Free speech activist groups slam ‘excessive force' by police against plantation workers protesting outside Parliament
In a joint statement, the groups urged the police against obstructing the right to freedom of assembly and to instead facilitate the public's right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly under Article 10 of the Federal Constitution.
'Parliament is not a prohibited location for peaceful assemblies and the police must allow such gatherings to take place without unwarranted interference,' said Nalini Elumalai, Senior Malaysia Programme Officer of human rights group Article 19.
Nalini had accused authorities of using unnecessary force to block individuals who were seeking to reach their representatives, to call for a decent housing scheme law for the plantation workers.
'According to international human rights standards, peaceful assemblies are permitted in public spaces and should be within sight and sound of their intended audience, particularly lawmakers, to effectively convey their messages.
'Any restrictions must meet the three part-test of legality, legitimate aim, proportionality and necessity,' she added.
The clashes occurred yesterday when police allegedly attempted to physically block plantation workers and activists from marching to Parliament to call for new legislation protecting workers from forced evictions.
Hundreds of plantation workers had gathered at Taman Tugu before marching to Parliament to submit a memorandum urging laws to require alternative housing for workers if estates are repurposed.
Although the memorandum was handed to both government and opposition MPs, protesters were initially met with a police blockade that caused a scuffle, during which Socialist Party of Malaysia (PSM) deputy chairperson S. Arutchelvan fell to the ground.
Police later claimed an officer was injured by protesters, and said Arutchelvan is being investigated under Section 353 of the Penal Code for allegedly using criminal force to deter a public servant.
'The right to peaceful assembly is a cornerstone of any functioning democracy. Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim came to power on a promise of institutional and democratic transformation,' said CIJ executive director Wathshlah Naidu.
'[This] incident highlights the urgent need to accelerate the pace of these commitments, which must include not only a review of laws that restrict freedom of expression, but also ensure that law enforcement officers are adequately trained to respect and protect peaceful protesters.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Malay Mail
29 minutes ago
- Malay Mail
‘It doesn't matter who': Justice will prevail in Zara Qairina case, says Anwar
LARUT, Aug 16 — Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has reaffirmed that those responsible for the death of Form One student Zara Qairina Mahathir will be brought to justice, stressing that no individual involved will be allowed to escape accountability. In this regard, Anwar advised certain parties not to manipulate the case in ways that create negative perceptions or resort to insulting specific individuals. '… the government has said the police are investigating, and I have made it clear that it doesn't matter who (is involved), they will be investigated,' he said when officiating the Madani Dairy Entrepreneurs Carnival themed 'Driving Modern Agricultural Revolution, Generating People's Economy' at the Farm Fresh Perak Dairy Complex here today. Also present were Perak Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Saarani Mohamad, Agriculture and Food Security Minister Datuk Seri Mohamad Sabu and Education Minister Fadhlina Sidek. Meanwhile, Anwar said the government will continue efforts to protect the vulnerable, including fishermen and farmers. 'That is why every Friday before prayers, I eat at small eateries, because I want to meet the people, I want to ask, is everything okay, do you have enough? 'I don't want to wait until election campaigns to visit eateries … I do this every week,' he said. After the event, the Prime Minister also took time to inspect the construction of the new road from Kamunting to Anak Kurau, Larut Matang Selama (LMS) Phase Two, implemented under the Rural Roads Programme (JALB) of the Ministry of Rural and Regional Development (KKDW). The project, approved in 2016 with a total cost of RM91 million, is being carried out by the Public Works Department (JKR) through conventional consultancy, involving the construction of a 6.6-kilometre new road. It is expected to benefit more than 5,000 residents in the surrounding areas and have a positive impact on agriculture and plantation enterprises along the route, besides improving accessibility and stimulating local economic growth. To date, the project, which is scheduled for full completion on August 15, 2026, has achieved 70.5 per cent progress compared to the original 62.6 per cent, ahead of schedule by 59 days. — Bernama
Malay Mail
29 minutes ago
- Malay Mail
Let Anwar's application for referral of constitutional questions to Federal Court take its course — Hafiz Hassan
AUGUST 12 — In 'If Anwar's constitutional questions are preposterous, absurd and legal nonsense, let the court say it' I wrote that if the constitutional questions proposed to be referred by Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim for a ruling by the Federal Court were preposterous, absurd and legal nonsense, let the court having the ultimate authority say it. The constitutional questions were It was submitted by Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim that he was being selectively exposed to litigation in a manner that violates the principle of equal protection, implying that the Prime Minister should receive distinct treatment under the law. — Bernama pic proposed in the civil action commenced by Yusoff Rawther against Anwar in the latter's personal capacity. The civil action was up for trial — the action having been filed at the High Court in July 2021, prior to Anwar's appointment as the Prime Minister in November 2022 with the trial having been fixed on June 6, 2025 — but Anwar, by an application on May 23, 2025, sought to: a) refer constitutional questions to the Federal Court (see below) – touching on whether a sitting Prime Minister enjoys certain immunities or protections from civil litigation relating to pre-office conduct — under O 92 r 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC) and/or Article 128(2) of the Federal Constitution and/or Section 84 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (CJA); and b) stay the trial on June 16 pending the Federal Court's determination of those constitutional questions. At the hearing of the application, it was submitted by Anwar's legal team that the continuation of the civil action engages constitutional issues concerning the interpretation and effect of Articles 5, 8, 39, 40, and 43 of the Federal Constitution. It was further suggested that a sitting Prime Minister should be insulated from the burdens of civil litigation, and that the High Court ought to refer these issues for the determination of the Federal Court pursuant to Article 128(2) of the Federal Constitution. Eight questions were listed in the application for referral to the Federal Court. The grounds that were said to be critical constitutional issues were namely: a) Article 5(1) of the Federal Constitution — right to life and personal liberty: It was contended by Anwar that being subjected to a civil trial while holding the office of Prime Minister infringes his liberty interests under Article 5(1), on the basis that it imposes undue burden and distraction from the discharge of executive functions; b) Article 8(1) of the Federal Constitution — equality before the law: It was submitted by Anwar that he was being selectively exposed to litigation in a manner that violates the principle of equal protection, implying that the Prime Minister should receive distinct treatment under the law; c) Articles 39, 40, and 43 of the Federal Constitution — Executive authority, Yang di-Pertuan Agong to act on advice, and Cabinet: It was argued that the above provisions collectively vest the executive authority of the Federation in the Yang di-Pertuan Agong acting on Cabinet advice, with the Prime Minister at its helm, and that subjecting the Prime Minister to civil litigation while in office undermines or disrupts this constitutional structure; d) doctrine of 'constructive harm': Anwar's counsel introduced this idea — though not anchored on any express constitutional provision, that permitting a Prime Minister to be sued while in office causes 'constructive harm' to the institution of the Executive, and this 'harm' triggered constitutional protection; and e) institutional proportionality: It was argued that the adjudication of politically sensitive private tort claims against the sitting Prime Minister, in the absence of a constitutional scrutiny threshold, violated the principle of institutional proportionality and offended the basic structure of the Federal Constitution by upsetting the functional balance between the Judiciary and the Executive. The application was made notwithstanding that Anwar was ready and willing to proceed with the trial. Anwar does not assert that the action impairs his ability to perform his constitutional functions. He does not also produce any evidence to that effect. It appears that Anwar does not raise immunity as a defence to Yusoff's claim — but I stand corrected on this. What is apparent, however, the application and the grounds are largely exploratory in nature – to test whether the Federal Constitution accords the Prime Minister any form of procedural immunity or protection from civil liability while in office. One may not agree with the proposed constitutional questions — some, even from the legal fraternity, have vilified Anwar and his legal team for the questions — but it was ingenious of Anwar's legal team to have proposed the questions — again, one may not agree with the word 'ingenious'. Be that as it may, High Court Judge Roz Mawar did not buy into Anwar's legal team's arguments, contentions and submissions. After assessing the application and each of the grounds at length, the learned judge said: 'Having considered the application in its entirety, this court is of the view that the constitutional questions framed by the defendant are not real, substantial, or necessary for the disposal of the present suit. The issues raised do not call for the interpretation of any ambiguity in our Federal Constitution, nor do they relate to the validity of any legislation, or the scope of legislative competence under Article 128(2) of our Federal Constitution. 'The principles [are] … clear: that not every question which touches on the Constitution qualifies for referral under Section 84 of the CJA. This court must be satisfied that the constitutional question is both genuine and material to the resolution of the case. The Federal Court is not a forum for speculative or defensive advisory opinions. 'This present application discloses no such question. The suit concerns a personal claim against the defendant for alleged acts occurring prior to his assumption of office. There is no suggestion that the defendant is unable to discharge his constitutional duties, and the defendant has indicated readiness to proceed with trial as scheduled on 16 June 2025. It is this court's considered conclusion that Section 84 of the CJA is not satisfied. This court therefore declines to refer the proposed questions to the Federal Court. 'The application … is hereby dismissed. Cost of RM20,000 is awarded to the plaintiff. Trial to commence on 16 June 2025 as scheduled.' (See Muhammed Yusoff Rawther v Dato' Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim [2025] 10 MLJ 689, 690) So, instead of vilifying Anwar's so-called claim of immunity, which may be misplaced – unless Anwar pleads as such in his defence – let's celebrate the learned High Court judge's independence. Her Ladyship decided against Anwar, who may be sued in his personal capacity, but nonetheless the country's prime minister. Anwar has appealed against the decision and has successfully obtained a stay of the trial pending the outcome of his appeal to the Court of Appeal. Let Anwar's application and its grounds be ventilated in the higher court. Let the application take its legal course. * This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
Malay Mail
an hour ago
- Malay Mail
No new law yet, but Nancy calls for possible strengthening of anti-bullying measures
KUCHING, Aug 16 — The government should consider reviewing the need to strengthen existing laws to address bullying, said Women, Family and Community Development Minister Datuk Seri Nancy Shukri. She said that although amending laws is not under her ministry's jurisdiction, she is prepared to discuss the matter with the relevant authorities. 'There may not be a need to enact a new law. However, in light of recent bullying cases, it may give us new ideas to explore possible improvements to existing laws,' she told reporters after attending the Gempak Inspirasi @ Sepagi Bersama PPWS 2025 Programme here today. Nancy said the matter would be raised during the Cabinet meeting. She was responding to calls from the Anti-Bullying Act Movement (GAB) for the government to introduce a specific law to comprehensively address bullying. It was reported previously that GAB Secretariat chairman Wan Azliana Wan Adnan said drafting of the proposed act had been initiated since 2022, but no concrete progress had been made so far. Meanwhile, Nancy said there is currently no need for a new law, as bullying is already covered under the Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2025 and the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act 2025. Both Acts, which aim to address bullying more effectively and comprehensively, including cyberbullying, were passed in the Dewan Rakyat on Dec 10, 2024, and in the Dewan Negara on Dec 16, 2024. — Bernama
