UN Human Rights Defenders Declaration

Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals,
Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally
Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms


General Assembly resolution 53/144

The General Assembly,

Reaffirming the importance of the observance of the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations for the promotion and protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all persons in all countries of the world,

Taking note of Commission on Human Rights resolution 1998/7 of 3 April 1998, See Official Records of the Economic and Social Council, 1998, Supplement No. 3 (E/1998/23), chap. II, sect. A. in which the Commission approved the text of the draft declaration on the right and responsibility of individuals, groups and organs of society to promote and protect universally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Taking note also of Economic and Social Council resolution 1998/33 of 30 July 1998, in which the Council recommended the draft declaration to the General Assembly for adoption,

Conscious of the importance of the adoption of the draft declaration in the context of the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Resolution 217 A (III).

1. Adopts the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, annexed to the present resolution;

2. Invites Governments, agencies and organizations of the United Nations system and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations to intensify their efforts to disseminate the Declaration and to promote universal respect and understanding thereof, and requests the Secretary-General to include the text of the Declaration in the next edition of Human Rights: A Compilation of International Instruments.

85th plenary meeting
9 December 1998

ANNEX

Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

The General Assembly,

Reaffirming the importance of the observance of the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations for the promotion and protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all persons in all countries of the world,

Reaffirming also the importance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights² and the International Covenants on Human Rights Resolution 2200 A (XXI), annex. as basic elements of international efforts to promote universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms and the importance of other human rights instruments adopted within the United Nations system, as well as those at the regional level,

Stressing that all members of the international community shall fulfil, jointly and separately, their solemn obligation to promote and encourage respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction of any kind, including distinctions based on race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, and reaffirming the particular importance of achieving international cooperation to fulfil this obligation according to the Charter,

Acknowledging the important role of international cooperation for, and the valuable work of individuals, groups and associations in contributing to, the effective elimination of all violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms of peoples and individuals, including in relation to mass, flagrant or systematic violations such as those resulting from apartheid, all forms of racial discrimination, colonialism, foreign domination or occupation, aggression or threats to national sovereignty, national unity or territorial integrity and from the refusal to recognize the right of peoples to self-determination and the right of every people to exercise full sovereignty over its wealth and natural resources,

Recognizing the relationship between international peace and security and the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and mindful that the absence of international peace and security does not excuse non-compliance,

Reiterating that all human rights and fundamental freedoms are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated and should be promoted and implemented in a fair and equitable manner, without prejudice to the implementation of each of those rights and freedoms,

Stressing that the prime responsibility and duty to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms lie with the State,

Recognizing the right and the responsibility of individuals, groups and associations to promote respect for and foster knowledge of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels,

Declares:

Article 1

Everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to promote and to strive for the protection and realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels.

Article 2

1. Each State has a prime responsibility and duty to protect, promote and implement all human rights and fundamental freedoms, inter alia, by adopting such steps as may be necessary to create all conditions necessary in the social, economic, political and other fields, as well as the legal guarantees required to ensure that all persons under its jurisdiction, individually and in association with others, are able to enjoy all those rights and freedoms in practice.

2. Each State shall adopt such legislative, administrative and other steps as may be necessary to ensure that the rights and freedoms referred to in the present Declaration are effectively guaranteed.

Article 3

Domestic law consistent with the Charter of the United Nations and other international obligations of the State in the field of human rights and fundamental freedoms is the juridical framework within which human rights and fundamental freedoms should be implemented and enjoyed and within which all activities referred to in the present Declaration for the promotion, protection and effective realization of those rights and freedoms should be conducted.

Article 4

Nothing in the present Declaration shall be construed as impairing or contradicting the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations or as restricting or derogating from the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,² the International Covenants on Human Rights³ and other international instruments and commitments applicable in this field.

Article 5

For the purpose of promoting and protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms, everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, at the national and international levels:

(a) To meet or assemble peacefully;

(b) To form, join and participate in non-governmental organizations, associations or groups;

(c) To communicate with non-governmental or intergovernmental organizations.

Article 6

Everyone has the right, individually and in association with others:

(a) To know, seek, obtain, receive and hold information about all human rights and fundamental freedoms, including having access to information as to how those rights and freedoms are given effect in domestic legislative, judicial or administrative systems;

(b) As provided for in human rights and other applicable international instruments, freely to publish, impart or disseminate to others views, information and knowledge on all human rights and fundamental freedoms;

(c) To study, discuss, form and hold opinions on the observance, both in law and in practice, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms and, through these and other appropriate means, to draw public attention to those matters.

Article 7

Everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to develop and discuss new human rights ideas and principles and to advocate their acceptance.

Article 8

1. Everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to have effective access, on a non-discriminatory basis, to participation in the government of his or her country and in the conduct of public affairs.

2. This includes, inter alia, the right, individually and in association with others, to submit to governmental bodies and agencies and organizations concerned with public affairs criticism and proposals for improving their functioning and to draw attention to any aspect of their work that may hinder or impede the promotion, protection and realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Article 9

1. In the exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the promotion and protection of human rights as referred to in the present Declaration, everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to benefit from an effective remedy and to be protected in the event of the violation of those rights.

2. To this end, everyone whose rights or freedoms are allegedly violated has the right, either in person or through legally authorized representation, to complain to and have that complaint promptly reviewed in a public hearing before an independent, impartial and competent judicial or other authority established by law and to obtain from such an authority a decision, in accordance with law, providing redress, including any compensation due, where there has been a violation of that person’s rights or freedoms, as well as enforcement of the eventual decision and award, all without undue delay.

3. To the same end, everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, inter alia:

(a) To complain about the policies and actions of individual officials and governmental bodies with regard to violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms, by petition or other appropriate means, to competent domestic judicial, administrative or legislative authorities or any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, which should render their decision on the complaint without undue delay;

(b) To attend public hearings, proceedings and trials so as to form an opinion on their compliance with national law and applicable international obligations and commitments;

(c) To offer and provide professionally qualified legal assistance or other relevant advice and assistance in defending human rights and fundamental freedoms.

4. To the same end, and in accordance with applicable international instruments and procedures, everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to unhindered access to and communication with international bodies with general or special competence to receive and consider communications on matters of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

5. The State shall conduct a prompt and impartial investigation or ensure that an inquiry takes place whenever there is reasonable ground to believe that a violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms has occurred in any territory under its jurisdiction.

Article 10

No one shall participate, by act or by failure to act where required, in violating human rights and fundamental freedoms and no one shall be subjected to punishment or adverse action of any kind for refusing to do so.

Article 11

Everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to the lawful exercise of his or her occupation or profession. Everyone who, as a result of his or her profession, can affect the human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of others should respect those rights and freedoms and comply with relevant national and international standards of occupational and professional conduct or ethics.

Article 12

1. Everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to participate in peaceful activities against violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

2. The State shall take all necessary measures to ensure the protection by the competent authorities of everyone, individually and in association with others, against any violence, threats, retaliation, de facto or de jure adverse discrimination, pressure or any other arbitrary action as a consequence of his or her legitimate exercise of the rights referred to in the present Declaration.

3. In this connection, everyone is entitled, individually and in association with others, to be protected effectively under national law in reacting against or opposing, through peaceful means, activities and acts, including those by omission, attributable to States that result in violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as acts of violence perpetrated by groups or individuals that affect the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Article 13

Everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to solicit, receive and utilize resources for the express purpose of promoting and protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms through peaceful means, in accordance with article 3 of the present Declaration.

Article 14

1. The State has the responsibility to take legislative, judicial, administrative or other appropriate measures to promote the understanding by all persons under its jurisdiction of their civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights.

2. Such measures shall include, inter alia:

(a) The publication and widespread availability of national laws and regulations and of applicable basic international human rights instruments;

(b) Full and equal access to international documents in the field of human rights, including the periodic reports by the State to the bodies established by the international human rights treaties to which it is a party, as well as the summary records of discussions and the official reports of these bodies.

3. The State shall ensure and support, where appropriate, the creation and development of further independent national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms in all territory under its jurisdiction, whether they be ombudsmen, human rights commissions or any other form of national institution.

Article 15

The State has the responsibility to promote and facilitate the teaching of human rights and fundamental freedoms at all levels of education and to ensure that all those responsible for training lawyers, law enforcement officers, the personnel of the armed forces and public officials include appropriate elements of human rights teaching in their training programme.

Article 16

Individuals, non-governmental organizations and relevant institutions have an important role to play in contributing to making the public more aware of questions relating to all human rights and fundamental freedoms through activities such as education, training and research in these areas to strengthen further, inter alia, understanding, tolerance, peace and friendly relations among nations and among all racial and religious groups, bearing in mind the various backgrounds of the societies and communities in which they carry out their activities.

Article 17

In the exercise of the rights and freedoms referred to in the present Declaration, everyone, acting individually and in association with others, shall be subject only to such limitations as are in accordance with applicable international obligations and are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

Article 18

1. Everyone has duties towards and within the community, in which alone the free and full development of his or her personality is possible.

2. Individuals, groups, institutions and non-governmental organizations have an important role to play and a responsibility in safeguarding democracy, promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms and contributing to the promotion and advancement of democratic societies, institutions and processes.

3. Individuals, groups, institutions and non-governmental organizations also have an important role and a responsibility in contributing, as appropriate, to the promotion of the right of everyone to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other human rights instruments can be fully realized.

Article 19

Nothing in the present Declaration shall be interpreted as implying for any individual, group or organ of society or any State the right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of the rights and freedoms referred to in the present Declaration.

Article 20

Nothing in the present Declaration shall be interpreted as permitting States to support and promote activities of individuals, groups of individuals, institutions or non-governmental organizations contrary to the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.

Withdraw reprimand against 'The Star'; repeal PPPA (CIJ)

Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ) Malaysia27C Jalan Sarikei, off Jalan Pahang53000 Kuala LumpurWebsite: cijmalaysia.orgEmail: cijmalaysia@gmail.comTel: 03 4023 0772Fax: 03 4023 0769

22 March 2011

Media Release: Withdraw reprimand against 'The Star'; repeal PPPA

The Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ) regrets that yet another reprimand was issue by the Home Ministry to the press, this time to “The Star”.

“The Star” stated that it was reprimanded for a 9 March 2011 article on the impounding of 5,000 Bahasa Malaysia (BM) Bibles. “The Star” was reportedly reminded by the Home Ministry’s chief secretary Zaitun Abdul Samad that printing owners are required to comply with ministry directives under the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 (PPPA).

It is unclear what directives “The Star” breached. The article entitled “5,000 Bibles still not returned, says group” essentially reported a statement by the National Evangelical Christian Fellowship secretary-general Sam Ang. Ang said 5,000 BM Bibles were confiscated by the Home Ministry in 2009, adding that they have still not been returned despite alleged Cabinet approval.

The holdup with the Bibles, reportedly due to their reference to “Allah” as God, is a curb by the government on the freedom of expression as well as the freedom of religion. Ang’s statement was in no way incendiary or inflammatory. It expressed the concern of a community whose constitutional freedoms have been infringed. In publishing the statement, “The Star” was doing its duty in monitoring power and allowing the aggrieved party its say. No Home Ministry directive should have such wide and far-reaching powers as to prohibit the publication of such a statement.

This incident highlights more than ever the need for the PPPA to be repealed. It is a serious infringement on media freedom when the government has the power to dictate to newspapers what they can or cannot report. The role of the media isto serve the public interest. The government’s ability to reprimand and deny newspapers licences for not following its instructions has only led to the continued erosion of the media’s ability to play this important role.

CIJ therefore calls on the Home Ministry to retract its reprimand to “The Star” and to cease issuing directives which interfere with the media’s public interest role. It is in the interest of the people that the media is free to report on statements as they see fit. Actions such as the Home Ministry’s recent interference will only impede the government’s declared aims of ensuring good governance, transparency and accountability and should therefore cease.

CIJ also calls on all Malaysians who value an independent media to hold the government accountable over the appalling state of media freedom in the country. With the general election expected this year, it is an opportune time to tell our elected representatives that we want the PPPA repealed.

For further information please contact CIJ Executive Officer Masjaliza Hamzah, Tel: 03 40230772, Fax: 03 40230769

The Centre for Independent Journalism, Malaysia (CIJ) is a non-profit organisation that aspires for a society that is democratic, just and free where all people will enjoy free media and the freedom to express, seek, and impart information.

--
Centre for Independent Journalism Malaysia
Web: cijmalaysia.org
Tel: +603-4023 0772

Employers responsible for their workers - not outsourcing companies.

"We feel that employers are the people who should be responsible for their 

foreign workers. Outsourcing companies are only responsible for 

bringing them in. After that, employers must assume full responsibility."

- Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin

 

(From left) Tan Sri Musa Hassan, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein, Datuk Dr S. Subramaniam (partially hidden), Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin and Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail in a discussion at the Perdana Putra building in Putrajaya yesterday. — NST picture by Izhari Ariffin

 

 

PUTRAJAYA: Employers of unskilled foreign workers will have to pay higher levies beginning next year.

The cabinet committee on foreign labour and illegal foreign workers, chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, agreed yesterday that employers who hired unskilled workers would need to pay higher levies while the quantum for those employing skilled ones be lowered.

The amount will be announced after discussions to be held later between representatives of the various employment agencies.

Muhyiddin said all sectors employing foreign workers would be involved in determining suitable rates for the levy increase which would vary based on sectors, percentage of foreigners employed and their skills.

He said Malaysia recorded 25 million foreigners entering the country legally, of whom 23.6 million were tourists while 1.89 million came in as foreign workers.

"Our policy in the long term is to reduce dependency on foreign workers and we will do this gradually. We do not put a limit to the number as the country is fast developing.

"With the New Economic Model (NEM), we will be needing more skilled workers to ensure economic growth is not stunted.

"The focus now is on managing foreign workers well, based on our needs," he told a press conference after the meeting at the Implementation and Coordination Unit of the Prime Minister's Department.

The cabinet committee also agreed for an amnesty programme to be held as soon as a biometric system linked to all relevant agencies was in place. Muhyiddin said all agencies dealing with foreign workers would be able to access the system to better manage the workers and weed out illegal ones.

The Home Ministry has been given two weeks to coordinate and outline the initiatives to address the issues of foreign labour management, including the imposition of the levy.

Under the amnesty programme, Muhyiddin said illegal workers and employers who continued to harbour and employ them would be severely dealt with.

"During the amnesty period, we will not take action against those who overstay or work here illegally, but we will come down hard on them if they do not get out of the country when the amnesty expires."

The committee is also focused on making employers more responsible towards their workers, reducing the government's costs in handling the group and bringing down crime cases involving foreigners.

"We feel that employers are the people who should be responsible for their foreign workers. Outsourcing companies are only responsible for bringing them in. After that, employers must assume full responsibility."

The 17-member committee also discussed 50 recommendations by the foreign workers laboratory in managing foreign workers, including in the areas of supply and demand, systems and processes of engaging the groups as well as enforcement.

The committee is also mulling introducing "bonds" for each foreign worker employed, where the payment to the government could be forfeited for reasons, including if they absconded.

"We will see if this is feasible and we will talk with the relevant parties for their response," said Muhyiddin.

Members of the committee present included Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein, Human Resources Minister Datuk Dr S. Subramaniam, Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail and Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan. - New Straits Times, 21/5/2010, Higher levies for foreign workers

While Trengganu said 'No' - Pahang agreed to allow a dangerous rare earth plant in Najib's home state

The Consumers' Association of Penang (CAP) and Sahabat Alam Malaysia (SAM) are very concerned with the Pahang government's decision to go ahead with the proposed rare earth plant in Gebeng despite the fact that this refinery is a disaster waiting to happen.

In 2007, SAM was invited by the Terengganu government to give a briefing on the dangers of rare earth and SAM's experience dealing with the exposure of radioactive waste in Bukit Merah, Perak. Following this, the project was rejected by the Terengganu government.
In the last three years, CAP and SAM have objected vehemently to the proposed rare earth plant due to the potential public health and environmental impacts of radioactive and hazardous waste that would be generated.

There has been no full public disclosure of this proposed project. A detailed environmental impact assessment was not required due to a loophole in our law. Thus there was no avenue for the public to review the proposed mitigation measures and potential risks, and raise their objections.

The company has said that there will be low level exposure to radiation. This is alarming as there is no safe level or threshold of ionizing radiation exposure. Long-term, low-level (chronic) exposure to radiation is harmful because living tissue in the human body can be damaged by ionizing radiation.

The exposure to radioactive waste can contribute to increased incidence of childhood leukaemia, cancer, miscarriages, impaired immune systems with an abnormal low white blood cell counts, high lead levels among children which would lead to lead poisoning.

Children are much more vulnerable to the harmful effects of radiation disasters than the general population because their bodies absorb and metabolise substances differently, and because they are more likely to develop certain cancers from such an exposure. There is also a high possibility that children born to parents that have been exposed to radiation could be affected by those exposures too.

The other issue of concern is that there no known way to safely dispose the waste which is generated from this refinery.

Given all these risks, is the government prepared to sacrifice lives for the sake of profits?

Taking into account the seriousness of the risks involved in running such a plant, we strongly urge the government to call off this project immediately.


SM Mohamed Idris is Consumers' Association of Penang president. - Malaysiakini,11/3/2011, Kuantan rare earth plant threat to public safety

Let us remember Papan - Bukit Merah, I was privileged to have been present in that large impressive 10,000 persons protest march initiated by the local residents...

News of the setting up of a rare earth refinery in Pahang is sending jitters down the spines of Malaysians who remember the drawn-out battle against a similar plant in Bukit Merah, Perak.

Malaysiakini recalls what happened.
1982 Asian Rare Earth (ARE), a joint-venture between main shareholder Mitsubishi Chemical industries Ltd, Beh Minerals, Lembaga Urusan dan Tabung Haji and several bumiputera businesses, begins operating its plant at Jalan Lahat, Bukit Merah.

1984 6700 residents of Papan (16 kms from Ipoh), where ARE is dumping its waste, sign a petition against it to the government while up to 3000 take part in several demonstrations and a hunger strike.


Up to 3000 residents including women and children take part in several demonstrations and a hunger strike.

Meanwhile, environmentalists, radiation experts, physicists and industrial waste experts from abroad visit the site and declare it unsafe with radiation up to 800 times the accepted levels.


1985 Residents of Bukit Merah obtain a stop work order from the High Court.

1986 Atomic Energy Licensing Board (AELB) deems the site safe, after an ARE clean up, as only some parts have more than acceptable radiation level.

1987 AELB issues a licence to ARE to resume work, to demonstrations involving up to 10,000 residents. More than 20, including women, were injured in one incident while 60 were detained by police. None were charged.

Eight residents take legal action against ARE, and up to 3000 marched 8 kms to court on the last day of proceedings. More than 100 were in the next month detained under the Internal Security Act and released after two months.


1989 Two children aged five and 11 and a 19-year-old man were diagnosed with acute leukemia. Other cases like brain cancer, septicemia and other complications are reported.


Seemingly healthy children exposed to radiation were tested and found to be less healthy than those in Carey Island, although the children of Bukit Merah were better nourished.

According to 1986 statistics, Bukit Merah should have only one case of leukemia in thirty years. By the time the plant shuts down, eight cases would have been diagnosed. Seven patients will not survive.

There are also reported cases of birth deformities involving children of workers at the plant.


1992 The Bukit Merah residents win their suit against ARE but the High Court's shutdown order is stayed upon ARE's appeal to the Supreme Court. The proceedings are adjourned.

1994 ARE announces that it will cease operations even though the case is pending.

2011: Mitsubishi is reportedly engaged in a RM100 million clean-up effort in Bukit Merah, and contributes hundreds of thousands of ringgit to the local community. - Malaysiakini, 10/3/2011, Fast backward: What happened in Bukit Merah

An Australian mining company said Thursday it plans to finish building a huge rare earths processing plant in Malaysia late this year, in a possible challenge to China's stranglehold on the metals.

The Lynas Advanced Materials Plant (LAMP) in Kuantan is scheduled to begin producing rare earths, which are indispensable in making many high-tech products, in the third quarter of 2011, a Lynas spokeswoman in Sydney told AFP.

"The Lynas Advanced Materials Plant is scheduled to come online in the third quarter of 2011," she said.

The facility - which will refine raw material from Mount Weld in Western Australia - is described by the giant firm as "the largest of its kind" and set to provide the first new source of supply of rare earths outside China.

The firm was two to four years ahead of any other producers outside China because rare earths projects take several years to develop, Matthew James, vice president of corporate and business development at Lynas, told AFP in October.

He said the project, which had been eight years in the making, had about 1.4 million tonnes of the elements at Mount Weld. The company plans to double output from the Malaysian plant to 22,000 tonnes a year by the end of 2012.

Rare earths such as super-magnet dysprosium and red-glowing europium are vital components in hard-drives and computer screens, while the metals are also pivotal in making laser missile systems, wind turbines and solar panels.

'Repeating pass mistakes'

The project has however drawn criticism from Malaysian environmental groups, which said they were "appalled" the government had approved it, after a similar plant in another Malaysian state was forced to halt in 1992 due to protests.

"We do not want a repeat of what happened in Bukit Merah where the impacts are still felt until today," SM Mohamed Idris, president of Friends of the Earth Malaysia said in a statement.

The Bukit Merah rare earths plant, which was opened in the 1980s, ceased operations in 1992 after an uproar from local residents who blamed it for a number of birth defects.

Mohamed Idris warned that the new refinery will produce huge quantities of radioactive waste, and urged the government to engage with environmental groups before going ahead with the project.

Raja Abdul Aziz Raja Adnan, the head of Malaysia's Atomic Energy Licensing Board, said Malaysia has only approved the construction of the Kuantan plant and has not yet given the green light for it to begin operations.

He said the board, one of the government agencies tasked with looking into the safety aspects of the project, will need to be satisfied that it will not lead to a major impact on the public and environment.

"We are looking from the safety point of view. We are continuously measuring the (safety) parameters and collecting samples, we will make sure they control the residue," he told AFP.

Breaking China's monopoly

Raja Abdul Aziz said the Australian firm has proposed turning waste from processing the ore - which is slightly radioactive - into concrete-like objects known as tetrapods to be used to build artificial reefs and sea walls.

He said the radioactive concentration in these objects must be "dilute enough to be very similar to the environment".

World attention has shifted to Australia's nascent rare earths industry after China, which dominates global production, began restricting exports, sending shudders through major consumers Japan, Europe and the United States.

In December, the United States called on China not to use rare earths as a "trade weapon" after Japanese industry said Beijing temporarily cut off exports in 2010 amid a territorial row.

China, which produces more than 95 percent of the world's rare earths, has denied any political motivations, insisting the restrictions on exports were due to environmental concerns and the need for a more sustainable approach.

This year the Asian giant has also tightened its grip over the industry by setting tough emission limits on miners producing the lucrative metals.- Malaysiakini, 10/3/2011, Lynas: Rare earth plant operational in Q3

29,759 migrants 'caned' in Malaysia between 2005-2010 (9/3/2011)

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL PRESS RELEASE

11 March 2011

Malaysia: Government Reveals Nearly 30,000 Foreigners Caned

Malaysia should immediately halt the judicial caning of refugees and migrants, Amnesty International said after the government disclosed that almost 30,000 foreigners had been caned in five years.

In a response to a parliamentary question on 9 March, Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein disclosed that Malaysia had caned 29,759 foreigners between 2005 and 2010 for immigration offences alone.

 “The government’s figures confirm that Malaysia is subjecting thousands of people to torture and other ill-treatment each year,” said Sam Zarifi, Asia Pacific director at Amnesty International. “This is a practice which is absolutely prohibited under international law, no matter what the circumstances.”

“As a first step, the Malaysian government has to immediately declare a moratorium on this brutal practice.”

Amnesty International also called for a complete abolition of all forms or corporal punishment, which constitutes torture or other ill-treatment.

In December 2010, Amnesty International published an in-depth investigation into judicial caning in Malaysia. In each of the 57 cases it examined, Amnesty International found that the caning amounted to torture, as the authorities had intentionally inflicted severe pain and suffering through the punishment of caning.

While most countries have abolished judicial caning, Malaysia has expanded the practice. Parliament has increased the number of offenses subject to caning to more than 60.

Since 2002, when Parliament amended the Immigration Act 1959/63 to make immigration violations such as illegal entry subject to caning, tens of thousands of refugees and migrant workers have been caned.

At least 60 per cent of the 29,759 foreigners caned were Indonesians, according to Liew Chin Tong, the parliamentarian who submitted the question. In March 2010, Amnesty International documented how unchecked abuses by unscrupulous labour agents led to many migrant workers losing their legal immigration status and thus being subject to caning.

Refugees are also caned for immigration violations in Malaysia. Since Malaysia has not yet ratified the UN Refugee Convention, asylum seekers are often arrested and prosecuted as illegal migrants. Burmese refugees in Malaysia have told Amnesty International how they live in fear after being caned.

“Malaysia is subjecting thousands of people from other Asian countries to torture and other ill-treatment,” said Sam Zarifi. “Indonesia, which chairs the Association of South East Asian Nations and its human rights Commission this year, must press Malaysia to stop caning their citizens.”

Public Document

****************************************

For more information please call Amnesty International's press office in London, UK, on +44 20 7413 5566 or email: press@amnesty.org

International Secretariat, Amnesty International, 1 Easton St., London WC1X 0DW, UK

PSW: International Women’s Day and women workers rights

Media Statement 

International Women’s Day and women workers rights

Persatuan Sahabat Wanita Selangor on the occasion of the 100^th anniversary of IWD wishes to draw the attention of the Malaysian public and the Malaysian government regarding two current issues. Firstly we want to begin by saying that IWD was declared in memory of the women workers in a garment factory who died in a fire in New York in March 1911. Hundred years on women workers from many sectors in Malaysia face similar problems. Today we want to highlight the plight of two sectors –  domestic workers and informal workers.

Malaysian domestic workers are exempted from almost rights accorded to workers in the Employment Act, 1955. Half century later the Malaysian government has still not shed its patriarchal attitude towards  these workers. In Report IV (2A) of the International Labour Conference which is a document in preparation for the 100^th session the Malaysian government has made the following stand:

Domestic work is not seen as ordinary employment. The rights of householders should also be considered. A Recommendation would be more suitable than a Convention.

This remark was made in connection to a call for governments’ comments about a proposed text for a Convention on Domestic Workers. Malaysia was not among 39 countries that welcomed the text in preparation for a discussion on the above proposed Convention.

We are disappointed that our government thinks the relationship between a worker and an employer in a private home does not constitute normal work and thus does not warrant any protection.  We urge the Minister of Human Resources and the Minister of Women and Family Affairs to review this archaic stand and take a more professional view of domestic workers.

The second issue we wish to highlight is that 100 years after attention was drawn to the sorry plight of women workers things have not improved much for women workers here in Malaysia. 

While there is an Employment Act and other legislation to protect the rights of workers these are currently being violated in many ways. One way is that workers, especially women, are employed by contractors and subcontractors who ignore their legal duty as employers (as warranted under the Employment Act) and say that they are labour agents who supply labour to workplaces. Whatever they choose to call themselves they should be made to comply with the Employment Act and provide for their workers as the Act requires. We condemn the current penchant to do away with all duties as Employers by employing workers indirectly and claiming that they are not employers. We call upon the government to take this issue seriously as it affects large sections of the Malaysian Labour force be they local or migrant. The government cannot choose to think only of the interests of the Employers in this regard.

In conjunction with this 100th year of International Women’s Day we call upon the government and the people of Malaysia to protect and defend the rights of women workers especially those in precarious employment like domestic and informal workers.

Irene Xavier

President

Persatuan Sahabat Wanita, Selangor

(A grassroots women workers organisation since 1984)

About Migrants in Malaysia - UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention -8/2/2011

Below are selected extracts only concerning migrants in Malaysia, for the full Report of the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (Malaysia) - 8/2/2011 report go here

Report of the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention on its Mission to Malaysia (7–17 June 2010) - 8 February 2011

“…Detention under immigration powers does not seem to be in line with international human rights law. The Working Group considers that the detention of migrants should be decided upon by a court of law, on a case-by-case basis, and pursuant to clear and exhaustively defined criteria in legislation under which detention may be used. The Working Group received complaints of detainee abuse, inadequate food, water, medical care and poor sanitation in most immigration detention centres. The situation at the overcrowded Lenggeng detention centre is especially highlighted. The Working Group expresses its concern at the caning of immigrants in an irregular situation and the powers extended to the Ikatan Relawan Rakyat Malaysia (RELA) volunteer force to be present in immigration detention centres and to track down foreigners living in Malaysia without valid documents.

The Working Group also recommends that the Government change its laws and policies related to the detention of asylum-seekers, refugees and migrants in an irregular situation, so that detention is decided upon by a court of law, on a case-by-case basis and pursuant to clearly and exhaustively defined criteria; rule out systematic immigration detention of vulnerable groups of migrants; and provide in all cases for automatic periodic review by a court of law on the necessity and legality of detention, as well as an effective remedy for detainees. Lastly, the Working Group recommends that the Government of Malaysia strengthen the status, powers and functions of the national human rights institution SUHAKAM, in accordance with the Paris Principles.”

G. Detention pursuant to immigration powers

65.       With regard to detention outside the context of criminal law, during its visit, the Working Group was seriously concerned by the administrative detention regime applied to asylum-seekers, refugees and migrants in an irregular situation. In a population of around 28 million, between 3 to 4 million are foreign immigrants. It is estimated that at least half of them are in an irregular situation or without the necessary documentation. Malaysia is a transit point for asylum-seekers, particularly those from Afghanistan and Myanmar. Some 90,000 foreigners have refugee status as determined by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and mainly live in Kuala Lumpur. A significant number of migrants from, inter alia, Bangladesh, Indonesia and Nepal also live in the country without authorization.

66. There is no special legislation relating to refugees and asylum-seekers in Malaysia, since they are not recognized as such under domestic law; indeed, current legislative framework does not even recognize the terms “refugees” and “asylum-seekers”. It is understood that any non-citizens of Malaysia entering the country without the necessary documents and permits are categorized as illegal migrants, dealt with according to the relevant laws and punished accordingly.

67. Illegal migrants are detained under the Immigration Act for the purposes of making inquiries or investigations into an offence under the law, and also for removing from Malaysia any foreigners who violate the provisions under the Act.

68. While immigrants in an irregular situation are subjected to mandatory detention under the Immigration Act, they do have some recourse to a court law. Article 5 of the Federal Constitution provides that detained persons should not be detained for more than 24 hours without authorization by a magistrate, although in the case of immigrants, this period is extended to 14 days. Migrants are detained by order of the Director General of Immigration and, under the criminal Procedure Code, by a magistrate. Detention of migrants in a prison is governed by the Prisons Regulations (2000), which contain safeguards on fundamental liberties, inter alia the rights to food, clothing, medical examination and treatment, education and recreation, the right to visits and communication.

69. The Government has not ratified the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees or the Protocol thereto. The Government has yet to put in place a national legal and administrative framework for dealing with asylum-seekers and refugees. While the Government does not restrict the access of undetained asylum-seekers to the Office of UNCHR, it does nothing to facilitate access and, as part of its immigration enforcement efforts, often arrests and detains asylum-seekers and refugees.

70. Although Malaysia is not a party to the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the Protocol thereto, Malaysia has fulfilled its international obligations to persons who have entered Malaysia claiming to be refugees and asylum-seekers through special arrangements on humanitarian grounds with UNHCR.

71. Persons committing offences under the immigration laws (either travelling without travel documents or committing criminal offences) are detained by the relevant authorities. However, section 8 (3) of the Immigration Act 1959/63 also sets out to determine persons categorized and prohibited from entering Malaysia. In the event, however, that such offenders are from vulnerable groups, including minors, families with minor children, pregnant women, elderly persons, persons with disabilities and other such persons, the authorities are required, on the basis of humanitarian grounds, to take all reasonable measures to treat such persons with appropriate care and attention.

72. The Working Group believes that detention of migrants should be decided upon by a court of law, on a case-by-case basis, and pursuant to clearly and exhaustively defined criteria in legislation under which detention may be used. The Government should not use immigration detention for asylum-seekers, refugees and vulnerable groups of migrants, including unaccompanied minors, families with minor children, pregnant women, breastfeeding mothers, elderly persons, persons with disabilities, or people with serious and/or chronic physical or mental health problems.

73. In all cases, immigrants should be provided with automatic periodic review by a court of law of the necessity and legality of their detention at any time.

74. Refugees and asylum-seekers are prosecuted for immigration-related offences and may be indefinitely detained at immigration detention centres or deported. Malaysia has no laws or regulations relating to the status of refugees and asylum-seekers in line with international standards. The 24 hours allowed for the police to bring a detainee before a magistrate becomes 2 weeks in the case of a foreigner detained under immigration laws.

75. In the absence of national refugee legislation, UNHCR performs core protection functions, including registration of asylum-seekers, determination of refugee status, issuance of identification documentation and promotion of solutions, including voluntary return, local integration or resettlement in a third country. UNHCR performs these functions, however, as a result of the Government’s unwillingness to perform what are clearly State functions of asylum management. UNHCR does so in the absence of a comprehensive legal and administrative framework for managing asylum-seekers.

76. The Government believes that the issue of refugees and asylum-seekers requires commitments from all States to cooperate in addressing the problems of the mass influx of refugees and asylum-seekers faced by many countries, including Malaysia. Such commitments would need to take into account the resources available of each State and their relevant domestic laws and migration policies. States should take measures jointly to eliminate the problems that give rise to persons having to migrate from their country of origin. Apart from addressing the issue of refugees, efforts need to be made to assist the countries of origin to alleviate the root causes of why their people migrate to other countries; only then would the international community to be able address the problem of refugees and migration as a whole.

77. The capacity of the 13 immigration detention centres in the country is around 6,000 places. All centres are under the control of the Immigration Department. Approximately 10,000 people were deported in 2009.

78. The Government is working to address the issue of overcrowding, the number of detainees has been reduced to an average of 4,500 to 4,800 from the total capacity of 6,640 of all detention centres. Cooperation with non-governmental organizations and international bodies is vital to improve management of immigration detention centres. The Government is therefore working closely with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and organizations such as Buddhist and Shelter.

79. The Government recognized that there is a need to improve conditions in immigration detention centres. It is taking steps such as by establishing a new set-up comprising personnel from various departments. The Government is also currently looking at emulating best practices in detention centre management of other countries such as Australia and the Netherlands. An additional allocation of RM100 million was recently approved by the Government to upgrade physical conditions and renovations of the centres concerned.

80. The Working Group was informed that at least six asylum-seekers and migrants had died of leptospirosis, an infectious disease, in immigration detention camps. In 2009, 14 detainees died in immigration detention centres. 

81. Capacity at Lenggeng detention centre is 1,250, including a block for 250 women. As a transit place, detainees should stay for a maximum of 14 days for investigation. The Working Group found evidence of overcrowding, insufficient access to potable water, poor sanitation and inadequate medical care. Allegations were received of inadequate food and lack of ventilation. The unsanitary and overcrowded conditions facilitated the transmission of communicable diseases, particularly skin diseases. Three detainees died during the first five months of 2010. Some detainees also stated that the overcrowding often led to confrontations and fighting between the detainees, with very limited or no intervention at all from the security guards.

82. The Working Group found a 14-year-old boy who had been in the centre since June 2008. He stated that he was born in Malaysia, although his documents indicated that he was Indonesian, as both his parents are Indonesian. He was adopted by a Malaysian family after his parents returned to Indonesia in 2006. His adoptive family had not visited him since 2009. He has no bed in his cell and was uncertain about his future.

83. According to the Government, all immigrants are subject to the same criminal justice system in Malaysia; detainees may therefore challenge the necessity and legality of their detention at any time. This is a common principle of the criminal justice system in Malaysia. Migrants who are found in an irregular situation (without valid travel documents) or commit an offence are charged in court. After the sentence period has been served, migrants are kept in immigration detention centres until deportation. The Working Group reminds the Government that it is an obligation of the State to guarantee the right to safety of all foreigners when it decides to place them in detention.

84. In Sabah, concern was also expressed at the detention of foreign children whose parents had been deported. 

85. Migrants found to have violated immigration laws are liable to imprisonment, substantial fines and, in some cases, caning. Since 2002, caning has been used to punish immigration offences, such as illegally entering the country. The Working Group was informed that most of the 10,000 people caned each year are immigrants in an irregular situation.

86. Upon the conclusion of its visit, the Working Group was informed that no migrant in detention was denied the necessary medical treatment.

V. Conclusions

92. Most prisons visited were found to meet international standards and regulations on conditions. This finding does not, however, apply to immigration detention centres.

100. The regime applied to migrants in an irregular situation, refugees and asylum seekers is not seen to be in line with international human rights law. Immigrants in an irregular situation arriving in the country are subjected to mandatory detention without genuine recourse to a court of law. The conditions of detention at most of the immigration detention centres visited adversely affect the ability of detainees to challenge the lawfulness of their detention. The Working Group received complaints of detainee abuse, inadequate food, water and medical care, and poor sanitation in the immigration detention centres.

101. The Working Group expresses its concern about the excessive powers granted to the non-official organization RELA, particularly its activities concerning asylum seekers, refugees and migrants in an irregular situation. The Working Group received allegations of ill-treatment and beatings by RELA militants.

103. The Working Group further expresses its concerns about the situation of overcrowding in prisons, but mainly in immigration detention centres.

A. General recommendations

105. The Government should increase its efforts to develop a human rights culture in Malaysia. The judiciary should train magistrates, judges and prosecutors in international human rights law in order to increase the capacity of applying international human rights principles and standards in the resolution of judicial cases.

106. The Government should become a party to the main international instruments on human rights, particularly the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the Protocol thereto, the Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

107. The Government should also study the possibility of becoming a party to the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families and the Optional Protocol thereto, as well as of revising the reservations and declarations it made to those conventions to which it is a State party.

C. Concerning detention under immigration powers

117. Regardless of immigration status, nobody should be subjected to arbitrary detention or appalling detention conditions. The Government is reminded that it is its responsibility to guarantee the right to physical and psychological integrity and the right to security in immigration detention centres. 

118. The Government should ratify the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the Protocol thereto, and put in place a national legal and administrative framework for dealing with asylum-seekers and refugees that meets international standard

119. The Government should also rule out detention of asylum-seekers and refugees as well as vulnerable groups of migrants, including unaccompanied minors, families with minor children, pregnant women, breastfeeding mothers, elderly persons, persons with disabilities, people with serious and/or chronic physical or mental health problems.

120. The Government should, in all cases, provide for automatic periodic review by a court of law on the necessity and legality of detention.

121. The Government should also provide for an effective remedy for detainees to challenge the necessity and legality of detention at any time of the detention period and ex post facto, and define the circumstances.

122. As long as there is a regime of mandatory administrative detention for migrants in an irregular situation, the Government should legally define its maximum period rather than basing it on Government regulations or policy.

123. The Government should also provide for a system of legal aid for immigration detainees.

124. The Government should assume the responsibility of improving the conditions in immigration detention centres as a matter of urgency.

125. RELA, as a volunteer force, should not be used for law enforcement nor for guarding immigration detention centres.

Making the Malaysian Election Commission more independent and transparent

REFORMS THAT WE NEED

a) An more independent Election Commission

Composition : - a chairman, a deputy chairman and five other members

The Election Commission shall be appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong after consultation with the Conference of Rulers, and shall consist of a chairman, a deputy chairman and five other members. (Art 114(1), Federal Constitution)

To protect their independence


* There is security of tenure until age of retirement, and early removal is difficult

A member of the Election Commission shall cease to hold office on attaining the age of sixty-six years or on becoming disqualified under Clause (4) and may at any time resign his office by writing under his hand addressed to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, but shall not be removed from office except on the like grounds and in the like manner as a judge of the Federal Court. (Art 114(3), Federal Constitution)

* There is security of salary - paid from the consolidated funds 

Parliament shall by law provide for the remuneration of members of the Election Commission, and the remuneration so provided shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund. (Art 114(5), Federal Constitution)

What about reasons for removal of members of the Election Commission? 

(4) Notwithstanding anything in Clause (3), the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall by order remove from office any member of the Election Commission if such member -

(a) is an undischarged bankrupt; or
(b) engages in any paid office or employment outside the duties of this office; or
(c) is a member of either House of Parliament or of the Legislative Assembly of a State.

(4A) In addition to any disqualification provided under Clause (4), the chairman of the Election Commission shall be disqualified from holding such office if after three months of his appointment to such office or at any time thereafter he is or becomes a member of any board of directors or board of management, or an officer of employee, or engages in the affairs or business, of any organization or body, whether corporate or otherwise, or of any commercial, industrial or other undertaking, whether or not he receives any remuneration, reward, profit or benefit from it:

Provided that such disqualification shall not apply where such organisation or body carries out any welfare or voluntary work or objective beneficial to the community or any part thereof, or any other work or objective of a charitable or social nature, and the member does not receive any remuneration, reward, profit or benefit from it. (Art 114(4 & 4A), Federal Constitution)

Maybe, what we need is an amendment so that Art 114(4A) not just apply to the Chairman of the Election Commission but is extended to all members of the Election Commission.

Maybe, it be best that the proviso in Art 114(4A) is removed and there be no exceptions. Why? Because, many such 'organisation or body carries out any welfare or voluntary work or objective beneficial to the community or any part thereof' are politically affliated, and/or may have members of political parties also sitting in some of these boards and committees...maybe participation in activities as a volunteer may be permissible, but not the sitting in the Board, Committees and/or even receiving any awards, etc

We really should insist that, like Judges, members of an independent Election Commission should refrain from socializing with person/s from political parties, and/or the Government.

Election Commission Act 1957( revised 1970)

1)  Communications within the Election Commission may be kept 'confidential' but certainly not any other communications, but even then it should be revealed if the court so orders... [CCTV recordings, etc...].Now, the current law ousts the courts - giving only the Yang Di-Pertuan Agung (the King) the power to order disclosure. I believe that maybe this power should practically be given to our courts and Judges, for after all Judges are appointed by the King. If this is done, then there will be clarity in terms of procedure...and the King's power could be best exercised through the King's Judges at the High Court.

2)  An independent Election Commission should really not be having 'secret' communications with the government of the day, and/or any Minister - because they are at the end of the day from certain political parties, irrespective of the fact that at the material time they may be Government and/or some Minister, and if they do so, then there must be transparency and accountability. What was the nature and content of the said communication must be revealed? 

In fact, it be best that all such conversation always be recorded - so that, in the event that there is allegations... then this could be revealed ...even if it is for the courts to make an assessment as to whether it should  remain 'confidential' or not.

5.  Certain communications to be privileged.
No person shall in any legal proceedings be permitted or compelled to produce or disclose any communication written or oral which has taken place between the Election Commission or any member of the Commission and the Government or any Minister or public officer or any communication between members of the Election Commission in exercise of or in connection with the exercise of the functions of the Commission unless the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall in writing consent to such production or disclosure.

Therefore, this section 5 need  to be repealed - if not amended.

People should be encouraged to provide information to the Election Commission, and this should be all information that they have personal knowledge of, information that they heard about, etc - There should be no obligation placed on the informant to verify whether it is true or false... On receipt of the said information, the duty of the Election Commission is to investigate the complaint. Hence, sec.8 of Election Commission Act need to be repealed. (Or maybe amended, to clearly encourage the public to come forward with information ...not the other way around.)

8.  Giving false information to Commission.
Any person who, in connection with the exercise by the Election Commission of any of its functions, wilfully gives to the Commission or to any member thereof or to any person or body of persons appointed by the Commission to assist in the exercise of its functions any information which is false or misleading in any material particular shall be guilty of an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding two thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both.

* There must be clear protection given to the complainant, i.e. from civil or criminal liability, including any other forms of discrimination.

* There must be an obligation placed on the Election Commission to also keep informed the complainant as to what is happening to the complaint, the result of their investigations, etc - People need to know that their complaints are taken seriously - and not just 'put aside'. 

* There must be clear procedures set out with regard to how complaints received are dealt with, investigation procedure (will EC meet with the complainants and take a more detailed statement, get other evidence, etc..., , will there be some other follow-up investigations, Will there be a final conclusion made by the EC with regard the complaint? Will the complainant be informed? Is there a right for a Judicial  Review to the courts?) The voting may be over - but still persons who did wrong can be penalized for an Election Offence. 

Kerdau: The Opposition in fact only lost 184 votes compared to 2008

 

Add caption

Kerdau - well BN may have won but really it is no great victory.

Why?

Well, in 2008, the Opposition PAS candidate managed to get 2,520, and in this by-elections PAS got 2,336  - that is 184 votes less...it is a minimal reduction, and it could be that many could not make it back to vote for PAS..

If that is so, where is BN's bigger majority coming from? Voters that did not vote in 2008....maybe new voters?

But then, this is a by-election and in by-elections the resources used by the BN is exceptionally more than during the normal GE. All kinds of extras - goodies? pressure? etc..

**Remember also that this a BN governed state, and giving the seat to the Opposition now when GE is just looming around the corner may not be 'wise'.... Better get all that promised goodies from the BN, the State Government and the Local Councils now - and maybe really vote come next GE...

** Remember also that this was already a  BN seat, and so all that was done was to maintain the seat. There would have been more to shout about if it had been a PAS seat - and now BN managed to get back the seat...