Barriers to Orang Asli rights
A suitable amendment to Article 5(1) of the Federal Constitution will promote sustainable development as well as their rights.
THE human rights of indigenous minorities around the world were the subject of a thought-provoking workshop at the University of Auckland, New Zealand, from May 28 to 29. The Constitutional position of the natives of Sabah and Sarawak and the Orang Asli (the indigenous people) of Peninsular Malaysia was also part of the animated discussion.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
14 hours ago
- The Sun
Fahmi Reza's Travel Ban: A Call for Institutional Reform
WHAT happened to Fahmi Reza is, unfortunately, nothing new. Many have gone through the same, including myself. After the 2018 general election, when there was a change of government, and after I retired from public service, I found myself barred from travelling abroad. My applications to perform Umrah were denied twice. To my shock, checks with the Immigration Department revealed that the restriction was requested by MACC – an agency I once led as Chief Commissioner. The travel ban was only lifted during the tenure of the ninth prime minister after I requested MACC to review the matter. This was not just a personal ordeal – it was a clear violation of Article 9(2) of the Federal Constitution, which guarantees every citizen the right to move freely within Malaysia and to leave the country. Such restrictions, imposed without due process or transparency, are unethical, unlawful and unconstitutional. This practice must stop. • No agency should have unchecked power to silently restrict a person's freedom of movement. • These powers must not be weaponised or used as political tools. • Authority must never be used as a tool for silent punishment. We need urgent institutional reform to ensure such powers are subject to legal oversight, accountability and transparency - only then can we truly uphold justice and the rule of law.
The Sun
14 hours ago
- The Sun
Unchecked power to restrict freedom
WHAT happened to Fahmi Reza is, unfortunately, nothing new. Many have gone through the same, including myself. After the 2018 general election, when there was a change of government, and after I retired from public service, I found myself barred from travelling abroad. My applications to perform Umrah were denied twice. To my shock, checks with the Immigration Department revealed that the restriction was requested by MACC – an agency I once led as Chief Commissioner. The travel ban was only lifted during the tenure of the ninth prime minister after I requested MACC to review the matter. This was not just a personal ordeal – it was a clear violation of Article 9(2) of the Federal Constitution, which guarantees every citizen the right to move freely within Malaysia and to leave the country. Such restrictions, imposed without due process or transparency, are unethical, unlawful and unconstitutional. This practice must stop. • No agency should have unchecked power to silently restrict a person's freedom of movement. • These powers must not be weaponised or used as political tools. • Authority must never be used as a tool for silent punishment. We need urgent institutional reform to ensure such powers are subject to legal oversight, accountability and transparency - only then can we truly uphold justice and the rule of law.
Sinar Daily
a day ago
- Sinar Daily
Court of Appeal sets Aug 19 for decision in activist's appeal over challenge to online speech law
A three-man bench consisting of Federal Court judge Datuk Lee Swee Seng and Court of Appeal judges Datuk Hashim Hamzah and Datuk Azman Abdullah set the decision date after parties completed their submissions earlier today. 11 Jun 2025 05:44pm The Court of Appeal has fixed August 19 to deliver its decision in an appeal brought by an activist over the dismissal of her lawsuit that had challenged the validity of parts of a provision in the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 that criminalises offensive online comments. PUTRAJAYA - The Court of Appeal has fixed August 19 to deliver its decision in an appeal brought by an activist over the dismissal of her lawsuit that had challenged the validity of parts of a provision in the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 that criminalises offensive online comments. A three-man bench consisting of Federal Court judge Datuk Lee Swee Seng and Court of Appeal judges Datuk Hashim Hamzah and Datuk Azman Abdullah set the decision date after parties completed their submissions earlier today. Heidy Quah Gaik Li, the founder of Refuge for Refugees is claiming the use of the words "offensive' and annoy' in Section 233 of the Act are invalid as it goes against two fundamental human rights protected by the Federal Constitution. Section 233(1)(a) states that it is an offence for a person to make, create or solicit, and initiate the transmission of any online comment which is "obscene, indecent, false, menacing or offensive' with "intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass another person. In Sept 2023, the Shah Alam High Court dismissed Quah's lawsuit, leading her to file an appeal in the Court of Appeal. The hearing today was a continuation of proceedings that had begun earlier. Justice Lee was serving as a Court of Appeal judge before being elevated to the Federal Court in May this year. During today's hearing, senior federal counsel Liew Horng Bin representing the Malaysian government submitted that speech involving expletives, profanity, crude references, hate speech or incitement to violence are not expressions protected under Article 10 (1) (a) of the Federal Constitution. He argued that the right to free speech should be used to disseminate truth, respect for human dignity and perform essential informing function. On the other hand, lawyer Datuk Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, representing Quah argued the words "offensive' or annoy contained in Section 233 is inconsistent with Article 10 and Article 8 of the Federal Constitution, namely the right to equality and freedom of speech. He argued that the two words in Section 233 are not a "permissible restriction' under public order as prescribed in the Federal Constitution. In July 2021, Quah, 31, was charged in the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court for allegedly making "offensive' online comments in a Facebook post. In April the following year, the Sessions Court granted her a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) due to the charge under section 233(1)(a) being defective. - BERNAMA More Like This
