SUBMISSION OF THE MALAYSIAN BAR COUNCIL
1. On 28 April 2006 the Government of Malaysia (“GOM”) submitted an aide-memoire (“AM”)
to the Secretariat of the United Nations detailing GOM’s voluntary pledges and commitments in
respect of its candidature to the Human Rights Council.
2. The Bar Council of Malaysia, the regulator of the legal profession in Peninsular Malaysia and
which represents currently about 12,600 practising advocates and solicitors, hereby makes its
submission to the Human Rights Council. The state of human rights in Malaysia today is different
than under the previous administration. We have assessed the state of human rights in Malaysia vis-à-
vis GOM’s voluntary pledges and commitments.
3. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (“UDHR”)/International Human Rights
Treaties, Laws and Norms (GOM’s statement in para. 2 of the AM).
3.1 UDHR. There has been no real attempt to understand and interpret the Federal Constitution
in light of GOM’s stated commitment to the UDHR. The Malaysian courts have taken the clear
positioni
that the UDHR is merely a statement or declaration which is not legally-binding on GOM.
GOM has stated on numerous occasions that UDHR would only be given effect insofar as it is not
inconsistent with the Federal Constitution. This is one possible reason for GOM’s apparent
reluctance to-date to accede to and ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(“ICCPR”) and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (“ICESCR”), and
their respective optional protocols.
3.2 Women. GOM acceded to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
against Women (CEDAW) in 1995 with reservations (see Appendix A). The Bar Council has
commented upon those reservationsii
. GOM has also not ratified the Optional Protocol to CEDAW.
Further, save for amendment to Article 8(2)iii of the Federal Constitution in 2001, which prohibits
gender discrimination, CEDAW’s principles of substantive equality and non-discrimination have not
been incorporated into domestic legislation and cannot be invoked and given effect to by courts,
tribunals and administrative authorities. This was clearly illustrated in the Beatrice Fernandez caseiv.
Pursuant to a collective agreement Beatrice, a flight stewardess, was dismissed for failing to resign
when she became pregnant. Beatrice challenged the validity of the collective agreement as being
unconstitutional and discriminatory against her as a woman. The Federal Courtv
held that the equal
protection guarantee in Article 8(2) extended only to persons in the same class, i.e. as all female
flight stewardesses were subject to the same requirement, there was no discrimination. It also held
that Article 8(2) was limited to individuals aggrieved only by violations of rights by the State.
Constitutional remedies were not available for violations of rights by private individuals. Apart from
this, GOM also continues to discriminate against women through gender-discriminatory legislation,
e.g. in citizenship (see Appendix B). Women themselves are unable to effect the necessary changes
as their participation in decision-making is low despite GOM’s commitment under its 9th Malaysian
Plan, the Beijing Platform for Action and CEDAW to implement 30% participation of women in
decision-making (see Appendix C). Ratification of CEDAW and amending the Constitution alone
are insufficient. Gender-equality legislation adopting CEDAW principles must be enacted as stated
by the CEDAW Committeevi. To-date no steps have been taken by GOM.
3.3 Children. GOM acceded to the Convention of the Rights of the Child (“CRC”) with
reservationsvii. Provisions have not been comprehensively adopted in domestic legislation. There is
an absence of express statutory provisions in the principal legislation, Child Act 2001, mandating
that children have the right to make their views known in proceedings affecting their interests, and/or
adequate representation of their needs to be made independently particularly in the juvenile justice
system or in civil proceedings, e.g. custody arrangements in divorce proceedings. The underlying
spirit of the CRC to treat children differently from adults has not been applied by the courts in the
interpretation of detention provisions under the Child Actviii. The Federal Court failed to annul a
legal provision in the Child Act which allows for the deprivation of a liberty of a child at the pleasure
of the Ruler resulting in an undetermined length of deprivationix. Children (of Malaysians) born
without birth certificates are denied the opportunity to attend schools. Children of refugees do not
receive any free public primary education as they are undocumented by GOM and are therefore
unable to go to government schools. Further, concerns raised by the Committee on the Rights of the
Child at its 44th session in 2007 have yet to be comprehensively addressed by GOM. Positive action
is needed by GOM to fulfil its obligations under CRC.
3.4 Persons with Disabilities. Malaysia recently signed the Convention on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities (“CRPD”) on 8 April 2008 but with reservations to Article 16x
. GOM did not sign
the Optional Protocol. Being a party to the Optional Protocol is imperative as there is no one single
GOM agency that oversees all disability-related issues, thus making it difficult for disability issues to
be dealt with comprehensively. Although GOM enacted the Persons with Disabilities Act 2008,
which came into force in July 2008, the Act does not provide for any form of punishment or remedy
for breaches. It remains to be seen how GOM will ensure provisions are implemented. The Act also
does not ensure that the persons with disabilities are not discriminated, e.g. education and
employment opportunities. The right to education is provided in the Constitutionxi and GOM
declared when ratifying the CRC (Art 28.1 (a)) in 1995 that though primary education is not
compulsory, free public primary education is available to all. To-date, more than 10 years since that
declaration, such education is not sufficient for children with disabilities.
3.5 Indigenous Peoples. Convention (No. 169) concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in
Independent Countries adopted on 27 June 1989 by the General Conference of the International
Labour Organisation at its 76th session spelled out that rights of ownership and possession of the
indigenous peoples over lands which they traditionally occupy shall be recognised. Measures must
be taken to safeguard the right of the peoples concerned to use lands not exclusively occupied by
them but to which they have traditionally had access for their subsistence and traditional activities.
Notwithstanding the Convention, fundamental rights given by the Federal Constitution and the
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, indigenous peoples in Malaysia
continue to face threats to ownership of ancestral or native customary lands. State Governments have
cleared ancestral land and/or alienated land occupied or utilised by aborigines to third parties (e.g.
for logging, palm cultivation) and has only offered to pay compensation for loss of agricultural
produce planted on such land.xii Such activities have also proceeded without compliance with the
Environmental Quality Act 1974 and the Environmental Quality (Prescribed Activities)
(Environmental Impact Assessment) Order 1987 in respect of logging and other activities on hill
forests. Preliminary work has even permanently destroyed/killed live tributaries that feed rivers
which are a source of water and livelihood. The most crucial part that needs to be preserved is
ancestral or native customary land, not only for the sake of aborigines’ livelihood but also for culture
and spiritual values of the aboriginal community. GOM has not taken sufficient steps as necessary to
identify lands which the aborigines concerned traditionally occupy, and to guarantee effective
protection of their rights of ownership and possession. GOM has also found it difficult to extend to
the aboriginal community the right to proper education (notwithstanding GOM’s statement in para. 8
of the AM) and good health due to lack of appropriate infrastructure to the settlements. Ultimately,
aborigines should have access to all amenities and facilities similar to other citizens of Malaysia.
3.6 Migrant workers and refugees. 1/3 of workers in Malaysia are migrants. A simplistic
approach of classifying them as either “legal” or “illegal” excludes all undocumented migrants from
rights under the Federal Constitution and UDHR. The current system of recruiting and managing
migrant labour perpetrates lack of responsibility and accountability by GOM and individual
employers. Although it is an offence under the Passports Act to retain the passport of another, no
deterrent action is taken against employers for retaining employees’ passports. The existence of
migrant workers who are charged exorbitant recruitment fees to secure employment in Malaysia vide
the system of “outsourcing” and who fall into bonded labour or work without pay and little food
clearly constitutes a breach of Article 4 of UDHR. Many groups suffer confinement to workplace
and accommodation, poor housing conditions (connected to overcrowding, lack of proper food
preparation and sleeping areas, lack of hygienic facilities for bathing and toilets), restrictions on
seeking medical treatment and contract substitution. Contrary to CRC and Article 26 of UDHR, no
right to birth certificates, education (notwithstanding GOM’s statement in para. 8 of the AM) or
access to health care is provided to children of migrant workers, refugees, asylum seekers and
stateless persons. Redress for criminal offences perpetrated against migrants is unlikely as the
possibility of arrest of a migrant complainant when lodging a complaint is high. In contravention of
CEDAW, temporary employment visit passes are issued with conditions prohibiting marriage during
tenure of employment and deportation upon pregnancy. Migrant workers are subject to mandatory
testing for HIV. In breach of Article 5 of UDHR, whipping is widely used to penalise migrants
arrested for immigration offences. Stateless persons, asylum seekers and refugees also often receive
this punishment. Due to absence of documentation and inability to determine age of refugees and
asylum seekers, minors have been held in detention and also been whipped. Migrant workers,
refugees, asylum seekers and stateless persons charged with offences under the Penal Code rarely
enjoy the privilege of legal representation and are often induced into pleading guilty, purportedly in
their own interest as trials often taken several months/years to be concluded during which time the
migrant worker’s pass may expire and deprive him of any work opportunity. Section 33 of the
Immigration Act provides for arrest, detention and deportation of “illegal immigrants”
notwithstanding no proceedings have been instituted for alleged offences under the Immigration Act.
As at March 2006, the number of deportees stood at 362,958. Since the introduction of immigration
courts within immigration camps in remote parts of Malaysia, it is questionable whether reasonable
standards of detention, conditions of detention and fair public hearing by an impartial tribunal are
being observed. These circumstances display scant regard for Articles 9, 10 and 11 of UDHR.
Migrant workers who seek redress for long work hours, no rest days and little or non-payment of
wages before courts or tribunals are in similar vulnerable positions as delays often frustrate their
claims as their status as documented migrant workers often expires prior to the hearing. Special
passes issued by the immigration department are available but their prohibitive cost, given a migrant
worker’s unemployment, of RM100.00 per month and their inability to work legally, constitutes a
deterrent to instituting claims. Additionally, personal injuries suffered in the course of employment
often go uncompensated in spite of the existence of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. All
domestic workers are excluded from several key provisions of the Employment Act such as weekly
rest days, sick days and limits to hours of work and overtime. Reports of confiscation of documents
issued by United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) are frequent. Given the inability
of UNHCR officials to gain access to detention centres and prisons, many registered refugees and
asylum seekers are frequently deported to Malaysian borders contrary to the principle of nonrefoulement
and Article 14 of UDHR. Reports of collusion between immigration officers and
traffickers “trading” on deportees have also surfaced. In addition to Articles 20 and 23 of UDHR, the
International Labour Organisation has recognised freedom of association and the effective
recognition of the right to collective bargaining as a core labour standard. The Right to Organize and
Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) was ratified in 1961. Migrant workers may fall
within the scope of collective agreements where there are unions in that industry but have not been
given the right to form societies or associations to look after their welfare.
4. Free and fair elections (GOM’s statement in para. 3 of the AM). Despite recent successes
of opposition political parties in the 12th General Elections (“12th GE”) held on 8 March 2008,
considerable concerns remain with respect to variations in the delineation and number of registered
voters in Parliamentary constituencies and whether these could arguably be a violation of the equal
protection of the law clause of the Federal Constitution (Article 8(1)). Grave doubts also exist on the
transparency of voting by postal ballots. Concerns also exist about the use by candidates of
government assets and announcements of new projects or funding during election campaigning.
5. Promotion of free media (GOM’s statement in para. 4 of the AM). Control of all free-toair
news stations – television or radio – is in the hands of GOM or GOM-linked companies. News of
non-government political views or activities is rarely aired on GOM-owned and operated television
and radio stations, if at all. Mainstream print media did not carry any opposition political
advertisements during the period prior to the 12th GE. In response to mainstream media’s reticence,
new news websites have sprung up and there is increasing involvement of ordinary citizens with
minimal censorship. GOM continually states that the media in Malaysia is free because there is no
censorship of the Internet. However on 27 August 2008 GOM through its Communications and
Multimedia Commission ordered that access to a popular Malaysian news website (“Malaysia
Today”), generally known to be critical of GOM politicians, be blocked by all Malaysian-licensed
internet service providers (although the effectiveness of this censorship is doubtful since mirror sites
were not blocked). GOM has investigated and used the Sedition Act 1948 against bloggers in an
attempt to restrict free speech.
6. Freedom of Expression (GOM’s statement in para. 5 of the AM). GOM continues to
utilise section 27 of the Police Act to require a permit to be obtained for public assemblies of more
than 3 persons. A Human Rights Day walk organised by the Bar Council on 9 December 2007 had to
be called off. A group of activists who went ahead with the walk was arrested and prosecuted. In
contrast, GOM through its police force was “powerless” to act against an assembly of 300 persons
gathered to protest a Bar Council open forum held on 9 August 2008 on the consequences of an
individual’s conversion into Islam, and instead forced the Bar Council to terminate its forum.
Subsequently there were threats by some in power to use the Internal Security Act 1960 (“ISA”) or
Sedition Act against the Bar Council. Rallies to protest US action in the Middle East are allowed to
proceed without harassment. The right to express views contrary to those held by GOM is curtailed.
7. SUHAKAM (Malaysian Human Rights Commission) (GOM’s statement in para. 6 of
the AM). Since its establishment in 1999, SUHAKAM has produced 8 annual reports and numerous
other topical reports on the state of human rights in Malaysia. None of these reports has ever been
discussed in Parliament. Some GOM agencies had wanted to see such annual reports before being
tabled in Parliamentxiii. GOM has not materially acted on any proposal made by SUHAKAM such
as to repeal the draconian ISA or to expedite the ratification of international human rights treaties.
8. Terrorism/Integrity of Law and Order Enforcement Agencies (GOM’s statement in
paras. 7 and 9 of the AM)/Courts. As at 4 September 2008, 66 persons are detained by GOM under
the ISA, which provides for indefinite detention without trial. 5 have been in detention for more than
6 years; 5 for > 5; 6 for > 4; 6 for > 3; 13 for > 2; 14 for > 1; and 17 for < 1 year. Not all are detained
for alleged terrorism. Detainees are denied many basic rights and forced to attend GOM
rehabilitation programmes. There is other similar legislation in force that provide for detention
without trial. Judicial review of detentions is extremely limited due to legislative ouster of the courts’
jurisdiction to question the merits of detention orders. The integrity of law and order enforcement
agencies and the courts are much in question. A Royal Commission to Enhance the Operation and
Management of the Royal Malaysian Police, set up on 4 February 2004, made 125 recommendations
including the setting up of an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission
(“IPCMC”) to provide for an institutionalised, external, independent oversight mechanism to
investigate police corruption, abuses of powers and other criminal acts. Cases of death in police
custody, police brutality, violation of human rights relating to arrest and detention, freedom of
speech and assembly still remain pressing issues. The deadline of 31 May 2006 to realise the IPCMC
as recommended was not met. Much later and in its place, GOM tabled a watered-down Special
Complaints Commission (“SCC”) Bill in December 2007, though now intended to cover not only
police but all enforcement officers at federal level. The SCC Bill contains many defective
provisionsxiv, and is still under study. In dealing with migrant workers, refugees, asylum seekers and
undocumented workers, GOM utilises a people’s ‘voluntary corps known as RELA. RELA personnel
have been used to carry out raids on premises and detain without warrant undocumented migrant
workers and refugees/asylum seekers, often on a “bounty” basis given by GOM, which has led to
massive abuses and ill-treatment of detainees, evidencing lack of integrity in the performance of
duties. 2007 saw the coming to light of a controversial series of video clips highlighting a lawyer
allegedly brokering the appointment of judges in 2000. A subsequent Royal Commission of Inquiry
determined that further investigations should be conducted against key individuals. To-date no news
on such investigations (if any) has been forthcoming. It also recommended setting up an independent
Judicial Appointments Commission. Although GOM announced in April 2008 that one would be set
up, GOM has not made any headway on the matter. In July 2008 a Panel of Eminent Personsxv
concluded that the dismissal of Malaysia’s Lord President and two senior judges in 1988 was not
only unconstitutional but reflective of political interference of the judiciary and biasxvi. This and
other adverse perceptions have undermined public confidence in the Judiciary. Concerns have also
been expressed about GOM’s apparent selective prosecution of alleged violations of the law.
9. Proactive and Innovative Measures to Further Promote and Protect Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms/Official Secrets/Freedom of Information/Data Protection/DNA
Identification/Privacy (GOM’s statement in para. 11 of the AM). Notwithstanding this statement,
it is evident that GOM does not view the creation of an environment where privacy and personal data
are protected and information on the workings of Government is made available to the public as key
issues. While there has recently been increased prior consultation, GOM legislative bills remain
officially secret until they are released for debate in Parliament. The concept of freedom of
information does not exist where GOM is concerned. As shown most recently (in August 2008) by
the example of the DNA Identification Bill, GOM released proposed legislation on a Thursday,
scheduled debate the following Tuesday, with every intention of it being passed by Thursday of the
same week. This was blocked by strong criticism of the Bill by Opposition parliamentarians and Bar
Council, and further debate has been delayed. This Bill will allow authorities to obtain both nonintimate
and intimate samples of DNA by any means necessary from those charged (but not
convicted) or convicted of any criminal offence. Failure to furnish a sample may lead to criminal
prosecution and jail and/or fine upon conviction. Production of DNA evidence by the prosecution
will be “conclusive evidence” and cannot be challenged in court. The Bill introduces significant
inroads to civil rights, criminal procedure and evidentiary proceedings. Yet GOM has wilfully
refused to submit this Bill to a Parliamentary Select Committee to hold open hearings and receive
oral and written submissions. GOM attempted to rush this Bill through Parliament without first
having in place any data protection legislation. One has been promised since 2001, but no urgency
has been shown. Only in the face of strong criticism of the DNA Identification Bill has GOM
announced that it will bring a Data Protection Bill before Parliament. Such promises have been made
before. Malaysia does not have the right to privacy enshrined in its Federal Constitution. It also does
not have corresponding laws akin to Article 12 of UDHR, Article 8 of the European Convention of
Human Rights and Article 17 of ICCPR, which provide for the privacy of individuals to be protected
and respected.
10. Freedom of Religion/Religious Dialogue. Non-Muslims also face difficulties from the
authorities in the construction of places of worship. The right of religious organisations to publish
and comment on matters in the public sphere is also being threatened by GOM’s actions.xvii And
notwithstanding 51 years of independence, inter-religious dialogue remains problematic.
APPENDIX A
GOM’s reservations re CEDAW are in respect of Articles 5(a), 7(b), 9(2), 16(1)(a), (c), (f), (g), and
16(2).
APPENDIX B
(i) The wording of Article 8(2) seems to suggest that discrimination based on gender coupled with
other grounds is permissible. The provision provides “there shall be no discrimination against
citizens on the ground only of religion, race, descent, place of birth or gender…”
(ii) Article 8(2) makes specific reference to non-discrimination in relation to “employment under a
public authority” implying that employment in the private sector may be unaffected by the
amendment
(iii) Article 8(5) of the Federal Constitution also provides that the equality clauses of the
Constitution do not invalidate or prohibit “any provision regulating personal law”, effectively
leaving Muslim personal law unaffected by the amendment. The second exception in article
8(5) to the prohibition is similarly with respect to “any provision or practice restricting office
or employment connected with the affairs of any religion, or of an institution managed by a
group professing any religion, to persons professing that religion”.
(iv) Article 12(1) on rights in respect of education prohibits discrimination against any citizen on
the grounds only of religion, race, descent or place of birth. The article has not been amended
to include prohibition against gender discrimination;
(v) Article 12(4) also needs to be amended to recognise the rights of both parents to decide the
religion of a minor. (In Shamala Sathiyaseelan v Dr Jeyaganesh C Mogarajah & Anor
[2004] 2 CLJ 416 the court held that a converted Muslim father is entitled to convert his
children to Islam without their mother’s consent and in so doing dismissed the mother’s
application to nullify the conversion.)
(vi) Provisions on citizenship in Article 14, Second Schedule s. 1(d), Articles 15, 24(4) and 26(2) of
the Federal Constitution continue to expressly discriminate against women’s rights to
citizenship, to confer citizenship on their children and to enable their foreign husbands to
receive permanent residence status.
(Source: Malaysian NGO Shadow Report to the Malaysian Government Initial and Second Report
2006)
APPENDIX C
Women’s Political Participation
Parliament
Year
Total No. of
Women MP
Candidates
Contesting
Total No. of
Contestants for
MPs (men &
women)
%of Women
MP
Candidates
No. of
Women
who won
as MPs
Total
No. of
MPs
% of
Women
MPs
% of
Men
MPs
1990 9 180 5.00 95.00
1995 13 192 6.80 93.20
2000 19 193 9.80 90.20
2004 36 23 219 10.50 89.50
20063 21 219 9.60 90.40
2008 45 477 1 9.43 24 222 10.81 89.19
State Assembly
Year
Total No. of
Women SA
Candidates
Total No.
Contestants for
SA (men &
women)
%of Women
SA Candidates
No. of
Women
State
Assembly
(SAs)
Total
No. of
SAs
% of
Women
SAs
% of
Men
SAs
1990 15 443 3.40 96.60
1995 24 498 4.80 95.20
2000 15 250 6.00 94.00
2004 61 36 576 6.9 93.75
2008 86 1105 1 7.87 40 505 4 7.92 92.08
Notes:
1. 477 Parliament seats and 1105 State seats are based on The Star, 10 March 2008. Total contestants are 1582
contesting 727 Parliament and State seats (excludes State seats in Sarawak).
2. Teresa Kok Suh Sim and Christina Liew Chin Jin contest both parliament and state seat. Therefore, total women’s
candidates are at 129 and contesting 131 Parliament and State seats.
3. Between 2004 and 2006, there were changes to the number of women MPs.
4. The 505 State seats exclude Sarawak.
(Source: Persatuan Kesedaran Komuniti Selangor (Empower) ).
i
As reported in Mohamad Ezam Bin Mohd Noor v Ketua Polis Negara & Other Appeals [2002] 4 MLJ 449 at 513-
514). ii Bar Council’s letter dated 28 March 2008 to the Ministry of Women, Family and Community Development. The
comments and views concluded that, “we are of the view that Malaysia’s ratification to CEDAW obliges Malaysia to
take a normative stance in promoting gender equality and eliminate all forms of discrimination against women. For
Malaysia to comply with international law, its reservations, while allowed, must be limited in scope and must not
detract from the purpose and objective of the convention.” iii Article 8(2) “Except as expressly authorised by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens on
the ground only of religion, race, descent, place of birth or gender in any law …”
iv Beatrice Fernandez v Sistem Penerbangan Malaysia [2004] 4 CLJ 403 (CA) and [2005] 2 CLJ 173 at 719 (FC). v
The apex court in Malaysia.
vi CEDAW Committee’s recommendations made when considering the State’s report at the 35th session.
vii Articles 1, 2, 7, 13, 14, 15, 28(1)(a) and 37.
viii Public Prosecutor v N (A Child) [2004] 2 MLJ 299). ix
Pendakwa Raya v Kok Wah Kuan [2007] 6 AMR 269). x
Art 16 conflicts with Malaysian law as the Penal Code provides for capital punishments. Adoption of Art 16 would
mean that disabled persons would have to be exempted from such punishment. xi Article 12 of the Federal Constitution 1957: “(1) Without prejudice to the generality of Art 8…there shall be no
discrimination against any citizen on the grounds only of religion, race, descent or place of birth:
(a) In the administration of any educational institution maintained by a public authority, and, in particular, the
admission of pupils or students or the payment of fees; or (b) In providing out of the funds of a public authority
financial aid for the maintenance or education of pupils or students in any educational institution.” xii Although the courts in the cases of Adong bin Kuwau v Kerajaan Negeri Johor [1997] 1 MLJ 418, Nor Anak Nyawai
& Ors v Borneo Pulp Plantations Sdn Bhd v. Superintendent of Lands and Survey & Anor [2001] 2 CLJ 297, and
Sagong Tasi & Ors v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor & Ors [2002] 2 MLJ 591 (affirmed by Court of Appeal in 2005) have
awarded the respective plaintiffs (being groups of aboriginal peoples) more substantive compensation. However
cases like Sagong Tasi are still awaiting appeal. xiii See the report at http://malaysianbar.org.my/legal/general_news/suhakam_rebuffs_demands_by_government_
agencies.html
xiv Chief among the SCC’s objectionable characteristics is the inclusion of the Inspector-General of Police as a
permanent commissioner which not only militates against rules of natural justice, but renders the concept of an
‘independent, external oversight mechanism’ illusory. The other serious concern is that the SCC plays a passive role
to receive and investigate complaints of misconduct in contrast to an active role as envisaged under the IPCMC,
whereby the Commission can initiate an investigation of its own without receipt of a complaint. xv The Panel comprised Hon. Mr. Justice (Retd) J. S. Verma – Chairman, formerly, Chief Justice of India, Chairman,
National Human Rights Commission, Chief Justice of the High Courts of Madhya Pradesh & Rajasthan, and Acting
Governor of Rajasthan; Hon. Mr. Justice (Retd) Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim – Member, formerly, Judge of Supreme
Court of Pakistan, Federal Law Minister, Attorney General of Pakistan, and Governor of Sindh Province; Dr. Ms.
Asma Jahangir – Member, Advocate, Supreme Court of Pakistan, Chairperson, Human Rights Commission of
Pakistan, UN Special Rapporteur for Religious Freedom or Belief, and Magsaysay Award Winner; Dr. Gordon
Hughes – Member, Former President, Law Institute of Victoria, Law Council of Australia, LAWASIA, and Partner,
Blake Dawson, Lawyers, Melbourne; Tan Sri Dato’ Dr. Abdul Aziz bin Abdul Rahman – Member, Advocate &
Solicitor, High Court of Malaya, Partner, Messrs. Nik Saghir & Ismail, Kuala Lumpur; Dato’ W.S.W. (Bill) Davidson
– Member, Barrister-at-Law, Advocate & Solicitor, High Court of Malaya, Senior Partner, Messrs. Azman Davidson
& Co., Kuala Lumpur.
xvi Although GOM has made ex-gratia payments to the judges involved on account of the pain and suffering they
endured.
xvii The official newspaper of the Roman Catholic Church in Malaysia, The Herald, was issued with a show-cause letter
by the Ministry of Home Affairs as to why its publication permit should not be withdrawn after The Herald published
news commentary during the campaigning period for a recent by-election. The Herald was also issued similar showcause
letters previously for the use of the term “Allah” in its publications. The Roman Catholic Church and another
Christian denomination known as the Sidang Injil Borneo are currently pursuing legal action against GOM in the
Malaysian courts in relation to Christian material withheld from distribution by GOM on the ground that such
material printed in Bahasa Malaysia (the Malay language) use the term “Allah” when referring to God. GOM takes
the position that non-Muslims cannot use this term.