Peaceful Assembly: The BN Government's Misinformation

By Kua Kia Soong, Director of SUARAM

In justifying the bulldozing of the Peaceful Assembly Bill yesterday, the BN government has said that it is in line with similar laws in the European countries which respect democracy. This is a devious attempt at misinformation which must be debunked.

Debasement of our Constitutional Right

Firstly, Malaysians should realise how much the BN has debased our fundamental liberties since Independence in 1957. Our federal constitution, by the way, was crafted by the Reid Commission set up by our former colonial master and our fundamental liberties enshrined in it were based on international human rights already existing at the time.

Our right to assemble peaceably under Article 10 was severely circumscribed by the Police Act 1967, giving the police wide discretionary powers to the police to regulate assemblies, meetings and processions by requiring a licence to be obtained for peaceful assemblies.

Amendments to the Act in 1987 further extended police powers to stopping and dispersing activities in private places. It also provided the police with power to use force against participants when closing down events, whether in public or private places. This was exactly what the police did in 1996 when they dispersed, arrested and detained NGO activists at the Asia-Pacific conference on East Timor (APCET). I was one of the unfortunate victims of this law.

Since 2007, section 98 of the Criminal Procedure Code allows the government to use court orders to stop public assemblies. The police have the power to arrest individuals named in court orders if they enter the identified areas of planned assemblies.

Through the years, the police have used these powers to selectively arrest human rights defenders while letting off far-right mobsters such as we saw at APCET in 1996, Suqiu in 2000, Kampung Medan in 2001, the Article 11 fora in 2006, the cow-head fracas in 2010, to name but the most salient examples of double standards by the police.

SUHAKAM in its 2007 public inquiry report reiterated the constitutional provision that “peaceful assemblies should be allowed to proceed without a licence.”

Use European Convention on Human Rights Model

Whichever European country’s model the government is supposed to have followed in drafting the Peaceful Assembly Bill, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is ultimately the authority on this fundamental liberty.

The right to peaceful protest is enshrined in the ECHR. The police do not need notification of the protest. As long as the public highway is not blocked off completely and there is no threat of violence, there will be no criminal offence. If the police do require conditions, they are obliged to give reasons for the conditions. If they have acted unlawfully, the police can be sued under the Human Rights Act.

As long as the organisers’ intention is for peaceful assembly, the possibility of violent counter-demonstrations is not a reason for prohibiting processions. The state is expected to protect peaceful protestors and to take reasonable and appropriate means to enable lawful peaceful assemblies.

Notification only for Police Protection

It is only right that the police should be notified if there is to be a peaceful assembly since they are the keepers of the peace and the far-right are the main threats to democracy today. However, it is unconstitutional to criminalise a peaceful assembly or procession simply on the ground that the organisers had failed to give notice to the police.

The Peaceful Assembly Bill is thus an unnecessary restriction on our right to assemble peaceably and out of step with modern democratic societies. Important events are forever breaking out which spur people to protest over particular issues and peaceful protests provide a forum for the peoples’ voices to be heard.

There should be a notice period of 48 hours if only for administrative purposes with provision for waiver in spontaneous demonstrations. Fundamentally, the spirit of Article 10 of our constitution demands that the police should not be given the power to prohibit any peaceful assembly or procession.

Kill the Bill

Under the guise of “reform”, the BN government is attempting to pull the wool over our eyes by introducing old poison in new bottles. Mark my words – they will do the same with the ISA with their new Act “against terrorism”. As for reforming our political institutions to honour the right to peaceful assembly, the government should simply amend the existing Police Act and other laws to be in line with Article 10 of the Constitution. As the perceptive philosopher Uma Thurman coolly put it: “Kill Bill…”

It’s people’s right to disagree

By P Ramakrishnan, Past President of Aliran

The Minister in the Prime Minister’s department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, doesn’t seem to understand basic things concerning democracy. His notion of democracy is woefully dismal and disappointing. His ignorance on issues of democracy is alarming!

While castigating the current Bar Council president, Lim Chee Wee, and the former Bar Council president, Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan, for organising the Walk for Freedom peaceful demonstration, he suggested that the Bar Council be registered as a political party and that they should stand for elections.

His stand seems to suggest that only political parties and politicians have the right to disagree and speak up and if you are not in either of these categories, you don’t have the right to criticise or disagree.

This is utter nonsense. This right to disagree or criticise is not the monopoly of a political party or politician. This God-given right is the birth-right of every individual, and it is enshrined in the Constitution.

The right to freedom of assembly, the right to speech of expression and the right to freedom of association are the inalienable rights of every citizen. There are no caveats placed on these rights. Nazri, therefore, has no right to insist that one must belong to a political party to disagree with the Barisan Nasional’s policies.

The Constitution has no such provisions barring citizens from speaking up or championing a cause.

In a democracy, citizens have a role to play and participate in every aspect of governance without belonging to a political party and without being a politician.

Nazri must be reminded that, according to A.d. Benoist, “The highest measure of democracy is neither the ‘extent of freedom’ nor the ‘extent of equality’, but rather the highest measure of participation.”

It’s people’s right to disagree

By P Ramakrishnan, Past President of Aliran

The Minister in the Prime Minister’s department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, doesn’t seem to understand basic things concerning democracy. His notion of democracy is woefully dismal and disappointing. His ignorance on issues of democracy is alarming!

While castigating the current Bar Council president, Lim Chee Wee, and the former Bar Council president, Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan, for organising the Walk for Freedom peaceful demonstration, he suggested that the Bar Council be registered as a political party and that they should stand for elections.

His stand seems to suggest that only political parties and politicians have the right to disagree and speak up and if you are not in either of these categories, you don’t have the right to criticise or disagree.

This is utter nonsense. This right to disagree or criticise is not the monopoly of a political party or politician. This God-given right is the birth-right of every individual, and it is enshrined in the Constitution.

The right to freedom of assembly, the right to speech of expression and the right to freedom of association are the inalienable rights of every citizen. There are no caveats placed on these rights. Nazri, therefore, has no right to insist that one must belong to a political party to disagree with the Barisan Nasional’s policies.

The Constitution has no such provisions barring citizens from speaking up or championing a cause.

In a democracy, citizens have a role to play and participate in every aspect of governance without belonging to a political party and without being a politician.

Nazri must be reminded that, according to A.d. Benoist, “The highest measure of democracy is neither the ‘extent of freedom’ nor the ‘extent of equality’, but rather the highest measure of participation.”

How Laws are enacted in Malaysia

By Hakim Joe

Malaysians need to know this as part of their right and privilege as a citizen of the country. Only then are we able to understand how Parliament works and how laws are passed.

The Parliament is divided into two houses i.e. the Dewan Rakyat or the Lower House and the Dewan Negara or Senate. First of all, Parliament only meets from Monday to Thursday when in session. These sessions are published online and viewers can check them at
www.parliament.com.my and there are certain periods when the elected representatives and appointed senators go on leave.

The Dewan Rakyat is made up from the elected representatives in a General Election of a Parliamentary seat (as opposed to a State seat). The Senate, which consists of 70 members, is made up from 2 each selected from every state (total of 26) and the remaining 44
appointed by the Agong on the advice of the PM. The federal territory of Kuala Lumpur must have 2 senators while Labuan and Putrajaya has one each. The remaining 40 can be from any state or federal territory in Malaysia. All this appointee needs is to be a Malaysian citizen, must not owe allegiance to any foreign state, must not have received a prison sentence of one year or longer, must not have been fined RM2,000 or more or holders of a full time profit-making position in the public service.

It must be noted that the original Constitution of Malaysia, drafted before Merdeka, only provided for 16 individuals to be appointed by the Agong instead of the current 70 individuals. The intent was to place them in the minority so as to protect the states’ interest against federal encroachments. With 44 members or 62.8%, getting anything passed in the Senate is but a formality for the government. The term of office is 3 years and senators may only be reappointed once, consecutively or non-consecutively.

A proposed Act of Law begins its journey when a particular government minister or ministry prepares a first draft with the assistance of the Attorney General's Department. This draft is known as the Bill and the year it was drafted shall be appended to it at the rear. When the government minister or ministry finalizes drafting the Bill, it shall be sent to the Cabinet for its first discussion session. During this time, the first amendments (if any) shall be made and only after it has been agreed upon shall the Bill be introduced into Parliament.

A Bill may originate from either of the Houses with one exception, the “Money Bill”. Subject to Article 67 of the Federal Constitution, the “Money Bill” must originate from the Dewan Rakyat and can only be introduced by a Minister. The House, which a Bill is originated, shall send it to the other House once the Bill has been passed. After the other House passes the Bill, it must then be presented to the Agong for his assent under the Article 66(3) of the Federal Constitution.

Prior to the 1983 Malaysian Constitutional Crisis, the Agong may withhold his assent to any Bills that have passed both Houses. However, Mahathir pushed forward a set of amendments to Article 66 of the Constitution that set the time limit of the Agong to veto a Bill within 30 days. Nowadays Article 66(4) states that the Agong must assent to the Bill by causing the Public Seal to be affixed thereto. This must be completed within 30 days from the date a Bill is being presented to him. The Federal Constitution provides that a Bill will automatically become law at the expiration of the 30 days period specified in the like manner as if he had assented thereto, should the Agong, for whatever reason, fails to give his assent to the Bill within the specified period.

Nonetheless if the Agong disagrees with the Bill, HRH can return it to Parliament with a list of suggested amendments. Parliament must then reconsider the Bill and its proposed amendments and return it to the Agong within 30 days, if they pass it again, either adopting
the proposed amendments or keeping the original draft. The Agong will then have another additional 30 days to assent to the Bill or it will automatically passes into law.

The first reading of the Bill happens when the minister or his deputy submits it to Parliament. This is a formality and only the title of the Bill will be read out. No draft copies of the Bill are distributed out. The Speaker will then set a date and time for the Second Reading and this is usually within the next few days unless the government maintains that all three Readings be done immediately.

Usually draft copies of the Bill will only be distributed out to all Members of Parliament a few days before the Second Reading. However, in the event that the government requests that all three Readings be completed immediately, the draft copies will be distributed promptly and be debated, as it is, on the same day. This is usually executed to prevent the Opposition from discussing it amongst themselves and/or to keep the public from getting involved in the proceedings. The Speaker may disallow it but this has never happened before as the government appoints the Speaker to his position. However, the Speaker reserves the privilege to appoint or limit any number of MPs to be included in the debate during the Second Reading.\

Regardless of whatever happens in the course of the debate during the Second Reading, the government can summon for the Third Reading at any time they desire. Once again the Speaker may veto it and once again it has never happened before. The Third Reading is the actual voting process and a two-thirds majority is required to pass the Bill. Should the Bill be passed, it is sent forth to the Dewan Negara, where the three Readings are carried out again. The Dewan Negara may not formally reject any Bill but choose not to pass the Bill, but this only delays its passage by a month, or in some cases, a year. Once this stipulated period expires, the Bill is considered to have been passed by the Senate. With 44 members and 2 members from any government-controlled state, getting any Bill past Dewan Negara is rather “a piece of cake” and can actually be accomplished under 5 minutes.

Additionally, the Dewan Negara is not affected by the elections for the Dewan Rakyat, and senators continue to hold office despite the Dewan Rakyat's dissolution for an election.

After the Second Reading, any Member of Parliament can call for a Special Committee to discuss the technical details of the Bill or be submitted before a Parliamentary Select Committee for review. Nevertheless, the Speaker can disallow it and promptly call for the
Third Reading.

In some rare cases, the government actually prepares a Government White Paper containing particular proposals that will eventually be incorporated into a Bill. White Papers are an informal name for a Parliamentary Paper expressing a proposed government policy or action on a topic of current concern, or a Bill seeking passage through Parliament. This actually happened to the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971.

The Opposition is also permitted to propose any Bills to Parliament and these are identified as the Private Members’ Bill (PMB). To present a PMB, the MP in question must seek the leave of the House to debate the Bill before it is moved in Parliament. Originally, the
PMB was permitted to be debated in the Dewan Rakyat in the process of the MP seeking leave, but this procedure was discontinued by an amendment to the Standing Orders of Parliament by Mahathir and therefore such a parliamentary avenue was subsequently amended into oblivion. The current amended Standing Orders of Parliament gives consent to the Speaker to amend or revise the written copies of the MPs' speeches (to be submitted to him in advance) before they were allowed to be made in the House. Even if the Speaker permits the MP’s motion to seek leave, this motion can still be defeated in the House.

Lastly, no laws shall come into force until it has been gazetted or published in the Government Gazette under the Article 66(5) of the Federal Constitution. Only once that has been completed shall the Bill become Law.

Delegate wants more projects for Wanita

A young delegate from Umno Wanita today openly urged the government to allocate projects to members of the wing.

Representing Penang Umno Wanita to debate economic resolution during the wing’s annual general assembly this afternoon, Ekafarlina Saparuddin, 24, complained that most of the government projects have gone to the men.

According to her, projects given to government-linked companies were eventually passed to foreign workers.

“If is like this, why not give them to the women in this hall to be distributed among us?”

As a result of preference to the men, she said, members of Wanita are severely marginalised in term of economic development although they are the most hard-working members during elections.

“If a woman starts a business to sell fried bananas, even until she finishes her term as Wanita chief, she will still be selling fried bananas.

“But if we look at the men, when they become division chief, they will drive a luxurious car and open many branches, even their belly will become big,” she said to a round of laughter.

“I believe the government can give opportunities and money to Wanita to develop their economic status.”

Among other proposals, she said, is to give the laundry of all three public hospitals in Penang to Wanita members, who in turn can hire single mothers to do the job.

Besides government projects, Ekafarlina also demanded that the directorships in GLCs be allocated for the women.

To ensure women’s participation in the corporate world, she suggested that the government establish a special unit under the Prime Minister’s Department to assist female entrepreneurs.

“We are not asking for mountains or oceans but only small hills. The problem is we can’t even get small hills!” she added.

Perkasa turns yellow: no balls to wear red

PERKASA, the controversial Malay NGO, who normally wear RED have now changed to YELLOW.

Why isn't the POLICE arresting these PERKASA protesters and their LEADERS!!!!!

picture courtesy of Sun(source : uppercaise)

Hindraf report to Washington: Institutional Racism in Malaysia

CPI introduction

Below is the executive summary made by P. Waytha Moorthy, the founder of Hindraf and leader of the Human Rights Foundation Malaysia.

Also uploaded is the paper presented before the US House Committee on foreign affairs and the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission.

According to its brief, Hindraf is “Human Rights Foundation Malaysia is an organisation dedicated to the protection and promotion of Human Rights for the marginalised in Malaysia. We document and report all forms of violations, give voice to the oppressed and hold the Government accountable for its Human Rights violations. We lobby International support for the marginalised community and submit Independent reports and evidence to International bodies.”

*************************

Institutional Racism and Religious freedom in Malaysia

Executive summary

• Institutional racism is the process by which people from ethnic minorities are systematically discriminated against by a range of public and private bodies. If the result or outcome of established laws, customs or practices is racially discriminatory, then institutional racism can be said to have occurred.

Dr.Benjamin Bowling

(Professor of Criminology & Criminal Justice and Director of Criminological studies in the School of Law, King's College London.)

• Malaysia has all the hallmark of a racist and religious extreme state on the following foundation;

a) The Federal Constitution entrenched with a racist provision vide Article 153 ( Malaysian brand of apartheid)

b) The State sanctions racist and religious extreme laws and policies

c) State control of Government Administration by 1 race/religious group

d) State channel of most funds for economic/education/development programs and licenses, permits ect to 1 race

e) State control of Religious freedom to disadvantage of non-Muslims, imposition of Muslim religious laws and compelling jurisdiction of Syaria Courts on non-Muslims.

f) State sponsored violence/threat of violence both directly and outsource to other groups on objections by citizens

g) State sanction of draconian, punitive laws and the blank cheque given to Police to make arbitrary arrests on dissent.

h) State declaration that the Malays are the masters (Malay Supremacy) and sons of soil.

• Ethnic groups in Malaysia : Malay 53.3%, Chinese 26.0%, indigenous 11.8%, Indian 7.7%, others 1.2%.

• Religions: Islam (60.4%), Buddhism (19.2%), Christianity (9.1%), Hinduism (6.3%), other/none (5.0%). - US Department of State 2011

• Malaysia is a country based on a subtle, pervasive and increasingly aggressive form of racism. The conflict that lies just below this artificial calm state, is so well concealed, that to someone with just a cursory knowledge Malaysia would find it hard to believe and this is part of the problem.

• Malay supremacy or Malay dominance is the claim that the Malay Muslims are the tuan (masters) of Malaysia. The Chinese and Indians, who form a significant minority in Malaysia, are considered beholden to the Malays for granting them citizenship in return for special privileges as set out in Article 153 of the Malaysian Constitution.

• Article 153 is a deep-rooted racist provision in the Constitution which sanctions implementation of all racist policies in Malaysia to the disadvantage of the minority non-Malay/Muslim population. Questioning any matter, rights, status, privilege ect of Article 153 is considered a challenge to the Malay Supremacy, insulting the Royal Institution and Islam. It is also deemed a threat to National Security, an offence under the Internal Security Act which gives powers of arrest for unlimited period without trial and under the Sedition Act which provides for imprisonment between 3-5 years.

• Since the Democratic uprising of Hindraf in 2007 and the subsequent loss of its 2/3 Parliamentary mandate in the March 2008 elections, Government has outsourced its overt racist agenda to NGO’s in particular PERKASA. This is an NGO led by a Pro Government Parliamentarian who promotes the Malay Muslim supremacy agenda and has the explicit support of top Government leadership including the former Prime Ministers, ex Army officials and ex Inspector General of Police.

• PERKASA works intimately with a more militant group known as Pekida and another underworld Para- military group known as 3 LINE. Together they perpetuate racial hatred and cause fear among the non-Malays.

• Government budgetary allocations.

1. All Government projects are primarily given to Malay Muslim Bumiputra individuals and organizations.

2. All Government contractors have to be licensed by the Finance Ministry before being given any Government projects.

3. Malays have been promoted in the Civil service to assure that the highest policy-making positions will be filled by Malays regardless of objective performance standards.

• As of June 2005, more than 85% of the Civil Servants were Malay Muslims. This was an increase of close to 25% from 1971.

• The FELDA Scheme – Federal Land development Authority

• There is a systematic and wholesale exclusion of Non-Malays from this program. Indian plantation workers who were being actively displaced at the time of the growth of this FELDA scheme in the 1970s and 1980s were not considered part of the target group, because they were not categorized as being from the rural community. This was convenient way to exclude. An estimated 800,000 Indian plantation workers have been displaced from plantations without any alternative programs/compensation.

• FELDA, FELCRA, PERDA, KEDA, KETENGAH, KESEDAR, KEJORA and a host of other development agencies use procedural techniques of one form or another such as this to entirely exclude the deserving non-Malays.

• FELDA show a total turnover of RM 11.8 Billion. The profits before tax alone are RM804 million5.

• A RM 120 million residential school for FELDA children - a Maktab Rendah Sains Mara (MRSM) in Trolak, Perak. Compare this with the recent promise of an allocation of RM100 million by the Prime Minister for 523 Tamil schools in the country, for which there is no evidence of disbursement anyway. There are 42 MRSM schools like the one above in the country.

• In 1980, the World Bank raised concerns over the ethnic bias in FELDA settler selection by pointing out that if the government was serious “about increasing the non-Malay share in agriculture, some increase in the non-Malay share of settlers was warranted

• The Tekun Nasional scheme is a scheme to provide micro credit and to develop majority Malay Muslim entrepreneurs.

• For the year 2008 alone TEKUN Nasional has provided RM 182 million as loans to 19,000 entrepreneurs.

• That is close to RM1 Billion -not to mention almost all those loans went to Malay Muslim entrepreneurs. Participation in the Tekun program of Indians is miniscule - a total of 93 Indian entrepreneurs received loans amounting to RM761,000 on July 24, 2009 in a ceremony.8 That is less than 0.1% of that disbursed to the Malay Muslim entrepreneurs.

• The collusion of the various arms of the Government to keep dissent in check

Some of the key ones are :

1. Government Linked Companies

2. Government Investment Companies

3. Economic Planning Unit

4. The Federal Cabinet of Ministers

5. The various Ministries

6. The Royal Malaysian Police

7. The Attorney general’s Office

8. The Judiciary

9. The Government Administrative Services

10. The Government owned Banks

11. The Government controlled media

• The Government has used suppressive laws like the Internal Security Act, the Official Secrets Act, Printing Presses and Publications Act, the Seditions Act during this period to implement these terribly racially lopsided development plans while allowing the racist system to grow

• Given the need to maintain a racist regime, the Police have become a primary instrument of control for the majority Malay Muslim party in Government –UMNO. Police violence, abuse of power and human rights abuses occur very regularly. Cases of death in custody, partial handling of criminal disturbances, violent dispersal of peaceful protestors and other form of human rights violation continue. This has created a climate of impunity and normalization of violence, abuse of power and violation of human rights in Malaysia.

• More than 77% of the Government administration members are of Malay Muslim ethnicity. About 20% the Indian members and about 60% of the Chinese members of the Government administration are teachers in the Government Vernacular schools. If they are excluded from the numbers employed by the Government administration, the picture that emerges is about an overall participation of 85% Malays in the administration

• The Malay Muslim employees of the administration go through special programs of training called National Civics Bureau where they are all educated on how to keep “the wealth of the family within the family” in short how to operationalize the racist policies of the Government. This is a much criticized activity, but the Government continues with impunity as it is a key approach in recreating that racist bureaucracy.

• The Mainstream media blocks out, demonizes and distorts information of any organization that speaks out against this racist system in a coordinated fashion. The Government uses the Printing Presses and Publications Act and limiting ownership to known allies to control the Media to do this.

• There are an estimated 150,000 – 200,000 Indian children who are stateless due to the States’ reluctance to recognize them as Malaysians. This is operationalized by the racist state bureaucracy. As result they are not admitted in Schools, enjoy health care and other benefits a child enjoys.

• The racial bias in the educational system is the area where racism is most blatant – all the way from pre-school and primary education up to Tertiary levels.

• There are 42 fully residential elite Maktab Rendah Sains Mara (MRSM) (Mara junior Science College) (NST 5/4/08) with 12,440 places also in the fully residential schools (BH 21/11/09 at page 7). These schools have been almost exclusively for Malay Muslim students

• Non-Malays are also almost 100% excluded in other elite schools like the Royal Military College, Aminuddin Baki Institution, Matriculation courses and the Malay College Kuala Kangsar.

• There are two streams for entry into the Public Universities. One is through the Matriculation 12 month program specifically tailored for the Malay Muslim students and the other is through the 18 month and much more stringent STPM program

• Admissions into public Universities is more than 80% reserved for the Malays Muslims. One university with a student population of 170,000 in 2011(UiTM) is for Malay Muslims only. The other 19 public Universities with about 170,000 enrolments in all have a 60% Malay Muslim students making it 80% for Malay Muslims in all Public Universities. This does not even talk about the composition in the various courses offered.

• There are 62,000 diploma places and 60,000 degree places for 2010 at 27 Polytechnics in Malaysia. These are exclusively for the Malay Muslim students.

There are 163,779 students studying at the 19 other Public Universities nationwide at an annual expenditure cost of RM 2.6 Billion15. Our estimate is a mere 5 % of this expenditure will accrue to non-Malay students.

• RM 2.8 Billion is allocated for the 2010 National Budget for student’s assistance scholarships. Most of the funds go for scholarships to Malay Muslim Students.

• 1,266,671 students (estimated 90% Malay Muslims) have benefited from the government PTPTN (Government Higher Education Loan Fund) study loans till 2009. 147,441 such loans were approved at RM 17.0 Billion (UM 25/3/08 at page 31).

• The constitution provides for freedom of religion; however, the constitution and the government placed restrictions on this right. The constitution defines all ethnic Malays as Muslims at birth and stipulates that Islam is the "religion of the Federation."

• Civil courts continued to concede jurisdiction to Sharia courts on cases concerning conversion from Islam and certain areas of family law involving disputes between Muslims and non-Muslims.

• Forced religious conversions and religious intolerance are evidence of creeping Islamization in Malaysia. Whenever there is a conflict between Muslim and non-Muslims, the tendency is for Muslim Laws to prevail over the non-Muslim issues regardless of the merits of the case.

• The decision of the Court of Appeal on 21st August 2010 in the case of Maniam Moorthy is a disturbing trend in the role of the Judiciary which has abdicated its powers to the inferior Sharia Courts which was meant to serve the Muslims only on matters (personal) pertaining to marriage, divorce, property distribution ect.

• Lina Joy, 42, who was born to a Malay Muslim couple, became a Christian when she was 26.

• She lost her final round of appeal when the Federal Court dismissed her appeal on 30th May 2007 against a ruling that the National Registration Department was right not to allow her to remove the word "Islam" from her identity card.

• In August 2010 The newspaper of the Catholic Church in Malaysia, The Herald, filed a legal suit at following warnings that its permit could be revoked if it did not cease use of the word "Allah" in the Malay language section of its newspaper.

• Several Malaysian churches have been attacked and fire bombed, leaving at least one badly damaged, in an escalating dispute over the use of the word "Allah" by Christians.

• A religious edict (fatwa) by a Muslim cleric in the state of Sabah caused the Sabah state government to cancel the construction of a 108 feet Goddess of Sea Mazu statue by the Taoist in 2008.

• In August 2011 The Selangor Religious Department raided a Church dinner function organised by an NGO on allegation of Christian proselytizing campaign.

• According to the government, it allocated 428 million ringgit (approximately $125.9 million) to build Islamic places of worship and 8.1 million ringgit ($2.4 million) to build Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, and other minority religions' places of worship between 2005 and the end of 2008. (in answer to a Parliamentary question)

• Throughout the years since Malaysian independence in 1957, the government has been disregardful of the systematic destruction of Hindu places of worship, which previously stood on estates and state owned estates and land. An estimate of about 10,000 Hindu places of worship have been demolished.

• The government justifies the demolition of the places of worship on the grounds that they were illegally constructed or were occupying government land. Planning and building laws never existed at the time of the construction of these places of worships.

Conclusion

Promoting freedom and democracy and protecting human rights around the world is central to U.S. foreign policy and consistent with the values upon which the United States was founded. The Malaysian minorities long to live with dignity and freedom but are denied dignity and freedom by a racist regime that has developed over the last 50 years in the name of affirmative action for the majority. The endless extensions of the affirmative action policies have now led to serious Human Rights violations of the minorities in the country. This is inconsistent with developments around the world and with the aspirations of the minorities of Malaysia. It is time for the international community to hold the Malaysian government accountable for this performance. The world has to wake up to these developments in Malaysia, for the future of this trajectory is being told many times over, in what is happening around the world today.