Tonight, the Human Rights Council will be scrutinising the government’s human rights record. Amongst the issues it will examine is the use of the Internal Security Act, the harsh crackdowns on citizens assembling in protest of government policies, and the arrest, detention, and deportation of migrants and refugees.
The government is being examined under the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), a state-led process in which governments examine the extent to which members of the United Nations meet their obligations and commitments to promote and protect human rights.
The government will be reviewed on the extent to which it has complied with obligations contained in the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the human rights treaties to which Malaysia is a state party (including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, CEDAW, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, CRC), pledges made when applying for membership of the Human Rights Council, and applicable international law.
In this review process, the Human Rights Council will examine a country report prepared by the government, a UN report outlining key findings by UN agencies and treaty bodies on the situation of human rights in Malaysia, and a report summarising civil society submissions highlighting key issues on the ground.
The report submitted by the government highlighted positive developments in the promotion and protection of human rights, such as the establishment of Suhakam in 1999, the enactment of the Child Act 2001, the signing of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2008, and the enactment of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act 2007. In its report, the government defends its use of the ISA, stating that it is needed to “maintain peace, stability and security of persons in Malaysia”. Unsurprisingly, there are many areas on which this report is silent.
Some of these gaps are covered in civil society submissions. Six organisations, including Amnesty International and the Bar Council, and five coalitions including the Coalition of Malaysian NGOs in the UPR Process (COMANGO), the Migration Working Group and the Northern Network for Migrant and Refugees (MWG-JUMP) and the Indigenous Peoples Network of Malaysia (JOAS) submitted reports for the UPR.
They raised issues such as the weak enforcement of key legislation, the ineffectiveness and lack of independence of Suhakam, incidents of torture and ill-treatment by police, the rise in cases of violence against women, the detention without trial of over 1,000 individuals under various laws including the ISA, violence and abuse in detention centres, as well as an increase in the incidence of child abuse.
They noted the undermining of the judiciary through questionable appointments and promotions of judges, restrictions on the freedom of religion with regard to conversions and apostasies, the demolition of temples, the restriction of the right to information as a result of the Official Secrets Act 1972, and the curtailment of the freedom of opinion and expression through restrictive laws such as the Printing and Publications Act 1984. They noted continuing discrimination against lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transsexuals and drew attention to the poor protection of customary lands of indigenous peoples.
In response to these reports, nine states have submitted questions in advance for Malaysia to answer when it is reviewed tonight.
Several states are asking the government to explain the use of the ISA. Sweden notes the use of the ISA to limit the freedom of the press and to restrain political opposition. It notes that detention can be extended an indefinite number of times and that degrading treatment occurs during detention. It asks how the government will ensure that the use of the ISA doesn’t infringe on the right to freedom from arbitrary detention, the right to a fair trial, and the freedoms of press and expression. The Netherlands notes that critics of the government were arrested and detained under the ISA last year. Britain asks whether any steps are being taken to modify laws allowing detention without trial, including the ISA.
States are asking the government about the treatment of detainees. Denmark asks what steps are being taken to investigate torture and ill-treatment that occurs during arrest and interrogation. The Czech Republic asks what specific measures are available to protect the rights of the children of detainees/prisoners.
The Netherlands notes that the right to freedom of assembly is mostly applicable to groups supporting government policies, while those who oppose government policies are denied permission to assemble, or are targeted for arrest and/or harsh crackdowns. It asks the government to elaborate on this subject.
The treatment of migrants and refugees is another key area of concern. The Netherlands highlights the mass arrests, deportations and inhuman conditions of detention. Sweden notes that unwarranted violence by immigration officers and Rela and asks what measures are being taken to ensure that foreign nationals, in particular asylum seekers and refugees, are treated according to international law. They, along with Britain ask if Malaysia will sign the 1951 Convention on Refugees.
The protection and care of marginalised groups in society is another key area of focus.
Liechtenstein asks what the government is doing to protect street children from unlawful arrest, detention and police brutality, and to provide them with resources to support their full development. It asks how Malaysia has responded to persistent patriarchal attitudes and stereotypes about the roles of men and women, which cause women to be disadvantaged, for example, in the labour market and in political and public life. The Netherlands points out that the Penal Code criminalises consensual sexual activity amongst persons of the same sex, and asks what the government is doing to promote tolerance and non-discrimination, including on grounds of sexual orientation or identity. Denmark asks how the government plans to guarantee the rights of indigenous peoples, including to customary lands.
States have asked what Malaysia’s plans are with regard to ratifying other core human rights treaties, such as the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT) and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD). Each of these treaties have been ratified by the vast majority of countries; Malaysia is in a small and shrinking minority of states with respect to its unwillingness to make commitments to protect human rights as outlined in these treaties.
Malaysia is expected to answer these questions during a three-hour session in Geneva. This session will be broadcast live over the web tonight. After this, a Working Group comprising selected states will write a Summary Report listing the issues raised and their recommendations to Malaysia. This report will be formally adopted at the next Human Rights Council Session in June. Malaysia will then be responsible for implementing these recommendations until it is reviewed again in four years.
To the questions posed by states we, citizens, can add one of our own: How willing is Malaysia to abide by the human rights standards agreed to by almost every other country in the world?
Their response has a direct impact on our lives in Malaysia.