Bersatu Melawan Penganiayaan: Alumni Pengajian Gender Menentang Gangguan Seksual Di Universiti Malaya

/in , /by

Surat Terbuka kepada Universiti Malaya dan Kementerian Pengajian Tinggi Malaysia

Kami, alumni program MA Pengajian Gender, Fakulti Sastera dan Sains Sosial, dengan rasa sangat kesal ingin mendesak perhatian segera berhubung kes-kes gangguan seksual yang masih berulang di universiti. Terkini, satu laporan gangguan seksual melibatkan seorang pensyarah dari Institut Sains Matematik, Fakulti Sains yang dilaporkan menghantar gambar-gambar bogel dan melakukan gangguan seksual kepada beberapa orang pelajarnya. Pada 17 Disember 2024, Kelab Feminisme UM telah mengangkat isu ini, dan turut menekankan kebimbangan wujudnya pesalah laku gangguan seksual lain di beberapa fakulti lain. Kes-kes gangguan seksual yang terus berulang di sebuah institusi berprestij ini tidak boleh menjadi kebiasaan dan tidak sepatutnya diberi muka lagi.

Kes baru-baru ini bukanlah kes terpencil di kampus-kampus Institut Pengajian Tinggi (IPT) di Malaysia, terutamanya di UM. Statistik dari Kelab Feminisme UM menunjukkan bahawa 1 daripada 5 orang pelajar pernah mengalami gangguan secara seksual di kampus dan hanya 11.1 peratus daripada jumlah ini yang tampil membuat tindakan lanjut. Bahkan, sejak beberapa tahun lepas, telah terdapat beberapa kenyataan berhubung kes gangguan seksual, salah laku dan eksploitasi yang telah tular melibatkan pelajar dan staf universiti.

Contoh-contoh kes di atas hanyalah sebahagian daripada banyak lagi kes-kes gangguan seksual yang tidak dilaporkan oleh mangsa. Situasi ini disebabkan ketakutan memandangkan status mereka sebagai pelajar dan ketidakyakinan pada komitmen UM dalam menangani isu ini sebaiknya. Kes gangguan dan eksploitasi seksual ini menunjukkan betapa normalnya budaya rogol dan eksploitasi seksual ke atas pelajar dan betapa tidak selamatnya kampus universiti ini. Berulangnya kes sebegini juga membuktikan adanya masalah sistemik yang lebih mendasar sehingga kampus menjadi ruang yang berbahaya kepada wanita dan pelajar. Hal ini menjadi lebih parah rentetan kegagalan UM dalam menguatkuasakan kod tatakelakuan dan polisi berkaitan gangguan seksual secara berkesan.

Universiti Malaya dan Kementerian Pengajian Tinggi wajib mengambil langkah-langkah pantas dan drastik bagi menjamin keselamatan pelajar-pelajar supaya tidak terus berada dalam risiko gangguan dan penganiayaan.

Sepuluh tuntutan kami adalah seperti berikut:

  1. Kami mendesak penggantungan tugas segera terhadap mana-mana anggota fakulti yang dituduh dengan bukti yang kukuh sejurus selepas laporan dikemukakan. Tindakan ini penting untuk melindungi keamanan dan keselamatan pelajar lain sepanjang penyiasatan dilaksanakan.
  2. Meneliti semula dan menambah baik Kod Bebas Eksploitasi Penganiayaan dan Gangguan Seksual (KOD) supaya berfokus untuk melindungi dan memberdaya pemandiri (survivor-centric) dan bukannya melindungi reputasi universiti atau orang kena tuduh tersebut.  Antara penambahbaikan utama yang perlu dilakukan adalah mempercepat jangka masa proses aduan serta siasatan. Proses penelitian dan penambahbaikan Kod ini wajib melibatkan wakil dan badan pelajar berkaitan
  3. Kami mendesak supaya identiti pesalah laku seksual dikenal pasti dan dihebahkan secara umum sebagai mekanisme perlindungan kepada komuniti pelajar. Tindakan ini adalah langkah pencegahan dan tanda keseriusan universiti dalam menangani jenayah seksual di IPT.
  4. Kami menuntut ketelusan penuh berhubung hasil siasatan semua aduan kes gangguan seksual. Seluruh laporan penuh siasatan perlu dihebahkan secara umum memandangkan status UM ialah universiti awam. Siasatan juga wajib melibatkan pihak Kementerian Pengajian Tinggi. Penglibatan polis juga penting jika dipersetujui oleh pemandiri.
  5. Satu pejabat hal ehwal gangguan seksual atau ombudsman yang bebas ditubuhkan di universiti. Pejabat ini perlu berfungsi dengan autonomi sendiri tanpa terikat dengan pentadbiran universiti bagi memastikan kesaksamaan dalam menguruskan aduan berkaitan.
  6. Memberikan khidmat dan akses ujian kesihatan fizikal dan mental yang diperlukan pemandiri (survivor) kes salah laku seksual dengan kadar segera. Sokongan sebegini penting untuk proses pemulihan dan kesejahteraan pemandiri.
  7. Mewajibkan latihan tahunan tentang pencegahan gangguan seksual yang berkesan kepada semua staf dan pelajar universiti di setiap fakulti, jabatan dan kolej kediaman. Latihan tersebut haruslah merangkumi panduan yang praktikal berkaitan mengenal pasti gangguan, mekanisme aduan, cara membantu secara selamat dan sokongan kepada pemandiri serta menekankan maklumat penting yang terkandung dalam KOD.
  8. Menubuhkan satu jawatankuasa pemantau luar melibatkan alumni, pakar pengajian gender dan pakar perundangan untuk menyelia pengurusan universiti berkaitan kes gangguan seksual serta memastikan pematuhan amalan terbaik.
  9. Melakukan audit bebas secara berkala berkaitan bagaimana aduan gangguan seksual diuruskan. Laporan audit diterbitkan secara umum untuk menjamin akauntabiliti yang berterusan.
  10. Universiti menerbitkan satu laporan tahunan yang memperincikan situasi menyeluruh berkaitan bilangan aduan gangguan seksual yang diterima, proses lanjutan dan setiap hasil siasatan. Laporan ini adalah penting untuk membuktikan ketelusan dan akauntabiliti universiti dalam menangani masalah gangguan seksual.

Kami menyatakan solidariti dengan semua pemandiri gangguan seksual di Universiti Malaya dan menggesa universiti membuat tindakan segera yang tegas. Amatlah mustahak untuk setiap aduan yang dilaporkan disiasat dengan terperinci dan pesalah laku dipertanggungjawabkan sewajarnya. UM merupakan salah sebuah institusi akademik terbaik di Malaysia dengan majoriti pelajar dan staf merupakan perempuan. Oleh itu, adalah menjadi tanggungjawab dan tugas UM untuk memastikan keselamatan dan kesejahteraan komunitinya, terutamanya para pelajar.

Kami juga menggesa Kementerian Pengajian Tinggi untuk melaksanakan langkah tegas bagi mengekang gangguan seksual dan salah guna kuasa, terutamanya kes yang melibatkan pensyarah. Persekitaran akademik yang selamat dan saksama wajib diwujudkan. Terdapat kekangan yang menghalang para pemandiri daripada bersuara. Hal ini menuntut kepada wujudnya sistem sokongan yang lebih mendukung. Sistem sokongan ini perlu merangkumi akses kepada bantuan komprehensif seperti bantuan guaman, kaunseling dan perubatan. Hal ini bagi memastikan pemandiri menerima semua sokongan yang diperlukan untuk pulih dan mendapat keadilan. Tanpa sistem sebegini, kitaran penganiayaan dan pembungkaman akan terus berlaku, sekali gus menjatuhkan integriti institusi pendidikan kita.

 

Ditandatangani Oleh:

  1. Ayesha Sofia
  2. Davina Kho Siew Ping
  3. Fathul Jannah
  4. Jayamalar Samuel
  5. Harjinder Kler
  6. Nadirah Babji
  7. Nazreen Nizam
  8. Nur Adilla
  9. S. Indramalar

Disokong Oleh (Setakat 5pm, 20 Disember 2024):

  1. All Women’s Action Society (AWAM)
  2. AIDA (Autism Inclusiveness Direct Action Group)
  3. Amirah Mardhiah Abu Bakar (Individual)
  4. Amanda Shweeta Louis (Individual)
  5. Ana Jonessy (Individu)
  6. Animah Kosai, the Speaking Up Network
  7. Ahmad Mustaqim (Individu)
  8. Association of Women Lawyers
  9. Asma Mohammed Noor (Individu)
  10. Azman bin Baharudin (Individu)
  11. Bichara Malaya
  12. CBIB
  13. Choo Chon Kai (Individual)
  14. Centre for Independent Journalism
  15. Dari Dapur Cik Tipah
  16. Dayang Nurhazieqa Hamzani (individual)
  17. Department of Anthropology and Sociology
  18. Family Frontiers
  19. Gibbon Conservation Society
  20. Individual – Students
  21. Individual(s) in FASS, UM
  22. Individual(s) in Ministry of Health
  23. Individuals in Universiti Teknologi Sarawak
  24. Individual(s) in Astro Awani
  25. Initiative for Malaysian Humanitarian (INSAN)
  26. Ismail bin Mohammed Noor (Individu)
  27. Haslinah binti Yacob
  28. Hazman Baharom, penyelidik, Universiti Waseda; pensyarah, Universiti JF Oberlin
  29. HAYAT
  30. Ho Yock Lin (President, AWAM)
  31. HUSH Collective
  32. Jamie Yap (Parti Sosialis Malaysia)
  33. Jurnal Sang Pemula
  34. Kamariah Rahmah, Lawyer, UM Alumna
  35. Klima Action Malaysia (KAMY)
  36. Kau Ok Tak
  37. Kaiser Ho, Monsters Among Us
  38. Kemban Kolektif
  39. Kinana Media Sdn Bhd
  40. Knowledge and Rights for Young People through Safer Spaces (KRYSS) Network
  41. Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall’s (KLSCAH) Civil Rights Committee
  42. Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Youth (KLSCAH Youth)
  43. Legal Dignity
  44. Malaysian Doctors for Women & Children
  45. Malaysia First
  46. Malaysian Student and Community of Leeds
  47. Mariani ‘Bam’ Ramli (Individu)
  48. Matahari Books
  49. Monsters Among Us (MAU)
  50. Muhammad Ariff bin Isa (Individu)
  51. MY FAT SQUAD
  52. Najibah Abu Bakar (penterjemah dan penulis buku, Alumni MLIS UM)
  53. Nur Effa Qamariani (Individu)
  54. Nursyukrina Md Khalil (Individu)
  55. Othman bin Mohammed Noor (Individu)
  56. Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM)
  57. Persatuan Aktivis Sahabat Alam (KUASA)
  58. Persatuan Kesedaran Komuniti Selangor (EMPOWER)
  59. Pertubuhan Generasi Aspirasi Pemimpin Wanita Malaysia (GAP.MY)
  60. Pertubuhan Advokasi dan Kesejahteraan Pekak Malaysia
  61. Persatuan Martabat Untuk Semua Petaling Jaya
  62. Persatuan Staff Akademik Universiti Malaysia Pahang Al Sultan Abdullah (UMPSA)
  63. Pusat Pelajar Marhaen (PPM)
  64. Rachel Tan Mei Chien – Industrial Relations Consultant (Individu)
  65. Reproductive Rights Advocacy Alliance Malaysia (RRAAM)
  66. Reproductive Health Association of Kelantan
  67. Rubin Khoo (Individu)
  68. Rodziah binti Mansor (Individu)
  69. Rozita binti Lazim (Individu)
  70. Saiff bin Sunardi (Individu)
  71. Sofea bin Sunardi (Individu)
  72. Saya Anak Bangsa Malaysia [SABM]
  73. Sahabat Alam Malaysia (SAM)
  74. Sabah Women’s Action Resource Group (SAWO)
  75. Shakila Zen (Individu)
  76. Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM)
  77. Society for Equality, Respect, and Trust for All.
  78. SIUMAN Collective
  79. Sisters in Islam (SIS)
  80. StandUp Malaysia
  81. Siti Amah Ahmad (Individu)
  82. Safiyyah bin Sunardi (Individu)
  83. Shamin Ballazi (endorsing as an individual, Educator, UM Alumnus)
  84. Sya A. (endorsing as an individual, Autistic and Disability Rights Advocate)
  85. Salman bin Sunardi (Individu)
  86. Sunardi Janin (Individu)
  87. Suri Intelek (Individu)
  88. Wan Afifi Zawawie bin Wan Zakaria
  89. WN Khuzairey (Individu)
  90. Women’s Aid Organisation (WAO)
  91. Women’s March Malaysisa 2024
  92. University Malaya Association of New Youth (UMANY)
  93. Universiti Terbuka Anak Muda
  94. Zakiah Mohd Noor (Individu)
  95. Zikri Rahman, Koordinator Program Pusat Sejarah Rakyat

 

Layari:  Kenyataan Bersama berkaitan Kes Gangguan Seksual di Universiti Malaya

Criminalize Extrajudicial Killing, And Charge Law Enforcement Officers Involved In The Killing In Court, For It Is Court That Decides Guilt And Whether Any Defence Including Self Defence Will Succeed

/in , , /by

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)

Memorandum Bersama: Menuntut Siasatan Di Dawah Seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan Bagi Kematian Soosaimanicckam a/l Joseph

/in , /by

Soosaimanicckam a/l Joseph, telah meninggal dunia pada 19.5.2018 Hospital Angkatan Tentera Lumut sewaktu menjalani Latihan Pegawai Kadet Graduan Angkatan Tentera Laut Diraja Malaysia (“Latihan PKG TLDM”) di Kd Sultan Idris 1, Pangkalan Tentera Laut Diraja Malaysia, Lumut Perak.

Mendiang, yang hanya berumur 27 tahun sewaktu kematiannya, telah meninggal dunia hanya selepas seminggu menjalani Latihan PKG TLDM tersebut. Pemeriksaan kesihatan yang diambil oleh mendiang sebagai pra-syarat kepada Latihan PKG TLDM tersebut telah melaporkan bahawa mendiang tidak mempunyai apa-apa penyakit dan disahkan sihat.

Pada 29.7.2024 Mahkamah Tinggi Ipoh di dalam Rayuan Jenayah No.: AA-42(ORS)-5-07/2023 telah memutuskan bahawa kematian mendiang adalah disebabkan homisid (homicide) iaitu beliau telah dibunuh. Mahkamah juga memutuskan bahawa pembunuhan ini adalah akibat tindakan langsung pegawai-pegawai Tentera Laut Diraja Malaysia.

Lanjutan itu, pihak keluarga mendiang Soosaimanicckam telah pun membuat laporan polis di IPD Petaling Jaya pada 1.8.2024 (No. Repot: Pusat/005687/23) menuntut suatu siasatan pembunuhan di bawah seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan dijalankan susulan dari keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi Ipoh tersebut.

Sehingga kini, pihak keluarga mendiang tidak dihubungi oleh pihak polis dan tidak dimaklumkan sama ada siasatan sedang dijalankan atas kematian mendiang Soosamanicckam selaras dengan laporan tersebut dan keputusan oleh Mahkamah Tinggi Ipoh tersebut.

Oleh yang demikian, kami dari badan-badan yang disenaraikan di bawah menuntut seperti berikut:

  1. Suatu siasatan di bawah seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan dibuka dan dikendalikan oleh pasukan dari Ibu Pejabat Polis Diraja Malaysia di Bukit Aman.
  2. Suatu pasukan siasatan yang bebas dilantik untuk menjalankan siasatan tersebut.
  3. Bahawa siasatan yang dijalankan harus memberi pertimbangan sewajarnya kepada keputusan homisid yang diberikan oleh Mahkamah Tinggi Ipoh.
  4. Perkembangan siasatan dikomunikasikan kepada pihak keluarga untuk memastikan ketelusan siasatan.
  5. IPD Manjung memberi penjelasan berkenaan kegagalan untuk membuat siasatan yang telus dan menyeluruh bagi kematian Soosamainicckam pada tahun 2018.

KENYATAAN BERSAMA: SAIFUDDIN NASUTION HARUS DIPECAT SEGERA, BUKA SIASATAN TERHADAP KEMATIAN TEOH BENG HOCK DIBAWAH KANUN KESEKSAAN S.302

/in , /by

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

联署文告：赛夫丁应立即被开除 警方应援引刑法第302条文对赵明福死亡案展开调查

/in , /by

下列公民组织强烈谴责内政部长赛夫丁粉饰太平，谎称警方在赵明福正义之行期间出动武力，是为了维持秩序。我们认为赛夫丁因三项重大失败，不再适合担任内政部长一职，并要求其立即被撤职。

第一， 内政部长赛夫丁未能指示马来西亚皇家警察，根据刑法第302条文（谋杀），重新对参与赵明福死亡案的马来西亚反贪污委员会官员进行调查。

2014年，上诉法院裁定，赵明福的死亡是由“包括反贪会官员在内的一名或多名身份不明的人”造成，并建议警方重新展开调查。

自赵明福去世15年来，民联或希盟多次向赵家承诺，如果它们成功执政，将毫不犹豫地进行调查，并将嫌犯提控上庭。

然而，内政部长从未认真看待此案，也并未回应赵家的要求。政府的无为，迫使赵明福民主促进会（TBH-ADA）从Plaza Masalam（赵明福去世的地点）步行超过45公里到国会提呈备忘录，以便赵家的声音能够被当权者听见。

赵家不需要部长的怜悯，而是需要马来西亚皇家警察在赵明福死亡案件的调查中，采取坚决和有效的行动。15年后，特别是现在希盟已经掌握了行政权力，私下谈话或道歉对赵家来说毫无意义。

第二， 赛夫丁未能审查马来西亚皇家警察处理和平游行和集会的标准作业程序（SOP），导致警察暴力和参与者受伤。警察的暴力行为包括将参与者推到一边、拖拽参与者的衬衫、拉扯参与者的项链直至其呼吸困难，项链最终也被扯断，以及故意将参与者推倒在地。

值得一提的是，在国会大门前呈交备忘录并不是什么新鲜事，在纳吉执政期间，赵家便曾在国会大门外向国会议员呈交备忘录。

我们必须提醒希盟领导人，他们也曾被警察阻止进入国会、被警察暴力对待。我们不要忘记，警方曾于2021年8月2日阻止希盟领导人进入下议院。当时，希盟领袖也批评警方在国会封锁人民声音的行为。[1] 我们不要忘记，包括安华在内的希盟领袖曾在净选盟2.0集会期间成为警察暴力的受害者，警方的行为也受到强烈批评，当时的希盟并没有以维护公共秩序为由，为警方进行辩护。

无论在国会或净选盟2.0提交备忘录，都是值得庆祝的民主实践，联邦宪法下的和平集会权应该受到尊重而不是压制。昌明政府作为改革者领导的政府，应该更加进步，以促进和平游行或集会，而非反其道而行。

第三， 内政部长未能捍卫马来西亚的人权。赛夫丁在许多与人权相关课题上，一再表现出他的无能，包括警察不当行为和暴力、拘留所死亡、压迫巴瑶族社区、未经审判拘留、公民权、使用《煽动法令》和恐吓社运人士等问题。

赛夫丁对这些问题的立场和回应只是维持现状，并不关心民间社会或受影响群体的建议。他只表现出一个统治者的傲慢，按照自己的意愿和政治利益行事，这违背了本应保持开放态度并以人民利益优先的昌明大马。

内政部长拥有巨大权力并领导许多执法机构。我们强调，马来西亚人民需要一位能够尊重人权和维护正义的内政部长，而不是一个威胁人民安全的压迫者。基于以上原因，赛夫丁应立即被解除内政部长职务。

联署团体：

  1. 隆雪华青 KLSCAH Youth
  2. 马大新青年 (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. 隆雪华堂民权委员会 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] 以希盟为首的反对党要求慕尤丁辞去首相职务，因为他涉嫌违反联邦宪法并侮辱王室，包括首相署部长误导国会。

 

2024年7月22日

联署文告：赛夫丁应立即被解雇 警方应援引刑法第302条文对赵明福死亡案展开调查

 

联合文告：声援流浪动物基本权益，消除校园动物安全隐患

/in , /by

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

Access to Justice is a Fundamental Human Right

/in , /by

Rangkaian Solidariti Demokratik Pesakit Mental (SIUMAN) is perturbed by the recent news of a Deaf e-hailing driver being allegedly assaulted while working near KL Sentral on 28 May 2024. According to his account, the 46-year-old driver was punched in the face by a ‘VIP bodyguard’, resulting in soft tissue injury, which was diagnosed and treated at Kuala Lumpur Hospital. He was advised to file a police report, where at one point he was eventually given two options, i.e. to have his phone confiscated if he decides to proceed with the case, or to drop the case and be compensated. Under duress, the Deaf driver opted for the second option. Throughout his visit to the police station, he was also left unattended for hours, given no explanation as to why his phone was inspected for an extended period of time, and given no immediate access to a Malaysian Sign Language Interpreter to communicate and defend himself.

SIUMAN would like to draw attention to the jarring gaps in accessing justice for Persons with Disabilities (PWDs) as highlighted throughout this case. A disabled complainant’s right to communicate was withheld through action (confiscation of phone as assistive technology) and omission (unavailability of a competent sign language interpreter or other sufficient reasonable accommodations). Access to justice is a fundamental human right. It enables everyone, including PWDs, to live a dignified life. This case (and many others) points to an urgent need to address the gaps in accessing justice for PWDs.

The gaps in protection mentioned in the Malaysian Deaf Advocacy and Wellbeing Organisation’s (DAWN) statement affect all PWDs. Even though Malaysia has enacted the Persons with Disabilities Act in 2008, universal access, reasonable accommodations and discrimination protections are not mandated in any area of life. Section 30(3) in the PWD Act states: “The Government and the private sector shall accept and facilitate the use of Malaysia Sign Language, Braille, augmentative and alternative communication, and all other accessible means, modes and formats of communication of their choice by persons with disabilities in official transactions.”

However, Section 41 of the same Act precludes the government and state bodies from any remedial or court actions by stating: “No action, suit, prosecution or other proceedings shall lie or be brought, instituted or maintained in any court against the Government… …in respect of any act, neglect or default done or committed by him or it…” This is further supported by Section 42 of the Act which states: “The Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 [Act 198] shall apply to any action, suit, prosecution or proceedings against the Government… …in respect of any act, neglect or default done or committed by it…”

This clearly highlights the jarring contradiction and reluctance of the State to uphold disability rights.

Furthermore, Article 8(2) of the Federal Constitution on discrimination does not mention disability. The Federal Constitution was amended in 2001 to include gender as part of our obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). However, the same was not initiated for disability after Malaysia ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in 2010.

We have also arguably failed to domesticate the CRPD and its principles in Malaysian legislation. We had no reservations on Article 13 of the CRPD (Access to Justice), but it is apparent that we have not operationalised it. This all needs to change and justice must be accessible to everyone throughout the whole process. The International Principles and Guidelines on Access to Justice for Persons with Disabilities offers practical suggestions for the State to design and implement justice systems that provide equal access to justice for PWDs.

Multiple administrations have excluded PWDs from meaningful social participation in all areas of life, ignoring the promotion and protection of Disability Rights. We call upon the State and State Actors to view this incident with urgency and proactivity to ensure the rights of PWDs in Malaysia are protected. 

Pursuant to that call to action, SIUMAN has made several recommendations in the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process, that we hope will lead to better discrimination protections and mandated reasonable accommodations via policies and laws. All our materials and references can be downloaded from http://linktr.ee/KamiSIUMAN.

Our collective stands in solidarity with DAWN, our deaf peers, and the Deaf Community.

 

Endorsed by:

Organisations

  1. All Women’s Action Society (AWAM)
  2. Architects of Diversity
  3. Association of Women Lawyers
  4. Autism Inclusiveness Direct Action Group (AIDA)
  5. Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia (ABIM)
  6. Agora Society
  7. Aliran
  8. Association of Women with Disabilities Malaysia
  9. Boleh Space, Disabled-led Disability Rights Advocacy Movement
  10. Centre for Independent Journalism
  11. CRIB Foundation (Child Rights Innovation & Betterment)
  12. CYBHER Collective
  13. Demokrat UKM
  14. EMPOWER
  15. ENGAGE
  16. Family Frontiers
  17. Freedom Film Network
  18. Gegar
  19. Gabungan Pilihan Raya Bersih dan Adil (BERSIH)
  20. HAYAT
  21. Ikatan Mahasiswa Demokratik Malaysia (MDM)
  22. Jaringan Kampung Orang Asli Semenanjung Malaysia (JKOASM)
  23. Jentayu
  24. Justice for Sisters
  25. Kemban Kolektif (Intersectional Human Rights Activists)
  26. KauOKTak (Community Building and Mental Health Outreach for Teenagers)
  27. KRYSS Network
  28. Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall, Youth Section (KLSCAH Youth)
  29. Klima Action Malaysia – KAMY
  30. Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Deaf Media and Technology Association
  31. Kedah Sports Deaf Association
  32. Legal Dignity
  33. Mahasiswa Keadilan Malaysia
  34. MAJU Foundation
  35. Martabat PJ
  36. Malaysian Sign Language and Deaf Studies Association
  37. MUDA
  38. Mental Health Association of Sarawak
  39. Monsters Among Us (MAU)
  40. National Organisation of Malaysian Sign Language Instructors
  41. Negeri Sembilan Association of the Deaf
  42. North South Initiative
  43. Our Journey (Probono legal representation for migrants in labour immigration & criminal cases)
  44. Pusat Pembangunan Rakyat (MANDIRI)
  45. Persatuan Sahabat Wanita Selangor
  46. Project Stability and Accountability for Malaysia (Projek SAMA)
  47. Pemuda Sosialis PSM
  48. Pertubuhan Rangkaian Pembangunan Kesinambungan Malaysia (SUSDEN Malaysia)
  49. Parti Sosialis Malaysia
  50. Pusat KOMAS
  51. Persatuan Advokasi Diri Orang Bermasalah Pembelajaran Selangor & Kuala Lumpur (United Voice)
  52. Projek Wawasan Rakyat
  53. Persatuan Promosi Hak Asasi Manusia (PROHAM)
  54. PurpleLily Social Association Kuching
  55. Pergerakan Pemuda UMNO Bahagian Damansara
  56. Persatuan Ikatan Serikat Serantau (IKRAR)
  57. Saya Anak Bangsa Malaysia
  58. Sisters in Islam
  59. Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM)
  60. Sabah Deaf Muslim Association
  61. The OKU Rights Matter Project
  62. The Talisman Project
  63. Teater Untuk Semua
  64. Teoh Beng Hock Association for Democratic Advancement
  65. Women’s Centre for Change (WCC)
  66. Women’s Aid Organisation
  67. 3 June Onwards – Development of Human Resources for Rural Areas (DHRRA)

Individuals

  1. Ali Amir Razali
    Political Activist
  2. Amin Zuhaili Bin Mansor
    Deaf Advocate
  3. Adrian Pereira
    Executive Director, North South Initiative, PWD Rights Advocate
  4. Albert Wong Tuong Chui
    Deaf Advocate
  5. Beatrice Leong
    Autistic Rights Advocate, Founder Autism Inclusiveness Direct Action Group (AIDA)
  6. Bathmavathi Krishnan
    Wheelchair user, Senator representing Persons with Disabilities in the Upper House, Parliament of Malaysia (2013-2016; 2016-2019)
  7. Calysta Tay
    BIM Interpreter, PWD Ally
  8. Christopher Yap
    Deaf Person
  9. Dr. Ikmal Hisham Md Tah
    Legal Academic, Disability Law Researcher
  10. Dr. Vilashini Somiah
    Feminist anthropologist, PWD ally
  11. Dr. Benjamin YH Loh
    Digital media researcher, PWD ally
  12. Dunstan SG Lim
    Sarawak OKU Skills Development Association (SOSDA), Disabled Disability Advocate & Person with Lived Experience
  13. Dayangku Syarizat
    Person With Lived Experience
  14. Dr. Lim Chee Han
    Public health researcher, Manifesto Rakyat coordinator
  15. Datin PH Wong
    Childline Foundation
  16. Durrah Sharifah Ahmad Azlan
    Mental Health Advocate
  17. Freida Pilus
    Chairman, Cempaka Education Group
    President, Persatuan Siswazah Wanita Malaysia
  18. Gigi Teoh
    Hearing ally, a member of JupeBIM, an employer to 4 deaf persons
  19. Hasbeemasputra Abu Bakar
    Disabled Disability Advocate & Person With Lived Experience
  20. Ho Lee Ching
    Theater Maker
  21. Iskandar Khoo Kuan Yiaw
    Ketua badan Perhubungan Perikatan Nasional Kawasan Kepong
  22. ‘Izz Daenie
    Disability Justice Advocate
    Person With Lived Experience
  23. Jonah Ong
    Deaf Advocate/BIM Interpreter, Human Rights Activist
  24. Jessica Mak Wei-E
    Deaf Advocate
  25. Joan Sim Jo Jo
    Social Worker, Advocate for the Deaf, BIM Interpreter
  26. Khor Ai-Na
    CEO, Asia Community Service
  27. Kelvin Lee
    KLSCAH Youth
  28. Koh Lianne
    E-Hailing Driver
  29. Kaveinthran
    Native Blind person, Independent disabled human rights activist
  30. Kya Cahya
    Human Rights Advocate, Activist
  31. Lavinia Abirami
    ⁠Deaf Person With Lived Experience Global Institute For Tomorrow
  32. Leong Wai Min
    Deaf Person, e-hailing driver
  33. Lee Siow Hua, Declan,
    RRC Grab team (Rakan Representative Community for Klang Valley Deaf drivers)
  34. Leben Siddarth
    Ketua Penerangan MUDA
  35. Lee Nyook Loong
    Deaf Person, E-hailing Driver
  36. Laura Kho
    Mental health policy consultant, Mind Brew, PWD ally
  37. Muhammad Mustaqim bin Badrul Hisham
    Person With Lived Experience
  38. Muhamad Nadhir Abdul Nasir
    Independent disability issues consultant & researcher
  39. Murugeswaran Veerasamy
    President, Damai Disabled Person Association Malaysia
  40. Meera Samanther
    Co-Chair of Ad Hoc Committee on Persons with Disability, Bar Council
  41. Maizan Binti Mohd Salleh
    President, Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Albinism Association
  42. Mohd Asraf Sharafi Mohd Azhar
    PWD Ally
  43. Maria Chin Abdullah
    Social activist
  44. Mutharasapan a/l Lakshmanan
    Deaf Advocate
  45. Marzuki Ong bin Maliki Ong
    Deaf Advocate
  46. Mohamad Faezal Bin Muktar,
    Chairman, Persatuan Ikatan Serikat Serantau (IKRAR)
  47. Mimie Rahman
    Managing Director & Registered Counsellor,
    MINDAKAMI
  48. Ng Lai-Thin
    Dementia care partner, Project Lead of National Early Childhood Intervention Council, Member of The OKU Rights Matter Project.
  49. Nurafirah Jaharuddin
    Master Student, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
  50. Ong Hwei Ling
    Deaf Advocate
  51. Nasrul Noor
    Disability Advocate
  52. Norman Goh
    Person With Lived Experience
  53. Ong Hwei Ling, Annie
    President of National of Organisations Malaysia Sign Language Instructors (NowBIM)
    Deaf Advocate
    Co-founder DAWN
    RRC Grab (Rakan Representative Community for Klang Valley Deaf drivers)
  54. Prof. Wong Chin Huat
    Political scientist; Member, Projek SAMA
  55. Quah Jia Tian
    President of Universiti Malaya Student Union, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    Vice President of YouthCare Malaysia
  56. Sofea Rozhan
    Founder, untuksemua.my
  57. Sharifah Tahir
    Dementia and care partner advocate, founder of UMI, Dementia Care and Resource Center
  58. Shawn Sharif
    Patient Advocate & person with lived experience
  59. Srividhya Ganapathy
    Co-chairperson CRIB Foundation
  60. SK Lee
    Deaf Person
  61. Shane Capri
    Human and Animal Rights Advocate
    Disabled Disability Advocate
  62. Sya A.
    Autistic Self-Advocate & Person With Lived Experience
  63. Shah Fariq Aizal Sha Ghazni
    Entrepreneur
    Director of Private Security Firm
    Member of Generation Democracy (Malaysia Chapter)
    Committee Member of Asia Pacific Security Association (Malaysia Chapter)
  64. Sariah Ibrahim
    Deaf Advocate
  65. Tay Chia Yi
    Speech-language therapist, Malaysian Association of Speech-language & Hearing (MASH)
  66. Thilaga Sulathireh
    Researcher
  67. Tashny Sukumaran
    Human Rights advocate
  68. Wong Yan Ke
    Human Rights Defender
  69. Yana Karim
    Boleh Space Co-Founder, Disabled Disability Rights Advocate
  70. Yuenwah San
    Disability Rights Advocate, Dementia care partner, Co-Founder Member, The OKU Rights Matter Project
  71. Yeong Moh Foong
    Senior Job Coach Trainer
  72. 3 June Onwards
    Munira Mustaffa & Mustaffa Family Lived Experience
  73. Pong Chang Khim
    Deaf Advocate
  74. Mohamad Burhanudin bin Mohamad Zamri
    PWD Ally
  75. Rafeeqa binti Ruslan
    PWD Ally
  76. Lim Heng Tuck
    Deaf Advocate
  77. Christine Lee,
    Wheelchair User and Polio Survivor
  78. Dr Sean Thum
    Independent Public Health Advocate
  79. Azad Akbar Khan
    Ketua Biro Polisi MUDA Selangor

EN – Access to Justice is a Fundamental Human Right – June 2024

停止打压明福组织 改革警队刻不容缓

/in , /by

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

Surat Terbuka Kepada YAB Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, Perdana Menteri Malaysia

/in , /by

Kami, pertubuhan masyarakat sivil, badan pemikir dan kumpulan mahasiswa menyatakan kegusaran terhadap pelantikan Pengerusi Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya (SPR) yang baharu. Pengerusi sekarang, Abdul
Ghani Salleh, akan bersara wajib pada 9 Mei 2024 sekaligus menjadikan kerusi terpenting di dalam SPR akan dikosongkan. Hari ini juga kebetulannya adalah ulang tahun keenam PRU14 di mana Malaysia
mengalami perubahan secara demokratik buat pertama kalinya, namun reformasi pilihan raya masih belum menampakkan sebarang tanda-tanda.

SPR merupakan badan yang utama untuk menjalankan dan mengawal selia pilihan raya di Malaysia, termasuklah mengemaskini daftar pemilih serta melakukan persempadanan pilihan raya. Dua Ahli Pesuruhjaya SPR di bawah pentabdiran Kerajaan Perpaduan, iaitu Datuk Haji Sapdin bin Ibrahim dan Datuk Dr Lee Bee Phang, telah dilantik tanpa melalui Parlimen justeru melanggar manifesto baik Pakatan Harapan mahupun Barisan Nasional. Hal ini tidak boleh diulangi lagi bagi melantik Pengerusi SPR yang baharu kerana risikonya lebih besar.

Pengerusi SPR mempunyai kuasa dan budi bicara yang luas untuk memimpin Suruhanjaya ini dalam menzahirkan rancangan reformasi pilihan raya. Bukan setakat itu sahaja, Pengerusi SPR baharu juga  akan berhadapan dengan beban baharu untuk menyelesaikan isu persempadanan semula kawasan pilihan raya selepas pelaksanaan Undi18 dan pendaftaran pengundian secara automatik (PPSA). Kedua-dua Undi18 dan PPSA telah menambahkan 6.23 juta pengundi baharu ke dalam daftar pengundi PRU15 (dan dijangka akan terus meningkat sehingga PRU16), sekaligus memperburuk pembahagian kawasan tidak sekata (malapportionment) di Malaysia. Hal ini menatijahkan:

  1. Ketidaksamaan undi: Sebagai contoh, 1 undi di kawasan Bangi hanya mempunyai nilai ⅕ 1 undi berbanding di kawasan Sabak Bernam – di negeri Selangor yang sama, yang melanggar Jadual ke-13 Perlembagaan Persekutuan
  2.  Agihan peruntukan yang tidak setara kepada Ahli Parlimen: Terdapat perbezaan yang ketara antara tanggungjawab wakil rakyat dan pengagihan peruntukan yang tidak sama rata. Sebagai contoh: Jika setiap MP menerima RM 100,000 untuk berkhidmat di kawasan mereka, setiap pengundi di Tebrau hanya menerima 0.45 sen berbanding RM 2 setiap seorang di Labis, di negeri Johor yang sama).

Kami mempunyai data untuk menunjukkan bahawa PPSA dan Undi18 akan terus memperburuk malapportionment (lihat jadual di bawah). Hal ini memerlukan pelakaran semula kawasan pilihan raya,
yang boleh bermula sekarang di Sarawak, 2025 di Sabah dan 2026 di Semenanjung Malaysia. Pengerusi SPR perlu memimpin SPR untuk melakukan persempadanan bagi menyelesaikan isu-isu ini. Jika dibiar
tanpa dicegah, perkara ini akan menyebabkan kekecewaan dan kesinisan sekaligus menghakis penyertaan pengundi.

 

Jadual 1: Kesan Undi18 dan PPSA terhadap malapportionmen

Negeri Nisbah antara kawasan
pilihan raya terbesar dan
terkecil pada PRU15 		 Nisbah antara kawasan
pilihan raya terbesar dan
terkecil di pada PRU14 

 

 Kesan
Malapportionment
Perlis 1.24 1.21 teruk
Kedah 2.82 2.64 teruk
Kelantan 2.50 2.34 teruk
Terengganu 1.59 1.46 teruk
Penang 2.29 1.85 teruk
Perak 3.89 3. 62 teruk
Pahang 2.62 2.77 baik
Selangor 5.88 4.38 teruk
KL 1.56 1.44 teruk
Negeri Sembilan 2.64 2.27 teruk
Malacca 2.37 2.47 baik
Johor 4.48 3.43 teruk
Sabah 2.66 2.19 teruk
Sarawak 5.06 4.18 teruk
Malaysia 10.73 9.13 teruk

Sumber: Prof Wong Chin Huat and Ooi Kok Hin

Maka, kami menggesa dan mengusulkan kepada Kerajaan Perpaduan yang dipimpin YAB Datuk Seri untuk segera melaksanakan langkah berikut:

  1.  Mengumumkan pelantikan Pengerusi SPR baharu akan dicalonkan dan disaring melalui penubuhan Jawatankuasa Tetap Parlimen Hal Ehwal Pilihan Raya. Jawatankuasa Tetap ini perlu melibatkan Ahli Parlimen dwipartisan, serta menetapkan proses dan kriteria pelantikan Pengerusi SPR baharu yang jelas. Hanya selepas kelulusan parlimen, calon akan dipersembahkan kepada Yang di-Pertuan Agong (YDPA) untuk pelantikan rasmi.
  2. Memastikan bahawa calon mematuhi kriteria seperti adil, berintegriti, mempunyai minda dan iltizam untuk melaksanakan reformasi, tidak mempunyai keahlian atau memegang jawatan utama dalam parti politik, serta paling utama kompeten dan berpengetahuan dalam hal ehwal pilihan raya.
  3. Memanggil sidang khas parlimen jika perlu untuk memulakan proses lantikan ini.

Proses yang adil dan telus dalam pelantikan Pengerusi SPR adalah demi kepentingan negara, termasuk juga kerajaan. Semua Ahli Parlimen termasuk Ahli Parlimen pembangkang wajib diberikan ruang untuk
menyatakan pandangan kepada pelantikan jawatan utama kerajaan seperti ini supaya dapat mengurangkan persepsi campur tangan partisan di dalam pelaksanaan persempadanan yang akan
datang. Bagi mencegah persempadanan pilihan raya menjadi polemik 3R (yang dapat membengkak menjadi ICERD 2.0), langkah pertama adalah untuk membenarkan proses pencalonan dan pelantikan
Pengerusi SPR baharu yang dwipartisan.

Keputusan kini di tangan YAB Datuk Seri sekarang untuk mengumumkan dan melaksanakan reformasiini. YAB Datuk Seri perlu sedar pemilihan Pengerusi SPR seterusnya akan membentuk nilai undi untuk
dasawarsa yang akan datang. Kami menanti respon YAB Datuk Seri.

 

Kenyataan bersama:
Pertubuhan Masyarakat Sivil (CSO)

1. Gabungan Pilihan Raya Bersih dan Adil (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. Institut Demokrasi dan Hal Ehwal Ekonomi (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)

Individu:
1. Dr Wong Chin Huat, Professor, Sunway University
2. Ms Sahilah Ain Sathakathulla
3. Ho Yock Lin, presiden AWAM
4. Cikgu Rahayu, pengasas Buku Jalanan Chow Kit
5. Datuk Dr Toh Kin Woon, former Penang State exco
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
18. Shah Fariq Aizal Sha Ghazni
19. Brenda Yong Ping Ping
20. Lim Wei Jiet, Peguam
21. Maha Balakrishnan, Pakar Hal Ehwal Parlimen
22. Iqbal Fathki, Ketua Editor Cilisos
23. Dr Lim Chee Han, Koordinator Manifesto Rakyat
24. Datin Fazar Arif, Pengasas, Pergerakan Orang Wanita Empowerment and Revolution (POWER)

 

Surat Terbuka Kepada YAB Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, Perdana Menteri Malaysia

9 Mei 2024

An Open Letter to Prime Minister Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim on The Appointment of New Election Commission Chairperson

/in , /by

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