[Translation to English by CPI]

Anatomy of an ISA operation

Arrested: Mat Sah Mohd Satray, a technician working with Dewan Bahasa Pustaka (DBP) was linked to Abu Bakar Bashir accused of heading the Jemaah Islamiyyah (JI). Mat Sah had made Abu Bakar’s acquaintance when he attended a course conducted by the latter, and his attendance at the course one made compulsory by DBP itself.

Tortured: April 2002, Mat Sah was interrogated throughout the day by three officers who took turns in the questioning session. Mat Sah, who was made to sit shivering under the air-conditioner, was not allowed to use the toilet and only provided with a mineral water bottle to ease himself.

The next day on April 18, 2002, the mainstream media published news that Kumpulan Militan Malaysia (KMM) was engaged in sabotage by attempting to blow up Port Klang. It was a period of mass unease following the 9/11 terrorist attack in the United States.

Detained: Mat Sah’s habeas corpus application was unsuccessful when the judge ruled that “the international community is now engaged in a war against terror”.

If, however, Mat Sah was really a terrorist, what ‘rebab’ programme is run in Kamunting? Inmates are given irrelevant training like how to make pickles, ferment soya bean and other such culinary skills.

Locked up: In a room without any lamp. Seven wasted years … held without evidence, without recourse to justice; without a view of the sky or the stars.

Released: Sept 15, 2009, “He (Mat Sah) was not set free. He was thrown out of the Kamunting camp and dumped on my doorstep,” is how his wife Norlaila Othman views it.

Provisos: He is required to remain within the police district of Ampang Jaya, Selangor; and not permitted to leave the area without written consent from the state Chief of Police. In other words, Mat Sah is only allowed to move around in Ampang.

Curfew: Mat Sah must report himself at the police station every Monday, and has to remain in his home between the hours of 9pm and 6am, unless obtaining permission from the police to break curfew.

Preventive order: He is not allowed to speak in public; is barred from joining societies and organizations; and banned from taking part in political events.

Merdeka Review interviews Mat Sah and Norlaila

“Kesian dia Mat Sah, even until the day he dies, people will say he is a ‘terrorist’. When in truth, Mat Sah is a good man who was oppressed and made a scapegoat,” lamented Norlaila who had been active in fighting for her husband’s release through the NGOs and Gerakan Mansuhkan ISA (GMI).

The authorities came increasingly under pressure following the ‘Abolish ISA’ demonstration on Aug 1 which catalyzed the release of five detainees before Hari Raya Aidilfitri this year. Mat Sah does not give any credence to the government’s statement that the detainees were released after having completed their ‘rehabilitation’.

After tens of thousands of people flooded the heart of Kuala Lumpur crying ‘ISA must go!’, Special Branch (SB) from Bukit Aman who previously used to make half yearly visits to Kamunting were suddenly briefing Mat Sah on a fortnightly basis.

From contact with his SP interrogators in the camp with where he was imprisoned, Mat Sah learnt of the public anger against ISA gaining momentum.

Mat Sah recalled how the SB officers looked harassed after the demonstration. One of the consequences arising from the demo was that Mat Sah – one of ISA’s longest-held detainee still in camp then – was taken to the Kuala Lumpur remand centre to be brainwashed. He was rained a variety of questions in addition to being subjected to propaganda on why the ISA should be retained.

Made to undergo polygraph test

On the night of Apr 17, 2002, Mat Sah was arrested under ISA. He was set upon by 12 policemen at his home and handcuffed while the house was ransacked. “When I asked to see his warrant of arrest, they said ‘no need warrant’ because they were ‘Grade A officers’,” said Norlaila.

Subsequently Mat Sah was labelled a member of ahli JI and KMM without trial. How strange then that “they never even mentioned the word ‘JI’ atau ‘KMM’ (during his arrest). They only said “‘we have our reasons to arrest you under ISA because you are a threat to national security”.

The experience of his first two years in custody is still clearly etched in Mat Sah’s memory.

“Mat Sah, we cannot release you. Malaysia has made a joint commitment with Asean and [a promise to] the United States to combat terrorism. If we let you go, what will they say?” – This was the reason given Mat Sah by Bukit Aman.

Detainees were required to take a ‘polygraph test’ to ascertain if they were lying to the authorities. “They gave me the test twice, once last year, and again this year. The last time they (the SB) said I failed. Yet this time, surprisingly I passed despite my replies being the same on both occasions.”

Mat Sah added, “I saw that they already harboured the intention of letting me go. Saying that (I passed the polygraph test) was merely their convenient excuse.”

‘Your wife needs to slow down a bit’

If the ostensible reason for releasing Mat Sah does not hold water, what about the reasons for extending his ISA detention order?

“Firstly, [they said I] did not obey the rules; secondly, my wife was too vocal…” Mat Sah explained to the journalists, stealing a glance at Norlaila. In fact, the authorities made an ‘example’ of Mat Sah to dissuade the families of other detainees from stepping forward to publicize the ISA issue.

Although they did not say so directly but Mat Sah got the message from their conversations with him that the SB was hinting his wife “should go slow” on her activism.

The journalists then asked if it ever crossed Mat Sah’s mind to advise his wife to ‘back off’. With disarming frankness Mat Sah replied, “I’m only repeating what the SB said…”, and this adroit sidestepping eliciting smiles from the journalists.

Norlaila who was seated at Mat Sah’s side was eager to re-enact their dialogue. In a soft voice, Norlaila said (she told her husband in Kamunting), “If you forbid me from campaigning (for your freedom), I will refuse to visit you here anymore-lah…”

The journalists laughed at the antics of the husband-and-wife pair. Nonetheless, it was with a sober realization that behind the light-heartedness of day, their painful past still lurked around the corner and haunted them.

Mat Sah resumed his story of what went through his mind when the SB wanted his wife to keep a low profile. He said one of his fellow inmates was Dr Abdullah Daud from Johor. Although Dr Abdullah’s his wife did nothing to agitate the authorities, his detention was similarly extended anyway.

Refused to sing Negaraku

In any case, it was not as if Norlaila was active right from the start. In fact, Mat Sah obeyed all the camp rules and regulations in the hope that he would be released after two years.

Nonetheless, Mat Sah could see that the Al-Ma’unah detainees who were ‘well-behaved’ (obeyed all the rules) were not set free, whereas the reformasi detainees who were ‘bad’ (did not co-operate with the camp authorities) were let go.

From then on, Mat Sah commenced his own programme of non-cooperation, refusing to sing Negaraku every morning at 7 o’clock. In the meantime, Norlaila began campaigning in the public – presenting her memorandum to Suhakam, giving talks and other activities.

Norlaila’s efforts failed to secure Mat Sah his release but instead earned him even more severe punishment.

On Feb 23, 2006, Norlaila decided to ambush the Prime Minister during an event organized by Felda, where she managed to hand over her memorandum to Abdullah Ahmad Badawi who replied with “Insya-Allah”.

In retaliation for her initiative which took the authorities by surprise, Mat Sah was put in solitary confinement for three years. This act was seen as a warning to other detainees so that their families would not follow in Norlaila’s footsteps …

‘The government has destroyed my husband!’

The ISA not only devastated their lives but its insidious effect has seeped into their very bones.

“I feel that he has been made stupid, not ‘rehabilitated’ throughout those seven years” said Norlaila point blank. “The isolation from human company, the rules enforced on him caused Mat Sah to regress mentally.”

When asked about Mat Sah’s personality seven years ago, Norlaila commented, “He was a very cheerful person … an affectionate father.

“We lost everything for seven years, including the job.”

Norlaila recalled how she had to fork out her own money to repair the ‘damage’ done to her husband who was ‘broken’ while being held in Kamunting. She bore the cost of his dental treatment and medical care (for his leg) while he was under detention, and at the same time spending money to buy her husband and his fellow detainees better food during her visits to Kamunting.

“He was not a criminal!”

Mat Sah became a changed man, and reacted with hesitancy to the world [after having spent seven years isolated under ISA’s so-called preventive detention].

Norlaila reflected, “Upon his release, he was like a newborn just emerged from a cave. He didn’t know anything … when we went out, so many things were alien to him; he kept asking a lot of questions …”

There was once when Norlaila took Mat Sah to the market. She was surprised to hear him shout ‘Ikan!’ and pointing to a fish on display at the stall. His behaviour perplexed Norlaila who turned the fish over to check what could be so extraordinary about it. As it turned out, [CPI editor’s note: possibly after seven years of anchovies on the menu], Mat Sah had forgotten that fish could be big in size.

At the supermarket, Mat Sah was careful in his step, fearful that other shoppers would collide into him. [After the long solitary confinement, he is yet to get used to people and crowds]. His ISA detention had resulted in Mat Sah’s world shrinking to a void. He has fallen out of step with technological advances and is overwhelmed by modern gadgets like mobiles and smart-tag, plus unfamiliar with the Internet.

The first day that he stepped into his home after spending seven years in bare cell, Mat Sah reacted as if the house was overly ‘cluttered’, when in fact the living room contained only the sofa and a few decorations, Norlaila remembered.

Growing up without a father

“Of course I’m very upset. And I will curse those officers … the wicked SBs who arrest people under ISA, who keep them locked up for years, who invent all kinds of excuses to prevent their release,” Norlaila told the journalists.

Unlike other ISA detainees who expressed gratitude to the government for their release, Norlaila has reminded Mat Sah only to ‘bersyukur’ to God, not to the government because it is this government that has caused his family so much grief.

For seven long years, Mat Sah’s only son Suhaib had missed his father. Even though Mat Sah has now returned to the embrace of one who for half his life grew up without a father figure, they are having a hard time making up for the lost years.

According to Norlaila, Mat Sah is unsure about how to interact his son, today a teenager. Similarly when Suhaib wants to talk to Mat Shah, he would look to his mother Norlaila for direction.

“For too long they have been apart…,” Norlaila admitted that the lapsed relationship between father and son is one that requires mending. Norlaila herself was confronted with a similar awkwardness. The first night that Mat Sah was released and returned home, she felt that it was a stranger who was in her bedroom.

Suhaib has been unnerved by how his father seems slow in his movements and thought processes. He once asked his mother, while giving his father a sidelong look and gesturing with a finger pointing to the head: “Is he okay up there?”

Majority of ISA victims were leftists

Unlike Wan Azizah Wan Ismail who was known as the ‘wife of the Deputy Prime Minister’ before her husband fell from power, Norlaila was only a secondary school teacher. When Anwar Ibrahim was brought down, his family had the support of the reformasi movement, and were the focus of international media attention. Anwar was seen as a prisoner of conscience.

Not so with Norlaila’s family. Even PAS – painted as having links with terrorists by the BN propaganda machine – was reluctant to extend a helping hand to Mat Sah’s family.

Nonetheless, Norlaila was not alone and she recalled the assistance given her by the reporters from Harakah, Malaysiakini and others. More importantly, when Norlaila was at her wits end, friends from GMI lent her their shoulder to cry on.

During the period of her struggle to free Mat Sah, she has been diligent in her research. Armed with her newly acquired knowledge, Norlaila has made it her mission to correct public misconception about ISA.

From her reading, Norlaila learned that the ISA dragnet included many of those categorized as ‘leftists’. These were people belonging to organizations that fought for the rights of labourers, factory workers, farmers and other marginalized communities.

Over the last seven years, Norlaila has tried her level best to free her husband and get the ISA abolished. “I have done all that I’ve had to do with civility. However when the government is ‘kurang ajar’ to us, then we have to continue to educate this government.”

Lim Hong Siang is editor of ‘Merdeka Review’, Malay edition. The interview above was conducted by Lim together with his colleague Chen Shaua Fui. This summary is edited and reformatted by CPI with permission from ‘Merdeka Review’ and can be read in its Malay version, ISA: ‘Saya akan sumpah SB-SB yang jahat!’

The full interview can be read in the Merdeka Review four-parter below:

• Bhg I: Demo 1 Ogos yang bebaskan saya, Mat Sah
• Bhg II: 13 Mei berulang tanpa ISA?
• Bhg III: Kita masih dalam ISA, Norlaila
• Bhg IV: Bila diuji dengan ISA… Berdosa kalau diam, Norlaila

SIPAUN: Suhakam is clear. The ISA must go

THE Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) remains steadfast in its call for the repeal of the Internal Security Act (ISA).

Contacted yesterday, Suhakam vice-chairman Tan Sri Simon Sipaun said: “I had made it clear that Suhakam has not  deviated from its original  stand that the ISA be abolished.”

He explained that Suhakam’s stand was communicated to Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein during a meeting together with Bar Council representatives  on Sept 15 to clarify the situation.

As such, Sipaun said, the minister must have misunderstood Suhakam’s stand if he had said the human rights group had agreed there was a need to retain the ISA, although it should be amended.

Sipaun explained that while a new legislation would take time to come  into effect, Suhakam wants a review of the ISA to make it more human rights-friendly as an interim measure.

There was at no time in the meeting, Sipaun insisted, that he or Suhakam representatives had agreed that the ISA should be retained.

“The ISA is against human rights principles, where it is not right that a minister or police can arrest a person without trial or reason.”

He pointed out that, in a published recommendation to the government in 2003, Suhakam had called for the repeal of the ISA, so that it could be replaced by a more human rights-friendly legislation.

“No one should be deprived of individual liberty or the right to defend himself. People should be given the chance to be innocent until proven guilty. Suhakam is still very concerned over the abuses of the ISA.”

While visiting the detention camp in Kamunting, Siapun said, he met with a detainee who had been there for seven years.

“They should not be detained for such a long period. If there was evidence of crime, he should be sent to the court to be tried and not be kept in the detention camp.”

Penan abuse: S’wak launches counter-attack
Keruah Usit . Sep 23, 09 . 10:44am

Embattled Sarawak government officials have responded to damaging media coverage of their treatment of Sarawak’s Penan minority, arguing that “negative NGOs” were to blame rather than the Sarawak authorities.

Flurries of angry headlines have emerged in the past few days in the Sarawak press. Local newspapers are tightly controlled by the state government and logging and plantation companies.

By Ragunath Kesavan

THE Malaysian Bar is disappointed at the government’s continuing lack of political will to promote and protect the welfare and rights of indigenous peoples throughout Malaysia. The government’s inaction makes a mockery of its vote in favour of adopting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 2007 (“the UN Declaration”).

Most recently, the government refused to make public the report of the national task force established to investigate the allegations of sexual abuse against Penan women and girls. This refusal flouts democratic principles of transparency and accountability. The Women, Family and Community Development Ministry finally made the report publicly available only after pressure from various interest groups.

We are further disappointed that despite the Inspector-General of Police’s pledge of full support for a joint police-NGO investigative mission, the Sarawak police have now reportedly stated that the funds allocated are not sufficient to fund the participation of non-governmental organisation representatives.

Penan woman (Pics courtesy of Sofiyah Israa @ Flickr)

The sexual abuse faced by the Penan is but one of a multitude of human rights violations that indigenous communities face on an ongoing basis, and which are inextricably interlinked. Most indigenous persons are not able to fully enjoy their fundamental human rights because their traditions, customs and values are being eroded and their needs have been long neglected.

A crucial first step for the government, in fulfilling its state obligation, is to formally recognise, protect and guarantee the right of indigenous peoples to their ancestral lands throughout the country and to gazette such ancestral lands as reserved areas for them. If necessary, land laws must be amended to achieve this.

We are concerned that many indigenous communities still live without basic amenities and infrastructure. It is within the context of the deprivation of their rights to ancestral lands and access to basic services that indigenous peoples have become vulnerable to sexual abuse and other violations of human rights. We strongly urge the government to perform its duty by taking concrete steps to improve the welfare of indigenous peoples.

Finally, we denounce the wholly unnecessary arrest of 15 Sarawakian indigenous leaders on 16 Sept 2009, who were reportedly detained as they attempted to deliver a memorandum to the chief minister to protest the building of hydro-electric dams that would adversely affect their communities.

The manner in which our nation deals with the needs and rights of these communities is a reflection of our commitment to democracy and human rights. In this, our leaders have failed.

But change is possible. More can, and must, be done.

We therefore echo our earlier call, made in a resolution that was unanimously adopted at the Malaysian Bar’s 63rd annual general meeting on 15 March 2009, that the federal and state governments, as well as all public and private enterprises and individuals, respect and protect the rights of indigenous peoples pursuant to the UN Declaration, and not act in any manner inconsistent with those rights.

Ragunath Kesavan
President
Malaysian Bar

18 Sept 2009

koshy@thestar.com.my

KUALA LUMPUR: Human rights violations continue to occur almost on a daily basis in Malaysia, said the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) chairman Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman.

As an advisory body without executive power, he said there was nothing Suhakam could do to ensure the Government responded to and acted upon on its recommendations.

Although the Government had made significant improvement since the Suhakam Act became law on Sept 9, 1999, Malaysia did not have a perfect human rights record, Abu Talib said in his keynote address at Suhakam’s Malaysian Human Rights Day celebration on Wednesday.

He reminded participants at the celebration, which had the theme “Human Rights in Malaysia: The Last 10 Years,” that Suhakam was a “creature of statute” and that the solution lay in the hands of Malaysian voters.

“If you vote the right people into Parliament, they will amend the law to give us teeth to bite with,” he said in response to a question from the floor.

Earlier, in his speech, Abu Talib said Suhakam’s probe into complaints of abuses such as police inaction, excessive force, selective prosecution, death in custody, delays in citizenship applications and denial of rights to ancestral land found that most of these were legitimate.

“To many government employees, it would appear that the Universal Declaration (of Human Rights) is very remote from their everyday working lives,” he said.

He cautioned the Government that quelling dissenting voices and a free and open media would only encourage “whispering campaigns” that would result in social unrest.

Stressing that religion could not or should not be legislated, Abu Talib urged religious leaders to promote tolerance and respect for others.

Asked at a press conference about the boycott of the conference by 42 non-governmental groups because, among others, Suhakam had refused to send a team to monitor the anti-ISA (Internal Security Act) protest on Aug 1, Abu Talib said:

“It was not right for us to be there because the rally did not have a permit. We cannot act against the law. By not being there, it does not mean we cannot give an effective recommendation.

“We are for peaceful assemblies and we have recommended that the Police Act be amended so there is no need for a permit,” he said.

Commissioner Datuk Dr Chiam Heng Keng, who is the organising chairman, clarified that representatives from 32 of the 42 NGOs had turned up.

Speech by Tan Sri Abu Ralib Othman
Chairman of Suhakam
At the Malaysian Human Rights Day
Sept 9 2009

Excellencies; Distinguished Guests; Yang Bahagia Tan Sri Simon Sipaun, Vice-Chairman of Suhakam; Yang Bahagia Datuk Dr Chiam Heng Keng, Chairman of the Organising Committee

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Good morning and welcome to the Suhakam 2009 Human Rights Day Conference.

We are honoured by your presence here this morning. We are grateful that you have accepted our invitation and have come with the common purpose of assessing what has changed for human rights and exploring ways in which the Government, individual and society can play a more meaningful and constructive role in the promotion and protection of human rights.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

For this year’s Human Rights Conference we have chosen the theme “Human Rights in Malaysia, The Last 10 Years” (the period since Suhakam was established) which has the objective of highlighting some of the human rights violations, the challenges facing the community in the field of human rights and how we should now proceed.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Suhakam was established by the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999 which came into force in April 2000. It was done at the initiative of the Government with little public involvement. At the start human rights activists expected little of Suhakam. They were sceptical of the Government’s motives and critical of Suhakam’s actions.

Nevertheless, Suhakam held faith that human rights have attained a paramount status in mankind’s aspiration for an equitable and happier world. In Malaysia’s multi-racial and multi-cultural society, this aspiration has no room for confrontation or acrimony. In order to address the issues of human rights and to promote human rights awareness, we held consultations and dialogues with various stakeholders.

Suhakam has gone a long way to fulfil its obligations and realise its goal, continuously expanding its operations to reach towns and villages in various parts of the country. It has imparted human rights awareness and knowledge to people of all segments of society ranging from government officials and corporations to the general population, including orang asli (indigenous peoples), the Penan and schoolchildren. We did our utmost to address the root cause of violation of human rights and to protect and promote the human rights of the people in a balanced and equitable way.

We believe that when rights and responsibilities are balanced, freedom is enhanced. In carrying out our duties and responsibilities, we are guided by Human Rights principles and good practices. If, therefore, we were perceived to have been biased, when we are not, it is because we lean in favour of human rights. Today, human rights is known to a wide spectrum of the population and the people are now exercising their fundamental human rights more than ever before.

Kofi Annan, the former Secretary-General of the United Nation, said that “Human Rights are the foundation of human existence and co-existence … . Human rights are what made us human. They are the principles by which we create the sacred home for human dignity.”

In essence, Human Rights are the people’s rights. To mention the essential, they are the right to life, right to citizenship, right to education, right to development, right to standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family, right to housing, equality before the law, prohibition of arbitrary arrest and detention, the presumption of innocence, right to freedom of thought, conscience, choice and change of religion, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, right to freedom of peaceful assembly and the right to take part in the government of the country.

The most fundamental requirement is that human beings must be truly free in order to exercise such rights and freedom. Difference in status, race, language, sex, religion or political affiliation must not provide for discrimination regarding such rights. The exercise of those rights should not be the privilege of the happy few but all the people as envisioned by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which is greatly reflected in the Federal Constitution.

It is true that Article 29 of the Universal Declaration and the Constitution permit the imposition and limitation on such rights, but I submit, Ladies and Gentlemen, that the imposition of such limitation must be subject to the rule of law in a democratic society.

In my view legislation is not enough to ensure that human rights are respected everywhere and at all times, as the past 10 years made only too clear. We have during that time received and investigated complaints of police inaction, excessive use of force, selective investigations and prosecutions, death in police custody, selective enforcement of the law, arbitrary arrest and detention, denial of rights to ancestral land, delay in disposal of court cases and delay in processing application for citizenship.

We found most of the complaints to be legitimate.

To many government employees, it would appear that the Universal Declaration is very remote from their everyday working lives. But the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights contains a fundamental guideline for every executive government agency that is respect for the human dignity of everyone with whom it comes into contact.

One should fully acknowledge the fact that members of the public have many relationships of dependency with the government from the day they were born to the day they leave this world. Government’s relations with the members of the public are not merely in law, determined by what is prescribed by law, there is always an element of personal interaction as well.

Many complaints about the authorities are based on the individual’s sense of not being taken seriously, particularly the underprivileged, the poor, the weak, indigenous people and the disabled. They believe that they have human rights and that those who caused their suffering were acting illegally. It is their hope to be treated with dignity and to have their rights respected and that it is the purpose and duty of the government to respect and protect their rights.

It is in this connection, Ladies and Gentlemen, that we should all welcome the policy of “People First and Performance Now” announced by the Honourable Prime Minister of Malaysia, Datuk Seri Mohd Najib Tun Abdul Razak.

In my view, the Prime Minister’s policy is consistent with the Principles of Human Rights of ensuring a life of dignity for all. It is the realisation of this landmark policy which is pro-human rights that the people look forward to.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The Government is firmly committed to the promotion and protection of human rights on the basis of its commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Constitution, the establishment of Suhakam as well as from the values, customs and traditions of the people.

That may sit well, but we the Defenders of Human Rights must advance the agenda for a higher standard of accountability and performance consonant with international transparency practices. In this respect we welcome the decision of the Prime Minister to introduce KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) for government employees, from the highest to the lowest. It is our hope that the Government will ensure that its agencies are not only well-staffed but that its employees must be adequately equipped to cope with this aspect of their work. Appropriate internal regulations and procedures to promote and protect human rights can certainly help to achieve this.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Over the last 10 years Suhakam has conducted public inquiries on complaints of human rights violations, reviewed laws which clearly are contrary to the principles of human rights, such as the ISA (Internal Security Act), the Police Act, the Printing Press and Publications Act and the Official Secret Act, conducted research on land rights of indigenous people, organised forums and roundtable discussions on human rights education and recommended the ratification of the core human rights documents, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Convention Against Torture.

Suhakam had also recommended the introduction of a National Action Plan in the field of human rights and that major bills should be referred to a Select Committee of Parliament and State Assemblies after the first reading so that different sectors of society, such as experts, public interest groups and other concerned individuals, could give their input to the process.

Unfortunately, most of Suhakam’s findings and recommendations have yet to be implemented by the Government. As an advisory body without executive power there is nothing that Suhakam can do to ensure Government’s response and action to what it recommended. As such, human rights violations continue to occur almost on daily basis.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

There can be no denial that we live in a society based on rights. The rights of every human being are very precious and important. Every effort should be made to protect and promote the belief that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

Freedom, however, becomes meaningless in the absence of justice. No one should be allowed to take the law into his hand. It must not be that the guilty go unpunished, the dishonest rewarded, the custodians of the law become the biggest law breakers and that the court should strive in every case to determine what is right rather than who is right. Bad laws constitute the worst kind of injustice. A society not only needs good laws but also good people to restrain bad laws and enforce good laws without fear or favour.

Charles Louis de Secondat, Baron de Montesquier, in 1742 said “There is no crueller tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.”

Justice should not only be done but also be perceived as having been done.

Only the Government has the ability to ensure that the police and other agencies respect human rights while maintaining peace and security, and that the judicial systems are independent and effective in providing access to justice to all citizens. They can allow citizens to freely voice their concerns on important issues such as the misuse of public funds, abuse of power and illegal practices. By not allowing citizens to freely voice their concerns on such issues, we are encouraging whispering campaigns that will ultimately result in social and public unrest. We need to be open to legitimate criticisms and react positively.

The only means of truly gauging the public pulse is to listen to voices of dissent, a process reinforced by free and open media. In this connection we welcome the Government’s decision to amend the Police Act, the ISA and other preventive legislations. What the nature of amendment is has yet to be seen.

Religious leaders can mobilise the hearts and minds of their adherents. They should not use their influence to advocate and commit gross human rights violations. The purpose of religion is to bring lasting happiness to Man and that is only possible through obedience to God’s commandments, performance of one’s prayers and religious duties and naturally, through proper social conduct and observance of the rights of others. Religious belief cannot and should not be legislated. Religious leaders, therefore, should spare no efforts to promote tolerance and respect for others within and outside their communities.

Business leaders have a responsibility because they can directly influence the quality of life enjoyed by their employees. For this reason, corporations should be held to the same standard of human rights protection as the Government. Also, those who achieve great wealth have a moral obligation to give back to the communities that have enabled their success.

Individually, each of us can become a leader for human rights in our own communities by showing respect not only for our friends and families but also for those who are different from us. For us who have the right to choose our leaders, our commitment is to choose a leader who is committed in advancing human rights and good governance.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Human rights violations can never be accepted and can never be a good thing for the people and the country. Human rights are our rights, now and for all times. When they are ignored, human misery and political instability all too easily follow.

In this regard I would like to commend on some of the positive moves made by the Government in its effort to protect public interest and human rights. In 2001, the Government amended Article 8 of the Constitution to include “gender” as one of the grounds prohibited from discrimination, improve the condition in detention centres and police lock-ups, ratified the Convention against Corruption, enacted the Anti Trafficking in Persons Act and the Person with Disabilities Act, addressed the plight of the poor, persons with disabilities, victims of trafficking and public housing, improve access to healthcare and providing free primary education.

Although the Government has made significant improvements in the protection of human rights in the last 10 years, this is not to say that Malaysia has a perfect human rights record. No Nation, no matter how enlightened, can claim to have a perfect human rights record.

Together, Suhakam with the Government, corporations, civil societies and the public can further improve human rights condition in the country. We simply have to work together instead of diverting our energy into futile and unproductive debate over wrongly perceived alternatives or who is right or wrong. Human rights should not be politicised and its principles selectively applied.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

In the last 10 years, Suhakam has done a lot in promoting awareness in the promotion and protection of human rights and helping to ensure a life of dignity for all regardless of gender, status, ethnicity, religion and political affiliation. We still have much to do.

In this connection we derive some consolation from the words of Eleanor Roosevelt, the wife of US President Roosevelt, the Chairperson of the drafting committee of the Declaration of Human Right and I quote, “Promoting respect for human rights is a fulfilling – but never fulfilled — obligation.”

I feel very privileged to have the opportunity of speaking this morning at this conference which is dedicated to addressing human rights issues in Malaysia. I do hope that all of you will have a substantive and productive discussion — for human rights, justice and happiness of the people. I wish you all the best and a successful and fruitful conference.

Thank you.

Get a PDF copy of the Report here, courtesy of Hornbill Unleashed.

A long-awaited report by a national action committee probing allegations of sexual abuse of Penan women and children is finally released – after much political and public pressure. The damning report concludes that the allegations are true and they were perpetrated by outsiders – including logging company workers and traders – who had dealings with the Penan community.

A ‘mystery witness’ today made shocking disclosures at an inquest into the death of political aide Teoh Beng Hock, that he was tortured by Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) officers at the agency’s office on the 14th floor of Plaza Masalam here.

T Sivanesan, 23, an assistant manager with Kuantan-based Puncak Rezeki Makmur Sdn Bhd, said he was punched all over the body while his genitals were “whipped” with an iron rod wrapped in newspapers.

“At the time, I was wearing just an underwear while my hands were handcuffed to my back. I was also kicked and punched all over the body by between 10 and 15 men.

“At one time, an officer asked me to wear my shirt as the MACC deputy director was around. However, the deputy director retorted, ‘Just continue. What are you scared of?’,” said the witness.

Sivanesan is the ‘mystery witness’ whom lawyer Gobind Singh Deo had yesterday said he would produce in court today.

He said the aim of the ‘mystery witness’ was to shed light on the methods of questioning by MACC officers and thus, show that there had been inconsistencies in the testimony provided by MACC enforcement officer Mohd Ashraf Mohd Yunus during the course of the inquest.

Gobind is holding a watching brief for Teoh’s family.

Teoh, 30, a political aide to Selangor state executive councillor Ean Yong Hian Wah, was found dead on the fifth floor of Plaza Masalam here on July 16.

He had been questioned by MACC officers overnight, pertaining to alleged abuse of state funds in the Selangor government at the Selangor MACC office located on the 14th floor of the same building.

Sivanesan said he was tortured for two days on Sept 4 and 5, last year, after which he was questioned for another three days.

Ice cubes inside his underwear

The witness said that on Sept 4, last year, three MACC officers known as Ashraf, Zulkifli and J, took him from his house (Sivanesan’s) in Klang to the MACC office in Plaza Masalam.

“After I was brought to a room, an MACC officer told me in Tamil that if I did not speak the truth, the place will be hell. I was ordered to sign a detention and arrest letter.

“However, I refused to do so as I was told that I was brought there to assist in an investigation and not to be detained.

“I was then slapped by another officer when I still refused to sign the letter. Following this, the officer ordered me to strip to my underwear,” he said.

Sivanesan said that subsequently, harsh words were hurled at him before he was blindfolded with a towel and his genitals whipped by Ashraf.

“I endured the pain for almost 20 minutes,” he added.

The witness said he fainted from the beatings and when he was awakened at 6am, the following day, he found ice cubes in a plastic bag in his underwear.

Sivanesan said that on the second day, MACC officers used similar methods to torture him, causing his underwear to be torn in front and behind, due to the whippings on his genitals, he added.

The witness then produced the underwear in court.

Hospitalised for four days

“I was also punched in the abdomen, buttocks and head, before an officer slapped me at the corridor of the MACC.

“When another officer said the deputy director was around, the officer replied that he (deputy director) was also there, the previous day.

“After the beatings I was given a Panadol pill and an ointment. I lodged a police report typed by my uncle, Muthiah, after I was released,” he said.

Sivanesan said he was hospitalised for four days at the Tengku Ampuan Rahimah Hospital (HTAR) in Klang for injuries on the head, kidneys and genitals.

“My uncle asked me to take pictures of the injuries. I also lodged complaints with Suaram, Suhakam and Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Deparment T Murugiah, through the Public Complaints Bureau (PCB),” he said.

Asked which of the four bodies pursued the matter, Sivanesan said only the PCB headed by Murugiah conducted an investigation.

Graft busters beat me up, says new witness

FINAL UPDATE

SHAH ALAM, Sept 9 — He was handcuffed and taken into a dark room where he saw a tall man with spectacles wrapping an iron rod in newspapers.

He was told to strip and blindfolded. Several men assaulted him. He was hit with the metal rod, punched, kicked, slapped all over and even caned on his gentitals and the soles of his feet until he passed out from the pain.

Sivanesan Tanggavelu remembers clearly his encounter with officers from the national anti-graft agency.

He still has the white underwear, the only stitch of clothing he was allowed to wear, from that assault.

Pulling it out from his pants pocket, where it was wrapped in an orange plastic bag, he lifted it up and showed the coroner’s court three gaping tears at the crotch area, the anal area and on the top right corner just below the waistband, said to have been caused by the beatings.

The 22-year-old was introduced today as a new witness into the inquest of Teoh Beng Hock, a DAP political secretary fell to his death on July 16 after being interrogated overnight by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) office on the 14th-floor of Plaza Masalam here.

Under questioning from lawyer Gobind Singh Deo, the assistant manager of a Kuantan-based company recounted how he was met at home on Sept 4 last year by three men who said they were anti-graft officers and requested his help in an investigation.

He followed them to their office on the 14th-floor of Plaza Masalam here where they tried to get him to sign a document admitting guilt.

When he refused, one of them, whom he called “Mohan” told him in Tamil: “If you don’t tell the truth, this place will be hell.”

He told the coroner’s court he was assaulted by between 10 to 15 men, which he did not name in his Sept 11, 2008 police report lodged against the national anti-graft agency — ACA, as it was known then — that first night.

But he said he learnt some of their names later. One of them, he said was “Ashraf”, which he recently recognised from reading newspaper reports on Teoh’s inquest.

He said “Ashraf” was the person who had caned his genitals while his hands and feet were bound by cuffs, all the while calling him racist and derogatory names.

Gobind stands with the new witness Sivanesan (left), who came forward to allege torture and abuse at the hands of anti-graft officers last year. — Picture by Jack Ooi

Apart from the two officers named earlier, Sivanesan remembers hearing five others: Zulkifli who had introduced himself when met at his home, “J”, Sachi, Raymond and Hairul Nizam.

He remembers the officers stopping briefly and hurriedly telling him to get dressed when another man entered the room.

But any relief he may have felt was cut short when the new man asked: “Continue the interrogation. Why have you stopped?”

The new man was said to be the deputy director, Sivanesan told the court.

His nightmare did not end there. The assault continued the next day and night.

He was taken to a corridor in the morning, where he saw a window at the end, and repeatedly beat-up by the tall man in glasses, assisted by two or three others.

He heard one officer ask another if the deputy director was in. The other replied he was but that he had given “permission” the previous night.

Each time, he was bashed till he passed out.

He remembers the first two instances when he came to, he found a piece of ice wrapped in plastic inside his underwear, pressed against his genitals. Once, he was given some ointment to rub.

Unable to withstand the pain, he finally signed the document. The beatings stopped after that.

He was released on Sept 9 last year. He snapped photos of his injuries the next day before filing a police report against the anti-graft agency on Sept 11. He was admitted to the Klang general hospital on Sept 12 where he spent the next four days in bed due to his injuries, including to the kidneys.

Lawyer for the MACC, Datuk Abdul Razak Musa had objected strongly this morning to admitting Sivanesan’s testimony as well as police report on the assault in spite of the magistrate’s ruling to allow the materials.

He had also objected to the testimony yesterday when it was to be put to the MACC’s own man, Mohd Ashraf Mohd Yunus, for questioning.

Then, he argued that Sivanesan’s statement and police report was “not relevant” to finding out how Teoh died because the case was a year old, did not name any of the officers alleged to have assaulted him, and had different circumstances as Sivanesan was a suspect while Teoh was called in as a witness.

Abdul Razak added that if it was to be tendered as evidence, it should rightly be entered through the appropriate witness.

But the MACC legal director argued today that Sivanesan’s testimony was prejudiced against the MACC even before the man took to the witness stand.

He added that magistrate Azmil Muntapha Abas, who is acting as coroner, had agreed with him that the testimony was not relevant to Teoh’s inquest.

Lawyers for the Teoh family and the state government, Gobind and Malik Imtiaz Sarwar respectively, were outraged at what they said was an attempt by Abdul Razak to mislead the court.

Gobind went a step further and likened Abdul Razak’s arguments to contempt of court.

The arguments quickly spiralled into a long-drawn out squabble, which ended with Abdul Razak calling on Azmil to postpone hearing Sivanesan’s testimony, insisting it was “not relevant” and highly prejudiced against the MACC.

But Azmil — after being persuaded by Gobind, Malik, other lawyers acting for the Attorney General (AG) in helping the inquest as well as from the Bar Council and Ean Yong Hian Wah who was Teoh’s boss — decided to hear Sivanesan out first before deciding what to do with the testimony.

Gobind and Malik stressed that Sivanesan’s safety as a witness was now at stake because his identity has been exposed as he was seated in the public gallery during the lawyers’ quarrel.

If the magistrate chose to ignore the precaution, Malik highlighted, it would send the wrong message to future witnesses who may change their minds from giving testimony in open court.

The other lawyers pointed out to Azmil that the ball was in his court as he is the magistrate/coroner. He could choose not to consider the evidence in his final decision or even to expunge the witness’ evidence from the court records.

Teoh, the political secretary to Selangor state executive councillor Ean Yong Hian Wah was said to be the star witness in an ongoing probe over the abuse of state funds by DAP assemblymen.

The 30-year-old husband-to-be had checked into the MACC office on July 15 but never checked out. His body was found sprawled on a 5th-floor landing of the same building the next day.

It was “sudden death” the police said initially. Two pathologists who carried out the autopsy on Teoh said all the signs point to “suicide”.

But his family and his employer strongly believe foul play is involved. Their lawyers believe the same.

Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, representing the Selangor state government, told the coroner’s court today that the state plans to enter famed Thai pathologist, Dr Pornthip Rojanasunand, into the witness box next Monday.

A dissatisfied Abdul Razak  who immediately filed for the high court to review and revise the magistrate’s decision to admit Sivanesan’s testimonies, succeeded to hold off the inquest from continuing tomorrow at 9am.

The high court in neighbouring Petaling Jaya will hear the application for a review tomorrow at 11am.

Ambiga Sreenevasan, Andrew Khoo and Zarizana Abdul Aziz

On 28 April, The Star published an article by Dr Wan Azhar Wan Ahmad under Ikim’s Views entitled ‘Human rights shouldn’t impose on religions and cultures‘. We wrote a rebuttal. The Star has chosen not to publish it.

Below is our rebuttal, and it is our personal opinion.

In the area of supra-national laws, there is a move to advance binding sets of principles that will guide nations. By their very nature, these principles govern and restrict the conduct of the state.

Malaysia is no stranger to such principles. We are a party to the Geneva Conventions and the Chemical Warfare Convention. These conventions regulate the conduct of warfare by states and are very much part of human rights laws. These laws are intended as a reflection of common decency, which guide civilised nations to the extent that they override or circumscribe a state’s absolute freedom in the conduct of war. Indeed, this is only to be welcomed.

Are these rules new? Hardly. Such rules of war have been in existence for several hundreds of years. For example, when the international community questioned and condemned Israel’s conduct in the Gaza War, we appealed to international human rights and humanitarian laws.

Is this a new religion? Definitely not. Countries that became parties to such international conventions did so out of their moral outrage at people’s inhumanity to others, their deeply held values and profound desire to ensure that common decency and humanitarian principles must prevail even when countries are at their most belligerent temper. The universality of such values is undeniable, and their intended result, peace, is beyond question. Is Wan Azhar saying that this is unacceptable?

But peace is not simply the absence of war. Peace is the enabling of equality and the dignity of human beings. Coming as we do from ancient faith traditions, Hindusim, Islam and Christianity respectively, we see human rights as a positive expression of deeply held religious systems and moral values. Rather than being in contrast and contention with religious systems and moral values, human rights are in fact some of their highest expressions.

A God or godly pantheon responsible for the creation of humanity demands that human beings be accorded and treated with all due dignity and respect without qualification on the basis of race, religion, gender or political or moral philosophy. So human rights are a way of elucidating and enunciating how such expressions should be effected.

Such human rights should be equally applied to all citizens and residents of a country regardless of what the official religion of that country is, or if it has none. In this regard, secularism seeks to apply those basic human rights norms in non-religious terms and language, without preferring religion over non-religion or one religion over another.

Human rights, simply put, is about respecting and upholding the dignity of each and every human being. How does that not accord with religious beliefs? It is a poor and sad human misinterpretation of religion that accords basic rights and fundamental freedoms only to a religion’s own adherents, or to those in agreement with the powers-that-be behind such a religion.

Wan Azhar suggests that the concepts of human rights and religion in Malaysia are antagonistic. Let us look at the human rights of ‘Orang Asli’ in Malaysia. If we take the situation of Orang Asli’ land rights, we can see that this is patently untrue. All major religions and value systems enjoin their adherents and followers to care for and improve the welfare of those among us who are defenceless, weak, underprivileged, marginalised and effectively disenfranchised. All the major religions would recognise the customary rights of the ‘Orang Asli’ to their land.

Yet for such a long time, the previous Selangor state governments have chosen to challenge and dispute such rights. The present-day Selangor government is to be commended for finally choosing not to pursue this challenge and to recognise such customary land rights.
While a national constitution can stipulate an official religion for the nation, such a document must also recognise the rights of those who do not subscribe to that religion. International human rights norms seek to make commonplace the understanding that the lives of citizens and residents of a country should be free from interference and molestation as a result of any official religious or philosophical orthodoxy.

International human rights norms object to the attempt to legislate for a particular religion and to impose such legislated rules to non-adherents or non-practitioners. And these norms also additionally object to the attempt to deny non-adherents any means to participate in a public debate about that which nonetheless affects their lives and that of their country. A self-serving interpretation of a religion’s tenets as a pretext to separation and exclusion, rather than in favour of universality and inclusivity, is to be abhorred.

Wan Azhar wrote that “human rights should neither be made the basis to undermine the constitution, nor be worshipped as if they represent a sacred agenda which could impose restrictions in terms of transforming the country into a united, peaceful and developed nation.” We couldn’t agree more.

International human rights norms serve as a checklist to uphold our constitution and to benchmark it against international best practices. There is no attempt to undermine but rather strengthen and undergird our Federal Constitution by eliminating any attempt to utilise it as a basis to perpetuate unjust laws, rules and regulations which cause hardship, harm and suffering to our fellow citizens and residents. Where there is a lack of clarity, international human rights norms offer a clear and unambiguous frame of reference. Hence the latest cabinet directive regarding the religious upbringing of children of divorced parents, which we support.

Wan Azhar concludes his essay by saying that “if we really believe in a religious or value system, we cannot accept any notion under the banner of human rights which propagates the idea that humankind is free to do whatever he/she likes without restriction.”

The comparison is incorrect. To each right there is a balancing obligation not to act in a way that would discriminate others. Human rights do not promote anarchy and irresponsible behaviour without limitation, as Wan Azhar would like your readers to believe.