We, the 17 undersigned groups and organizations is appalled at yet another extrajudicial killing by Malaysian police that happened on 13/8/2024(The Sun), whereby immediately after that the public is fed with the police version of what happened in an attempt to absolve the police from guilt, and with allegations that the deceased was a ‘bad person’. Was there even sufficient time for the police to conduct a proper investigation into the killing? Were the police officers in uniform or in a easily identifiable police vehicle?

In cases of extrajudicial killing, it is the police that caused the killing who should be investigated for the crime of murder and culpable homicide, not the deceased.

However, it must be noted that there have been several cases in Malaysia, where the police version of what happened was found to be LIES.

Police Version Of What Happened Found To Be False

The High Court in Ipoh on 1/2/2024  set aside an open verdict delivered in an inquest involving a police shooting in Sitiawan, Perak nearly eight years ago, and ruled it to be a homicide. “This court, under the Chief Justice’s Direction No 2 of 2019, makes a finding of homicide against the police,” he[Judicial commissioner Moses Susayan] said..’ The police and prosecution version were that Mohan got out of the vehicle and fired at the policemen, forcing them to shoot back. However, there were ‘…no bullet casing from the purported revolver used by Mohan was found. Neither were fingerprints, DNA or gunshot residue found on the alleged gun or the deceased. The Inspector-General’s Standing Orders that requires police to fire warning shots and to shoot at the leg was probably not followed. (FMT)

On 31/5/2023 that the coroner’s court, presided by Coroner Rasyihah Ghazali, for ‘police shooting that resulted in death of 3, ‘…. concluded that there was abuse of power and elements of a criminal nature in the death of three men who were shot at close range by police three years ago. “The shots were not fired in self-defense. There was abuse of power and (actions in the nature of) criminal elements by police in the death of the men,”… She said police witnesses gave evidence that shots were fired at the men from an upright position but post-mortem reports stated that the bullets pierced their bodies at a downward angle. … “The weapons described by the ballistic expert (Izzuwan Marzuki) and the investigating officer (P Visvanathan) were also in conflict,” (FMT, 31/5/2023)

We sadly note that there has been no news about the said police personnel found criminally liable for the killing being investigated and/or charged in the courts, despite the findings of the Coroner and/or the Court.

End Perception that Malaysia Protects Law Enforcement Who Broke the Law

The perception that Malaysia protects police and law enforcement officers from criminal prosecution must end. This is not a matter to be dealt with through internal disciplinary actions – but requires the suspected police officers to be charged and tried in Court.

Sadly, in most of these extrajudicial killings, we do not hear about the findings of the Independent Coroner, who is legally the person who will enquire and determine the cause of death, including whether any person, including the police, was criminally liable for the death. Hence, we only have the police version of what happened issued hours after the killing.

The Home Minister must disclose the findings of the Coroner’s Inquiry of all cases of extrajudicial killing by law enforcement. He must explain why the police have not been charged in court for the crime of killing. Whether, the police’s defence of ‘self defence’ will succeed is something for the Court to decide – not the police, the prosecution, the Minister or the government of the day.

Coroner must investigate immediately, and decide fast

In cases of police killing that we hear about the Coroner’s findings, it is simply too long after the said killing occurred. In cases of extrajudicial killings and deaths in custody of law enforcement, Coroners must speedily inquire into the death and render a decision as fast as possible, preferably within a month, not after years. Coroners must not only rely on the police for evidence, but also do their own independent investigations as the police do ‘lie’ at times to maybe protect their own officers.

Police are the suspects – not the deceased

In extrajudicial killings, the suspects of the crime is the POLICE, not the deceased. It is the police suspects that need to be investigated, and not the deceased. It was odd, that a media report stated that the police had commenced an investigation ‘…under the Penal Code for attempted murder’. Are they investigating the deceased, for if they are investigating the police, it should be an investigation for murder, not attempted murder since the victim died. (NST, 13/8/2024)

Extrajudicial Killings Must Be Criminalized – An offence and a deterrent penalty

Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions – is the deliberate killing of individuals outside of any legal framework – are a violation of this most fundamental right. In Malaysia, the Federal Constitution acknowledges the right to life, and in Article 5(1) states that ‘No person shall be deprived of his life …. save in accordance with law’ and this means that the State or its officers can generally only kill someone after he has been tried, convicted and sentenced to death. When it comes to the police, their duty is merely to arrest and investigate suspects – not kill them.

Malaysian law, on arrest is very clear and right to kill is limited to persons who have already been charged in court, being the time, a suspect becomes an accused, for an offence that carries the death penalty or sentence of imprisonment of 30 years or more.

Section 15 of the Criminal Procedure Code, amongst others, state that  ‘…(2) If such person forcibly resist the endeavour to arrest him or attempt to evade the arrest such officer or other person may use all means necessary to effect the arrest.(3) Nothing in this section gives a right to cause the death of a person who is not accused of an offence punishable with death or with imprisonment for a term of not less than thirty years but not exceeding forty years or with imprisonment for life.’

In all the known cases, those that end up being shot dead are certainly not accused persons facing trial for such serious offences.

Malaysia must enact a law making extra-judicial killing by law enforcement a crime with a deterrent penalty, as the killers in these cases are public officers responsible for law enforcement, who should never ignore the law and kill suspects, witnesses or others during the performance of their duties. The fact that we have murder and other killing offences in the law is insufficient, and the criminalizing of extrajudicial killings also will indicate Malaysia’s strong position against such killings.

First response by Home Minister is to APOLOGIZE and ensure proper investigation

After anyone is killed whilst making arrest or in police custody, the Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail first response should be to apologize for the death of any suspect. No one during arrest, custody and investigations by law enforcement should die.

He should also commit to an immediate independent investigation and for a speedy Coroner’s inquiry to determine the truth of what really happened. Was there any acceptable legal defence for the killing of persons by the police? In any case, the police personnel involved should be investigated and charged, and it is up to the Court to determine whether any defence, including self-defence will succeed in avoiding conviction.

The Minister is responsible for the police, but that does not translate that he should always come out in defence of police actions and/or ‘justifying’ possible criminal wrongdoings, trusting the police version of the facts.

On the face of it, the police broke the law when they failed to arrest a suspect alive.

Hence, as Minister responsible, he must come out expressing his remorse for what happened, and commit to a thorough investigation to determine the truth. He must also make sure that the police do not try to prematurely justify killings on the basis that the deceased was a ‘bad person’. He must  leave the determination of guilt to the Courts.

It is not for the police to decide whether one is a criminal or not, or whether they deceive the death sentence. They are not ‘judge, jury and executioner’ – the police is NOT ‘a person or group who has unchecked power to make decisions, impose punishments, and carry out those punishments without due process or oversight.’

Therefore, we call

Call for the criminalization of extrajudicial killing, making it a crime with a deterrent penalty;

Call on Malaysia to adopt the Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, as rrecommended by the United Nation’s Economic and Social Council resolution 1989/65 of 24 May 1989, which, amongst others, state that ‘Governments shall prohibit by law all extra-legal, arbitrary and summary executions and shall ensure that any such executions are recognized as offences under their criminal laws, and are punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account the seriousness of such offences…’

Call on the Home Minister to disclose findings of the Coroner in all cases of extra-judicial killings in Malaysia, and explain why the said police officers or law enforcement personnel have NOT been charged and tried in Court for the said killings.

Call on Malaysia to end the ‘defamation’ of the dead, as an attempt to ‘justify’ the killings by law enforcement.

Call for the police officers responsible for the death of suspects and others be charged and tried in Court, for it is Court only that determines guilt, and whether any defence for the said crime including self-defence is accepted.

Charles Hector
Ng Yap Hwa

For and on behalf of the 16 groups listed below

• ALIRAN
• MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)
• Teoh Beng Hock Association for Democratic Advancement
• WH4C (Workers Hub For Change)
• Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN)
• Association Of Home And Maquila Workers (ATRAHDOM), Guatemala
• Banglar Manabadhikar Suraksha Mancha (MASUM), India
• Citizens Against Enforced Disappearances (CAGED)
• Democratic Commission for Human Development, Lahore, Pakistan
• Global Women’s Strike, United Kingdom
• KLSCAH Youth
• Legal Action for Women, United Kingdom
• Programme Against Custodial Torture & Impunity (PACTI), India
• Redemption, Pakistan
• Sabah Timber Industry Employees Union (STIEU)
• Union of Domestic, Maquila, Nexas and Related Workers (SITRADOM), Guatemala
• Yaung Chi Oo Workers’ Association (YCOWA)

Pertubuhan masyarakat sivil (Civil Society Organisation – CSO) yang disenarai di bawah mengecam sekeras-kerasnya kenyataan Menteri Dalam Negeri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail bahawa kekerasan polis sewaktu perarakan sempena Ulang Tahun ke-15 Teoh Beng Hock adalah untuk menjaga ketenteraman awam. Kami menuntut agar Saifuddin Nasution dipecat sebagai Menteri Dalam Negeri memandangkan beliau tidak layak menyandang jawatan tersebut atas tiga kegagalan utama.

Pertama, Menteri Dalam Negeri Saifuddin Nasution gagal mengarahkan Polis Diraja Malaysia (PDRM) untuk membuka semula siasatan terhadap pegawai-pegawai Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia (SPRM) yang terlibat dalam kes kematian Teoh Beng Hock dibawah Kanun Keseksaan seksyen 302.

Mahkamah Rayuan pada tahun 2014 telah memutuskan bahawa kematian Teoh Beng Hock adalah diakibatkan oleh ‘seorang atau beberapa orang yang tidak dikenali termasuk pegawai SPRM’, dan telah mengesyorkan pihak polis untuk membuka semula siasatan.

Selama 15 tahun sejak kematian Teoh Beng Hock, Pakatan Rakyat atau Pakatan Harapan berkali-kali berjanji kepada ahli keluarga Teoh Beng Hock bahawa mereka tidak akan teragak-agak untuk menyiasat dan menuduh pihak bertanggungjawab di mahkamah sekiranya mereka diberikan mandat oleh rakyat untuk menjadi kerajaan.

Namun, Menteri Dalam Negeri bersikap sambil lewa dalam perkara ini dan tidak pernah membalas kepada tuntutan keluarga Teoh. Persatuan Teoh Beng Hock Demi Kemajuan Demokrasi (TBH-ADA) terpaksa berjalan melebihi 45km dari Plaza Masalam (tempat kejadian kematian Teoh Beng Hock) ke Parlimen Malaysia untuk menyerahkan memorandum supaya suara keluarga Teoh dapat didengari oleh mereka yang kini berkuasa.

Keluarga Teoh tidak memerlukan belas kasihan daripada Menteri tetapi satu tindakan tegas dan cekap dalam siasatan PDRM dalam kes kematian Teoh Beng Hock. Perbualan atau permohonan maaf secara persendirian sememangnya tidak bermakna kepada keluarga Teoh selepas 15 tahun dan terutamanya PH kini telah memegang kuasa eksekutif.

Kedua, Saifuddin Nasution gagal menyemak semula Prosedur Operasi Standard (SOP) PDRM untuk menangani perarakan dan himpunan aman sehingga menyebabkan kekerasan polis berlaku dan mencederakan peserta-peserta. Antara kekerasan polis adalah menolak peserta ke tepi, mengheret baju peserta, menarik rantai leher peserta sehingga dia susah bernafas dan rantai terputus, dan menjatuhkan peserta ke atas lantai secara sengaja.

Kami mengingatkan penyerahan memorandum di luar pagar Parlimen bukan satu perkara baharu padahal keluarga Teoh pernah menyerahkan memorandum kepada Ahli-ahli Parlimen di luar pagar Bangunan Parlimen sewaktu pemerintahan kerajaan Najib Razak.

Kami juga mengingatkan pemimpin-pemimpin Pakatan Harapan pernah menjadi mangsa kepada sekatan polis ke Parlimen dan kekerasan polis. Jangan kita lupa, polis pernah menyekat pemimpin-pemimpin Pakatan Harapan memasuki Dewan Rakyat pada 2 Ogos 2021.[1]  Pada masa itu, pemimpin Pakatan Harapan turut mengkritik tindakan polis yang menyekat suara Rakyat ke Parlimen. Jangan kita lupa, pemimpin-pemimpin Pakatan termasuk Anwar Ibrahim pernah menjadi mangsa kekerasan polis waktu Himpunan Bersih 2.0 dan tindakan polis juga dikecam sekeras-kerasnya dan bukan dipertahankan sebagai langkah menjaga ketenteraman awam.

Tidak kira penyerahan memorandum di luar pagar Parlimen atau Himpunan BERSIH 2.0 adalah suatu amalan demokratik yang patut diraikan malah hak berhimpun secara aman di bawah Perlembagaan Persekutuan patut dihormati dan bukan dizalimi. Kerajaan Madani terutamanya yang diketuai reformis-reformis patut lebih progresif untuk memudahkan perarakan atau himpunan aman dan bukan sebaliknya.

Ketiga, Menteri Dalam Negeri gagal mempertahankan hak asasi manusia di Malaysia. Saifuddin Nasution telah berkali-kali menunjukan ketidakcekapan beliau dalam banyak perkara berkaitan dengan hak asasi manusia, termasuk isu salah laku dan kekerasan polis, isu kematian dalam tahanan, isu penindasan masyarakat Bajau Laut, isu tahanan tanpa bicara, isu kewarganegaraan, isu penggunaan Akta Hasutan dan intimidasi terhadap aktivis-aktivis, dan lain-lain lagi.

Pendirian dan respon Saifuddin Nasution terhadap isu-isu ini hanya mengekalkan status quo dan tidak mengambil peduli saranan-saranan daripada pihak masyarakat sivil mahupun masyarakat yang terkesan. Beliau hanya menunjukkan keangkuhan seseorang pemerintah, dan melaksanakan sesuatu mengikut kehendak hati dan kepentingan politik diri sendiri sahaja. Ia bercanggah kepada nilai Malaysia Madani yang sepatutnya bersikap keterbukaan dan mengutamakan kepentingan rakyat jelata.

Menteri Dalam Negeri mempunyai kuasa yang sangat besar dan mengetuai badan-badan penguatkuasaan. Kami tegaskan bahawa Rakyat Malaysia memerlukan seorang Menteri Dalam Negeri yang dapat menghormati hak asasi manusia dan menegakkan keadilan, dan bukannya seorang penindas yang mengancam keselamatan rakyat jelata. Atas sebab-sebab ini, Saifuddin Nasution harus dipecat segera sebagai Menteri Dalam Negeri.

Kenyataan disokong oleh:

1. KLSCAH Youth
2. University of Malaya Association of New Youth (UMANY)
3. Liga Demokratik Rakyat
4. EMPOWER
5. Saya Anak Bangsa Malaysia (SABM)
6. Gerakan Belia Se-Punjabi Malaysia – GBSM
7. Student Progressive Front UUM 北大前进阵线
8. Suara Siswa UUM 北大学声阵线
9. Gerakan Mahasiswa Maju UPM
10. KLSCAH Civil Rights Committee
11. Borneo Komrad
12. Hayat
13. Eliminating Deaths and Abuse in Custody Together (EDICT)
14. Aliran 
15. MANDIRI – Pusat Pembangunan Rakyat
16. Congress IIUM
17. Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (MADPET)
18. Pergerakan Tenaga Akademik Malaysia (GERAK)
19. Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM)
20. Himpunan Advokasi Rakyat Malaysia (HARAM)
21. Suara Mahasiswa UMS
22. Mahasiswa Demokratik Malaysia (MDM)
23. Demokrat UKM
24. Rahman Student League
25. Rahman Solidarity League
26. Stateless.MY

 

[1] Pembangkang yang diketuai oleh Pakatan Harapan menuntut Muhyiddin meletak jawatan sebagai Perdana Menteri yang didakwa melanggar Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan menghina instusi raja Perlembagaan termasuk menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri mengelirukan Dewan.

 

19hb Julai 2024

Kenyataan Bersama: Saifuddin Nasution Harus Dipecat Segera

早前在北方大学校园，陆陆续续有动物被害的事件传出。先有宿舍十多只猫咪疑因被毒死， 再来年头疑似有人撞到小狗却肇事逃逸，到现在也依旧逍遥法外。而如今的当值人员更是在Whatsapp跟某人提到“把小狗杀掉”的疯狂想法，其残忍的态度仿佛是在说撕掉一张传单这么简单。种种表现无一不是对生命的轻蔑，更是对法律的践踏。

根据2015年马来西亚动物福利法就提到，虐待动物者将面对最低20，000令吉的罚款，或最高监禁三年或两者兼施。其中动物法令30条文更是提到了禁止使用枪支射杀动物，除非是在紧急情况或为了控制疾病而获得兽医局批准。此外，动物福利法也提到任何人无合法权限或合理解释使用有毒性，毒害任何动物。

然而这些罪犯却在神圣的校园里面肆无忌惮地横行，甚至是有关当局人员带头教唆。这不止是典当自身道德素养，更是蔑视法律的行为。

早前，北大前进阵线和北大学声阵线就已经为这些含冤去世的动物呈交了一份备忘录，里面包含了透明化处理校园动物以及彻查虐待动物案的诉求。可是事发至此校方依旧没有给出一个完整的交代。我们极力谴责校方管理层轻蔑动物生命的态度。我们强调，动物也是校园内的一份子，是大自然的馈赠。我们应该做的是文明控制动物繁衍数量如带它们进行绝育手术，或适当处理垃圾以免吸引更多外来的动物到这里觅食导致泛滥等等，但绝对不是射杀它们。

此外，有关动物习性的宣传也可以在校园内普及，以免部分学生因不了解而在无意中做出让动物应激的反应，达到动物和人和平共处的目的。面对已经数量泛滥的动物，有关当局更应该有一套透明的处理动物的SOP, 不然只会导致校园内流言四起，人心惶惶。

曾经听到一段话可以让大家共勉：“如果一个学校，连一条狗都放不下，更谈何教书育人？”相比之下，作为培育国家未来栋梁的象牙塔，我们却处处容忍甚至是默认这些不人道的行为，实在是讽刺至极。

最后，我们呼吁校方重新审视执法单位的执法标准，透明且公开地制定一套针对动物的人性化处理方针。他们作为手持武器的一方应该首当其冲保护弱势群体，而非带头助力虐待动物的歪风。此外，校方也应该把重心放在彻查校园内虐待动物的案件，而非把矛头指向无辜的动物，使它们原本就身处劣势的生存环境更加雪上加霜。

发起单位：北大前进阵线以及北大学声阵线

我们，联署的青年组织，谴责警方在新古毛补选中阻扰赵明福民主促进会的“寻相行动”，并援引刑事法典504条文（蓄意羞辱、破坏安宁）及选举罪行法令第4A条文(散播仇恨和不满）调查该会主席黄业华和赵明福胞妹赵丽兰的举动。

尽管多名朝野政治领袖批评警方行为，倪可敏部长也表示通过内部管道要求停止调查，警方却把调查转交警察总部武吉安曼处理。警方一意孤行打压社会运动，仿佛让国民回到国阵统治的政治高压时代。

我们强调，世界人权宣言阐明人人有和平表达的自由。希盟领袖有上街参与净选盟大集会和反莱纳斯大集会的自由，明福促进会自然也有到补选抗议首相安华冷待赵明福命案的自由。改朝换代后，领导团结政府的希盟绝不能放任警方侵犯国民的基本人权，让我国的民主进程倒退。

警队冥顽不灵，归根究底是团结政府没有落实改革警队和维护人权的新政策。警队的形象在多宗扣留所死亡、骚扰社运分子、强迫失踪、强暴、勒索的案件下，已经大受打击。可是改革议程一直没有摆上团结政府的议程。

因此，我们呼吁政府马上停止打压明福促进会，撤销莫须有的恶意调查。改革警队也到了刻不容缓的地步，我们要求政府大刀阔斧整顿警察体系，打造一支尊重人权和人民表达自由的独立和专业警队。

1. 北大前进阵线Student Progressive Front UUM
2. 北大学声阵线 Suara Siswa UUM
3. 拉曼学生联盟 Rahman Student League
4. ⁠拉曼团结联盟 Rahman Solidarity League
5. 马大新青年 UMANY
6. 隆雪华青 KLSCAH Youth
7. 博大前进阵线 Gerakan Mahasiswa Maju UPM
8. 士乃恒顺港大伯公庙青年团

 

八青年组织联合文告

2024年5月11日

We, the undersigned civil society organisations, think tanks, student groups, and individuals, express our utmost concern about the upcoming appointment of a new Election Commission (EC) Chairperson. The current chairperson, Abdul Ghani Salleh, retires today on 9 May 2024, leaving the most important position in EC vacant. Coincidentally, today is also the sixth anniversary of GE14 and the historic democratic transition in Malaysia – and yet, electoral reform remains outstanding to this day.

The EC plays the critical role of regulating the conduct of elections, reviewing and revising the electoral roll, and delineating / redrawing constituencies.

The appointments of two EC commissioners under the current Government’s administration, Datuk Haji Sapdin bin Ibrahim and Datuk Dr. Lee Bee Phang, were done without going through Parliament, and this goes against both the Pakatan Harapan and the Barisan Nasional’s election manifestos. This cannot be repeated for the appointment of the EC Chairperson because the stakes are much higher.

Not only does the EC Chairperson have wide powers and discretion to lead the Commission, which could either facilitate, disrupt, or halt any plans for electoral reforms, but the EC Chairperson will also take on the unprecedented responsibility of addressing the re-delineation of electoral boundaries after the implementation of Undi18 and separately, automatic voter registration (AVR). Both Undi18 and AVR have added 6.23 million new voters to the electoral roll in GE15 (and this is expected to be increased by GE16), thus exacerbating malapportionment in Malaysia. This has serious consequences, including:

1. The inequality of voting power: For example, 1 vote in the Bangi constituency has only ⅕ value compared to 1 vote in the Sabak Bernam constituency. This violates the Federal Constitution’s 13th Schedule.
2. The unequal distribution of funds to MPs: There is a sheer disparity among elected representatives’ responsibilities and the unequal distribution of funds. For example, if each MP receives RM100,000 to serve their constituency, each voter in Tebrau receives only 0.45 cents compared to RM2 each in Labis.

We now have data to demonstrate that AVR and Undi18 resulted in worsened malapportionment (see table below). This necessitates the redrawing of electoral boundaries (delineation), which can take place now in Sarawak; in 2025 in Sabah; and in 2026 in Peninsular Malaysia.

The people will look to the new EC Chairperson to spearhead this process and address a host of issues that, if left unresolved, could cause disillusionment or cynicism in the voter, thus eroding participation in the electoral process.

Table 1: Impact of Undi18 and AVR on malapportionment

State	The ratio between the largest constituencyand the smallest constituency in GE15	The ratio between the largest constituencyand the smallest constituency in GE14	Malapportionment implication
Perlis	1.24	1.21	worsened
Kedah	2.82	2.64	worsened
Kelantan	2.50	2.34	worsened
Terengganu	1.59	1.46	worsened
Penang	2.29	1.85	worsened
Perak	3.89	3. 62	worsened
Pahang	2.62	2.77	improved
Selangor	5.88	4.38	worsened
KL	1.56	1.44	worsened
Negeri Sembilan	2.64	2.27	worsened
Malacca	2.37	2.47	improved
Johor	4.48	3.43	worsened
Sabah	2.66	2.19	worsened
Sarawak	5.06	4.18	worsened
Malaysia	10.73	9.13	worsened

Source: Prof Wong Chin Huat and Ooi Kok Hin

Therefore, we urge that the Unity Government take the following steps immediately:

1. Announce that the new EC Chairperson will be nominated and vetted by a Parliamentary Standing Committee on Electoral Affairs. This Standing Committee should include bipartisan MPs and establish a clear process and criteria for appointing the new EC Chairperson. Only after Parliament has approved the candidacy, the candidate can be presented to the King for official appointment.
2. Ensure that the candidate adheres to criteria such as fairness, integrity, and an independent and proactive mindset to propose and implement reforms. This would entail them not having membership in any political party or having held key positions in a political party. Further, they should not have a criminal record or have committed any serious election offenses. The ultimate criteria must be that the individual appointed should be competent, experienced, and have the relevant knowledge in matters related to elections, its laws, operations, and administration.
3. Convene a special parliamentary sitting, if necessary, to start the process for this major appointment.

An impartial and transparent process in appointing the EC Chairperson is in the nation’s best interests, including the government. Allowing the opposition MPs to have a say in such a major public office appointment will reduce the perception of partisan meddling in the upcoming delineation exercise. To avoid turning delineation into a potentially polemical 3R issue (which could snowball into an ICERD 2.0), the first step is to allow a bipartisan process for the nomination and appointment of the new EC Chairperson.

The ball is now in your court to announce and execute these electoral reforms, considering that the next EC Chairperson will shape the vote value for the next decade. We await your response.

Jointly signed by:
Civil Society Organisations:

1. The Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections (BERSIH)
2. Persatuan Pemangkin Daya Masyarakat (ROSE)
3. Lawyer Kamek
4. Institut Reformasi Politik dan Demokrasi (REFORM)
5. Tindak Malaysia
6. Rakan Membangun Masyarakat (PACOS)
7. Persatuan Pengundi Muda (Undi18)
8. Persatuan Kesedaran Komuniti Selangor (EMPOWER)
9. Sabah Human Rights Centre
10. ASEAN Youth Organization Malaysia (AYOMY)
11. Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ)
12. Demokrat Kebangsaan
13. Nation Building School (NBS)
14. Sisters in Islam (SIS)
15. Saya Anak Bangsa Malaysia (SABM)
16. Islamic Renaissance Front (IRF)
17. Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (IDEAS)
18. Movement For Change, Sarawak (MoCS)
19. Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia (ABIM)
20. Pusat KOMAS (KOMAS)
21. ENGAGE
22. Punjabi Youth Movement Malaysia (GBSM)
23. Bait Al Amanah (House of Trust)
24. Pertubuhan Gagasan Anak Watan Malaysia (WATAN)
25. Youth Section, The Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall (KLSCAH Youth)
26. Suara Mahasiswa UMS
27. Association of Women Lawyers (AWL)
28. Himpunan Hijau
29. Aliran
30. Suara Siswa UiTM
31. Sabah Women’s Action Resource Group (SAWO)
32. Rahman Student League
33. Rahman Solidarity League
34. Project Stability and Accountability for Malaysia (Projek SAMA)
35. G25 Malaysia
36. All Women’s Action Society (AWAM)
37. Development of Human Resources of Rural Areas (DHRRA)
38. Congress IIUM
39. Universiti Terbuka Anak Muda (UTAM)
40. Pertubuhan Naratif Malaysia (NARATIF)
41. Save The Schools Malaysia
42. SAVE Rivers
43. Ikatan Mahasiswa Demokratik Malaysia (MDM)
44. Student Progressive Front UUM
45. Suara Siswa UUM
46. Society for Equality, Respect and Trust for All Sabah (SERATA)
47. University of Malaya Association of New Youth (UMANY)
48. Transparency International Malaysia
49. Demokrat Universiti Malaya
50. Persatuan Pemangkin Kesedaran Sosial (PEMANGKIN)
51. Global Bersih
52. Sarawak Dayak Iban Association (SADIA)
53. Liga Rakyat Demokratik
54. Mahasiswa Progresif Universiti Malaya
55. Pertubuhan Pertolongan Wanita (WAO)
56. Persatuan Kebajikan Sokongan Keluarga Selangor & KL (Family Frontiers)
57. Rasuah Busters
58. Teoh Beng Hock Association for Democratic Advancement
59. Pertubuhan IKRAM Malaysia (IKRAM)
60. Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM)

Individuals

1. Dr Wong Chin Huat, Professor, Sunway University
2. Ms Sahilah Ain Sathakathulla, cybersecurity expert
3. Ho Yock Lin, presiden AWAM
4. Cikgu Rahayu, pengasas Buku Jalanan Chow Kit
5. Datuk Dr Toh Kin Woon, former Penang State exco and Bersih Steering Committee
6. Brigadier Jeneral (B) Dato Arshad Raji
7. Dr Edmund Terence Gomez, former Professor of Political Economy, Universiti Malaya
8. En Chan Siew Joe, IBM Z Ambassador
9. Dr Azmil Mohd Tayeb, Associate Professor, Universiti Sains Malaysia
10. Dr. Savinder Kaur Gill, Assistant Professor, School of Politics, History and International Relations, University of Nottingham Malaysia
11. Datuk Dr Johan Samad, former CEO of the Institute for Development Studies Sabah
12. Dr Ahmad Fauzi Abdul Hamid, Profesor (Sains Politik), Pusat Pengajian Pendidikan Jarak Jauh, Universiti Sains Malaysia
13. Hazman Baharom, Waseda University
14. Nur Adilla, Waseda University
15. Dato’ Ambiga Sreenevasan, former chair of the Institutional Reforms Committee and Bersih chairperson
16. Beverly Joeman, former Bersih Vice-Chair (Sabah)
17. Tan Sri Mohd Sherif Kassim, former secretary-general of Finance Ministry
18. Shah Fariq Aizal Sha Ghazni, entrepreneur
19. Brenda Yong Ping Ping, academic
20. Lim Wei Jiet, Peguam
21. Maha Balakrishnan, Parliamentary Expert
22. Iqbal Fatkhi, Editor-in-Chief of Cilisos
23. Dr Lim Chee Han, Coordinator, Manifesto Rakyat
24. Datin Fazar Arif, Pengasas, Pergerakan Orang Wanita Empowerment and Revolution (POWER)

 

An Open Letter To PM Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim On The Appointment Of New EC

9 May 2024