The Governing Council of the Inter-Parliamentary Union,

Having before it the case of Mr. N. Surendran, Ms. Teresa Kok, Mr. Khalid Samad, Mr. Rafizi Ramli and Mr. Chua Tian Chang, members of the House of Representatives of Malaysia, which has been examined by the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians pursuant to the Procedure for the examination and treatment of complaints (Annex I of the revised rules and practices),

Taking into account the information provided at the hearing which the Committee had on 14 October 2014 with the Malaysian delegation to the 131st IPU Assembly and the information that the complainants have regularly provided,

Considering that the five parliamentarians have been charged with sedition or are being investigated for this crime under (a), (b) and (c) of Section 4(1) of the Sedition Act of 1948:

• Ms. Teresa Kok, an opposition member of parliament for Seputeh in the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, was charged on 5 May 2014 for making a satirical video called “Onederful Malaysia” which was published on YouTube on 27 January 2014. The Malaysian delegation emphasized that, according to the charges, the video raised, inter alia, sensitive security issues in Sabah, contained insults and promoted disaffection against the judiciary; a hearing in the case will take place before the High Court on 5 November 2014;

• Mr. Khalid Samad, a member of parliament for Shah Alam in the State of Selangor, was charged on 26 August 2014, under Section 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act, for suggesting during a press conference in the parliamentary lobby, held on 26 June 2014, that an enactment allowing the Selangor Islamic Religious Council (MAIS) to control the State's religious authorities should be reviewed. The Malaysian delegation emphasized that, according to the charges, his remarks included, inter alia, calls for the return to a constitutional monarchy and questioned the powers of the rulers; the case was going to be heard next in court from 1 to 5 December 2014;

• Mr. N. Surendran, an opposition member of parliament for Padang Serai in the State of Kedah and lawyer for opposition leader Mr. Anwar Ibrahim, was charged twice within two weeks. His first charge, under Section 4(1)(c) of the Sedition Act, was for a press statement he released on 18 April 2014 entitled “Court of Appeal's Fitnah 2 written judgement is flawed, defensive and insupportable", in which he criticized the decision of the appellate court against the appeal of his client, Mr. Anwar Ibrahim, for a second sodomy conviction. The second charge, under Section 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act, on 28 August 2014, was for a video on YouTube dated 8 August 2014 in which he stated that Mr. Anwar Ibrahim’s second sodomy trial and conviction was part of a political conspiracy. A court hearing in the case took place on 14 October;

• Mr. Rafizi Ramli, an opposition member of parliament for Pandan in the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, is currently under three separate sedition investigations. One is for providing the media with a letter allegedly written to Bank Rakyat from the Domestic Trade, Cooperatives and Consumerism Minister, Datuk Seri Hasan Malek. Another is for remarks he made against right-wing groups in the country in which he criticized their call to protest outside churches. The third is for writing a book called “Reformasi 2.0: Fakta Kes Anwar Ibrahim” (translated as “Reforms 2.0: The Facts of Anwar Ibrahim’s Case”); according to the Malaysian delegation, the investigations are ongoing;

• Mr. Chua Tian Chang, an opposition member of parliament for Batu, is also being charged with sedition over speeches he made at the Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall in Jalan Maharajalela, allegedly claiming that the United Malays National Organization staged the Sulu invasion into Sabah; according to the Malaysian delegation, the cases will next be heard in court on 30 October, 14 November and 11 December 2014,

Recalling that the late member of parliament Mr. Karpal Singh was convicted on 21 February 2014 of sedition and sentenced to pay a fine of 4,000 ringgit; persons who are convicted of a crime for which the punishment is imprisonment of one year or more or a fine of 2,000 ringgit cannot be members of parliament; if convicted, parliamentarians charged with sedition face a maximum prison sentence of three years and a maximum fine of 5,000 ringgit,

Considering that, according to the Malaysian delegation, freedom of expression was fully respected in Malaysia, that the Sedition Act was nothing new and had been inherited from the former British rulers, that the existence of the Sedition Act had to be seen in the context of complex racial and religious relations in Malaysia and that parliamentarians charged with sedition were not targeted because of their opposition to the Government, but because they had allegedly violated the laws of Malaysia; the delegation also emphasized that the Attorney-General, in deciding whether or not to bring or pursue a case, placed great importance on whether or not it was in the public interest to do so,

Considering that in 2102 the Malaysian Prime Minister announced that the Government intended to carry out a comprehensive review of the Sedition Act; considering that the complainants are concerned that, despite this announcement, no serious efforts have been made to this effect,

Considering that, according to the Malaysian delegation, the Government has been actively exploring, through the establishment of a dedicated team, four different options to review the Sedition Act, namely: (i) maintaining the act with minor changes, (ii) abolishing it, (iii) replacing it with the National Harmony Act, or (iv) maintaining the Sedition Act along with the adoption of the National Harmony Act; the matter was now in the hands of the Attorney-General’s Office which was due to make a proposal on how to go forward,

Considering that the Malaysian delegation stated that it would welcome a visit by a Committee delegation with a view to promoting better understanding of the issues and challenges related to the Sedition Act,

1. Thanks the Malaysian delegation for their cooperation and the information provided;

2. Is concerned about the ongoing criminal proceedings under the Sedition Act against five parliamentarians and their impact on the right to freedom of expression, respect for which is essential for members of parliament to effectively carry out their functions; considers in this regard that the conviction of the late Mr. Karpal Singh bears out that the application of the Sedition Act can have the effect of punishing remarks that seem to fall squarely within the exercise of the right to freedom of expression, easily leading to the loss of the parliamentary mandate, as would have been the case had his sentence been upheld on appeal;

3. Decides therefore to monitor closely the ongoing legal proceedings regarding the five parliamentarians; would appreciate receiving further details on the precise facts that have led to the charges and the investigations;

4. Notes with interest the continuing efforts being made by the authorities to review the Sedition Act; underscores that the Malaysian Parliament has a particular responsibility in bringing these efforts to fruition, not only because they will require legislative action, but also because the Parliament has a special interest in ensuring that its members can speak out freely without fear of undue legal action;

5. Welcomes the invitation extended by the Malaysian delegation for a Committee delegation to go to Malaysia; considers that such a visit would be an excellent opportunity to enhance the Committee’s understanding of the pending review of the Sedition Act, to identify opportunities for sharing other countries’ legislative experiences in promoting full respect for freedom of expression while safeguarding social and religious cohesion, and to acquire a full understanding of the application of the Sedition Act in the pending proceedings against members of parliament;

6. Requests the Secretary General to make the necessary arrangements for the visit to take place in the near future;

7. Requests the Secretary General to convey this decision to the relevant authorities, the complainant and any third party likely to be in a position to supply relevant information;

8. Requests the Committee to continue examining this case and to report back to it in due course.

---

* The delegation of Malaysia expressed its reservation regarding the decision.

---

---

Note: you can download a complete electronic version of the brochure "Results of the 131th Assembly and related meetings of the Inter-Parliamentary Union" in PDF format (file size 1026 Kb). This version requires Adobe Acrobat Reader, which you can download free of charge.

HOME PAGEIPU ASSEMBLYMAIN AREAS OF ACTIVITYIPU STRUCTURE AND DOCUMENTS