Malaysia is a federation of 13 states and 3 federal territories with a parliamentary system of government based on periodic multiparty elections in which the ruling National Front coalition has held power for more than 40 years. Opposition parties actively contest elections, but face significant obstacles in competing with the long-entrenched ruling coalition. However, in the November 1999 elections, opposition parties won roughly 25 percent of the seats in the Federal Parliament, and an opposition party also retained control of one state government and gained control of another. The Constitution provides for an independent judiciary; however, government action, constitutional amendments, legislation, and other factors undermine judicial independence and strengthen executive influence over the judiciary. The impartiality of the judiciary appeared to improve during the year, as some high-profile decisions were made and controversial decisions and politically-charged cases from previous years were reversed or dropped according to the legal merits of the case.

The Royal Malaysian Police have primary responsibility for internal security matters. The police report to and are under the effective control of the Home Minister. Some members of the police committed human rights abuses.

Malaysia is an advanced developing country with a population of approximately 23 million, an estimated per capita gross domestic product of $3,850, and an unemployment rate of roughly 3 percent. Following nearly a decade of strong economic growth averaging over 8 percent annually, it was hit hard by the 1997 regional financial and economic crisis. After contracting by 7.5 percent in 1998, the economy began to recover, and expanded 6.1 percent in 1999 and 8.3 percent in 2000. In response to falling demand in export markets, economic growth slowed during the year. Analysts expect the economy to grow from 1 to 3 percent during the year. The Government has continued with its simulative fiscal and monetary policies. The Government takes an active role in the development of the export-oriented economy. Manufacturing accounts for 31.1 percent of GDP, services for 50.7 percent, agriculture for 8.4 percent, construction for 3.3 percent, and mining for 6.5 percent. Principal manufactured products include semiconductors, consumer electronics, electrical products, textiles, and apparel. Oil and gas, palm oil, natural rubber, cocoa, and tropical timber are also significant contributors to the economy.

The Government generally respected its citizens' rights in some areas; however, its record was poor in a number of other areas, and significant problems remain. Police committed a number of extrajudicial killings, and authorities prosecuted the perpetrators in some of these cases. Police on occasion tortured, beat, or otherwise abused prisoners, detainees, and demonstrators. In 1999, an Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) delegation found that prison conditions were not in accord with international norms; the Government subsequently took some steps to improve prison conditions. Conditions in the detention facilities of illegal aliens continued to pose a threat to health, although marginal improvements in food and water rations were reported. The trial of a prominent human rights activist on charges arising from her criticisms of such conditions continued. At year's end, the trial still was ongoing. Police increased their use of the Internal Security Act (ISA) to arrest and detain many persons, including members of the political opposition, without charge or trial. In addition, police continued to use several other statutes to arrest and detain many persons without charge or trial (see Section 1.d.).

Prolonged pretrial detention is a serious problem. Detained criminal suspects often were denied access to legal counsel prior to being charged formally. Many observers expressed serious doubts about the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, especially in high-profile cases. The politically motivated convictions of former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar on charges of corruption and sodomy in 1999 and 2000 demonstrated the judiciary's lack of independence. However, while many observers continued to express doubts about the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, reforms instituted by the new chief justice appear to have led to some improvements in these areas. The remaining libel suits against a U.N. Special Rapporteur on Judicial Independence were dropped during the year. Politically motivated, selective prosecution decreased during the year; however, it continued to be a concern as authorities continued to infringe on citizens' privacy rights in some instances.

Government restrictions, pressure, and intimidation led to a high degree of press self-censorship. The Government continued to limit the publication of an opposition party newspaper, and refused to renew the publication permits of several other political weeklies. It also routinely delayed the release of issues of several foreign weekly magazines. Independent on-line newspapers operated without government interference, but one on-line outlet was subjected to an intermittent government campaign to undermine its credibility. In 1999 a U.N. Special Rapporteur reported that the Government systematically curtailed freedom of expression. The Government did not respond to the report by year's end. The Government increased restrictions on freedom of assembly and some peaceful gatherings, particularly those organized by the political opposition. The threat of slander and libel awards against journalists and media publications diminished during the year; however, these slander and libel awards represented a restraint on press freedom. The Government continues to restrict significantly freedom of association. The Government cracked down on student participation in political activities, and detained several students under the ISA. The Government places some restrictions on religious freedom, in particular the right of Muslims to practice teachings other than Sunni Islam or to convert to other religions. The Government continued to impose some restrictions on freedom of movement. Government policies create significant restrictions on opposition parties' ability to compete effectively with the ruling coalition. The Election Commission's lack of independence impedes it from effectively enforcing election results and monitoring elections. The Government continued to criticize harshly human rights NGO's, but also met with several such groups during the year. The Government established a National Human Rights Commission in 2000. Despite some limitations on its scope, and a lack of enforcement powers, the Commission established several human rights working groups and in certain cases acted as a credible check on government authority and policy. Despite government efforts, societal violence and discrimination against women remain problems. Sexual abuse of children is a problem, although it is punished severely. Indigenous people face discrimination and often are exploited, especially in regard to land issues. Longstanding policies give preferences to ethnic Malays in many areas, and ethnic minorities face discrimination. Some restrictions on worker rights persist. Child labor persists, although the Government has taken vigorous action against it. The country is a source, transit, and destination country for trafficking in women and girls for the purpose of prostitution.

RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

Section 1 Respect for the Integrity of the Person, Including Freedom From:

a. Arbitrary and Unlawful Deprivation of Life

There were no reports of political killings; however, police committed a number of extrajudicial killings. Police leadership continued efforts to curb such abuses during the year, including inviting the U.N. Human Rights Commission to provide human rights training to police officers and meeting with members of The Human Rights Commission.

At year's end, the press reported that the police had killed 26 persons while apprehending them.

In January 1999, the Bar Council called on the police to implement a standard procedure to investigate every lethal shooting by police; however, the police did not implement such a procedure. By year's end the Government had not formed an independent commission to investigate police killings, as was recommended by a group of 119 domestic NGO's in February 1999. On April 30, police reportedly killed three men suspected of robbery at Subang Mewah, Shah Alam, Selangor. On June 8, police reportedly killed a man suspected of drug dealing, following a high-speed car chase. The police alleged he had tried to ram the patrol car. On August 23, police killed one man and seized an assortment of weapons, drugs and pornographic materials in Melaka.

There were developments in two cases of extrajudicial killing from previous years. In October a negligence suit brought by two girls whose parents (who allegedly were involved in a kidnaping) were shot and killed by police was settled out of court. In May a Coroner's Court ruled that there was no criminal wrongdoing in the fatal shooting at close range by police officers of six men who were shot in 1998.

b. Disappearance

There were no reports of politically motivated disappearances.

By year's end, all of the hostages held by a Filipino militant group had been released and authorities plan to take no further action in these cases.

c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

No constitutional provision or law specifically prohibits torture, although laws that prohibit "committing grievous hurt" encompass torture; however, at times some police tortured, beat, and otherwise abused prisoners, detainees, and other citizens. The authorities investigated some police and other officials for such abuses; however, the Government does not release routinely information on the results of investigations, and whether those responsible are punished is not always known.

Police sometimes abuse detainees. There were several press reports of persons who alleged being tortured or mistreated while detained by the police. For example, in March a truck driver suspected of trafficking drugs told the High Court that he was kicked in the ribs and head by police officers until his eyebrows started to bleed. An opposition activist detained in April under the ISA also reported being harshly treated by police while in detention. He said that, among other things, he had been knocked from a chair while handcuffed. In response to such reports, the Government continued to require police to attend community relations and ethics courses to address public concerns over police misconduct.

Malaysian NGO's have stated that police sometimes subject criminal suspects and illegal alien detainees to physical and psychological torture during interrogation and detention. In June former Police Chief Rahim Noor was released early for good behavior after serving 40 days of his 2-month jail sentence for "causing hurt" to former deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim. Rahim had pleaded guilty to beating Anwar in 1998 while Anwar was handcuffed and blindfolded in police custody. Charges of attempted assault were reduced as part of a plea bargain. Rahim had earlier paid a fine of $525 (RM 2000) for assaulting Anwar. No action has been taken against senior police officers who failed to arrest or report Rahim after the beating.

During the year, there was no response from the Government to charges that psychological pressures and threats of physical coercion had been used in previous years to obtain confessions in the politically sensitive trials of former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim. In July 2000, the case against fashion designer Mior Abdul Razak bin Yahya for fabricating evidence was dismissed as "not amounting to an acquittal," after being postponed four times. Mior had sworn in an affidavit that police had threatened and abused him after he was detained in September 1998, causing him to confess falsely to having had sexual relations with the former Deputy Prime Minister. In February Anwar's codefendant, Sukma Darmawan, testified that he had confessed falsely to a homosexual relationship with Anwar under police pressure in exchange for a promise that he would be released for such testimony. One other alleged homosexual partner of Anwar's gave a consistent description of the psychological and physical abuse used by police to force similar confessions from him. In November Sukma was released from custody, although he was not acquitted of providing false evidence at Anwar's corruption trial.

At year's end, there had not been a government response to the March 1999 police report filed by opposition activist Abdul Malek bin Hussin in which he accused police of torturing him in 1998 while he was detained without charge under the ISA (see Section 1.d.).

During the year, riot police several times forcibly dispersed peaceful demonstrators around the country, using truncheons, water cannons, and tear gas (see Section 2.b.). For example, in February police broke up an opposition event in the state of Kedah with water cannons containing chemically-laced water. In August the Human Rights Commission released a report on police actions during an opposition demonstration in November 2000. The Commission faulted police for inciting some of the violence, attacking the dispersing crowd, and mistreating some of the persons who were detained during the incident. In a separate report on freedom of assembly, a related Commission made detailed recommendations related to the proper policing of public assemblies and called for police officers that used excessive force to be identified and held accountable. There were no reports that the Government has implemented the commission specific recommendations.

Opposition activist Tian Chua claimed that police beat him in August 2000 after they detained him during a demonstration outside the courthouse where Anwar Ibrahim was being convicted and sentenced on sodomy charges. At year's end, there had been no inquiries into the case.

Logging companies reportedly used police force and intimidation to appropriate land from indigenous Iban and Penan communities in Sarawak (see Section 5).

Criminal law prescribes caning as an additional punishment to imprisonment for those convicted of some nonviolent crimes such as narcotics possession, criminal breach of trust, and alien smuggling. Judges routinely include caning in sentences of those convicted of such crimes as kidnaping, rape, and robbery. Some state Islamic laws, which bind only Muslims (see Section 1.e.), also prescribe caning. The caning, which is carried out with a 1/2-inch-thick wooden cane, commonly causes welts, and it sometimes causes scarring. Male criminals age 50 and above and women are exempted from caning. According to the provisions of the Child Act passed in December, male children may be given up to 10 strokes of a "light cane" (see Section 5).

Prison conditions are poor. During the year, the Human Rights Commission called for prison authorities to provide standard medical treatment and food for prisoners. The authorities in 1999 announced that changes would be made concerning prison conditions, in the wake of a 1999 report by the Inter-Parliamentary Union on the treatment in prison of then political prisoner Lim Guan Eng. The report found that the conditions of Lim's imprisonment did not comply with the U.N. Standard Minimum Rules (Treatment of Prisoners) and the U.N. Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under any Form of Detention or Imprisonment. The report cited portions of the Minimum Rules that concern light, ventilation, and proper bedding, and Principle 6 of the Body of Principles, which prohibits torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. However, the delegation that drafted this report did not visit Lim in prison, and therefore was unable to make direct observations. The Government stated that Lim was detained under the same conditions as other prisoners and in accordance with the colonial-era 1952 Prison Rules and the 1995 Prisons Act, which, the Government contended, met the standards of the U.N. Minimum Rules.

Prison overcrowding is a serious problem. However, after visiting a number of prisons several Human Rights Commissioners said that in general they were satisfied that conditions in those prisons were acceptable. In June the Director General of Prisons said that the country's 34 prisons held 29,000 inmates; The prisons are designed to have a capacity of 22,000. During the year, a moral rehabilitation center was built, but two promised juvenile reform schools were not. In March 2000, the Deputy Home Minister announced that five more prisons were to be built by 2005. "Security" prisoners (see Section 1.d.) were detained in a separate detention center.

Credible reports by former prisoners indicated that guards at some prisons regularly beat prisoners convicted of criminal offenses.

NGO's and former detainees have made credible allegations of inadequate food, poor medical care and sanitation, and abuse by guards in government camps for illegal immigrants. Conditions are considered to have improved with increased food and water rations, and vitamin B shots for detainees suffering from beri-beri. In past years, there were reports of deaths, poor conditions, and serious abuse of inmates at the camps of Burmese Rohingya illegal immigrants.

Deputy Home Minister Ong Ka Ting told Parliament in 1999 that the Government had completed a review of prison rules and made amendments that would improve the management of prisoners, although no such amendments have been made public. Deputy Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi announced in April 2000 that the Government had spent over $250,000 (1 million RM) during the year to provide every prisoner with a mattress, although this had not been confirmed by independent monitors by year's end. In August prison officials announced that a number of prison rules would be reviewed. Officials stated that these changes would include allowing female prisoners to keep children with them until age 4 instead of the existing restriction to age 3 and expanding visiting privileges, although none of these changes had been made by year's end.

The law provides that young boys and girls in remand (judicially approved detention) may be placed in prison. The local press reported in September 2000 that children as young as 10 years old were held in prisons for offenses such as petty theft or involvement in school fights. Although kept in a separate cellblock, they reportedly mingled with adult prisoners during communal activities. However, a prison official claimed that the juvenile prisoners, 82 of whom were waiting for their cases to be heard, are kept separately from adult prisoners at all times. In September the Government identified 2,061 juveniles held in 26 prisons throughout the country.

The Government has an agreement with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) that permits visits to certain categories of prisoners. The ICRC has not been requested to make such visits. Members of the Human Rights Commission visited several prisons during the year, and stated that they were satisfied that conditions were acceptable. According to one ICRC representative, prison conditions do not represent a significant problem. NGO's and the media generally are not permitted to monitor prison conditions. Access to illegal alien detention camps is restricted.

d. Arbitrary Arrest, Detention, or Exile

Police continued to use several statutes to arrest and detain many persons without charge or trial. Suspects in some crimes (called "sizable offenses") may be arrested without warrants; suspects in other crimes ("nonsizable offenses") may be arrested only based on a warrant from a magistrate. Crimes characterized as bailable offenses permit suspects to present bail at the police station according to a schedule. Bail is not available for nonbailable offenses and sometimes also is denied in other circumstances, for example, great risk of flight. Police may hold suspects for 24 hours without charge. Police may request a magistrate to extend the period of remand without charge for up to 2 weeks. After this extension, the police, if they wish to hold the suspect, must charge him and seek an order of detention from a magistrate. In some cases, police have released suspects under remand and quickly rearrested them on new but similar charges. However, in general police practice is in accord with legal provisions concerning detention.

Police may deny prisoners under remand access to legal counsel and routinely they do so. During this period of remand, police also may question suspects without giving them access to counsel. Police justify this practice as necessary to prevent interference in ongoing investigations. Judicial decisions have generally upheld this practice. Defendants' advocates claimed that the lack of access to counsel seriously weakened defendants' legal rights.

Three laws permit the Government to detain suspects without judicial review or the filing of formal charges: the Internal Security Act (ISA), the Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance, and the Dangerous Drugs Act (Special Preventive Measures). The ISA, which originally was enacted when there was an active communist insurgency, empowers the police to hold for up to 60 days any person who may act "in a manner prejudicial to the security of Malaysia." The Home Minister may authorize further detention for periods of up to 2 years. Those released before the end of their detention period are subject to "imposed restricted conditions" for the remainder of their detention periods. These conditions limited their rights to freedom of speech, association, and travel outside the country.

According to the Government, the goal of the ISA is to control internal subversion. According to the local human rights NGO Suaram, as of November there were 78 persons in detention under the ISA. Deputy Home Minister Datuk Zainal Abidin Zin stated in July that 4,190 persons have been arrested under the ISA since its inception in 1960.

The ISA often is used against what the Government considers nonpolitical crimes, including those against ostensibly "deviant" Muslim groups. The Government states that deviant groups pose a danger to national security because of their radical beliefs. The ISA, and the threat of invoking the ISA, also are used to intimidate and restrict political dissent. The Government increased its use of the ISA during the year, including against members of the political opposition. For example, in April the government used the ISA to detain 10 political activists who were leaders of, or closely associated with, the opposition National Justice Party (Keadilan), claiming that they represented a threat to national security. Six of these individuals received a 2-year detention order and remain in detention. In November, one of these six individuals was released from prison but kept under restricted residence. Two of the detainees who had been released earlier claimed that, during their interrogations while in police custody, they had been questioned only about their political beliefs and personal life but not about the alleged offenses for which they initially had been detained. In July two university students were detained under the ISA for participating in opposition political activities, including protesting against the ISA itself. Both were released within 60 days. In August police detained at least 10 members of an Islamic militant group--the so-called Kumpulan Mujahidin Malaysia (KMM)--under the ISA, for their reported involvement in antigovernment violence and their plans to conduct an antigovernment campaign of violence in the future. A newspaper reported that the group had intended to attack members of a U.S. Navy vessel visiting the country. Some of those arrested are members of the opposition Islamic Party (PAS), and one, the group's alleged leader, Nik Adli, is also the son of PAS leader and Chief Minister of Kelantan Nik Aziz. Nine of the 10 were ordered detained 2 years by the Home Affairs Minister. An additional six members of a related group were detained under the ISA in October. In December five of these individuals were ordered detained for 2 years by the Home Affairs Minister. The other individual was released without conditions. In 1998 the police detained Anwar Ibrahim and 27 of his followers under the ISA after a series of largely peaceful antigovernment demonstrations. The Government claimed that the demonstrations threatened national security (see Sections 1.e. and 2.b.).

Security authorities sometimes wait several days after detention before informing an ISA detainee's family. Even when there are no formal charges, the authorities must inform detainees of the accusations against them and permit them to appeal to an advisory board for review every 6 months. However, advisory board decisions and recommendations are not binding on the Home Minister, are not public, and often are not shown to the detainee. In the past, some ISA detainees have refused to participate in the review process under these circumstances.

Amendments to the ISA in 1987 sharply circumscribed judicial review of ISA detentions. Although the Bar Council has in the past asserted that detentions under the ISA should be subject to judicial review on both procedural and substantive grounds, the courts have not concurred with this interpretation, and they review ISA detentions only on technical grounds. Detainees freed on technical grounds nearly always are detained again immediately. However, in May Shah Alam High Court Judge Hishamuddin Mohd Yunus ordered the release of two opposition leaders who were detained in April under the ISA, calling their detentions unlawful and mala fide. In his ruling, the judge said that the police could not simply cite the ISA's function to "preserve national security" as justification for its use. Additionally, the judge included a special provision in his ruling that forbids the police from rearresting the two individuals in the first 24 hours after their release. As of the year's end, the two had not yet been rearrested. The Federal Court agreed to review this decision and that of another High Court Judge who upheld the detentions under the ISA of five other opposition activists. In August, a five-member Federal Court panel ruled that the five defendants could introduce affidavits with fresh information to contest their detentions.

Although there were new procedures announced in 2000 for ISA detention, which included amendments that senior police officials must concur with ISA detentions, by year's end the procedures were not implemented.

Opposition leaders and human rights organizations continued to call on the Government to repeal the ISA and other legislation that deprived persons of the right to defend themselves in court. For example, in May a group of 71 NGO's and opposition parties joined together to form the "Abolish the ISA Movement" (AIM). The group organized conferences, hosted a web site, and staged other events to broadcast its opposition to the ISA. In July it submitted a proposal to Parliament to repeal the ISA. However, during the year, a number of ruling coalition politicians and government officials continued to state that the ISA remained necessary and would not be repealed. In the latter half of the year, the Government stepped up its pro-ISA rhetoric. Prime Minister Mahathir stated in September that the ISA was a necessary tool in combating the country's own terrorist threat.

Under the Emergency Ordinance the Home Minister may issue a detention order for up to 2 years against a person if he deems it necessary to protect public order, or for the "suppression of violence, or the prevention of crimes involving violence." In practice the Government has used the Emergency Ordinance for other reasons. According to Suaram, as of July 309 persons had been detained under the ordinance during the year.

Provisions of the Dangerous Drugs Act (Special Preventive Measures) give the Government specific power to detain suspected drug traffickers without trial. Such suspects may be held for up to 39 days before the Home Minister must issue a detention order. Once the Ministry has issued an order, the detainee is entitled to a hearing before a court. In some instances, the judge may order the detainee's release. Suspects may be held without charge for successive 2-year intervals with periodic review by an advisory board, whose opinion is binding on the Home Minister. However, the review process contained none of the procedural rights that a defendant would have in a court proceeding. The police frequently detained suspected narcotics traffickers under the Special Preventive Measures after the traffickers were acquitted of formal charges--often as they left the courtroom. As of November, the Government had detained 1,820 persons under this measure. The Government detained over 1,300 persons under this law in 2000.

Immigration laws are used to detain possible illegal aliens without trial or hearing. The detainees are not accorded any administrative or legal hearings and are released only after their employers prove their legal status. Those who were able to produce legal documents normally were released immediately; those who were unable to prove their legal status often were held for extended periods before deportation. Illegal aliens were kept in detention centers that are separate from prisons (see Section 1.c.).

Crowded and understaffed courts often result in lengthy pretrial detention, sometimes lasting several years. In 1998 the Prison's Director General stated that roughly half of the prison population consisted of prisoners who had not yet been sentenced. Most such prisoners either have been convicted and are awaiting sentence or are in the midst of their trials.

Law enforcement authorities also used the Restricted Residence Act to restrict movements of criminal suspects for an extended period. The act allows the Home Ministry to place criminal suspects under restricted residence in a remote district away from their homes for 2 years. The Ministry is authorized to issue the banishment orders without any judicial or administrative hearings. Human rights activists have questioned the need for this law, which was passed more than 60 years ago (during British sovereignty) under very different circumstances, and they have called for its repeal. The Government has continued to justify the act as a necessary tool and has used it in the past, primarily to combat vice and gambling offenses. The Government has not disclosed how many persons were subject to the Restricted Residence Act and no accurate estimate was available. In April 2000, there were 93 persons held in prison waiting to be place under restricted residence, and 17 of these persons were released from prison into restricted residence.

Since 1997 the "forgotten prisoners" have been released over a period of two to three years. There are no more "forgotten prisoners" in the country.

Section 396 of the Criminal Procedure Code allows the detention of a person whose testimony as a material witness is necessary in a criminal case, if that person is likely to abscond.

The Government does not use forced exile.

e. Denial of Fair Public Trial

The Constitution provides for an independent judiciary; however, Government action, constitutional amendments, legislation restricting judicial review, and other factors steadily have eroded judicial independence and strengthened executive influence over the judiciary. In recent years, a number of high-profile cases cast doubts on judicial impartiality and independence, and raised questions of arbitrary verdicts, selective prosecution, and preferential treatment of some litigants and lawyers. Members of the bar, NGO's, and other observers continued to express serious concern about these problems.

However, many observers believe judicial independence has improved since Tan Sri Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah was appointed Chief Justice in December 2000. Immediately following his appointment, Chief Justice Dzaiddin spoke publicly about the importance of restoring public trust in the judiciary and instituted a rotational case-assignment system to ensure the impartiality of judges hearing any given case. Dzaiddin also repeatedly has stressed that a judge's loyalty must be to the law rather than to outside factors such as politics. During the year, some high-profile cases were decided according to the legal merits of the case. However, some observers, including the Bar Council, expressed concern about a series of high-level judicial appointments during the year. Former Attorney General Mohtar Abdullah was appointed to the Federal Court and Ahmad Fairuz was appointed Chief Judge of the High Court of Malaya. It also was announced that Gani Patail, the former lead prosecutor during Anwar trials in 1998 and 1999, would succeed Ainum Saaid as Attorney General. These observers commented that these developments appeared to indicate that executive encroachment on the judiciary could remain a serious concern.

High courts have original jurisdiction over all criminal cases involving serious crimes and most civil cases. Civil suits involving automobile accidents and landlord-tenant disputes are heard by sessions courts. Juvenile courts try offenders under age 18. The Special Court tries cases against the King and sultans. The Court of Appeal has appellate jurisdiction over high court and sessions court decisions. The Federal Court, the country's highest court, hears appeals of Court of Appeal decisions.

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

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

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

The military has a separate system of courts.

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

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

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

A 1997 amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code that may erode defendants' presumption of innocence continued to concern lawyers. Before the 1997 amendment, the prosecution was required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt or the defendant would receive a summary dismissal without having to present the defense case. The prosecution only needs to prove a legally sufficient unless disproved case, and the defense must be called. In August 1999, a man was convicted of murder after electing to enter a no defense. The judge ruled that the prosecution had proven a legally sufficient case and, when the man chose to offer no defense, the judge convicted him and sentenced him to death.

The Courts of Judicature Act was amended in 1998 to limit the rights of defendants to appeal in some circumstances. The Government stated that these amendments would expedite the hearing of cases in the upper courts. The president of the Bar Association stated that the amendments imposed too many restrictions on appeals.

The Attorney General may restrict the right to a fair trial in criminal cases by invoking the Essential (Security Cases) Regulations. These regulations governing trial procedure normally apply only in firearm cases. In cases tried under these regulations, the standards for accepting self-incriminating statements by defendants as evidence are less stringent than in normal criminal cases. Also, the authorities may hold the accused for an unspecified time before making formal charges. The Attorney General has the authority to invoke these regulations in other criminal cases if the Government determines that the crime involves national security considerations, but such cases are rare. However, the Essential Regulations were invoked in September 2000 at the beginning of the trial of 29 members of the Al-Ma'unah sect accused of carrying out arms thefts at two army posts in July 2000. Defense lawyers argued that the use of the Essential Regulations was unconstitutional, since no certificate of emergency declaring a national emergency had been issued. The judge ruled that the Attorney General has the discretion to opt to use the Essential Regulations, if he saw fit to do so (see Sections 1.d. and 2.c.).

Even when the Essential Regulations are not invoked, defendants and defense lawyers lack legal protections against interference. For example, during a trial police may call and interrogate witnesses who have given testimony not helpful to the prosecution. Human rights advocates accused police of using this tactic to intimidate witnesses. One instance of this practice led the Bar Council in July 1999 to issue a statement of concern. Police also have used raids and document seizures to harass defendants. Selective prosecution, that is, prosecution based on political rather than legal considerations, is a serious problem in the legal system. According to the law, the decision to prosecute a case rests solely with the Attorney General. In August 1999, the former Chief Justice publicly reminded magistrates and judges not to question the Attorney General's sole discretion to prosecute. Some NGO's have made credible accusations of political interference in the judicial process. However, the Chief Justice has made clear his opposition to the practices of the past and his intention to make the law, rather than political considerations, hold sway over the legal process, including decisions on whether or not to prosecute. Government officials, including the Minister in the Prime Minister's office responsible for legal affairs, have denied that the Attorney General practices selective prosecution.

Selective prosecution has been a problem in the past. In May 1999, the then-Attorney General warned that those accusing the Government of selective prosecution could be charged with sedition or criminal defamation. The Bar Council criticized the then-Attorney General's statement and stated that it showed "a lack of respect or understanding of the concept of democracy and the rule of law." No one was charged with sedition or criminal defamation on such grounds during the year.

Contempt of court charges also have restricted the ability of defendants and their attorneys to defend themselves. However, one case suggests that the use of contempt of court charges against defendants and their attorneys may be changing. For example, Attorney Zainur Zakaria was convicted in 1998 by the High Court for contempt of court after refusing to apologize for filing a brief on behalf of his client, Anwar Ibrahim. The Appeals Court upheld his conviction in 1999. However, in June the Federal Court overturned the conviction, and stated that the High Court Judge, in his initial handling of the case, appeared to be acting as an agent for the prosecution.

Following a number of high-profile corruption cases, the Government amended the AntiCorruption Act in 1997. The law gives the Attorney General powers that impinge on the presumption of innocence and requires accused persons to prove that they acquired their monetary and other assets legally.

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

In June the three remaining defamation suits against the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Datuk Param Cumaraswamy, were dropped. Param originally faced four such suits. In August 2000, a judge agreed with an April 1999 International Court of Justice ruling that Param's U.N. status gave him immunity from the first suit. The suits stemmed from an article in which Param and former Malaysian Bar Council President Tommy Thomas argued that certain companies, law firms and individuals enjoyed improper preferential treatment in the courts. Thomas was convicted in 1998 and sentenced to 6 months in prison. However, in April the Court of Appeal converted his jail sentence into a $2,500 (RM 10,000) fine. Thomas paid his fine, and the case was closed.

The cases against former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim and some of his associates, and against Irene Fernandez (see Section 2.a.), raised serious questions about judicial independence and impartiality. Nonetheless, the Courts did not rule exclusively in favor of the Government. A Member of Parliament (M.P.) from the ruling coalition government was convicted in 2000 and fined more than $2,600 (10,000 RM) on a contempt charge. However, in August the Appeals court set aside his conviction.

Former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim is a political prisoner because he was charged, tried, and convicted in a legal process that was politically motivated and patently unfair. In September 1998, after a political conflict, Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad removed Anwar as Deputy Prime Minister. Later the same month, after a large and mostly peaceful demonstration in which he called for Mahathir's resignation, Anwar was detained for alleged corruption and sodomy. Many observers believe the government manufactured these charges and used them to remove Anwar, who appeared to be gaining popular support after he was fired, from the political scene. While in detention, Anwar was beaten by the former Inspector General of Police Rahim Noor (see Section 1.c.).

For several days, Anwar was denied medical treatment for the injuries that he received at the hands of Rahim. Presumably to avoid bringing a visibly injured Anwar to court, police changed Anwar's status to "detention without charge" under the Internal Security Act. Anwar's status subsequently was changed again to criminal detention.

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

At the beginning of the sodomy trial, prosecutors changed the dates of the alleged acts of sodomy, allegedly because the defense had discovered that the apartment building where the sodomy allegedly took place had not been completed by the original dates. Despite testimony detailing how police had coerced a confession from an alleged homosexual partner, in July 1999, the judge ruled that the prosecution had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that this confession had been voluntary. A few days later, another witness admitted that police had coached part of his testimony. In August 1999, the lead police investigator materially contradicted his testimony (in order to make it consistent with the amended dates of the alleged offense); the next day, the judge ruled that the policeman had not lied. In April 2000, the judge ruled that the Prime Minister, who was called by the defense in an attempt to prove a political conspiracy against Anwar, would not be required to testify. Defense attorneys maintained that they were not permitted by the judge to call a number of desired witnesses. The defense claimed that the judge exerted pressure to bring the trial to an early conclusion. In his written ruling, which was released in June, the judge said that the testimony of the chief prosecution witness--widely viewed as deeply flawed and lacking credibility--was as solid as the "Rock of Gibraltar."

In 1999 Anwar was convicted on four counts of corruption and sentenced to 6 years in prison. In April 2000, Anwar's appeal of the conviction and sentence was denied by the Court of Appeals. His appeal to Federal Court, the country's highest court, was postponed at the request of his lawyers while Anwar was in the hospital being treated for a slipped disk in his back. In August 2000, Anwar was convicted on a separate charge of sodomy and sentenced to 9 years in prison, to be served consecutively with the 6-year sentence that Anwar received for corruption. Anwar's lawyers requested that this conviction be reviewed by the Appeals Court. At year's end, the date for this appeal has not yet been set. On May 12, the High Court acquitted Anwar of the four remaining charges of sodomy and one charge of corruption that were pending against him after the prosecution withdrew the charges against the former Deputy Prime Minister. Most observers believe this was because the charges were without basis and would have resulted in further government embarrassment should they have been aired in open court. The Federal Court was scheduled to hear Anwar's appeal on the remaining corruption charges in November, but the appeal again was postponed, and no new date had been scheduled as of year's end.

Anwar will be disqualified from holding any public office for 5 years once he completes his 15-year sentence, unless he wins his appeals.

Anwar's conviction and sentence were criticized strongly by opposition parties, human rights groups, and a number of foreign governments and international human rights organizations. For example, the Malaysian Bar Council criticized the trial, citing irregularities in the evidence, and characterized the sentence as "manifestly excessive and harsh." After spending nearly 6 months in a hospital receiving treatment for a slipped disk in his back, Anwar was sent back to prison in May. Anwar remained in prison at year's end. He is permitted to receive visits from only his family and lawyers. According to the law, Anwar is a "common criminal" rather than a political prisoner, and therefore does not have the right to receive visits from international human rights organizations.

In a May public statement, the Human Rights Commission stated that there were no laws prohibiting Anwar from being sent abroad for the medical treatment of his choice. The Government has denied Anwar's request for medical treatment abroad.

Anwar Ibrahim is a political prisoner. In addition, the five individuals associated with the Anwar-based National Justice Party who were arrested in April and who remained in detention under the ISA at year's end, are political detainees.

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

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

A clause in the Anticorruption Act empowers the Attorney General to authorize the interception of mail and the wiretapping of telephones. Observers have indicated that such information would be admissible as evidence in a corruption trial.

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

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

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

Muslim couples must take premarital courses. In previous years, women's activists complained that the courses, as implemented, perpetuated gender discrimination by misinforming women of their rights in marriage (see Section 5). However, there were no reports during the year of such misinformation regarding marriage rights.

In previous years, two state governments sought to restrict Muslim women's dress; however, no state government acted further on this issue during the year.

Section 2 Respect for Civil Liberties, Including:

a. Freedom of Speech and Press

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

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

In 1999 the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression issued a report stating that freedom of opinion was curtailed systematically in the country. The Special Rapporteur stated that the Internal Security Act, the Sedition Act, and the Printing Presses and Publications Act were used to suppress or repress expression and curb peaceful assembly. He further stated that defamation laws "appear to be having a very chilling effect." The Government stated that the Special Rapporteur's report was "baseless and distorted."

The Prime Minister and other senior officials continued to ascribe seditious or treasonous motives to critics of government policies, although many persons still criticized the Government publicly.

Throughout the year, Government officials warned that political parties that raised sensitive issues threatened national stability and would be charged under the Sedition Act. However, government and ruling party officials sometimes made statements on sensitive racial and religious issues with no repercussions. The Youth Chief of the National Justice Party (Keadilan), Ezam Noor, was charged with sedition in March for his alleged call for street demonstrations to topple the Government. Noor's trial was ongoing at year's end. Opposition politician Marina Yusoff, charged with sedition for comments she made about the 1969 racial violence while campaigning for Parliament in 1999, was fined 1,300 (5,000 RM) in March. The trial of opposition leader and prominent attorney Karpal Singh, charged with sedition for statements he made in court during his legal defense of Anwar Ibrahim, began in October and continued at year's end. Both Karpal and Marina were charged under the Sedition Act, which carries a maximum fine of just over 1,300 (5,000 RM), or 3 years' imprisonment, or both.

The Official Secrets Act (OSA) also restricts freedom of expression. In the past, the Bar Council and other NGO's have called for a review of certain provisions of the OSA that grant considerable discretion to the authorities. Opposition leaders historically have accused the Government of using the OSA to cover up corruption. In January 2000 Ezam Noor, previously a former Anwar aide and youth chief of the opposition National Justice Party, was charged under the OSA with disclosing to reporters secret AntiCorruption Agency (ACA) reports. Ezam stated publicly in August 1999 that Anwar had stored abroad documents that corroborated charges of corruption against senior government leaders. Ezam claimed that the reports showed that the ACA was not pursuing corruption cases against senior government officials. Ezam's case went to trial in August, but it was postponed and was ongoing at year's end. In March 2000 a government official stated in Parliament that only six persons have been arrested under the OSA since its inception in 1972, and he claimed that this statistic proved that the Government does not use the OSA to silence critics.

In January 2000, the editor and printer of Harakah, the newspaper of the opposition Islamic party, Parti Islam Se-Malaysia (PAS), were charged with sedition in connection with an 1999 Harakah article that quoted an opposition politician's comments on the confession of Sukma Darawaman, Anwar Ibrahim's codefendant in Anwar's sodomy trial. The printer pled guilty in May and was fined slightly over $1,000 (4,000 RM). The editor's case still is pending.

In March 2000, the Melaka state government announced that it had terminated the contracts of an undetermined number of panel doctors, architects, and lawyers, and blacklisted contractors who allegedly were aligned with opposition parties. The state government also closed accounts in banks where the staff were accused of criticizing the Government. In July 2000, the Penang state government also blacklisted contractors for their alleged involvement in antigovernment activities, such as supporting or funding opposition parties. Opposition parties and NGO's criticized these actions as discriminatory, claiming that such steps were inconsistent with the demands of a democratic society.

During 2000 many government officials, opposition figures, and private citizens filed multimillion-dollar lawsuits for libel and slander. In May 1999, the Bar Council stated that the proliferation of multimillion-dollar libel and slander lawsuits "would end up stifling the freedom of speech." In July 2000, the Federal Court upheld a judgment of over $250,000 (1 million RM) against a freelance journalist who had been sued for libel by a wealthy businessman in 1994. In an unprecedented move, during the year, the Federal Court (under the new Chief Justice) agreed to review this decision. The date of this review had not yet been set at year's end. The Minister in the Prime Minister's Department responsible for legal affairs told reporters in September 2000 that the Government would review the defamation law in response to public concern over libel awards which, he noted, frequently exceeded damages handed down in personal injury cases. At year's end, the Government continued to review the issue; however, no results were reported.

The English and Malay mainstream press provide generally laudatory, uncritical coverage of government officials and policies, and usually give only limited and selective coverage to political views of the opposition or political rivals. Editorial opinion almost always reflects government positions on domestic and international issues. Chinese-language newspapers generally have been freer in reporting and commenting on sensitive political and social issues, but they are not immune to government pressure. There was widespread concern that the purchase in May of two major Chinese-language dailies by the investment arm of the ruling coalition's most influential Chinese party would restrict this freedom and transform the newspapers into publishers of progovernment propaganda. These concerns were magnified when the top management of one of the dailies was removed immediately following the takeover. During the year, several newspaper vendors have been the target of official raids for selling opposition party newspapers. However, self-censorship and biased reporting in the print media was not uniform and the English-, Malay-, and Chinese-language press all, at times, provided balanced reporting on sensitive issues. Chinese-language newspapers generally have been freer to report and comment on sensitive political and social issues.

The Printing Presses and Publications Act limits press freedom. Under the act, domestic and foreign publications must apply annually to the Government for a permit. The act was amended to make the publication of "malicious news" a punishable offense, to expand the Government's power to ban or restrict publications, and to prohibit court challenges to suspension or revocation of publication permits. Government power over license renewal and other policies creates an atmosphere that inhibits independent or investigative journalism and results in extensive self-censorship. In April 2000, the Deputy Home Minister stated in Parliament that from 1996 through March 2000, action had been taken under the Act against 164 publishers. Government officials continue to argue that the act has helped preserve harmony and promote peaceful coexistence in a multiracial country. In August 2000, the Minister in the Prime Minister's Department responsible for legal affairs stated that the act would not be repealed, even if a national press council were established to regulate the media. In August the Deputy Home Minister stated that his Ministry approved 2,141 publishing permits and 1,194 printing press licenses during the year and that this showed that the Government had a liberal approach to such permits.

The Government often conveyed its displeasure with press reporting directly to a newspaper's board of directors or chief editors. In addition, leading political figures in the ruling coalition, or companies controlled by them, own most major newspapers, thus limiting the range of views. At times the susceptibility of the press to government pressure has a direct and public impact on operations. For example, in January 2000 the group editor in chief of a local press conglomerate was removed after its flagship newspaper, the New Straits Times, carried several articles that reportedly angered the UMNO Supreme Council. However, this individual was appointed in September as chairman of Bernama, the national news agency.

On World Press Freedom Day in May, a series of speakers called for the repeal or revision of restrictive press laws, including the Printing Press and Publications Act, the Sedition Act, the Official Secrets Act, and the Internal Security Act, which make it difficult for journalists to obtain the information they need and to report objectively. There was little government response to the Press Freedom Day events, although the Prime Minister reaffirmed his intention to strengthen the press laws.

The Government continued to prosecute human rights activist Irene Fernandez under the Printing Presses and Publications Act for charges that she made in 1995 of mistreatment of detainees at illegal alien detention centers. Fernandez's supporters accuse the Government of purposely prolonging the trial, the longest in the country's history, to harass Fernandez. At year's end, the trial continued (see Section 1.e.).

The Government also sometimes directly restricts the dissemination of information that it deems embarrassing or prejudicial to national interests. The Government continued its policy of not allowing public disclosure of air pollution index-readings. In February 1999, the Government forbade all state health departments from commenting on the outbreak of a deadly virus. The Government later restricted reporters' access to sites of the outbreak. However, the issue was reported widely.

Publications of opposition parties, social action groups, unions, and other private groups actively covered opposition parties and frequently printed views critical of government policies. However, the Government retained significant influence over these publications by requiring the annual renewal of publishing permits and limiting circulation only to members of the relevant organization. Several times in 1999, senior government leaders publicly warned the publishers of Harakah, the Islamic opposition party's newspaper, not to print "slanderous" remarks and to limit distribution to party members (as the law requires). Harakah also has been the target of several ruling party-sponsored libel suits. In December 1999, the Home Ministry issued a letter to Harakah's publisher asking him to explain why Harakah should not be banned for violating the terms of the publishing permit. Harakah stated that it would abide by the Home Ministry directive and the newspaper generally no longer is sold openly. The circulation of Harakah rivals that of mainstream newspapers. Harakah was the only major Malay and English language media forum for opposition views. In March 2000, the Government stipulated that Harakah publish only twice a month instead of twice a week. Several other opposition newsletters are published and distributed without government permission.

For most of the year, there were two exclusively on-line newspapers, although another one that was forced to shut down in December 2000 due to financial difficulties was reestablished in June under a different name. Most major newspapers have an online edition. Exclusively online newspapers do not require publication permits; however, the Government denies their reporters press accreditation to cover government functions and ministers' press conferences, and refuses their admission into government buildings. The Government engaged in a sometimes intimidating campaign to discredit the independent Internet daily, malaysiakini.com, winner of an International Press Institute 2001 Press Freedom Award. According to Human Rights Watch, on February 11, an Information Ministry official stated that malaysiakini.com would be barred from covering government press conferences "because their credibility is doubtful." However, this policy was not systematically implemented. HRW also reported on May 23, the Deputy Home Affairs Minister told Parliament that the Government was monitoring "every article" published by malaysiakini.com to ensure that its writings did not upset public order. However, readership of on-line newspapers continued to increase.

Printers, who also must have their permits renewed annually, often were reluctant to print publications that were critical of the Government.

Both legal magazines (those with publishing permits) and illegal publications (those lacking publishing permits) frequently printed criticism of the Government. In November, police raided a printing company and seized several thousand pamphlets that criticized the Selangor state chief minister.

During the year, the foreign press continued to be a target and the Government interfered with the release and distribution of several foreign magazines, including the Far Eastern Economic Review and Asiaweek. Throughout the year, Asiaweek in particular was routinely subject to delays of up to 4 weeks before receiving government permission to distribute its weekly issues. Government officials, including the Prime Minister, continued to accuse the foreign media of harboring ill intentions toward the country and of deliberately misrepresenting the country's political and economic environment by focusing on negative news.

The electronic media is restricted more tightly than the print media. Radio and television almost uniformly are laudatory of the Government. News on the opposition is restricted tightly and reported in a biased fashion. In July 1999, the Deputy Information Minister stated candidly that government television and radio channels would not broadcast the views of opposition parties. He stated that opposition parties were welcome to use private news stations or apply for broadcasting licenses of their own. In fact, the two private television stations have close ties to the ruling coalition and are unlikely to provide a forum for the opposition parties; and it also is unlikely that the Government would grant the opposition a broadcasting license. In April 2000, the Deputy Information Minister stated that the opposition would be allowed access to government media only if the opposition had "anything specific or good to say." The Government has not approved a longstanding license application for a state radio station in the opposition-controlled state of Kelantan.

A government censorship board censors films for profanity, nudity, sex, violence, and certain political and religious content. Television stations censor programming in line with government guidelines. The Government bans certain books for political and religious reasons or because of sexual or profane content. Some foreign newspapers and magazines are banned and, infrequently, foreign magazines or newspapers are censored, most often for sexual content. However, the increased prevalence of the Internet is undermining such restrictions. The Government maintains a "blacklist" of local and foreign performers, politicians, and religious leaders who may not appear on television or radio broadcasts. In August the Government announced that it would increase efforts to block the production, distribution, and sales of video compact discs (VCDs), especially those with pornographic and political content.

The Communications and Multimedia Act (CMA), which came into force in April 1999, requires certain Internet and other network service providers to obtain a license. In December 2000, the Government stated that it did not intend to impose controls on Internet use, but noted that it would punish the "misuse" of information technology under the CMA, which, while prohibiting censorship, provides for "legal action" against those who post defamatory and false information on the Internet. The Government has not used licensing provisions under the CMA to interfere with Internet access or to restrict Internet content.

Government officials continued to make contradictory comments about the desirability of censoring the Internet. In 2000 the Deputy Home Affairs Minister announced that his Ministry was drafting a new law that would allow legal action to be taken against those believed to be responsible for spreading "misleading information" and pornography via the Internet. However, the Information Minister stated that the Government had no plans to censor the Internet. The Minister in the Prime Minister's Department responsible for legal affairs stated in September 2000 that, while the Internet would not be censored, users remained subject to the law, and anyone who defamed another over the Internet or made seditious comments still could face legal action. However, during the year he mentioned the need for a law specifically designed for Internet commerce and communication.

The Government generally restricts remarks or publications that might incite racial or religious disharmony; it also attempts to restrict the content of sermons at government-affiliated mosques. Some state governments ban certain Muslim clergymen from delivering sermons (see Section 2.c.). In December 1999, Prime Minister Mahathir stated that the Government should find ways to prevent the opposition from "spreading lies" at mosques. That same month, Deputy Prime Minister Abdullah instructed the Religious Affairs Department to conduct background checks on religious speakers. Throughout the year, government officials and ruling coalition politicians complained that opposition Islamic party members were giving political sermons in mosques around the country.

In May 2000, members of the opposition Islamic party were banned by the Selangor state government from giving speeches in all mosques, government buildings, and prayer places in the state.

In July the Government ceased issuing permits for political gatherings (see Section 2.b.). This significantly limited the ability of opposition parties, particularly the Islamic party, to communicate with their supporters and to raise funds for their activities. Nonetheless, some opposition rallies continued to be held. In July the Government began to crack down on the distribution and sale of the opposition party's VCD's and audiocassettes.

The Government places some restrictions on academic freedom, particularly regarding the expression of unapproved political views, and the Government forced restrictions on teachers and students who expressed dissenting views. Academics sometimes are publicly critical of the Government. However, there is self-censorship among public university academics whose career advancement and funding depend on the Government. In August a secondary school teacher in the state of Terengganu was charged with sedition for asking his students to answer a test question regarding the erosion of judicial independence in Malaysia.

Throughout the year, senior government officials stated that teachers who opposed the Government and students who took part in antigovernment activities would face disciplinary actions, including dismissal and expulsion. In October, the Education Minister announced that 61 university lecturers had been dismissed, transferred or issued warnings for alleged "anti-government" activities. Throughout the year, several university students were expelled or suspended for engaging in activities associated with the political opposition. Private institution academics practiced self-censorship as well, due to fear that the Government might revoke licenses for their institutions. The law also imposes limitations on student associations and student and faculty political activity (see Section 2.b.). A university vice chancellor must approve campus demonstrations.

Also in July, the Government detained two students at the University of Malaya and the Mara Technical Institute under the ISA for engaging in opposition political activities, including demonstrating against the ISA. The two were released before the initial 60-day period had elapsed. The Government claimed that student participation in opposition politics threatened national security, and argued that individuals fortunate enough to be enrolled in the university should focus exclusively on their studies. Opposition leaders stated that the crackdown on political expression on campus would stifle students' intellectual development.

The Government has long stated that students should be apolitical and has used that assertion as a basis for denying opposition parties access to student forums. According to student leaders, students who sign antigovernment petitions sometimes are expelled or fined. The Government enforces this policy selectively; however, it does not refrain from spreading government views on political issues among students and teachers.

In February 1999, the University of Malaya declined to renew the contract of Professor Chandra Muzaffar. Chandra, a well-known supporter of political reform and a longtime government critic, charged that the University had fired him for political reasons. The university stated that it had declined to renew Chandra's contract for economic and personnel reasons. In June 1999, the High Court agreed to hear Chandra's application to reverse the university's decision. His case was pending at year's end.

b. Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association

The Constitution provides for freedom of peaceful assembly; however, the Government places significant restrictions on this right. This right may be limited in the interest of security and public order, and the Police Act requires police permits for all public assemblies except for workers on picket lines. The decision to grant a permit theoretically rests with the district police chief; however, in practice senior police officials and political leaders influence the grant or denial of some permits. Police grant permits routinely to government and ruling coalition supporters; however, they use a more restrictive policy with government critics, although the police have granted permits for many opposition meetings. In July the Government ceased issuing permits for all political meetings (ceramah) throughout the country. This was perceived widely as an effort to target the activities of the political opposition, although some opposition rallies continued to be held.

Even before the July ban on political meetings, opposition leaders frequently alleged that police issue permits for public assemblies in an unfair manner that discriminates against the opposition. Various state and local police departments rebutted these allegations by providing statistics that indicated that most requests for permits are granted; however, in certain sensitive cases political considerations led to the denial of permits. Police reaction to opposition rallies that ignored the requirement for a permit or were held after the Government denied a permit varied. In some instances, persons were told to disband immediately or face police action. In other instances, persons were given time to conduct their activities and were not threatened with police action. Opposition politicians note that ruling coalition parties frequently assemble without the requisite permits.

In a series of pro-Anwar opposition demonstrations held since 1999, police have arrested hundreds of demonstrators, including many peaceful demonstrators. Many of these demonstrators later were acquitted, but a handful were convicted, with sentences ranging from 1 to 3 months in addition to a fine. Among those arrested were many opposition party leaders. Police detained them under the Police Act allegedly for participating in an illegal assembly and under the Penal Code allegedly for causing a riot.

In February police broke up an opposition event in the state of Kedah with water cannons that used chemically-laced water. This was one of the first instances in which riot police were called to break up a political gathering outside of Kuala Lumpur. In April the police mounted an operation to prevent citizens from participating in a Kuala Lumpur demonstration called by the opposition to commemorate the 2-year anniversary of Anwar Ibrahim's 1999 conviction on corruption charges. Police set up roadblocks and monitored bus stations, train stations, and airports to turn back suspected opposition supporters. In the days prior to the event, police also detained seven opposition activists under the ISA, and claimed that they were planning a massive, violent demonstration to overthrow the Government. Three others were detained in the days after the demonstration. Those detained included Keadilan leaders Ezam Noor, Tian Chua, N. Gobalakrishnan, and Free Anwar Campaign Director Raja Petra. Despite these efforts, a crowd of more than 1,000 persons gathered on April 15 in Kuala Lumpur at the steps of building which houses the National Human Rights Commission. After leaders of the political opposition presented a petition to several Commissioners protesting the treatment of Anwar and the use of the ISA to curb dissent, the crowd dispersed peacefully. While hundreds of riot police surrounded the area, there was no violence and there were no arrests reported during the event.

In February 1999, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion criticized the Government's use of various laws to curb peaceful assembly (see Section 2.a.).

In April the Human Rights Commission issued its first report on the human rights situation in the country, and made a series of recommendations to improve the country's observance of human rights. Loosening restrictions on freedom of assembly was one of the Commission's principal recommendations. The report noted the need to approve applications for peaceful assemblies as a general rule; to identify specific public spaces for these assemblies; to simplify application procedures; and to have law enforcement maintain a discreet presence during peaceful assemblies. In August the Human Rights Commission released a separate report specifically addressing freedom of assembly. Highlighting the fact that the right of assembly is enshrined in the Constitution, the report recommended easing police permits for gatherings, setting up a special "speaker's corner," and reviewing laws that restrict the right to free assembly. The Government responded by calling the report "biased and idealistic" and influenced by "western liberal thinking."

The Constitution provides for the right of association; however, the Government places significant restrictions on this right and certain statutes limited this right. Under the Societies Act, only registered, approved organizations of seven or more persons may function as societies. The Government sometimes refuses to register organizations or may impose conditions when allowing a society to register. For example, the Government did not allow Amnesty International to set up a branch as an NGO. However, AI incorporated itself as a business, and it was able to function much like an NGO. The Government prohibits the Communist Party and affiliated organizations (see Section 1.f.). The Government also has the power to revoke the registration of an existing society for violations of the act, a power that it has enforced selectively against political opposition groups. In July government officials stated that the Government would prosecute or deregister societies that do not accurately declare whether they receive foreign funds. This threat of possible deregistration inhibits political activism.

To avoid the burdensome requirements of the Societies Act, many NGO's register as companies under the Companies Act or as businesses under the Registration of Businesses Act. In July, Parliament amended the Registration of Businesses Act to enable the Registrar to revoke or refuse the registration of organizations deemed to be engaging in unlawful activities or for purposes that are incompatible with national security. Some human rights activists claimed that this could be used to restrict NGO's that are critical of the Government. Amendments to the Companies Act passed in 1998 empowered the Registrar of Companies to refuse registration of a proposed company if he is satisfied that the company is likely to be used for any purpose prejudicial to national security or the public interest. The Registrar also may cancel the registration of an existing company and disband it on the same grounds. Opposition parties and NGO activists claim that the sweeping powers granted to the Registrar of Companies were designed to stifle criticism. The Government denied such charges and stated that financial irregularities were the amendments' main target. However, later police statements alluded to the status of certain NGO's under the Companies or Societies Acts, which some perceived as a threat. In 1999 the Deputy Home Minister notified Parliament that the Government had revoked the registration of 981 societies under the Societies Act since 1966. No human rights NGO has had its registration revoked in recent years.

In August 2000 the High Court heard an appeal from the Socialist Party of Malaysia, whose application to form a new political party had been rejected in February 1999 by the Registrar of Societies. The Registrar stated that information on the application form was incomplete. Supporters of the Socialist Party claimed that the denial was politically motivated and filed an appeal. The case still was pending at year's end.

The Bar Council continues to be the target of government criticism in some instances; however, Government-Bar relations improved during the year.

In February the Minister in the Prime Minister's Department overseeing legal affairs, Rais Yatim, spoke at a Bar Council seminar on the importance of making the law work for citizens. In the past, the Government has threatened to expand legally the membership of the Bar Council to include government lawyers and legal professors. Some members of the Council feared that such a measure would dilute the Council's independence. No such measures had been implemented by year's end. The Council also expressed reservations about a government proposal to establish an Academy of Law, but the Chief Justice supported the idea as a good way to strengthen communication among different players within the legal system.

The Universities and University Colleges Act also restricted freedom of association. This act mandates university approval for student associations and prohibits student associations, as well as faculty members, from engaging in political activity. During the year, several students were suspended from universities for political activities (see Section 2.a.). Restrictions are not enforced as vigorously on students who participate in political activities in support of the ruling coalition. A university vice chancellor must approve campus demonstrations. Many students, NGO's, and opposition political parties called for the repeal or amendment of the act. A number of ruling coalition organizations and politicians also supported reexamination of the act, but the Government stated that the act still is necessary.

c. Freedom of Religion

The Constitution provides for freedom of religion; however, the Government places some restrictions on this right. Islam is the official religion; however, the practice of Islamic beliefs other than Sunni Islam is restricted significantly. Religious minorities, which include large Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, and Sikh communities, generally worship freely, although with some restrictions. Government funds support an Islamic religious establishment, and it is official policy to "infuse Islamic values" into the administration of the country. The Government imposes Islamic religious law (Shari'a) on Muslims only in some matters and it does not impose Shari'a beyond the Muslim community. Adherence to Islam is considered intrinsic to Malay ethnic identity and therefore Islamic religious laws administered by state authorities through Islamic courts bind all ethnic Malays (and other Muslims) in some matters. The Government also grants funds to non-Islamic religions, but to a more limited degree.

The Registrar of Societies, under the Ministry of Home Affairs, registers religious organizations. Registration enables organizations to receive government grants and other benefits. In May, the Government decided not to approve the Falun Gong Preparatory Committee's application to register as a legal organization.

For Muslims, particularly ethnic Malays, the right to leave the Islamic faith and adhere to another religion is controversial. The legal process of conversion is unclear; in law and in practice, it is very difficult for Muslims to change religions. In March 1999, the country's highest court ruled that secular courts have no jurisdiction to hear applications by Muslims to change religions. According to the ruling, the religious conversion of Muslims is solely within the jurisdiction of Shari'a courts. In April, a High Court judge rejected the application of a Malay woman who argued that she had converted to Christianity, and requested that the term "Islam" be removed from her identity card. The judge ruled that an ethnic Malay is defined by the federal Constitution as a "person who professes the religion of Islam." The judge also reaffirmed the March 1999 High court ruling and stated that only an Islamic court has jurisdiction to rule on the woman's supposed renunciation of Islam and conversion to Christianity. The ruling makes conversion of Muslims nearly impossible in practice.

In 2000 the state of Perlis enacted a law that stipulated that Muslims found guilty of apostasy by a Shari'a court are to be sent to "faith rehabilitation centers." At year's end, there had been no convictions under this law. Such a bill also has been proposed at the highest level of the Government. Leaders of the opposition Islamic Party have said that the penalty for apostasy should be death.

The Government generally respects non-Muslims' right of worship; however, state governments carefully control the building of non-Muslim places of worship and the allocation of land for non-Muslim cemeteries. Approvals for such permits sometimes were granted very slowly. In 1999 the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, and Sikhism (MCCBCHS) protested the planned implementation of Ministry of Housing and local government guidelines governing non-Muslim places of worship. The MCCBCHS specifically complained that the guidelines required an area to have at least 2,000 to 5,000 adherents of a particular non-Muslim faith for a non-Muslim place of worship to be approved. No such requirement exists for Muslim places of worship. In August 2000, these minimum guidelines were relaxed somewhat. The group also argued that, under the guidelines, the state Islamic council must approve the establishment of all non-Muslim places of worship. In addition, after years of complaints by non-Islamic religious organizations about the need for Islamic authorities in each state to approve construction of non-Islamic religious institutions, the Minister of Housing and Local Government announced that such approval no longer would be required. However, it is unclear whether this change generally is reflected in state policies and local decisions. For example, in Shah Alam, the Selangor state authorities have continued to block the construction of a Catholic Church.

During the controversy over the proposed new guidelines on non-Muslim places of worship, the MCCBCHS and the Federal Territory Counseling and Service Center separately urged the Prime Minister to create a national "inter-religious" council, although no such council had been created by year's end.

The proselytizing of Muslims by members of other religions is prohibited strictly; persons proselytizing non-Muslims face no obstacles. The Government discouraged, and in practical terms forbade, the circulation in the peninsular region of the country of Malay-language translations of the Bible and distribution of Christian tapes and printed materials in Malay. However, Malay-language Christian materials can be found. Some states have laws that prohibit the use of Malay-language religious terms by Christians, but the authorities do not always enforce them actively. The distribution of Malay-language Christian materials faced few restrictions in east Malaysia. Most visas for foreign Christian clergy are approved. Beginning in March 2000, non-Muslim representatives sit on the immigration committee that approves such visa requests.

The Government opposes what it considers to be deviant interpretations of Islam, maintaining that the "deviant" groups' extreme views endanger national security. In the past, the Government imposed restrictions on certain Islamic groups, primarily the small number of Shi'a. The Government continues to monitor the activities of the Shi'a minority, including those of 55 religious groups believed to be involved in deviant Islamic teachings. In November 2000, the Shari'a high court in the state of Kelantan sentenced four persons to 3 years in jail for disregarding a lower court order to "recant" their allegedly heretical Islamic beliefs and "return to the true teachings of Islam." The High Court rejected their argument that Shari'a law had no jurisdiction over them because they had ceased to be Muslims.

The Government periodically detains members of what it considers Islamic deviant sects without trial or charge under the ISA. After release, such detainees are subject to restrictions on their movement and residence. For example, in July 2000, the Government detained under the ISA at least 33 members of the Al-Ma'unah sect who reportedly were not suspected of involvement in early July arms thefts. Fifteen remained under ISA detention at year's end (see Sections 1.d. and 1.e.).

The Government generally restricts remarks or publications that might incite racial or religious disharmony. This includes some statements and publications critical of particular religions, especially Islam. The Government also restricts the content of sermons at mosques. The Government periodically warns against those who deliver sermons in mosques for "political ends" and, occasionally, state governments banned certain Muslim clergymen from delivering sermons at mosques (see Section 2.a.).

After the 1999 national elections, the Government significantly expanded efforts to restrict the activities of the Islamic opposition party at mosques. The Government justified such measures as necessary to oppose the "politicization of religion" by the opposition. In October 2000, the Chief Minister of Kelantan, who is also the spiritual adviser for the opposition Islamic party PAS, was banned from speaking at a mosque in Selangor. The Chief Minister spoke despite the ban and vowed that he would continue to speak wherever he was invited. He was warned of prosecution if he defied the ban again. The mosque officers who allegedly allowed him to speak were not prosecuted, but they were required to attend a counseling session.

For Muslim children, religious education according to a government-approved curriculum is compulsory. There are no restrictions on home instruction.

In June 2000, the Government announced that all Muslim civil servants must attend religious classes, but only classes in Islam would be held. In addition only teachers approved by the Government would be employed to conduct these classes. During the year, the Government implemented this rule on civil servants.

In family and religious matters, all Muslims are subject to Shari'a law. According to some women's rights activists, women are subject to discriminatory interpretations of Shari'a law and inconsistent application of the law from state to state.

The Government has a comprehensive system of preferences for ethnic Malays and members of a few other groups known collectively as "bumiputras," most of whom are Muslim (see Section 5).

d. Freedom of Movement Within the Country, Foreign Travel, Emigration, and Repatriation

Citizens generally have the right to travel, live, and work where they please; however, the Government restricts these rights in some circumstances. The East Malaysian states of Sabah and Sarawak have the right to control immigration and to require citizens from peninsular Malaysia and foreigners to present passports or national identity cards for entry. In 1998 the Court of Appeal ruled that Sabah and Sarawak, despite their autonomy, still are bound by the federal Constitution in all matters. Thus, the court voided Sabah's expulsion of an attorney from peninsular Malaysia who had been involved in several lawsuits against the state government. In May 1999, the Sabah state government filed an appeal of the ruling, which still is pending. In May the Government reportedly prohibited 78 citizens from traveling abroad claiming that they had "tarnished the country's image while abroad." Deputy Home Minister Datuk Zainal Abidin Zin told Parliament that the individuals in question had been "blacklisted" and would not be issued passports. In January a well-known ethnic Chinese education activist was deported from Sarawak and prohibited from returning. The Government regulates the internal movement of provisionally released ISA detainees (see Section 1.d.). The Government also uses the Restricted Residence Act to limit movements of those suspected of some criminal activities (see Section 1.d.).

Citizens must apply for the Government's permission to travel to Israel. Travel to Jerusalem for a religious purpose is allowed explicitly.

The Government has not ratified the 1951 U.N. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, and the Government rejected customary international law in this area. The Government does not recognize the principle of first asylum; however, it sometimes grants temporary refuge to asylum seekers. In February Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar stated that Indonesian refugees fleeing violence in Kalimantan would be prevented from entering the country. The Government continues to refuse to acknowledge that any Indonesian illegal aliens, including Acehnese, have a claim to refugee status. However, the Government has not made a concerted attempt to find and detain illegal Acehnese or other Indonesians. In 1998 the Government forcibly returned several hundred Acehnese, despite representations from the UNHCR and the international community and evidence that the Acehnese might face human rights abuses upon return to Indonesia.

In past years there were reports of deaths, poor conditions and serious abuse of inmates at the camps for illegal Burmese Rohingyas (see Section 1.c.).

The Government did not restrict the access of undetained asylum seekers to the UNHCR office and cooperated in the resettlement of some refugees. However, the Government only infrequently granted the UNHCR and other humanitarian organizations access to detained aliens. There were some forced expulsions of asylum seekers and refugees during the year.

Section 3 Respect for Political Rights: The Right of Citizens to Change Their Government

By law citizens have the right to change their government through periodic elections; however, while votes generally are recorded accurately, there are some irregularities that affect the fairness of elections, and in practice opposition parties are unable to compete on equal terms with the governing coalition (which has held power at the national level since 1957) because of significant restrictions on campaigning, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, and access to the media. Nevertheless, opposition candidates campaign actively, with some success in state and national elections. In the November 1999 elections, the opposition more than doubled the number of its seats in the national parliament from 20 to 45, out of a total of 193. In December 2000, the opposition won a seat in the Kedah state assembly in a tightly contested by-election. A number of opposition parties contested the state elections in Sarawak in September.

Malaysia has a parliamentary system of government. National elections are required at least every 5 years and have been held regularly since independence in 1957. The Malay-based United Malay National Organization party dominates the ruling National Front coalition, which has ruled the country continuously since independence. Since 1969 the National Front coalition always has maintained at least a two-thirds majority in Parliament, which enabled the Government to amend the Constitution at will. Over the years, power increasingly has been concentrated in the executive branch, and in the Prime Minister.

The lack of equal access to the media was the most serious problem encountered by the opposition in the November 1999 elections (see Section 2.a.). Government officials frankly stated that government television and radio would not carry reporting on the opposition. The country's two private television stations also had virtually no impartial reporting on the opposition. The mainstream English-language and Malay-language newspapers carried biased coverage of domestic politics as well. In addition opposition parties encountered difficulties in placing paid advertisements in newspapers; however, a few opposition advertisements did appear, after editing by the newspapers, in English- and Chinese- language newspapers.

Opposition leaders credibly claimed that the Election Commission, which is responsible for holding and monitoring elections, did not carry out its duties impartially. The Election Commission is nominally independent, but is perceived to be under the control of the Government. In June 1999, Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Badawi stated that there was no need to consult the opposition on the appointment of a new Election Commission chairman. Opposition leaders stated that Prime Minister Mahathir's remark that same month that the Government would "not entertain" an opposition demand for a long campaign period in upcoming elections demonstrated the lack of independence of the Election Commission (the Commission has the sole power to set the length of the campaign period). After the 1999 elections, several government officials publicly disputed opposition claims that the Election Commission was biased. Some members of the ruling coalition charged that individual Commission officials supported opposition candidates.

Opposition complaints of irregularities by election officials and allegations of other election fraud during the 1999 campaign were not substantiated during the year, and according to most observers, there was no evidence that the conduct of election officers significantly affected the results of the 1999 elections. Opposition leaders complained that local government officials who served as election officers were not always neutral. The Election Commission later announced that it completed its investigation into these complaints, but it did not reveal its findings. The Government did not permit international monitoring or adequately allow for domestic NGO monitoring efforts during the elections. (The last time that foreign observers monitored elections was in 1990).

Opposition parties and some NGO's also alleged that defective voting rolls led to some fraudulent votes. In the Sabah state elections in March 1999, opposition leaders accused the ruling coalition of employing "phantom" voters (illegal aliens and other fraudulently documented voters). In June a High Court judge in Sabah ruled that the 1999 election of BN candidate Yong Teck Lee to the state assembly seat in Likas was null and void due to the presence of phantom voters on the electoral rolls. However, in the by-election that followed, Yong won by a margin wider than that of his 1999 victory. Opposition representatives charged that the Government did nothing to clean the electoral rolls of phantom voters following the judge's ruling and before the by-election was held. Analysis by NGO's of the voting roll used in the national elections also revealed irregularities, such as deceased persons on the rolls, multiple voters registered under single identity card numbers, and other anomalies; however, according to most observers, there is no evidence that these irregularities significantly affected the results in more than a handful of races. The Government did not respond to post-election calls by an election-monitoring NGO for a national re-registration exercise to produce a clean electoral roll.

Postal votes (absentee ballots) by police and military personnel and their spouses also are a concern. The Government, citing security concerns, does not allow party agents to monitor postal vote boxes placed on military and police installations. Opposition parties questioned the rationale for such security restrictions. Opposition parties and NGO's have raised credible allegations of improper manipulation of postal votes, including statements by former military personnel that their ballots were filled out by others or under the eye of commanding officers. For the November 1999 elections, the Election Commission changed some procedures to allow better monitoring by Election Commission officers. Opposition parties continued to call for monitoring of absentee votes by party agents.

The anonymity of balloting also is a potential concern. Ballots are marked with a serial number that could be matched against a voter's name. While there is no evidence that the Government ever has traced individual votes, some opposition leaders have alleged that the potential to do so has a chilling effect on some voters, particularly civil servants.

Gerrymandering diluted the votes of some citizens. The Constitution states that parliamentary constituencies should have roughly equal numbers of eligible voters, although the same section states that greater weight should be given to rural constituencies. In practice these guidelines often are ignored. For example, in Sabah constituencies are weighted strongly against the state's large Christian population. Nationwide, the constitutional provision giving greater weight to rural constituencies greatly dilutes the voting power of urban residents. The single member, winner-take-all system also diminishes the political power of the minority groups. Because of the changing dynamics of ethnic politics, ethnic gerrymandering of parliamentary constituencies, used against the opposition in the past, is believed to no longer be as great an advantage to the ruling coalition.

Other government measures hamper the opposition's ability to compete with the incumbent ruling coalition. For example, the Government on several occasions issued public warnings to civil servants, including teachers (see Section 2.a.) not to support the opposition. Students face certain restrictions on political activity (see Sections 2.a. and 2.b.). Government leaders routinely and openly threatened to suspend the allocation of federal funds beyond the constitutionally mandated minimum to constituencies that elected opposition representatives. Ruling coalition Members of Parliament received a government allocation totaling in aggregate roughly $25 million (95 million RM). Opposition Members of Parliament receive no such funds. In July 1999, a government minister told Parliament that the money only was given to ruling coalition Members of Parliament because it came from the Government.

The opposition has complained in the past about restrictions on public assemblies during the campaign period (see Section 2.b.). However, in the period prior to the November 1999 elections, police did not implement restrictions vigorously, and the opposition held many large rallies. The opposition also has stated that the short official campaign period gives an advantage to the incumbent ruling coalition. However, de facto campaigning began long before the elections, and there is little evidence that the short official campaign period had much practical effect. In defending its July ban on all political meetings, the Government noted that there was no need for the opposition to continue campaigning in a nonelection year.

In June the Minister in the Prime Minister's office responsible for justice said his Ministry was preparing an amendment to the Election Offences Act to require all those interested in contesting elections to sign an oath pledging not to raise sensitive issues such as religion or race in election campaigns.

In 1999, a group of NGO's formed an independent election watch organization. The Election Commission stated that the NGO's were free to do so, but the organization was accorded no special privileges. The Government continued to publicly reject the idea of foreign observers.

Under the electoral law, unsuccessful candidates may appeal election results to special election courts in instances of alleged fraud, vote tampering, or other infractions of electoral rules. However, in July the Government proposed tabling an amendment to the electoral law that would prevent judicial scrutiny of formalized election results. After the November 1999 elections, 21 petitions were filed by losing candidates from both the ruling and opposition coalitions. According to the Elections Commission, all petitions were dismissed. In March 2000, the High Court ruled that the Election Commission and returning officers may not be named as "necessary parties" in petitions filed with election courts by unsuccessful candidates.

In the past, within the ruling UMNO party, there was active political debate. "No-contest" rules for leadership positions and generally increased intolerance of dissent limited but did not eliminate UMNO's role as a vehicle for public debate. However, after the removal of Deputy Prime Minister Anwar in 1998, intolerance of dissent within UMNO increased, and an extraordinary UMNO Assembly in 1998 approved a series of measures designed to limit independent grassroots initiatives. There were no contests for the top two leadership positions in UMNO in 2000 and no party Supreme Council elections during the year. At the UMNO General Assembly in May 2000, 3 vice president slots and 25 elected seats on the Supreme Council were contested vigorously, with a number of candidates known not to be favored by party leaders; however, it had been announced before the General Assembly that there would be no contest for the party president and deputy president, positions held respectively by Prime Minister Mahathir and Deputy Prime Minister Abdullah.

Over the years, Parliament's function as a deliberative body has deteriorated. Legislation proposed by the Government rarely is amended or rejected. Legislation proposed by the opposition never is given serious consideration. Opposition opportunities to hold legislation up to public scrutiny have diminished. In December, a Member of Parliament from the opposition Democratic Action Party was suspended without pay for 6 months after publicly criticizing the parliamentary speaker for disallowing discussion concerning corruption in the process of certifying lawyers. The Parliament in 1995 amended its rules to strengthen the power of the Speaker and curb parliamentary procedures heavily used by the opposition. The amendments empowered the Speaker to ban members he considered unruly for up to 10 days, imposed limits on deputies' ability to pose supplementary questions and revisit nongermane issues, and established restrictions on the tabling of questions of public importance. Further measures in 1997 and 1998 limited members' opportunities to question and debate government policies even more severely. In August an amendment to the parliamentary Standing Orders permitted the Speaker to edit written copies of members' speeches before the speeches are delivered. Nonetheless, government officials often faced sharp questioning in Parliament, although this was not always reported in detail in the mainstream press.

State assemblies also limited debate. After the 1969 intercommunal riots, the Government abolished elected local government in favor of municipal committees and village chiefs appointed by state governments. Some politicians and NGO activists have advocated the reintroduction of local government elections. Even some ruling party municipal officials have noted that local bodies are simply "rubber stamps" for the Government.

Women face no legal limits on participation in government and politics; however, the percentage of women in government and politics does not correspond to their percentage of the population. At year's end, 3 of 28 cabinet ministers were women. Women hold 20 of 193 seats in the elected lower house of Parliament, and they hold 19 of 69 seats in the appointed upper house. In January the Prime Minister established the new Ministry of Women's Affairs and Family Development, and appointed a prominent female politician as its first Minister. In May 2000, Tan Sri Doctor Zeti assumed the post of Central Bank Governor. She is the first woman to be appointed to the post. In December 2000, the King announced the appointment of Ainum Mohamed Saaid as the new Attorney General, the first woman to hold at position. Originally appointed for a 2-year term beginning in January, Ainum, citing ill healt