All posts by : Media

By: Paremeswari Subramaniam
(Principal Assistant Secretary Policy Division)
SUHAKAM

As the world commemorates the 2025 International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples on 9 August, the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) joins the global community in reaffirming our commitment to protect the rights, dignity and heritage of Indigenous communities in Malaysia. This year’s theme, “Indigenous Peoples and AI: Defending Rights, Shaping Future”, reminds us that while technology holds promise, it must not deepen existing inequalities.

Land – The Soul of Indigenous Identity

For Malaysia’s Indigenous Peoples, the Orang Asli in Peninsular Malaysia and the native of Sabah and Sarawak, land is not merely a resource. It is the life of their culture, identity and survival. Yet, in 2025, land dispossession continues to uproot communities and erode centuries of heritage.

Despite legal protection in our Constitution, statutory provisions, and Malaysia’s endorsement of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), Indigenous communities continue to struggle for the recognition and protection of their customary territories. Article 26 of UNDRIP affirms that Indigenous Peoples have the right to the lands, territories, and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired. Article 27 further obligates states to establish impartial and transparent mechanisms for recognition and adjudication of Indigenous land claims, consistent with their customs, traditions and land tenure systems.

Yet, implementation remains sorely lacking.

The 2013 National Inquiry into the Land Rights of Indigenous Peoples, conducted by SUHAKAM, laid bare these injustices. Over 6,500 Indigenous individuals gave testimony through public consultations across 23 districts, 892 recorded statements and 57 submissions from indigenous organisation, government agencies, and civil society groups. The Inquiry gathered issues revolving land encroachments, forced evictions, and a troubling absence of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) in development affecting their lands. Eleven years on, the root problems persist.

From Inquiry to Action

Without secure land, Indigenous communities lose access to forests, rivers, food, and spiritual spaces. The impacts extend beyond physical displacement, causing cultural loss, food insecurity, and disempowerment.

Among the Inquiry’s 18 recommendations were recognition of customary rights to land, establishing grievance mechanisms, mandating FPIC, and creating an independent National Commission on Indigenous Peoples.

As of today, much of the report’s spirit remains unfulfilled.

Legal and Policy Gaps Still Persist

Malaysia’s legal framework, including the Aboriginal Peoples Act 1954 and the land codes in Sabah and Sarawak, do not adequately recognise Indigenous native customary land rights (NCR). Key concept such as pemakai menoa,  pulau galau and kawasan rayau, remain unrecognised and uncodified in law. Despite favourable court decisions like Nor Nyawai[1], Sagong Tasi[2] and Adong Kuwau[3], affirming recognition of NCR, the failure to integrate these rulings into administrative procedures has perpetuated legal uncertainty.

Weak Institutions, Weaker Protection

Institutions tasked with safeguarding Indigenous welfare, notably the Department of Orang Asli Development (JAKOA) is underfunded, lack of transparency, and poor coordination between federal and state authorities. Indigenous land claims are frequently delayed, mishandled, or ignored altogether.

Ignoring Consent, Ignoring Rights

One of the most significant findings of the inquiry was the widespread violation of the right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC).  Development projects, from  plantations and logging to infrastructure expansion have frequently proceeded without meaningful consultation or community consent.

This undermines Indigenous Peoples’ right to self-determination and violates Malaysia’s commitment under international law, including the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which mandates the FPIC of indigenous peoples for any project affecting their territories. The consequences are devastating: environmental degradation, cultural erasure, and forced displacement.

AI to Empower, Not to Erase

The denial of land rights has cascading impacts on the right to food, housing, and self-determination. Without land, Indigenous communities loss access to forests, rivers, and resources that are vital for their survival. Climate change, deforestation, and commercial encroachments are further threating traditional food systems and erosion of traditional knowledge, passed down through generations.

As Malaysia embraces digitalisation, it is critical that these technologies are not used to further exclude Indigenous Peoples voices or erase ancestral claims. AI-driven land mapping, and automation in land registries must be designed inclusively, respecting traditional knowledge and community participation. Technology must be harnessed to empower Indigenous communities, to document their histories, protect sacred sites, improve participatory land governance, and preserve culture and languages.

A Call to Action

Over a decade ago, SUHAKAM’s released the National Inquiry Report , its findings remain as relevant and urgent as ever. Despite the Government’s formal acceptance of 17 out of 18 recommendations, progress has been slow and fragmented, reflects a wider lack of political will to place Indigenous rights at the forefront of national priorities.

In commemorating this year’s International Indigenous Peoples Day, SUHAKAM renews it calls for the Government to:

• Develop and implement a comprehensive National Action Plan on Indigenous Rights and enshrine constitutional recognition to safeguard the dignity, identity, and rights of the Indigenous Peoples;
• Establish an Independent National Commission on Indigenous Peoples, as recommended under Recommendation 18 of the National Inquiry, with a mandate to advise on legislation, monitor development, and represent the voices of Indigenous communities;
• Amend Article 153 of the Federal Constitution to explicitly recognise the Orang Asli as equal beneficiaries of constitutional protections and affirmative action measures alongside the Malays and the Natives of Sabah and Sarawak; and
• Harmonise Federal and State-level laws and policies, especially regarding the gazettement and legal protection of ancestral and Indigenous customary lands.

The protection of Indigenous land rights is not a matter of policy convenience, it is a question of justice, dignity, and survival. Governments have a moral and legal duty to safeguard the lands, resources and cultures of Indigenous Peoples, in accordance with international human rights standards. As UNDRIP’s Article 8(2) affirms:  States must prevent and redress any for actions that aims to dispossess Indigenous Peoples of their lands, territories, or resources.

The time for action is now, before more of what is irreplaceable is lost forever.

[1] Nor Nyawai v Borneo Pulp Plantations & Ors.

[2] Sagong Tasi v Selangor State Government

[3] Adong bin Kuwau & Ors v Kerajaan Negeri Johor & Anor

By Dato’ Seri Hishamuddin Yunus, Chairman, Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM)

When Parliament tabled three major pieces of legislation recently, namely the Urban Renewal Bill, the Gig Workers Bill, and the Government Procurement Bill 2025, the bills were described as landmark reforms. Each addresses pressing national needs to modernising Malaysia’s urban landscape, protecting a growing segment of the labour force, and ensuring integrity in the use of public funds.

As Chairman of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM), I fully recognise the importance of these reforms. They touch the core of everyday life for millions of Malaysians, the homes they live in, the jobs they rely on, and the trust they place in Government institutions.

Yet the concern raised is not about the objectives of the reforms, but about the process by which they were rushed through Parliament. The unusually compressed timelines, coupled with limited consultation, risk undermining both the legitimacy, and the effectiveness of these laws.

Participation as a Right

Participation is not merely a procedural step in lawmaking, it is a recognised human right. The right to take part in public affairs is guaranteed under Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and further elaborated in international human rights law. It also forms part of Malaysia’s commitment to democratic governance.

When residents facing urban redevelopment fear forced evictions, gig workers worry about partial or temporary protections, and when small businesses anticipate losing out in procurement systems that favour larger players, these anxieties are not unfounded. They arise because affected groups were not given adequate opportunity to study, respond to, and shape the legislation.

Reforms that neglect participation fail to meet the basic needs of inclusivity. They risk leaving behind those they were intended to protect.

Transparency and Accountability

Transparency is the cornerstone of accountability. When bills are tabled and rushed through without sufficient public debate, Parliament’s role as the guardian of democratic deliberation is diminished.

Compressed timelines create suspicion, erode trust, and foster the perception that decisions are being made behind closed doors. In practice, the consequences may be serious: urban renewal projects implemented without safeguards, gig worker protections that are symbolic rather than substantive, and procurement rules that disadvantage smaller players.

True reform requires that the process be as open and accountable as the outcomes are ambitious.

The Role of Parliament

Parliament should not be seen merely as a place to debate bills. Its deeper responsibility is to scrutinise them rigorously, ensuring that laws passed truly serve the people and safeguard their rights. The recent proposal to establish permanent Parliamentary Select Committees (PSCs) in the Dewan Rakyat is a positive step in that direction, but the plan for only ten committees is far too modest for Malaysia’s complex governance landscape. If we are serious about strengthening our democracy, this reform must go further.

PSCs are more than technical bodies. They are platforms where lawmakers can hear directly from experts, civil society, and communities most affected by proposed laws, including vulnerable groups whose voices are often excluded from mainstream debates. Without this engagement, legislation risks being rushed through with limited scrutiny, disconnected from the lived realities of the people it governs, and blind to potential human rights implications.

Automatic referral of every bill to a PSC after its First Reading should therefore be the norm, not the exception. Just as importantly, the findings of these committees must be debated and voted on in Parliament, giving democratic weight to recommendations that can prevent laws from undermining rights and freedoms.

Comparative experience shows why this matters. In the United Kingdom, every ministry is shadowed by a permanent select committee, ensuring systematic, expert, and non-partisan scrutiny. Malaysia, by contrast, has underutilised its PSCs despite having the framework in place. Too often, bills are introduced and rushed through with little or no amendment, as the Executive uses its dominance in Parliament to push them through.

Globally, effective PSCs are entrusted not only with legislative review but also with budgetary oversight and armed with real powers. Crucially, they also serve as a safeguard against policies that might endanger rights, whether through misuse of public funds, discriminatory practices, or unchecked executive authority. In countries like the UK, PSCs are further supported by professional staff and independent experts, enhancing transparency and ensuring rights-sensitive scrutiny. Malaysia should adopt a similar approach, recognising that rights protection requires both institutional independence and substantive expertise.

Strengthening PSCs is not about slowing down reform, it is about making reform smarter, fairer, and more durable. If Parliament embeds robust committees at the heart of lawmaking, Malaysia can move beyond the politics of speed and show that its democracy is capable of urgency with depth, and progress with justice.

What Malaysia Should Do

If Malaysia is serious about reform that lasts, several important steps need to be taken.

First, minimum consultation periods should be formalised, with timelines adjusted according to the complexity of each bill. Rushed processes do not serve the public interest, and meaningful consultation cannot be reduced to a box-ticking exercise.

Second, high-impact reforms must undergo fast-track scrutiny by PSCs. This ensures that laws with far-reaching consequences receive careful examination before being passed.

Third, draft bills should be published early to allow genuine input from stakeholders, civil society, and the public. Laws made behind closed doors risk being disconnected from the realities they are meant to address.

Fourth, PSCs must have their mandates expanded to cover budgetary review and the oversight of major public institutions. Scrutiny is incomplete without ensuring accountability for public funds and key agencies.

Fifth, committees must be equipped with real powers: the ability to compel attendance, demand documents, and gather evidence. Without such authority, PSCs risk being reduced to symbolic forums rather than engines of accountability.

Finally, committee reports must be debated and voted on in the Dewan Rakyat, giving weight to their recommendations and ensuring they influence policymaking.

These are not obstacles to reform. They are investments in making reform stronger, more effective, and sustainable. A Parliament that embraces these measures will not only pass laws, but also pass better laws, built on participation, accountability, and trust.

The Cost of Excluding Participation

Laws made without participation often prove fragile. They may face challenges in the courts, resistance from affected groups, or costly amendments down the road. In the end, they consume more time and resources than if they had been developed through inclusive processes from the outset.

By contrast, reforms that are grounded in participation and transparency are more resilient. They command public trust and foster a sense of shared ownership.

Time to reform

Malaysia’s need for reform is clear. Urban renewal, gig worker protections, and transparent procurement are essential to national progress. However, the process by which these reforms are carried out matters as much as the outcomes.

As SUHAKAM has consistently emphasised, reforms must be rights-based, inclusive, and transparent. Parliament, in fulfilling its legislative duty, must ensure citizens are not bystanders but participants in shaping laws that govern their lives.

Reform done with the people builds legitimacy. Reform done without them breeds resistance. Reform done right takes time but reform done wrong takes forever to fix.