来一场探索人权之旅！

由隆雪华青及赵明福民主基金会联合主办，我们邀请热血青年参与为期三天两夜的《人权营：失声的边缘社群》。这场非同寻常的旅程，将让你更深刻地了解这个社会的另一面、边缘、缝隙里，那些未被听见的声音，感受他们的坚韧与勇气。

在这营会里，我们邀请了前线社运工作者，并向营员分享难民、妇女、移工和原住民所面对的困境。通过小组活动，我们齐心探讨，如何在这片土地上推动人权运动，营员也将实地走访、深入社区，以切身体会边缘化群体如何在夹缝中求存。

生于乱世，有种责任。我们相信，人权不是奢侈品，而是每个生灵的固有权利。我们欢迎热血青年一同站出来，为那些被压迫的社群发声！

报名从速，以免向隅。筹委会将在报名截止后筛选30位营员，参与这场人权营。

若有任何疑问，请联络：黄嘉淇（010-235 2274）或谢家轩（018-285 4680）或王玟皓（017-621 0912）

营会详情如下：
日期：2023年12月15日至17日（星期五至日）
地点：隆雪华堂
对象：在籍高中生和大专生

费用：RM50（包含营衣、酒店住宿、膳食等等）
报名链接：https://bit.ly/2023hrc
报名截止日期：2023年12月8日（星期五）

日期：10月27日（星期五）
时间：晚上8时
地点：隆雪华堂二楼诚毅厅

主讲人：
拿督陈友信（隆雪华堂顾问）
张玉珊（社运人士）
李仕强（隆雪华青团长）

主持人：张嘉恩（执业律师）
主办单位：隆雪华青

简介：
36年前的10月27日，是茅草行动正式展开大逮捕的一天。期间，政府援引《1960年内安法令》逮捕百余名朝野政党、非政府组织领袖，令让白色恐怖笼罩全国，重创民间民权运动。

配合柯嘉逊博士出版的《马来西亚人的困境》中文书籍，讲座将探讨“昌明大马”能否解除马来西亚人在社会、经济和政治所面对的种种挑战。

讲座当天会以优惠价售卖《马来西亚人的困境》新书，欢迎有意者支持购买。

隆雪华青正式为黄彦铬发起众筹运动，并将筹款目标设在五万令吉，作为黄彦铬的司法辩护费用或堂费支付。

请浏览众筹平台：https://www.givinghub.asia/campaigns/yan-ke ， 为黄彦铬的判决上诉提供支援。

（扣除银行手续费，所有的捐款将直接汇给此众筹运动，至于平台则不会征收任何费用。）

“黄彦铬罪名成立，被判罚款五千令吉，无法缴付罚款则需坐牢三个月。”

四年前，一位立场坚定、充满理想的年轻人，在毕业典礼舞台上高举“校长下台”卡牌，抗议马大校长举办充斥种族主义的马来人尊严大会。

自被提控以来，他多次进出法庭，也全力配合调查。他以行动证明，他并非反叛青年，并追求在司法程序底下得到公义。在此期间，他没有意志消沉，而是将身心投入到公民社会，身体力行捍卫人权、民主、平等。

“与其为案件感到担忧，不如把精神花在帮助弱势群体。”

他的名字，是黄彦铬。

经过长达三年的司法战，彦铬被裁定有罪。他的罪行是什么？倡导言论自由？追究当权者的责任？反对种族主义？当年轻人愿意指出房间里的大象、挑战不公不义时，却得面临丧失人身自由的风险。这个判决无疑敲响了社会警钟。

但彦铬不愿屈服，他坚持捍卫正义、自由和多元。这不仅仅是他个人的战役，更是每个马来西亚人为公正平等而战的战役。

隆雪华青全力支持秘书黄彦铬上诉判决，抗争到底。司法战役冗长耗时，倘若在高庭败诉，黄彦铬还得上诉至上诉庭。为此，我们发起众筹，目标是在一个月内筹获五万令吉，作为黄彦铬的司法辩护费用或堂费支付。

这场战役，我们不能输。

隆雪华青恳请社会大众一同参与这场众筹运动，多多益善、少少不拘，以帮助黄彦铬打赢这场司法战役。你的捐献，将会传达强烈的信息：我们作为马来西亚人，不会容忍言论自由受压制，强烈反对任何形式的种族主义，并能自豪地说 Ini Tanah Malaysia！

We, the undersigned, want to express our grave concern and disappointment at the government’s continued backtracking on its reform agenda.

The recent decision by the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) to grant DNAA (discharge not amounting to an acquittal) to Zahid Hamidi in relation to the 47 charges involving millions of ringgit in connection with Yayasan Akal Budi, is the latest in a series of indefensible actions by the current administration since the formation of the Pakatan Harapan-Barisan National government.

The decision to take such action despite a prima facie case has been established raises serious questions about the government’s commitment and ability to govern our country with integrity and in accordance with our Federal Constitution and the rule of law. The decision will result in an erosion of public trust and confidence in our institutions, particularly in the AGC’s competence to investigate matters thoroughly and impartially so that we can hold corrupt elites accountable for their conduct.

The 11 reasons cited by the AGC to justify its position are not convincing in the least, and demonstrate a tragic waste of taxpayers’ money in what has become a futile exercise in integrity, accountability, transparency and trust.

Furthermore, the decision to discharge Zahid Hamidi from such serious charges suggests a disturbing departure from the principle of equality, and sends a dangerous message that those in positions of power and influence can act with impunity, and escape accountability for their actions. This perception of a two-tier justice system, one for the elite and another for the masses, is corroding the very foundation of our democracy and undermining people’s faith in the rule of law and good governance.

Since November 2022, we have witnessed a slew of actions which undermine our trust and confidence in the Prime Minister and his government, whose promises of reforms to uphold our fundamental freedoms and human rights have come to nought. This has been demonstrated regularly by the constant backtracking on promises to review, amend or repeal draconian laws such as the Sedition Act, Printing Presses and Publications Act, and SOSMA, amongst others.

There has also been an increased stifling of our freedom of expression, including censorship of media and other online content, banning of films and publications, restrictions on academic freedom, and infringements on gender based expressions. There has also been no visible commitment or action to pursue institutional reforms, including making the MACC independent and accountable only to the Parliament; and establishing an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission as demanded by civil society to replace the watered-down IPCC.  Prior to Zahid’s DNAA, the reform calling for the separation of the AG from the public prosecutors office was nowhere to be seen until recently when it was announced by the Law Minister.

Our expectations, which are in line with the multitude of promises made during the election campaigns leading up to the last General Elections, are that our Ministers and government agencies will promote the development of an educated, informed society of critical thinkers who are fully equipped with contemporary skills and knowledge so that we can compete in the global arena. As voters and taxpayers we have a right to be informed in decisions about how public resources are used equitably and distributed fairly.

This crisis of confidence in the government’s ability to deliver on its reform agenda must be dealt with and in order to enhance accountability and transparency, we demand the following:

1)  The establishment of an independent committee to reaffirm and develop a detailed roadmap (including timelines) of the current government’s reform priorities. This independent committee should include civil society representatives and build on the recommendations made by the IRC established in 2018;

2)  Immediately separate the roles of Attorney General and Public Prosecutor and establish a mechanism to ensure that the appointment of public prosecutors is independent of political interference;

3)  Reaffirm, without delay, the government’s plans to review, amend or repeal ALL arbitrary and oppressive laws that restrict our human rights and freedom of expression; and

4)  Reaffirm, without delay, the government’s plans for institutional reforms in relation to independent MACC and IPCMC.

Signatories:

Organisations:

1. Centre for Independent Journalism
2. Persatuan Sahabat Wanita Selangor 
3. Beyond Borders
4. Agora Society Malaysia
5. EMPOWER
6. Society for the Promotion of Human Rights (PROHAM)
7. Our Journey
8. Gabungan Bertindak Malaysia (GBM)
9. Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM)
10. Aliran
11. KL & Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall Civil Right Committee (KLSCAH CRC)
12. Tenaganita
13. North South Initiative (NSI)
14. KRYSS Network
15. Geutanyoe Aceh
16. Pertubuhan Harapan Al-Ikhlas Kuala Lumpur dan Selangor
17. ALTSEAN-Burma
18. Myanmar Ethnics Organization
19. Refugee Emergency Fund (REF)
20. Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM)
21. Pemuda Sosialis (Youth Wing of Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM))
22. Persatuan UMANY
23. Selangor and Kuala Lumpur Hokkien Association Youth Section
24. Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall Youth
25. Pertubuhan Anak Muda Maju
26. Suara Siswa Universiti Malaya 
27. Instant Cafe Theatre
28. Parastoo Theatre

THE STUDENT FRONTS’ PROTEST AGAINST THE MINISTRY OF HIGHER EDUCATION (MOHE)

1. Withdraw the Guidelines for Entertainment Activities (Concerts) and the notice banning concerts in higher education institutions under the Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) 2023
2. Restore the UUCA Abolishment Technical Committee as soon as possible.
3. Empower the freedom of expression and academic freedom of students and academics.
4. Strengthen financial autonomy and provide financial autonomy to students.
5. Uphold students’ right to freedom of association.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Recently, the Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) has introduced the Guidelines for Entertainment Activities (Concerts) in Higher Education Institutions under the MOHE 2023 issued to all public and private universities in Malaysia. The provisions in these guidelines are absurd, with many unreasonable prohibitions and regulations. This decision was also made without taking into account the views of any of the university’s stakeholders. The student fronts strongly protest against these guidelines and calls for this Guideline to be retracted by the MOHE with immediate effect, and with this, the University and University Colleges Act 1971(UUCA) must be repealed.

2.0 OUR DEMANDS

2.1 Withdraw the Guidelines for Entertainment Activities (Concerts) and the notice banning concerts in higher education institutions under the Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) 2023.

After discovering that the university management has received instructions from the MOHE that these guidelines will take effect immediately, we have found news that the MOHE intends to revise these guidelines and despite being the Minister of Higher Education, YB Khaled Nordin has never approved the guidelines. The first issue here is about the conflicting narrative between the university management and the MOHE. The second issue is that students as stakeholders of the universities, our opinions were never obtained before such guidelines were issued. We would like to criticize the MOHE for being irresponsible and unprofessional in issuing such Guidelines.

As for the issue with the Guidelines itself, we would also like to point out four main reasons why these guidelines are absurd and unreasonable.

2.1.1 Restrictions on the rights and freedoms of university stakeholders.

For example, in clause 4.0 together with clause 16.0, it is stated that concerts must obtain the approval of the Student Union or Student Representative Council of the university concerned. However, the university management and the Department of Higher Education (DHE) under the MOHE still have the absolute power to cancel the event before or on the date of the event itself if it is deemed to “bring negative effects in various aspects”.

Furthermore, in clauses 5.4 and 14.1, all promotional and publicity materials including posters, banners, buntings, backdrops, wall of fame, portals, and also digital materials such as those in social media must obtain confirmation and approval from the university’s Corporate Communications Center.

This is contrary to the “student autonomy” that the MOHE has promised on several occasions. The MOHE needs to keep its promise and allow students to have a platform to grow and develop as future leaders of our country.

2.1.2 Deprivation of the student’s autonomy as an individual.

Clause 6.0 states the time limitation or constraint on any student body when organizing a concert, that if an event of the concert is approved to start at a certain time, it cannot be postponed at all, even if the VIP are still yet to arrive or if there is an unforeseen emergency situation. Exceptions are only given to VVIPs who are members of the royal family. No event should be forced to start unless and until the organizer deems it suitable to start, and this varies for each different genre of event. The student fronts believe that student activities should not adhere to such unreasonably stringent rules.

Clauses 8.0 and 9.0 have limited the clothing of artists on stage, as well as the committees and participants involved in the event itself. Examples include male artists being prohibited from wearing jewellery or shorts during performances or even during rehearsals; male artists that are not part of the university must tie their long hair, and male artists from the universities themselves are not allowed to have long hair; the prohibition of cross-dressing, all without exception even for cultural performances; and clothing that is considered “scandalous” is also prohibited.

In clauses 8.0, 9.0, 10.0, 12.0, and 13.0, there are restrictions on activities that can be performed on stage. For example, no physical contact is allowed between dancers of the opposite sex; there can be no “excessive movement” for the dance; the music genre and lyrics, as well as the LED screen display, have to be approved by the “advisor” of the event.

These provisions clearly violate the personal freedom of individuals enshrined in the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, especially Article 5: personal freedom and Article 10: freedom of speech and expression. Students should be respected as equal individuals, and they should have equal rights under the law. Differentiating students because “they are not part of society” is an unfair and unjustified statement.

2.1.3 Provisions and use of words with vague meanings.

In clause 5.5, event organizers are given the responsibility to ensure that concert performances do not “encourage the extreme behaviour of artists, audience or secretariats” and “do not contain elements that can divide racial unity”. In clauses 7.0, 8.0, and 9.0, artists who are invited cannot be “controversial” artists, and they cannot “bring harm or damage the image of the university”, dress “flashy”, or perform “charming” actions. In clauses 10.2 and 12.3, the lyrics and performance of the artist, as well as the symbolism displayed should also not touch the “sensitivity of Malaysians”.

These words are either not defined in the guidelines themselves or the definitions given in the guidelines are vague as to what is considered “controversial”, “incites to extreme behaviour” and so on. It is unfair to then take action against promoters who are not clear about the context of the following provisions if they “breach” the guidelines.

2.1.4 Infiltration of conservatism values into Malaysian universities.

In clause 11.0, the separation of spectator seats becomes very redundant. First is the strict separation between male and female audiences with an exception being given to “family audience”. Mosh pits are also not permitted and permanent seating, without exception, is provided for spectators regardless of the nature of the activity. Organizers are also required to maintain their spectator “behaviour” at all times.

Other examples include clause 8.0, where male artists are prohibited from wearing shorts and jewellery on stage and dressing like the opposite sex is not allowed; and in clause 9.0, any physical contact between backup dancers of the opposite sex is prohibited, and the dance must be “not excessive in movement”.

Laws like this are personal laws under Sharia that must be followed by Muslims only. However, the clauses in these Guidelines apply to those of a different religion as well, and this is contrary to Article 11 in the Federal Constitution which guarantees the freedom to profess and practice other religions other than Islam. Islam is the official religion of Malaysia, but the use of Sharia law is limited to personal law, and no one should be forced to adhere to and practice that religion.

2.2 Restore the UUCA Abolishment Technical Committee as soon as possible.

In this UUCA Abolishment Technical Committee, we demand that its members consist of legal experts, student activists and social activists who have relevant experience, legal researchers in relevant fields and so on. Among the authoritative figures are Prof. Shad Saleem Faruqi, Prof. Edmund Terence Gomez, and Prof. Azmi Sharom. This is to get a more comprehensive view of the act. For your information, this committee has successfully produced six comprehensive policy papers and also affirmed the values and principles of academic freedom, university autonomy and student autonomy. The policy papers are related to governance systems, ombudsmen, institutionalized allocation and financial systems, service level agreements, academic professions, and universities and higher education institutions. However, this effort did not continue after the fall of the Pakatan Harapan (PH) government in 2020.

2.3 Empower the freedom of expression and academic freedom of students and academics.

Under section 15(2)(b) AUKU, students are not allowed to join any organization designated by LPU that is not suitable for the interest and well-being of the student or the university. Under section 15(3)(b), students are not allowed to support or sympathize with or oppose any party that is determined by LPU to be inappropriate for the interests and well-being of the student or the university.

These two provisions give broad and vague powers to the LPU in determining what is meant as “not suitable for the interests and well-being of the students or the university”. Although universities in Malaysia have always stated that they are willing to train and produce female students who have critical and independent thinking, the UUCA has empowered universities to restrict academic activities on the grounds that such activities are “inappropriate”.

Under section 15(4), students are only allowed to make a statement if the statement is related to their studies or research in a seminar, symposium or similar event. Therefore, section 15(4) has imposed quite strict restrictions where students are only allowed to voice their opinions in relatively limited circumstances. We are of the view that freedom of speech and academics should not be prematurely restricted by additional laws, supposedly the higher education institutions are established with the aspiration of producing pillars of the country who think critically and are able to voice opinions in a principled manner.

In terms of Higher Education Institutions (HEI) staff and academics, the freedom of expression and academic freedom of this group is also restricted. In general, the UUCA does not provide academic freedom for HEI staff and academics. This can be seen in the content of the Statutory Bodies (Discipline and Surcharge) Act 2000 (Act 605) where the disciplinary rules can be found under the Second Schedule of Act 605. An officer must give full allegiance to the government according to Regulation 3; an official cannot make public statements that could harm the government’s policy, discredit the government and so on according to Rule 18. These provisions have restricted the freedom of speech of academics and administrators, and they are not allowed to voice their opinions about the government, nor give any information or explanation.

Therefore, we demand that the right and freedom of speech and academics must be guaranteed under the HEI. Students, like other members of Malaysian society, should enjoy the rights and freedom of expression guaranteed under the Federal Constitution.

2.4 Strengthen financial autonomy and provide financial autonomy to students.

Under section 15A of the UUCA, students are not allowed to collect or hold money. As a result, students always experience difficulties in organizing various activities, especially activities that involve high expenses. This is due to the slowness of the “e-procurement” system and the payment claim system through receipts in universities. If students want to pay through “e-procurement”, the merchant who offers the service can only get paid at least a few months after the service has been provided. Alternatively, students are forced to use their own money first before demanding payment from the university management using the original receipt. However, the university management’s slowness in processing student payment claims has caused students to bear a relatively high financial risk. Furthermore, this also opens up an opportunity for the university not to approve the expenses of student associations that are not respected by the administration.

Therefore, we demand that the right to manage the financial affairs of the student body be returned to the students. To ensure transparent financial management, the university may establish a regulatory body to review and audit the student body’s financial statements at the end of each financial year.

2.5 Uphold students’ right to freedom of association.

Under section 16 of the UUCA, the Vice-Chancellor is empowered to suspend or dissolve any organization, body and student group that, in the opinion of the Vice-Chancellor, may damage or cause harm to the interests or well-being of the university. However, such power is draconian because it empowers the Vice-Chancellor to decide to suspend or dissolve a student body without the need to conduct any investigation first.

Therefore, we demand that such draconian powers be abolished. On the other hand, any student body accused of carrying out illegal activities of the university should be investigated by the university and brought before an independent tribunal to make a decision.

Under section 15D of the UUCA, the Vice-Chancellor may, at his discretion, suspend a student who is accused of a registrable offence. Just like in section 16, such provisions give draconian powers to the Vice-Chancellor to make decisions without the necessary checks and balances.

Furthermore, the University Disciplinary Committee also cannot provide justice to the students as it should. It is clear from the case of Fahmi Zainol v Jawatankuasa Tatatertib Pelajar Universiti Malaya [2017] 10 CLJ 305, where the High Court ruled that the Studen Disciplinary Committee which was involved did not adhere to basic legal regulations and violated the human rights of the accused students. Therefore, we demand that the University Student Disciplinary Committee should be replaced with an independent Disciplinary Tribunal, consisting of individuals knowledgeable in the law, and most importantly, separating the roles of the prosecutor from the judge.

3.0 CONCLUSION

The student fronts criticize the MOHE for expanding its control over student activities and limiting student freedom as well as expanding conservative policies on campus. Strict prohibitions on this campus have never happened in history and this gives a clear sign that the MOHE has no intention of giving greater freedom to students. The sudden implementation these guidelines without prior notice and without obtaining students’ opinions, clearly shows that the amendment to the UUCA to restore student autonomy that was promised earlier seems to be just an act to divert students’ attention. We hereby call on the MOHE to withdraw these guidelines immediately, abolish the UUCA, and return the promised rights and autonomy to students and a progressive campus experience.

Initiated by:

University of Malaya New Youth (UMANY)

Endorsed by:

University of Malaya New Youth (UMANY)

Kesatuan Mahasiswa Universiti Malaya Suara Siswa

Suara Siswa UM

Persatuan Bahasa Cina Universiti Malaya

Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM)

ALIRAN

Pergerakan Tenaga Akademik Malaysia (GERAK)

Gerakan Pembebasan Akademik

KLSCAH Civil Rights Committee

KLSCAH Youth

Parti Muda

Parti Sosialis Malaysia

洪偉翔律師（翱翔天際專欄作者）

Siti Kasim （Human rights lawyer）

Thomas Fann (Bersih Chairperson)

Ooi Kok Hin (Bersih Executive Director)

Pusat Komas

Ooi Guo Shen （Former President of Universiti Malaya Students’ Union）

Wong Yan Ke （Former president of UMANY/）

Pemuda Sosialis

Persatuan Alumni UMANY

Malaysian Action for Justice and Unity (MAJU)

Youth Of Malaysia

Mahasiswa Demokratik Malaysia

Monash University Student Association (MUSA)

Taylor’s Chinese Society

Persatuan Matematik Universiti Malaya (UMMA)

Leo Club of Universiti Malaya

Universiti Malaya Actuarial and Financial Mathematics Society (UMACT)

Universiti Malaya International Students Association (UMISA)

Taekwondo WT UM

AIESEC in UM

Pasukan Gendang 24 Musim Universiti Malaya

Kung Fu Club University Malaya

UMCvEC

Universiti Malaya Japanese Club

UM Justech

UM Lex Act

UM Toastmasters Club

Universiti Malaya Dancesport Club (UMDSC)

Southern University College Debate Club

Kelab Kesenian Persembahan Universiti Malaya (KKPUM)

Citizen Lab

Pasukan Debat Cina New Era

Bichara Malaya

Universiti Malaya Data Analytics Club (UMDAC)

Agora Society

Teoh Beng Hock Trust for Democracy

SKL Nan Ann Youth Section

Selangor and Kuala Lumpur Hokkien Association Youth Section

GOPIO Malaysia

Persatuan Alumni New Era

Justice for Sisters

Institut Demokrasi dan Emansipasi Anak Muda (IDEA)

UNDI18 (Persatuan Pengundi Muda)

Students Progressive Front UUM

Suara Siswa UUM

Malaysia Youths and Students Evolution

Student Progressive Front UUM

Suara Siswa UUM

New Era University College Media Studies Society

The Malacca Chinese Assembly Hall Youth Section

Youth Bureau of Negeri Sembilan Chine

Individual:

Prahvina Nagaraja

Eusoff Husainy

Preevena Devi Jayabalan

Yong Li Yan

Dennis Tan Guo An

Leo Ik Hau (Southern University College)

Mervin Tan Wei Hong

Lim Jin Hang

Chan Jun Ye

Choy Meng Hooi

Nursarah Aisyah

Leong Mae Jern

Lee Yong Xing (Southern University College )

Jonathan Lee Rong Sheng

Bowie Koh Chao Wei (Engineering Society of Universiti Malaya (ESUM))

Muhammad Faris bin Ahmad Faiz (President of Persatuan Komputer Universiti Malaya (PEKOM))

Pang Guo Liang (University Monash Malaysia)

Gan Wan Xuan (Southern University College (SUC))

Nadia Malyanah

Shari Tan Xin Wen

Liew Chien Xuan

柯福特 (柔佛州和谐福利协会总务)

Lee Jian Hong

Chan Yan Wei

Tan Chun Keat

Chuah Yee Rou