US State Department Report on Human Rights in Malaysia - 4 of 8

["M.G.G. Pillai" <pillai@mgg.pc.my>]

e. Denial of Fair Public Trial

The Constitution provides for an independent judiciary; however, since 1988,
government action, constitutional amendments, legislation restricting
judicial review, and other factors have eroded steadily judicial
independence and strengthened executive influence over the judiciary. A
number of high-profile cases continued to cast doubts on judicial
impartiality and independence, and to raise questions of arbitrary verdicts,
selective prosecution, and preferential treatment of some litigants and
lawyers. Members of the bar, NGO's, and other observers (including those who
attended the September Commonwealth Law Conference held in the country)
continued to express serious concern about the deterioration of the
independence and overall fairness of the judiciary.

In April the ICJ ruled that U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Independence of
Judges and Lawyers Datuk Param Cumaraswamy, because of his status as a U.N.
Special Rapporteur, was immune from several Malaysian libel suits. Several
large companies, prominent businessmen, and one prominent lawyer had brought
suits for libel and slander against Param and former Malaysian Bar Council
secretary general Tommy Thomas. The suits stemmed from an article in an
international legal journal that alleged that certain plaintiffs and their
lawyers, enjoyed improper preferential treatment in the courts. In judgments
that were widely thought to be politically motivated and improperly
influenced by favoritism, the courts had rejected Param's claim of immunity.
In May the Prime Minister said that the Government would abide by the ICJ's
decision; however, in October a court defied the ICJ and ruled that Param
would have to defend himself. Similar decisions were handed down in the
other three suits. The U.N. expressed its regret over the court's decisions,
and in December asked the Government to reimburse it for legal expenses.
Param currently is appealing the rulings. The case against Tommy Thomas, who
had no claim to immunity, was settled out of court in 1998. After Thomas
told reporters that insurers had forced the settlement (which included a
large cash payment and a humiliating apology) on him, he was charged with
contempt of court and convicted in December 1998. In November an appeals
court reserved judgement on the appeal.

In 1996 the Bar Council filed a complaint with the legal profession
disciplinary board against one of the plaintiffs in the Param case. The Bar
Council charged the lawyer Datuk V. Kanagalingam, with improper manipulation
of the court system on behalf of a corporate client. Kanagalingam sued the
Bar Council over the complaint and won an award of $160,000
(600,000ringgit). In July the Bar Council lost its final appeal of
Kanagalingam's lawsuit. Widely circulated photos have shown Kanagalingam on
overseas vacations with the Chief Justice and, separately, with the Attorney
General. Human rights activists called on the Chief Justice and the Attorney
General to explain these apparent conflicts of interest. The Attorney
General said that he had nothing to hide and had a right to take vacations
with friends. The Chief Justice made no public response. In September an
Asian Wall Street Journal reporter being sued for libel alluded to the
photos in a proposed amendment to his defense statement. He said that
Kanagalingam had "cultivated inappropriately close relations" with the Chief
Justice. The reporter also claimed to have evidence that Kanagalingam had
partially drafted a high court judge's decision in a case Kanagalingam had
argued before the judge (the judge, who since has been made an appeals court
judge, has not responded publicly). The judge in the libel case rejected the
reporter's proposed amendment to his statement of defense. After the
substance of the amendment was reported in a newspaper, Kanagalingam
threatened to lodge contempt charges against the reporter.

In November a judge granted an injunction preventing the Bar Council from
calling an extraordinary meeting to discuss declining confidence in the
judiciary. The judge said that the plaintiff, a private lawyer, made a
convincing prima facie case that the holding of such a meeting would
constitute contempt of court and sedition.

The cases against former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim and some of his
associates, Lim Guan Eng, Irene Fernandez (see Section 2.a.), and Murray
Hiebert (see Section 2.a.) also have raised questions about judicial
independence and impartiality. Nonetheless, the Courts do not rule
exclusively in favor of the Government. The courts dismissed several cases
against opposition figures during the year.

High courts have original jurisdiction over all criminal cases involving
serious crimes and most civil cases. Civil suits involving automobile
accidents and landlord-tenant disputes are heard by sessions courts.
Magistrate's courts hear criminal cases in which the maximum term of
sentence does not exceed 12 months. Juvenile courts try offenders under age
18. The Special Court tries cases against the King and sultans. The Court of
Appeal has appellate jurisdiction over high court and sessions court
decisions. The Federal Court hears appeals of court of appeal decisions.

Islamic religious laws administered by state authorities through Islamic
courts bind ethnic Malays and other Muslims in some matters. In 1997 the
Government announced that it would harmonize Islamic law at the federal
level and appoint an Islamic law federal attorney general. However, the
Government has not been able to obtain the necessary agreement of all the
states and the proposal has not been implemented, though it is still under
discussion.

Indigenous people in Sarawak and Sabah also have a system of customary law
to resolve matters such as land disputes between tribes.

Penghulu (village head) courts may adjudicate minor civil matters, but these
are rarely used.

The military has a separate system of courts.

The secular legal system is based on English common law. Trials are public,
although judges may order restrictions on press coverage. For example, in
the corruption trial of former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar, the judge often
restricted press coverage of defense testimony and remarks that might
embarrass senior government leaders. However, the judge generally did not
restrict press coverage of testimony and remarks that might embarrass Anwar.

Defendants have the right to counsel, bail is sometimes available, and
strict rules of evidence apply in court. Witnesses are subject to
cross-examination. The defense in both ordinary criminal cases and special
security cases is not entitled to a statement of evidence before the trial.
In general, limited pretrial discovery in criminal cases hobbles defendants'
ability to defend themselves.

Defendants enjoy the presumption of innocence and may appeal court decisions
to higher courts. In criminal cases, defendants also may appeal for clemency
to the King or local state rulers as appropriate. A single judge hears each
criminal trial. There are no jury trials.

Some lawyers expressed concern that a 1997 amendment to the Criminal
Procedure Code could erode defendants' presumption of innocence. Before the
1997 amendment, the prosecution was required to prove its case beyond a
reasonable doubt or the defendant would receive a summary dismissal without
having to present the defense case. Now, after the amendment, the
prosecution only needs to prove a prima facie case and the defense must be
called. In August a man was convicted of murder after electing to enter no
defense. The judge ruled that the prosecution had proven a prima facie case
and, when the man chose to offer no defense, the judge convicted him and
sentenced him to death.

In 1998 Parliament passed amendments to the Courts of Judicature Act (1964)
that limited the rights of defendants to appeal in some circumstances. The
Government stated that these amendments would expedite the hearing of cases
in the upper courts. The president of the Bar Association said in 1998 that
the amendments imposed too many restrictions on appeals.

The Attorney General may restrict the right to a fair trial in criminal
cases by invoking the Essential (Security Cases) Regulations of 1975. These
regulations governing trial procedure normally apply only in firearm cases.
In cases tried under these regulations, the standards for accepting
self-incriminating statements by defendants as evidence are less stringent
than in normal criminal cases. Also, the authorities may hold the accused
for an unspecified time before making formal charges. The Attorney General
has the authority to invoke these regulations in other criminal cases if the
Government determines that the crime involves national security
considerations, but such cases are rare. There were no reported cases
involving this restriction during the year.

Even when the Essential Regulations are not invoked, defendants and defense
lawyers lack legal protections against interference. For example, police can
during a trial call in and interrogate witnesses who have given testimony
not helpful to the prosecution. Human rights advocates accuse police of
using this tactic to intimidate witnesses. One instance of this practice led
the Bar Council in July to issue a statement of concern. Police also have
used raids and document seizures to harass defendants. Selective
prosecution, i.e., prosecution based on political rather than legal
considerations, is a serious problem in the legal system. According to the
law, the decision to prosecute a case rests solely with the Attorney
General. In August the Chief Justice publicly reminded magistrates and
judges not to question the Attorney General's sole discretion to prosecute.
Opposition leaders and some NGO's credibly accuse the current Attorney
General of sometimes acting at the direction of Prime Minister Mahathir. In
April the Prime Minister publicly denied that he interferes in the decisions
of the Attorney General and in September reiterated that the Government does
not practice selective prosecution.

However, in practice, the Attorney General uses his power to prosecute
selectively. In May the Attorney General warned that those accusing the
Government of selective prosecution could be charged with sedition or
criminal defamation. The Bar Council criticized the Attorney General's
statement and stated that it showed "a lack of respect or understanding of
the concept of democracy and the rule of law." At year's end no one had been
charged with sedition or criminal defamation on these grounds.

Contempt of court charges also have restricted the ability of defendants and
their attorneys to defend themselves. Attorney Zainur Zakaria, after raising
a legal issue on behalf of his client Anwar Ibrahim, was charged with
contempt in 1998. Zainur's appeal still is pending. The Bar Council
expressed concern over Zainur's case and other contempt of court cases
several times during the year. In March the Bar Council prepared a draft
contempt of courts act to spell out what would constitute contempt. In April
the Chief Justice said that there was no need for a contempt of courts act
because judges do not abuse their power. In August Deputy Minister in the
Prime Minister's Department Datuk Ibrahim Ali said that the Government would
study the Bar Council's proposal. At year's end the Government had not
passed or considered such a bill.

Following a number of high-profile corruption cases, the Government amended
the Anticorruption Act in 1997. The new law, which came into effect in
January 1998, gives the Attorney General new powers that impinge on the
presumption of innocence and requires accused persons to prove that they
acquired their wealth legally.

Under the Evidence Act, the testimony of children is accepted only if there
is corroborating evidence. This poses special problems for molestation cases
in which the child victim is the only witness. Some judges and others have
recommended that the Evidence Act be amended to accept the evidence of
children and that courts implement special procedures to hear the testimony
of children.

Islamic courts do not give equal weight to the testimony of women. Many
NGO's have complained that women do not receive fair treatment from Islamic
courts, especially in matters of divorce.

Former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim is a political prisoner. In 1998,
after a political conflict, Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad removed Anwar
as Deputy Prime Minister. Later the same year, after a large, peaceful
demonstration in which he called for Mahathir's resignation, Anwar was
detained for alleged sodomy. While in detention, Anwar was beaten by
then-Inspector General of Police Rahim Noor (see Section 1.c.). For several
days, Anwar was denied medical treatment for the injuries he received at the
hands of Rahim. Presumably to avoid bringing a visibly injured Anwar to
court, police changed Anwar's status to detention without charge under the
Internal Security Act. Anwar's status subsequently was changed again to
criminal detention. Anwar later was tried and convicted on four counts of
corruption. He now is being tried on a single count of sodomy.

During Anwar's corruption trial, the judge made several questionable rulings
that greatly limited Anwar's ability to defend himself against what clearly
were politically-motivated charges. For example, the judge sentenced one of
Anwar's attorneys to 3 months' imprisonment for contempt after the attorney
raised in court charges of prosecutorial misconduct. The judge greatly
restricted the scope of Anwar's defense (on occasions during the trial the
judge explicitly said that he did not care if there was a conspiracy to
bring down Anwar) and tolerated improper activities by the police and
prosecutors. The judge allowed prosecutors to amend the charges in the
middle of the trial, which is permitted under national law but in this case
clearly was unfair to Anwar. Anwar was denied the ability to rebut evidence
of sexual misconduct presented by prosecution witnesses when the judge, at
the end of the prosecution's case, allowed prosecutors to amend the charges,
and then expunged the record of all evidence of sexual misconduct. Since his
arrest, Anwar has been denied bail on questionable legal grounds.

Anwar now is being tried on a separate charge of sodomy. At the beginning of
the trial, prosecutors changed the dates of the alleged acts of sodomy,
allegedly because the defense had discovered that the apartment building
where the sodomy allegedly took place had not been completed by the original
dates. Despite testimony detailing how police had coerced a confession from
an alleged homosexual partner, on July 26 the judge ruled that the
prosecution had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that this confession had
been voluntary. On August 4, another witness admitted that police had
couched part of his testimony. On August 18, the lead police investigator
materially contradicted his testimony (in order to make it consistent with
the amended dates of the alleged offense); the next day the judge ruled that
the policeman had not lied. At year's end, the sodomy trial still continued.

In August political prisoner Lim Guan Eng was released after completing his
sentence. Lim had been convicted on charges under the Sedition and Printing
Presses and Publications Acts. The charges stemmed from Lim's questioning,
in a speech and in a pamphlet, the justice of detaining for 3 years a
15-year-old victim of statutory rape while allowing her rapists, including,
allegedly, the former chief minister of Malacca, Rahim Thamby Chik, to go
free. In November shortly before elections were held, the alleged rape
victim retracted her charges against Rahim Thamby Chik, stating that she was
coerced into fabricating them. The woman's grandmother, who had accompanied
the woman when she made the charges, questioned the woman's motives for
recanting and continued to assert that Rahim had been guilty of statutory
rape.

f. Arbitrary Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence

The law provides for these rights; however, authorities infringed on
citizens' privacy rights. Provisions in the security legislation (see
Section 1.d.) allow the police to enter and search without a warrant the
homes of persons suspected of threatening national security. Police also may
confiscate evidence under these acts. In some cases each year, police use
this legal authority to search homes and offices, seize books and papers,
monitor conversations, and take persons into custody without a warrant.

The law permits the Home Ministry to place criminal suspects under
restricted residence in a remote district away from home for a 2-year period
(see Section 1.d.).

The Government bans membership in unregistered political parties and in
unregistered organizations (see Section 2.b.).

A clause in the 1997 Anticorruption Act empowers the Attorney General to
authorize the interception of mail and the wiretapping of telephones. Such
information would be admissible as evidence in a corruption trial.

Certain religious issues pose significant obstacles to marriage between
Muslims and adherents of other religions (see Section 2.c.).

Muslim couples must take premarital courses. Women's activists have
complained that the courses, as implemented, perpetuate gender
discrimination by misinforming women of their rights in marriage (see
Section 5).

Singaporean newspapers and magazines may not circulate in Malaysia (see
Section 2.a.); however, these publications are easily available on the
Internet.

Section 2 -  Respect for Civil Liberties, Including:

a. Freedom of Speech and Press

The Constitution provides for freedom of speech and of the press; however,
some important legal limitations exist, and the Government restricts freedom
of expression and intimidates most of the print and electronic media into
practicing self-censorship.

The Constitution provides that freedom of speech may be restricted by
legislation "in the interest of security (or) public order." For example the
Sedition Act prohibits public comment on issues defined as sensitive, such
as racial and religious matters. In practice, the Sedition Act, the Official
Secrets Act, criminal defamation laws, and some other laws have been used to
restrict or intimidate dissenting political speech.

In February the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression
issued a report stating that freedom of opinion is curtailed systematically
in Malaysia. The Special Rapporteur said that the Internal Security Act, the
Sedition Act, and the Printing Presses and Publications Act were used to
suppress or repress expression and curb peaceful assembly. He further stated
that defamation laws "appear to be having a very chilling effect." The
Government stated that the Special Rapporteur's report was "baseless and
distorted."

The Prime Minister and other senior officials continued to ascribe seditious
or treasonous motives to critics of government policies. Although many
persons still criticized the Government publicly, the Government's
statements made many persons more cautious in exercising their rights of
free speech.

In August Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Badawi warned that
political parties that raise sensitive issues and cause an "undesirable
situation" would be charged under the Sedition Act. However, government and
ruling party officials sometimes make statements on sensitive racial and
religious issues with no fear of being charged with sedition. For example,
on the same day that the Deputy Prime Minister threatened to invoke the
Sedition Act, he stated that voting for the opposition would be "disastrous"
for ethnic Malays.

In September a United Malays National Organization (UMNO--the dominant
component of the ruling National Front coalition) official lodged a police
report charging the chief minister of the opposition-controlled state of
Kelantan with sedition. The chief minister allegedly had said that the
state's populace no longer held the royal family in high regard. In
September police announced that they had questioned 10 members of the
opposition Islamic party about this case. At year's end, there were no
reports of further developments.

In March the Prime Minister said that slanderous statements had become a
"security problem" and claimed that some statements advocated violence and
assassination. Police later said that they were monitoring all slanderous
statements, including news reports that amounted to incitement. It was
unclear from the Prime Minister's and police officials' statements whether
security concerns were confined to the advocating of violence or whether
these concerns also encompassed legitimate criticism of the Government.

In March UMNO formed a legal panel to identify slanderous and libelous
statements and to take legal action against them. The panel subsequently
sued several government critics for public statements and statements
reported in the press. Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister's Department
Datuk Ibrahim Ali, the chairman of the panel, warned that those who made
allegations against the Government or the ruling party also might face
prosecution for criminal defamation. In a separate statement in May, Datuk
Ibrahim Ali said that the ruling party had identified 40 to 50 individuals
from the opposition and academia who often make defamatory statements. He
reportedly said that UMNO wanted to ensure that the critics did not get away
"scot free." Government opponents accused the Government of using the panel
to stifle legitimate dissent. In June UMNO secretary general Tan Sri Khalil
Yaakob said that the panel had countered opposition slander successfully.

During the question and answer period after a February speech in London to
Malaysian students studying in the United Kingdom, Prime Minister Mahathir
told a student that the student could be sued for defamation because he
suggested that Mahathir apologize to Anwar Ibrahim and resign. Mahathir
later denied that he intended to intimidate the student. The student was
never sued.

Aside from the UMNO legal panel, many other government officials, opposition
figures, and private citizens filed multimillion-dollar lawsuits for libel
and slander. In May the Bar Council stated that the proliferation of
multimillion-dollar libel and slander lawsuits "would end up stifling
freedom of speech."

Police detained four persons under the ISA in 1998 for "cyber
rumor-mongering." Police accused the four of spreading false reports of
rioting and potential violence against Chinese Malaysians via the Internet.
The four later were charged under a section of the Penal Code that prohibits
statements that cause fear or alarm. At year's end, the four still were
being tried. Several times during the year, government leaders blamed
critics on the Internet for "spreading lies" and "sowing hatred." However,
Energy, Communications, and Multimedia Minister Datuk Leo Moggie said on
several occasions that the Government had no plans to censor the Internet.

The Official Secrets Act (OSA) also restricts freedom of expression. The Bar
Council and other NGO's in the past have called for a review of certain
provisions of the OSA that grant considerable discretion to the authorities.
In August opposition National Justice Party leader and former Anwar aide
Ezam Nor said publicly that Anwar had stored abroad documents that
corroborated charges of corruption against senior government leaders. After
the remarks, police investigated a possible violation of the OSA. Anwar and
the NJP official later said that none of the documents involved national
security. Opposition leaders accused the Government of using the OSA to
cover up corruption. No charges were filed by year's end.

The Printing Presses and Publications Act of 1984 limits press freedom.
Under the act, domestic and foreign publications must apply annually to the
Government for a permit. The act was amended in 1987 to make the publication
of "malicious news" a punishable offense, expand the Government's power to
ban or restrict publications, and prohibit court challenges to suspension or
revocation of publication permits. Government power over license renewal and
other policies create an atmosphere that inhibits independent or
investigative journalism and results in extensive self-censorship.

The English and Malay mainstream press provide generally laudatory,
uncritical coverage of government officials and policies, and usually give
only limited and selective coverage to political views of the opposition or
political rivals. Editorial opinion almost always reflects government
positions on domestic and international issues. Chinese-language newspapers
are much freer in reporting and commenting on sensitive political and social
issues, but are not immune to government pressure. However, self-censorship
and biased reporting in the print media was not uniform and the English-,
Malay-, and Chinese-language press all, at times, provided balanced
reporting on sensitive issues.

The Government often conveys its displeasure with press reporting directly
to a newspaper's board of directors or chief editors. In addition leading
political figures in the ruling coalition, or companies controlled by them,
own most major newspapers, thus limiting the range of views. At times, the
susceptibility of the press to government pressure has a direct and public
impact on operations. For example, in 1998 the editors of two of the
country's largest daily newspapers and a television operations director were
removed, apparently because of government displeasure. The removals
apparently stemmed from political rivalries within the ruling party.

A petition signed by 581 journalists from 11 newspapers and released on May
3, World Press Freedom Day, urged the Government to repeal the Printing
Presses and Publications Act. The petition stated that government controls
on the press had resulted in self-censorship and diminished the credibility
of the mainstream press. The Bar Council issued a statement in support of
the journalists' petition. The leader of the youth wing of UMNO said that he
hoped that the Government would review existing laws regulating the press.
The journalists' petition also called for the formation of an independent
media council to regulate the press. Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister
Datuk Seri Abdullah Badawi said in May that the Government would study the
proposal for a media council, but the Government gave no sign that it plans
to amend or scrap the act.

The Government continued to prosecute human rights activist Irene Fernandez
under the Printing Presses and Publications Act for charges that she made in
1995 of mistreatment of detainees at illegal alien detention centers.
Fernandez's supporters accuse the Government of purposely prolonging the
trial, one of the longest in the country's history, to harass Fernandez. As
of year's end, the trial still continued (see Section 5).

The Government also sometimes directly restricts the dissemination of
information that it deems embarrassing or prejudicial to national interests.
In June the Government stated that it no longer would disclose publicly the
readings of an air pollution index. In August Minister of Science,
Technology, and Environment Datuk Law Hieng Ding said that the decision was
made so as not to "drive away tourists." In February the Government forbade
all state health departments from commenting on the outbreak of a deadly
virus. The Government later restricted reporters' access to sites of the
outbreak. However, the issue was widely reported.

Publications of opposition parties, social action groups, unions, and other
private groups actively cover opposition parties and frequently print views
critical of government policies. The circulation of the Islamic opposition
party's twice-weekly newspaper, Harakah, now rivals that of mainstream
newspapers. However, the Government retains significant influence over these
publications by requiring annual renewal of publishing permits and limiting
circulation only to members of the relevant organization. Senior government
leaders publicly warned Harakah several times during the year not to print
"slanderous" remarks and to limit distribution to party members. Harakah was
also the target of several ruling party-sponsored libel suits. In December
the Home Ministry issued a show cause letter to Harakah's publisher asking
him to explain why Harakah should not be banned for violating the terms of
his permit. Acting on a Home Ministry directive, police officers cracked
down on newsstands that distributed Harakah to the public and confiscated
many copies. Harakah stated that it would abide by the Home Ministry
directive and at year's end the newspaper was no longer openly sold. There
were no cases of denial of renewal requests during the year.

Some legal magazines and illegal (i.e., lacking publishing permits)
publications also frequently print criticism of the Government. In May
police seized over a thousand copies of illegal antigovernment magazines at
a printing company and charged the company owner for violating the Printing
Presses and Publications Act.

The Communications and Multimedia Act (CMA), which came into force on April
1, requires certain Internet and other network service providers to obtain a
license from CMA. Details of the implementation of this act were unclear at
year's end.

There were instances of violence against journalists. In May demonstrators
protesting the conviction of former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim
attacked a car carrying television reporters from a television station that
is widely perceived as progovernment. Those responsible for the attack later
were arrested and charged. In July a group of supporters of the Islamic
opposition reportedly verbally abused a television cameraman and demanded
that he turn over his videocassettes. There were no reports of arrests in
the case.

The foreign press continues to be a target of government criticism for
allegedly biased reporting. Senior government officials often accused the
foreign press of bias and malicious motives. In February several government
ministries announced plans to boycott three foreign publications that were
said to criticize Malaysia overzealously.

In September Far Eastern Economic Review correspondent Murray Hiebert lost
his appeal of a 1997 conviction for contempt of court. Hiebert, who had not
been free to leave Malaysia for over 2 years pending his appeal, chose to
forgo another appeal to the country's highest court and served his 6-week
sentence (reduced to roughly 1 month after time off for good behavior). The
contempt charges stemmed from a 1997 article, in which Hiebert described a
civil suit brought by the wife of a prominent judge, Gopal Sri Ram, against
the International School of Kuala Lumpur. (The judge's wife had alleged in
the suit that the school had discriminated unlawfully against her son by
dropping him from a school debating team after charges that the son had
acted improperly.) Hiebert's article noted, among other things, the unusual
speed with which the courts had disposed of the lawsuit. The Court of
Appeals upheld the contention that Hiebert had "scandalized the court."
Hiebert's case, the first in which a journalist has been sentenced to jail
for contempt in the ordinary course of his duties, raised serious questions
of freedom of the press and of judicial impartiality.

The electronic media is restricted more tightly than the print media. Radio
and television are almost uniformly laudatory of the Government. News on the
opposition is restricted tightly and reported in a slanted fashion. In July
the Deputy Information Minister said candidly that government television and
radio channels would not broadcast the views of opposition parties. He said
that opposition parties were welcome to use private news stations or apply
for broadcasting licenses of their own. In fact the two private television
stations have close ties to the ruling coalition and are unlikely to provide
a forum for the opposition parties, and it is unlikely that the Government
would grant the opposition a broadcasting license. In January the chief
minister of the opposition-controlled state of Kelantan, complained that
after several years the Government still had not approved a license
application for a state radio station. Every other state has such a station.

In March a private television station announced that it would revamp its
news programming. The government-influenced print media shortly before had
published a letter criticizing the station's reporting of the trial of Anwar
Ibrahim.

A government censorship board censors films for profanity, nudity, sex,
violence, and certain political and religious content. Television stations
censor programming in line with government guidelines. The Government bans
certain books for political and religious reasons or because of sexual or
profane content. Some foreign newspapers and magazines are banned (see
Section 1.f.) and, infrequently, foreign magazines or newspapers are
censored, most often for sexual content. However, the increased prevalence
of the Internet is undermining such restrictions. The Government maintains a
"blacklist" of local and foreign performers, politicians, and religious
leaders who may not appear on television or radio broadcasts.

The Government generally restricts remarks or publications that might incite
racial or religious disharmony; it also attempts to restrict the content of
sermons at government-affiliated mosques. Occasionally state governments ban
certain Muslim clergymen from delivering sermons (see Section 2.c.).

In December Prime Minister Mahathir said that the Government should find
ways to prevent the opposition from "spreading lies" at mosques. In December
Deputy Prime Minister Abdullah also instructed the Religious Affairs
Department to conduct background checks on religious speakers.

In two additional incidents that occurred in December, Selangor state
government officials announced that they were investigating mosque committee
members with links to the opposition, and Johor state government officials
said that they had identified several "political" religious leaders who had
criticized the Government. In Selangor, officials threatened to expel
opposition sympathizers from mosque committees, and in Johor state officials
threatened "stern action." At year's end, no action had been taken in either
case.

In the past, the Government generally had respected academic freedom in the
areas of teaching and publication. Academics are sometimes publicly critical
of the Government. However, there is self-censorship among public university
academics whose career advancement and funding depend on the Government.
Private institution academics also practice self-censorship due to fear that
the Government may revoke licenses for their institutions. Legislation also
imposes limitations on student associations and student and faculty
political activity (see Section 2.b.). A university vice chancellor must
approve campus demonstrations.

The Government was increasingly intolerant of teachers and students who
expressed dissenting views. Several senior government leaders warned that
some teachers were "poisoning the minds" of their students and that students
should not be involved in partisan politics. Then-Education Minister Datuk
Seri Najib Tun Abdul Razak and other senior government officials said on
several occasions that teachers who opposed the Government and students who
took part in antigovernment activities faced disciplinary actions, including
dismissal and expulsion. In August an education ministry official said a
disciplinary panel had received reports from several states concerning
teachers who had "incited" their students against the Government. In
September an education ministry official said that the Ministry had "acted
against" several teachers involved in antigovernment activities.

The Government has long said that students should be apolitical and used
that position as a pretext for denying opposition parties access to student
forums. According to student leaders, students who sign antigovernment
petitions sometimes are expelled or fined. In fact the Government enforces
this policy selectively and does not refrain from acquainting students and
teachers with government views on political issues. In May the Government
announced that 33,870 students had attended a 1-day seminar "to improve
understanding of national policies."

In February the University of Malaya declined to renew the contract of
Professor Chandra Muzaffar. Chandra, a well-known supporter of political
reform and long-time government critic, charged that the University had
fired him for political reasons. The University stated that it had declined
to renew Chandra's contract for economic and personnel reasons. In June the
High Court agreed to hear Chandra's application to quash the University's
decision.

In 1997 the Government prohibited academics from making any public
statements or publishing any writings on Malaysia's air pollution crisis.
The Government appears to have feared that unauthorized remarks on the air
pollution crisis might harm the country's image and hurt tourism. Academics
and others openly protested this order. The gag order remains in effect.

More 5 of 8