Once again the government has resorted to the Internal Security Act (ISA) to curb a political
     challenge to the power and authority of the Prime Minister.

     So far seven persons have been detained under the ISA. Apart from former Deputy Prime
     Minister, Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim, the President of UMNO Youth, Zahid Hamidi, and the
     Negeri Sembilan UMNO Youth Chief, Roslan Kassim, the other four detained are all from the
     Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia (ABIM). The ABIM detainees include its President, Ahmad
     Azam Abdul Rahman and its Vice-President (International Affairs), Abdul Halim Ismail.

     There is no justification at all for the arrests of the seven. Some of them may have spoken at
     meetings for which there may not have been a police permit. Others may have helped organise
     these meetings. But there are other laws which could have been used against them. There was
     no need to employ the draconian ISA which denies a person the right to a fair and open trial.
     Besides, under the ISA a person can be detained for an indefinite period.

     The use of the ISA in the Anwar Ibrahim episode shows how little tolerance there is among
     the ruling elites in our country for the type of activities which would be regarded as 'normal'
     and 'natural' in any democracy. Citizens in a democracy have the right to mobilise public
     opinion through public rallies and the like with the aim of bringing about political change in a
     peaceful manner. And, the huge meetings that Anwar spoke at, including the last one at the
     National Mosque, were, by and large, peaceful and orderly.

     While there is no basis at all for the use of the ISA in any of the seven instances, its application
     to Anwar's case is particularly unjust. For the last two weeks or so, the general public has
     been told that Anwar will be given the chance to defend himself in an open court against a
     whole gamut of allegations ranging from sodomy and illicit sex to corruption and being a
     foreign agent. And now suddenly instead of putting him on trial he is being detained without
     trial -- under the ISA.

     The Malaysian people have every right to ask why a person who has been accused in public
     and through the media of committing almost every heinous crime, is now denied the basic right
     to defend himself in a proper court of law. This will make the public suspicious of the
     government's action. They will be wondering whether all those allegations had any basis at all
     in the first instance. It will erode further the credibility of the Mahathir government. Indeed,
     many people will now be more convinced than ever before that there is a great deal of truth in
     Anwar's oft-repeated assertion that there is a high-level conspiracy to destroy his entire
     political career.

     The International Movement for a Just World calls upon the government to release
     unconditionally and immediately Anwar and the other six detainees and put them all on trial in
     an open court of law.

     Prof. Chandra Muzaffar
     President
     International Movement for a Just World
      21 September 1998
 

Guilty -- the unanswered questions

     The mode and manner in which Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim's adopted brother, Sukma
     Dermawan, and his friend, Dr. Munawar Anees, were charged in Court with the offence of
     allowing Anwar to sodomise them has shocked the whole nation.

     The charges against the two men raise a number of questions

     One Since the two of them had reportedly alleged that they were sodomised by the former
     Deputy Prime Minister, why didn't the police interrogate the alleged sodomiser himself before
     producing Sukma and Munawar in Court? Isn't this the normal procedure? Isn't this required
     of a professional police force?

     Two, Isn't it odd that both Sukma and Munawar were arrested and investigated by the police
     and charged in Court, after Dato Seri Anwar had already been sacked from the government
     and party for his 'low morals', notably his alleged homosexual activities? Isn't this a case of the
     police looking for evidence after the event, to justify the Prime Minister's condemnation of
     Anwar?

     Three, Wasn't it wrong to keep Sukma in custody for 12 days without allowing him access to
     counsel? To make it worse, his family was not allowed to visit him. How can one defend
     conduct of this sort in a nation founded upon the rule of law?

     Four, Likewise, how would one explain Munawar's arrest under Section 73 of the
     International Security Act (ISA) when he was, in the end, produced in court on a sodomy
     charge under the Penal Code? Doesn't this make a mockery of the legal process?

     Five, Isn't it possible that detaining Munawar under the ISA, with the threat of indefinite
     incarceration, may have been used to coerce him to allege that he had been sodomised by
     Dato Seri Anwar? This is similar to Dato Nallakaruppan's arrest which carries the death
     penalty. The threat of death appears to have been used to force him to implicate Anwar in
     wrongdoings.

     Six, If the guilty pleas entered by Sukma and Munawar were obtained under duress of one
     kind or other, how much credence can we attach to such pleas? Besides, obtaining pleas of
     guilt through subtle or stark coercion, intimidation or fear is not admissible in any civilised legal
     system.

     Seven, How is it that both Sukma and Munawar were suddenly provided with counsel who
     entered pleas of guilt on their behalf when the services of these lawyers were not requested by
     their families? Isn't this yet another example of how basic rules and procedures have been
     violated with impunity?

     It is only too apparent that the pleas of guilt of Sukma and Munawar had one objective: to
     implicate Anwar, shame him through the media and prepare the ground for his own arrest,
     presumably under the same sodomy charge. The indecent and unethical way in which they
     were charged shows clearly that there is a larger political motive behind Saturday's Court
     episode. If anything , it offers confirmation of Anwar Ibrahim's opt-repeated claim that there is
     a high-level conspiracy to destroy his political career.
 

     20 September 1998

     Dr. Chandra Muzaffar
     President
     International Movement for a Just World
 

Support for Declaration
 

     The International Movement for a Just World endorses the Permatang Pauh Declaration of 12
     September 1998.

     The principles of the Declaration are in accordance with our Movement's commitment to
     justice, freedom and equality. The Declaration emphasises the equitable distribution of wealth,
     the eradication of corruption and the abuse of power and the strengthening of democratic
     values.

     It is significant that the Permatang Pauh Declaration shows an appreciation of Asian traditions
     and the importance of reinforcing our cultural identities through positive interaction with the rest
     of the world. At the same time the Declaration embodies universal ideals which all the religious
     communities in Malaysia can identify with.

     However, if the Declaration is going to give birth to a reform movement it should translate its
     general principles into specific policies and programmes. For any reform movement to
     succeed, it must have at its core a group of dedicated men and women of high moral and
     intellectual calibre.

     The present political climate in the country presents both a challenge and an opportunity for the
     growth of such a reform movement. It is a challenge because growing authoritarianism and the
     abuse of state institutions charged with the administration of law, have narrowed political
     space. It is an opportunity because there is increasing awareness of the importance of fairness
     and justice even within the ordinarily passive strata of Malaysian society.

     The Executive Committee
     International Movement for a Just World

     21 September 1998
 
 

The Rule of Law Under Threat

     1. The rule of law and the principles of natural justice are the mainstay of a
     progressive and civilised society. These two elements together ensure that
     peoples' rights are not trampled upon and that everyone shall be treated
     equally before the law. The principles of natural justice dictate that everyone
     shall be entitled to the due process of the law, that is, no person shall be
     deprived of his rights and privileges nor be subject to condemnation or
     punishment until and unless he has been given an opportunity to defend
     himself to the full extent of the law and to be heard by a fair and impartial
     tribunal.

     2. There has been an ever steady and increasing disregard for and erosion of
     the rule of law and the principles of natural justice. Events in the recent past
     have served to bring this to prominence.

     3. Most recent of these relates to the summary sacking of the former Deputy
     Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance Minister. In his press conference
     on 3rd September 1998 (the day after his removal from his cabinet posts),
     Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim made allegations of government machinery being
     used against him.

     4. The events which occurred on the morning of the 3rd appear to lend
     credence to what he alleged. According to newspaper reports, four affidavits
     were served on Datuk Nallakaruppan (who was charged for an offence under
     the Internal Security Act for possession of some 125 rounds of ammunition
     without a licence) at about 8.35 a.m. that morning; the affidavits were
     intended to be used to oppose Datuk Nalla's application to be transferred to
     the Sungai Buloh Prison from the Bukit Aman lock-up; the affidavits were
     later produced by the Deputy Public Prosecutor in the High Court at about
     9.35 am. when the application came up for hearing; as counsel for Datuk Nalla

     objected to their admissibility on the ground that their contents were irrelevant
     to the offence the judge adjourned the hearing of the application to 2.00 pm
     that afternoon in order to hear and rule on the objection and to review the
     affidavits; because of the adjournment, counsel had applied to have the
     affidavits "embargoed" pending the judge's ruling but the judge refused to
     make an interim order to impose the embargo, holding that the affidavits had
     been filed and had, therefore, become public documents.

     5. At 1.30 pm. that day TV3 in its news broadcast made public the allegations
     made in one of the affidavits, which were very detrimental to Datuk Anwar.
     Those allegations were also published amongst others, in a Special Edition of
     the Malay Mail newspaper which went to print at about 12.00 noon and
     became available for purchase by the public at 2.00 p.m. the same day.

     6. On the above facts, a number of points arise:-

     It has always been accepted as a principle that documents do not become
     public documents by reason only that they have been filed in court. The
     contents of a document filed in court only becomes public after the
     document has been read or deemed to be read in open court. The judge's
     ruling was, therefore, contrary to principle.

     Apart from the affidavit not having been read in open court, was it not
     incumbent upon the judge, having regard to the nature of the allegations
     made against Datuk Anwar in the affidavit and bearing in mind that he
     was not a party to the application before the judge, to at least withhold
     making a ruling on the status of the affidavits until he had heard the
     objection and reviewed the contents of the affidavits? He should have
     been aware of the prejudicial effect the affidavits would have on Datuk
     Anwar.

     Who was it who sought to have the contents of the affidavits made
     public at that stage of the proceedings? Datuk Nalla had, by his counsel,
     objected to the affidavits : it could not have been him. The press was not
     a party to the proceedings and could not have requested for the court's
     ruling. There was no mention in the newspapers that the Deputy Public
     Prosecutor had asked for such a ruling.

     More importantly, who actually distributed copies of the affidavits to the
     press and to TV3? It has been ascertained that it was not Datuk Nalla or
     his counsel. As it was, when the court resumed hearing in the afternoon,
     irreparable damage had been done to Datuk Anwar by the media blitz.

     7. Equally important issues arise from the way the various authorities
     concerned dealt with Datuk Nalla' s application to be transferred to the
     Sungai Buloh prison:-

     Although arrested for possession of the ammunition without a licence, his
     interrogation by the police during the 20 days he had been detained at the
     Bukit Aman lock-up had been on matters not related to the commission
     of the offence. In one of the affidavits, which was affirmed by the
     Attorney-General, the detention of Datuk Nalla at the Bukit Aman
     lock-up was stated to be necessary in order that he could be questioned
     regarding allegations made by third parties implicating Datuk Anwar's
     sexual activities. According to the Attorney-General, he agreed that the
     investigation involved security and national interest. He was reported to
     have further said:

     "Police investigation is still on-going and
     statements which have been obtained are serious
     and involve the security of the nation."

     Where in the Act is the police authorised to question a person arrested and
     detained for a specific offence under the ISA on matters not related to that
     offence, just because the police consider those other matters involve national
     security and the Attorney-General agrees with the police? Datuk Nalla was
     arrested for an offence under section 57 of the Act for possession of 125
     rounds of ammunition without a licence.

     The allegations of sexual impropriety on the part of Datuk Anwar were
     listed in the newspapers. It is far-fetched for the Attorney-General to say
     that those allegations (yet to be substantiated) can warrant the continued
     detention of Datuk Nalla on the ground allegedly of national security.

     The Court nevertheless accepted the Attorney-General's contention. It is     already a fact that the courts have, by their past decisions, allowed the
     police an unfettered discretion to arrest and detain any person under
     section 73 of the Act. The court, in accepting the Attorney-General's
     contention in the application of Datuk Nalla, has extended that arbitrary
     discretion to other areas.

     It is understood that Counsel for Datuk Nalla applied to the Court to be
     allowed time to reply to the four affidavits which were served on Datuk
     Nalla that morning. This application, though normally granted as a matter
     of natural justice, was disallowed by the Court. Datuk Nalla's reply to
     the affidavits were, therefore, not before the Court when it made its
     decision.
 
 

     8. In his press conference Datuk Anwar made, among others, the
     following statements:

     ".. I am shocked with the use of government machinery to
     frame me. In the past with Abim (Angkatan Belia Islam
     Malaysia) I was harassed but never to this extent.
     The entire process ... they questioned everybody, all my
     friends, even members of the judiciary. If he is a man, he is
     transferred out: if a woman, she is asked whether she is for
     PM or DPM or if she has some private, private, private
     dealings with me."

     The High Court judge who granted Datuk Anwar the injunction to restrain
     the dissemination of the book alleged to defame him is scheduled to be
     transferred to the Shah Alam High Court. He is a very senior High Court
     judge in Kuala Lumpur. His imminent transfer to Shah Alam soon after he
     granted the injunction must, therefore, raise questions. It is, of course,
     difficult to ascertain the actual reason for his transfer, but if it had anything to
     do with the granting of the injunction, an even more serious question arises as
     to the independence of the judge or judges responsible for his transfer and as
     to whether any judge can ever be independent and impartial in performing his
     judicial function.

     9. Some time ago, serious allegations of corruption were made in a poison-pen
     letter against a number of judges of the superior courts. The Attorney-General
     announced publicly that the allegations would be fully investigated. The
     investigation apparently disclosed that the allegations were unfounded and the
     allegations were false. But no prosecution was instituted against the author of
     the poison-pen letter, a judge of the High Court, for publication of false news
     as was done against Irene Fernandez for submitting Tenaganita=s findings of
     alleged irregularities committed in a refugee camp, and against Lim Guan Eng.

     The judge concernedwas merely asked to resign. Serious allegations of
     corruption, especially against members of the higher judiciary merit
     investigation by an independent Royal Commission. Corruption in a judiciary
     affects its integrity, and therefore, its independence and impartiality. The
     recent statement regarding judges made by the Attorney-General, made on the
     occasion of the elevation of Justice Augustine Paul to the High Court Bench at
     Melaka, indicate that all may not be well with the judiciary.

     10. Democracy under our Constitution is founded upon the rule of
     law. The "rule of law", reduced to its basics, requires everything to
     be done according to law; and such law must provide for
     recognised rules and principles which do not allow for the arbitrary
     exercise of discretionary power. The rule of law has been
     contrasted with arbitrariness. Underlying the rule of law is an
     assumption of justice and fairness that should accompany its
     application.

     11. It is inherent in the rule of law that nobody is above the law
     and that disputes as to the legality of acts (whether of a government
     or person) are to be decided by judges who are wholly independent
     of the executive. In a country such as ours, where a written
     constitution is the supreme law, it is the function of judges to
     safeguard and protect the fundamental freedoms provided to the
     individuals by the constitution. Laws should be so interpreted as to
     promote those freedoms so that they may be exercised freely.
     Sadly, recent instances of persons being charged by the court for
     perceived contempt of court or for expressing legitimate views have
     shown the lack of sympathy on the part of judges for these
     freedoms, in particular, the freedom of speech. Granted that these
     freedoms cannot be absolute but must be subject to restrictions, it
     is still the bounden duty of the courts to ensure that these
     restrictions are not such as to render these freedoms illusory. Thus,
     the warning reported in the newspapers to have been given by the

     Court of Appeal earlier this year when increasing the sentence on
     Lim Guan Eng, from a fine to a term of imprisonment of eighteen
     months, that it was sending out a message that no one should
     criticise the judiciary was misconceived in a society which
     professes to believe and practise the rule of law. The message
     clearly has the effect of discouraging anyone from speaking at all
     against the judiciary. Is the judiciary beyond criticism when even

     His Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and their Highnesses the
     Rulers are not? It has long been accepted that a fair, reasonable and
     legitimate criticism of any act or conduct of a judge in his judicial
     capacity or any proper and fair comment on any decision given by
     him is permitted.

     12. The Attorney-General, as another institution involved in the
     administration of justice, also has a crucial role to play in a
     democracy. He is the first law officer of the country and is the
     guardian and protector of public interest. It has, however, been
     observed again and again that he has misconstrued his function. In
     the investigation into the allegations made by the underaged girl
     involving the former Chief Minister of Melaka, Tan Sri Rahim
     Thamby Chik, he went to the extent of exposing her admissions of
     sexual involvement with other persons in order to discredit her
     complaint. In spite of successfully prosecuting those persons on the
     girl's admissions, the Attorney-General chose not to believe her on
     her complaint against Tan Sri Rahim Thamby Chik. Recently, the
     Attorney-General published a set of guidelines setting out the basis
     for his deciding whether to prosecute or not. It is hoped that these
     guidelines will provide more transparency and will help improve the
     Attorney-General's image in the eyes of the public.

     13. The police also play a crucial role in maintaining law and order,
     and society depends on them for upholding the rule of law. It is the
     duty of the police to invoke their power of arrest and detention to
     investigate commission of crimes alleged to have been committed.
     However, their resort to invoking section 73 of the Internal
     Security Act for reasons which are not envisaged by the Act is
     becoming more frequent. On many occasions they have publicly
     issued threats to use that power against persons suspected of
     having committed various offences which have no relation to issues
     of national security; ie cloning of hand phones and Internet
     rumour-mongering. The police should refrain from continuing to
     invoke the power under the Internal Security Act. On 24th
     December 1989, the Malaysian Government concluded a treaty
     with the Communist Party of Malaya in Bangkok following which
     the Communist insurgency ceased altogether. Thereafter the basis
     for the existence of the Act has ceased to exist. In any case, the Act
     was not promulgated in order to enable the police to deal with
     persons suspected of having committed a defined offence (not being an
     offence under the Act) but against whom no evidence could be obtained. It is
     a person's fundamental right in a society subscribing to the rule of law to be
     free from arbitrary arrests and detention.

     14. In Datuk Anwar=s case, the police went on television to
     disclose that new reports had been lodged against Datuk Anwar,
     alleging he had interfered with police investigation and that he might
     have committed sedition for what he had said in an interview with
     foreign media. Should not matters concerning prosecution for
     offences be determined by the Public Prosecutor? It cannot be
     correct for the police to publicly disclose that there is evidence in
     police possession which may warrant Datuk Anwar's prosecution.
     What was the purpose to be served by the public disclosure? Was it
     to defend the police against some perceived allegation that they had
     not been professional in the carrying out of their duties? Is there
     any need to do that? Professionalism is a matter for objective
     assessment and is judged by the conduct of the police. Their
     function is to investigate complaints thoroughly in order to gather
     evidence, and to present the evidence to the Public Prosecutor to
     decide whether there is any offence disclosed. If any advanced
     announcement is required to be made (and there should not be that
     many cases where that is necessary) it should be the Public
     Prosecutor who should do it. It may be useful to bear in mind, that
     it is inimical to the good image of the police as a law enforcement
     body to take on the confrontational stance they did in the interview
     against a person who has not been charged with any offences.

     15. The activities following the dismissal of Datuk Anwar from his
     Cabinet posts and his expulsion from UMNO followed the familiar
     pattern previously seen when this country had its constitutional
     crises involving their Highnesses the Malay Rulers. It is also
     reminiscent of the dismissal of Tun Salleh Abas, the then Lord
     President of the Supreme Court of Malaysia, in 1988. Opinion was
     mobilised against Datuk Anwar to support the decision taken. Just
     as at that time, no reasons were furnished by the Prime Minister
     for the dismissal but party stalwarts had no hesitation to agree with
     it. One senior Minister agreed with the decision because the Prime
     Minister "must have had good reasons" for making it. The thinking
     seems to be that the correctness of the decision will be decided by
     a headcount of loyal supporters.

     16. A number who had publicly supported the decision, expressed
     disapproval of Datuk Anwar's proposal to go to the people to
     explain his side of the story, giving different reasons, some fearing
     that there might be undesirable repercussions and others because
     Datuk Anwar was no longer an UMNO member. It appears that
     while it is perfectly acceptable for some UMNO leaders to show
     the people that the decision receives the approval of UMNO
     members generally, it is not considered desirable for Datuk Anwar
     to put forward his case to the people. Such an attitude is not
     consistent with the principle of justice and fairplay. The people
     must decide, after hearing the reasons presented by both sides,
     whether what was done was right or not. It is, therefore, hoped that
     on the issue of his expulsion, the public will have the opportunity to
     hear Datuk Anwar is explanation on the allegations made against
     him, which allegations have yet to be substantiated.

     17. There is a need for all freedom-loving Malaysians to understand and
     appreciate the importance of the rule of law and to be vigilant that it prevails in
     this country. Without the rule of law, there can be no justice.

     Dated 15th September 1998
 

     Raja Aziz Addruse
     Tun Mohamed Suffian
     Rasamah Bhupalan
     Dr Chandra Muzaffar
     Dato' Param Cumaraswamy
     Ramdas Tikamdas
     P. Ramakrishnan Mehrun
     Siraj Zainur Zakaria
     Cecil Rajendra
     Yang Pei Keng
     Rustam A. Sani
     Gan Teik Chee
     Sivarasa Rasiah
 

Do not distort the truth
 

     As social activists who have known and worked with Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim for a long
     while, we are pained by the vicious and malicious attacks on his integrity in the mainstream
     media. They display utter contempt for journalistic ethics.

     There is a concerted attempt to depict Anwar as a man who after joining government in 1982
     had betrayed all the ideals he espoused as a student and NGO leader in the late sixties and
     seventies. This is a travesty of the truth.

     It was Anwar who as Finance Minister and Deputy Prime Minister spearheaded the
     government's programme to identify and assist the hardcore poor. Eradicating absolute
     poverty through budgetary allocations and direct aid was central to his mission as a finance
     minister. His commitment to low-cost housing and his relentless drive to coax the private
     sector to join hands with the government in providing shelter to the homeless has won him
     accolades from the general public. It is partly because of the strong leadership he provided in
     areas of direct importance to the poor and needy, that there is so much support and sympathy
     for him following his expulsion from the government and UMNO.

     Malaysians are also aware of the fact that it was when Anwar was Acting Prime Minister in
     May and June 1997 that he steered through Parliament the new Anti Corruption Act. Though
     flawed in certain respects, the Act is more comprehensive in scope than any previous law It
     was during this time too that Anwar encouraged civic groups to organise seminars and launch
     campaigns against corruption -- much to the consternation of certain politicians.

     It is a mark of his commitment to democratic values that as Minister of Finance, he created a
     special channel in his pre-budget dialogues to allow civic groups to articulate their views on the
     general welfare of society. As a result of his efforts, civic groups were also provided an avenue
     to address the nation's social ills through programmes organised by the Ministry of National
     Unity and Social Development. On a few occasions, he had also tried to soften the impact of
     laws and measures which restricted basic freedoms. He gave some attention to the warning
     from civil society on the adverse consequences of the Official Secrets Act (OSA) in 1986 by
     supporting modifications to some of its harsher provisions. Recently, when he still Deputy
     Prime Minister, he expressed sympathy for Lim Guan Eng, following his imprisonment in
     connection with the 'Rahim Thamby Chik' episode. Anwar has been a consistent advocate of
     democratic goals such as the strengthening of political liberties, the acceptance of dissent,
     respect for public accountability and protecting the independence and integrity of the Judiciary.

     It would be naive to expect him to translate these and other attributes of good governance into
     reality in a situation where preserving the awesome power of authority is the primary purpose
     of the State. That he had continued to espouse the cause of freedom and justice in an
     environment where there wasn't much appreciation for democratic principles, is a tribute to his
     perseverance.

     Anwar's detractors in the media have also claimed that it was only in the nineties that he began
     promoting inter-ethnic unity through dialogues and the like. This is either the product of
     ignorance or sheer distortion. As President of the Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia (ABIM) he
     took the bold step in 1980 of initiating Muslim youths into dialogues with their counterparts
     from the other religions. In fact, Anwar was one of the few Muslims who was an active
     participant in inter-cultural dialogues in the Asia and Pacific region in the late seventies and
     early eighties. When he became UMNO Youth President later, he brought the youth wings of
     the different ethnic parties in the Barisan National together to address the common challenges
     of poverty and corruption. His unity -- oriented activities of the nineties, in other words, were
     a continuation of what he had begun doing when he was still outside government.

     By the same token, once he was in government, Anwar tried to bring into fruition some of the
     aspirations associated with the Islamic movement he led in the seventies. This is why
     institutions such as the Islamic Bank, the Islamic Insurance Scheme and the International
     Islamic University continue to be associated with his name. It was both his presence and the
     programmes he sought to implement in government which gave Islam of the middle path a
     definite role in multi-religious Malaysia.

     By recognising the good that Anwar had tried to do in government we are by no means blind
     to his shortcomings. However, the issue at hand is the way in which he is being demonised in
     the mainstream local media. Established journalists have descended into the abyss of deceit
     and manipulation. They have no qualms about smearing and savaging the reputation of a
     political leader who until yesterday was the toast of the nation.
 

     1) Dr. Azizan Bahari - Former Secretary-General of the Malaysian Youth Council
     2) Dr. Chandra Muzaffar - President, International Movement for a Just World
     3) Mrs. F.R. Bhupalan - Human Rights Activist
     4) Sdra. Gan Teik Chee - Former Secretary of Aliran Kesedaran Negara (ALIRAN)
     5) Sdra. Haniffa Hamid - Malaysian Youth Council Leader
     6) Dr. Mohammad Nur Manuty - Former President of the Angkatan Belia Islam
     Malaysia (ABIM)
     7) Sdra. Mohd. Anuar Tahir - Former Vice-President of the Angkatan Belia Islam
     Malaysia (ABIM)
     8) Ustaz Mohd. Nakhaie Ahmad - Former ABIM leader
     9) Dato' Param Cumaraswamy - Former President of the Bar Council
     10) Dr. Sheik Daud - Social Activist
     11) Dr. Siddiq Fadhil - Former President of the Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia (ABIM)
     12) Sdra. S. Rajaratnam - Former President of the Malaysian Hindu Youth Council