Malaysia: Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2007

Section 1 Respect for the Integrity of the Person, Including Freedom From:


a. Arbitrary or Unlawful Deprivation of Life

The government or its agents did not commit any politically motivated killings; however, local nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) reported that police killed 16 persons while apprehending them, down from 20 such killings in 2006. Local NGOs also reported that 11 persons died in police custody, down from 19 such deaths in 2006.

In November 2006 police charged police chief inspector Azilah Hadri and police corporal Sirul Azhar Umar with the October 2006 murder of Altantuya Sharibu, a Mongolian citizen and part-time translator. The prosecution also charged Abdul Razak Baginda, a well-known political analyst and advisor to the deputy prime minister, with abetting murder for allegedly ordering her death. The prosecution claimed the two police officers shot Altantuya in the head and then destroyed her body with explosives. The trial remained ongoing at year's end.

The federal criminal investigation department investigated 57 deaths in custody dating back to 2000. The authorities did not release any results of the investigation and were not expected to do so.

d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention

The constitution stipulates that no person may be incarcerated unless in accordance with the law. However, the law allows investigative detention, to prevent a criminal suspect from fleeing or destroying evidence while police conduct an investigation. Several laws also permit preventive detention to incarcerate an individual suspected of criminal activity or to prevent a person from committing a future crime. Such laws severely restrict, and in some cases eliminate, access to timely legal representation and a fair public trial.

Role of the Police and Security Apparatus

The Royal Malaysia Police is under the command of the inspector general of police (IGP), who reports to the minister of internal security. The prime minister served as the minister of internal security. The IGP is responsible for organizing and administering the police force. The police force consisted of approximately 93,350 officers, of whom 4,500 were women.

Reported police offenses included accepting bribes, theft, and rape; punishments included suspension, dismissal, and demotion. Police officers are subject to trial by the civil courts. Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi, who was concurrently minister for internal security, reported that there were 25 disciplinary actions against police officers during the year.

The government continued to focus police reform efforts on improving salaries, quarters, and general living conditions of police officers. The status of other reforms recommended in a 2005 police commission report, including the formation of an independent police complaints and misconduct commission, remained uncertain. NGOs complained that the government's efforts to implement the 2005 commission's recommendations lacked transparency.

The police-training center continued to include human rights awareness training in its courses. SUHAKAM conducted human rights training for police three times during the year as part of its regular annual programming.

The Home Affairs Ministry relied primarily upon the People's Volunteer Corps (RELA), consisting of approximately 494,000 citizens, to conduct raids and detain suspected illegal migrants. RELA members received a monthly stipend and a bounty of $22 (80 ringgit) per person detained. Local and international NGOS, refugees, legal foreign workers, persons of concern, and illegal migrants all reported various abuses by members of RELA including rape, beatings, extortion, theft, pilfering homes, destroying UNHCR and other status documents, and pillaging refugee settlements. According to press reports, after one Indonesian domestic worker escaped an abusive employer, a RELA member took her to his residence. There, he imprisoned and raped her repeatedly, during which time she became pregnant. After a month another RELA member rescued her. An informed source reported that although the victim submitted a police report, the only disciplinary action taken was removing the accused from RELA. A RELA official reportedly offered the woman approximately $1,430 (5,000 ringgit) to keep the matter quiet.

In May the press reported a food court operator filed a lawsuit against RELA for abuse of power and corruption. The plaintiff claimed that a RELA officer entered his food court and displayed his firearm without reason. The RELA member detained four food court employees and demanded approximately $570 (2,000 ringgit) from the employer for their release.

Arrest and Detention

The law permits police to arrest individuals for some offenses without a warrant and hold suspects for 24 hours without charge. A magistrate may extend this initial detention period for up to two weeks. Although police generally observed these provisions, a 2005 police commission report noted that police sometimes released suspects and then quickly rearrested them and held them in investigative custody.

Police often denied detainees access to legal counsel and questioned suspects without giving them access to counsel. Police justified this practice as necessary to prevent interference in ongoing investigations, and judicial decisions generally upheld the practice. The commission stated that an "arrest first, investigate later" mentality pervaded some elements of the police force and recommended that detention procedures be reviewed to prevent abuse.

The law allows the detention of a person whose testimony as a material witness is necessary in a criminal case if that person is likely to flee. Bail is usually available for those accused of crimes not punishable by life imprisonment or death. The amount and availability of bail is determined at the judge's discretion. When bail is granted, accused persons usually must surrender their passports to the court.

Crowded and understaffed courts often resulted in lengthy pretrial detention, sometimes lasting several years. In May the government introduced the country's first night court to help alleviate the number of backlogged cases in civil courts.

In August, after a relative inquired about his whereabouts, a court released a 19-year-old citizen originally detained when he failed to produce his national identity card (MyKad) for a police officer. He was detained for six months during which time police did not allow him to contact family members or meet with legal counsel. The law requires citizens to carry their MyKad at all times.

In July immigration officials detained two women, who claimed to be princesses of a fictitious country, for illegally entering the state of Sarawak from Brunei. A judge ordered their release and deportation after 51 days' detention. Upon their release immigration officials again arrested them and brought them before a magistrate's court. At year's end the case was pending.

Four preventive detention laws permit the government to detain suspects without normal judicial review or filing formal charges: the Internal Security Act (ISA), the Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance, the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act, and the Restricted Residence Act.

The ISA empowers police to arrest without warrant and hold for up to 60 days any person who acts "in a manner prejudicial to the national security or economic life of Malaysia." During the initial 60-day detention period in special detention centers, the ISA allows for the denial of legal representation and does not require that the case be heard in open court. Upon the recommendation of an advisory board, the internal security minister may authorize further detention for up to two years, with an unlimited number of two-year periods to follow. In practice the government rarely authorized ISA detention beyond two two-year terms. Some of those released before the end of their detention period are subject to "imposed restricted conditions." These conditions limit freedom of speech, association, and travel inside and outside the country.

Even when there are no formal charges, the ISA requires that authorities inform detainees of the accusations against them and permit them to appeal to an advisory board for review every six months. However, advisory board decisions and recommendations are not binding on the internal security minister, not made public, and often not shown to the detainee. In past years local human rights NGOs claimed police at times intimidated and harassed family members of ISA detainees to prevent them from taking legal action against the police.

The Bar Council has asserted that ISA detentions should be subject to full judicial review; however, the courts do not concur with this interpretation. Courts are not allowed to review procedural challenges to ISA detentions but can submit habeas corpus applications. Detainees freed by judicial order were nearly always immediately detained again.

In September a local NGO stated that there were approximately 90 persons in detention under the ISA. The 90 included 56 suspected of involvement with terrorist groups, 15 held for forging currency, and 19 held for falsification of documents or other offenses. The longest-held ISA detainee has been detained for approximately six years. According to the local human rights NGO, SUARAM, authorities had not formally charged any of these detainees with a criminal offense. The government required released ISA detainees to remain within a fixed area of residence and prohibited them from international travel.

In October former ISA detainee Abdul Malek Hussin won a lawsuit against the government over his arrest and torture in 1998. The Kuala Lumpur High Court ruled that the authorities unlawfully detained and then assaulted and tortured him while he was in ISA custody. The court awarded him $780,000 (2.5 million ringgit).

Under the Emergency Ordinance, the internal security minister may issue a detention order for up to two years against a person if he deems it necessary for the protection of public order, "the suppression of violence, or the prevention of crimes involving violence." A local NGO reported that more than 1,000 individuals were detained under the Emergency Ordinance. The authorities used the Emergency Ordinance on suspected organized crime figures.

Provisions of the Dangerous Drugs Act give the government specific power to detain suspected drug traffickers without trial for up to 39 days before the internal security minister must issue a detention order. Once the Ministry of Internal Security issues the detention order, the detainee is entitled to a court hearing, which has the authority to order the detainee's release. Authorities may hold suspects without charge for successive two-year intervals with periodic review by an advisory board, whose opinion is binding on the minister. However, the review process contains none of the procedural rights that a defendant would have in a court proceeding. Police frequently detained suspected narcotics traffickers under this act after courts acquitted them of formal charges. According to the National Anti-Drug Agency, the government detained 433 persons under the preventive detention provisions of the act during the first six months of the year, compared with 1,296 persons during the same period in 2006.

The Restricted Residence Act allows the minister of internal security to place individuals under restricted residence away from their homes. These persons may not leave the residential district assigned to them, and they must present themselves to police on a daily basis. As under the ISA, authorities may renew the term of restricted residence every two years. The minister is authorized to issue the restricted residence orders without any judicial or administrative hearings. The government continued to justify the act as a necessary tool to remove suspects from the area where undesirable activities were being conducted.

e. Denial of Fair Public Trial

Three constitutional articles provide the basis for an independent judiciary, and the government generally respected these provisions in practice. However, other constitutional provisions, legislation restricting judicial review, and additional factors limited judicial independence and strengthened executive influence over the judiciary.

The constitution does not directly vest judicial powers in the courts but rather provides that parliament confers judicial powers. It also confers certain judicial powers on the attorney general, including the authority to instruct the courts on which cases to hear, the power to choose venues, and the right to discontinue cases. The attorney general controlled and directed all criminal prosecutions and assumed responsibility for judicial assignments and transfers. The prime minister's recommendation determined senior judge appointments.

Members of the bar, NGO representatives, and other observers expressed serious concern about the general decline of judicial independence, citing a number of high-profile instances of arbitrary verdicts, selective prosecution, and preferential treatment of some litigants and lawyers. On September 19, former deputy prime minister and current opposition political figure, Anwar Ibrahim released an eight-minute videotape of a purported 2002 conversation between a senior lawyer with a reputation as a "fixer" and a senior judge discussing arrangements for assigning cases to "friendly" judges. The revelations caused the public to question the credibility and transparency of the judiciary. The Bar Council lodged a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA), and on September 26, approximately 2,000 lawyers and supporters marched to the prime minister's office demanding that the government establish a royal commission to investigate the alleged judicial corruption. In December the government formed a royal commission to investigate the videotape. The Bar Council president said that the council desired that the commission's scope of inquiry should be wider than just the videotape and opined that the commission's terms of reference gave it sufficient scope to conduct a thorough inquiry.

Sessions courts heard minor civil suits and criminal cases. High courts have original jurisdiction over all criminal cases involving serious crimes. Juvenile courts try offenders below age 18. The special court tries cases involving the king and the sultans. The Court of Appeal has appellate jurisdiction over high court and sessions court decisions. The Federal Court, the country's highest court, reviews court of appeal decisions.

Indigenous groups in the states of Sarawak and Sabah have a system of customary law to resolve matters such as land disputes between tribes. Although rarely used, penghulu (village head) courts may adjudicate minor civil matters.

Shari'a laws, administered by state authorities through Islamic courts, bind all Muslims, most of whom are ethnic Malays. The laws and the degree of their enforcement varied from state to state.

The armed forces have a separate system of courts.

Trial Procedures

English common law is the basis for the secular legal system. The constitution states that all persons are equal before the law and entitled to equal protection of the law. Trials are public, although judges may order restrictions on press coverage. Juries are not used. Defendants have the right to counsel at public expense if requested by an accused individual facing serious criminal charges. Strict rules of evidence apply in court. Defendants may make statements for the record to an investigative agency prior to trial. Limited pretrial discovery in criminal cases impeded defendants' ability to defend themselves. Defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty and may appeal court decisions to higher courts. The law limits a defendant's right to appeal in some circumstances. The government stated that the limits expedite the hearing of cases in the upper courts, but the Bar Council declared that they impose excessive restrictions on appeals.

In firearm and certain national security cases, a lower standard for accepting self-incriminating statements by defendants as evidence is in effect. Regulations also allow the authorities to hold an accused for an unspecified time before making formal charges.

In criminal cases, police sometimes used tactics that impaired a defendant's due process rights. For example, during a trial police summoned and interrogated witnesses who had previously given testimony not helpful to the prosecution. Police also used raids and document seizures to harass defendants.

Shari'a courts do not give equal weight to the testimony of women. Many NGOs also complained that women did not receive fair treatment from Shari'a courts, especially in matters of divorce and child custody. In November, in a first, a 24-year-old woman was appointed as a judge on the lower Shari'a court. The president of the Shari'a Lawyers Association questioned the appointment and expressed doubt that the woman had adequate experience due to her age.

a. Freedom of Speech and Press

The constitution provides for freedom of speech and of the press; however, some important legal limitations exist. In practice the government restricted freedom of expression and intimidated journalists into practicing self-censorship. According to the government, it imposed restrictions on the media to protect national security, public order, and friendly relations with other countries.

The law provides that legislation "in the interest of security (or) public order" may restrict freedom of speech. For example, the Sedition Act prohibits public comment on issues defined as sensitive, such as racial and religious matters. The government used the Sedition Act, the Official Secrets Act, the Printing Presses and Publications Act, criminal defamation laws, and other laws to restrict or intimidate political speech. The election law makes it an offense for a candidate to "promote feelings of ill will, discontent, or hostility." Violators could be disqualified from running for office.

The Printing Presses and Publications Act requires domestic and foreign publications to apply annually to the government for a permit, makes publication of "malicious news" a punishable offense, and empowers the minister of internal security to ban or restrict publications believed to threaten public order, morality, or national security. It also prohibits court challenges to suspension or revocation of publication permits. According to the government, these provisions ensured that the media did not disseminate "distorted news" and were necessary to preserve harmony and promote peaceful coexistence in a multiracial country. During the year the ministry continued to review, censor, and confiscate many foreign publications. In February SUARAM listed 57 books banned by the government. Among the banned books is a Tamil-language book, March 8, which discussed the 2001 Kampung Medah racial clashes between Malays and Indians.

Eleven national daily newspapers--three in English, four in Malay, and four in Chinese--dominated print journalism. Parties in the ruling coalition owned or controlled a majority of shares in two of the three English and all Malay dailies. Politically well-connected businesspersons owned the third English-language newspaper and all four major Chinese-language newspapers.

Criminal defamation is punishable by a maximum of two years in jail, a fine, or both. This along with the government power over annual license renewal and other policies inhibited independent or investigative journalism and resulted in extensive self-censorship. Nonetheless, the English-, Malay-, and Chinese-language press sometimes provided balanced alternative views on sensitive issues. The mainstream press occasionally printed editorials and interviews with opposition leaders that included criticism of government policy.

The appeal of human rights monitor Irene Fernandez of her 2003 conviction is scheduled to be heard in April 2008. The court sentenced her to 12 months' imprisonment for malicious publication of false material regarding abuse and torture of migrant workers at detention camps. She remains free on bail in the case, which began in 1996.

Publications of opposition parties, social action groups, unions, and other private groups actively covered opposition parties and frequently printed views critical of government policies. However, the government requires the annual renewal of publishing permits and limits circulation to organization members only. Printers often were reluctant to print publications that were critical of the government. Unlike in the past, the government brought no libel suits against the media during the year.

Radio and television stations were as restricted as the print media and were almost uniformly supportive of the government. News of the opposition was tightly restricted and reported in a biased fashion. Opposition party leaders alleged that during the April by-election in Ijok the mainstream media provided minimal coverage for their candidate, intensely negative reporting about their party's senior figure, and extensive reporting on the ruling party candidate.

Internet television faced no such restrictions, and the Islamic Party of Malaysia (PAS) continued daily Internet television broadcasts.

Television stations censored programming in line with government guidelines. The government banned some foreign newspapers and magazines and, occasionally, censored foreign magazines or newspapers, most often for sexual content; however, the Internet provided a means to bypass such restrictions. The government maintained a "blacklist" of local and foreign performers, politicians, and religious leaders who were not allowed to appear on television or broadcast on radios.

The government generally restricted remarks or publications, including books, that might incite racial or religious disharmony; it also attempted to restrict the content of sermons at mosques in the states controlled by the governing coalition. Some state governments banned certain Muslim clergymen from delivering sermons. The Religious Affairs Department continued to conduct background checks on all clergymen. The government maintained its ban on the weekly Chinese-language newspaper Epoch Times. In August the government suspended the Tamil-language newspaper Makkal Osai for one month for publishing an image of Jesus Christ with a cigarette and beer can. The Ministry of Internal Security banned 51 books with religious elements, including The Life and Times of Muhammad by John Glubb, Now You Can Know What Muslims Believe by Ministries to Muslims, What Is Ahmadiyah Movement by Mirza Bahiruddin Mahmud, and Tasawuf in the Quran by Mir Aliudin.

Internet Freedom

There were no government restrictions on access to the Internet. However, in July Prime Minister Abdullah warned that Internet users, particularly bloggers, "do not have the freedom to do whatever they like…It is not for them [bloggers] to claim that they are immune from the law simply because their Web sites are hosted overseas where they have the right to say anything."

In August a university student studying overseas released a satirical video highlighting political corruption. The student rewrote the national anthem lyrics, and the video was widely viewed. Responding to the video, UMNO Youth chief Hishammuddin Hussein said, "UMNO Youth warns that freedom has its limits and we will not tolerate those who touch on the issue of national stability, harmony, cultural values, and the personality of national leaders." He called for legislation that would allow the government to recall from overseas citizens who "smeared the country’s image."

On July 13, police detained and held incommunicado Nathaniel Tan, a prominent political blogger, activist, and staff member of the opposition People's Justice Party for five days allegedly for violating the Official Secrets Act. Police did not allow Tan contact with his family or legal counsel until after a legal activist spotted him with police at the magistrate's court. Police allegedly attempted to have Tan arraigned without the presence of his lawyer. On July 25, police questioned for eight hours the online political commentator Raja Petra Kamaruddin. In both cases, senior UMNO party members filed police reports alleging the men had posted seditious articles on their blogs. Both Tan and Kamaruddin regularly published articles and commentary on their Web sites regarding political corruption. Police investigations of both Tan and Kamaruddin's alleged criminal activities were ongoing at year's end, and neither had had formal charges filed against them.

Internet access was widely available, and Internet subscriptions totaled approximately 13.5 million at the end of 2006; however, criminal defamation and preventive detention laws generated some self-censorship from local Internet content sources such as bloggers, Internet news providers, and NGO activists. The Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) shut down 11 Web sites for contravening rules and regulations concerning the publication of information on the Internet. Neither the MCMC nor the government released the names of the 11 Web sites.

The Communications and Multimedia Act (CMA) requires certain Internet and other network service providers to obtain a license. Previously, the government stated that it did not intend to impose controls on Internet use but that it would punish the "misuse" of information technology. The CMA permits punishment of the owner of a Web site or blog for allowing content of a racial, religious, or political nature that a court deems offensive.

Police continued investigations of Malaysiakini, the country's largest independent Internet news organization. One investigation stemmed from an erroneous report that identified police officials as possible participants in an assault on former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad in July 2006. Another investigation concerned the National Petroleum Company's (Petronas) 2005 accusation of criminal defamation.

Academic Freedom and Cultural Events

The government placed some restrictions on academic freedom, particularly the expression of unapproved political views, and enforced restrictions on teachers and students who expressed dissenting views. The government continued to require that all civil servants, university faculty, and students sign a pledge of loyalty to the king and the government. Opposition leaders and human rights activists claimed that the government used the loyalty pledge to restrain political activity among civil servants, academics, and students. In 2004 University Utara Malaysia officials fired a university lecturer and his wife, who was also a lecturer at the university, for refusing to sign the pledge. Subsequently the lecturer wrote about his termination, and the university demanded a public apology for the published articles, claiming they tarnished the university's reputation. The lecturer refused and threatened the university with legal action. In August the university filed a lawsuit seeking compensation for tuition and salaries the university paid the couple while they were pursuing their doctorates overseas.

Although faculty members sometimes were publicly critical of the government, there was clear self-censorship among public university academics whose career advancement and funding depended on the government. Private institution academics practiced self-censorship as well, fearing that the government might revoke the licenses of their institutions. The law also imposes limitations on student associations and on student and faculty political activity.

The government has long stated that students should be apolitical and it used that assertion as a basis for denying political parties access to student forums. According to student leaders, academic authorities sometimes expelled or fined students who signed antigovernment petitions. School authorities did not restrain propagation of government views on controversial issues on school campuses.

The government censored and banned films for profanity, nudity, sex, violence, and certain political and religious content. Among films banned during the year was The Village People Radio Show. According to the censorship board, the film about Malay communist guerrillas now living in Thailand was too sympathetic toward communism and too critical of the government. Also initially banned but subsequently allowed a showing in one theater was I Don't Want To Sleep Alone. The censor board determined that the film about migrant laborers portrayed Kuala Lumpur negatively.

b. Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association

Freedom of Assembly

The constitution states that all citizens have "the right to assemble peaceably and without arms"; however, the government placed significant restrictions on this right through use of the Public Order Ordinance and the Police Act. The ordinance restricts public assemblies that could damage security and public order, while the act requires police permits for all public assemblies except for workers on picket lines. The Police Act defines a public assembly as a gathering of five or more persons.

The decision to grant a permit rests with the district police chief; however, senior police officials and political leaders have influenced the granting or denial of some permits. Police granted permits routinely to government and ruling coalition supporters but used a more restrictive approach with government critics, opposition parties, and human rights activists.

On September 8, police in Terengganu used water cannons and tear gas to disrupt an opposition party-sponsored rally on election reform after demonstrators refused to disperse. In the ensuing violence, one officer shot and injured two demonstrators, one critically. Police and government spokespersons alleged that the officer fired in self-defense and charged one of the shooting victims with attempted murder. The rally organizers alleged that undercover police within the crowd acted as agents provocateurs.

On November 10, in defiance of warnings by the prime minister and the police, tens of thousands of demonstrators led by major opposition political leaders assembled and marched to the National Palace to petition the king for electoral reform measures. The security forces deployed approximately 4,000 personnel (firefighters, RELA, and riot police) and used water cannons (and in some instances tear gas) to disperse the crowd at two assembly points. However, the police allowed the demonstrators to proceed to the palace. After the demonstrators had presented their petition to a palace official, the police asked them to disperse, and demonstrators complied. The police reported that 245 persons were detained at various times during the demonstration, most briefly, and organizers said that a least seven persons were beaten and kicked by police, including one man whose leg was broken.

On November 25, the Hindu Rights Action Force (HINDRAF), a small activist NGO, organized a demonstration in Kuala Lumpur with the intent to present the British High Commission with a memorandum asking for Queen Elizabeth II's intervention on their behalf. HINDRAF's leaders intended to highlight the marginalization of the country's Indian minority. Approximately 20,000 demonstrators gathered at multiple points around the city in defiance of warnings from government officials and the police. Police actively dispersed the crowds of demonstrators over a period of six hours, repeatedly using tear gas and water cannons. During and after the rally, the police arrested approximately 400 persons. The police released the majority of those detained, but the attorney general charged 31 demonstrators with, among other things, the attempted murder of a police officer, illegal assembly, and destruction of property. Human rights activists, opposition leaders, and other civil society leaders condemned the attempted murder charges as politically motivated and meant to intimidate others from participating in future demonstrations. The attorney general dropped the attempted murder charge in December.

On December 9, police arrested eight persons, including five lawyers, for participating in an "illegal assembly." The eight had organized a march involving approximately 60 persons to mark International Human Rights Day in Kuala Lumpur. Police also arrested the Bar Council's Human Rights Committee chair, Edmond Bon, when he tried to prevent city officials from removing human rights day banners, which were critical of government practices and political corruption, from the Bar Council's building. All nine remained free on bail with trials scheduled for early in 2008.

On December 11, police arrested 26 members of the Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections, a coalition of opposition parties and NGOs seeking reforms to the electoral process. The group was attempting to deliver a memorandum to Parliament protesting the extension of the Election Commission chief's term past retirement age through a constitutional amendment. Police claimed the group had breached a court order, obtained by the police the previous day, which banned gatherings in front of the Parliament. The court released on bail 17 persons from the December 11 arrestees. The police released the remaining nine persons unconditionally.

On December 13, police arrested five HINDRAF leaders--P. Uthayakumar, M. Manoharan, R. Kenghadharan, Ganabatirau, and T. Vasantha Kumar--under the ISA and indicated they would be held without trial for a period of two years. After the November 25 rally, government officials, the police, and the government-influenced mainstream media reports on HINDRAF included claims the NGO was a militant organization with links with foreign militant groups including the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Ealem and the Hindu fundamentalist group, National Volunteer's Organization (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh). An official from the Office of the Prime Minister, in a published statement, explained the decision to use ISA as follows: "The government had warned HINDRAF not to engage in activities that would inflame communal tensions and had charged its leaders in court for sedition. This did not stop the spread of inflammatory rhetoric. On two occasions, the leaders of HINDRAF issued implicit threats that the group would turn to violence if its demands were not met. The Royal Malaysian Police have also uncovered links with international terrorist organizations. While the government is determined to take action against the five individuals in open court, it is also determined to preempt any unfortunate incidents that may be inspired by the irresponsible words and deeds of a small minority." Local and international NGOs and civil society groups condemned the detention under the ISA and appealed to the government to charge the five in an open court.

A SUHAKAM public inquiry into the handling of a peaceful 2006 demonstration over fuel and electricity price increases found that the police abused their powers. SUHAKAM named officers who used excessive force, and the police transferred the accused to other districts. The police authorities did not publicly reveal what other disciplinary action, if any, was taken against the accused officers.

Freedom of Association

The constitution provides for the right of association; however, the government placed significant restrictions on this right, and certain statutes limit it. Under the Societies Act, only registered organizations of seven or more persons may function as societies. The government sometimes refused to register organizations or imposed conditions when allowing a society to register. The government prohibited the Communist Party and its affiliated organizations from registering. It also has blocked the registration of the Socialist Party of Malaysia since 1999. The government has the power to revoke the registration of an existing society for violations of the act, a power that it enforced selectively against political opposition groups.

The Universities and University Colleges Act also restricts freedom of association. This act mandates university approval for student associations and prohibits student associations and faculty members from engaging in political activity. Many students, NGOs, and opposition political parties called for the repeal or amendment of the act. A number of ruling coalition organizations and politicians also supported reexamination of the act, but the government maintained that the act still was necessary.

c. Freedom of ReligionThe constitution provides for freedom of religion; however, the government placed some restrictions on this right. The constitution defines all ethnic Malays as Muslims and stipulates that Islam is the official religion. The government significantly restricted the practice of Islamic beliefs other than Sunni Islam. Non-Muslims, who constitute approximately 40 percent of the population, including large Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, and Sikh communities, were free to practice their religious beliefs with few restrictions. The government provided financial support to Islamic religious establishments and provided more limited funding to non-Islamic religious communities. State authorities imposed Islamic religious laws administered through Shari'a courts on all ethnic Malays (and other Muslims) in some civil matters but generally did not interfere with the religious practices of the non-Muslim community. Over the past several years, the civil courts have ceded jurisdictional control to Shari'a courts in certain areas of family law involving disputes between Muslims and non-Muslims.

Prime Minister Abdullah, a proponent of Islam Hadari ("civilizational Islam"), continued to emphasize religious tolerance. On July 17, Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak stated the country was an Islamic and not a secular state. Leading members of the non-Muslim community and senior lawyers publicly challenged this and argued that the country was constitutionally a secular state. After several days of public discourse, the government prohibited the mainstream media from addressing the debate except to report statements by the prime minister and deputy prime minister. On August 4, the prime minister stated the country was neither secular nor theocratic, but a parliamentary democracy.

The Registrar of Societies, under the Ministry of Home Affairs, registers religious organizations. Registration enables organizations to receive government grants and other benefits. The government did not recognize some religious groups as such; these groups sometimes registered themselves as businesses under the Companies Act.

The government maintained that views held by "deviant" groups endangered national security. According to the Jakim Web site, the government identified and prohibited to Muslims 56 deviant teachings as of September. They included Shi'a, transcendental meditation, and Baha'i teachings. The government asserted that "deviationist" teachings could cause divisions among Muslims. Religious authorities, with the consent of a Shari'a court, arrested and detained members of groups deemed "deviationist" in order to "rehabilitate deviants" and return them to the "true path of Islam." The religious affairs minister stated that members of these groups were subject to prosecution, detention under the ISA, or rehabilitation. Neither the government nor religious authorities provided data on the number of persons subjected to prosecution or rehabilitation.

The government continued to monitor the activities of the Shi'a minority, and state religious authorities reserved the right to detain Shi'a followers under the ISA as members of a "deviant sect." According to the government, it did not detain anyone under the ISA for religious reasons during the year.

In August Khatijah Ali, a cult leader, renounced her teachings before the Selangor State Religious Affairs Department, which had declared her teachings deviant in 1998.

The Selangor Islamic Affairs Department continued efforts to stop the spread of the banned al-Arqam Islamic group. The Federal Ministry of Internal Security continued to investigate the group as a "threat to national security." Authorities strictly monitored the group.

The government generally respected non-Muslims' right of worship; however, state governments have authority over the building of non-Muslim places of worship and the allocation of land for non-Muslim cemeteries. State authorities sometimes granted approvals for building permits very slowly. Minority religious groups reported that state governments sometimes blocked construction using restrictive zoning and construction codes.

The government demolished unregistered religious statues and places of worship. Several NGOs complained of the demolition of unregistered Hindu temples and shrines located on both private and government-owned lands. The structures were often located on government-owned plantations, which had been private property prior to independence. In May 2006 persons who used a 150-year-old unregistered temple sought a court injunction against a planned demolition by Negeri Sembilan state authorities. The court case remained open at year's end.

In June following the demolition of a 110-year-old temple, approximately 200 Hindus demonstrated in front of the Attorney General's Office. The Attorney General's office did not respond to the protest. In July local authorities in Melaka demolished another unregistered temple. Local NGOs condemned the demolition and urged the authorities to be sensitive when dealing with places of worship.

In practice, Shari'a law as interpreted in the country does not permit Muslims to convert to another religion. In several court rulings during the year, secular courts ceded jurisdiction to Shari'a courts in matters involving conversion to or from Islam. Shari'a courts routinely denied conversion from Islam requests. In May the Federal Court upheld a 2005 lower court decision that the civil courts did not have jurisdiction over the conversion case of Lina Joy and that Joy should take the matter to Shari'a court.

In January Revathi Masoosai, a 29-year-old ethnic Indian woman whose parents converted to Islam, was arrested after she went to the Shari'a court to change her Muslim name and religion on her identity card to reflect her religion as Hinduism. Revathi married her husband in 2004 according to Hindu rites, and both were practicing Hindus. Revathi said her grandmother raised her as a Hindu and that she would continue to practice the religion. The court gave Revathi's Muslim parents custody of their two-year-old daughter. The Malacca State Shari'a Court ordered Revathi sent to the Islamic Rehabilitation Centre for 180 days' rehabilitation to help her "return to Islam." She was released in July into the custody of her parents. The authorities ruled she could not convert out of Islam and that her marriage was void. The court also ordered her to attend weekly religious classes and banned her from seeing her husband. At year's end Revathi's parents retained custody of the child.

The Federal Court made no decision in the appeal of Kaliammal Sinnasamy, a non-Muslim woman, involving the disposition of the remains of her spouse. He allegedly converted from Hinduism to Islam before his death. Islamic religious authorities buried the man with Muslim rites.

The law strictly prohibits non-Muslims from proselytizing Muslims; proselytizing of non-Muslims faced no legal obstacles. In July the opposition-controlled state of Kelantan announced it had increased the maximum penalties for proselytizing Muslims from two years' imprisonment and a fine of approximately $1,430 (5,000 ringgit) to five years' imprisonment, a fine of approximately $2,860 (10,000 ringgit), and six lashes with the cane.

According to the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, and Taoists the government continued to restrict visas for foreign clergy under the age of 40 to inhibit "militant clergy" from entering the country. While representatives of non-Muslim groups did not sit on the immigration committee that approved visa requests for clergy, the committee asked the consultative council for its recommendations.

Religious education is compulsory for Muslim children and follows a government-approved curriculum. Muslim civil servants are required to attend Islamic religious classes taught by government-approved teachers.

The government discouraged but did not ban distribution in peninsular Malaysia of Malay-language translations of the Bible, Christian tapes, and other printed materials, but it restricted distribution and required "Not for Muslims," be stamped on all Malay-language materials. The distribution of Malay-language Christian materials faced few restrictions in the eastern states of Sabah and Sarawak. In June the government banned 51 book titles and publications on Islam, alleged to undermine the faith of Muslims. The books included The Qur'an by M.A.S. Abdel Haleem, Feminism and Islamic Fundamentalism: The Limits of Postmodern Analysis by Haideh Moghissi, The Life and Times of Muhammad by John Glubb, and War, Terror & Peace in the Qur'an and in Islam: Insights For Military and Government Leaders, by T.P. Schwartz.

The government generally restricted remarks or publications that might incite racial or religious disharmony. This included some statements and publications critical of particular religions, especially Islam. The government also restricted the content of sermons at mosques. In recent years both the government and the opposition party PAS have attempted to use mosques in the states they control to deliver politically oriented messages. Several states attempted to ban opponent-affiliated imams from speaking at mosques.

In family and religious matters, Muslims are subject to Shari'a. According to some women's rights advocates, women were subject to discriminatory interpretations of Shari'a and inconsistent application of the law from state to state. In 2005 parliament approved amendments to the Islamic Family Law Act intended to harmonize Shari'a family law throughout the country. However, a review of amendments continued at year's end.

State authorities in Kelantan continued to ban traditional Malay dance theaters, prohibited advertisements depicting women not fully covered by clothing, enforced wearing of headscarves by Muslim women, and imposed fines for violators. In December 2006 the Kelantan state government enacted a by-law against "indecent dressing" by Muslim women working in retail outlets and restaurants. The dress code requires headscarves and allows only faces and hands to be exposed. The law also stipulates that non-Muslim women should avoid dressing "sexily or indecently." Women who violate the dress code face possible fines up to $139 (500 ringgit). Women's rights leaders and the minister of women, family, and community development criticized the new law as overly restrictive.

The government provided no statistics regarding raids by federal religious police of nightclubs and similar places during the year.

Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2007
Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
March 11, 2008