I. Introduction

We, the undersigned civil society organisations (CSOs) and individuals, urge the government to speed up the tabling of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Bill and to establish an independent Information Commission as the oversight body.

On 14 November, Datuk Zamri Misman, Director General of the Legal Affairs Division in the Prime Minister’s Department of Malaysia, announced that the government will table the Ombudsman Malaysia Bill and the Freedom of Information (FOI) Bill in 2026 rather than during the current Parliamentary session, citing the need for further engagement. While consultation is welcome, we are deeply concerned by the recent parliamentary response from the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Institutional Reform), Dato’ Sri Azalina Othman Said.

The Minister stated that the Ombudsman is intended to address weaknesses in complaint management and whistleblower protection systems. However, by consolidating the functions of the Public Complaints Bureau (BPA) and the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC) under a single Ombudsman, the FOI mandate risks being relegated to a secondary or marginalised role. This would severely undermine the transformative potential of FOI as a standalone right and a core pillar of democratic governance.

We therefore strongly caution against subsuming the FOI oversight function under the Ombudsman structure.

II. Need for an Independent Information Commission

We reaffirm our position that oversight of the right to information must be housed in a dedicated, independent Information Commission rather than placed under the Ombudsman. This position is grounded in the following key considerations:

1. Case Volume & Timeliness

International experience demonstrates that FOI oversight requires significant time and focused institutional attention. As emphasised by Prof. John McMillan, Australia’s inaugural Information Commissioner, during the RTI Roundtable organised by the Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ) on 20 June 2025, even well-functioning Ombudsmen face significant challenges when FOI responsibilities are added to their already extensive caseloads. In both South Australia and Tasmania, FOI matters consumed a disproportionate share of Ombudsman resources, inevitably diverting attention from their other core mandates.

FOI must not be treated as an administrative afterthought. Malaysia needs a body that can respond swiftly and consistently, especially given the country’s historically opaque information ecosystem.

2. Enforcement Powers

Effective FOI regimes depend on an independent commission grounded in human rights principles, with enforceable oversight. An Information Commission must have:

• Power to compel disclosure of information
• Authority to issue binding orders and impose sanctions for non-compliance

Traditionally, Ombudsmen only issue non-binding recommendations, which public agencies may ignore with few consequences. Although the exercise of such soft power might be useful in encouraging broader policy changes, it may not be as effective in compelling disclosure of information. Embedding FOI under a body without enforcement power risks producing a weak, symbolic system rather than one capable of meaningfully shifting government culture toward transparency.

3. To ensure independence and prevent political interference

FOI oversight must be structurally independent from the Executive to avoid political interference. The Commission should be directly accountable to Parliament, not to the government of the day. A body nested under the Ombudsman, whose mandate is already tied to executive-facing complaints systems, lacks the necessary autonomy to adjudicate politically sensitive requests, including those involving influential ministries or agencies.

4. Technical Expertise

FOI decisions require specialised skills in balancing:

• National security considerations
• Privacy and data protection
• Public interest tests
• Classification and declassification standards

A dedicated Information Commission would be able to recruit, train, and retain officers with the niche competencies required to safeguard the right to information. Such expertise is absent within a generalist Ombudsman institution.

III. Proposed Structure of the Information Commission

1.  Composition and Appointment

We propose a Commission comprising up to seven members, including a Chair and Deputy Chair with gender balance and proven experience in information governance, human rights, law, or public administration. Appointments must follow a transparent, merit-based process involving proper consultation. Commissioners should serve fixed five-year terms with stringent disqualification and conflict-of-interest rules.

2. Functions and Powers

To ensure the Commission is effective:

• Its decisions must be binding with the force of High Court orders, subject only to judicial review.
• It must have clear powers to enforce disclosure, issue penalties, and direct reforms within public bodies.
• Oversight by the Parliamentary Special Select Committee on Human Rights, Election and Institutional Reform should apply to appointments, removals, reporting, and compliance.

3. Reporting Line

The Commission must report directly to Parliament, not to the Executive. Its annual reports should evaluate agency compliance, identify systemic barriers, and recommend policy reforms.

4. Budget

The Commission must receive a dedicated allocation from the annual federal budget through the Ministry of Finance to ensure operational stability and independence.

IV. Way Forward

In an era of escalating misinformation and disinformation, the public’s ability to access accurate, timely and complete government-held information is indispensable. Although Selangor and Penang have enacted state FOI laws, these frameworks remain limited, particularly due to the overarching reach of the Official Secrets Act (OSA) 1972 and inconsistent implementation.

A standalone FOI Bill, paired with a fully independent Information Commission, is critical to ensuring robust oversight, enforcement, and public trust. The Commission must oversee:

• Implementation of the FOI law
• Appeals and dispute resolution
• Monitoring and enforcement
• Institutional training
• Public engagement and awareness
• Standardised, fair fee structures

This model is both workable and progressive, and it aligns with global best practices. Given Malaysia’s increasingly restrictive information landscape, delays are unacceptable.

We therefore call on the Government of Malaysia to: Commit to a clear and public timeline for tabling the FOI Bill and establishing an independent Information Commission, specifically to ensure it remains separate from the Ombudsman Bill.

The multi-stakeholder Protem Committee tasked with drafting the FOI Bill can guide the inclusion of the Commission’s formation within the FOI Bill.

This letter is undersigned on 3 December 2025 by:

Organisations

1. Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ)
2. ARTICLE 19
3. Sinar Project
4. The Center to Combat Corruption and Cronyism (C4 Center)
5. Agora Society Malaysia
6. Aliran
7. Architects of Diversity (AOD)
8. Beyond Borders
9. Borneo Speaks
10. Building Initiatives in Indigenous Heritage (BIIH)
11. Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections (BERSIH)
12. Federation of Alumni Associations of Taiwan Universities, Malaysia (FAATUM)
13. Freedom Film Network
14. Gabungan Bertindak Malaysia (GBM)
15. Gerakan Media Merdeka (GERAMM)
16. Kemban Kolektif
17. KL and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall (KLSCAH) Youth
18. KLRA+SD (Persatuan Kebajikan Kelestarian Komuniti Kuala Lumpur /Kuala Lumpur Residents Action for Sustainable Development Association)
19. KLSCAH civil right committee
20. Lawyer Kamek
21. Malaysiakini
22. MARTABAT UNTUK SEMUA PETALING JAYA
23. North South Initiative
24. Persatuan Kesedaran Komuniti Selangor (EMPOWER)
25. Persatuan Pemangkin Daya Masyarakat (ROSE)
26. Persatuan Petaling Jaya Lestari
27. PJ Sejahtera
28. PSM
29. PUSAT KOMAS
30. Reproductive Rights Advocacy Alliance Malaysia (RRAAM)
31. Sabah Youth Movement (SYM)
32. SAVE Rivers
33. SIS Forum
34. SIUMAN Collective
35. Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM)
36. Tenaganita
37. Teoh Beng Hock Association for Democratic Advancement (TBH-ADA)
38. Treat Every Environment Special (TrEES)
39. University of Malaya Association of New Youth
40. ⁠Women’s Aid Organisation

Individuals

1. Andrew Khoo
2. Beatrice Leong, gender-disability activist, independent documentary filmmaker
3. Dr Chang Teck Peng, Associate Professor, Tunku Abdul Rahman University of Management and Technology (TAR UMT) (Individual)
4. Dr. Chong Wu Ling, Senior Lecturer, Universiti Malaya
5. Dr. Gayathry Venkiteswaran, Assistant Professor, University of Nottingham Malaysia
6. Dr. Khoo Ying Hooi, Associate Professor, Universiti Malaya
7. Dr. Mahyuddin Ahmad, Lecturer, Universiti Sains Malaysia
8. Dr G Manimaran, Media Consultant
9. ⁠Fatimah Merican
10. Honey Tan
11. Jernell Tan, Activist
12. Mahi Ramakrishnan
13. Maria Chin Abdullah
14. Marina Mahathir
15. Norman Goh, journalist
16. Parimala A/P Nesamany, Chairperson, Residents Association of Section 22 Petaling Jaya
17. Rashidah Shuib, Professor Emerita, Universiti Sains Malaysia
18. S.S. Yoga, Freelance journalist/editor
19. Voon Zhen Yi
20. Yuwana Podin, social activist
21. Zaharom Nain, Adjunct Professor, University Malaya (Individual)
22. Zainah Anwar

 

READ THE FULL OPEN LETTER HERE

Thailand must refuse to allow its criminal courts to be used for SLAPP actions by anyone, even fellow ASEAN member States

We, the 44 undersigned groups and organizations call upon the Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, Communication Minister Fahmi Fadzil and the Malaysian government of Malaysia to forthwith withdraw the  SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) criminal complaint and case against Human Rights Defender(HRD) and social commentator Murray Hunter, that was lodged in Thailand by the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission(MCMC), a government entity, that has now resulted in Murray Hunter being charged and indicted for criminal defamation in the Thailand Criminal Courts.(Star,3/10/2025).

Murray is now facing a criminal charge of defamation under Section 328 (defamation by publication) of the Thai Criminal Code, where if he is found guilty, he shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine not exceeding two hundred thousand Baht or to both. By reason of this charge, he, who was arrested on 29/9/2025, and after a night in jail he was freed on bail of 20,000 baht, his passport was confiscated and he is not allowed to leave Bangkok pending the outcome of legal proceedings.(Bangkok Post, 18/11/2025)

Murray was indicted on 17/11/2025 for 4 charges of publishing four articles on his Substack blog about the MCMC, which means he is liable for a maximum of 8 years imprisonment and a fine of 800,000 Baht (about USD25,000) if convicted. The trial is now fixed to begin on 22/12/2025 after being indicted on a charge of defaming the Malaysian.(Bangkok Post, 18/11/2025) (THLR Website)

Use of SLAPP action by any Government is UNACCEPTABLE

It is shocking that this SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) against a HRD, which are usually used by alleged perpetrators that are private corporations and powerful individuals, is shockingly now used by a State – the Malaysian government, via the MCMC.

A SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) is the use of lawsuits (criminal or civil suits) filed to silence individuals or groups who speak out on issues of public importance. These lawsuits can be brought by various entities, including governments or government-affiliated bodies, to intimidate and financially drain critics, journalists, activists, and public officials – and also to DETER other HRDs from highlighting wrongs in the future.

‘In international law, States assume the duties to respect, to protect and to fulfil human rights. Under those obligations, States shall not only refrain from engaging in abusive lawsuits, but also take positive measures to ensure that third parties do not use SLAPPs as tools to silence those exerting legitimately their rights to freedom of opinion and expression as well as freedom of peaceful assembly and association.’ – UN Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner’s report entitled The impact of SLAPPs on human rights & how to respond

Some countries have recently rightly moved towards enacting anti-SLAPP laws, which have been adopted in common law, civil law and mixed legal systems, including the United States, Canada, Australia, Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand.

In Thailand, ‘the Royal Thai Government Gazette has officially published the Organic Act on Anti-Corruption (No. 2), B.E. 2568 (2025), with the primary aim of strengthening protections for whistleblowers and fostering greater public participation in the fight against corruption. The law now explicitly incorporates Anti-SLAPP principles, shielding individuals who, in good faith, report wrongdoing, provide evidence, or express opinions that aid in official duties or pertain to offences under the National Anti-Corruption Commission(NACC)’s jurisdiction (Bangkok Post, 6/6/2025). More Anti-SLAPP laws are imminent.

Murray raises concerns, amongst others, as to whether the Malaysia’s MCMC have been faithfully carrying out its statutory duties. Concern raised about whether there is preferential treatment of certain persons and/or entities, including companies linked to existing MCMC Commissioners.  Rightly, MCMC and other relevant authorities should be investigating allegations and/or concerns raised by Murray, and not ‘attacking’ such whistle blowers and those who highlight possible wrongdoings or shortcomings.

In this case, a perusal of the charges in Thailand Criminal Court, as found in the Thai Lawyers For Human Rights website, suggests that this case falls within the scope of falls within the scope of the Anti-SLAPP principles of Thailand. This must be considered a matter of public interest as it relates about alleged abuses, wrongdoings, failures and mis-governance of this Malaysian law enforcement body, the MCMC.

Further, the MCMC itself has a portal called  sebenarnya.my , whereby it analyses alleged ‘fake’ news, and informs the public why it is false citing credible sources. As such, if and when Murray had published/circulated any alleged ‘fake news’, this portal ought to have been used to debunk any falsehood with credible evidence – and not the use of SLAPP actions against Murray. Did MCMC even use their own mechanism, when it came to Murray Hunter’s allegedly false statements, and if not, why?

Malaysia Has the Duty To Protect HR Defenders – Not Act Against Them

Malaysia, as any United Nation member State, has the duty and obligation to protect Human Rights Defenders, their freedom of expression including their right to raise issues of alleged wrongdoings or issues of mis-governance more so after the UNITED NATIONS General Assembly on 8/3/1998 by resolution adopted the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms(commonly known as the UN Human Rights Defenders Declaration)

Murray Hunter, a former lecturer in University Malaysia in the State of Perlis,  is a HR Defender, who has the freedom of expression and opinion, and also do have the right to highlight or ‘…to complain about the policies and actions of individual officials and governmental bodies with regard to violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms…’.

All States, including Malaysia, has the duty to protect HR Defenders. ‘The State shall take all necessary measures to ensure the protection by the competent authorities of everyone, individually and in association with others, against any violence, threats, retaliation, de facto or de jure adverse discrimination, pressure or any other arbitrary action as a consequence of his or her legitimate exercise of the rights referred to in the… HR Defenders Declaration (Art.12(2) HR Defenders Declaration).

‘In this connection, everyone is entitled, individually and in association with others, to be protected effectively under national law in reacting against or opposing, through peaceful means, activities and acts, including those by omission, attributable to States that result in violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms…’ (Art. 12(3)).

The State have NO ‘…right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of the rights and freedoms…’ of any HR Defender. (Art. 19)

As such it was wrong for the Malaysia through MCMC to take any retaliatory action against HRD Murray Hunter, even if or when he raised issues or concerns about MCMC, the police or even the government – as he, like any other persons or HR Defenders, has the right to also raise omissions or actions of any government body or person.

Transborder SLAPP Attack by Government Through Criminal Action in Another Country Is An Appalling Violation of Human Rights

The allegation of CRIME committed by Murray to date has not led to any criminal charges being filed in the Malaysian criminal courts, and that means that the Malaysian police and/or law enforcement, and/or the Public Prosecutor did not find it a crime, or did not find sufficient evidence to charge him for criminal defamation or any other crimes in Malaysia after MCMC filed a a police report in Malaysia on or about 24/4/2024, (MCMC Website). According to said MCMC’s Statement it said, amongst others, that Murray in his writings allegedly was ‘accusing MCMC of acting beyond its jurisdiction for self-interest. He also accused MCMC and PDRM of intimidating the public.’(‘…menuduh MCMC bertindak melangkaui bidang kuasanya untuk kepentingan diri. Beliau turut melemparkan tohmahan bahawa MCMC dan PDRM bertindak menakut-nakutkan Masyarakat….).

Malaysia not charging Murray for the crime of criminal defamation may be similar to the situation that the led to the Malaysian Attorney-General’s Chambers issuing ‘… “No Further Action” directive against Bloomberg, following Bloomberg’s report claiming that the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission acted on the Prime Minister’s instructions in investigating certain individuals. Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Institutional Reform) Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said, in a written parliamentary reply, stated that the directive was issued as “there was insufficient evidence in the investigation papers…”(Vibes, 5/11/2025).

Whilst Malaysia itself did not commence any criminal action, oddly Thailand, acting on the Malaysian government’s criminal complaint, has now charged Murray for criminal defamation. Are the legal standards in Malaysia not the same as Thailand?

SOVEREIGNITY and using laws of other countries to prosecute crimes against Government?

For Malaysian government and government entities, they should only be using the Malaysian law – and never the laws or the administration of criminal justice mechanism or processes in some other jurisdiction or country, which may be also be different from the laws and rules in Malaysia.

The Malaysian Federal Constitution states that ‘(1) No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law (Art. 5(1), and also that ‘(1) No person shall be punished for an act or omission which was not punishable by law when it was done or made, and no person shall suffer greater punishment for an offence than was prescribed by law at the time it was committed.(Art. 7(1)).

The ‘LAW’ referred to in the Malaysian Constitution is the Malaysian Law – not the Laws of Thailand, or the Laws of any other country. It must be the Malaysian Law, the Malaysian Courts – more so when the alleged victim of the crime is the Malaysian government or its entity as in this case.

To use other country’s laws, which are most likely different from Malaysia’s own laws, legal standards and court processes may be seen as an unconstitutional act, disrespecting Malaysia’s own sovereignty and Malaysian laws.

If Malaysia wanted to charge Murray Hunter for ‘Criminal Defamation’, then it should do so in Malaysia but law enforcement decided not to until now.

Remember, Malaysia could have investigated Murray Hunter in Malaysia, and even charged him in Malaysia if it was a crime, or there was sufficient evidence.  If Malaysia wanted Murray Hunter in Malaysia, they could have applied to get Thailand to send Murray to Malaysia.

Even if Murray Hunter could not be physically brought to Court, Malaysian law today allows for him to be charged in the Malaysian courts and Malaysia’s Section 425A of the Criminal Procedure Code allows a trial to proceed if the accused fails or refuses to attend.

Thus, we call on Malaysia to justly stop or cause the withdrawal of the criminal defamation case against Murray Hunter in Thailand, initiated by the actions of Malaysian government’s MCMC.

If Malaysia withdraws the criminal complaint, and inform the Thailand Courts, most likely the criminal charges against Murray will be dropped in Thailand.

Malaysia – BAD and Dangerous Precedence of use of SLAPP against HRDs

To date, no corporation or powerful individuals in Malaysia has resorted to using SLAPP actions against HRDs in other jurisdictions, other than in Malaysia using Malaysia’s laws and courts, and, as such, this criminal SLAPP action is a dangerous UNJUST PRECEDENT by the Malaysian government. It may lead to possible future SLAPP actions against HRDs in Malaysia by private companies and persons in Malaysia also using laws and courts in other countries?

Thus, we, the undersigned groups and organizations,

A. Call on the Malaysian government, and/or the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) to forthwith cause to withdraw the criminal complaint and criminal defamation case against HRD Murray Hunter in Thailand criminal courts,

B. Call on the government of Thailand, that have already adopted Anti-SLAPP principles and are enacting anti-SLAPP laws, to not allow its laws and its criminal courts to be used wrongly by other nations to commence SLAPP actions against HR Defenders who highlighted alleged wrongs or mis-governance issues of Malaysian government or its entities. Drop the criminal defamation charges against Murray Hunter.

C. Noting that Article 39 of the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration 2012 already states that ‘ASEAN Member States share a common interest in and commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms’, which also includes ‘..the right to freedom of opinion and expression, including freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information, whether orally, in writing or through any other medium of that person’s choice’(Art.23), and as such all ASEAN member States must do more to protect Human Rights Defenders, by also enacting anti-SLAPP laws. Malaysia, as current ASEAN Chair, must lead by good example.

D. Call on Malaysia and all governments to refrain from engaging in abusive lawsuits, but also take positive measures to ensure that third parties do not use SLAPPs as tools to silence those exerting legitimately their rights to freedom of opinion and expression.

Charles Hector

Ng Yap Hwa

For and on behalf the 44 organizations/groups/trade unions listed below

1. ALIRAN, Malaysia
2. MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)
3. Asia Citizen Future Association, Taiwan
4. Asia Human Rights and Labour Advocates (AHRLA)
5. Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
6. Banglar Manabadhikar Suraksha Mancha (MASUM), India
7. BWI AP (Building and Wood Workers International Asia Pacific Region)
8. Center for Alliance of Labor and Human Rights (CENTRAL), Cambodia
9. Citizens Against Enforced Disappearances (CAGED), Malaysia
10. CIVICUS – World Alliance for Citizen Participation
11. COAC (Center for Orang Asli Concerns), Malaysia
12. Community Resource Centre Foundation (CRC), Thailand
13. Democratic Commission for Human Development (DCHD), Lahore, Pakistan
14. Disability Peoples Forum, Uganda
15. Global Women’s Strike
16. GoodElectronics Network
17. Greenpeace Southeast Asia
18. Haiti Action Committee
19. International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, France
20. KLSCAH Youth, Malaysia
21. Legal Action for Women, United Kingdom
22. Manushya Foundation, Thailand
23. MAP Foundation, Thailand
24. National Union of Banking Employees (NUBE), Malaysia
25. National Union of Transport Equipment & Allied Industries Workers (NUTEAIW), Malaysia
26. North South Initiative (NSI), Malaysia
27. Parti Rakyat Malaysia (PRM)
28. Payday Men’s Network (UK/US)
29. Persatuan Amal Progresif, Malaysia
30. Programme Against Custodial Torture & Impunity (PACTI), India
31. Redemption Pakistan
32. Sabah Timber Industry Employees Union (STIEU), Malaysia
33. Sarawak Dayak Iban Association (SADIA), Malaysia
34. Second Chance Redemption, Pakistan
35. Service Industry Workers Union Of Peninsular Malaysia
36. SETEM Catalunya, Spain
37. Singapore Anti Death Penalty Campaign (SADP)
38. Social Protection Contributors Advisory Association Malaysia. (SPCAAM)
39. Tenaganita, Malaysia
40. Teoh Beng Hock Association for Democratic Advancement, Malaysia
41. WH4C (Workers Hub for Change)
42. Women of Colour Global Women Strike, US & UK
43. Workers’ Assistance Center (WAC) in Cavite, Philippines
44. World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, Switzerland

Additional Note – Some points from the Thai Lawyers for Human Rights website 

 

READ THE FULL JOINT STATEMENT HERE

隆雪华堂民权委员会与隆雪华青对近日发生在雪兰莪州巴生班达马兰巴板路（Jalan Papan）木屋区的强制拆除事件深表关注，强烈谴责当局在执行拆迁行动中粗暴对待居民及逮捕声援者的行为。我们要求警方立即无条件释放被警方逮捕的社运分子及居民，包括社会主义党署理主席阿鲁仄万（S. Arutchelvan）、社运人士麦热亚（Mythreyar）、村民代表罗杰斯瓦兰（M Logeswaran）以及社会主义党秘书长西瓦兰惹妮（Sivaranjani），等10余人。

巴板路木屋区土地早在1998年已由雪州政府移交给发展商，目的是为了解决当地居民长期的住房问题。然而，二十余年过去，该木屋区问题仍未妥善解决。近日，发展商依据清空庭令，自11月10日起对空置木屋实施拆除，惟种种现象显示，发展商漠视雪州政府早前达成拆除空屋的协议。

我们认为，此拘捕行动既不合法也不合理。雪州政府于10月23日声明中明确指出，拆除行动仅限空置、无人居住的房屋及商铺，但现场拆除却涉及仍有人居住的房屋，并导致多名居民及前来斡旋的声援者被捕，明显违背州政府原意，也缺乏法律依据。

此外，强拆房屋过程中出现暴力驱逐的情况，警察及执行人员强行清空房屋，推搡居民等，并也发生冲突，包括居民筑起人墙阻止拆迁工作，与镇暴队对峙，有者甚被拘押。这些行为构成强制驱逐，违反人权及州政府承诺。发展商曾向州政府应诺拨出7英亩土地建设可负担住房物安置居民，但截至目前仍未出示正式文件，令人担忧。

我们要求雪州政府立即介入调解，停止所有拆迁行动，并与发展商及居民代表进行公开对话，寻求双赢与人道解决方案。我们强调，在居民获得充分安置与可负担替代住房方案之前，严禁进行任何进一步的强制驱逐行动，以确保无人无家可归或家庭流离失所。

隆雪华堂民权委员会与隆雪华青呼吁各方遵守法治与人权原则。拆迁应以协商为本，而非以暴力或压制手段解决土地及居住权争议。

Tarikh: 17 Oktober 2025 (Jumaat)
Masa: 8pm-10:30pm
Tempat: Auditorium Cheng Yi, Aras 2, KLSCAH

Barisan Panelis:
Sivaranjini Manikam (Wakil Pekerja)
Muhammad Sha’ani (Pembela Hak Asasi)
Tijah Yok Chopil (Wakil Orang Asli)
Ameer Khan (Wakil Peneroka)
Zakwan Shahruddin (Wakil Pekerja Gig)

Moderator: Wong Yan Ke (Ketua Pemuda KLSCAH)

Anjuran Bersama:
Pemuda KLSCAH
Gabungan Marhaen

Pengenalan:
Isu kemiskinan terus menghantui masyarakat Malaysia meskipun pelbagai dasar dan inisiatif telah diperkenalkan di bawah agenda Malaysia Madani. Namun persoalannya, sejauh manakah keberkesanan pendekatan Madani dalam membasmi kemiskinan secara adil dan menyeluruh?

Sempena Hari Pembasmian Kemiskinan Antarabangsa, pihak penganjur mengadakan satu forum yang menghimpunkan suara daripada panel wakil pekerja, pembela hak asasi, orang asli, peneroka dan pekerja gig bagi membincangkan cabaran hidup rakyat dalam era Malaysia Madani.

Forum ini percuma dan semua dijemput hadir!

针对马大新青年日前向高等教育部提交了一份投诉报告，反映公众对大学中心收生系统（UPU）严重不公的意见，并提出废除大学预科班（Matrikulasi）制度却被警方援引《刑事法典》第505(b)条文（即“发布破坏公众安宁的言论”）及《1998年通讯及多媒体法令》第233条文调查。一个旨在提出制度改革、回应公众关切的理性提呈，已被当作刑事案件对待。

我们要严正指出：不认同一个政策建议，最恰当、最健康的回应方式应是公开反驳与理性论述，而非报警与动用警方进行调查。动用公权不仅破坏宪法保障的言论自由，也严重打击青年群体对制度改革参与的信心。

一个执法过度的社会，不会让人民感到安全，只会让人民陷入“杯弓蛇影、草木皆兵”的恐惧。开档调查马大新青年，难道就解决了常年困扰高教部的问题吗？还是沉默就是解决一切问题的答案？继续无视不透明的入学机制、不一致的录取标准，敷衍每年无数优秀学生被拒之门外的挫败，这些正正才是阻碍教育发展的态度。

我们需强调，《通讯及多媒体法令》第233条文原是为打击网络色情、虚假、威胁或恶意评论、网络霸凌、意图冒犯、迫害或威胁他人的行为，诈骗、骚扰与仇恨言论，以避免通讯设施遭滥用。而不是对付批评政府政策的理性建议。如今却被滥用于调查制度改革声音，这是对法律用途的严重扭曲。

因此，我们呼吁政府与高教部：
1. 正视UPU制度中的结构性不公，展开全面制度审查与改革，统一与透明的大学录取制度，真正实现教育公平；
2. 停止将制度性批评政治化、刑事化，保障青年群体合理表达意见的权利；
3. 约束执法单位滥用法律，确保《刑事法典》与《多媒体法令》的使用恰当与合法。

青年不是国家的敌人，恰恰是国家未来改革的伙伴。一个愿意倾听青年声音的政府，才是真正走在现代民主轨道上的政府。

 

联署组织：

1. 马六甲中华大会堂青年团
2. 吉隆坡暨雪兰莪中华大会堂青年团
3. 柔佛州中华总会青年团