1605161 (Refugee) [2017] AATA 2187 (13 September 2017)

Last Updated: 17 November 2017

1605161 (Refugee) [2017] AATA 2187 (13 September 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION: Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER: 1605161

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE: Malaysia

MEMBER: Sophia Panagiotidis

DATE: 13 September 2017

PLACE OF DECISION: Melbourne

DECISION: The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 13 September 2017 at 12:30pm

CATCHWORDS
Refugee – Protection visa – Malaysia– Ethnicity – Cambodian – Citizenship – Naturalised Malaysian citizenship – Imputed political opinion – Berish protest attendee – No real chance of serious harm

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 5H(1)(a)-(b), 5J(1),5J(2)-(6), 36, 36(2)(a)-(c), 36(2A)-(2B) 36(3), 36(2A),36(2B), 65, 499,
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2

CASES
MIEA v Guo & Anor (1997) 191 CLR 559
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and McIllhatton v Guo Wei Rong and Pan Run Juan (1996) 40 ALD 445
Nagalingam v MILGEA [1992] FCA 470; (1992) 38 FCR 191
Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration [in] March 2016 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
2. The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of Malaysia, applied for the visa [in] September 2015.
3. The applicant was born in Battambong Cambodia on [date] but is a Malaysian citizen. He has provided a certified copy of his Malaysian passport to the Department. He was a citizen of Cambodia but went to Malaysia as a refugee. He was granted citizenship in April 2012. He has previously travelled to [Country 1] in April 2013.

The applicant's claims

4. The applicant's claims as outlined in the application for a protection visa are essentially that:
   • He joined the Bersih 3.0 group [in] April 2012 and he joined because he felt the government just used him to get his vote. He was threatened by the police if he joined the protest and that his citizenship would be withdrawn.
   • He was beaten by the police and the FPU when he was at the protest.
   • He cannot seek help because the police deal with the government.
   • There is no place to hide from the police as they have all his personal information.
   • He was beaten by the police on the day of the riot and the police came to his house and threatened him that they would punish him.
   • The authorities cannot protect him because all the government departments, including the police, are controlled by the prime minister.
   • He is unable to relocate because they have his personal information and they watch his movements.

The delegate’s decision

5. The delegate noted that the applicant claims to fear harm from the Malaysian authorities and that the Malaysian police are looking for him because of his involvement with the Bersih group and his participation in a protest. The delegate noted that the applicant did not provide sufficient information to demonstrate he had knowledge of the aims of the Bersih group or that he was a member. He had not provided details about his involvement in the group’s activities or how his opinions and activities would bring him to the attention of the Malaysian authorities. No evidence was provided to support his assertion that he joined Bersih or to suggest he was politically active in Malaysia. The applicant had not outlined his claims in sufficient details to identity the cause of any potential risk of persecution. The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant has a political profile or is of adverse interest to the Malaysian authorities or anyone else in Malaysia.
6. The delegate noted that the applicant arrived in Australia in May 2013 and remained unlawfully after his visa expired. The delegate considered that had a person in the applicant's circumstances genuinely feared harm on return to their home country, they would have applied for protection at the earliest opportunity. However the applicant did not apply for protection for over two years after his arrival. The applicant had not presented any information to indicate any circumstances that would have prevented him from seeking protection earlier. This delay caused the delegate to consider that the applicant did not have a genuine fear for his safety.

The hearing

7. The Tribunal has held two hearings in this matter on 28 April 2017 and 31 July 2017. The second hearing was to clarify some of the applicant's evidence given at the first hearing and to also put information to him after the Tribunal had conducted some research into citizenship issues raised by the applicant.
8. The applicant confirmed he was born in Cambodia on [date]. He said he left Cambodia in 1990 and travelled [and] sought permission to enter Malaysia. He left Cambodia by himself and the authorities were looking for boys like him because he was to be enlisted into the army as he had just finished school. His country was involved in a civil war and the Khmer Rouge was in power. When he was [age] and he was accepted as a refugee in Malaysia and was able to live there. He acquired citizenship in December 2011 in Malaysia but had applied a long time before this. The government kept on dragging out the application for many years. He told the Tribunal that Malaysia does not allow dual citizenship and he is no longer a citizen of Cambodia. He had no identification documents when he arrived in Malaysia and would have trouble being accepted by the Cambodian government as a citizen without documentation and someone to sponsor him. His parents remain in Cambodia and his father has come to see him in Malaysia several times. He last saw his father in 2013. He has one sister who lives in Cambodia and he has not seen either her or his mother since he left in 1990. He lived in Kuala Lumpur when he first arrived in Malaysia and in 2012 he moved to Kelantan. The applicant confirmed that he is a Muslim and after he left Cambodia he did not continue any education or training. He speaks Malay, Cambodian and some English. He has worked as a [occupation]. The applicant said that at the moment he is working part time [in another role].
9. The applicant told the Tribunal he has family in Kelantan in Malaysia which includes his wife and [children]. He was married in 1998 and he has been Australia since 2013. He has not seen his family since then.
10. The applicant was asked if he had completed his application for the visa himself and he said he had some help from a friend. He did not wish to add anything to his claims.
11. The applicant was asked if he had left Malaysia legally or if he experienced any problems in doing so. He confirmed that he left legally and had not experienced any problems in leaving the country. He said he did not know anyone in Australia but since his arrival in 2013 he has met some Cambodians. He confirmed he had previously travelled to [Country 1].
12. The applicant was asked why he left Malaysia and he said he had participated in the Bersih 3 rally and some people came looking for him and threatened to detain him. For his safety and for his family’s safety they moved to Kelantan from Kuala Lumpur. He left Malaysia because he wanted to escape from people who were looking for him. He had never been involved in politics in Malaysia and then he was asked to attend the rally by friends and did so. However, when he returned home the authorities had been looking for him. He has no evidence of this but they came looking for him out of the blue.
13. The applicant was asked which rally he had attended. He said he attended a rally in Kuala Lumpur in April 2012 and had been persuaded to attend by friends from his village. He only stayed for a couple of hours. While he was there he only sat down with others in his group of around 20 people. He did not experience any trouble while he was at the rally. After he returned home his wife told him someone from the authorities had come looking for him.
14. The applicant was asked if he had given any personal details to anyone at the rally. He said he had not and that no-one has asked for names or details. However, of the 20 people who were there with him he was the only Cambodian. The applicant said that the people looking for him came back another time and spoke to his wife and they told her that they wanted to see him at the police station. He does not know why they wanted to see him as he had not done anything wrong. Perhaps it was because he had gotten his citizenship in 2011 and perhaps they may want to revoke this. He also thinks that perhaps it was because he was Cambodian and was at the rally with Malaysians. When he learned that some-one was looking for him, he felt disheartened and felt could no longer live in Kuala Lumpur and he and his family moved to Kelantan.
15. The applicant was asked if he went to the police station as requested to find out what was going on. He said he did not report to the station because he was scared. He believes he was wanted because he had attended the Bersih rally.
16. The applicant was asked why he thought this was the case given there were many people at the rally. He confirmed that there were thousands of people at the rally he attended and he does not know if he was noticed. However he was the only Cambodian in the group. He said that other Cambodians in Malaysia have never participated in these rallies.
17. The Tribunal referred to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s (DFAT) Country Information Report Malaysia, dated 19 July 2016 which indicates essentially that the Malaysian constitution states that all citizens have the right to assemble and participate in demonstrations/rallies although sometimes permits are difficult to obtain for the organisers. The report also indicates that protesters face a low risk of arrest when engaged in political rallies and further indicates that when protesters were arrested they were released within a short time. DFAT assesses that harassment at the individual level was commonly tarted at activists with a public profile. This indicates to the Tribunal that the applicant had not broken any law in attending a public demonstration as this is a right under the Malaysian constitution.
18. The applicant said he is not sure about this information because in his case, people came around looking for him after the rally and this means he must have done something wrong and broken the law.
19. The Tribunal referred to the applicant's evidence that he had not experienced any problems in leaving Malaysia and he had done so legally. This could be interpreted as his not being wanted or being of interest to the authorities. The applicant confirmed he had experienced no trouble leaving Malaysia.
20. The applicant was asked if anyone had threatened to revoke or withdraw his citizenship. He said that prior to being granted the citizenship he had to sign an agreement to abide by the laws in Malaysia so that after the rally he assumed they were looking for him because of he had attended a political rally. The applicant told the Tribunal that the authorities are still looking for him and wife has been told it is because he had attended the rally in 2012. She told him that the last time some men had come to look for him was in August 2016. She told him they were plain clothes officers. He thinks these people may be secret police and they may be looking for him because of racial prejudice in Malaysia. Someone may have reported that he had attended the rally.
21. The Tribunal raised the delegate’s concern about the delay in making the application for the protection visa as he arrived in Australia in May 2013 and did not apply until September 2015. The applicant was asked why this was the case. He said he did not apply earlier because he did not know who to turn to as he wanted to escape the people who were looking for him in Malaysia. He did not tell anyone where he was going. He came to Australia on his own and knew no-one. In 2015 he met a fellow Malaysian and they told him he could apply for protection and he helped him to do so. He had not met any Malaysians until then.
22. The applicant was asked why he still fears returning to Malaysia given the amount of time that has elapsed. He said the authorities will still be looking for him and pleads to be given protection in Australia. He fears harm from the authorities and fears being detained because as a Malaysian citizen he has failed to obey the law. He wants either permanent or temporary protection.
23. The applicant was asked about his passport which shows that this was issued in [2012]. The applicant said he had applied for a passport because he intended to travel to [Country 1]. He was issued the passport before the Bersih rally was held.
24. The applicant was asked if he had considered relocating elsewhere in Malaysia apart from returning to Kelantan. He said he had not given this any thought. He took his family to Kelantan in order to avoid those looking for him and they are living in his wife’s village which has a school close by. His wife is not working and he sends money when he can.
25. The applicant confirmed that there are many Cambodians living in Malaysia.
26. At the second hearing, the applicant was asked to clarify why he waited so long to apply for a protection visa. He confirmed he arrived in May 2013 and after the visa ended he did not know what to do. He did not know about being able to make a claim for a protection visa. He did not think about returning to Malaysia because people were still looking for him. He just did not want to return. The applicant was asked what he intended to do about his family. He said he left it up to God and did not think about it. He sent money home and thought eventually he would apply to have them come to Australia.
27. The applicant was asked to clarify his previous international travel. He said he had travelled to [Country 1] about a month before he came to Australia. He said that it is not far to travel there.
28. The applicant was asked who he was referring to in his claims when he says he was beaten by the FPU when he was at the Bersih rally. The Tribunal also pointed out that he had previously stated that he did not experience any violence himself. The applicant said that the FPU is the body that controls rallies and riots and are paramilitary. He said he was threatened by spies not to get involved in the rally and this was after the rally. The applicant was asked how he knew they were spies. He said they met his wife and asked for his name but he has never seen them.
29. The Tribunal referred to evidence given at the previous hearing where the applicant essentially claimed that the secret police were looking for him because of his race. He was asked to clarify this claim. The applicant said that he has experienced racial prejudice before in Malaysia. He said he was granted his citizenship in 2011 and was warned at the time not to get involved in anything that was against the government and to only do what the government wants. He understood this to mean that he was to do nothing against the government of Malaysia. He said that if they catch him doing so he will be arrested.
30. The applicant was asked about any discrimination in the past relating to education, work or in his personal and social life. The applicant again said he was told when he was granted citizenship that he was required to obey the laws of the country. After he was granted citizenship he was then eligible to own property which was not the case before. The applicant was asked if he had ever been denied work for any reason, especially to do with his ethnicity. He said he had not.
31. The Tribunal referred to the applicant's evidence at the earlier hearing that he is seeking protection in Australia because he has failed to obey the law in Malaysia. He was asked to explain which law he had broken. He said that he had broken the law by attending the Bersih rally and because of that people were looking for him.
32. The applicant was asked if there was any violence at the rally. He said there had not been, that he could see. He was asked if he had come to the attention of the police while he was at the rally. He said he had not.
33. In relation to the applicant's participation in a political rally in 2012, the Tribunal referred to country information by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) which indicates that:

3.60 The [Malaysian] constitution states that all citizens have ‘the right to assemble peaceably and without arms’.^[1]

34. The Tribunal explained that it takes this to mean under the Malaysian constitution a Malaysian citizen is allowed to attend and participate in a rally or demonstration such as a Bersih rally and it would not be considered to be a breach of the law because it is allowed by the Malaysian constitution. The Tribunal also noted that although the DFAT report indicates that the Malaysian government closely administers political assemblies and rallies under the Peaceful Assembly Act and the Criminal Code and a permit is required for a rally or demonstration to take place, this does not mean it is against the law to attend a political rally. Organisers of such rallies or demonstrations have been arrested for organising or engaging in rallies in contradiction of this law for not having obtained the necessary permits. DFAT has assessed that protesters face a low risk of arrest when attending such rallies or demonstrations. If a person is arrested, they are commonly released on bail shortly after. DFAT also assesses that high profile organisers of such political rallies face a moderate risk of official discrimination and could be charged under the Peaceful Assembly Act or the Criminal Code and essentially ordinary citizens who are critical of the government have a moderate risk of official discrimination and may be subjected to legal harassment or surveillance by law enforcement authorities. DFAT reports that more often than not, when ordinary citizens are arrested their charges were dropped and they were released within short timeframes. Authorities tend to target activists with a public profile.^[2]
35. The Tribunal explained that this information does not indicate that attending a rally or demonstration is illegal and that as a person who merely attended and who is not an organiser of such a gathering, the applicant would not be of interest to the authorities. The Tribunal also explained to the applicant that in his case, he had not claimed he was involved in the organisation of the rally in 2012 or with any of the groups who combined to organise it. He also indicated that he attended the rally with 20 other people and did not experience any harm while there. He also claimed that when he returned home his wife informed him that some men had been looking for him and that they were doing so because he had participated in the rally. However the Tribunal does not consider that the country information indicates that the applicant had breached any Malaysian law for attending the Bersih rally. If people are looking for him it is unlikely that it would be for this reason.
36. The applicant was asked for his comments to this information. He said as a Cambodian who had been given Malaysian citizenship he should not have become involved in this movement.
37. The Tribunal referred to having conducted research into the issue of Malaysian citizenship and that the Tribunal has located information that there is provision for deprivation of citizenship under Article 25 of the Federal Constitution, but this only applies in certain circumstances to persons whose citizenship was acquired “by registration under Article 16A or 17 or by naturalisation”. Citizenship by naturalisation is provided for under Article 19 of the constitution. Article 25(2) sets out the circumstances under which a person who acquired citizenship by registration under Article 16A or 17 or by naturalisation and was ordinarily resident outside the federation for a continuous period of five years may be deprived of citizenship.
38. The Tribunal referred to Article 25 of the Malaysian constitution which indicates that the Malaysian government may deprive a person of their citizenship if they have demonstrated by an “act or speech” to be disloyal towards the Federation of Malaysia.
39. The Tribunal explained that this information is relevant because the applicant had told the Tribunal that he is a Cambodian national and arrived in Malaysia as a refugee and indicated that he had acquired Malaysian citizenship in December 2011 through a naturalisation process after having applied some years before. He has claimed that he is in danger of losing his Malaysian citizenship because he has broken the law because of your participation in the Bersih rally in 2012 and that is why the authorities are looking for him. The applicant was asked for his comment on this information.
40. The applicant told the Tribunal that he believes that because he had failed to obey the law by attending the Bersih demonstration he may be deprived of his citizenship.
41. The Tribunal referred to evidence given at the first hearing that the applicant has claimed that he may have been targeted by the authorities in Malaysia because he is a Cambodian national. The Tribunal also referred to his evidence where he also indicated that he is not easily distinguished as being Cambodian in everyday life and had not previously had any problems because of his nationality. He had stated that he believed because of his Cambodian nationality and having acquired Malaysian citizenship he has been targeted by the authorities for attending a political demonstration. The Tribunal referred to the DFAT report which indicates that the Malaysian constitution forbids discrimination against citizens on the basis of gender, religion and race but it has a special position for Malay Muslims permitting affirmative action favouring ethnic Malays known as bumiputera^[3].
42. In other evidence given previously, the Tribunal noted that the applicant had not indicated that he had suffered discrimination in any area of his life prior to leaving Malaysia for reasons of his Cambodian ethnicity and the Tribunal may not accept that this is the reason for his being targeted by the authorities
43. The applicant told the Tribunal that he believes he has jeopardised his Malaysian citizenship because he attended the rally and because he is a Cambodian national. He also reiterated that he had promised to obey the laws of Malaysia.

CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

44. The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s.36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
45. Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
46. A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themself of the protection of that country: s.5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s.5H(1)(b).
47. Under s.5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss.5J(2)-(6) and ss.5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
48. If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss.36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.

Mandatory considerations

49. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of policy guidelines prepared by the Department of Immigration – PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Refugee Law Guidelines – and relevant country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

50. The issue in this case is whether the applicant meets the criteria for a protection visa. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
51. The Tribunal recognises and acknowledges the importance of adopting a reasonable approach when making findings of credibility.^[4] However, the mere fact that a person claims fear of persecution for a particular reason does not establish either the genuineness of the asserted fear, or that it is “well-founded”, or that it is for the reason claimed. Rather it remains for the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that all of the statutory elements are made out.
52. Although the concept of onus of proof is not appropriate in administrative enquiries and decision-making, the relevant facts of an individual case will have to be supplied by the applicant himself or herself, in as much detail as necessary to enable the examiner to establish the relevant facts. A decision-maker is not required to accept uncritically any and all of the allegations made by an applicant.^[5]

Country of reference

53. The applicant claims to be a citizen of Malaysia and provided certified copies of his passport and identity documents to the Department with his application. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is a citizen of Malaysia and that Malaysia is the applicant’s receiving country for the purposes of the refugee and complementary protection assessment.
54. There is no available evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the applicant has a current right to enter and reside in any safe third country for the purposes of s.36(3) of the Act.

Assessment of the evidence and findings

55. The applicant has claimed to have attended a Bersih rally in April 2012 in Kuala Lumpur. He was persuaded to attend by some friends and he did so. His reason for attending the rally was because he was concerned about government corruption and a decline in the economy. The applicant was questioned about the Bersih movement and demonstrated a relatively cursory understanding of its aims and goals. The applicant agreed he was not involved in organising or taking a leadership role in the rally but attended as a concerned member of the public and had not experienced any problems such as violence or arrest at the rally. While the Tribunal had some concerns about aspects of the applicant's evidence, it is willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he attended the rally as did thousands of others for similar reasons to his; to express dissatisfaction with the current government’s policies and corruption in government.
56. Country information as discussed earlier was put to the applicant and in particular the assessment by DFAT that those who participated in the Bersih rallies face a low risk of arrest when engaged in political rallies and that the authorities were more interested in high profile organisers and individuals which the applicant agreed he was not^[6].
57. The Tribunal accepts and finds that the applicant is not an organiser or a leader of any protest group, or political group or any other group. He attended one protest in April 2012 but was not arrested. When he left Malaysia in 2013 he did not experience any problems in trying to depart the country. This indicates to the Tribunal that the authorities were not monitoring his movements and he was allowed to depart Malaysia legally.
58. The applicant has claimed that after his attendance at the rally some men came looking for him and told his wife he had to report to the police station. The applicant has claimed he did not do so out of fear and he and his family quickly left Kuala Lumpur and relocated to Kelantan. The Tribunal was very concerned about the applicant's claim that the people who were looking for him were some kind of government officials. The Tribunal questioned the applicant as to what credentials or identification if any had been shown to his wife but did not get a clear answer other than to say they were officials of some sort or spies who are after him. The applicant's evidence was essentially that instead of clarifying what these men wanted or even confirming if they were indeed some kind of government officials, the applicant and his wife immediately left their home and work in Kuala Lumpur, with their children and relocated. When the Tribunal expressed some concern at this reaction, the applicant said he was scared and did not wait to find out what they wanted. The Tribunal does not accept this evidence and finds it implausible that the applicant and his family immediately left Kuala Lumpur on the basis of such claims. The Tribunal does not accept that any authority wanted the applicant for attending a Bersih rally. The Tribunal makes this finding on the basis that as one of many thousands of people who attended the demonstrations in 2012 and in the absence of the applicant having been involved in any violence or arrest, there is no reason why he would be of interest to the authorities. The applicant on his own evidence is not a person with an anti-government profile or any political activism and he would not be of interest to the authorities for such a reason. The country information confirms that a person such as the applicant with no previous history of political activism or anti-government activity or having been a member of any political or non-government organisation would be of interest to the authorities. If indeed the authorities were looking to question him for some reason, it was not for his participation in the Bersih demonstration.
59. The applicant maintains that the authorities have continued to look for him and the last time enquiries were made was in 2016. As noted, the applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal is that he has never ascertained the reason why anyone was looking for him and has assumed that it was because of his attendance at the rally in April 2012. He also maintains that his Malaysian citizenship is at risk because of his attendance at the Bersih rally and this is because it was against the law. The Tribunal referred to country information regarding the right of assembly in Malaysia and that there was no reference to breaking any law by attending a public demonstration such as the Bersih rally. The applicant insisted that this was likely to be the case. The Tribunal also referred to information regarding citizenship in Malaysia which is contained in the Malaysian constitution that while there is provision of deprivation of citizenship under Article 25 it only applies in certain circumstances. Article 25 states that the Federal government may by order deprive a person of his citizenship if, among other things that person has shown himself by act or speech to be disloyal or disaffected towards the Federation. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has done so by attending a political rally as this is the right of all Malaysian citizens to do so. Therefore the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant's citizenship can be cancelled for this reason. The Tribunal therefore considers that the applicant’s fear of harm and to fear that his Malaysian citizenship can be revoked because of his participation in this rally is not supported by his own evidence and the country information.
60. The Tribunal finds that the applicant does not have a real chance of serious harm arising from his involvement in a protest in April 2012 and in expressing his political opinion, on return to Malaysia and in the foreseeable future. The Tribunal finds that the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution for this reason.
61. The Tribunal has considered the prospect of the applicant returning to Malaysia and becoming involved in a protest in the future. The Tribunal notes that the applicant involved himself in one rally on one occasion, and has not expressed his political opinion subsequently.
62. The Tribunal considers that the applicant can involve himself in political rallies opposing the present government, seeking free and fair elections and stopping corruption if he chooses to do so. The Tribunal considers that this, alongside the DFAT advice, demonstrates that the authorities have no issue with alternative political views being presented, and low level activists and those such as the applicant who attended one rally in 2012, do not face harm for having or pursuing their political opinions. The Tribunal considers that the country information demonstrates that the applicant will be able to express his political opinion freely on return to Malaysia and in the reasonably foreseeable future.
63. The Tribunal finds that the applicant does not have a real chance of serious harm arising out of his political opinion on return to Malaysia now or in the foreseeable future. The Tribunal also finds that the applicant’s citizenship will not be revoked for this reason, now or in the foreseeable future. The Tribunal finds that the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution for this reason.
64. The applicant’s evidence is that he attended the Bersih rally in April 2012 and he left Malaysia in 2013. The applicant was not sought for any reason after he had relocated and in the Tribunal’s opinion, if he had been wanted for questioning by the authorities for any reason, he would have been located. The applicant was asked if he had any problems or issues in trying to depart from Malaysia, he replied that he had not. The applicant’s evidence was that he was not ever approached by the authorities from the time after the rally to the time he left Malaysia.
65. The Tribunal considers overall from the applicant’s evidence that he left Malaysia for reasons other than his attendance at the Bersih rally in 2012. He has remained in Australia unlawfully and has made no effort to ascertain why anyone should want to question him. He has been working in Australia and supporting his family in Malaysia. The Tribunal accepts that this is the most likely motivating factor for his coming to Australia. The Tribunal finds the applicant will be able to obtain an income from employment on return to Malaysia, and, having regard to both his work experience as well as his capacity to work, the Tribunal does not accept that any financial hardship that the applicant may encounter will amount to serious harm or significant harm.
66. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion or that if he were to return to Malaysia that there is a real chance that he would be persecuted for one or more of these reasons (s.5J(1)). Further, on the evidence before it, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant will experience severe financial hardship that threatens his capacity to subsist or be denied the capacity to earn a livelihood, where the denial threatens his capacity to subsist or that he will be denied access to basic services, where the denial threatens his capacity to subsist or that he will be subject to any other form of serious harm non-exhaustively listed under s.5J(5) of the Act.
67. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a).

Complementary protection

68. Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa). The Tribunal has considered whether it is satisfied there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to a receiving country, in this case, Malaysia, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.
69. The Tribunal has considered whether the applicant will face significant harm in Malaysia because of his political opinion, thus resulting in the cancellation of his Malaysian citizenship. For the reasons outlined earlier the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s participation in a Bersih rally would lead to his being threatened or harmed or for having his Malaysian citizenship cancelled. The Tribunal does not consider this type of participation would amount to significant harm as defined in s.36(2A) or that there is a real risk he would suffer significant harm on this basis if removed from Australia to Malaysia. Having regard to the claims advanced and the evidence before the Tribunal, including country information referred to above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being returned to Malaysia, the applicant will face a real risk of significant harm arising from his political opinion.
70. The Tribunal is not satisfied that he has, in the past, or that there is a real risk that he would, in the future, be subjected to the arbitrary deprivation of life; the death penalty; torture; or cruel or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, as set out in s.36(2A) of the Act. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.
71. Having considered the applicant’s claims singularly and cumulatively, the Tribunal is not satisfied there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Malaysia, there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm.
72. There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2).

DECISION

73. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Sophia Panagiotidis
Member

ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 1958

5 (1) Interpretation

...

cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:

(a) severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or

(b) pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;

but does not include an act or omission:

(c) that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or

(d) arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
...
degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:

(a) that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or

(b) that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
...
torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:

(a) for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or

(b) for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or

(c) for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or

(d) for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or

(e) for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;

but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
...
receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:

(a) a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or

(b) if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
...

5J Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution

(1) For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:

(a) the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and

(b) there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and

(c) the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.

Note: For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.

(2) A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.

Note: For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.

(3) A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:

(a) conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or

(b) conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or

(c) without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:

(i) alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in them practice of his or her faith;

(ii) conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;

(iii) alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;

(iv) conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;

(v) enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;

(vi) alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.

(4) If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):

(a) that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and

(b) the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and

(c) the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.

(5) Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:

(a) a threat to the person’s life or liberty;

(b) significant physical harassment of the person;

(c) significant physical illtreatment of the person;

(d) significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;

(e) denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;

(f) denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.

(6) In determining whether the person has a wellfounded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.

5K Membership of a particular social group consisting of family

For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a wellfounded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:

(a) disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and

(b) disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:

(i) the first person has ever experienced; or

(ii) any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;

where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.

Note: Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.

5L Membership of a particular social group other than family

For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:

(a) a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and

(b) the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and

(c) any of the following apply:

(i) the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;

(ii) the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;

(iii) the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and

(d) the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.

5LA Effective protection measures

(1) For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:

(a) protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:

(i) the relevant State; or

(ii) a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and

(b) the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.

(2) A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:

(a) the person can access the protection; and

(b) the protection is durable; and

(c) in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.

..

36 Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act

...

(2A) A noncitizen will suffer significant harm if:

(a) the noncitizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or

(b) the death penalty will be carried out on the noncitizen; or

(c) the noncitizen will be subjected to torture; or

(d) the noncitizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or

(e) the noncitizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.

(2B) However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a noncitizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:

(a) it would be reasonable for the noncitizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the noncitizen will suffer significant harm; or

(b) the noncitizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the noncitizen will suffer significant harm; or

(c) the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the noncitizen personally.

...

ATTACHMENT – Country information:

Political opinion

According to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT)’s 2016 country information report on Malaysia in relation to political opinion, participation in public demonstrations/assemblies and the Bersih movement:

3.60 The constitution states that all citizens have ‘the right to assemble peaceably and without arms’, however, in practice the government closely administers political assemblies and rallies under the Peaceful Assembly Act (PAA) and the Criminal Code. Permits can be difficult to obtain and can be restrictive in their application. The PAA requires organisers to submit notice of a rally to authorities ten days in advance.

3.61 Individuals have been arrested for organising or engaging in rallies in contradiction with the law and the Royal Malaysian Police have on occasion used excessive force to control crowds. Bersih, a coalition of 62 NGOs, organised a series of rallies calling for improved government transparency free and fair elections in 2007 (Bersih 1), 2011 (Bersih 2), 2012 (Bersih 3) and 2015 (Bersih 4). The rallies attracted thousands of protesters and were supported by opposition parties.

3.62 The Bersih 4 rallies on 29 to 30 August 2015 saw approximately 100,000 people, mostly opposition parties and their supporters, civil society activists and Chinese Malaysians, take to the streets in Kuala Lumpur to call for the resignation of Prime Minister Najib in light of 1MDB corruption claims. The protest was peaceful and no violence was reported, despite the government declaring the protest illegal and banning the yellow t-shirts with ‘Bersih’ print that were worn by the protestors. Smaller rallies were also held in Melacca, Penang, Kuching, Kota Kinabalu with a small number of arrests. This was an improvement on the July 2011 Bersih 2 protest where the police used tear gas and water cannons to break up the protest and made approximately 1,500 arrests.

3.63 In response to Bersih 4. UMNO-linked NGOs, known as the ‘red shirts’, held a government approved rally in Kuala Lumpur on 16 September 2015. The protest messages were pro-Najib, pro-Malay and slogans and banners were ethnically charged. There were a few arrests and police used water cannons to disperse the crowd when it attempted to enter the Chinatown district.

3.64 In May 2013, the opposition PKR organised nationwide demonstrations known as the ‘Black 505’ rallies, disputing the results of the May 2013 general elections. The rallies attracted thousands of people and took place with little interference from authorities. However, police subsequently arrested and charged a number of alleged organisers under the PAA for failing to provide the required ten days’ notice for public assemblies. Reports on the number of organisers arrested range from between six to forty individuals.

3.65 DFAT assesses that protesters face a low risk of arrest when engaged in political rallies. Such individuals have commonly been released on bail shortly following their arrest. High-profile organisers of political rallies face a moderate risk of official discrimination and could be charged under the Peaceful Assembly Act or the Criminal Code...

3.68 DFAT assesses that civil society members critical of the government have a moderate risk of official discrimination and may be subjected to legal harassment or surveillance by law enforcement authorities. More often than not, when civil society members were arrested, their charges were dropped and individuals were released within short timeframes. Harassment at the individual level was commonly targeted at activists with a public profile, but not necessarily at the highest level of an organisation. ^[7]

Malaysian citizenship

Sources indicate that Malaysian permanent residents (PRs) can become citizens of Malaysia if they satisfy the criteria or requirements for “citizenship by naturalisation”. No information was found to suggest that PRs are barred from becoming citizens, and some of the qualification requirements for citizenship by naturalisation appear to favour permanent residents. Malaysia does not permit dual citizenship.^[8]

The website of the Malaysian Registration Office in the Ministry of Home Affairs provides information on the qualification requirements for citizenship by naturalisation, as follows:

CITIZENSHIP APPLICATION UNDER ARTICLES 19(1) AND 19(2) – AGED 21 YEARS OR MORE

To obtain certification as a citizen of Malaysia by naturalisation

CONDITIONS OF APPLICATION

• The applicant is required to appear before the Registrar of Citizenship when submitting the application.
• The applicant should be 21 years old or above on the date of application.
• The applicant has resided in the Federation for aggregate period of not less than 10 years in 12 years including the 12 months immediately preceding the date of application.
• The applicant intends to reside in the Federation permanently.
• The applicant is of good character.
• The applicant has an adequate knowledge of the Malay Language.
• The applicant should be sponsored by two sponsors with citizenship status.^[9]

Some of these requirements appear to favour PRs – such as the fairly long period of residence in Malaysia and the intention to reside in Malaysia permanently. A “guide to Malaysian citizenship” produced by an online legal resource Lawyerment.com.my goes so far as to suggest that an applicant for citizenship by naturalisation must be a PR, stating:

The period of residence in Malaysia which is required for the grant of a certificate of naturalization is period which amount in aggregate to not less than 10 years in the 12 years immediately preceding the date of the application for the certificate, and which include the 12 months immediately preceding the date.

That means you have to become a permanent resident for more than 12 years and have been in Malaysia for more than 10 years.^[10]

A further issue is that Malaysia does not recognize dual citizenship, so the applicant would be required to relinquish his status as an Indonesian national in order to become a Malaysian citizen.^[11]

Malaysia’s Federal Constitution (1957) contains legislation relevant to the acquisition of Malay citizenship.^[12]

Part III (Chapter 1) of the Constitution outlines legislation relevant to the ‘acquisition of citizenship’. Three modes of acquiring citizenship are envisaged: ‘by operation of law’ (Article 14), by ‘registration’ (Article 15) and by ‘naturalization’ (Article 19). As so far as is relevant to this case, Article 19 which deals with naturalization states:

Article 19

Citizenship by naturalization

19. (1) Subject to Clause (9), the Federal Government may, upon application made by any person of or over the age of twenty-one years who is not a citizen, grant a certificate of naturalization to that person if satisfied—

(a) that—

(i) he has resided in the Federation for the required periods and intends, if the certificate is granted, to do so permanently;

(ii) (Repealed);

(b) that he is of good character; and

(c) that he has an adequate knowledge of the Malay language.^[13]

According to United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Malaysia’s nationality laws can be applied inconsistently resulting in deprivation of nationality rights, with a number of ‘gaps’ remaining in Malaysia’s nationality laws.^[14] Further in the same report it indicates that the Malaysian constitution prevents deprivation of citizenship, if it will result in statelessness and provides for citizenship to be acquired by naturalisation.^[15]

There is provision for deprivation of citizenship under Article 25 of the Federal Constitution, but this only applies in certain circumstances to persons whose citizenship was acquired “by registration under Article 16A or 17 or by naturalisation”. Citizenship by naturalisation is provided for under Article 19 of the constitution. Article 25(2) sets out the circumstances under which a person who acquired citizenship by registration under Article 16A or 17 or by naturalisation and was ordinarily resident outside the federation for a continuous period of five years may be deprived of citizenship.

Article 25 provides in full:

Article 25. Deprivation of citizenship by registration under Article 16A or 17 or by naturalization

(1) The Federal Government may by order deprive of his citizenship any person who is a citizen by registration under Article 16A or 17 or a citizen by naturalisation if satisfied-

(a) that he has shown himself by act or speech to be disloyal or disaffected towards the Federation; (emphasis added)

(b) that he has, during any war in which the Federation is or was engaged, unlawfully traded or communicated with an enemy or been engaged in or associated with any business which to his knowledge was carried on in such manner as to assist an enemy in that war; or

(c) that he has, within the period of five years beginning with the date of the registration or the grant of the certificate, been sentenced in any country to imprisonment for a term of not less than twelve months or to a fine of not less than five thousand ringgit or the equivalent in the currency of that country, and has not received a free pardon in respect of the offence for which he was so sentenced.

(1A) The Federal Government may by order deprive of his citizenship any person who is a citizen by registration under Article 16A or 17 or a citizen by naturalization if satisfied that without the Federal Government's approval, he has accepted, served in, or performed the duties of any office, post or employement [sic] under the Government of any country outside the Federation or any political subdivision thereof, or under any agency of such a Government, in any case where an oath, affirmation or declaration of allegiance is required in respect of the office, post or employment:

Provided that a person shall not be deprived of citizenship under this Clause by reason of anything done before the beginning of October 1962, in relation to a foreign country, and before the beginning of January 1977, in relation to a Commonwealth country, notwithstanding that he was at the time a citizen.

(2) The Federal Government may by order deprive of his citizenship any person who in a citizen by registration under Article 16A or 17 or a citizen by naturalisation if satisfied that he has been ordinarily resident in countries outside the Federation for a continuous period of five years and during that period has neither-

(a) been at any time in the service of the Federation or of an international organisation of which the Federal Government was a member; nor

(b) registered annually at a consulate of the Federation his intention to retain his citizenship:

Provided that this Clause shall not apply to any period of residence in any Commonwealth country before the beginning of January 1977.

(3) (Repealed).^[16]

---

^[1] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Country Information Report Malaysia, 19 July 2016
^[2] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Country Information Report Malaysia, 19 July 2016
^[3] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Country Information Report, Malaysia, 19 July 2016
^[4] Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and McIllhatton v Guo Wei Rong and Pan Run Juan (1996) 40 ALD 445 Full Federal Court, Foster J at [482]
^[5] MIEA v Guo & Anor (1997) 191 CLR 559 at [596], Nagalingam v MILGEA [1992] FCA 470; (1992) 38 FCR 191, Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155 at [169] – [170]
^[6] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Country Information Report – Malaysia, 19 July 2016
^[7] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Country Information Report Malaysia, 19 July 2016
^[8] For more information relating to Malaysian citizenship see Guide to CITIZENSHIP (Malaysia)
Source: Lawyerment.com.my (Malaysia Online Legal Resources) http://www.lawyerment.com.my/library/doc/imgr/lctz/
^[9] National Registration Department, Malaysian Ministry of Home Affairs 2011, “Citizenship Application under Articles 19(1) and 19(2) – Aged 21 Years or More”, website of the National Registration Department, http://www.jpn.gov.my/en/21%20Years%20or%20More – Accessed 15 February 2011
^[10] Lawyerment.com.my n.d. “Guide to Citizenship – Malaysia”, www.pinoy-abroad.net/.../Guide_to_CITIZENSHIP__Malaysia_.pdf – Accessed 28 February 2011
^[11] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2011, “Malaysia: Travel Advice”, 2 February, http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/zw-cgi/view/Advice/Malaysia – Accessed 18 February 2011
^[12] Federal Constitution 1957 (Malaysia) Ch.3, 31 August 1957, UNMIS http://unmis.unmissions.org/Portals/UNMIS/Constitution-making%20Symposium/Federal%20Constitution%20of%20Malaysia.pdf Accessed 21 November 2016 CIS21011
^[13] Federal Constitution 1957 (Malaysia) Ch.3, 31 August 1957, UNMIS http://unmis.unmissions.org/Portals/UNMIS/Constitution-making%20Symposium/Federal%20Constitution%20of%20Malaysia.pdf Accessed 21 November 2016 CIS21011
^[14] United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) 2013, Submission by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, For the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights' Compilation Report - Universal Periodic Review: Malaysia, 1 March, pp. 2&7 http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/513d9a0e2.pdf Accessed 21 July 2015, CIS25146
^[15] United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) 2013, Submission by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, For the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights' Compilation Report - Universal Periodic Review: Malaysia, 1 March, pp. 2&7 http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/513d9a0e2.pdf Accessed 21 July 2015, CIS25146
^[16] Federal Constitution (Malaysia) 1957, UNHCR Refworld http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b5e40.html Accessed 7 May 2013