Malaysia

Riot police several times, forcibly dispersed peaceful demonstrators around the country, using truncheons, water cannons, and tear gas (see Section 2.b.).

Logging companies reportedly used police force and intimidation to appropriate land from indigenous Iban and Penan communities in Sarawak (see Section 5).

Criminal law prescribes caning as an additional punishment to imprisonment for those convicted of some nonviolent crimes such as narcotics possession, criminal breach of trust, and alien smuggling. The new immigration law, which came into effect on August 1, also prescribes up to six strokes of the cane for both illegal immigrants and their employers. Judges routinely include caning in sentences of those convicted of such crimes as kidnaping, rape, and robbery. Some state Islamic laws, which bind only Muslims, also prescribe caning (see Section 1.e.). The caning which is carried out with a ˝-inch-thick wooden cane, commonly causes welts, and it sometimes causes scarring. Male criminals age 50 and above and women are exempted from caning. According to the provisions of the Child Act passed in December, male children from 10 years of age and up may be given up to 10 strokes of a "light cane" (see Section 5).

Prison overcrowding was a serious problem. After visiting a number of prisons, several Suhakam Human Rights Commissioners said that in general they were satisfied that conditions in those prisons were acceptable. During the year there were credible reports by former prisoners who indicated that guards at some prisons regularly beat prisoners convicted of criminal offenses. In June the Director General of Prisons said that the country’s 34 prisons, designed to hold 22,000 prisoners, actually held 29,000 inmates. In April 2000, Deputy Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi announced that the Government spent over $250,000 (1 million ringgit) to provide every prisoner with a mattress, although this was not confirmed by independent monitors. In 2001 a moral rehabilitation center that provides job skills training and education opportunities was built, but two promised juvenile reform schools were not built. According to the Government, 5 new prisons, with the capacity to hold 7,900 prisoners, were in the process of being built at year's end.

The law provides that, unless the Court of Detention determines otherwise, young boys and girls in remand (judicially approved detention) may be placed in prison. According to the law, most children have the right to remain with their imprisoned mothers until the age of 3 years, but can stay beyond that age by special authority of the Director General. In 2000 the local press reported that children as young as 10-years-old were held in prisons for offenses such as petty theft or involvement in school fights. Although kept in a separate cellblock, they reportedly mingled with adult prisoners during communal activities. However, the Government claimed that juvenile prisoners were kept separately from adult prisoners, either in separate cell blocks or separate institutions, at all times. In 2001 the Government identified 2,061 juveniles held in 26 prisons throughout the country.

"Security" prisoners were detained in a separate detention center (see Section 1.d.).

The NGOs and former detainees made credible allegations of inadequate food, inadequate medical care, poor sanitation, and abuse by guards in government camps for illegal immigrants. In recent years, conditions were considered to have improved with increased food and water rations, and vitamin B shots for detainees suffering from beri-beri. In August a new immigration law, which provides for 6 months in prison and up to six strokes of the cane for illegal immigrants, took effect. The law was implemented after a 4-month special amnesty program for illegal immigrants ended. Subsequent to the law's implementation, hundreds of illegal immigrants were detained in camps pending deportation, and there were reports of significant overcrowding during that time. According to some reports, this overcrowding contributed to the deaths of several detainees. During the year, a number of Rohingya asylum seekers were sent to detention camps for illegal immigrants pending deportation to Burma. There were no reports of deaths or mistreatment of Burmese Rohingyas in detention camps during the year.

Immigration officials said that over 450,000 illegal immigrants were deported back to their home countries during the year. They also stated publicly that several hundred individuals convicted of violating the immigration law had been subjected to its provisions, including caning.

The Government does not have any agreement with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) that permits visits to prisoners. If the ICRC were to request such a visit, it would need to negotiate an ad-hoc agreement with the Government. However, according to one ICRC representative, prison conditions did not represent a significant problem. NGOs and the media generally were not permitted to monitor prison conditions. Access to illegal alien detention camps was restricted, although UNHCR officials were given access to several camps to identify and interview potential refugees at various times during the year (see Section 2.d). In addition, Suhakam officials visited various camps at different times during the year. The Government reportedly has welcomed a proposal for a team to undertake an objective assessment of the situation in detention camps.

d. Arbitrary Arrest, Detention, or Exile

Police continued to use several statutes to arrest and to detain many persons without charge or trial. Suspects in some crimes (called "seizable offenses") may be arrested without warrants; suspects in other crimes ("nonseizable offenses") may be arrested only based on a warrant from a magistrate. Crimes characterized as bailable offenses permit suspects to present bail at the police station according to a schedule. The Courts enjoy discretion to deny bail for "nonbailable offenses", which are typically serious in nature, and in other circumstances, for example, great risk of flight. Police may hold suspects for 24-hours without charge. Police may request a magistrate to extend the period of detention without charge for up to 2 weeks. After this extension, the police, if they wish to hold the suspect, must charge him and seek an order of detention from a magistrate. In some cases, police released suspects under remand and quickly rearrested them on new but similar charges; however, in general, police practice was in accord with legal provisions concerning detention.

Police may deny prisoners under detention access to legal counsel and routinely did so. Police also may question suspects without giving them access to counsel. Police justify this practice as necessary to prevent interference in ongoing investigations. Judicial decisions generally upheld this practice. Defendants' advocates claimed that the lack of access to counsel seriously weakened defendants' legal rights.

Three laws permit the Government to detain suspects without judicial review or the filing of formal charges: the Internal Security Act (ISA), the Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance, and the Dangerous Drugs Act (Special Preventive Measures). The ISA which originally was enacted when there was an active communist insurgency, empowers the police to hold for up to 60 days any person who may act "in a manner prejudicial to the security of Malaysia." The Home Minister may authorize further detention for periods of up to 2 years. Those released before the end of their detention period are subject to "imposed restricted conditions" for the remainder of their detention periods. These conditions limit their rights to freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom to travel outside the country.

According to the Government, the goal of the ISA is to control internal subversion. In October the Deputy Home Minister said that there were 114 persons in detention under the ISA. In July Deputy Home Minister Datuk Zainal Abidin Zin said that since its inception in 1960, 4,190 persons were arrested under the ISA.

The ISA often is used against what the Government considers nonpolitical crimes. The Government states that deviant Muslim groups pose a danger to national security because of their radical beliefs. There were no reports of the Government using the ISA against political opponents during the year. The ISA, and the threat of invoking the ISA, however, are used to intimidate and restrict political dissent. For example, in 2001 the Government used the ISA to detain 10 political activists who were leaders of, or closely associated with, the opposition National Justice Party (Keadilan), claiming that they represented a threat to national security. Six of these individuals received a 2-year detention order and remained in detention at year's end. Two of the detainees who were released claimed that, during their interrogations while in police custody, they were questioned only about their political beliefs and personal life but not about the alleged offenses for which they initially were detained. In April the six detainees began a hunger strike to protest their detention under the ISA, calling on the Government to release them or to try them in open court. They ceased their hunger strike when Suhakam publicly stated its intention to conduct an inquiry into all aspects of ISA detentions. A small group of sympathizers conducted a parallel hunger strike in front of the Islamic party, Parti Islam Se-Malaysia (PAS) headquarters on the outskirts of Kuala Lumpur.

In June Suhakam conducted the first part of an inquiry into the conditions of the ISA detainees in Kamunting prison camp. According to an observer, 3 Suhakam Commissioners publicly interviewed 17 ISA detainees. The six supporters of imprisoned former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim detained under the ISA boycotted the proceedings and criticized the inquiry for its narrow scope. One attendee said that during the proceedings the detainees were free to speak about almost anything including political issues.

In December, 10 individuals were detained under the ISA for rumor mongering but were released on police bail. The 10 had allegedly forwarded e-mails claiming that a terrorist group was planning to launch a series of attacks at popular locations in Kuala Lumpur.

There were 43 suspected terrorists detained under the ISA during the year. One individual was released conditionally, another was released unconditionally, and the rest remained in detention at year's end. In 2001 two university students were detained under the ISA for participating in opposition political activities, including protesting against the ISA itself. Both were released within 60 days. In November one of these detainees was released after a High Court judge ruled his detention invalid but was then immediately rearrested under the same section of the ISA. In 2001 the Government also detained a number of suspected terrorists. Among those detained reportedly were members of PAS. One, Nik Adli, is the son of the PAS leader and Chief Minister of Kelantan, Nik Aziz. Most of these individuals remained in detention at year's end.

Even when there are no formal charges, the authorities must inform detainees of the accusations against them and permit them to appeal to an advisory board for review every 6 months. However, advisory board decisions and recommendations are not binding on the Home Minister, are not public, and often are not shown to the detainee. In the past, some ISA detainees refused to participate in the review process under these circumstances.

Amendments to the ISA in 1988 circumscribed judicial review of ISA detentions. Although the Bar Council has in the past asserted that detentions under the ISA should be subject to judicial review on both procedural and substantive grounds, the courts did not concur with this interpretation, and they reviewed ISA detentions only on technical grounds. Detainees freed on technical grounds nearly always were detained again immediately. However, in May 2001 Shah Alam High Court Judge Hishamuddin Mohd Yunus ordered the release of two opposition leaders who were detained that April under the ISA, calling their detentions unlawful. In his ruling, the judge said that the police could not simply cite the ISA's function to "preserve national security" as justification for its use. Additionally, the judge included a special provision in his ruling that forbade the police from rearresting the two individuals in the first 24 hours after their release. By the end of the year, neither one had been rearrested.

In August the Federal Court ruled that the detention of the six opposition activists detained under the ISA in April 2001 were unlawful. However, as the Court's ruling focused on the police's initial 60-day detention order and not on the Home Affairs Ministry's subsequent determination to detain the activists for an additional 2 years, the detained activists remained in detention at year's end. In December the ISA advisory board reviewed the case, noted the Federal Court decision, and recommended that the detainees be released. Anti-ISA activists criticized the government's legal reasoning and its refusal to follow the court's ruling to release the detainees.

Opposition leaders and human rights organizations continued to call on the Government to repeal the ISA and other legislation that deprived persons of the right to defend themselves in court. For example, in 2001 a group of 71 NGOs and opposition parties joined together to form the Abolish the ISA Movement (AIM). The group organized conferences, hosted a web site, and staged other events to broadcast its opposition to the ISA. In 2001 it submitted a proposal to Parliament to repeal the ISA. However, during the year, a number of ruling coalition politicians and government officials continued to state that the ISA remained necessary and would not be repealed. Government Ministers publicly stated that the move by foreign governments to implement preventive detention measures to combat terrorism, underscored the country's continued need for the ISA. Representatives of human rights organizations stated that the international campaign against terrorism dampened support for the anti-ISA movement. Following several successful legal challenges to ISA detentions on procedural grounds, the Government reportedly was reviewing the law to further restrict the scope of judicial review.

Under the Emergency Ordinance, the Home Minister may issue a detention order for up to 2 years against a person if he deems it necessary to protect public order, or for the "suppression of violence, or the prevention of crimes involving violence." In practice the Government used the Emergency Ordinance for other reasons. According to the human rights NGO, Suaram, as of July, 309 persons had been detained under the Emergency Ordinance.

Provisions of the Dangerous Drugs Act (Special Preventive Measures) give the Government specific power to detain suspected drug traffickers without trial. Such suspects may be held for up to 39 days before the Home Minister must issue a detention order. Once the Ministry has issued an order, the detainee is entitled to a hearing before a court. In some instances, the judge may order the detainee's release. Suspects may be held without charge for successive 2-year intervals with periodic review by an advisory board, whose opinion is binding on the Home Minister. However, the review process contains none of the procedural rights that a defendant would have in a court proceeding. The police frequently detained suspected narcotics traffickers under this act after the traffickers were acquitted of formal charges--often as they left the courtroom. During the year, the Government detained over 1,821 persons under this law.

Immigration laws are used to detain possible illegal immigrants without trial or hearing. The detainees are not accorded any administrative or legal hearings and are released only after their employers prove their legal status. Those who were able to produce legal documents normally were released immediately; those who were unable to prove their legal status often were held for extended periods before deportation. Illegal immigrants were kept in detention centers that were separate from prisons (see Section 1.c.).

Crowded and understaffed courts often result in lengthy pretrial detention, sometimes lasting several years.

Law enforcement authorities also used the Restricted Residence Act to restrict movements of criminal suspects for an extended period. The act allows the Home Ministry to place criminal suspects under restricted residence in a remote district away from their homes for 2 years. The Ministry is authorized to issue the banishment orders without any judicial or administrative hearings. Human rights activists questioned the need for this law, which was passed more than 60 years ago (during British sovereignty), and they have called for its repeal. The Government continued to justify the act as a necessary tool to remove suspects out of the area where undesirable activities are being conducted. The Government did not disclose how many persons were subject to the Restricted Residence Act and no accurate estimate was available. In 2000 there were 93 persons held in prison waiting to be placed under restricted residence, and 17 of these persons were released from prison into restricted residence.

Section 396 of the Criminal Procedure Code allows the detention of a person whose testimony as a material witness is necessary in a criminal case, if that person is considered likely to abscond.

The Government does not use forced exile.

e. Denial of Fair Public Trial

The Constitution provides for an independent judiciary; however, government action, constitutional amendments, legislation restricting judicial review, and other factors eroded judicial independence and strengthened executive influence over the judiciary. In recent years, a number of high-profile cases cast doubts on judicial impartiality and independence, and raised questions of arbitrary verdicts, selective prosecution, and preferential treatment of some litigants and lawyers. Members of the bar, NGOs, and other observers continued to express serious concern about these problems.

Many observers believe judicial independence improved since Tan Sri Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah was appointed Chief Justice in December 2000. Immediately following his appointment, Chief Justice Dzaiddin spoke publicly about the importance of restoring public trust in the judiciary and instituted a rotational case-assignment system intended to ensure impartiality of judges in the assignment of hearing any given case. Dzaiddin also repeatedly stressed that a judge's loyalty must be to the law rather than to outside factors such as politics. Since Dzaiddin's appointment, a number of high-profile cases were decided according to the legal merits of the case. However, some observers, including prominent members of the bar, expressed concern that judicial independence continued to be compromised. Citing, for example, the Federal Court's denial in July of former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim's final appeal on corruption charges, these observers commented that the executive's influence on the judiciary remained a significant problem.

Indigenous peoples in Sarawak and Sabah also have a system of customary law to resolve matters such as land disputes between tribes.

Penghulu (village head) courts may adjudicate minor civil matters, but these rarely are used.

The military has a separate system of courts.

The secular legal system is based on English common law. Trials are public, although judges may order restrictions on press coverage.

Defendants have the right to counsel, bail is sometimes available, and strict rules of evidence apply in court. Witnesses are subject to cross-examination. While the defense in both ordinary criminal cases and special security cases is not entitled to a statement of evidence before the trial, according to the Government, defendants may make statements for the record to an investigative agency. In general limited pretrial discovery in criminal cases hobbles defendants' ability to defend themselves.

Defendants enjoy the presumption of innocence and may appeal court decisions to higher courts. In criminal cases, defendants also may appeal for clemency to the King or local state rulers as appropriate. A single judge hears each criminal trial. There are no jury trials.

A 1997 amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code that may erode defendants' presumption of innocence continued to concern lawyers. Before this amendment, the prosecution was required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt or the defendant would receive a summary dismissal without having to present a defense. Since the amendment, the prosecution only needs to prove a legally sufficient case, and the defendant must be given the opportunity to present a defense. The Courts of Judicature Act limits the rights of defendants to appeal in some circumstances. The Government stated that these amendments would expedite the hearing of cases in the upper courts. The president of the Bar Association said that the amendments imposed too many restrictions on appeals.

The Attorney General may restrict the right to a fair trial in criminal cases by invoking the Essential (Security Cases) Regulations. These regulations governing trial procedure normally apply only in firearm cases. In cases tried under these regulations, the standards for accepting self-incriminating statements by defendants as evidence are less stringent than in normal criminal cases. Also the authorities may hold the accused for an unspecified time before making formal charges. The Attorney General has the authority to invoke these regulations in other criminal cases if the Government determines that the crime involves national security considerations, but such cases are rare. The Essential Regulations were invoked in 2000 at the beginning of the trial of 29 members of the Al-Ma’unah sect accused of carrying out arms thefts at two army posts. Defense lawyers argued that the use of the Essential Regulations was unconstitutional, since no certificate of emergency declaring a national emergency had been issued. The judge ruled that the Attorney General has the discretion to opt to use the Essential Regulations, if he saw fit to do so (see Section 1.d.).

Even when the Essential Regulations are not invoked, defendants and defense lawyers lack legal protections against interference. For example, during a trial police may call and interrogate witnesses who gave testimony not helpful to the prosecution. Human rights advocates accused police of using this tactic to intimidate witnesses. Police also have used raids and document seizures to harass defendants. Prosecution based on political rather than legal considerations (selective prosecution), is a serious problem in the legal system. According to the law, the decision to prosecute a case rests solely with the Attorney General. Some NGOs made credible accusations of political interference in the judicial process. However, the Chief Justice made clear his opposition to the practices of the past and his intention to make the law, rather than political considerations, hold sway over the legal process, including decisions on whether or not to prosecute. Government officials, including the Minister in the Prime Minister's office responsible for legal affairs, denied that the Attorney General practices selective prosecution.

Contempt of court charges also restricted the ability of defendants and their attorneys to defend themselves. However, the use of contempt of court charges against defendants and their attorneys appeared to be decreasing. For example, in 1998 the High Court convicted Attorney Zainur Zakaria for contempt of court after he refused to apologize for filing a brief on behalf of his client, former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim. In 1999 the Appeals Court upheld his conviction. However, in 2001 the Federal Court overturned the conviction, and stated that the High Court Judge, in his initial handling of the case, appeared to be acting as an agent for the prosecution.

Following a number of high-profile corruption cases, the Government amended the Anti-Corruption Act in 1997. The law gives the Attorney General powers that impinge on the presumption of innocence and requires accused persons to prove that they acquired their monetary and other assets legally.

Islamic courts do not give equal weight to the testimony of women. Many NGOs have complained that women do not receive fair treatment from Islamic courts, especially in matters of divorce.

The cases against former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim and some of his associates, and against Irene Fernandez, raised serious questions about judicial independence and impartiality (see Section 2.a.). According to many legal experts, both domestic and international, former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim is a political prisoner because he was charged, tried, and convicted in a legal process that was politically motivated and patently unfair. In September 1998, after a political conflict, Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad removed Anwar as Deputy Prime Minister. Later that same month, after a large and mostly peaceful demonstration in which he called for Mahathir's resignation, Anwar was detained for alleged corruption and sodomy. Many observers believe the Government manufactured these charges and used them to remove Anwar, who appeared to be gaining popular support after he was fired from the political scene. While in detention, Anwar was beaten by the former Inspector General of Police Rahim Noor (see Section 1.c.). For several days, Anwar was denied medical treatment for the injuries he received at the hands of Rahim. Presumably to avoid bringing a visibly injured Anwar to court, but according to the Government, to prevent social unrest from boiling over, police changed Anwar's status to "detention without charge" under the ISA. Anwar’s status subsequently was changed again to criminal detention.

During Anwar’s corruption trial, the judge made several questionable rulings that greatly limited Anwar’s ability to defend himself. For example, the judge sentenced one of Anwar’s attorneys to 3 months' imprisonment for contempt after the attorney raised in court charges of prosecutorial misconduct. The judge greatly restricted the scope of Anwar’s defense (on occasions during the trial, the judge explicitly said that he did not care if there was a conspiracy to bring down Anwar) and tolerated improper activities by the police and prosecutors. The judge allowed prosecutors to amend the charges in the middle of the trial, which is permitted under the law but in this case was unfair to Anwar. Anwar was denied the ability to rebut evidence of sexual misconduct presented by prosecution witnesses when the judge, at the end of the prosecution’s case, allowed prosecutors to amend the charges and then expunged the record of all evidence of sexual misconduct. Following his arrest, Anwar was denied bail on questionable legal grounds.

At the beginning of the sodomy trial, prosecutors changed the dates of the alleged acts of sodomy, supposedly because the defense discovered that the apartment building where the sodomy allegedly took place had not been completed by the original dates. Despite testimony detailing how police coerced a confession from an alleged homosexual partner, in 1999 the judge ruled that the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that this confession was voluntary. A few days later, another witness admitted that police coached part of his testimony. In August 1999, the lead police investigator materially contradicted his testimony (in order to make it consistent with the amended dates of the alleged offense); the next day, the judge ruled that the policeman had not lied. In April 2000, the judge ruled that the Prime Minister, who was called by the defense in an attempt to prove a political conspiracy against Anwar, would not be required to testify. Defense attorneys maintained that they were not permitted by the judge to call a number of witnesses. The defense claimed that the judge exerted pressure to bring the trial to an early conclusion. In his written ruling, which was released in June 2001, the judge said that the testimony of the chief prosecution witness--widely viewed as deeply flawed and lacking credibility--was as solid as the "Rock of Gibraltar."

In 1999 Anwar was convicted on four counts of corruption and sentenced to 6 years in prison. In April 2000, Anwar’s appeal of the conviction and sentence was denied by the Court of Appeals. In July of this year, the Federal Court rejected Anwar's final appeal on these charges.

In August 2000, Anwar was convicted on a separate charge of sodomy and sentenced to 9 years in prison, to be served consecutively with the 6-year sentence for corruption. Anwar's lawyers requested that this conviction be reviewed by the Appeals Court. At year's end, the date for this appeal had not been set. On May 12, the High Court acquitted Anwar of the four remaining charges of sodomy and one charge of corruption that were pending against him after the prosecution withdrew the charges. Most observers believed this was because the charges were without basis and would have resulted in further government embarrassment should they have been aired in open court. According to the Constitution, Anwar will be disqualified from holding any public office for 5 years once he completes his 15-year sentence.

Anwar’s conviction and sentence were criticized strongly by opposition parties, human rights groups, and a number of foreign governments and international human rights organizations. For example, the Bar Council criticized the trial, citing irregularities in the evidence, and characterized the sentence as "manifestly excessive and harsh." After spending nearly 6 months in a hospital receiving treatment for a slipped disk in his back, Anwar was sent back to prison in May 2001. In a May 2001 public statement, Suhakam stated that there were no laws prohibiting Anwar from being sent abroad for medical treatment. The Government denied Anwar's request for medical treatment abroad, claiming that adequate medical treatment for his condition exists in the country. Anwar remained in prison at year’s end. He was permitted to receive visits from only his family and lawyers. According to the law, Anwar is a "common criminal" rather than a political prisoner, and therefore does not have the right to receive visits from international human rights organizations.

Anwar Ibrahim is a political prisoner. In addition, the six individuals associated with the Anwar-based National Justice Party who were arrested in 2001 and who remained in detention under the ISA are political detainees. One of the six, Ezam Noor, formally is being detained under the Official Secrets Act (OSA) which restricts freedom of expression, but his detention under the ISA reportedly has not been waived (see Section 2.a.).

Arbitrary Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence

The law protects against such practices; however, authorities infringed on citizens’ privacy rights in some cases. Provisions in the security legislation allow the police to enter and search without a warrant the homes of persons suspected of threatening national security (see Section 1.d.). Police also may confiscate evidence under these acts. In some cases each year, police use this legal authority to search homes and offices, seize books and papers, monitor conversations, and take persons into custody without a warrant.

A clause in the Anti-Corruption Act empowers the Attorney General to authorize the interception of mail and the wiretapping of telephones. Information obtained in this way is admissible as evidence in a corruption trial.

The law permits the Home Ministry to place criminal suspects under restricted residence in a remote district away from their homes for 2 years (see Section 1.d.).

The Government bans membership in unregistered political parties and in unregistered organizations (see Section 2.b.).

Certain religious issues pose significant obstacles to marriage between Muslims and adherents of other religions (see Section 2.c.).

Muslim couples must take premarital courses (see Section 5).

Two state governments sought to restrict Muslim women's dress (see Section 5). In Kelantan the state government decreed that female performers may only appear before female audiences.

Section 2 Respect for Civil Liberties, Including:

a. Freedom of Speech and Press

The Constitution provides for freedom of speech and freedom of the press; however, some important legal limitations exist, and in practice the Government restricted freedom of expression and intimidated most of the print and electronic media into practicing self-censorship. According to the Government, restrictions on this freedom were imposed to protect national security, public order, and friendly relations with other countries.

The Constitution provides that freedom of speech may be restricted by legislation "in the interest of security (or) public order." For example, the Sedition Act prohibits public comment on issues defined as sensitive, such as racial and religious matters. In practice the Sedition Act, OSA, criminal defamation laws, and some other laws were used to restrict or to intimidate dissenting political speech.

The Prime Minister and other senior officials continued to ascribe seditious or treasonous motives to critics of government policies, although many persons still criticized the Government publicly. During the year, according to government officials, 1,385 permit applications to hold public talks were approved and 33 were rejected due to either security reasons, late applications, inappropriate venues, or because there was a potential for causing traffic problems.

Throughout the year, government officials warned that political parties that raised sensitive issues and threatened national stability would be charged under the Sedition Act. However, government and ruling party officials sometimes made statements on sensitive racial and religious issues with no repercussions. In June the opposition leader Lim Kit Siang and a number of his colleagues were arrested for distributing leaflets that criticized the Prime Minister's declaration that the country was an Islamic state. In August the High Court acquitted the Youth Chief of the National Justice Party, Ezam Noor, of sedition charges for his alleged call for street demonstrations in March 2001 to topple the Government (see Section 1.e.).

In March opposition politician Marina Yusoff, charged with sedition for comments she made about the 1969 racial violence while campaigning for Parliament in 1999, was fined $1,300 (5,000 ringgit). In January the sedition charges against opposition leader and prominent attorney Karpal Singh were dropped. Karpal was charged for statements that he made in court during his defense of Anwar Ibrahim that the Government considered seditious.

In the past, the Bar Council and other NGOs called for a review of certain provisions of the OSA that grant considerable discretion to the authorities. Opposition leaders historically accused the Government of using the OSA to cover up corruption. In January 2000, Ezam Noor, also a former Anwar aide, was charged under the OSA with disclosing to reporters secret Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) reports. Ezam said publicly in August 1999 that Anwar stored documents abroad that corroborated charges of corruption against senior government leaders. Ezam claimed that the reports showed that the ACA was not pursuing corruption cases against senior government officials. In August Ezam was convicted of revealing secret ACA reports to reporters and was sentenced to 2 years in prison. In March 2000, a government official said in Parliament that only six persons had been arrested under the OSA since its inception in 1972, and he claimed that this statistic proved that the Government did not use the OSA to silence critics.

In January 2000, the editor and printer of Harakah, PAS' newspaper, were charged with sedition in connection with a 1999 Harakah article that quoted an opposition politician’s comments on the confession of Sukma Darawaman, Anwar Ibrahim’s codefendant. In May 2001, the printer pled guilty and was fined slightly over $1,000 (4,000 ringgit). The editor’s case still was pending at year's end.

In March 2000, the Melaka state government announced that it terminated the contracts of an undetermined number of panel doctors, architects, lawyers, and blacklisted contractors who allegedly were aligned with opposition parties. The state government also closed government accounts in banks where the staff was accused of criticizing the Government. According to opposition representatives, these practices continued during the year. In July 2000, the Penang state government also blacklisted contractors for their alleged involvement in antigovernment activities, such as supporting or funding opposition parties. Opposition parties and NGOs criticized these actions as discriminatory, claiming that such steps were inconsistent with the demands of a democratic society.

During 2000 many government officials, opposition figures, and private citizens filed multimillion-dollar lawsuits for libel and slander. In July 2000, the Federal Court upheld a judgment of over $250,000 (1 million ringgit) against a freelance journalist who was sued for libel by a wealthy businessman in 1994. In 2001 in an unprecedented move, the Federal Court agreed to review this decision. The date of this review was not set by year's end. In September 2000, the Minister in the Prime Minister’s department responsible for legal affairs told reporters that the Government would review the defamation law in response to public concern over libel awards which, he noted, frequently exceeded damages handed down in personal injury cases. At year's end, the Government continued to review the issue; however, no results were reported. During the past 2 years there was a noticeable decrease in the number of defamation suits.

The English and Malay mainstream press provided generally laudatory, uncritical coverage of government officials and policies, and usually gave only limited and selective coverage to political views of the opposition or political rivals. Editorial opinion almost always reflected government positions on domestic and international issues. Chinese-language newspapers generally were freer in reporting and commenting on sensitive political and social issues, but they were not immune to government pressure. There was widespread concern that the purchase in May 2001 of two major Chinese-language dailies by the investment arm of the ruling coalition's most influential Chinese party would restrict this freedom and transform the newspapers into progovernment organs. These concerns were magnified when the top management of one of the dailies was removed immediately following the takeover. Most analysts believed that the editorial content of the two newspapers subsequently became less independent. During the year, several newspaper vendors were the target of official raids for selling opposition party newspapers. However, self-censorship and biased reporting in the print media was not uniform and the English-, Malay-, and Chinese-language press all, at times, provided balanced reporting on sensitive issues.

The Printing Presses and Publications Act limits press freedom. Under the act, domestic and foreign publications must apply annually to the Government for a permit. The act was amended to make the publication of "malicious news" a punishable offense, to expand the government's power to ban or restrict publications, and to prohibit court challenges to suspension or revocation of publication permits. According to the Government, this amendment was made to ensure that "distorted news" was not disseminated to the public. Government power over license renewal and other policies created an atmosphere that inhibited independent or investigative journalism and resulted in extensive self-censorship. In October Deputy Home Affairs Minister Chor Chee Heung told Parliament that from the beginning of 2001 until October, 1,345 publications and printing premises were inspected and 2,305 volumes of publications were confiscated under the act. During the same period, the Home Affairs Ministry brought 199 cases to court for selling and distributing publications without a permit. Government officials continued to argue that the act helped to preserve harmony and to promote peaceful coexistence in a multiracial country.

In October the Deputy Home Affairs Minister said that there were 63 newspapers in the country, including those which were imported. In August 2001, the Deputy Home Minister said that his Ministry approved 2,141 publishing permits and 1,194 printing press licenses during the year and that this showed that the Government had a liberal approach to such permits. In August 2000, the Minister in the Prime Minister’s department responsible for legal affairs said that the act would not be repealed, even if a national press council were established to regulate the media.

The Government often conveyed its displeasure with press reporting directly to a newspaper's board of directors or chief editors. In addition, leading political figures in the ruling coalition, or companies controlled by them, owned most major newspapers, thus limiting the range of views. At times the susceptibility of the press to government pressure had a direct and public impact on operations. For example, in January 2000 the group editor in chief of a local press conglomerate was removed after its flagship newspaper, the New Straits Times, carried several articles that reportedly angered the United Malay National Organization (UMNO), the most powerful party in the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition. However, this individual subsequently was appointed for a 1-year term in September 2001 as chairman of Bernama, the national news agency.

In September the permit of the Chinese newspaper Oriental Daily Express was suspended on the day of the paper's first issue. The Home Affairs Ministry gave no reason for the suspension. However, in December, the Home Affairs Ministry allowed the paper to be published again.

The Government continued to prosecute human rights activist Irene Fernandez under the Printing Presses and Publications Act for charges that she made in 1995 of mistreatment of detainees at illegal alien detention centers. Fernandez's supporters accused the Government of purposely prolonging the trial, the longest in the country’s history. At year's end, the trial continued (see Section 1.e.).

The Government also sometimes directly restricted the dissemination of information that it deemed embarrassing or prejudicial to national interests. For example, the Government continued its policy of not allowing public disclosure of air pollution index readings.

Publications of opposition parties, social action groups, unions, and other private groups actively covered opposition parties and frequently printed views critical of government policies. However, the Government retained significant influence over these publications by requiring the annual renewal of publishing permits and limiting circulation only to the relevant organization members. Harakah was the target of several ruling party-sponsored libel suits. Harakah was the only major Malay and English language media forum for opposition views, and its circulation used to rival that of mainstream newspapers. In March 2000, the Government stipulated that Harakah publish only twice a month instead of twice a week. Several other opposition newsletters were allowed to publish and be distributed without government permission.

Most major newspapers have an online edition, and during the year, there were two exclusively on-line newspapers. Exclusively online newspapers did not require publication permits. In 2001 the Government engaged in a sometimes intimidating campaign to discredit the independent Internet daily, Malaysiakini.com, winner of an International Press Institute 2001 Press Freedom Award. This campaign did not continue during the year, and Malaysiakini was able to establish itself as a core media outlet in the country. While the Government continued to deny them formal press accreditation, Malaysiakini reporters were allowed to cover government functions and ministers' press conferences. Administrators of the on-line newspaper said its principal challenge was economic rather than political, even though the organization's relationship with the Government remained contentious.

Printers who also must have their permits renewed annually, often were reluctant to print publications that were critical of the Government.

Both legal magazines (those with publishing permits) and illegal publications (those lacking publishing permits) frequently printed criticism of the Government. In November 2001, police raided a printing company and seized several thousand pamphlets that accused the Selangor state Chief Minister of being involved in corrupt practices.

During the year, the Government interfered with the release and distribution of several foreign magazines, including the Far Eastern Economic Review and Newsweek. Government officials, including the Prime Minister, continued to accuse the foreign media of harboring ill intentions toward the country and of deliberately misrepresenting the country’s political and economic environment by focusing on negative news.

The electronic media was restricted more tightly than the print media. Radio and television almost uniformly were supportive of the Government. News of the opposition was restricted tightly and reported in a biased fashion. Opposition representatives said they were unable to have their views heard and represented on the country's television and radio stations. In the run-up to the February Indira Kayangan by-election, the government-owned television networks ran a recurring prime-time news clip that portrayed the PAS as a domestic Taliban group. The two broadcast private television stations have close ties to the ruling coalition and were unlikely to provide a forum for the opposition parties. It was unlikely that the Government would grant the opposition a broadcasting license. The Government did not approve a longstanding license application for a state radio station in the opposition-controlled Kelantan State.

In June the Deputy Home Affairs Minister reportedly directed the government-owned television networks to refrain from broadcasting a program on the Malaysian Chinese Association's controversial acquisition of several Chinese newspapers in 2001.

Internet television faced no such restrictions. In 2001 the opposition Islamic party launched its own Internet television studio, which broadcasted programs daily.

A government censorship board censored films for profanity, nudity, sex, violence, and certain political and religious content. Television stations censored programming in line with government guidelines. The Government banned certain books for political and religious reasons or because of sexual or profane content. Some foreign newspapers and magazines were banned and, infrequently, foreign magazines or newspapers were censored, most often for sexual content. However, the increased prevalence of the Internet undermined such restrictions. The Government maintained a "blacklist" of local and foreign performers, politicians, and religious leaders who were not allowed to appear on television or radio broadcasts. In 2001 the Government announced that it would increase efforts to block the production, distribution, and sales of video compact discs (VCDs), especially those with pornographic or political content.

The Communications and Multimedia Act (CMA) requires certain Internet and other network service providers to obtain a license. In December 2000, the Government stated that it did not intend to impose controls on Internet use, but noted that it would punish the "misuse" of information technology under the CMA, which, while prohibiting censorship, provides for "legal action" against those who post defamatory and false information on the Internet. During the year, the Government did not use licensing provisions under the CMA to interfere with Internet access or to restrict Internet content.

In past years, government officials made contradictory comments about the desirability of censoring the Internet, but the Government took no action to restrict the Internet during the year. According to news reports, in March a high-level government official said that the Government abandoned plans to regulate the Internet because the task was impossible.

The Government generally restricted remarks or publications that might incite racial or religious disharmony; it also attempted to restrict the content of sermons at government-affiliated mosques. Some state governments banned certain Muslim clergymen from delivering sermons, and more recently, active monitoring of sermons began in certain states (see Section 2.c.). The Religious Affairs Department continued to conduct background checks on all clergymen. Throughout the year, government officials and ruling coalition politicians complained that opposition Islamic party members gave political sermons in mosques around the country. In May 2000, members of the opposition Islamic party were banned by the Selangor state government from giving speeches in all mosques, government buildings, and prayer places in the state.

In July 2001, the Government ceased to issue permits for political gatherings and continued to apply the ban during the year (see Section 2.b.). This significantly limited the ability of opposition parties, particularly the Islamic party, to communicate with their supporters and to raise funds for their activities. For example, meetings that were scheduled to take place indoors were restricted. On October 1, police blocked a meeting organized by civil society activists to protest the government's refusal to release the six opposition figures detained under the ISA following the Federal Court's ruling that their initial detentions were unlawful. The meeting was scheduled to take place inside the Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall in Kuala Lumpur. Nonetheless, some opposition rallies continued to be held. Also, in July 2001, the Government began to crack down on the distribution and sale of the opposition party's VCDs and audiocassettes.

The Government places some restrictions on academic freedom, particularly regarding the expression of unapproved political views, and the Government enforced restrictions on teachers and students who expressed dissenting views. In March the Government began to require that all civil servants sign a pledge of loyalty to the Government, and in May it required that university faculty and students sign the same pledge. Opposition leaders and human rights activists claimed that this was intended to restrain political activity among civil servants, academics, and students. Academics sometimes were publicly critical of the Government. However, there was self-censorship among public university academics whose career advancement and funding depended on the Government. In August 2001, a secondary school teacher in the State of Terengganu was charged with sedition for asking his students to answer a test question regarding the erosion of judicial independence in the country.

In 2001 senior government officials said that teachers who opposed the Government and students who took part in antigovernment activities would face disciplinary actions, including dismissal and expulsion. In October 2001, the Education Minister announced that 61 university lecturers were dismissed, transferred, or issued warnings for alleged "antigovernment" activities. In 2001 several university students were expelled or suspended for engaging in activities associated with the political opposition.

Private institution academics practiced self-censorship as well, due to fear that the Government might revoke licenses for their institutions. The law also imposes limitations on student associations and student and faculty political activity (see Section 2.b.).

In July 2001, the Government detained two students at the University of Malaya and the Mara Technical Institute under the ISA for engaging in opposition political activities, including demonstrating against the ISA. The two were released before the initial 60-day period elapsed. The Government claimed that student participation in opposition politics threatened national security, and argued that individuals fortunate enough to be enrolled in the university should focus exclusively on their studies. Opposition leaders said that restrictions of political expression on campus would stifle students' intellectual development.

The Government long stated that students should be apolitical and used that assertion as a basis for denying opposition parties access to student forums. According to student leaders, students who signed antigovernment petitions sometimes were expelled or fined. The Government enforced this policy selectively; however, it did not refrain from spreading government views on political issues among students and teachers.

In February 1999, the University of Malaya declined to renew the contract of Professor Chandra Muzaffar. Chandra, a well-known supporter of political reform, charged that the University fired him for political reasons and filed suit. The university stated that it declined to renew Chandra’s contract for economic and personnel reasons. In March the High Court ruled in Chandra's favor and awarded him $30,000 (115,000 ringgit).

b. Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association

The Constitution provides for freedom of peaceful assembly; however, the Government placed significant restrictions on this right. This right may be limited in the interest of security and public order, and the Police Act requires police permits for all public assemblies except for workers on picket lines. The decision to grant a permit theoretically rests with the district police chief; however, in practice senior police officials and political leaders influence the grant or denial of some permits. Police grant permits routinely to government and ruling coalition supporters; however, they use a more restrictive policy with government critics, although the police did grant permits for many opposition meetings. In July 2001, the Government ceased issuing permits for all political meetings (ceramah) throughout the country. This was perceived widely as an effort to target the activities of the political opposition, although some opposition rallies continued to be held. In April the Islamic opposition party filed a suit against the Government protesting the ban.

Even before the 2001 ban on political meetings, opposition leaders maintained that police issued permits for public assemblies in a manner that discriminated against the opposition. Various state and local police departments rebutted these allegations by providing statistics that indicated that most requests for permits were granted; however, in certain sensitive cases political considerations led to the denial of permits. Police reaction to opposition rallies that ignored the requirement for a permit or were held after the Government denied a permit varied. In some instances, persons were told to disband immediately or face police action. In other instances, persons were given time to conduct their activities and were not threatened with police action. Opposition politicians noted that ruling coalition parties frequently assembled without the requisite permits.

A university vice chancellor must approve campus demonstrations. Restrictions were not enforced as vigorously on students who participated in political activities in support of the ruling coalition.

In April police broke up an opposition event in the State of Kedah with water cannons that used chemically laced water. In August police broke up a gathering of supporters of former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim who were celebrating Anwar's birthday outside of Sungai Buloh prison. In April 2001, the police mounted an operation to prevent citizens from participating in a Kuala Lumpur demonstration called by the opposition to commemorate the 2-year anniversary of Anwar Ibrahim's 1999 conviction on corruption charges. In the days prior to the event, police detained seven opposition activists under the ISA and claimed they were planning a massive, violent demonstration to overthrow the Government. Three others were detained in the days after the demonstration. Of these 10 individuals, 6 remained under ISA detention at year's end.

In June Suhakam released its second annual report, which reiterated the Commission's earlier criticism of government-imposed restrictions on freedom of assembly. The 2001 report recommended relaxing restrictions on freedom of assembly and noted the need to approve applications for peaceful assemblies as a general rule. In August 2001, the Suhakam also released a report specifically addressing freedom of assembly. Highlighting the fact that the right of assembly is provided for in the Constitution, the report recommended easing police permits for gatherings, setting up a special "speaker's corner," and reviewing laws that restrict the right to free assembly. The Government responded by calling the report "biased and idealistic" and influenced by "western liberal thinking."

The Constitution provides for the right of association; however, the Government placed significant restrictions on this right and certain statutes limited this right. Under the Societies Act, only registered, approved organizations of seven or more persons may function as societies. The Government sometimes refuses to register organizations or may impose conditions when allowing a society to register.

To avoid the burdensome requirements of the Societies Act, many NGOs register under the Companies Act or under the Registration of Businesses Act (see Section 4). The Government prohibits the Communist Party and affiliated organizations (see Section 1.f.). The Government also has the power to revoke the registration of an existing society for violations of the act, a power that it has enforced selectively against political opposition groups. In July 2001, government officials said that the Government would prosecute or deregister societies that did not accurately declare whether they received foreign funds. In the same month, Parliament amended the Registration of Businesses Act to enable the Registrar to revoke or refuse the registration of organizations deemed to be engaging in unlawful activities or for purposes that were incompatible with national security. Some human rights activists claimed that this could be used to restrict NGOs that were critical of the Government. Amendments to the Companies Act passed in 1998 empowered the Registrar of Companies to refuse registration of a proposed company if he is satisfied that the company is likely to be used for any purpose prejudicial to national security or the public interest. The Registrar also may cancel the registration of an existing company and disband it on the same grounds. Opposition parties and NGO activists claimed that the sweeping powers granted to the Registrar of Companies were designed to stifle criticism. The Government denied such charges and stated that financial irregularities were the amendments' main target.

In August 2000, the High Court heard an appeal from the Socialist Party of Malaysia, whose application to form a new political party was rejected in February 1999 by the Registrar of Societies. The Registrar stated that information on the application form was incomplete. Supporters of the Socialist Party claimed that the denial was motivated politically and filed an appeal. The case still was pending at year’s end.

The Universities and the University Colleges Act also restricts freedom of association. This act mandates university approval for student associations and prohibits student associations, as well as faculty members, from engaging in political activity. Many students, NGOs, and opposition political parties called for the repeal or amendment of the act. A number of ruling coalition organizations and politicians also supported reexamination of the act, but the Government stated that the act still was necessary.

c. Freedom of Religion

The Constitution provides for freedom of religion; however, the Government placed some restrictions on this right. Islam is the official religion; however, the practice of Islamic beliefs other than Sunni Islam was restricted significantly. Religious minorities, which include large Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, and Sikh communities, generally worshipped freely, although with some restrictions. Government funds support an Islamic religious establishment, and it is official policy to "infuse Islamic values" into the administration of the country. The Government imposes Islamic religious law (Shari’a) on Muslims only in some matters and it does not impose Shari’a beyond the Muslim community. Adherence to Islam is considered intrinsic to Malay ethnic identity and therefore Islamic religious laws administered by state authorities through Islamic courts bind all ethnic Malays (and other Muslims) in some matters. The Government also grants funds to non-Islamic religions, but to a more limited degree.

The Registrar of Societies, under the Ministry of Home Affairs, registers religious organizations. Registration enables organizations to receive government grants and other benefits. In May 2001, the Government decided not to approve the Falun Gong Preparatory Committee's application to register as a legal organization, but this did not effect the Falun Gong's ability to carry out activities in public.

Under the law and in practice, it is very difficult for Muslims to change religions. In April 2001, a High Court judge rejected the application of a Malay woman who argued that she converted to Christianity, and requested that the term "Islam" be removed from her identity card. The judge ruled that an ethnic Malay is defined by the Federal Constitution as a "person who professes the religion of Islam." The judge also reaffirmed the March 1999 High Court ruling and stated that only an Islamic court has jurisdiction to rule on the woman's supposed renunciation of Islam and conversion to Christianity. The ruling makes conversion of Muslims nearly impossible in practice.

In 2000 the State of Perlis enacted a law that stipulated Muslims found guilty of apostasy by a Shari'a court are to be sent to "faith rehabilitation centers." Since its enactment, there have been no convictions under this law. Such a bill also was proposed at the highest level of the Government. Leaders of PAS said that the penalty for apostasy should be death.

The Government generally respected non-Muslims' right of worship; however, state governments carefully controlled the building of non-Muslim places of worship and the allocation of land for non-Muslim cemeteries. Approvals for such permits sometimes were granted very slowly. In 1999 the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, and Sikhism (MCCBCHS) protested the planned implementation of Ministry of Housing and local government guidelines governing non-Muslim places of worship. The MCCBCHS specifically complained that the guidelines required an area to have at least 2,000 to 5,000 adherents of a particular non-Muslim faith for a non-Muslim place of worship to be approved. No such requirement exists for Muslim places of worship. In August 2000, these minimum guidelines were relaxed somewhat. The group also argued that, under the guidelines, the Islamic Council of the state in question must approve the establishment of all non-Muslim places of worship. In addition, after years of complaints by non-Islamic religious organizations about the need for Islamic authorities in each state to approve construction of non-Islamic religious institutions, the Minister of Housing and Local Government announced that such approval no longer would be required. However, it was unclear whether this change generally would be reflected in state policies and local decisions. For example, in Shah Alam, the Selangor state authorities continued to block construction of a Catholic church.

During the controversy over the proposed new guidelines on non-Muslim places of worship, the MCCBCHS and the Federal Territory Counseling and Service Center separately urged the Prime Minister to create a national "inter-religious" council, although no such council was created. During the year, Suhakam initiated an inter-religious dialog to improve understanding among different religious groups. Leaders of a number of different faiths, including Islam, Christianity, and Buddhism participated.

The proselytizing of Muslims by members of other religions is prohibited strictly; persons proselytizing non-Muslims face no obstacles. The Government discouraged, and in practical terms forbade, the circulation in the peninsular region of the country Malay-language translations of the Bible and distribution of Christian tapes and printed materials in Malay. However, Malay-language Christian materials can be found. Some states have laws that prohibit the use of Malay-language religious terms by Christians, but the authorities did not always enforce them actively. The distribution of Malay-language Christian materials faced few restrictions in the eastern part of the country. Most visas for foreign Christian clergy were approved. Beginning in March 2000, non-Muslim representatives sat on the immigration committee that approves such visa requests.

The Government opposes what it considers to be deviant interpretations of Islam, maintaining that the "deviant" groups’ extreme views endanger national security. In the past, the Government imposed restrictions on certain Islamic groups, primarily the small number of Shi'a. The Government continues to monitor the activities of the Shi'a minority, including those of 55 religious groups believed to be involved in deviant Islamic teachings. In November 2000, the Shari’a high court in the State of Kelantan sentenced four persons to 3 years in jail for disregarding a lower court order to "recant" their allegedly heretical Islamic beliefs and to "return to the true teachings of Islam." The High Court rejected their argument that Shari’a law had no jurisdiction over them because they had ceased to be Muslims. In August the Court of Appeals reaffirmed the High Court ruling. The four individuals subsequently have filed an appeal with the Federal Court.

The Government periodically detains members of what it considers Islamic deviant sects without trial or charge under the ISA. After release such detainees are subject to restrictions on their movement and residence. For example, in July 2000, the Government used the ISA to detain at least 33 members of the Al-Ma’unah sect, who reportedly were not suspected of involvement in an early July arms theft incident. Fifteen members remained under ISA detention at year’s end.

The Government has a comprehensive system of preferences for ethnic Malays and members of a few other groups known collectively as "bumiputras," most of whom are Muslim (see Section 5).

For a more detailed discussion see the 2002 International Religious Freedom Report.

d. Freedom of Movement Within the Country, Foreign Travel, Emigration, and Repatriation

Citizens generally have the right to travel, live, and work where they please; however, the Government restricts these rights in some circumstances. The eastern states of Sabah and Sarawak have the right to control immigration and to require citizens from peninsular Malaysia and foreigners to present passports or national identity cards for entry. In 1998 the Court of Appeal ruled that Sabah and Sarawak, despite their autonomy, still were bound by the federal Constitution in all matters. Thus, the court voided Sabah's expulsion of an attorney from peninsular Malaysia who was involved in several lawsuits against the state government. In May the Federal Court overturned the Appeals Court decision and ruled that Sabah's exclusive control on immigration was provided for in the Constitution and could not be challenged. In June the Sabah State Immigration Department gave the attorney a work permit enabling him to stay and work in Sabah. In 2001 the Government reportedly prohibited 78 citizens from traveling abroad claiming that they had "tarnished the country's image while abroad." Deputy Home Minister Datuk Zainal Abidin Zin told Parliament that the individuals in question were "blacklisted" and would not be issued passports. Also in 2001, the Sarawak state authorities deported a well-known ethnic Chinese education activist and prohibited his return. The Government regulated the internal movement of provisionally released ISA detainees. The Government also used the Restricted Residence Act to limit movements of those suspected of some criminal activities (see Section 1.d.).

Citizens must apply for the government's permission to travel to Israel. Travel to Jerusalem for a religious purpose is allowed explicitly.

The Government has not ratified the 1951 U.N. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees or its 1967 Protocol, and the Government does not always abide by customary international law in this area. The Government does not recognize the principle of first asylum; however, it sometimes granted temporary refuge to asylum seekers. In 2001 Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar said that Indonesian refugees fleeing violence in Kalimantan would be prevented from entering the country, and the Government continued to refuse to acknowledge that any Indonesian illegal aliens, including Acehnese, had a claim to refugee status. However, the Government enjoyed a mostly cooperative relationship with the UNHCR and generally did not obstruct the UNHCR's efforts to process refugees, including Acehnese, for third-country resettlement.

Beginning on August 1, when the new immigration law went into effect, the Government temporarily restricted access for asylum seekers and refugees to the UNHCR field office in Kuala Lumpur. (The new immigration law provides for 6 months in prison and up to six strokes of the cane for violators. Prior to the implementation of the law, a 4-month grace period was given for all illegal immigrants to depart the country.) During the approximately 1 week that access to UNHCR was restricted, police arrested over 100 individuals in front of the UNHCR offices. Some individuals may have been refugees and others reportedly were asylum seekers who had scheduled interviews with the refugee agency. However, the Government subsequently granted UNHCR officials access to detention camps to identify and to interview potential refugees who might have been caught in the dragnet for illegal immigrants. The Government reportedly assured UNHCR that no action against possible refugees and asylum seekers would be taken until the refugee agency had identified the ones that merited asylum interviews (see Section 1.c.).

According to news reports, three Filipino children died during deportation from Sabah. In September there were allegations that police raped a 13-year-old Filipino girl in an immigrant detention camp in Sabah. Following widespread media coverage and pressure from the Government of the Philippines, Prime Minister Mahathir publicly pledged to have the allegations investigated. Further investigation after the girl was deported to the Philippines revealed that she was a Malaysian citizen, and she subsequently returned to Sabah. No additional information was available at year's end.

In June police arrested 18 Muslim Rohingya asylum seekers whose encampment in the UNHCR compound prevented other asylum seekers from approaching the agency. Newspapers reported they were sent to Semenyih illegal immigrants' detention camp in Selangor for deportation to Burma after their requests for refugee status were denied by the UNHCR (see Section 1.d.).

There were some forced expulsions of asylum seekers and refugees during the year.

Section 3 Respect for Political Rights: The Right of Citizens to Change Their Government

By law citizens have the right to change their Government through periodic elections; however, while votes generally were recorded accurately, there were some irregularities that affected the fairness of elections, and in practice opposition parties were unable to compete on equal terms with the governing coalition (which has held power at the national level since 1957) because of significant restrictions on campaigning, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, and access to the media. Nevertheless, opposition candidates campaigned actively, with some success in state and national elections. For example, a number of opposition parties contested in the state election in Sarawak in 2001 and in five by-elections that were held during the year. In July the opposition retained a seat in the Kedah state assembly but lost a Parliamentary seat in a tightly contested election. In the November 1999 elections, the opposition more than doubled the number of its seats in the national parliament from 20 to 45, out of a total of 193.

The country has a parliamentary system of government. National elections are required at least every 5 years and have been held regularly since independence in 1957. The Malay-based UMNO party dominates the ruling National Front coalition, which has ruled the country continuously since independence. Since 1969 the National Front coalition always has maintained at least a two-thirds majority in Parliament, which enables the Government to amend the Constitution at will. Over the years, power increasingly has been concentrated in the executive branch and in the Prime Minister.

The lack of equal access to the media was the most serious problem encountered by the opposition in the November 1999 elections (see Section 2.a.). Government officials frankly said that government television and radio would not carry reporting on the opposition. The country’s two private television stations also had virtually no impartial reporting on the opposition. The mainstream English- and Malay-language newspapers carried biased coverage of domestic politics as well. In addition, opposition parties encountered difficulties in placing paid advertisements in newspapers; however, a few opposition advertisements did appear, after editing by the newspapers, in English- and Chinese-language newspapers.

Postal votes (absentee ballots) by police and military personnel and their spouses also were a concern. The Government, citing security concerns, did not allow party agents to monitor postal vote boxes placed on military and police installations. Opposition parties questioned the rationale for such security restrictions. Opposition parties and NGOs raised credible allegations of improper manipulation of postal votes, including statements by former military personnel that their ballots were filled out by others or under the eye of commanding officers. For the November 1999 elections, the Election Commission changed some procedures to allow better monitoring by Election Commission officers. Opposition parties continued to call for monitoring absentee votes by party agents.

A number of NGOs, including the Bar Council and other public interest groups, devoted considerable attention to human rights. The Government generally tolerated their activities but often did not respond to their inquiries or press statements. However, government officials met with NGOs on several occasions during the year. Government officials harshly criticized domestic NGOs for collaborating with foreigners, including international human rights organizations. Nonetheless, at year's end, no group was banned or decertified. In the past, public apathy and racial divisions (non-Malays dominated most domestic human rights NGOs) limited the effectiveness of NGOs. However, public discontent over the 1998 removal and subsequent imprisonment of Deputy Prime Minister Anwar encouraged some NGOs to speak out against the Government, and it led to the increased involvement of ethnic Malays in NGO activity.

In 1998 the Government amended the Companies Act to grant the Registrar of Companies wide powers to block or disband organizations deemed prejudicial to national security or the national interest (see Section 2.b.). In 2001 Parliament amended the Registration of Businesses Act to enable the Registrar to refuse or to revoke the registration of organizations deemed to be engaging in unlawful activities. The Government generally did not allow international human rights organizations to form domestic branches; however, it usually did not restrict access by representatives of international human rights organizations. The Government did not allow Amnesty International (AI) to set up a branch as an NGO. However, AI incorporated itself as a business, and it was able to function much like an NGO. In recent years, the Government did not revoke the registration of any human rights NGO.

Since its establishment in April 2000, the National Human Rights Commission, Suhakam, has come to be seen by some analysts as a credible monitor of the human rights situation in the country and a check on police activities that previously lacked oversight. However, civil society leaders expressed skepticism regarding the strong civil-service orientation of the majority of the new commissioners appointed in April, saying that the Commission would adopt a "progovernment" perspective as a result. To register its concern, a group of leading human rights NGOs formally disengaged from the Commission for a period of 100 days.

The legislation that created Suhakam defines human rights as "the fundamental liberties provided for" in the Constitution and restricts the application of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to those provisions consistent with the Constitution. In 1999 prior to Suhakam’s creation, opposition leaders and NGOs, including the Bar Council, criticized the definition of human rights as too narrow. Further, Suhakam is not empowered to inquire into allegations relating to ongoing court cases and must cease its inquiry if an allegation under investigation becomes the subject matter of a court case.

In June Suhakam released its second annual human rights report. The report criticized detentions without trial and reiterated Suhakam's opposition to government-imposed restrictions on freedom of assembly but also praised the August 2001 Constitutional amendment prohibiting discrimination based on gender. The report provoked little public response and an ambivalent reaction among civil society groups.

During the year, Suhakam Commissioners continued to travel throughout the country to educate community leaders, including police officials, on the purposes of the Commission and the importance of human rights. Commissioners also made several visits to prisons throughout the country to monitor conditions. Suhakam issued press statements and held press conferences after several of their visits. In its second annual report, Suhakam published its findings regarding the rights of ISA detainees, the rights of remand prisoners, and the rights of young prisoners. In August the Vice Chairman of Suhakam provoked controversy among human rights groups when he said publicly that the Government should organize rehabilitation programs for ISA detainees. In June Suhakam also held an inquiry into the condition of ISA detainees. The report on this inquiry has not been made public yet.

While initially skeptical, some observers acknowledged Suhakam as one of the few institutions in society with any ability to challenge, however distantly, executive control. However, following former Chairman Musa Hitam's October 2001 statement that human rights would need to take a back seat in the fight against terrorism, the Commission has assumed a lower profile in carrying out its mission and has not often publicly challenged the Government on sensitive subjects. The new Chairman of the Commission, former Attorney General Abu Talib, appeared to favor a low-key, behind-the-scenes approach to promoting human rights.

Section 5 Discrimination Based on Race, Sex, Disability, Language, or Social Status

The Constitution provides for equal protection under the law and prohibits discrimination against citizens based on religion, race, descent, or place of birth. In 2001 the Parliament unanimously approved a Constitutional amendment barring discrimination on the basis of sex. However, discrimination based on some of these factors persisted. For example, government policies gave preferences to ethnic Malays in housing, home ownership, the awarding of government contracts, educational scholarships, and other areas. Neither the Constitution nor other laws explicitly prohibited discrimination based on physical or mental disabilities, but the Government promoted greater public acceptance and integration of persons with disabilities.

Women

Violence against women remained a problem. Spousal abuse drew considerable government, NGO, and press attention. According to the Family and Women Development Ministry, there were 3,107 cases of domestic violence reported in 2001, compared to 3,468 in 2000.

The Domestic Violence Act addresses violence against women in the home. However, women's groups criticized the act as inadequate and called for amendments to strengthen it. In their view, the act fails to protect women in immediate danger by requiring separate reports of abuse to be filed with both the Welfare Department and the police, causing delay in the issuance of a restraining order against the perpetrator. Women’s rights activists also highlighted the fact that because the act is a part of the Penal Code, legal protection for victims is limited to cases in which visible evidence of physical injury is present, despite its interpretation to include sexual and psychological abuse.

Although the Government, NGOs, and political parties established shelters and offered other assistance to battered spouses, activists asserted that support mechanisms for victims of domestic violence remained inadequate. Police responses and sensitivity to complaints of domestic violence improved, but women’s rights activists claimed that the police need additional training in handling domestic abuse as well as rape cases.

Domestic violence complaints are rare under Islamic law. Some Shari’a experts have urged Muslim women to become more aware of the provisions of Shari’a that prohibit spousal abuse and provide for divorces on grounds of physical cruelty. Nonetheless, Shari’a generally (each state has a separate code) prohibits wives from disobeying the lawful orders of their husbands. These provisions often present an obstacle to women pursuing claims, including charges of abuse, in Shari'a courts against their husbands, although Muslim women are able to file complaints in the civil courts.

Spousal rape is not a crime. Theoretically a man who raped his wife could face charges of assault; however, women's rights activists claimed that no man has been convicted under such circumstances.

Reports of rape were common in the press and among women's rights groups and NGOs. According to Royal Malaysian police statistics, as of August there were 984 reported cases of rape during the year. In 1999 a women’s NGO issued a report that stated that the incidence of rape had increased 48 percent in the 5-year period from 1993 to 1998; more than 50 percent of all rape victims were under age 16. Many government hospitals have set up crisis centers where victims of rape and domestic abuse can make reports without going to a police station. The NGOs and political parties also cooperate in providing counseling for rape victims. However, cultural attitudes and a perceived lack of sympathy from the largely male police force lead many victims not to report rapes. According to the Ministry of Women and Family Development and a leading woman’s NGO, only 10 percent of rape cases are reported to the police. In a 2000 study involving 417 court files from 7 state capitals and Kuala Lumpur, even when alleged rape was reported, only 1 in 5 cases was heard in court, and only 1 percent of the reported cases resulted in a rape conviction. The Penal Code states that a convicted rapist shall be punished with imprisonment for a term not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years. Some rapists received heavy punishments, including caning, but women's groups complained that some rapists received inadequate punishments. In September a police constable was acquitted of charges of raping two foreign women who were in police custody. The Session Court ruled that the acts had been consensual. Following sharp public criticism of the verdict, the Attorney General's office filed an appeal, which was still pending at year's end.

In July the PAS-controlled Terengganu state assembly passed the Shari'a Criminal Offenses Bill (see Section 2.c.). The Government, led by Women and Family Development Minister Sharizat Abdul Jalil, argued that the proposed law discriminates against women, especially in regard to rape cases. Under the new state law, conviction for rape would require four Muslim male eyewitnesses of good standing to testify if adequate physical evidence was lacking. Women or non-Muslims would be barred from testifying. An amendment to an earlier version of the law provides for rape convictions (with lesser penalties) even if four male eyewitnesses could not be produced, in the event that circumstantial evidence was deemed sufficient. Illicit sex is still punishable with death by stoning if the man or woman is married. For unmarried offenders, the punishment is 100 lashes and 1 year in prison. One prominent NGO critic of the law said that it was contrary to Islamic teachings, as the provision requiring four male witnesses originally was intended to protect women from false accusations of illicit sex and not as an additional burden of proof for rape victims. However, this law remained in limbo at year's end, as its implementation required an amendment to the Federal Constitution. The suit filed at the Federal Court challenging a similar proposed law in the State of Kelantan on the constitutional grounds that states have no authority over criminal law was pending at year's end.

According to a well known activist, some girls in provincial areas are subject to varying forms of female genital mutilation (FGM). Some Malay girls receive a tiny ritual cut to the clitoris or participate in a ceremony where a blade is brought close to the clitoris. Almost all Malay women, including Muslim women activists, do not believe that this constitutes mutilation.

A 1998 International Labor Organization (ILO) study estimated that there were approximately 40,000 to 140,000 prostitutes in the country. The Government strongly disputed this estimate, and the police stated that they would investigate NGOs that might have provided the information that formed the basis of the study. Since prostitution itself is not illegal, statistics are only available for foreigners arrested for immigration or other offenses with suspected involvement in prostitution. The number of foreign persons arrested with suspected involvement in prostitution increased during the year. Police attributed the increase to more vigorous enforcement efforts. Police also believed that the increasing number of arrests was a result of greater numbers of women trafficked to the country from ASEAN countries, China, and Uzbekistan (see Section 6.f.).

The country was a source and destination country for trafficking in women for purposes of prostitution (see Section 6.f.).

In 1999 the Ministry of Human Resources issued a Code of Practice on the Prevention and Eradication of Sexual Harassment in the Workplace. Women's groups noted the code’s detailed definition of sexual harassment and attempted to raise public awareness of the problem, but they criticized the fact that adherence to the code is voluntary and not legally binding. Women’s rights activists claimed that a law on sexual harassment would be more effective than a code of practice. In the first year following the issuance of the code, the Human Resources Minister advocated voluntary compliance by employers and advised unions to incorporate policies against sexual harassment into their collective labor agreements. The Malaysian Employers Federation criticized any attempt to legislate against sexual harassment in the workplace, arguing that government-imposed policies would unduly restrict the management of labor relations.

Since the code's