An introduction of the right to the freedom of association in Malaysia by youth human rights defender Wong

An introduction of the right to the freedom of association in Malaysia by youth human rights defender Wong

Note taking: Doris Yang / Editing: Leah Lin

ACFA (Asia Citizen Future Association) is honor to invite Wong Yan Ke, the program and campaign coordinator at Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM), to talk about the current situation of freedom of association and press freedom in Malaysia for us to understand the current situation and trends of the shrinking of civil space in the country.  This is the record of the sharing of Wong Yan Ke on ACFA's report launch forum on 22 August,"Exploring Taiwan's Roles Amid The Crisis of Closing Civic Space in the Southeast Asia" during the ACFA 2023 Taiwan and Southeast Asia Civil Society Week.

About the speaker

Wong Yan Ke is a program and campaign coordinator at Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM), handling cases related to police misconduct and detentions without trial. He is also the coordinator of CSO Platform for Reform's Police Accountability sub-cluster, and is coordinating campaigns for freedom of expression, freedom of assembly/association and ant-itorture and elimination of custodial deaths. Besides monitoring cases and initiating campaigns, he is currently working on a socioeconomic research on detention without trials' detainees and their family members. Wong Yan Ke is also a participants in ACFA's "Exploring Taiwan's Roles Amid The Crises of Closing Civic Space in the Southeast Asia" research and one of the panelists on ACFA's "Taiwan & Southeast Asia Civil Society Week" report launch forum.

There are four groups of stakeholders who are most directly influenced by the limitation of freedom of association in Malaysia, that are: (1) NGOs (2) Political Parties (3) Trade Unions (4) Students Organizations.

(1) NGOs

The current Societies Act of Malaysia regulates that a society can be formed with seven or more persons. Looking at the minimum number of initiators to form a society or association, the requirement of 7 or more persons to form a society in Malaysia is much more workable than the requirement of 30 or more initiators for forming an association regulated by the Civil Association Act in Taiwan. However, the biggest challenge for the freedom of association in Malaysia is the excessive executive power of the authority; for example, the government authority has the power to decide whether to approve the application for registration, or whether to dissolve societies.

Furthermore, the Registrar of Society (ROS) under the Ministry of Home Affairs, which is the authority to approve applications for registration of societies, normally does not approve the application submitted by organizations working matters related to human rights and politics. There were only few organizations of whom the board members are influential enough (such as those who used to be government officials, judges, or foreign ministers) could be approved for registrations.

In response to such difficulties, many human rights organizations chose to register through the Companies Act as companies. For example, Amnesty International Malaysia was registered as a company after being rejected to be registered as a society by the ROS.

The fact that many CSOs have no choice but to be registered as companies has brought them a lot of challenges. For instance, many donors refuse to provide grants or fundings for organizations that are registered as companies. Furthermore, organizations that are registered as companies have to bear the burden to pay taxes.

Besides from the challenges in registration, CSOs who receive international fundings are subjected to stigmatizations through the accusations of being the representatives of Western countries or the Jewish agencies. The difficulties mentioned above make it challenging for people in Malaysia to exercise their freedom of association.

(2) Political Parties

In Malaysia, registrations of political parties that are deemed as opposition parties or causing potential threats to the ruling parties are rarely approved. For example, the Malaysian United Democratic Alliance (MUDA), which was formed by a multi-racial group of youths, applied to the ROS to be registered as a political party in 2020. The application was rejected by the ROS in January 2021 through an email without explaining the reasons. The MUDA later sought a court order at the High Court to reverse the decision made by the ROS. The court ruled that MUDA won the case, and MUDA was finally registered in December 2021.

This case shows that the Malaysian authority was reluctant to accept young and progressive political voices; and when people are deprived the right to form a political party, they could only seek judicial review as a possible path to assert their rights.

(3) Trade Unions

In Malaysia, unions could only be formed with the approval of the employers by each company. Besides, all matters related to unions are supervised and controlled by the Director General of Trade Unions and the Ministry of Human Resources. Therefore, union-related activities are put under the control of the executive power.

(4) Students Organizations

Due to the uprising of left-wing movements, a lot of university students in Malaysia actively participated in political movements in the 1970s and was once considered intimidating the legitimacy of the ruling party. In response, the ruling party enacted the Universities and University Colleges Act to control students’ activities. With the Universities and University Colleges Act, students are prohibited from standing in solidarity with peasants or marginal groups' movements. They are also prohibited from participating in politics and forming their own students’ associations. Instead, students can only express their voices through the Students' Representative Councils, which are under the control of the Vice-Chancellors of the universities. The Vice-Chancellors have the power to decide whether to approve or suspend students' activities, and whether to expel the students or suspend students' licenses for organizations. Once students' activities or licenses are suspended, they could only seek for judicial reviews to reverse the universities' decisions.

Wong Yan Ke has been an activist since his student days in the Universiti Malaya. On October 9 2023, the court found him guilty under Section 504 of the Penal Code (which refers to intentionally insulting a person and provoking a breach of peace) for a solo protest during his graduation ceremony in 2019.

During his graduation ceremony, Wong raised a placard to demand the vice-chancellor to resign for his racism remarks in the Malay Dignity Congress when he was receiving his bachelor's degree on the stage.

The university lodged a police report accusing Wong of disrespecting the ceremony and forbidding another student activist to participate in the convocation ceremony in order to prevent the protest from happening again.

The university's staff refused to give Wong his diplomat scroll and academic transcript with the excuse that Wong's scroll was 'dirty'. The activist was only allowed to collect those documents a few days after the incident.

Wong was charged under Section 504 of the Penal Code in February 2020; he visited the court for around 70 times from 2020 to 2023. On October 9, 2023, Wong was found guilty by the court with the fine of MR5000, the court requested him to serve 3 months in jail if he fails to pay the fine.

Wong's activism against racism should be encouraged; however, the authorities' prosecution against youth/student activists is a harmful act against the freedom of speech and an act of silencing student activism.

2023 Taiwan and Southeast Asia Civil Society Week/2023 台灣與東南亞公民社會週 (CN/EN)
About the Taiwan and Southeast Asia Civil Society Week “Taiwan and Southeast Asia Civil Society Week” is a platform organized by ACFA to connect civil society organisations and activists among Taiwan and Southeast Asia. The 2023 Taiwan and Southeast Asia Civil Society Week is an initial stage for C…

Read more



亞洲公民未來協會(ACFA)透過研究、培訓、網絡建構與公眾教育,串聯台灣與東南亞公民社會,共同關注並致力於減緩東南亞公民空間緊縮趨勢。 過去我們關注過泰國刑法112條藐視君主罪對青年行動者的危害。我們談過馬來西亞社團法與大專法案賦予行政權過大權力而有害於結社自由。印尼新刑法修正案(New Penal Code)中則明文規定禁止侮辱總統和國家體制。我們已然見證這些法案對東南亞公民社會開展行動和倡議所造成的風險與負面影響。 令人遺憾地,在台灣三一八運動的十年之際,我們目睹包含《立法院職權行使法》在內一系列不透明、未經充分討論、危害言論自由的國會擴權法案,以不符合程序正義與違背民主程序的舉手表決形式被強行二讀與通過。 由於該法案新增許多模糊未加以定義且有罰則的內容,包含:「反質詢」、「虛偽陳述」與「藐視國會」等。我們相信該法案一旦通過,在未來極有可能造成公民社會與民間團體因自身倡議與言論而遭受不同形式處罰的情形。 我們認為這樣的法案內容與審議程序,已足證這是一個國會濫權法案,也是擴權法案,是民主倒退,也是公民空間緊縮的徵兆。我們與四十多個公民社會組織站在一起,呼籲立法院退回該法案,重



這期的台灣東南亞關注小組的每月彙整,我們關注東南亞最大的民主國家—印尼。 印尼過去幾個月來與該國總統大選相關的憲法法院裁定時程。今年2月14日,印尼舉辦了全世界最大的單日選舉,最後由普拉伯沃與吉伯朗高票黨選接下來五年的正副總統,然而,此次大選卻引發諸多爭議。除了新總統當選者普拉伯沃是過去強人總統蘇哈托任內人權迫害的加害者外,準副總統吉伯朗(時任梭羅市長)是現任總統佐科威的長子。按照印尼的《選舉法(No.7/2017)》,吉伯朗因未滿40歲,不符合參選正副總統的年齡門檻。然而,2023年10月,以Anwar Usman (安華烏斯曼)為首席大法官的印尼憲法法院裁定,將正副總統參選人的門檻修改為年滿40歲或是未滿40歲但曾擔任民選的官員或民意代表。此舉被視為幫助時任梭羅(Surakarta)市長的吉伯朗參選開路。憲法法院裁定此案時,時任首席大法官安華是總統佐科威的妹婿。 雖然2023年11月,印尼憲法法院道德小組宣布,由於安華未規避其在此事件中的利益衝突,此舉違反道德規範,因此被解除首席大法官的職位,然而,安華依然保有其大法官的職位。大選後不久,落選的兩名候選人針對憲法法院裁定候選人年



亞洲公民未來協會致力於連結台灣與東南亞公民社會,共同發展抵禦公民空間緊縮危機的策略。近年來由於區域公民空間緊縮,隨著壓迫性政府持續打壓區域內的公民社會組織與人權捍衛者,新聞自由的空間也持續不斷受到打壓。然而,區域內的人權捍衛者、獨立記者與媒體仍持續發展不同策略以延續他們的工作以捍衛基本人權。 在本次活動中,我們很榮幸邀請到新加坡獨立記者與長期致力於廢除死刑工作的人權捍衛者Kirsten Han 韓俐穎分享她的工作經驗與歷程。這場座談可以讓我們了解一位獨立記者如何在具有挑戰的環境持續採訪與製作具備深度與觀點的議題新聞。 關於講者 Kirsten Han 韓俐穎是一位新家坡的獨立記者與人權捍衛者。除了經營《We, The Citizen》電子報之外,她也是《Mekong Review》的總編輯。此外,Kirsten是新加坡公民社會組織Transformative Justice Collective (TJC)的成員,長期致力於廢除死刑以及終止掃毒戰爭。Kirsten是一位作家,她曾出版《The Singapore I Recognise: Essays on home, c