When Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak was interviewed by CNN’s Christiane Amanpour on Nov 1, 2013 in London, he defended his administration by claiming that the government has a positive record, such as the abolition of the draconian Internal Security Act (ISA) with the controversial power of detention without trial, as well as the abolition of the Emergency Ordinance (EO) and the enactment of a new legislation to replace Section 27 of the Police Act 1967 - the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012.

To be fair, I must first credit the government for its effort to abolish such draconian laws which fall short of international human rights standard. As a human rights defender, I indeed welcome the government’s effort for doing so as this indicates a hope and a big step towards the protection of the universality of human rights.

Nevertheless, the legislation passed by the Parliament to replace the International Security Act - the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma) as well as the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 have proven otherwise. In my opinion, these are nothing but a mere “rebranding exercise”.

Let’s begin with the Sosma. The significant positive aspect of this new Act is that it has done away with the power of detention without trial and shortened the length of detention from 60 days (under ISA) to 28 days. Nevertheless, a closer analysis will tell us that this legislation is only slightly, if not, nowhere better than the previous ISA.

Firstly, the term “security offences” is defined to include committing acts which are “prejudicial to national security and public safety” and this is in nowhere better than the definition provided for under the previous ISA. The term “national security” thus remain broadly construed which is a potential risk as the government may decide an act to be prejudicial to national security as it deems fit.

In addition to this, it is noted that there can be no judicial oversight over the 28-day detention period.

False hope

This is a false hope as termed by the Malaysian Bar. True indeed, the power of detention without trial has been reintroduced following the passing of the amendment of the Prevention of Crimes Act 1959.

Moving on to the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012, it is worth mentioning that prior to this Act, the power to regulate rallies and assemblies in Malaysia was given to the police under Section 27 of the Police Act 1967 in which there was a requirement of a police permit. In addition, those who disobeyed police directions in relation to the assembly could be fined between RM2, 000 to RM10, 000 and jailed for up to one year.

Notably, the main difference between the current law and the previous one is that there is no more the requirement of police permit; the organiser merely needs to notify the police 10 days before the assembly as per Section 9(1) by completing the form provided under Section 10, Fourth Schedule of the 2012 Act. In addition, those who disobeyed police direction will only be fined as the new Act has removed the sentence of imprisonment.

However, Section 4(1) (c) of the Act serves as a blanket ban on street protests, which is in fact an assembly in motion or procession that is, to the best of my knowledge, permitted in most, if not all other jurisdictions in the world and this is clearly against international norms. It must be noted that street protests were formerly allowed under Section 27 of the Police Act. This is indeed more restrictive.

Furthermore, Article 10 of the federal constitution merely provides for restrictions on the right to peaceful assembly, rather than prohibitions.

I am merely pointing out several controversial provisions, a detailed discussion would require a dissertation. The point which I am making is that whilst the rest of the word is moving forward with the efforts of various international and non-governmental organisations towards enhancing the protection of civil and political rights, the government of Malaysia moves backward. The recent ‘Allah’ ruling has once against disappointed my heart.

We must understand that the essence of freedom of religion is to be able to worship God in different names, not by claiming exclusivity over a particular word. This will lead us to nowhere towards national and religious harmony. We the people must know this, so is the government of Malaysia.

Readers, all men (and women) are born equal in dignity and rights. The Malaysian government has long been saying that human rights is a western culture as an excuse to justify its oppression.

The signing of the Asean Human Rights Declaration with clauses that could be used to undermine human rights clearly do not meet the international human rights standard. If only the government could agree with me, Malaysia would be a better place to live in.

ERNNIAN is a postgraduate LLM student at Aberystwyth University, studying Human Rights and Humanitarian Law.