Sunday, September 28, 2014

73% Workers In Malaysia - Forced Labour???

Malaysian electronics workers abused, not allowed unions, MTUC says

Most workers in the electronics industry in Malaysia do not have trade unions to look out for their interests. – The Malaysian Insider file pic, September 19, 2014.Most workers in the electronics industry in Malaysia do not have trade unions to look out for their interests. – The Malaysian Insider file pic, September 19, 2014.Malaysian electronics workers are not only abused but are not allowed to form unions to fight for their rights, says Malaysia's main labour group amid a report on widespread abuses in the country's key manufacturing sector.

Malaysian Trades Union Congress (MTUC) secretary-general N. Gopal Krishnan told The Malaysian Insider that unlike most other sectors which had national unions to protect workers and ensure they enjoy benefits and privileges, the electronics industry was strongly resistant to the formation of unions and had even sacked workers who attempted to set up unions.

International labour rights group Verite recently released a report in which it claimed that a third of the workers in Malaysia's electronics industry suffered from debt bondage.

Based on a study funded by the United States Department of Labour, Verite found that abuse of workers' rights was rife in Malaysia's RM241 billion electronics industry. "Workers in the electronics industry have long been discriminated against with regard to their right to form trade unions," Gopal said.

"Without a union to look out for their interests, the workers in the electronics industry are vulnerable to being exploited and victims of questionable labour practices."
"Wages are not paid on time, and overtime, benefits and other payments are not paid according to regulations," Gopal said.
Gopal said there had been attempts by workers to set up a union but they were swiftly terminated by their employers.
"Anyone who initiates a move to form a union has found themselves unemployed as the sector is firmly resistant to the formation of unions," he said.
Gopal questioned the electronic sector’s use of such harsh measures against its workers, pointing out that it is the fundamental right of a worker to form a union, as stated in the Federal Constitution.

After a 20-year struggle to unionise workers in the electronics industry, Putrajaya allowed industrial unions to be set up in the sector, although they would be regional rather than national.

In addition, the Electronic Industry Employees Union covered only workers in Peninsular Malaysia.

Gopal said the electronics industry had challenged the validity of the unions by taking the matter to court but the unions were hampered by a lack of funds.

"To date, only one trade union has successfully been recognised and formed in STMicroelectronics Sdn Bhd in Muar, Johor.

"Recognition is essential, for without it, trade unions cannot enter into collective bargaining agreements with the employer."

Gopal said many electronic companies which supplied major brand names had been using various means to prevent recognition, including terminating worker leaders working towards forming unions.

"Pro-union workers are sacked – something made easier by the existence of short-term employment contracts – by simply not renewing these contracts and getting new workers," said Gopal.

"Nowadays, when many employers use short-term employment contracts, it is easy to get rid of those workers who want to form a trade union."

In its report, Verite did not single out any company but blamed a system in which Putrajaya and industry policies gave recruitment firms increasing control over workers' pay and other conditions.

"These results suggest that forced labour is present in the Malaysian electronics industry in more than isolated incidents, and can indeed be characterised as widespread," the labour rights group said.

Several US companies with operations in Malaysia told Reuters they could not comment before seeing the full report.

An Intel spokesman said most of the chipmaker's 8,200 employees in the country were Malaysian and it did not use contractors, while Flextronics said it had "rigorous" policies to prevent abuse of workers.

Putrajaya did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Verite’s study comes three months after Malaysia was downgraded to Tier 3 in the US State Department's annual Trafficking in Persons report, which cited a lack of progress in protecting the rights of about four million foreign workers.

The report, based on interviews with 501 workers, found that 28% of employees were in situations of "forced labour", where work is coerced through factors including indebtedness from excessive fees charged by recruiters.

That figure rose to 32% for foreign workers, who are often charged excessive fees that lead to indebtedness.

Verite also found that 73% of workers in the sector showed "some characteristics" of forced labour.

On average, workers in the group’s survey paid RM2,985 to brokers in their home country and in Malaysia as payment for their passage and jobs. Unable to afford a lump sum upfront, more than two-thirds of workers who paid broker fees had to borrow money.

One in five immigrants was working more than the suggested 60 hours of overtime a week – the industry's international standard limit, the group said.

Malaysian law allows employees to clock up to 72 hours of overtime.

The country's laws have been amended in recent years to encourage the growth of recruitment companies that provide workforce services to multinationals, including paying, accommodating and disciplining employees.

"Liability over violations of worker rights is obscured, creating vulnerability on the part of the worker to exploitation and abuse," the group said.

Verite also found workers' passports were often confiscated by recruitment firms, which is illegal in Malaysia. Some firms were found to charge more than US$1,000 for a worker to "borrow" his or her own passport.

Malaysia's electronics and electrical industry accounted for 33% of exports in 2013. In 2011, foreign investment in the sector accounted for US$2.68 billion, or 86.5%, of the total. – September 19, 2014.
- See more at:

Friday, September 26, 2014

You too can Say No to Precarious Work - support the Thunderclap!

To help raise awareness of the problem of precarious work, IndustriALL Global Union has launched a Thunderclap for the World Day for Decent Work on 7 October.

A Thunder-what?

I'm guessing you've never heard of Thunderclap, so here's the official explanation:

"Thunderclap is the first-ever crowdspeaking platform that helps people be heard by saying something together. It allows a single message to be mass-shared, flash mob-style, so it rises above the noise of your social networks. By boosting the signal at the same time, Thunderclap helps a single person create action and change like never before."
Is that clear?  Maybe not.  Thunderclap allows us to allow send out the same message on the same day and at the same time, automatically, to our friends and followers on social networks including Facebook and Twitter.
IndustriALL Global Union wants trade unionists and trade unions to sign up to their Thunderclap message on precarious work.  The message is due to go out on 7 October, the World Day for Decent Work.

Their message reads:

"STOP Precarious Work! Defend your rights to a secure job. Join the global action on 7 October".
You can support this campaign by clicking here:

( Don't see a link? Click on this: )
If you've never done this sort of thing before, you'll see that you need to be logged into Facebook, Twitter  or Tumblr (ideally, all three).  And you'll need to give the Thunderclap app permission to send out the IndustriALL message to your friends and followers at a specified day and time.  
IndustriALL needs at least 250 of us to agree to go along with this.  Otherwise, the Thunderclap won't happen.
Among those who've already signed up are the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), the Trades Union Congress (UK), and LabourStart. 
STOP Precarious Work
Global capital is driving fundamental changes to the way that people are employed. Secure jobs are becoming more and more rare, while agency work, contract work and temporary work are taking over. For young people, there is practically no other option – the only jobs on offer are insecure.

Workers in precarious jobs have little chance to join a union or to bargain collectively. Pay and conditions are being driven ever lower by companies that rely on precarious work to reduce their labour costs.

Find out more about how trade unions are fighting precarious work at

Watch the video exposing how precarious work impacts on workers.

Watch the video message from IndustriALL Global Union General Secretary Jyrki Raina.

Together we can STOP Precarious Work!

IndustriALL Global Union

IndustriALL Global Union represents 50 million workers in 141 countries in the mining, energy, garment, electronics and other manufacturing sectors. It is a force in global solidarity taking up the fight for better working conditions and trade union rights around the world.

OT - workers in Malaysia have a choice to refuse? Reduce draconian OT limit of 104 hours/month to 50 hr/mth

OVERTIME - this was an exceptional situation where by some reason one's employer requires you to work more than NORMAL hours. This is not a common everyday occurrence but happens rarely when an 'emergency' of sorts happen - suddenly there is an increased demand and to fulfill that demand/need there is a need for extra work to meet that demand. Overtime work was never a regular occurence.

But alas, today, we find that every day...every week the employer requires one to do overtime - and this is just not right. What has happened to the right to 8 HOURS WORK 8 HOURS REST 8 HOURS LEISURE? [Note that you may be working 8 hours, but add on the the journey to and from the workplace, it can so easily be eating into our rest and leisure time)

Now we have factories operating 24 hours a day - but surviving with just 2 shifts as workers are 'forced' to work the extra hours? Why is the government not disallowing such practices and compelling any workplace that operates more than sixteen(16) hours to have 3 shifts - not just 2 shifts?

When it comes to overtime, workers have a CHOICE to agree to work overtime or not. If they agree, then employer pays the worker OVERTIME rate of pay, which is at least one and a half times the normal rate..

Do you have a choice to say you do not want to do overtime today to your employer? Well, most workers really do not anymore have the choice to do so.... even if a worker wants to take 'sick leave' or take time to go see the doctor, some employers insist on the worker finding some other to replace him/her on the said shift. The same also happens when the worker wants to take 'annual leave' for some emergency... 

Do employers ask the worker whether he agrees to do overtime everyday when overtime is required by employers? Not really - now, workers are just expected to OBEY and to follow orders... What about that consent required to be obtained from employees - well, sometimes the agreement to do overtime is 'given' when employment agreement are signed...sometimes after that, where consent is given once and for all times... This is just not right...and now maybe the refusal to do overtime or even work on rest days or public holidays may even be considered an 'employment misconduct' or a negative mark on one's employment record. 

Worse still, when workers are on short-term contracts rather than on regular employment until retirement, it is so easy to 'force' the employee to work more that 8 hours a day...and more than 48 hours a week. [Well, these were the limits placed in the Employment Acts, but subsequent amendments to the law allows these limits to be meaningless...]. There workers on precarious short-term contracts or on probation are just so worried to 'upset' the employer, that they do whatever overtime the employer asks of them - they hope that their contracts will be extended, renewed or maybe even they may finally become regular employees with employment security until retirement age...or for those on probation, that they will be confirmed as regular employees (but alas, the law still does not fix the duration of probation - and in some cases, this can even go on for years..). For those already with employment security, being regular employees, they worry about promotions and wage increments... There really is NO CHOICE generally for workers - and this why the government through law must step in to prevent abuse and injustice...

To prevent employers making employees work too many hours per day, the government comes in and creates a limit to the number of hours an employer can make its employees do overtime.

One law that sets limits to overtime was the Employment (Limitation of Overtime Work) Regulations 1980 - and this was amended in 1991, and the limit was increased to one hundred and four(104) hours in any one month. 

The accepted number of working days per month is 26, therefore this regulation allowed for up to 4 hours of  overtime work per day.(104/26).

This is a VERY BAD law - Why? 8 hours normal working hours PLUS 4 hours overtime = 12 hours work everyday. 

I wonder how any CARING government could have past a law stipulating that the limit of overtime work per month was 104 - does this Malaysian government not care about workers...

Workers should be earning sufficient for themselves and their family's well being and livelihood working normal hours - 8 hours per day - and certainly not more than 40 hours a week - the most maybe with overtime 48 hours a week. To improve workers income, what is required is a more just MINIMUM WAGE (not RM900 - maybe at least RM1,500 or more) - and not make workers work 12 hours a day? Workers, as human beings, have families, a social and community life - workers are meant to have a LIFE - not be working 12 hours a day?

So, amend the present limit - for a start reduce the limit of overtime work to maybe FIFTY(50) HOURS PER MONTH - and maybe increase the overtime rate of payment to two times the ordinary rate of pay. 

Oh yes, some will say that migrant workers have no family or social life in Malaysia - and we should allow them to work and earn as much as they want. They want to work 12 hours and more and earn more for their families back home. How can we deny these migrant workers this right to work and earn more? - Well, my answer would be that they are also human persons and deserve to be treated equally as all other workers... The Malaysian government will not give a 'GREEN LIGHT' saying that it is OK to force(or make) migrant workers to work long hours (Remember, the universally accepted right/norm is 8 hours per day). We do not discriminate - or does Malaysia?

As I mentioned earlier, increase wages... and do not cheat them... 

“Twenty-two per cent of foreign workers were deceived about their wages, hours, overtime requirements or pay, provisions regarding termination of employment, or the nature or degree of difficulty or danger of their jobs,”- Even the owner/operator employers want to get rid of 'contractor for labour system' - they want direct hiring..

Thursday, September 25, 2014

Even the owner/operator employers want to get rid of 'contractor for labour system' - they want direct hiring..

Direct employment relationship with the owners/operators of workplaces who need workers to their work is always JUST and REASONABLE - Workers and even the Workplaces want this but why did the Malaysian Government keep and maintain these 'contractors for labour' - a.k.a - the labour outsourcing companies, the labour supplier companies - Well, whoever gets these license/permit to do this makes BIG Money - The worker they supply works in a factory, For work done by the worker, the factor pays these 'contractor for labour' money ...and they take about 30% and pays the rest to the workers - it is Big Money. 

Remember, Malaysia already had the Private Employment Agencies (and laws governing them) - what they did was to find workers for employers that needed them, and once the workers are sent to the factories - the private employment agent is paid a one time FEE. [But these new 'contractor for labour' will continue to earn from sweat and toil of workers indefinitely....WHY?]

On or about mid-2005, the Malaysian government introduced the 'contractor for labour' system with regard migrant workers. Since then, this has been extended to local workers. 

Now, owners and operators of workplaces could avoid EMPLOYING workers - they can simply enter into an agreement with these 'contractor for labour' to supply a certain number of workers to work at their workplaces - these workers will not be EMPLOYEES of the owner/operators of workplaces (the principals) - so no more responsibility for hiring and firing, to ensure all rights to workers accorded in law/employment agreements/Collective Bargaining Agreements are enjoyed by these workers, etc . 

Direct hiring is always better and JUST 

Employers will have a direct employment relationship with their workers - their EMPLOYEES

Employers will be required to ensure all rights and benefits due to employees is respected and protected

Employees can join Unions at the workplace, and enjoy benefits in existing Collective Bargaining Agreements.

Employees can make request directly to employers for improvement of work conditions and benefits - only the owner/operator employer has the ability to do these (A third party labour supplier cannot do this - he supplies workers, get paid by the owner/operator of workplaces, and pays the workers a part of this keeping the rest as the supplier's profits, Why enrich the 3rd party labour supplier?) 
Deputy Home Minister Wan Junaidi Wan Jaafar ... had last year confirmed that the government has terminated the services of outsourcing companies due to complaints of workers’ rights abuses. - Malaysiakini, 12/7/2014, Firm denies utilising outsourcing agents 
But they are still around, are they not? Oh yes, these 'contractors for labour' is referred to also as 'outsourcing companies' - what are they outsourcing? Human Workers....  normally, when we talk about 'outsourcing' we are talking about outsourcing work - not human beings...


See also the following posts and the many other earlier posts to understand better:- 

93 Groups:- Abolish the ‘Contractor for Labour’ system Withdraw the 2012 amendments to Employment Act 1955.

Has Malaysia banned 'outsourcing' - the 'contractors for labour'? Sue the person who holds worker passport?

Malaysia downgraded to Tier 3 - Trafficking in Persons Report 2014 - contractor for labour system, etc.. blamed?

Malaysian Bar Resolution on Employment Relationship and 'Contractor For Labour' (2012)

Direct hiring will curb abuse of workers, say Penang industries

Agencies allegedly take advantage of workers they recruited. – The Malaysian Insider file pic, September 24, 2014.Agencies allegedly take advantage of workers they recruited. – The Malaysian Insider file pic, September 24, 2014.As Malaysia comes under fire for worker abuse by a global labour rights group, industrial firms in Penang want Putrajaya to allow them to hire foreign workers directly to avoid problems caused by agencies who allegedly take advantage of and profiteer from workers.

Heng Huck Lee, president of The Free Industrial Zone, Penang, Companies' Association (Frepenca), said the government should allow only direct hiring as a way to circumvent any problems caused by “third parties”.

“Our members want to go direct, but the government does not allow us to do so,” he told The Malaysian Insider.

He added that quotas given to contract companies, which outsource labourers to firms, also contributed to the problem. Heng was commenting on a recent report by international labour rights group Verite which concluded that a third of the workers in Malaysia's electronics industry suffered from debt bondage.

The report, titled "Forced Labour in the Production of Electronics Goods in Malaysia", was completed this year following funding given by the US Department of Labour in 2012.

Based on interviews with 501 workers, the study found that 28% of employees were in situations of "forced labour", where work is coerced through factors including indebtedness from excessive fees charged by recruiters.

That figure rose to 32% for foreign workers, who are often charged excessive fees that lead to indebtedness. Verite also found that 73% of workers in the sector showed "some characteristics" of forced labour.

Heng said the problem was related to agents who brought in the workers from other countries as well as companies that are licensed to outsource them to industries.

He said as far as possible, the members of Frepenca, which consists of more than 60 firms including US, Japanese and European giants with plants in Penang, try to get their own workers.

He said it was proven in many companies that if the hiring through agents or contract companies were stopped, the problem of abuse of the foreign workers would subside.

“If the workers all are hired directly, they are in fact well-treated, in some cases even better than the locals, with similar salaries and housing provided,” he said.  

He added that companies also benefit by not having to undergo the rigours of going through a third party.

On the assertion by the Malaysian Trades Union Congress (MTUC) that there was a need for unions to be allowed in companies as a way to curb the problem, Heng said the issue was mainly related to agents.

“This is not a union problem. It is an agent problem,” he said.

He said agents continued to take advantage when companies did not hire directly, and in many cases, they sought to profiteer from the workers.

According to the Verite report, one in five workers interviewed was misled in the recruitment phase about the terms of their employment agreement.

“Twenty-two per cent of foreign workers were deceived about their wages, hours, overtime requirements or pay, provisions regarding termination of employment, or the nature or degree of difficulty or danger of their jobs,” the report said.

Verite also found workers' passports were often retained by recruitment firms, which is prohibited in Malaysia.

Penang’s free industrial zones in Bayan Lepas and Seberang Prai are major hubs for Malaysia’s thriving electronics sector.
- See more at:

Wednesday, September 24, 2014

8 days without Internet/Phone - Telekom Malaysia Inefficient? - Informed Ministry - Hope service is restored soon

24/9/2014 ,,,,and still TM has failed to restore service after service disruption on 16/9/2014  - see also TM fails to restore phone/internet service to kampung folks - 6 Days and still waiting??

How much of time is wasted calling 100 - and everytime a new person answers - and all they can tell you is 'what is in their system' - they cannot even tell us details of why the delay -- or when the service is to be restored? 

Are these people answering the 100 calls even TM staff? Or are they some company that TM have outsourced work to...

Wasted time filling the online Complaints Form at Telekom Malaysia website, and then  we get this message 'error...tray again... - What? Fill all form again and try to submit ...and how many times. Is it an attempt to DETER people from lodging complaints? Would TM even email us a copy of our complaint - without that so easy for TM to deny receiving any complaints. I could not find any email addresses at TM Website - if there was, I could have also send them an email to complain about this prolonged disruption of service - hello, we pay for phone/internet services - Government must ensure that there are email, phone and addresses to complain... to refer to the company management, etc

An error has occurred when submitting the form, please try again later.
Error Details: Microsoft.SharePoint.SPException: Invalid text value. A text field contains invalid data. Please check the value and try again. ---> System.Runtime.InteropServices.COMException: Invalid text value. A text field contains invalid data. Please check the value and try again. at Microsoft.SharePoint.Library.SPRequestInternalClass.AddOrUpdateItem(String bstrUrl, String bstrListName, Boolean bAdd, Boolean bSystemUpdate, Boolean bPreserveItemVersion, Boolean bPreserveItemUIVersion, Boolean bUpdateNoVersion, Int32& plID, String& pbstrGuid, Guid pbstrNewDocId, Boolean bHasNewDocId, String bstrVersion, Object& pvarAttachmentNames, Object& pvarAttachmentContents, Object& pvarProperties, Boolean bCheckOut, Boolean bCheckin, Boolean bUnRestrictedUpdateInProgress, Boolean bMigration, Boolean bPublish, String bstrFileName, ISP2DSafeArrayWriter pListDataValidationCallback, ISP2DSafeArrayWriter pRestrictInsertCallback, ISP2DSafeArrayWriter pUniqueFieldCallback) at Microsoft.SharePoint.Library.SPRequest.AddOrUpdateItem(String bstrUrl, String bstrListName, Boolean bAdd, Boolean bSystemUpdate, Boolean bPreserveItemVersion, Boolean bPreserveItemUIVersion, Boolean bUpdateNoVersion, Int32& plID, String& pbstrGuid, Guid pbstrNewDocId, Boolean bHasNewDocId, String bstrVersion, Object& pvarAttachmentNames, Object& pvarAttachmentContents, Object& pvarProperties, Boolean bCheckOut, Boolean bCheckin, Boolean bUnRestrictedUpdateInProgress, Boolean bMigration, Boolean bPublish, String bstrFileName, ISP2DSafeArrayWriter pListDataValidationCallback, ISP2DSafeArrayWriter pRestrictInsertCallback, ISP2DSafeArrayWriter pUniqueFieldCallback) --- End of inner exception stack trace --- at Microsoft.SharePoint.SPGlobal.HandleComException(COMException comEx) at Microsoft.SharePoint.Library.SPRequest.AddOrUpdateItem(String bstrUrl, String bstrListName, Boolean bAdd, Boolean bSystemUpdate, Boolean bPreserveItemVersion, Boolean bPreserveItemUIVersion, Boolean bUpdateNoVersion, Int32& plID, String& pbstrGuid, Guid pbstrNewDocId, Boolean bHasNewDocId, String bstrVersion, Object& pvarAttachmentNames, Object& pvarAttachmentContents, Object& pvarProperties, Boolean bCheckOut, Boolean bCheckin, Boolean bUnRestrictedUpdateInProgress, Boolean bMigration, Boolean bPublish, String bstrFileName, ISP2DSafeArrayWriter pListDataValidationCallback, ISP2DSafeArrayWriter pRestrictInsertCallback, ISP2DSafeArrayWriter pUniqueFieldCallback) at Microsoft.SharePoint.SPListItem.AddOrUpdateItem(Boolean bAdd, Boolean bSystem, Boolean bPreserveItemVersion, Boolean bNoVersion, Boolean bMigration, Boolean bPublish, Boolean bCheckOut, Boolean bCheckin, Guid newGuidOnAdd, Int32& ulID, Object& objAttachmentNames, Object& objAttachmentContents, Boolean suppressAfterEvents, String filename, Boolean bPreserveItemUIVersion) at Microsoft.SharePoint.SPListItem.UpdateInternal(Boolean bSystem, Boolean bPreserveItemVersion, Guid newGuidOnAdd, Boolean bMigration, Boolean bPublish, Boolean bNoVersion, Boolean bCheckOut, Boolean bCheckin, Boolean suppressAfterEvents, String filename, Boolean bPreserveItemUIVersion) at Microsoft.SharePoint.SPListItem.Update() at Contact_Us.b__0()
When it comes to asking for payment, TM seems to be super efficient - but otherwise, it is disappointing...


Email found on the Ministry website is only -I am not interested in writing to the webmaster - I want to lodge a complaint - well, the Ministry website also no email addresses - and I have to use an online complaint form...but what '...The government of Malaysia will not be responsible for any loss or damage incurred whilst using this service in this system...' - WHAT?

Saya mengaku bahawa saya telah membaca dan memahami takrif aduan dan prosidur pengurusan aduan oleh pihak kerajaan Malaysia. Segala maklumat diri dan maklumat perkara yang dikemukakan oleh saya adalah benar dan saya bertanggungjawab ke atasnya.
Kerajaan Malaysia tidak bertanggungjawab terhadap sebarang kehilangan atau kerosakan yang dialami kerana menggunakan perkhidmatan ini di dalam sistem ini.
Then, we have to fill in a Captcha Code - I had to fill it in several times, and although it was correct, I get the response - 'Captcha salah dimasuk. Cuba lagi!' (Captcha Code wrongly entered. Try again!). I nearly gave up but alas at last it went through - and then they asked me to 'Print Out ... the complaint - hello, I am at the internet shop.... why could they just not send a copy of the complaint directly to my email (which I have already provided in the Complaint Form)

Really, the process for the public to complain must be made easier - and really, in Malaysia you need to have different languages - Enblish, Tamil, Chinese,...and even foreign languages (we have 2.9 million migrant workers in Malaysia) - at least all the ASEAN languages should be available so people can lodge complaints in the language they are familiar with...

Complained to the Ministry - will we get our phone/internet restored today? 

Tuesday, September 23, 2014

Selangor, Azmin, Constitution Amendment, PKNS Scandal?, RM3 Billion,Open Letter by MI, Things to do ...?

Azmin is Menteri Besar of Selangor - certainly not THE person that enjoyed the confidence of the majority - but a person Pakatan Rakyat was forced to endorse finally to prevent a prolongation of the Selangor MB Crisis...

PKNS Scandal - There really must be an independent body set up to investigate this matter. 

Constitution Amendment -  This must be a priority - the race and religion requirement for the Menteri Besar must be removed, as it is in our Federal Constitution - the only qualification being that he/her enjoys the confidence of the majority of the State Legislative Assembly persons(ADUN)...There have been so many other issues surrounding the appointment of the Menteri Besar, and all these have to immediately be reviewed...and if needed, make the necessary Constitutional amendment... 

OMBUDSMAN -  He will have the power to to enter and look at all documents, interview any or all persons - with the object of exposing 'hanky-panky', abuse of power, mis-management, cronyism, corruption, etc

Abolish the use of the 'Whip' safe for Financial Bills at the State Legislative Assembly and Local Councils.

Remove 'restrictions' on PR ADUNs and allow for freedom of expression - so that they can have the freedom to openly oppose the views/positions of the MB and State Exco, freely express their own views and opinions even if it goes against the State government,.... we do not want to be told tomorrow of the failings of the MB and the State government as what happen in the case of Khalid, the last MB of Selangor. Sadly, Pakatan behaved like the UMNO-led BN here so we were totally not aware of the failings of the previous State government under Khalid...The rakyat deserves better. There must be effective checks and balance...

Ensure Media Freedom  - stop propagating 'cover-ups' and ensure media is able to ply an effective 'check and balance' role. The government official media should be open and transparent.
The editor-in-chief of state newspaper Selangorkini has called on new Menteri Besar Azmin Ali to ensure editorial freedom for all state media.Fazallah Pit (left) said that this is because Selangorkini did not have editorial independence to report on Selangor current affairs prior to this, due to restrictions by "certain quarters". - Malaysiakini,23/9/2014, State media urge for more freedom under new MB
Do not SUE people for defamation - for this is nothing but a means to suppress freedom of expression and opinion. An expression of view, opinion or statement should be responded by words also. In an internet conversation, someone said that Azmin is not fit to be MB, and when others asked one was willing to say anything and one reason advanced was the fear of being sued for libel/defamation. YES - this culture of suing people hinders the revelation of the truth and/or doubts - and this should not be. If it is a false allegation, just respond with the truth and facts... (After all, because of this culture of 'fear', many who know are just too fearful to speak up or be witnesses - and the fact, that there is still a great 'lack of transparency'- people have no ability to investigate and find the truth...

Declaration of Assets - MB and Exco Members must declare their income and assets immediately on appointment - and thereafter periodically every 6 months... This must include those of spouse, children, siblings and family members. [In the event any project of the State government or its various entities are awarded to any company or entity which is any way connected to the MB, Exco Members or political leadership of the PR parties, this information must be immediately disclosed.]

CEOs, Directors and Upper Management of State owned companies and state linked salaries should no longer be paid exorbitant sums as salary, allowances, bonuses,etc.. As a guiding principle, no such persons should be paid salaries exceeding the salary of the Menteri Besar or no higher than RM20,000 per month. Director's allowances should not exceed RM10,000 but if the appointed Director is the Menteri Besar, Exco Member, ADUN or government employee, then there must be NO Director's allowances(and if there is, it should be paid back into the State coffers) - such persons shall only be entitled to travel reimbursements or other reimbursements - they already are being remunerated as 'wakil rakyat' and state employees and all they do as Directors is part of that job already. 

No Exco Member, ADUN, MP, Senators or politicians of Pakatan Rakyat party shall be appointed Directors of state-linked companies unless they have the requisite skills and expertise useful for the business of the entities they are so appointed to as Directors. The appointment of 1 person from the relevant political party is permitted if the intention is for the purpose of 'check and balance' but even so, the person must have requisite knowledge of some aspect of the business operation of such entities.

Select Committee of the State Legislative Assembly to be set up to monitor all government owned companies and government-linked companies(especially where the State has more than 50% ownership directly or indirectly). This committee shall have the power to subpoena witnesses/documents and conduct public inquiries as and when is required.

No agreements shall be signed by the State government, State owned companies or State linked companies before it is first considered, debated and approved by the State Legislative Assembly. Any person in the State of Selangor shall have the right to have full access to such agreement, and there shall be no 'confidentiality clauses' or such clauses that prevent full disclosure to the people of the State. All such agreements shall be subject to review, affirmation or dissolution at the end of the term of the existing government. [No more long term agreements that bind subsequent governments - i.e. 10 year or even 25 year agreements..., and those that impose an exorbitant penalty on the State when the agreement is terminated]. We are a democracy, and we have General Elections every 5 years - and no new government should be deprived of the right to review, reaffirm and/or terminate any agreement/s entered into by a previous government.

Elections shall be held to set up committees at kampungs, kampung barus, kampung orang asli, housing estates (taman perumahan) and other communities just as was done in Perak under Pakatan Rakyat. These leaders and committees shall be consulted before any project and/or decision is made concerning their area or adjacent areas which may have an impact on the people living in their area. Such local committees shall be allocated a sum of RM500(or RM1,000) per month for their meetings and activities with the people in their community. At least 30-50% of the persons appointed to the Local Council shall consists of persons selected by all such elected committees from amongst themselves. Local Council shall have monthly meetings with the representatives of all these elected local community leaders. 

All ADUNs allocated with monies to be spend for small development projects, maintenance and local community activities shall be required to provide detailed accounts of such expenditure - which shall be displayed online and also published in Selangorkini Online.

Enact laws that will allow people to take the MB, State Exco, ADUNs, State Employees to court if they abuse their powers and positions. Laws must be made to ensure that the MB and the Exco members are prohibited to receive any monies/gifts/positions, other than their salary and allowances, during the term of their office. And maybe also include  later on from any person of company that is linked to any person/entity that has benefited by getting a project or other benefits during the period that such person was MB or State Exco. [Why? Because a new form of 'bribe' is to appoint the person as Director or Consultant with a large remuneration/allowance...and we do not want this or any other form of 'corruption']

Azmin comes in wanting to spend RM3 billion Selangor fund reserve - we have to all closely monitor this....Is it right? Should there not be some reserve? Some of these monies should be used to assist workers who have been retrenched...or cheated of their wages by employers... Some of these monies can be used for.... Let us hope that this moneys are not used to enrich 'friends'...and not all the people equally...

Azmin joined UMNO in 1987 - was this after Operation Lallang - and he continued in UMNO for 11 years - leaving when Anwar was expelled - what are his values and his principles today? We really do not know and we have to wait and see....

Meanwhile, Azmin said he would fully utilise the RM3 billion Selangor funds reserve, which he said is held for the benefit of the "Selangor people".

The fund, he said, belongs to the people and it is not owned by any leader.

"The fund will be translated with various programmes for the benefit of Selangor people," Azmin said, adding that he would go to the ground and see the problems faced by the people.- Malaysiakini, 23/9/2014,

No suit and tie for this once goatherd MB

Pakatan Rakyat leadership must really set up a PR State Government Oversight Committee that would continually monitor PR governed State to ensure that all that is done is according to PR policies and principles - and when it is not, it should immediately express it and take action immediately.....'Do not cover up MBs and State Government's departure from PR values and principles' 

Selangor is not Azmin's to do as he pleases - neither is it PLR's to do as PKR wants.... it is a Pakatan Rakyat(PR) State, and what it does will be seen as what PR not PKR stands for... Likewise Penang and Kelantan...

An open letter to Azmin Ali, Menteri Besar of Selangor

Mohamed Azmin Ali, the PKR deputy president, is expected to be sworn in as the new Selangor menteri besar today. – The Malaysian Insider file pic, September 23, 2014. 
Mohamed Azmin Ali, the PKR deputy president, is expected to be sworn in as the new Selangor menteri besar today. – The Malaysian Insider file pic, September 23, 2014. 
Dear Azmin Ali,

Selangor gets a new menteri besar today in you and Pakatan Rakyat (PR) gets to continue running the country's wealthiest state after a messy nine months of politicking that has left people wondering why it even happened.

How different will you be from the previous occupant of the office in Shah Alam, Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim?

You cut your teeth in politics, serving Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim from early in the PKR de facto chief's political career, while Khalid has been a corporate man for most of his life and burst into the political limelight in the 2008 general election. In the past six years, we have seen Khalid turn from political greenhorn to a man who shook his own party and coalition, sacked his allies, made deals after years of rejecting them, and hurt PR from the inside.
Here is what we expect from you as you make your debut as the leader of the state government of Selangor.

1. You must avoid back room deals with powerful individuals. One theory floating around is that some powerful lobby was always concerned that Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail would have been a stumbling block to one-sided transactions, etc.

2. You must consult the Selangor people on major projects and be willing to explain the rationale on controversial deals such as the Kidex expressway.

3. You must be fair and even-handed in dealing with minorities in Selangor. For example, instead of staying on the sidelines, you must be willing to speak out and act when the rights of others are trampled upon. The Khalid administration did not cover itself with glory in the handling of the seizure of Bibles earlier this year.

4. You must be prudent in using the RM3 billion funds in the state's coffers. This money belongs to the rakyat, and not PR.

5. You must remember that you owe your allegiance and loyalty to the rakyat, the same small men and women who have supported PKR since its inception and have stood by you and your party even during the most trying days, when it was unfashionable and costly to be a PKR supporter.

The powerful and the connected may demand a pound of you but ultimately, you are where you are today because of that housewife in Sekinchan or that teacher in Subang Jaya.

6. You must remember that this is PR's one shot - the last chance to show Malaysians that it has the ideas and policies to run not just the wealthiest state in Malaysia, but the country also. After all, the "Kajang move" was all about removing the insipid Khalid and replacing him with the dynamic Anwar, who was going to use Selangor as a frontline state for inclusive and just policies.

7. There is no honeymoon period. You have to hit the ground running and do well from Day One. Unfair? Not really.

The people in the state have had to put up with a lot of nonsense of late. This is the laundry list of shame: betrayal by a coalition partner; seeing the Constitution and the rule of law trampled; witness a menteri besar refuse to walk away from his position gracefully; seeing PKR stumble with one snafu after another.

There is little patience among voters for more dithering and mistakes.

8. You are a public official. There is no aspect of your life that can be nicely carved aside as private.

For example, if there is a deal brokered between you and a financial institution or another business entity, it has to be declared to your political party and to the state assembly.

9. You risked arrest and were part of thousands of Malaysians who marched in favour of free and fair elections.

You have been threatened with detention without trial and other draconian laws by a regime that has shown little respect for freedom of speech and disdain for the rule of law. You have been fighting the establishment for more than 20 years.
Being the MB does not make you part of the establishment.

10. It is better to be remembered for doing the right thing and for standing up for the right principles than amassing wealth and influence. Would you rather be Nelson Mandela, Gandhi, or Marcos?

11. Your report card will be marked by the voters in three or four years, and not by Jais or Mais or Umno power brokers or Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad or Datuk Seri Najib Razak.
Getting a ringing endorsement by Utusan Malaysia or any of the mainstream media is a death knell and not something to write home about.

12. Your promise is to the people of Selangor. All of them, not just the civil service or your own party. You are the MB for all of them. Serve them well. Praise will come from all quarters, not just the civil service or other vested interests, when it is due.

Azmin, you carry a heavy burden after what has happened the last nine months and even from PR's second term as the Selangor government from 2013.

Most of the issues have been self-inflicted, either by your party, some officials or even allies. Make the most of the remaining mandate left to show that you are the right choice and that the Selangor Sultan has chosen well.

All the best, to you and the people of Selangor. – September 23, 2014.
- See more at:

Malaysian Bar Resolution against the Sedition Act, other laws and actions taken which stifle speech and expression, and matters in connection therewith

Adopted at Malaysian Bar EGM attended by 986 members held on 19/9/2014 with an overwhelming majority - 701 for 13 against and no abstentions [See also:- Bomb threat does not prevent lawyers from passing Resolution against the Sedition Act with an overwhelming majority ]

Resolution against the Sedition Act, other laws and actions taken which stifle speech and expression, and matters in connection therewith

Proposed by Christopher Leong, as Chairman of the Bar Council and on behalf of the Bar Council, dated 12 Sept 2014


(1) The Sedition Act 1948, as with its predecessor the Sedition Ordinance, was conceived and used as an instrument of oppression.  It is an archaic and repressive law, and is the antithesis of democracy, rule of law, justice and human rights.

(2) The Sedition Act 1948 has been used to stifle speech and expression, to shut out contrary views and voices, to quell dissent and opposition, to constrict and deny democratic space, and to oppress and suppress Malaysians.

(3) The Sedition Act 1948 has been justified on the premise that there are matters that are too sensitive to address, speak about or debate; and the Act is therefore required to ensure and maintain harmony, unity and public order.  Our 57 years of “Merdeka” has clearly shown this to be a myth.

(4) The Sedition Act 1948 has instead served to deter or prevent important issues from being properly and genuinely addressed. Some of these issues are effectively “swept under the carpet” and allowed to fester.   The Act serves to perpetuate and entrench the racial, religious and other fault lines in our nation.

(5) The fundamental freedoms of speech and expression, giving voice to thoughts and ideas, as well as the right to information, are fundamental attributes of a vibrant and thriving democracy, and which are essential for the development, progress and growth of a nation.  It is robust debate, diversity of opinion and education that would ultimately promote, inculcate and maintain true and enduring unity, goodwill and mutual respect amongst Malaysians.

(6) The Sedition Act 1948 is unacceptable and repugnant to the rule of law for the further reasons that it creates offences arising from an act, speech, words, publication or other thing that are defined as having “seditious tendencies” which are imprecise and without clear boundaries.  Unlike other criminal offences, the offence of sedition does not require mens rea or the element of intent; the correctness of what is done, or the truth of what is said, printed or published is disregarded and not a defence to the offence. 

(7) It is wholly unacceptable that a criminal offence with grave and dire consequences is made akin to a strict liability offence.

(8) The Prime Minister had on 11 July 2012 announced that the government will repeal the Sedition Act and replace it with a National Harmony Act.  He stated the following in his speech delivered at the Majlis Makan Malam Jabatan Peguam Negara Bersama YAB Perdana Menteri:

Kerajaan telah membuat keputusan agar Akta Hasutan 1948 dimansuhkan dan digantikan dengan suatu rang undang undang yang dikenali sebagai Akta Keharmonian Nasional. Keputusan menggantikan Akta Hasutan dibuat kerana kita mahu mencari mekanisme yang dapat menentukan keseimbangan terbaik diantara keperluan menjamin kebebasan bersuara setiap warganegara sesuai dan selaras dengan peruntukan dan jaminan yang terkandung di dalam Perlembangan Pesekutuan dan keperluan untuk menangani kompleksiti kemajmukan yang wujud dinegara ini.  With this new Act we would be better equipped to manage our national fault lines. It would also help to strengthen national cohesion by protecting national unity and nurturing religious harmony . . .

Kerajaan sedar bahawa umum menganggap Akta Hasutan 1948 sebagai alat kerajaan untuk merencatkan tindakan dan pandangan yang tidak sealiran dengan kerajaan.  Walaupun anggapan sedemikian adalah tidak berasas sama sekali, kita perlu menghapuskan persepsi tersebut.  Lantaran itu, peruntukan-peruntukan baru ini tidak akan menghalang rakyat untuk mengkritik kerajaan dan pentadbiran keadilan . . . 

Pada analisis akhirnya saya teringat kepada pendapat ahli falsafah tersohor Britain, John Locke: “The end of law is, not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom”.  Second Treatise Of Civil Government (1690) . . . 

Melalui pemansuhan dan penggubalan undang-undang yang sedang berjalan, kerajaan mahu memastikan ruang demokratik yang mencukupi disediakan untuk perbezaan pendapat serta persaingan idea.  Pucuk pangkalnya, kita mahu mencipta sebuah Malaysia di mana prinsip hak asasi manusia dijunjung, kebebasan individu untuk menyatakan pendapat secara terbuka diraikan, seraya kepentingan individu dan komuniti diimbangi.

(9) The Deputy Prime Minister was reported in the media on 13 July 2012 as follows1:

The repealing of the Sedition Act 1948 which will be implemented soon is proof that the government is not just empty talk in bringing about political transformation, said Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yasin.

He said the repealing of the Act was also proof that the government is keeping its word on bringing national transformation which was not only in the socio-economic sector, but political transformation like in the abolishing of the Internal Security Act.
“We don’t just talk or make announcements (on transformation), we act.  Some of the laws we introduced we have enforced, this (repealing of the Sedition Act) is the latest step to show the government is in tune with the people,” he told reporters after launching the Sungai Siputeh Mini Rural Transformation (Mini RTC) here yesterday .

The government was also concerned about development and changes in Malaysian society which wanted a system that was more transparent, a step that was in tandem with democratic practices and demands of human rights, he said.

He said the opposition also did not expect the government to take this brave a step in bringing about transformation, especially in the political aspects.

Muhyiddin also said the perception that the soon-to-be abolished Sedition Act 1948 was being used against certain individuals was not true.

He said he also hoped that the people could appreciate the sincerity of the government in bringing about national transformation, which also encompassed political changes.

(10) These statements of the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, together with the Prime Minister’s statements on his 1Malaysia blog dated 7 August 2012 and 4 April 2013, are tantamount to an express recognition by the government that the Sedition Act 1948 is an obsolete and antiquated law that is no longer suitable, relevant or consonant with the times.

(11) However, various events thereafter have given cause for grave concerns over the commitment made by the government as to its pledge to repeal the Sedition Act 1948:

(a) The recent statements by several Ministers and the Deputy Prime Minister2 that appear to contradict the said pledge made by the Prime Minister on behalf of the government and undermines the Prime Minister’s reforms for a more progressive, moderate and balanced Malaysia; and

(b) The continued use of and the recent escalation in investigations, arrests and prosecutions pursuant to the Sedition Act 1948.

(12) The Sedition Act 1948 has continued to be used against many Malaysians ranging from students and academics to civil society activists, journalists and politicians. The individuals who have since 2013 faced the brunt of this repugnant and draconian law are as listed in APPENDIX A.

(13) The authorities have also resorted to the Sedition Act 1948 to investigate the persons listed in APPENDIX B.

(14) The charges against Associate Professor Dr Azmi Sharom (a law lecturer) and N. Surendran (a lawyer and Member of Parliament), and the investigation against Susan Loone (a journalist with an online news portal), are examples of unwarranted and blatant attacks on academic freedom, freedom of speech and expression, and freedom of the press, respectively.

(15) The continued resort to the Sedition Act 1948 by the authorities is a volte-face and a direct contradiction of the explicit promise of the Prime Minister to repeal the Act, and raises serious questions over the government’s sincerity in pursuing transformation through legislative reforms.

(16) The Sedition Act 1948 is viewed as being abused by the authorities, for instance, for apparent selective non-prosecution, such as listed in APPENDIX C.

(17) The Malaysian Bar does not advocate the use of the Sedition Act 1948, but nevertheless abhors the apparent discrepancies in treatment and selective prosecution by the authorities for purported offences under the Act.

(18) Although the Prime Minister had stated on 11 July 2012, and the Deputy Prime Minister had been reported on 13 July 2012 to have stated, that it is a misconception that the Sedition Act is used as a governmental tool against dissenting views and/or against only certain individuals, it would appear that other individuals are immune or insulated from prosecution under the Act.  This lends weight to the perception that the Sedition Act 1948 is used as a political tool or weapon dressed up as legislation.

(19) The use or abuse of the Sedition Act 1948, or other laws, feeds the view that there is an unhealthy symbiotic relationship between the police and the government. Other instances lend further to this perception or view, for instance, the use of another archaic law, namely, criminal defamation on Dato’ Seri Hj Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin, the mass arrest by the police of members of the Pasukan Peronda Sukarela immediately after they completed their participation in the Penang State National Day parade, and the Inspector General of Police’s threat to investigate and possibly charge people who allegedly disrespected him on Twitter.

(20) The Sedition Act 1948 has no place in our nation, which aspires to be a modern, moderate and progressive democratic society that seeks to respect the rule of law and to engender lasting harmony and unity. The continued existence of the Act gives rise to a reliance on its draconian provisions as a knee-jerk reaction to expressions of purportedly sensitive issues and dissenting views.

(21) In clamping down on views, discourse and expression, and restricting democratic space, the Sedition Act 1948 unfortunately has the effect of pandering to and encouraging extremist elements, and foments disunity and disharmony.

(22) The Sedition Act 1948 has further served to impede the development of a mature, considerate and accepting Malaysian psyche; and perpetuates immaturity, lack of understanding, confusion and ignorance amongst Malaysians, and exploits insecurities, anxieties and fears.

(23) The Malaysian Bar does not advocate nor abide by rudeness, insults and disrespect for ethnicity, religion and the Rulers.  Such conduct is unwarranted, offensive and abhorrent.  Nevertheless, the Malaysian Bar does not advocate the criminalisation of such behaviour to be justified.  True respect and goodwill cannot be attained by compulsion and penal sanctions.

(24) In concordance with this, the proposed National Harmony Act that is being considered by the government should not seek to recast nor to duplicate substantively the provisions of the Sedition Act 1948.

(25) The proposed new legislation should not seek to criminalise thought, speech and expression, and should instead provide a framework that recognises and encourages interaction, discourse, debate and learning.

(26) In the event there are to be any measure of criminal penalties, these must be limited and the scope of the new offence must be narrowly defined and confined, and the threshold for breach must be set much higher.  Only threats of or incitement to, and actual ethnic or religious violence to persons or property, or hatred for the Rulers, should be criminalised, and the element of intention must be present.

(27) The Malaysian Bar takes note of Article 10(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution providing for the freedom of speech and expression.  Inherent in this right is the right to the freedom of information. The provisions in Article 10(2)(a) and (4) providing for the possibility of legislation by Parliament to impose restrictions on the rights conferred in Article 10(1)(a) are enabling in nature, and do not prevent the repeal of the Sedition Act 1948 or require any replacement Act to contain such restrictions.

(28) The Malaysian Bar welcomes the statement by the Attorney General dated 9 September 2014 that his Chambers will take into consideration issues or concerns that have been raised with regard to the decision to prosecute cases, and that his Chambers will thus be reviewing the charges against Associate Professor Dr Azmi Sharom and other cases being prosecuted under the Sedition Act 1948.

THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved that:

(A) The Malaysian Bar calls upon the Malaysian Government to commit to and promote the building of a fair, just, harmonious, unified, moderate and progressive Malaysia, and reject all forms of bigotry, racist and religious extremism.

(B) Whilst not advocating rudeness, insults and disrespectfulness, the Malaysian Bar calls upon the Malaysian Government to uphold the primacy of the right to and freedom of speech and expression, in particular:

(i) freedom of information; 
(ii) academic freedom;
(iii) journalistic freedom; and
(iv) freedom to scrutinise, discuss, debate or criticise; 

and to reject any criminalisation of the exercise of these fundamental rights.

(C) The Malaysian Bar condemns the use and continued use of the Sedition Act 1948, in particular its selective use, and the excessive sentences meted out by the Judiciary. 

(D) The Malaysian Bar calls upon the Malaysian Government to abide by its pledge to repeal the Sedition Act 1948, and to forthwith repeal the Sedition Act 1948.

(E) The Malaysian Bar calls on the Attorney General to forthwith withdraw all pending charges, cases and appeals, and to concede to all pending appeals, under the Sedition Act 1948 in the courts of Malaysia; and calls upon the Judiciary to prevent the systematic abuse of the Sedition Act 1948, to uphold the rule of law and the rights of all to freedom of speech and expression.

(F) The Malaysian Bar calls upon the Malaysian Government to forthwith impose a moratorium on the use of the Sedition Act 1948 pending its repeal, and for the police to cease all investigations pursuant to the Sedition Act 1948.

(G) The Malaysian Bar calls on the Malaysian Government to ensure that the proposed National Harmony Act, or any replacement Act by whatever name for the Sedition Act 1948, is not a recast of the Sedition Act 1948.

(H) The Malaysian Bar mandates the Bar Council to immediately organise a peaceful protest in the form of a walk and to take any and all such further action as it deems appropriate or necessary in order to advance and promote the matters herein and to uphold the principles of the Malaysian Bar.

1 “Repeal of Sedition Act proof govt not just empty talk — Muhyiddin”, The Borneo Post, 13 July 2012.

2 (a) “Putrajaya never promised to repeal Sedition Act, says Shahidan”, The Malaysian Insider, 5 September 2014; (b) “Maintain Sedition Act To Preserve Peace — Ismail Sabri”, Bernama, 8 September 2014; (c) “Sedition investigations will continue as long as there are reports, says Zahid”, The Malaysian Insider, 11 September 2014; (d) “No final decision yet on Sedition Act”, The Star, 7 September 2014.


(a) PAS Subang Youth Council deputy head, Wan Ji Wan Hussin was charged under Section 4(1)(c) of the Sedition Act 1948 on 10 September 2014 for his remarks on Facebook on 5 November 2012 that were allegedly insulting of the Ruler.

(b) Ali Abdul Jalil, a social activist was charged for three offences on 8 September 2014 under Section 4(1)(c) of Sedition Act 1948 for his remarks that were allegedly insulting of the Ruler.

(c) Activist Muhammad Safwan Anang was found guilty under Section 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act 1948 on 5 September 2014 for uttering seditious words aimed at urging the public to change the government in a speech at a May 13 forum last year.

(d) Member of State Reform Party David Orok was charged under Section 4(1)(c) of the Sedition Act 1948 on 3 September 2014 for posting on Facebook remarks allegedly insulting Prophet Muhammad and Islam.

(e) UM law lecturer Azmi Sharom was charged under Section 4(1)(b) and Section 4(1)(c) of the Sedition Act 1948 on 2 September 2014 for expressing his views regarding the appointment of a Selangor Menteri Besar with reference to the “Perak Constitutional crisis”.

(f) Seri Delima assemblyperson R.S.N. Rayer was charged under Section 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act 1948 on 27 August 2014 for his “celaka celaka Umno” remark on 20 May 2014 during the Penang State Assembly sitting.

(g) Shah Alam Member of Parliament Khalid Abdul Samad was charged under Section 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act 1948 on 26 August 2014 for his remarks regarding the executive powers of the Selangor Islamic Religious Council.

(h) N. Surendran was charged under Section 4(1)(c) of Sedition Act 1948 on 19 August 2014 for alleging that Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s Sodomy II charge was a political conspiracy involving Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak and subsequently, he was charged under the same Section on 27 August 2014 for releasing an allegedly seditious press statement titled “Court of Appeal’s Fitnah 2 written judgement is flawed, defensive and insupportable”.

(i) ISMA President Abdullah Zaik Abd Rahman was charged under Section 4(1)(b) of Sedition Act 1948, and the alternative charge under Section 4(1)(c) of the same Act, on 19 June 2014 for publishing allegedly seditious statements in an article titled “The arrival of the Chinese with the British colonialists was a form of intrusion” on the ISMA website.

(j) J. Gopinath was charged under Section 4(1)(c) of the Sedition Act 1948 on 19 June 2014 for an Facebook posting allegedly insulting of Islam and Prophet Muhammad.

(k) Hidayat Mohamed was charged under Section 4(1)(c) of the Sedition Act 1948 on 19 June 2014 for his comments on Facebook allegedly insulting of the Thaipusam procession at Batu Caves.

(l) Chow Mun Fai was charged under Section 4(1)(c) of the Sedition Act 1948 on 12 June 2014 for making remarks allegedly disparaging of Islam and Prophet Muhammad.  He pleaded guilty to the alternate charge under Section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998.

(m) Seputeh Member of Parliament, Teresa Kok, was charged under Section 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act 1948 on 6 May 2014 for publishing an allegedly seditious Chinese New Year video on YouTube.

(n) The late Karpal Singh was found guilty of uttering seditious words against the Ruler and convicted on 21 February 2014 and fined RM4,000 by the Kuala Lumpur High Court.

(o) Vivian Lee and Alvin Tan were charged under Section 4(1)(c) of the Sedition Act 1948 on 19 July 2013 for posting on their Facebook page allegedly seditious material.

(p) Hindraf’s P. Uthayakumar was charged under section 4(1)(a) of the Sedition Act 1948 for writing an allegedly seditious letter in 2007 to the then-British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown.  He was convicted and sentenced to two years and six months imprisonment on 5 June 2013.

(q) Student activist Adam Adli was charged under Section 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act 1948 on 23 May 2013 for allegedly attempting to topple the government through street protests.

(r) Parti Keadilan Rakyat Vice President Tian Chua, activist Haris Ibrahim, student Muhammad Safwan Anang, Hishamuddin Rais and PAS’s Tamrin Ghafar were charged under Section 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act 1948 on 29 May 2013 for allegedly uttering seditious words at a public forum.  Muhammad Safwan Anang was found guilty of sedition on 5 September 2014 and sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment.

(s) Parti Keadilan Rakyat Vice President, Tian Chua, was charged under Section 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act 1948 on 14 March 2013 for allegedly saying that the Lahad Datu incident was an UMNO conspiracy to frighten the people.

(t) Sugumaran Periasamy was charged on 22 August 2014 for a Twitter posting made in 2011.


(a) Malaysiakini journalist, Susan Loone was investigated on 4 September 2014 over her article on an interview with Penang state exco Phee Boon Poh and the mass arrests of the Pasukan Peronda Sukarela (“PPS”) on Merdeka day.

(b) Viktor Wong and Nasrul Omar were both investigated on 1 September 2014 under the Sedition Act 1948 and the Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 for allegedly posting insulting remarks against the Royal Malaysian Police.

(c) Pandan MP Rafizi Ramli was investigated for:

(i) alleged sedition for disclosing a letter from a minister addressed to Bank Rakyat, in which the latter had demanded preferential treatment from the bank for carpet trader Deepak Jaikishan;

(ii) alleged sedition in March 2014 over remarks he made against right-wing groups. The groups had threatened to protest outside churches against the Christians’ use of the word "Allah" to refer to God; and

(iii) alleged sedition in May 2014  over a book he authored entitled “Reformasi 2.0: Fakta kes Anwar Ibrahim”.

(d) “Smallfield Benjamin” was investigated on 2 August 2014 for a post on FaceBook which is alleged to be insulting to Malays and Islam.

(e) Kelvin Yip was investigated on 2 August 2014 for allegedly complaining in a disrespectful manner about the “Azan” call to prayer.  

(f) Muslim preacher Ustaz Shahul Hamid Seeni Mohd was investigated on 31 July 2014 for a video clip on YouTube where Shahul is said to have insulted Indians and the Hindu religion.

(g) Sim Kwang Yung was investigated on 20 July 2014 for allegedly uttering seditious words in his Facebook account. 

(h) Phang Ah Ngang was investigated on 10 January 2014 for apparently asking a Muslim convert to remove her hijab if she wants to continue teaching at Sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan Cina (SJKC) Nan Ya in Teluk Sengat, Johor.

(i) Mohd Razlan Muhammad Rafii was investigated on 22 May 2014 when he allegedly threatened to burn down the DAP headquarters over the “UMNO celaka” remark made by DAP’s Seri Delima assemblyperson R.S.N. Rayer.

(j) National laureate Datuk Abdul A. Samad Said was investigated on 4 September 2013 for allegedly flying the Sang Saka Malaya flag.

(k) Melissa Gooi was investigated on 5 June 2013 for allegedly insulting the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

(l) Ibrahim Ali was investigated on 23 January 2013 for allegedly calling Muslims to burn Malay-language bibles that contain the word “Allah” and other religious Arabic script.

(m) Ahmad Abdul Jalil was investigated on 2 November 2012 for a post in Facebook that allegedly insulted the Sultan of Johor.

(n) Ong Sing Yee was investigated on 6 September 2012 for allegedly stepping on a photo of Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak at Dataran Merdeka during the Merdeka eve celebration.


(a) Ibrahim Ali for allegedly inciting the burning of the Malay language bibles on 19 January 2013.

(b) Ridhuan Tee Abdullah and Zulkifli Noordin for allegedly disparaging the Hindu religion and insulting adherents of the religion on 18 February 2013 and 6 March 2013 respectively.
(c) The racial rhetoric of the Prime Minister in his allegation of a “Chinese tsunami” on 6 May 2013, followed by the Utusan Malaysia article entitled “Apa lagi orang Cina mahu?” on 7 May 2013.

(d) Datuk Mohd Noor Abdullah, a former Court of Appeal judge, for allegedly accusing a racial group of treason and warning of retribution by another racial group on 22 May 2013.

(e) The bloodletting of chickens in the streets of Kuala Lumpur allegedly by some members of Pertubuhan Permuafakatan Majlis Ayahanda Malaysia (Permas) and overt references to the racial riots known as “May 13” as an implied threat. 

(f) UMNO Penang public assemblies on 18 January 2014 at Seberang Jaya and 19 January at Bukit Mertajam where it is alleged some persons made menacing references to “May 13” with its implied threat of violence. 

(g) The persons involved in the burning of an effigy of a Christian priest in January 2014.

(h) Ridhuan Tee Abdullah for his allegedly seditious article published in Sinar Harian, page 40, titled “Kesabaran Umat Islam ada had” on 18 February 2014.

(i) The speakers at a seminar titled “Seminar Kalimah Allah dan Kristologi Nusantara” at Universiti Technology Mara on 6 May 2014.

(j) Tun Abdul Hamid Mohamad, the former Chief Justice, for allegedly stating on 6 September 2014 that only Malays truly fought for independence while the other races were consumed by self-interest.

(k) Kamaruddin Ambok for allegedly stating that non-bumiputras are allegedly “biadap dan kurang ajar” on 2 September 2014.

(l) Dato Hamidah Osman for allegedly stating, “Bila nampak seekor ular dan seorang India, pukul India dulu” on Twitter on 18 September 2012.

(m) Ridhuan Tee Abdullah was investigated on 18th February 2014 for allegedly posting a sensitive article published in Sinar Harian, page 40, titled “Kesabaran Umat Islam ada had”.