The courts and bureaucratic bodies such as the police must adopt a more liberal interpretation of laws in areas which are fundamental to ensuring democratic rights, a law professor said yesterday.

"(An) interpretation that is closer and friendlier to democracy must be adopted. At the moment, one too often hears allegations that these agencies have always implemented the provisions in a manner that is favourable to the ruling coalition," said International Islamic University lecturer Dr Abdul Aziz Bari at a workshop on human rights reporting organised by human rights commission Suhakam.

Some of these rights, he said, are the rights to freedom of speech, assembly and association which have often been claimed by the government as unsuitable for developing countries such as Malaysia.

"It is to be noted that over the years, various amendments to laws such as the Police Act 1967 and the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 have been passed, all of which have had the impact of limiting or taking away basic rights in a democracy.

"In some countries, these are rights beyond the reach of the legislature as they are considered as basic and fundamental to a working and functioning democracy," he said.

Abdul Aziz was delivering his paper which sought to explore areas of conflict between the Federal Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

Conflicting legal instruments

Tracing back the origins of the two documents, Abdul Aziz said the main difference lies in the fact that while the UDHR may have attained the status of customary international law, the Federal Constitution still allows for exceptions to be made to these rules.

Although the UDHR was not intended to be a legally binding document, the law professor said its provisions have become effectively binding over the period of time since it was first adopted in 1948 by the United Nations General Assembly.

In contrast, he said the Federal Constitution makes it clear that none of the rights considered "fundamental liberties" are absolute in Malaysia as they are subject to certain limitations imposed by the constitution itself and interpretation by the courts.

Aside from the area of civil rights, Abdul Aziz identified several other areas of conflict between the two legal instruments, namely on citizen equality, religious freedom and the right to property.

"Apart from inequality among the sexes, one could still point out the problems in other areas such as (equality) between the Malays and non-Malays (as well as between) the Rulers and the populace," he said.

"Then there are problems pertaining to the scope of religious freedom. Although religions other than Islam are allowed to be practised freely, they are not entitled to any state assistance. There are also problems in the area of apostasy," he said.

Abdul Aziz said these contradictions are harder to resolve as they are rooted in historical, religious and cultural factors.

"These matters form the major parts of the compromise during the constitutional negotiations in 1956 to 1957. Some of these provisions can only be amended with the consent of the Conference of Rulers," he said.

Nevertheless, he said there are still ways to reconcile the two and that is through a "more humane and fair implementation" of the laws.

He said the media should continue to highlight instances where authorities have implemented the laws in a "high-handed manner".

"The bureaucrats (do) things like this because the people do not understand the law. It is only with education that we can arrive at (convergence) of rights (to those listed under the UDHR)."

Test of 'reason'

Meanwhile, Suhakam commissioner KC Vohrah, who moderated the session, said although the Federal Constitution remains open to judicial interpretations, the courts have leaned towards adopting principles of natural justice and human rights principles.

"If you look at issues in the administration of law, lots of principles (of natural justice) have been enunciated and reiterated. One of these principles is that the action of the executive must be reasonable when dealing with cases where government actions are being challenged," he said.

The retired judge said although criminal law in Malaysia is almost universal in its application, an unresolved area remains the overlapping jurisdiction of civil law and syariah law.

"We must look at the specific areas to decide. The jury is still hung on this matter," he added.

The two-day Suhakam workshop, which started yesterday, is aimed at reviewing the role and responsibilities of journalists in educating the public on human rights issues.

Among other speakers at the workshop were UN Development Programme Resident Representative Richard Leete, International Committee of the Red Cross Regional Communications Coordinator Francoise Zambellini and Suhakam commissioner Zainah Anwar.