human rights
-
Letter to the UN Secretary-General on UN agencies engagement with the Myanmar junta
Re: UN agencies, funds, programmes and other entities engagement with the military junta
UN entities must stop legitimizing the Myanmar military junta and instead present letters of appointment, sign letters of agreement and MoUs with the legitimate government of Myanmar, the National Unity Government, and ethnic revolutionary organizations
Your Excellency,
We, the undersigned 638 civil society organizations (CSOs), condemn in the strongest terms the recent public signing of new agreements and presenting of letters of appointment to the illegitimate Myanmar military junta by UN agencies, funds, programmes and other entities working inside Myanmar. We urge you to intervene for a principled, coordinated UN response to the crisis in Myanmar. We call on you and all UN entities to immediately cease all forms of cooperation and engagement that lends legitimacy to the illegal murderous junta. Instead, letters of appointment and agreements must be presented to the legitimate government of Myanmar, the National Unity Government (NUG), and ethnic revolutionary organizations (EROs).
On 10 December 2021, 256 Myanmar CSOs urged UN entities to not engage with the junta in any way that lends them legitimacy. Despite these consistent calls from the people of Myanmar and CSOs, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), UN International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF), UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and UN International Organization for Migration (IOM) all signed new agreements with and presented credentials to the junta in August and September 2022. The public ceremonies, which were arranged with photographs, were used as propaganda by the military junta in its ongoing attempts to assert their legitimacy. The people of Myanmar have categorically rejected its attempts to seize power since its illegal attempted coup on 1 February 2021.
For nearly a year and a half, the people of Myanmar have sacrificed their lives and livelihoods to defend democracy and their rights by engaging in political defiance and armed resistance – as a last resort. Their aim is to prevent the illegal military junta from taking over the country, as it is attempting to do through inflicting immense suffering on the people.
The recent public actions by UN entities are direct interventions that clearly side with the military junta, undercutting the ongoing collective resistance efforts and sacrifices by the Myanmar people to end the Myanmar military’s tyranny and establish a federal democracy. This breaches the principles of democracy, human rights and humanitarian principles of impartiality, neutrality, independence and “do no harm” outlined in the UNs’ Joint Operating Standards and frame work of engagement, for which UN entities must comply with and hold themselves accountable.
Furthermore, in December 2021, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution to endorse the recommendations of the UN Credential Committee that had rejected the credentials of the military junta and allowed the incumbent Ambassador, U Kyaw Moe Tun, who represents the National Unity Government (NUG) and thus represents Myanmar, to maintain his position at the UN General Assembly. UN entities, and agencies, funds and programmes in Myanmar should be guided by this decision and should be engaging publicly with the NUG and not the military junta.
-
Letter to UK Foreign Secretary on Salma al-Shehab
CIVICUS and other civil society organisations call on Rt Hon James Cleverly to address the treatment of political prisoners in Saudi Arabia who have been imprisoned for expressing themselves.
-
Letter to UN Member States: Civic space restrictions in Cambodia
To Missions of UN Member States
(delivered by email on 22 March)We are writing to you with regards to the human rights situation in Cambodia. Since the 2013 general elections, civic space in Cambodia has become increasingly repressed. The authorities have systematically misused the criminal justice system to silence government critics and civil society organisations (CSOs).
In the run-up to Cambodia’s 2018 general elections, the Supreme Court in Cambodia ruled to dissolve the Cambodian National Rescue Party (CNRP) effectively ending the main political opposition to Prime Minister Hun Sen. The move, which transforms Cambodia into a single party state, has drawn widespread condemnation from across the globe.
Human rights defenders have been harassed and prosecuted for their peaceful human rights work. Further, the controversial and vaguely worded ‘Law on Associations and Non-Government Organisations’ has imposed sweeping restrictions on CSOs in Cambodia. Independent media outlets are struggling to stay afloat amidst the harsh treatment of critical and dissenting voices by the authorities. In September 2017, the English-language Cambodia Daily was forced to shut down its operations after the authorities gave its publishers 30 days to pay a USD 6.3 million tax bill, a move widely viewed as arbitrary. The same month, Radio Free Asia ceased operations in Cambodia, citing the restrictive media environment.
The 37th session of the UN Human Rights Council offers an opportunity for states to raise these concerns with the Cambodian government. We understand that a joint statement has been drafted by New Zealand under Item 2. As a member of the UN Human Rights Council, a champion of civic space, and a key democratic voice in the Asia Pacific region, we would like to urge the South Korean government to support this statement and to send a strong message to Cambodia that plurality and diversity in voices, political groups, civil society and the media should be encouraged and protected, particularly during politically charged periods such as elections.
-
LGBTQI+ RIGHTS IN UGANDA: ‘Intolerance is fuelled by anti-rights groups and leaders’
Following our 2019special report on anti-rights groups and civil society responses, we are interviewing civil society activists and leaders about their experiences of backlash from anti-rights groups and their strategies to strengthen progressive narratives and civil society responses. CIVICUS speaks with Pepe Julian Onziema, Programme Director at Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG). Formed in 2004, SMUG is a civil society umbrella organisation focused on advancing LGBTQI+ rights and supporting and protecting LGBTQI+ people in Uganda. SMUG advocates for policy reform and helps to coordinate the efforts of 18 LGBTQI+ organisations in the country. These organisations provide a variety of services to the LGBTQI+ community, including medical attention, counselling, guidance and economic empowerment programmes. SMUG works closely with local, regional and international human rights organisations and activists to end discrimination and ensure equal treatment of and respect for all LGBTQI+ people in Uganda.
What is the situation of LGBTQI+ rights in Uganda?
I would say it’s very unpredictable, but also not okay. At some level everything is mixed up; you can’t just look at one thing and say, okay, we are making this progress, because somehow when you make progress you also move backwards on another front. So generally speaking, I would say the situation is confusing and unpredictable. The only aspect in which we have made consistent progress is in the area of HIV/AIDS, working through the Ministry of Health.
The situation of LGBTQI+ people is difficult, and I wouldn’t be able to say whether it’s because of social attitudes or discriminatory laws. People’s social attitudes towards LGBTQI+ people are affected by the law, but on the other hand the law is what it is because of people’s religious views and the influence of religion over politics. But if I had to say which the biggest problem is, I’d say it’s social attitudes and widespread lack of acceptance. If this changes, I am sure the law would follow.
In Uganda, LGBTQI+ people experience all kinds of attacks and violence, but this depends much on where you live. In popular areas trans women and gay people, or people thought to be gay, both male and female, are attacked from motorbikes or taxis. In the suburbs and expensive urban areas there is a bit more safety. However, a lot of new apartments have been built and many people are moving in, and then if your neighbour finds out or suspects that you are an LGBTQI+ person, then they can go tell the landlord, who will usually feel the pressure to throw you out without even paying back your rent. Everything is based on suspicion, spying and resentment. There is no need for any evidence of someone being gay, so people panic. There is a lot of gay panic because if anyone just mentions that someone else is LGBTQI+, it is to be expected that action will be taken, including physical violence. They can beat up the accused person or use extortion and blackmail. This is especially common with trans people, who are accused of impersonating someone else, adopting a fake identity.
We’ve worked a lot to raise awareness, informing people that even under our regressive laws, being gay is actually not a crime. It’s subtle, but the law talks about acts that are not permitted, rather than about identities that are not allowed to exist. There is more awareness of this now, but this awareness has made intolerant people more clever: they know they cannot denounce someone just for being gay, so they go on and invent stories. They tell the police false stories about things that gay people have done, so the police have to come and arrest them.
Although the law does not ban the existence of gay people, there is certainly no law that protects the rights of gay people. While laws guarantee the right to life, to the freedom of association, and so on, when it comes to LGBTQI+ people those do not fully apply. We don't have access to all those rights as anyone else.
Are LGBTQI+ civil society organisations allowed to function, or do you face restrictions? How do you manage to get your work done?
LGBTQI+ organisations are not allowed to register. They are denied formal recognition as civil society organisations (CSOs). That is the case with my organisation, Sexual Minorities Uganda, which was founded in 2004, so it will soon be turning 16 years old, and is still unregistered. Our right to associate is limited in several ways, but we’ve been persistent and consistent in challenging the government. We take advantage of legal loopholes and organise ourselves as a loose group. We have sued the government on the basis that the constitution grants us the right to the freedom of association. We’ve found the court system is not terribly fair, but still, it does not always work against us, and we have won several cases.
In the past few years, the High Court has issued several progressive rulings, stating that the fundamental rights recognised in the constitution, such as the right to personal liberty, the right not to be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, and the right to privacy, apply to all citizens. As a result of a High Court ruling on discrimination, it is now possible for LGBTQI+ people to file cases against employers who have fired or harassed them, or landlords who have evicted them. So we’ve seen some progress within the justice system, and this has given us the courage to continue going to the courts to fight when the government wants to impose further restrictions.
As well as the lack of legal recognition, we face restrictions in our daily work. For instance, when we hold a workshop or some formal function for the community, we are usually raided by the police. The Minister of Ethics and Integrity has been particularly notorious and shameless in shutting down our meetings. He has gone on radio and other media to say that he would never allow LGBTQI+ organisations. So we try to keep up our work by doing it through collaborations with other CSOs, but there’s only so much we can do, because when they learn that we are working with us then somehow they also become targets by association.
Who is behind these restrictions? Is discrimination and violence against LGBTQI+ people fuelled by political or religious leaders?
Absolutely. The intolerance enshrined in the law and expressed in social attitudes is fuelled by anti-rights groups and leaders. This backlash was particularly intense around 2009, when right-wing evangelical groups from the USA came to Uganda and helped our government draft a law, the Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Act, that would have criminalised same-sex relationships and introduced the death penalty for serial offenders, HIV-positive people who engage in sexual activity with people of the same sex, and people who engage in same-sex sexual acts with minors. The law also sought to punish the promotion of LGBTQI+ rights with fines, imprisonment, or both.
We fought this bill for years. The proponents of the law said that we are after children, that we were recruiting them and needed to be stopped. They wanted to turn people into spies – our own neighbours, our parents, teachers, doctors and priests. Anyone who knew a gay person had to report this fact to the authorities or they would also become a criminal.
A modified version of the bill was passed in 2013, and it punished ‘aggravated homosexuality’ with life in prison instead of the death penalty. In reaction, the US State Department announced several sanctions against Uganda, and in 2014 the Constitutional Court annulled the law on a technicality. But its effects are still there, in the form of ingrained discrimination against LGBTQI+ people. And the root causes of such laws being proposed in the first place are also still there. It all comes down to the idea of turning people’s religious belief into law.
So the most homophobic piece of legislation that Uganda has ever seen was actually a foreign import. Do you see an international anti-LGBTQI+ rights coalition at work here?
Absolutely, and curiously enough – because anti-LGBTQI+ rights groups keep saying things like homosexuality is a foreign custom, and that it runs counter to national culture and morals, while in fact it is homophobia who is most foreign. Homosexuality was accepted and quite common in pre-colonial Ugandan society; we even had a king who was gay. Laws punishing homosexuality were first introduced in colonial times, under British rule, and they stayed in place after we gained independence. Something similar happened with Christianity, which was an import but took deep roots.
And the churches that were brought from the USA and started proliferating are of the most intolerant kind. You can find these evangelical churches every 500 meters in Uganda, and people preaching all over the place, even outside the churches, on every street corner. The evangelical movement is huge and has spread fast across the country. In most cases, they focus their preaching on sexuality, abortion, how women dress, things like that. They deliberately use their Bible to discriminate against LGBTQI+ people and women.
Have you seen any change, for better or worse, over the past year?
It is difficult to tell. For instance, in 2018 we thought we were making a bit of progress, but then we started seeing more murders, at least three or four, so we felt in danger and we panicked because we thought, we’ve made progress in dialogue with governmental officials, we have done training the police, and it really shocked us – the idea that we were trying to educate people, we are trying to have a conversation, and this is the kind of response that we get. This cast doubt on the progress we were making.
Still, I would say that the fact that we are able to have some form of dialogue with the government is a proof of progress. The fact that when people are arrested we are able to negotiate the release of some is something that we wouldn’t have seen even three or four years ago, so there is some progress.
How do you account for the differences between Uganda and, say, Botswana, which is currently experiencing significant positive change?
I think we are not experiencing the same kind of progress because religion is so deeply rooted in Uganda. If you speak to Ugandans, the first thing that they will tell you, even before introducing themselves, is that they are Christians. And our president has been able to turn religion into law. Ugandan politicians have manipulated religion to divert attention from corruption and mismanagement, so they focus on homosexuality instead. This political use of religion, and the fact that religious beliefs have been made into law, that’s what sets us apart from Botswana.
What are LGBTQI+ organisations in general, and SMUG in particular, doing to change both legislation and public attitudes?
SMUG focuses on four areas: advocacy for reform, capacity strengthening, research and safety and protection. The four areas are connected: in the area of safety and protection, for example, we take care of victims and survivors of violence, but we also document, collect and analyse data and use it as evidence in our advocacy work. We also make sure that police officers are trained so they know how to treat LGBTQI+ person in case they are arrested, so they change their attitudes and the ways they handle them. We work with magistrates and the judiciary services institute and try to educate them on LGBTQI+ issues, because otherwise when a gay person is arrested, most of the time cases are based on hearsay and they don’t even ask for evidence; they make decisions based on prejudice. We do a lot of campaigning and awareness-raising across Uganda. We have regional focus groups where we train people on how to deal with safety and security.
We also do international work at the United Nations human rights bodies, in Geneva, as well as at the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights as well: we have a document that came out of there, Resolution 275, that we did with activists and organisations from across Africa, which prohibits any country from violent attacks towards LGBTQI+ people. Of course we are trying to get that implemented in our own countries so our human rights bodies can take on that Resolution as guidance on the protection of LGBTQI+ people.
Is there any evidence that people’s attitudes might be changing?
We put most of our work on social media, and about 10 years ago, we would find out on Facebook that 98 or and 99 per cent of Ugandans were against homosexuality. Ninety-nine per cent – it’s crazy, because it would mean that even gay people – who are definitely more than one per cent of the population - rejected homosexuality.
But now we’ve come to the point where both sides appear to be more balanced. We post something on our website or our social media platforms, and find reactions are split approximately in half. So I think there has been a change of attitudes, especially among young people, because there are a lot of young people on social media who really don’t care about this whole debate over sexuality. They are just trying to live their lives.
To what extent is Ugandan civil society as a whole standing with LGBTQI+ civil society?
There definitely are divisions within civil society. You have to remember that we all come from the same society and have the same background, which is religious, and we are talking about a society and a religion that consider homosexuality as an abomination. However, there are a few – fewer than 10 – CSOs that stand with us. Most of our allies are organisations working on health, and a couple of them do legal work. They have all come from a long way educating themselves about LGBTQI+ issues, and when they do not know something, they ask.
You mentioned that anti-right groups have international connections and support. Do LGBTQI+ rights organisations enjoy similar connections? What kind of support would you need from international civil society?
If you had asked me this question five years ago I would have told you to please give human rights organisations money because we are able to work with them. But now I would respond differently: what we need most urgently is to empower more LGBTQI+ people to occupy positions of influence. We’ve experienced violence and discrimination from within the movement, from our own allies, so we need to start having more honest conversations and better accountability for the work that human rights organisations do on LGBTQI+ issues, and see if they really understand what they are doing. To me, it’s about power coming back to the LGBTQI+ community, and the LGBTQI+ community being able to use those positions of power to speak up and negotiate for our own freedom. So my main advice would be, don’t fund other people to speak for us, because we can speak for ourselves.
It is important that you consult us. There certainly are organisations that are good to us. So if you want to support us, talk to us and we’ll tell who work we best with us, and use this as guidance rather than deciding according to what works best for you as an international organisation.
Civic space in Uganda is rated as ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
Get in touch with Pepe throughFacebook,LinkedIn orInstagram, contact SMUG through itswebsite andFacebook page, and follow@Opimva and@SMUG2004 on Twitter. -
LITHUANIA: ‘Civil society must humanise the public narrative around irregular migration’
CIVICUS speaks about a new law enabling pushbacks of asylum seekers at the Belarus-Lithuania border withMėta Adutavičiūtė, head of Advocacy at the Human Rights Monitoring Institute (HRMI).
Established in 2003, HRMI is a Lithuanian human rights civil society organisation (CSO) thatadvocates for national laws and policies consistent with the state’s international human rights obligations and works to ensure the effective enjoyment of human rights.
What are the main points of the new legislation allowing for the pushback of asylum seekers?
The amended Law on State Border and its Protection, passed in April 2023, recognises and enables the practice that began in August 2021 of discouraging people from attempting to cross the border at non-designated places and returning them to Belarus once they have crossed the border into Lithuanian territory.
The amended law provides legal ground for pushbacks without the need to declare a state of emergency. Now pushbacks can be carried out on the government’s decision any time it considers there is an extraordinary situation caused by a ‘mass influx of aliens’. A novelty introduced by the law are the civilian volunteer units to support border guards. Both are allowed, under certain circumstances, to use coercive measures. The State Border Guard Service has recently announced a call for this volunteer service.
What are the issues around pushbacks?
According to both Lithuanian and international refugee law, unlawful entry should not be penalised when a person is eligible to request asylum in a country. However, pushbacks are being carried out with regard to people who might have genuine grounds for asylum, such as those coming from Afghanistan and Syria.
Under the amended law, the State Border Guard Service should perform an individualised assessment to determine whether a person is fleeing persecution and is in fact a refugee as defined in the 1951 Refugee Convention. However, the procedure for such an assessment hasn’t yet been established, and there are good reasons to doubt that border guards can carry out an assessment properly. In our opinion, the decision on whether a person has grounds to request protection should be made by the migration department, while state border officers should only find out whether a person intends to seek asylum and register asylum applications.
Our preliminary assessment is that although the provisions of the law shouldn’t apply to people fleeing military aggression, armed conflict or persecution or trying to enter Lithuania for humanitarian reasons, people continue to be pushed back without an individualised assessment of their circumstances and without any human rights safeguards being applied.
How has HRMI advocated against the new law?
HRMI submitted comments to the draft law and alternative proposals, urging lawmakers to refrain from legalising pushback practices and instead ensure access to asylum procedures for all people irrespective of their means of entry.
We also continue advocating for the rights of migrants and asylum seekers by raising public awareness on the current disturbing situation.
Our next steps are to closely monitor the implementation of the new legislation and prepare a comprehensive report based on interviews with asylum seekers. Meanwhile, our colleagues and volunteers from Sienos Grupė provide humanitarian aid to migrants and asylum seekers stuck at the border.
Additionally, HRMI has a strategic litigation programme that includes 17 cases. The purpose of this programme is to seek justice for asylum applicants and call for judicial review of the most pressing legal issues in the Lithuanian migration and asylum system.
What obstacles does Lithuanian civil society working on migration face?
Even though there are no legal restrictions on the work of CSOs helping migrants and refugees, one of our largest challenges is that the public generally approves of restrictive government policies and practices and only a minority support a human rights-based approach in managing increased irregular migration. The government’s strategy of deterrence, constantly picturing migrants and asylum seekers as a threat, has largely influenced the public. Opinion polls conducted in 2021 indicated growing negative attitudes towards migrants and refugees. This is why civil society’s advocacy efforts must focus not only on laws and policies, but also on humanising the public narrative around irregular migration.
Moreover, lack of information makes it difficult for CSOs to assess the full implications of this law for asylum seekers. Official statistics only include the people who were pushed back on specific days, and there are no statistics available of people who were let in and provided with the opportunity to lodge asylum applications. We also don’t have access to demographic data such as countries of origin, gender, age and other individual characteristics that could allow us to identify the specific vulnerabilities of people who were pushed back.
How has the international community reacted to the new policy?
Many international organisations and media outlets immediately contacted us seeking information and requesting our assessment of the situation. A strong statement came from the Human Rights Commissioner of the Council of Europe, Dunja Mijatović, who called on the Lithuanian parliament to reject the amendments and ensure that the legislative process is guided by human rights standards with a robust, human rights-compliant and protection-oriented legal framework. The law was also criticised by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. In contrast, the reaction from the European Union has been lacking.
Overall, however, we are grateful for the crucial international support we have received in our advocacy efforts, as well as for legal advice provided by our allies. It is very important they remain engaged and continue monitoring the developments on the border.
Civic space in Lithuania is rated ‘open’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
Get in touch with HRMI through itswebsite or itsFacebook page.
-
Los Bancos Públicos de Desarrollo no pueden quedarse atrás cuando se trata de construir un futuro sostenible
Una coalición de organizaciones de la sociedad civil exige a los bancos públicos de desarrollo (BPD) que tomen medidas radicales e innovadoras para hacer frente a las violaciones de los derechos humanos y a la destrucción del medio ambiente. Ningún proyecto financiado por los bancos de desarrollo público debe ir en detrimento de los grupos vulnerables, el medio ambiente y las libertades colectivas, sino que debe incorporar las voces de las comunidades, los valores democráticos y la justicia medioambiental.
Las demandas, que forman parte de una declaración colectiva firmada por más de 50 organizaciones de la sociedad civil, se producen en el momento en que más de 450 BPD se reúnen en Abiyán, Costa de Marfil, a partir del 19 de octubre, para celebrar una tercera cumbre internacional, denominada Finanzas en Común.
La pandemia de COVID-19 y la emergencia climática, junto con las violaciones de los derechos humanos y el aumento de los riesgos para los activistas en todo el mundo, están poniendo de manifiesto la necesidad de cambiar las prácticas actuales. Mientras que los bancos públicos de desarrollo pueden arrastrar los pies a la hora de abordar las desigualdades estructurales y entrecruzadas, las organizaciones de la sociedad civil están emprendiendo acciones dirigidas a crear medios de vida dignos, integrando el desarrollo con medidas afirmativas concretas hacia la justicia climática, social, de género y racial.
Los BPD no pueden ser reacias a actuar. Tienen que dar en la diana cuando se trata de apoyar la transformación de las economías y los sistemas financieros hacia la sostenibilidad y abordar las necesidades más acuciantes de los ciudadanos de todo el mundo, desde los sistemas alimentarios hasta el aumento del apoyo a una transición justa hacia fuentes de energía verdaderamente sostenibles. Los BPD deben reconocer que los servicios públicos son la base de las sociedades justas y equitativas, en lugar de fomentar su privatización y mantener viva la narrativa de la austeridad.
9 de cada 10 personas viven en países donde las libertades cívicas están severamente restringidas, y con un activista medioambiental asesinado cada dos días de media en la última década, los bancos de desarrollo tienen la obligación de reconocer e incorporar los derechos humanos en sus planes y acciones, siguiendo el deber de "no hacer daño".
No se puede dejar a las comunidades fuera de la puerta. Hay que darles el espacio necesario para que desempeñen el papel que les corresponde de impulsoras de las respuestas a los retos globales actuales, sin ellas los bancos de desarrollo retrocederán en lugar de avanzar, y esto significa más degradación ambiental, menos participación democrática y, por decirlo claramente, una crisis aún mayor que la actual. Y eso no lo necesita nadie.
Las recomendaciones de la declaración colectiva de la sociedad civil son el resultado de un proceso de tres años de compromiso e intercambio, en el que han participado redes de la sociedad civil en un esfuerzo por dar forma a las políticas y proyectos del los BPD. A continuación se pueden encontrar algunas de sus palabras y mensajes.
A medida que aumenta el llamamiento a la rendición de cuentas, las cumbres de Finanzas en Común son una oportunidad para que los BPD muestren su liderazgo moral y ayuden a remediar la falta de colaboración a largo plazo con la sociedad civil, las comunidades y los grupos indígenas, que amenaza con restringir las narrativas y las prácticas de desarrollo.
Citas
Oluseyi Oyebisi, Director Ejecutivo de la Red de ONG de Nigeria (NNNGO), la red nacional nigeriana de 3.700 ONG, dijo: "Los países del Sáhara y del Sahel, especialmente, se enfrentan a la crisis de seguridad más grave de su historia, relacionada con el cambio climático, la justicia social y las desigualdades en la región. Marcada por fuertes vulnerabilidades económicas (falta de oportunidades, especialmente para los jóvenes), sociales (limitación del acceso equitativo a los servicios sociales básicos) y climáticas, la región presenta algunos de los indicadores de desarrollo humano más bajos del mundo, incluso antes de la pandemia de covirus. El acceso a las poblaciones afectadas es limitado en algunas localidades debido a tres factores principales: la situación de seguridad, el mal estado de las infraestructuras y las difíciles condiciones geográficas. Los BPD deben dar prioridad a las organizaciones de la sociedad civil y a las iniciativas comunitarias que apoyan los programas estatales de descentralización, las reformas del sector de la seguridad y la reconciliación. Esto ayudará a reducir la vulnerabilidad de las poblaciones y a prevenir el extremismo violento".
Mavalow Christelle Kalhoule, presidenta de Forus y presidenta de Spong, la red de ONG de Burkina Faso, dijo "Los proyectos de desarrollo dan forma a nuestro mundo; desde la forma en que navegamos por nuestras ciudades hasta cómo se transforman los paisajes rurales. En última instancia, repercuten en la forma en que nos relacionamos entre nosotros, con las plantas y los animales, con otros países y con los alimentos que tenemos en nuestros platos. Las decisiones que toman los bancos públicos de desarrollo son, por tanto, existenciales. Esta responsabilidad viene acompañada de otra aún mayor, la de incluir a las comunidades directamente afectadas por los proyectos de desarrollo, aquellas cuyo aire, agua y vida cotidiana se ven afectados para las generaciones venideras. Para ello, los bancos públicos de desarrollo deben reforzar sus esfuerzos a largo plazo para crear un diálogo con las organizaciones de la sociedad civil, los movimientos sociales y las comunidades indígenas con el fin de fortalecer los principios democráticos de su trabajo. Les animamos a que escuchen, pregunten y cooperen de forma innovadora para que el desarrollo se mantenga fiel a su definición original de progreso y cambio positivo; un proceso colectivo, participativo y justo y una palabra que tenga un significado no para unos pocos, sino para todos".
Tity Agbahey, Coordinadora Regional para África de la Coalition for Human Rights in Development, dijo "Muchos miembros de la sociedad civil han expresado su preocupación por el hecho de que Finanzas en Común sea un espacio dirigido por las élites, que no consigue ser verdaderamente inclusivo. Es un espacio en el que el enfoque verticalista del desarrollo, en lugar de ser cuestionado, se refuerza. Una vez más, los dirigentes de los bancos públicos de desarrollo reunidos en esta Cumbre tomarán decisiones sobre cuestiones clave sin escuchar a los más afectados por sus proyectos y a los verdaderos expertos en desarrollo: comunidades locales, defensores de los derechos humanos, pueblos indígenas, grupos feministas, sociedad civil. Hablarán de "sostenibilidad", mientras ignoran las protestas contra las políticas de austeridad y el aumento de la deuda. Hablarán de "derechos humanos", mientras ignoran a quienes denuncian las violaciones de los derechos humanos en el contexto de sus proyectos. Hablarán de "transición verde y justa", mientras siguen apoyando proyectos que contribuyen al cambio climático".
Comlan Julien AGBESSI, Coordinador Regional de la Red de Plataformas Nacionales de ONG de África Occidental (REPAOC), una coalición regional de 15 plataformas nacionales de la sociedad civil, dijo: "Independientemente de cómo sean percibidas por los poderes públicos de los distintos países, las organizaciones no gubernamentales (ONG) contribuyen a cubrir los aspectos y espacios no alcanzados o insuficientemente alcanzados por los programas nacionales de desarrollo. A pesar del innegable impacto de sus acciones en las condiciones de vida de las poblaciones, las ONG siguen siendo las primas pobres de la financiación de los donantes, aparte del apoyo de algunas organizaciones filantrópicas o benéficas. En este contexto de escasas posibilidades de financiación, agravado por la crisis sanitaria debida a la COVID-19 y la posterior crisis económica, la Financiación Conjunta, que constituye de hecho un cambio de paradigma, parece ser una tabla de salvación para las OSC. Por ello, la REPAOC se congratula de los compromisos adquiridos tanto por los Bancos Públicos de Desarrollo como por los Bancos Multilaterales de Desarrollo de apoyar directamente los proyectos y programas de las OSC, de la misma manera que lo hacen habitualmente con los gobiernos y el sector privado. A través de los acuerdos de asociación que esperamos y deseamos entre las OSC y los bancos, estos últimos pueden estar seguros de que las acciones que se prevean en beneficio de las comunidades rurales y urbanas les llegarán sin duda con las garantías de responsabilidad que ofrecen sus nuevos socios de las OSC".
Frank Vanaerschot, Director de Counter Balance, dijo:
"Como uno de los organizadores de la Cumbre de Finanzas en Común de este año, el BEI presumirá de los miles de millones que invierte en desarrollo. La verdad es que el banco estará impulsando los propios intereses comerciales de la UE y promoviendo el uso de dinero público para el desarrollo en el Sur Global para garantizar los beneficios de los inversores privados. La reducción de las desigualdades quedará en segundo plano, en el mejor de los casos. El BEI también coorganiza la cumbre a pesar de las violaciones sistemáticas de los derechos humanos en los proyectos que financia desde Nepal hasta Kenia. En su lugar, el BEI y otros bancos públicos deberían trabajar para empoderar a las comunidades locales invirtiendo en los servicios públicos necesarios para que se respeten los derechos humanos, como la sanidad y la educación de propiedad y gestión públicas, y no en poner los beneficios empresariales por encima de todo".
Stephanie Amoako, asociada principal de políticas en Accountability Counsel, dijo: "Los BPD deben rendir cuentas a las comunidades afectadas por sus proyectos. Todos los BPD deben contar con un mecanismo eficaz de rendición de cuentas para abordar los problemas que plantean los proyectos y deben comprometerse a prevenir y remediar plenamente cualquier daño a las comunidades".
Jyotsna Mohan Singh, coordinadora regional de la Asia Development Alliance, dijo: "Los BPD deben tener un núcleo normativo; deben empezar por el marco de los derechos. Esto significa basar todas las salvaguardias en los distintos marcos de derechos que ya existen. Hay instrumentos de derechos para los pueblos indígenas, los ancianos, las mujeres, los jóvenes y las personas con discapacidad. Forman parte de toda una serie de convenios mundiales y regionales. Su enfoque debe basarse en esos derechos, entonces tendrá una base muy firme.
Los gobiernos asiáticos deben apoyar, implementar y aplicar leyes y reglamentos medioambientales estrictos para todos los proyectos de los BPD. El primer paso es difundir información pública y realizar evaluaciones de impacto ambiental abiertas y eficaces para todos estos proyectos, así como evaluaciones ambientales estratégicas para los proyectos de infraestructura y transfronterizos."
-
Lu Maw Naing
Lu Maw Naing
Name: Lu Maw Naing
Location: Myanmar
Reason Behind Bars:
On 25 January 2014, Burmese journalist Lu Maw Naing and several of his colleagues at Unity newspaper published the article, “A secret chemical weapons factory of the former generals, Chinese technicians and the commander-in-chief at Pauk Township”. The article exposed a clandestine chemical weapons facility in the Magwe Division and further revealed that former head of the ruling junta, Than Shwe, and current commander-in-chief of the Myanmar Armed Forces, Min Aung Hlaing, visited the facility with a number of Chinese technicians. These claims were substantiated by statements from local residents and factory workers.
On January 31st, Lau Maw Naing was arrested without a warrant in Pauk Township, Magway Division. On February 1st, Naing was transferred to the Special Branch Police in Pauk Township where he was held without bail on charges of exposing state secrets.
From 31 January – 1 February, three other Unity reporters, including Yarzar Oo, Sithu Soe, and Paing Thet Kyaw, and Unity’s CEO, Tint San, were arrested in connection with the article.
Days later, in an apparent attempt to intimidate members of Unity’s staff and suppress further reporting on the chemical weapons plant, security forces raided Unity’s offices and confiscated copies of the issue.
On March 17th, Lu Maw Naing and his colleagues were charged at Pakokku District Court with “disclosing State secrets, trespassing on the restricted area of the factory, taking photographs and the act of abetting”.
On July 10th, all five journalists were sentenced to 10 years in prison and hard labor for violating Article 3 of the 1923 Burma State Secrecy Act.
Lu Maw Naing is reportedly in ill-health and has been denied adequate medical treatment.
Background information
On 15 July 2013, on an official visit to the UK, Burmese President Thein Sein Committed to releasing all political prisoners by the end of 2013.
However, on a nationally broadcasted speech on 7 July 2014, Thein Sein defended the arrests, stating that, “If media freedoms are used to endanger state security rather than give benefits to the country, I want to announce that effective action will be taken under existing laws.”
According to national watchdog group, Assistance Association for Political Prisoners, at least 46 political prisoners, including peaceful protestors, journalists and civil society activists, remain in prison in Myanmar.
For More Information
Committee to Protect Journalists- Burma takes another step toward repressing its media
Take Action
Amnesty International Urgent Action on Media Workers Imprisoned in Myanmar
Write to President Thein Sein demanding the release of Imprisoned Journalists
-
Lysa John: “Attacks on civil society mask the failure of governments”
*Interview with CIVICUS SG, Lysa John.
Our ambition is not to stand up (only) for established organisations, "Lysa John emphasizes. “We stand up for everyone's right to speak out and be heard, and for the right to organise with others to stand up for your own ideas or interests.” Gie Goris spoke to Lysa John, secretary -general of CIVICUS, possibly the largest alliance of civil society organisations.
*Interview is in Dutch
Read more: MO* Magazine
-
Madagascar : Un journaliste acquitté mais de sévères restrictions d'espace civique persistent
Déclaration à la 43e session du Conseil des droits de l'homme des Nations unies
Adoption par Madagascar de l'Examen périodique universel des droits de l'homme
CIVICUS se félicite de l'acceptation par Madagascar de 22 recommandations axées sur l'espace civique dans le cadre de ce cycle de l'EPU. Cependant, dans notre présentation à l'EPU, nous avons documenté que depuis son dernier examen, Madagascar n'a que partiellement mis en œuvre deux recommandations et n'a pas pris de mesures concrètes pour mettre en œuvre 20 des recommandations relatives à l'espace civique faites en 2014.
Nous nous félicitons de l'acquittement du journaliste d'investigation Fernand Cello par la Cour d'appel de Fianatantsoa deux ans après son arrestation et son inculpation pour le vol d'un chéquier. Cet acquittement est une étape nécessaire dans le respect des droits des journalistes et des médias.
Cependant, le code de la loi sur les communications des médias impose de lourdes amendes pour des délits tels que l'outrage, la diffamation et l'insulte à un fonctionnaire. De plus, les failles du système de justice pénale permettent au pouvoir judiciaire de gouverner sous l'influence de l'exécutif. La détention préventive, notamment des défenseurs des droits de l'homme et des journalistes, est très répandue et utilisée comme une stratégie pour les contraindre à l'autocensure.
La liberté de réunion continue d'être restreinte car les autorités utilisent le prétexte de l'ordre public pour interdire les protestations des groupes de la société civile. Nous sommes préoccupés par les niveaux élevés de persécution judiciaire, d'intimidation et de harcèlement des défenseurs des droits de l'homme, en particulier ceux qui défendent les droits environnementaux et fonciers.
Madame la Présidente, CIVICUS appelle le gouvernement de Madagascar à prendre des mesures proactives pour répondre à ces préoccupations et mettre en œuvre les recommandations visant à créer et à maintenir, en droit et en pratique, un environnement favorable à la société civile.
L'espace civique à Madagascar est actuellement classé comme étant Reprimé par le CIVICUS Monitor.
Voir nos recommandations qui ont été soumises au Conseil des droits de l'homme des Nations unies sur les conditions des droits de l'homme à Madagascar.
-
Madagascar: Journalist acquitted but severe civic space restrictions persist
Statement at the 43rd Session of the UN Human Rights Council
Madagascar's adoption of Universal Periodic Review on Human Rights
Watch us deliver our statement belowCIVICUS welcomes Madagascar’s acceptance of 22 recommendations focusing on civic space in this UPR cycle. However, in our UPR submission, we documented that since its last review, Madagascar has only partially implemented two recommendations and has not taken concrete steps to implement 20 of the recommendations relating to civic space made in 2014.
We welcome the acquittal of investigative journalist Fernand Cello by the Fianatantsoa Appeals Court two years after he was arrested and charged with the theft of a cheque book. This acquittal is a necessary step in respecting the rights of journalists and media houses.
However the Code of Media Communications Law imposes heavy fines for offences such as contempt, defamation and insult against a government official. In addition, flaws in the criminal justice system allow the judiciary to rule under the influence of the executive. Pre-trial detention including of human rights defenders and journalists is prevalent and used as a strategy to force them to self-censor.
Freedom of assembly continues to be restricted as the authorities use the pretext of engendering public order to ban protests by civil society groups. We are concerned about the high levels of judicial persecution, intimidation and harassment of human rights defenders particularly those advocating for environmental and land rights.
Madame President, CIVICUS calls on the Government of Madagascar to take proactive measures to address these concerns and implement recommendations to create and maintain, in law and in practice, an enabling environment for civil society.
Civic space in Madagascar is currently rated as Repressed by the CIVICUS Monitor
See our recommendations that were submitted to the UN Human Rights Council about the conditions of human rights in Madagascar.
-
Mahienour El-Masry
Mahienour El-Masry
Name: Mahienour El-Masry
Location: Egypt
Update:
CIVICUS was informed by a partner in Egypt that on December 27 2015, Mahienour El-Masry second demurrer was rejected by the court.
Reason Behind Bars:
On 21 September 2014, Mahienour El- Masry was provisionally released after the Al Mansheya Misdemeanor Appeals Court suspended her six months prison sentence following an appeal filed by her to the Court of Cassation. On 20 July 2014, the Sidi Gaber Appeal Misdemeanor Court in Alexandria had sentenced Mahienour to six months of prison and a fine of EGP 50,000 (approximately USD 7,200) under Law No 107: Law on the Right to Public Meetings, Processions and Peaceful Demonstrations. Mahienour was found guilty of “participating in an unauthorized protest” and “assaulting police officers”.
Mahienour’s sentencing is due to a peaceful demonstration she attended to on 2 December 2013 in front of the Alexandria Criminal Court during the fourth hearing of Khaled Saeed’s murder trial. On 6 June 2010 Khaled Saeed, the emblematic figure of the 25 January Revolution, was tortured to death by two police officers in Sidi Gaber. The police arrested Mahienour on 12 April 2014 while she was in a clothing store in Mohram Bey District in Alexandria. During her imprisonment, Mahienour was kept in the Damanhour Women prison.
Mahienour’s arrest is believed to be related to her legitimate human rights work of providing legal assistance to political prisoners and monitoring human rights violations in Egypt. A member of the Revolutionary Socialist movement and a human rights defender, Mahienour also worked extensively with women’s rights and youth organizations to document atrocities committed by security officers in Egypt. Mahienour was awarded the prestigious Ludovic Trarieux Human Rights Annual Prize in 2014, an award given to lawyers for their contributions to defending human rights.
Background Information:
Law No 107: Law on the Right to Public Meetings, Processions and Peaceful Demonstrations was adopted on 24 November 2013 and drew widespread criticism from UN experts and civil society organizations for being in breach of international standards. The law gives excessive powers to security forces to arbitrarily ban and disperse peaceful protests while imposing heavy penalties on demonstrators. Since its adoption, Law No 107 has been routinely used to clampdown on peaceful demonstrators and human rights defenders protesting the Egyptian government’s growing intolerance of dissent.
For more information:
Egypt:Provisional release of Ms. Mahienour El-Massry
Amnesty International: Human rights lawyer latest victim of Egypt’s repressive protest law
Frontline Defenders: Mahienour El-Masry
Nazra for Feminist Studies: Mahienour El-Massry
Read Mahienour’s close friend Rasha’s account of her
Read Mahienour’s letter from jail
September 2015 Update on Mahienour El-Massry from Fidh
Take action:
Send a letter to the Public Prosecutor, and the Egyptian Embassy in your country For a list of Egyptian diplomatic missions abroad please click here
Solidarity with Mahienour el-Masry and jailed activists
Resist the Anti- Protest Laws in Egypt -
Malawi makes good reforms on civic space but new NGO Policy sidelines human rights CSOs
CIVICUS interviews, the Centre for Human Rights and Rehabilitations’ Fletcher Simwaka about the state of civic space in Malawi and the new NGO policy.
1. What is the state of human rights in Malawi at the moment?
There is a great sense of ambivalence on the human rights situation in the country. In some instances, one notices commendable steps government is taking in facilitating citizens’ progressive enjoyment of the various civil and political rights in the country. Remarkably, for instance, the President Professor Peter Mutharika signed the long-awaited Access to Information (ATI) Bill into law. This is a milestone as the law will enable citizens to access key and vital information held by the government. The ATI is an effective tool to entrench a culture of transparency and openness in government operations. In addition to the ATI, a major improvement on civic space is that the government is now relaxing its former restrictive stance on freedom of assembly. Concerned citizens and human rights activists are now able to conduct peaceful protests government without any undue legal hindrances.On the other hand, however, the government has demonstrated vestiges of intolerance towards key human rights and freedoms, especially against critical human rights defenders and civil society. The current administration is resorting to a divide-and-rule tactic so as to weaken and isolate civil society in the country. The government does so by appointing some of the vocal human rights defenders into government positions. Moreover, government has taken a leading role in influencing elections of civil society leaders in civil society networks and platforms by supporting their stooges. Most unfortunately, government is resorting to the selective application of justice aimed at shielding ruling party loyalists. Only cases involving government critics are dealt with expeditiously. Civil society in Malawi has also expressed concerns over the very restrictive provisions in the NGO Act which are largely reflected in the draft NGO Policy.
2. What are the main civil society concerns over the NGO Policy?
The most fundamental civil society concern over the NGO Policy is that the draft policy formulation did not undergo meaningful consultations with the wider civil society community. The policy formulators only embarked on selective consultations with pro-government CSOs. Secondly, the draft Policy is almost silent on governance and human rights CSOs in its definition of civil society. It assumes all CSOs are community charitable organisations which are simply there to complement the service delivery work of the government. This is a deliberate and dangerous omission as it might systematically emasculate the equally important role of governance and human rights CSOs and activists in the country.The Policy provides the relevant development planning structures with increased and unwarranted powers to approve projects developed by NGOs. The policy notes that “a project shall not be implemented unless it is approved by these structures.” While it is important that projects planned by NGOs are in line with development objectives, such broad powers prescribed by the policy and given to the planning structures, will infringe on the independence and privacy of NGOs.
In addition, the draft policy doesn’t mention the protection of NGOs and human rights defenders. These is supposed to be reflected in any NGO policy as it is one of the crucial areas that shape their day to day work. In fact, the policy should have also acknowledged the relevant role of NGOs as a watchdog in the exercise of political and legal authority by those in public office. In view of the above, the policy priority areas need to be expanded.
While the policy notes that this is aimed at ensuring that NGO are transparent and accountable, it will increase the administrative burden on NGOs and allow for bureaucratic discretion to reject requests for renewal of the registration of NGOs and to target NGOs that question the government. For example, this was the case in 2014 when the NGO Board threatened to close NGOs that were not registered with the Board, despite the fact that the NGO Act (2000) does not provide the Board with powers to close on NGO.
Again, the question of mandatory registration of NGOs with the Council for Non-Governmental Organisations in Malawi (CONGOMA) and NGO board as indicated in the NGO Act of 2001 as a requirement to qualify or be recognised in the categorisation of the draft’s policy three categories of NGOs may be challenged at law considering the fact that it may be perceived as an infringement on freedom of association, and also considering that other NGOs register under Trustees Incorporation Act of 1966 and Companies Act.3. Have there been any concerns over the years over the NGO Act?
CSOs in Malawi have always had misgivings concerning the NGO Act. Both in its originality and practice, the NGO Act is seen as tool to police and silence critical voices in civil society. For instance, section 23 of the NGO Act gives power to the NGO Board, the body appointed by the President, to deregister any NGO that does not operate within NGO guidelines. Some of the NGOs targeted for de-registration are those involved in and comment on political issues. Several voices within civil society have noted that this is aimed at targeting civil NGOs working on human rights and governance who are critical of the government. The provision has always been a source of the fractious relationship between civil society organisations focusing on human rights and the government.4. How can international civil society support civil society in Malawi to improve civic space?
Support from international civil society is needed to build the capacity of local civil society to empower them to demand and promote and protect civic space in the country. There are also opportunities for international civil society groups to partner with local civil society to effect change.5. What are three things that need to change to further improve the environment in which NGOs operate in Malawi?
i. The NGO Act needs to be reviewed and amended to reflect the spirit of constitutionalism.
ii. There is need for a robust, responsive and inclusive NGO Policy that will address the challenges faced by CSOs.
iii. Government must come up with a law that protects human rights defenders.Civic space in Malawi is rated as Narrowed by the CIVICUS Monitor
-
MALAWI: ‘The tactics used by the current administration are the same used by its predecessors’
CIVICUS speaks about recent protests in Malawi with Michael Kaiyatsa, Executive Director of the Centre for Human Rights and Rehabilitation (CHRR).
CHRR is civil society organisation (CSO) aimed at supporting and promoting democracy and human rights in Malawi. Its mission is to contribute towards the protection, promotion and consolidation of good governance by empowering rural and urban communities to exercise their rights. Founded in 1995 by former student exiles who returned home to the promise of a new democracy, it operates through two core programmes: Community Mobilisation and Empowerment and Human Rights Monitoring and Training.
How has the situation in Malawi evolved since the 2020 elections?
Malawi held a presidential election in June 2020 because the 2019 election was annulled on the basis that there were massive irregularities and the court ordered a rerun. The 2020 election was won by the opposition candidate, Lazarus Chakwera.
During the campaign, Chakwera said that if elected, he would address some key issues, including corruption in the public sector. It was the perception of public opinion that corruption was on the rise and the previous administration had not done much to tackle the problem. Chakwera promised to introduce reforms to seal all loopholes allowing for corruption and to improve the judicial system so corruption cases would not be ignored.
However, once in power it didn’t look like these changes were effectively being implemented. As usual, the first year people gave the new administration some time. The president kept on making the same promises but made very little actual progress.
The second year continued in the same way and Malawians started to lose patience. People started to take their discontent out to the streets. The economic situation in Malawi also kept getting worse, with costs of living skyrocketing every day and a rise in unemployment. People looked back at campaign promises and compared them to their reality, and frustration arose.
I wouldn’t say all campaign commitments were just empty promises and lies, because there were issues the government attempted to address, but progress has been slow. For instance, they promised to increase funding for the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) and ensure its independence. Funding for the ACB increased significantly, and a new law was eventually passed to amend the Corrupt Practices Act, removing the requirement of the ACB director to seek consent to prosecute corruption cases. They promised to set up special courts to prosecute corruption cases, and finally submitted a bill to amend the Court’s Act and make a provision for special courts.
But they also promised to work to recover stolen assets and are moving at an extremely slow pace in this regard. And they also said they would create a million jobs for young people, which has never happened.
What’s behind recent protests against the judiciary?
Last year we started seeing lots of protests against corruption and impunity. There have been numerous cases involving government officials – including from the current administration – that have not been prosecuted. Investigations take years, and those involving senior government officials take the longest and rarely end in conviction. Recent ACB reports show that only 30 per cent of such cases have been concluded, and most of these date back to 2015.
In sum, the wheels of justice are barely moving, and people have concluded that the government is pursuing selective justice. In a recent case, for instance, an 18-year-old man arrested for cannabis possession was prosecuted and given a sentence of eight years in prison, while people accused of serious crimes involving corruption are given three and four-year sentences, if anything at all. Ironically, before this case, a powerful business leader was accused of the same crime, marijuana possession, and was just asked to pay a fine. Such arbitrariness is pushing people to the streets.
While selective justice is nothing new, this time around people want to hold the government accountable for the promises made on the campaign trail. As a result, pressure is also coming from the opposition to hold the government to account. When the current ruling party was in the opposition, they were the ones raising these issues. Now people are realising it is not any different from its predecessors.
How have the authorities responded to the protests?
The government has often tried to stop protests with the use of excessive force. Just recently, over 80 activists were detained and arrested. They were charged with holding an illegal assembly, although the constitution guarantees the freedom of assembly. Hours before these demonstrations started, some Malawians claiming to be from the business community requested the court issue an injunction to stop them. The injunction was granted late in the afternoon, so people gathered the next morning without knowing about it, and the police came in and started firing teargas, beating up people and arresting everyone they could.
The tactics used by the current administration are the same ones used by its predecessors. The habit of getting last-minute injunctions isn’t new at all: this is what happened in July 2011, when the government got a last-minute injunction, people assembled without any knowledge of it and over 20 were killed by the police in the ensuing repression.
What shocks me the most is the court’s interpretation of the meaning of the right to the freedom of assembly. The Police Act is very clear about what needs to be done if people stage a protest. It all starts with a notification to the authorities, but this is usually interpreted as people needing to obtain permission from the police, which is against what the law actually says.
In the recent protest against the judiciary, we were told the demonstration would not proceed until the organisers provided a list with the protesters’ names, to be held liable if the demonstration resulted in damage to property. This is strange, as you cannot be sure who is going to attend a protest and how they will conduct themselves. It is not just the police but also the courts that are now asking for a registry of attendees, something that cannot be found anywhere in the law.
How could the international community support Malawian civil society?
Over the past two or three years, new civil society groups have emerged to defend human rights and economic justice, and are mobilising mostly through social media platforms and community radio, particularly in rural areas, issuing statements and calling people to the streets.
Malawian civil society needs international protection. We need to be able to express ourselves and feel safe while doing it, so we need our international partners to send a message to the president, reminding him of his commitments and his obligations under the constitution.
We continue to experience the same challenges as in the past, despite the administration being a beneficiary of civil society mobilisation. In 2019 and 2020, when organisations like ours were protesting against electoral irregularities, the current authorities were by our side and supported our protest for democracy. But they are now doing exactly what they criticised when they were in the opposition, including by passing laws that restrict civil society, such as the recent NGO Amendment Act.
Civil society also needs resources, including for legal representation. There are currently over 80 civil society activists under arrest, most of whom don’t have legal representation. As a result, they remain in custody awaiting trial. There’s no fair access to justice and they could be held indefinitely.
Civic space in Malawi is rated ‘obstructed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
Get in touch with the Centre for Human Rights and Rehabilitation through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@CHRRMalawi on Twitter. -
MALAYSIA: ‘Migrants are amongst the first to be victimised and discriminated during the pandemic’
CIVICUS speaks to Adrian Pereira, the Executive Director ofNorth South Initiative (NSI), about the situation of migrant workers in Malaysia amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
NSI helps build advocacy and leadership capacities among migrants, refugees and stateless persons, both documented and undocumented, so they can claim their rights. It also monitors labour and immigration-related abuses by authorities, employers and local workers and ensures that migrant organisations are connected to a strong solidarity network and are able to cooperate with other civil society organisations (CSOs) and trade unions.
There are estimated to be somewhere between three and six millionmigrant workers in Malaysia. Migrant workers are set up for exploitation by a combination of unscrupulous recruitment agents and employers, harsh immigration policies, unmonitored supply chains and a lack of enforcement of labour protections. They are subjected to passport confiscation, low pay in violation of minimum wage laws, poor living conditions, punishment by fines, high recruitment fees and debts to recruitment agencies and employers, forced labour, human trafficking and salary deductions. Areport on the ability of migrants and refugees to access civic freedoms, produced by CIVICUS and Solidarity Center in collaboration with NSI, showed that the rights to the freedoms of association, peaceful assembly and expression in Malaysia are severely restricted for these vulnerable minorities.
What was the situation of migrant workers’ access to healthcare prior to the pandemic?
Malaysia removed subsidies for migrant workers to access public healthcare in 2016. Given that migrants rely mostly on public medical services, this measure resulted in declining quality and access to healthcare by migrants, both documented and undocumented, as the high cost of private alternatives usually deters them from getting any healthcare. Despite migrants and their employers and agents paying billions of Malaysian Ringgit per year in levies, taxes and other payments, they are not getting their money’s worth in healthcare.
Those who are undocumented are only able to access private healthcare, because if they try to access public healthcare, immigration authorities will be informed, and they will come to arrest them. Over the years, brutal enforcement by police, immigration and customs forces and the People’s Volunteer Corps towards undocumented migrants has made them even more fearful of seeking medical treatment.
There are also cultural competency gaps between medical practitioners and migrants, which make it difficult for them to get proper healthcare. Domestic workers who don’t have days off and are locked indoors have an even more difficult time in accessing healthcare.
One positive step in 2019 was the inclusion of documented migrants into the national social security system, ensuring much higher compensation and better healthcare in the event of work-related accidents and illnesses. But for non-work-related accidents and injuries, private insurance offers minimal coverage.
What additional challenges have migrant workers faced since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic?
Many migrant workers, and especially undocumented and informal ones, have lost their source of income. As a result, they can’t pay for food, rent and medicines, unless they have tested positive for COVID-19, in which case their quarantine and care is covered by the government. Only migrants who provide government-sanctioned ‘essential services’ are able to work. But their safety really depends on whether the companies permitted to operate comply with rules set by the government. The rules are meant to ensure workers are safe from the risk of COVID-19 infection and can continue to work. But there is almost no one to monitor this consistently.
The government has announced an economic stimulus package that sadly has marginalised migrant workers. There is a worker’s salary subsidy to ensure companies don’t have to retrench workers, but this does not apply to migrant workers. Previously, migrant workers were also excluded from the Workers Insurance Scheme under the national social security body, which would ensure a safety net for workers who were retrenched. The Movement Control Orders (MCOs) imposed by the government to restrict travel that came into force on 18 March have made it difficult for migrants to travel to access basic services, food, banking and other essentials. In Enhanced MCO areas, service providers can’t even enter. Informal sectors are sacking and abandoning the migrants who worked for them, particularly undocumented migrants and refugees.
Employers are forcing migrant employees to resign or take unpaid leave. Employers are taking advantage of the MCOs to not pay their workers. NSI received reports of at least two cases of unpaid salaries way before the MCOs were imposed. One had been unpaid since December 2019 and another since February 2020.
There is also fearmongering going on, with fake messages and misinformation online putting migrants at risk of backlash from Malaysians. The government pledged not to arrest and detain migrants who come forward for COVID-19 testing. But there is still a lot of fear among migrants and hence many are not coming forward. Some sectors that are very economically aggressive are forcing the government to allow them to reopen so workers can go back to work. We have seen this in the Sabah state palm oil sector.
The European Union (EU) is also putting both migrant and Malaysian workers at risk of forced labour by asking Malaysian personal protective equipment (PPE) manufacturers to ensure production continues during the pandemic. The EU has offered tax incentives to Malaysian companies to supply PPE. Further, small and medium enterprises that have been hiring undocumented workers for many years have abandoned their workers, claiming they are short on cash.
How have you and other CSOs responded to the situation?
We are coaching migrant leaders to ensure their communities have access to networks that provide services and can provide accurate information about needs to those who are providing services. Some public networks, such as the ‘Care Mongering Malaysia’ group, are proving a platform for Malaysians to reach out to help migrants and refugees in need. This is an online platform that links those who need help with those who can afford to provide the service. Also, Sikh temples are providing groceries and packed lunches.
Other CSOs working hard on the ground to provide groceries include BERSIH2.0, Beyond Borders, Dapur Jalanan, Engage, Geutanyoe Foundation, HOPE, Liga Rakyat Demokratik, Malaysian Trades Union Congress, Our Journey, The Patani, Refuge for the Refugees, Tenaganita and also migrant and refugee community organisations. Migrant workers can call them when they need assistance with food.
We are forming a network to ensure services can be delivered in the long term, as we foresee the problems continuing for many months to come. Many migrant workers will remain and will need aid, so we are developing a supply chain to support them.
We are ensuring migrants receive accurate information from global bodies such as the International Organization for Migration, United Nations (UN) Development Programme and UN Refugee Agency and also from the various government agencies related to health, labour, security and welfare. This includes providing information via infographics on counselling services and on health issues in different languages.
We are also fighting misinformation related to migrant workers and refugees. There has been a lot of fearmongering blaming them for the spread of the virus.
We are also encouraging migrants to seek medical treatment if they are sick and monitoring employers who are taking advantage of the current situation and committing labour offences, particularly as the MCOs have partly restricted lawyers from providing legal representation and legal aid.
Other CSOs are providing counselling, delivering groceries, doing fundraising, monitoring human trafficking, providing gender-sensitive and maternity-related services and catering to women’s needs.
What further support does Malaysian civil society need at this time?
We need cash to support migrants’ needs, including to pay for groceries, bills, rentals and safe repatriation home after the MCOs. We are also seeking funding opportunities because as long as the MCOs apply, we are unable to conduct physical meetings, and most fundraising is based on this. We also need legal aid services for those who are being retrenched unfairly and detained unjustly.
What lessons have you learned so far from the pandemic?
We have seen that the government has barely consulted CSOs before implementing policies and this is not in line with good governance principles. Also, there is overkill in punishing those who violate MCOs, including people who are forced to breach the MCOs due to livelihood issues. Further, the over-securitisation of migration over the years has now caused a backlash against migrants, who have been neglected.
Migrants are amongst the first to be victimised and discriminated against during the pandemic as they are neglected and don’t have strong safety nets. A capitalist system that operates on the basis of mega global supply chains and mega businesses does not have a proper risk-management plan that ensures accountability and transparency. Malaysia also has a problem with statistics, as it has been doctoring the numbers of those in poverty and has failed to address the problems resulting from the huge number of undocumented workers due to the meddling of the deep state.
The civic rights of migrants have been suspended under the MCOs and Enhanced MCOs, and this in turn has weakened their bargaining power to gain their rights. There has also not been enough cooperation between migrants’ countries of origin and Malaysia to ensure the safe repatriation of those who want to return home, which poses a high risk of infection for everyone. We have received reports that under the MCOs, migrants are forced to use irregular passages to travel home. Embassies have turned to Malaysians for assistance for their citizens.
CSOs are also not as united as I had assumed in building consensus in dealing with the problems, as they have struggled to cope with this. At the same time, some Malaysians who may have been biased against migrants have, in this time of need, showed compassion and responded in solidarity to migrants’ struggles. As has become clear, in the long term, the economic contributions of migrants ended up benefitting everyone except migrants themselves.
Civic space inMalaysia is rated as ‘obstructed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
Get in touch with the North South Initiative through itswebsite and Facebook page, and follow@nsinitiative11 on Twitter. -
MALAYSIA: ‘The government should have assisted refugees under the pandemic’
CIVICUS speaks to Htoon Htoon Oo, a refugee and activist from Myanmar, currently based in Malaysia. In 2007, he was a chemistry student in East Yangon University and an activist who took part in what was described as the Saffron Revolution, a series of protests unleashed by a hike in fuel prices, which were harshly repressed. He was also active during Myanmar’s transition from a military dictatorship to a quasi-civilian government in 2010.
Aware of being under state surveillance and fearing that his family members and loved ones would experience reprisals and harassment due to his activism, he fled Myanmar in 2011 and has lived as a refugee in Malaysia ever since.
What is the situation of refugees in Malaysia?
The life of Myanmar refugees in Malaysia continues to be difficult, as it involves various struggles and suffering. We often feel helpless, hopeless, and unprotected. As of May 2021, there were an estimated 179,570 refugees and asylum seekers registered with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) in Malaysia. The majority – a total of 154,840 – were from Myanmar, including 102,950 Rohingya people, 22,490 ethnic Chins, and 29,400 from other ethnic groups fleeing persecution or conflict-affected areas.
Malaysia has not yet ratified the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. The absence of a legal framework for recognising refugees and asylum seekers has created problematic and exploitative conditions for refugees and asylum seekers because we lack formal rights to work, we do not have legal status, we do not benefit from any legal protection and we continue to remain at risk of arrest, detention, and refoulement.
We also have limited civic freedoms. Although there are many different organisations of refugees from various backgrounds, when it comes to expressing our concerns and organising our struggles, the reality is that we are not able to do it freely. There is common fear among refugees regarding the consequences of speaking up about our struggle, expressing our concerns, and claiming our rights.
For example, under the Peaceful Assembly Act, Section 4(a), the right to assemble peacefully is reserved exclusively for Malaysian citizens. Moreover, there are many laws in Malaysia that create a chilling effect for refugees who want to speak up, such as the Immigration Act, which criminalises undocumented migrants as well as refugees, given that we are not recognised by law. The Immigration Act also exposes refugees to severe forms of punishment, such as caning. The lack of recognition of refugees and asylum seekers in Malaysia exposes us to arrest, imprisonment, and various abuses.
What additional challenges have refugees faced under the pandemic?
Since the COVID-19 pandemic broke out in Malaysia in March 2020, refugees have faced several issues and struggles. The lockdown, known as the Movement Control Order (MCO), which was applied to the whole nation, has had a huge impact on refugees.
Refugees cannot work under Malaysian law, but some do seek informal work to survive. Under the pandemic, we have seen cases of employers forcing refugees to work for salaries below the normal wage or to take unpaid leave or resign just because of their refugee status. Many refugees lost their jobs due to the pandemic. There is nothing to protect us from these abuses.
We also fear for our safety during the pandemic because there have been several cases of refugees being targeted by the police and immigration officers due to a lack of clear policies and awareness among law enforcement officials on what a refugee is. Some refugees were fined by the police, and some were even detained at police stations for several days.
Some people also label us as illegal immigrants even if we hold complete and authentic UNHCR refugee cards or documents.
Most of the refugees who face these struggles are also dealing with depression and are mentally exhausted through thinking of ways just to survive and remain safe.
Have refugees received any support from the Malaysian government or the UNHCR during the pandemic?
Refugees have received no support from the Malaysian government; rather we experienced more raids and increasing restrictions. This is the opposite of what should have happened: they should have provided us with access to information on COVID-19 treatment and testing and there should have been other support programmes for refugees during the pandemic.
Instead, in May 2020, Malaysia’s immigration department and police force carried out immigration raids in Kuala Lumpur. While those registered with the UNHCR were largely spared arrest, unregistered asylum seekers were swept up along with undocumented migrant workers. Some were also stuck in areas under strict lockdown surrounded by barbed wire, with residents forbidden from leaving their homes, which made it very difficult. Many of us have not recovered from this.
There has also been a wave of online hate speech towards refugees, and particularly towards Rohingya people, during the pandemic, accompanied by government announcements and policies that are hostile towards migrants and refugees.
The UNHCR sent direct messages to refugees whose documents expired informing them that they would remain valid until the UNHCR could resume its normal operations, which were disrupted by the pandemic. This, however, made no difference to law enforcement, and many people have been fined and arrested.
What is the status of refugees regarding access to the COVID-19 vaccine?
The Malaysian government has encouraged refugees to come forward to register for vaccination but has not provided clear information, and the existing systems are not accessible for refugees.
For example, there is a requirement for specific documents to register for vaccines. The system requires refugees and asylum seekers to input an ID card or passport number, two documents that we do not have access to.
The system should be more inclusive of all persons living in Malaysia, including refugees, asylum seekers, and undocumented migrants because vaccinations should be the first barrier against the creation of COVID-19 clusters. Arresting us will only make things worse because fatal clusters are known to have been formed in detention centres. The criminalisation of immigration is at the root of this problem.
What are the demands of refugee communities towards the Malaysian government and the international community?
We would like the Malaysian government to raise public awareness on the status of refugees as refugees, rather than as illegal immigrants, ‘risk’ groups or criminals. There has been a negative perception of refugees as only benefiting from society and not contributing to it, which is false.
In reality, we want to contribute to Malaysia in every way that we can. We urge the Malaysian government to give refugees legal access to work and to acknowledge their legal status. We are currently unable to find formal work, and lack of recognition exposes us to exploitation. We hope the government will raise awareness of the true reasons why refugees are here.
I hope that the government can work hand in hand with the UNHCR and civil society to settle refugee issues in more appropriate and effective ways and not deport any Myanmar detainees back to Myanmar, which is currently under a military regime. Instead, we should find solutions such as a resettlement programme. There should also be clear policies and information on vaccines accessible to all refugees.
Civic space inMalaysiais rated as ‘obstructed’by theCIVICUS Monitor.
-
Malaysia: Authorities reverting to repressive tactics of former governments to throttle expression online
🇲🇾#Malaysia: Authorities have launched a systematic campaign to silence critical voices online.
— CIVICUS (@CIVICUSalliance) June 11, 2021
We join civil society orgs in calling the government to cease baseless investigations & repeal or amend restrictive laws used to silence #FreedomofExpression https://t.co/OrqvtRk9VX pic.twitter.com/vDGWumbVrA -
Malaysia: End escalating harassment of Mentega Terbang Filmmakers
We, the 74 undersigned organisations and individuals, strongly condemn the harassment and intimidation of the artists and filmmakers behind the movie Mentega Terbang who have faced police questioning, death threats and property vandalisation.
-
Malaysia: Fundamental freedoms in decline under Perikatan Nasional government
Joint research report on the state of civic freedoms in Malaysia
The Perikatan Nasional government has undermined and obstructed the exercise of fundamental freedoms during its first twelve months in power, said ARTICLE 19 and CIVICUS in a new report published today. The government has not only failed to reform or repeal laws that restrict the rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and association but has initiated baseless criminal proceedings against government critics, human rights defenders, journalists, and individuals expressing critical opinions.
The report, “Rights in Reverse: One year under the Perikatan Nasional government in Malaysia”, highlights the Perikatan Nasional government’s record during its first year in power against its obligation to respect, protect, and fulfil the rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and association. The report highlights the government’s sustained use of repressive laws and provisions to silence dissent amid a global pandemic, when press freedom and civil society is needed more than ever to ensure reliable information and to hold the state accountable.
“The Perikatan Nasional government has been extremely secretive about its legislative agenda but has been crystal clear about its intention to continue using repressive laws to target critics and dissenters,” said Nalini Elumalai, ARTICLE 19’s Malaysia Programme Officer. “A healthy environment for public discourse cannot be achieved until dissenting and unpopular opinions are respected and protected instead of silenced.”
Over the past year, authorities have aggressively applied the Sedition Act 1948 and Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (CMA) to investigate, arrest, charge, and convict individuals who have criticized government officials or Malaysian royalty, or who have shared opinions about sensitive issues such as race and religion. Between March 2020 and February 2021, ARTICLE 19 and CIVICUS recorded 66 cases involving 77 individuals who have been investigated or charged under the two laws because of their exercise of the right to freedom of expression. Over this period, at least 12 people were convicted under the CMA.
Press freedom has also declined sharply during the Perikatan Nasional government’s first year in power. This trend was highlighted by Malaysiakini’s conviction on contempt of court charges in relation to third-party comments made on its website, the unprecedented witch-hunt against Al Jazeera journalists investigating the treatment of migrants workers during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the targeting of journalists reporting on the actions and statements of government officials. The harassment and intimidation of journalists further demonstrates the shrinking space for free and independent media in Malaysia.
In addition to journalists, the authorities have harassed, investigated, and arbitrarily detained human rights defenders, peaceful protesters, women’s rights activists, and union leaders in an effort to silence civil society voices.
The legal framework governing the exercise of freedom of assembly and association remains highly restrictive and excessively burdensome.
The Peaceful Assembly Act falls shorts of international law and standards and denies the right to protest to children and non-citizens. It also fails to allow for spontaneous assemblies. The last year saw peaceful protesters being investigated and arrested, including health workers protesting their lack of access to adequate personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Societies Act has continued to stand in the way of enjoyment of the right to freedom of association, which is critical in a democracy. The Registrar of Societies has excessive powers and has erected barriers to registration for new opposition political parties such as Muda and Pejuang and civil society groups while simultaneously fast-tracking the registration of the Perikatan Nasional.
“The Perikatan government has attempted to silence peaceful protesters and impede the formation of political parties to keep itself in power,” said Josef Benedict, CIVICUS Researcher. “Its attempt to join the Human Rights Council cannot be taken seriously unless it takes immediate steps to remove undue restrictions on assembly and association,” Benedict added.
ARTICLE 19 and CIVICUS urge the Malaysian government to undertake a comprehensive and inclusive process of legislative and institutional reform in order to promote and protect fundamental rights and freedoms. To this end, authorities must ensure that all processes are fully transparent and facilitate full and effective participation of all concerned stakeholders, including civil society.
Malaysia’s reform process must be informed by relevant international human rights standards. The Perikatan National government should take concrete steps towards the ratification of core human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
For further information:
- Nalini Elumalai, ARTICLE 19 Malaysia Program Officer,
- Josef Benedict, CIVICUS Civic Space Researcher,
More information
The space for civil society in Malaysia is rated as ‘Obstructed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor, an online platform that tracks civic space in every country. An Obstructed rating for civic space means that democratic freedoms – such as the freedoms of expression, peaceful assembly and association – face a combination of legal and practical constraints in Malaysia.
-
Malaysia: Government must stop harassing protesters and restricting peaceful protests
ARTICLE 19 and CIVICUS are concerned by recent attempts by the police to harass protesters and restrict peaceful protests. Such actions are inconsistent with the constitution and Malaysia’s international human rights obligation to respect and protect the right to freedom of expression and assembly. It also makes a mockery of Malaysia’s membership at the UN Human Rights Council and the commitments it has made to ensure fundamental freedoms.
On 12 September 2023, a group of around 50 farmers from the state of Perak - supported by Lawan Lapar, a movement aimed at ensuring food security and members of the Malaysian Socialist Party (PSM) - gathered close to parliament to protest against land eviction measures that were affecting their livelihood. They had planned to handover a memorandum but were blocked by the police. Despite this, they continued and met representatives from the government as well as parliamentarians outside parliament.
Following this, police opened up investigations into the protest under Section 186 of the Penal Code for ‘obstructing civil servants from performing their duties’. On 18 September, three PSM leaders were hauled up for police questioning including PSM deputy chairperson S. Arutchelvan, treasurer Soh Sook Hwa and youth member Ayman Hareez. According to reports after, the questions asked had nothing to do with what the three were accused of.
Separately, police also tried to block the ‘Save Malaysia’ protest by opposition groups on 16 September against Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi's discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA), in his corruption case. The police kept demanding publicly that the organisers ‘apply for permit’ despite the law only requiring the organisers to give notice. Following the peaceful protest – in which around 800 people participated – police said they were going to question at least 25 people under the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 (PAA).
Previously, protesters were also called up by the police concerning peaceful protest marches around International Women’s Rights day and Labour Day.
“There is no basis for the police to haul up peaceful protesters for questioning. This is a clear form of harassment and creates a chilling effect for those who want to organise protests. Further, the police must stop demanding that protesters require permission from them to undertake a protest, when all that is required is a notification. Such scare tactics call into question the reformist credentials of the Anwar Ibrahim government and its commitment to respect the right to peaceful assembly” said Josef Benedict, CIVICUS Asia Pacific Researcher.
Our organisations remain concerned that the PAA falls short of international human rights law and standards. The law imposes onerous requirements such as the need to provide detailed information about the planned event and its organisers. Further, anyone who organises an assembly without giving the required notice can be charged with a criminal offence carrying a fine of up to RM10,000 ($2,134 USD).
The PAA also lacks an exception to the notice requirement for spontaneous assemblies where it is not practicable to give advance notice. It also makes it a criminal offence for people under 21-years-old to organise an assembly and for children to attend an assembly. Further, non-citizens are also denied the right to organise or participate in protests, which is clearly discriminatory.
In 2024, Malaysia’s human rights record will be reviewed by states at the UN Human Rights Council. During its last Universal Periodic Review (UPR) in 2019, the government accepted recommendations to ‘amend existing provisions that limit the freedom of expression including the Peaceful Assembly Act’.
“The police force should stop any further harassment against protest organizers and participants. The government must take steps to revise the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 to ensure it is consistent with international law and standards. This includes allowing space for spontaneous protests and removing discriminatory provisions in the law. Ahead of Malaysia’s review at the Human Rights Council in 2024, this would signal that the government is committed to respecting and protecting the right to protest”, said Nalini Elumalai, Senior Malaysia Program officer at ARTICLE 19.
Civic space in Malaysia is rated as 'Obstruted' by the CIVICUS Monitor
-
Malaysia: Ismail Sabri’s government is undermining fundamental freedoms
One year after Ismail Sabri took over as the Prime Minister of Malaysia, ARTICLE 19 and CIVICUS areconcerned about systematic attempts by his government to restrict and undermine fundamental freedoms, especially freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.