is no need to rush it."

PKR vice-president N Surendran and PKR information chief Latheefa Koya are spotted - they are lawyers.
11.14am: Lim Chee Wee tells foreign correspondents that the very inception of Malaysia was based on street demonstrations.

"This Bill takes away the very act that granted us independence."
11.16am: The Bar Council is distributing its 18-page draft of the Peaceful Assembly Act to the media.
11.20am: PAS central committee member Hanipa Maidin, a lawyer, and Ampang MP Zuraida Kamaruddin are seen.
11.23am: The crowd has grown close to 200. Lawyer and Segambut MP Lim Lip Eng and Suaram head Kua Kia Soong are present, as are several anti-Lynas activists.
11:29am: Yellow banners are being held up, some of which read: 'Kill the Bill' and 'Bebas Himpun, Bebas Rakyat'.
11.31am: Lim Chee Wee introduces the first speaker to the crowd of about 300.
11.35am: Bar Council constitutional committee head Syahrezan Johan (left) tells them: This walk today is not about politics, it about the unholy haste (in which) they (government) are pushing it through to limit our constitutional right.
Syahrezan says that that, if the Bill is passed, its provisions "will be abused".
He lists situations where people cannot gather, each of which draws boos from the crowd.

"Do you know that we cannot gather at the Bar Council HQ because it is 50m from a bridge?
"We have drafted a far superior alternative Bill and it only took three days. And we ask the government to consider this because it gives meaning to PM's Malaysia Day speech."
11.47am: Members of the Human Rights Commission are seen, observing the gathering.
At Parliament House, meanwhile, police have set up a roadblock at the entrance, in readiness for the demonstrators.
11.52am: At the Lake Gardens, the organisers direct the crowd to move further in, as they are spilling onto the road.
11.54am: Lawyer Edmund Bon is leading the crowd in chanting: "Bebas bebas, bebas himpun, bebas rakyat!"
11.56am: At Parliament House, the DAP's Sibu MP Wong Ho Leng shows up at the entrance to await the demonstrators.
"How can the Bill be passed? Insane!" he remarks to reporters, explaining that he is there to take some of the demonstrators inside.

He says each MP can take five people into the premises.
11.59am: Bar Council Secretary Tony Woon Yeow Thong tells the crowd at the Lake Gardens that the government has gone back on its word. During consultations, it had told the Bar Council that it would live up to international standards of human rights.
12.07pm: Former Bar Council Yeo Yang Poh who led the team that drafted the alternative Peaceful Assembly Act addresses the crowd.

"We (drafted the alternative Bill) not because it needed tweaking but (because) its fundamentals are wrong. If this law had been passed by the British in the 1940s and 1950s, we would not have attained independence."
12.15pm: A group of youngsters clad in black are seen loitering on the fringes of the crowd. Asked for their purpose, they decline to comment beyond stating: "We are defenders of YBs."
12.19pm: The crowd begins moving out of the park - the march to Parliament House has started.
12.26pm: A group who claims to be a coalition of Malay NGOs are already at the bridge leading to Parliament. They are chanting "We are against free sex!". One is overheard saying "Go back to India", which does not go down well with Indian Malaysians who hear it.
12.35pm: The Bar Council crowd follows orders to keep off the road and not obstruct traffic. Lim Chee Wee and nine other Bar Council leaders are allowed into the Parliament compound to hand over their protest note.
12.45pm: Both the Bar Council's group and Malay NGOs have reached the bridge that connects to the entrance of Parliament.
They are unable to proceed to Parliament's gates and are on opposite sides of the road.
The Bar Council crowd is chanting: "Bebas, bebas! Bebas himpun!"

The opposing crowd retorts with: "Kami tentang seks bebas!"
12.50pm: NGOs' representative Zulkifli Sharif tells the press that they are a coalition of Malay groups who here to hold a counter-rally and accused the Bar Council of having a political agenda.
"We saw the Bar Council group holding placards which was promoting free sex," he said.
He said the coalition represents several NGOs, including Majlis Ayahanda Malaysia and Persetuan Veteran Tentera Melayu.
12.50pm: The Bar Council delegation has reached the Parliament lobby and are addressing the press.
12.55pm: The Malay NGOs, now numbering at about 100, sets fire to a yellow t-shirt. Police quickly intervene.
1.10pm: The Malay NGOs crowd have decided to take a break from chanting slogans and seek refuge under several trees.
The Bar Council crowd is still chanting pro-democracy slogans. - Malaysiakini, 29/11/2011,
[PHOTO GALLERY]

Bar Council's Walk For Freedom - gather 11.30am in front Lake Club, 29/11/2011

2011-11-28T23:10:00.000+08:00

The walk will take place next Tuesday, 29 Nov 2011, from the entrance of the Royal Lake Club to Parliament House, to deliver the Bar’s Proposed Amendments to the Peaceful Assembly Bill to YB Datuk Liew Vui Keong, Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department. Members are advised to gather in their court attire at 11:30 am outside the Royal Lake Club entrance.

'Walk for Freedom' will proceed, says Bar Council

7:32PM Nov 26, 2011

The Bar Council declared that its Walk for Freedom on Tuesday will continue despite the concession from the government that it would consider reviewing a number of the provisions in the proposed Peaceful Assembly Bill.

“Whilst it is mildly positive that the government - in reaction to public protest - is considering amending seven provisions, save for reduction of the notification period, we know not of other amendments...,” said the council chairperson Lim Chee Wee (right).

“However, it in fact reflects what is so wrong with the process involving the bill - it is being rushed with unholy haste into law without adequate public consultation.”

Lim said the best solution would be to refer the bill to a parliamentary select committee for public consultation and further deliberation.

The Bar Council has yesterday called for its 14,000-strong members to march to the Parliament on Tuesday where the bill is to be debated.

“In the UK, a distinction is drawn between static assemblies for which no notice is required and procession (assemblies in motion) for which notice of six clear days is to be give unless it is not reasonably practicable to give any advance notice. In Finland, only six hours is required,” said Lim.

“In Malaysia, assemblies in motion or processions except for funeral processions, are prohibited. This is outrageous.”

Notification period to be slashed

Minister in Prime Minister’s Department Nazri Abdul Aziz today confirmed reports that the cabinet had agreed to change parts of the controversial bill.

He said the 30-day notification period required for a public assembly will now be reduced to 10 days. But he did not mention whether the prohibition on street protests as stated in the proposed bill will be removed.

According to Lim, street protests allow “the demonstrators wider audience and visibility for others to see and hear what is the cause or grievance that these demonstrators are marching and speaking about”.

“The government cannot now rob us of this right of assemblies in motion, which is presently not prohibited in the Police Act - this and other provisions in the bill are objectionable,” said Lim.

He said, among others, they include:

Prohibition of organisation of assemblies by persons below the age of 21 years.

Prohibition of participation in peaceful assemblies of children below the age of 15 years.

Unduly onerous responsibilities and restrictions on organisers and assemblies.

Excessive fines for non-compliance of the bill.

In the latest protest today, some 400 people wearing yellow T-shirts gathered at the iconic Twin Towers in Kuala Lumpur, carrying yellow balloons that read "Say no to PAB 2011" and chanting "Free the people."

One of the organisers, Maria Chin Abdullah, said the bill is unconstitutional as it restricts the right to peaceful assembly. She said amending it would be insufficient.

"It's like cleaning poison out of food. You can't," the prominent women's rights activist told AFP. - Malaysiakini, 26/11/2011, 'Walk for Freedom' will proceed, says Bar Council

Dear Members of the Malaysian Bar

Walk For Freedom 2011: Peaceful Assembly Bill Cannot And Must Not Become Law!

Tuesday, 29 Nov 2011 at 11:30 am, From Royal Lake Club to Parliament

Martin Luther King Jr once said that “the ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.”

The Malaysian Bar and indeed Malaysia is now facing such a moment of challenge and controversy — an objectionable Bill, being rushed into law with unseemly haste without adequate public consultation, which effectively robs the rakyat of our constitutional right to freedom of assembly.

This Peaceful Assembly Bill (“Bill”) is far more restrictive than the current law. It is not a piece of legislation which we, as lawyers, can watch enter our statute books without standing up against it. It is not a piece of legislation which we want future generations to inherit, without us walking, and spending every ounce of our energy to oppose. If this piece of legislation makes it to the statute books, future generations would inherit a nation that is far from modern and progressive.

Members of the Bar are now called upon to march to object to this Bill. The walk will take place next Tuesday, 29 Nov 2011, from the entrance of the Royal Lake Club to Parliament House, to deliver the Bar’s Proposed Amendments to the Peaceful Assembly Bill to YB Datuk Liew Vui Keong, Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department. Members are advised to gather in their court attire at 11:30 am outside the Royal Lake Club entrance.

The Prime Minister, in his eve of Malaysia Day 2011 speech, had promised that:

… long gone is the era in which the government knows everything and claims monopoly over wisdom …

The Government will also review section 27 of the Police Act 1967, taking into consideration Article 10 of the Federal Constitution regarding freedom of assembly and so as to be in line with international norms on the same matter … (emphasis added)

… a Malaysia that practices [sic] a functional and inclusive democracy … in accordance with the supremacy of the Constitution, rule of law and respect for basic human rights and individual rights.

This Bill is not in line with international norms because of, amongst others:

(1) Prohibition of street protests (defined widely as “open air assembly which begins with a meeting at a specified place and consists of walking in a mass march or rally for the purpose of objecting to or advancing a particular cause or causes”);

(2) Prohibition of organisation of assemblies by persons below the age of twenty one years;

(3) Prohibition of participation in peaceful assemblies of children below the age of fifteen years;

(4) Unduly onerous responsibilities and restrictions on organisers and assemblies; and

(5) Excessive fines for non-compliance of the Bill.

Therefore this Bill is not “in accordance with the supremacy of the Constitution, rule of law and respect for basic human rights and individual rights”, which the Prime Minister promised it would be.

The Bill is in its second reading in the Dewan Rakyat, and in all likelihood it will be passed after the third reading. We must remain hopeful that we can make a difference, through our Walk for Freedom. We must urge the Prime Minister to amend the Bill by way of public consultation to ensure that Malaysia will have a legislation in the public interest, which truly upholds, protects and promotes our constitutional right to freedom of assembly.

We feel let down by how far short this Bill falls in relation to what the Malaysian people were promised in the Prime Minister’s Malaysia Day 2011 message. In short, the Prime Minister must walk his own talk.

Please click on the links below to view the:

(1) Bar Council press release entitled “Peaceful Assembly Bill is more restrictive than present law and must be improved” issued on 22 Nov 2011;
(2) Bar Council press release entitled “Broken promise: Prime Minister has not lived up to Malaysia Day 2011 pledge" issued on 24 Nov 2011;
(3) Malaysian Bar’s Memorandum on Peaceful Assembly Bill dated 24 Nov 2011; and
(4) Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011.

Please contact Gayathiri Paneerselvam, Officer, by telephone at 03-2050 2089 or by email at gayathiri.p@malaysianbar.org.my, should you have any queries.

I call on all Members to support us in this crucial initiative. See you on Tuesday, let’s walk!

Lim Chee Wee

President

Malaysian Bar

25 Nov 2011

PA Bill 2011 - further extinguish a right that already is being suppressed by the draconian Police Act...

2011-11-28T22:09:00.001+08:00

The call must be:-

Withdraw Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011

Repeal Police Act 1967, especially section 27..

WE DEMAND OUR DEMOCRATIC RIGHT OF PROTEST, PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY AND EXPRESSION

Art. 10 of the Federal Constitution deals with the freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and the freedom of association, this same article acknowledges the right -- and then withers away this right at the same time.

PART II
FUNDAMENTAL LIBERTIES
10. Freedom of speech, assembly and association.
(1) Subject to Clauses (2), (3) and (4) -
(a) every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression;
(b) all citizens have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms;
(c) all citizens have the right to form associations.
(2) Parliament may by law impose -
(a) on the rights conferred by paragraph (a) of Clause (1), such restrictions as it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof, friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality and restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament or of any Legislative Assembly or to provide against contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to any offence;
(b) on the right conferred by paragraph (b) of Clause (1), such restrictions as it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof or public order;
(c) on the right conferred by paragraph (c) of Clause (1), such restrictions as it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof, public order or morality.
(3) Restrictions on the right to form associations conferred by paragraph (c) of Clause (1) may also be imposed by any law relating to labour or education.

(4) In imposing restrictions in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof or public order under Clause (2) (a), Parliament may pass law prohibiting the questioning of any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of Part III, Article 152, 153 or 181 otherwise than in relation to the implementation thereof as may be specified in such law.

Then we have the Police Act which states that a person wanting to exercise their right to assemble peacefully must get the police permission first... if not it is illegal -

Sec. 27(2) Police Act 1967
Any person intending to convene or collect any assembly or meeting or to form a procession in any public place aforesaid, shall before convening, collecting or forming such assembly, meeting or procession make to the Officer-in-Charge of the Police District in which such assembly, meeting or procession is to be held an application for a licence in that behalf, and if such police officer is satisfied that the assembly, meeting or procession is not likely to be prejudicial to the interest of the security of Malaysia or any part thereof or to excite a disturbance of the peace, he shall issue a licence in such form as may be prescribed specifying the name of the licensee and defining the conditions upon which such assembly, meeting or procession is permitted:

Provided that such police officer may at any time on any ground for which the issue of a licence under this subsection may be refused, cancel such licence.

Sec. 27(5) Police Act 1967
(5) Any assembly, meeting or procession-
(a) which takes place without a licence issued under subsection (2); or
(b) in which three or more persons taking part neglect or refuse to obey any order given under the provisions of subsection (1) or subsection (3),
shall be deemed to be an unlawful assembly, and all persons attending, found at or taking part in such assembly, meeting or procession and, in the case of an assembly, meeting or procession for which no licence has been issued, all persons taking part or concerned in convening, collecting or directing such assembly, meeting or procession, shall be guilty of an offence.

Now, note that even when the license is given - it can very easily be revoked at any time. Even, when applied for, the giving of the license can take time - sometimes coming only at the 11th hour... BUT I believe that this is a BAD law which must be repealed, there should be no requirement for any license/permit to the police for the exercise of a right. Too much power given to the police... If need be, maybe the police could merely be notified of the protest - and this is for the purpose of the police being able to assist in traffic flow and maybe even to ensure that whatever protest/peaceful assembly proceeds without being disrupted by others who may hold an opposing view... which will always be the case.

The law also seem not to allow one or 2 persons to apply for a license, it requires 3 - and this is a denial of rights because sometimes, the one calling for the protest may just be one...

Now, the police in Malaysia is not perceived as being independent - and for those that hold a differing view from the government of the day find that they cannot easily get any permits, and even when they do get, it comes with conditions, some of which could be really absurd. I have heard of an Opposition political party being given a permit to organize a political dinner function on condition that there be no political speeches...

In protest against these unjust and absurd laws, most persons in Malaysia will just proceed with their protest/peaceful assembly without bothering to get police permission ...

This protest has been on-going for years but unfortunately the Barisan Nasional government just does not listen - and is again trying to further hinder the already stifled right to peaceful assembly by this new Bill - Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011...

Some may say - why don't you just use the Town Halls, Community Halls, fields, stadiums - well, for those who do not know, you will almost never get permission to use these premises which are controlled by the government. Remember BERSIH - remember how they were denied Stadium Merdeka, and any other Stadiums in KL...

It is the suppression of rights and freedoms that will finally result in an eruption people's protest in Malaysia - Our rights and freedoms have been suppressed for way too long - over 50 years. Many have just accepted this....but today, more and more people are waking up and actively protesting this state of affairs irrespective of the threat of arrest, torture, tear gas, water cannons, detention, being charged, the risk of imprisonment and fine, the disqualification from holding the office of MP or ADUN, the possibility of job-loss, discrimination at the workplace, etc...

It is no more just a few hard-core activist (normally around 50) - but today we see large numbers even going up to 100,000 coming out... and this is a new phenomena in Malaysia, and if the BN government do not change their 'draconian, repressive' ways, the people will bring about a change in government soon.

Right To Protest - requires no permission of police or need for notification...

2011-11-28T17:45:00.000+08:00

Let us not change our position by saying that the present law is alright & all we need is for this new draconian Bill be withdrawn. Some have even complained that the new Bill notification to police period is TOO LONG - remember that our position is that we do not need to get permission from anyone, including the police, to exercise the right to Freedom of Assembly.

Remember also that our call has been for the repeal of the Police Act and other absurd provisions in law that make the gathering of 3 (or 5 persons) or more an 'illegal' assembly if police permits were not obtained.

Hence, our call is not just for the withdrawal of the Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011 - but for the repeal of all laws that restricts and impedes the true exercise of our human right to protest, street protest, peaceful assembly .... Be careful not to take the position that withdraw PA 2011 Bill and all is OK - for it is not

Candlelight vigil protest against Assembly Bill

27 Nov 2011 | 2,541 views

More than 100 people took part in the candlelight vigil to protest against the Peaceful Assembly Bill.

Camera: Amir Abdullah

Editing: Tan Jiun Wuu

Candle Light Vigil against Peaceful Assembly Bill proceeds - 26/11/2011

2011-11-27T01:23:00.000+08:00

The Freedom to Assemble Campaign continues at Dataran Merdeka tonight. — Picture by Jack Ooi (from Malaysian Insider)

400 protest 'unconstitutional' bill at KLCC (Malaysiakini) - tonight Dataran Merdeka

2011-11-26T19:37:00.000+08:00

400 protest 'unconstitutional' bill at KLCC

Koh Jun Lin
6:42PM Nov 26, 2011

Approximately 400 people gathered at Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre (KLCC) Park this afternoon to protest against the Peaceful Assembly Bill, with police keeping watch from across the fountain without interfering.

Instead, about ten park security personnel roved the periphery of the lively crowd and a man identifying himself as a security supervisor disrupted any attempts at speeches, slogans and press conferences.

Wong Chin Huat (right, in yellow), who is one of three organisers, responded to the supervisor’s interruptions by cheekily dispersing the gathering into "private gatherings", and referred to the 2pm event as a picnic rather than a protest.

Speaking to reporters at the scene, Wong said the point was to illustrate that public assemblies are banal, everyday occurrences.

"Why the moment you think about the country, it becomes illegal? What's wrong with being patriotic?" he said.

When asked about the cabinet's announcement today that the bill would be reviewed, social activist and organiser Maria Chin Abdullah said that it was not enough to amend the bill but that it should be dropped completely.

"Because the bill itself is unconstitutional," she said, before accusing Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak of flip-flopping on his promise on Sept 15 to make Malaysia more democratic.
The Peaceful Assembly Bill, if passed, required public assemblies to notifying the police under a set of restrictive conditions.

However, critics argued that the bill's restrictions are still too stringent, in particular the outright prohibition of street protests, and that the 30-day notification period was too long.
Party atmosphere at gathering

The participants, many wearing yellow, distributed chrysanthemums, played with balloons, blew bubbles, and occasionally shouted slogans like "Say no to the bill". They also sang Rasa Sayang and the national anthem.

On the sidelines, a group of about 20 calling themselves the KL People's Assembly - the same group behind Occupy Dataran - was called to order and unanimously voted to oppose the bill before the park security disrupted their activities.

The event officially ended at 2:40pm but hundreds lingered on for over an hour to chat, and one of the participants even held a yoga session.

Other prominent figures who attended included Klang MP Charles Santiago, Segambut MP Lim Lip Eng, Malaysian Makkal Sakti Party acting president A Vathemurthy, and Seksualiti Merdeka organiser Phang Kee Teik.

The organisers started planning the event just three days ago on Wednesday, the day after the Peaceful Assembly Bill was tabled.

Before dispersing, Wong shouted out invitations to attend Occupy Dataran tonight at 11pm, the march with the lawyers from Royal Lake Club to Parliament on Tuesday, and to return to KLCC Park for a "picnic" next Saturday, to which the crowd cheered, "Yes!"