Requesting the Malaysian subsidiary of Asahi Kosei Japan Co Ltd to kindly withdraw the lawsuit against Myanmar workers’ rights defender

We hereby request the Malaysian subsidiary of Asahi Kosei Japan Co Ltd to kindly withdraw the lawsuit against Myanmar workers’ rights defender.

Please read the full news in Malaysiakini, “Lawsuit against rights defender stills public debate” by Human Rights Watch, Jun 23, 11

A defamation lawsuit against a human rights defender who blogged against violations of migrant worker rights threatens to chill debate on matters of public interest in Malaysia.

In a case currently before the Malaysian courts, the Malaysian subsidiary of Asahi Kosei Japan Co Ltd brought a defamation suit for 10 million ringgit (US$3.3 million) against Malaysian activist Charles Hector for his blog posts on Feb 8 and 9, 2011, criticising the treatment of Burmese migrant workers at the company’s facility.

Hector’s blog posts were based on information gathered by interviewing 31 Burmese migrant workers.

Two days before posting the information online, he emailed his allegations to the company seeking a response but received no reply.

The company claims Hector’s emails went to an account that was rarely used. Asahi Kosei filed a lawsuit six days later.

The company’s claims do not appear to contest the information about rights abuses in the blogs but rather assert that Hector mischaracterised the work relationship of the migrant workers who were not the company’s
responsibility because they were supplied by an outside firm and not placed on the company’s direct payroll.

“The astronomical sums being demanded by Asahi Kosei threaten both to bankrupt the defendant and to intimidate labor and human rights defenders all over Malaysia,” said Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director at Human
Rights Watch.

“A company’s right to protect its reputation should not become a way to cut off important discussions of matters of public concern.”

On February 17, Asahi Kosei obtained an injunction that prevents Hector from blogging about the company’s treatment of migrant workers until the end of the trial, which could take many years.

The trial is expected to begin on June 28.

On March 11, the Malaysian Bar issued a statement supporting Hector. Citing the Whistle Blowers Protection Act 2010, the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999, and other laws, the bar stated that, “it is felt that it is best that the company does not continue to go after the ‘whistle blower’ but rather to commence the necessary
investigations and do the needful to ensure that all rights of workers that work in the company are not violated, and justice is upheld.”

Migrant worker rights have long been a concern in Malaysia. Migrant workers frequently receive low wages, suffer from dirty and dangerous working conditions, and are prohibited from changing employers.

Employers frequently seize migrant workers’ passports, limiting their freedom of movement. Many migrant workers pay exorbitant
recruitment fees to labor brokers in their home country and in Malaysia, making them effectively debt-bonded until they can pay back the fees.

Ministry of Home Affairs regulations prohibit migrant workers from forming associations and unions. And a migrant worker who becomes
undocumented faces arrest as an “illegal migrant” – male migrants found to be illegal are subject to caning, which is a form of torture.

For over a decade, the UN special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression has noted that civil defamation laws, like criminal defamation laws, can improperly restrict freedom of expression.

Abid Hussain, the special rapporteur in 2000, outlined a list of minimum requirements that civil defamation laws need to satisfy to respect
the right to freedom of expression. Several pertain to lawsuits brought by
private parties as well as by government officials, including:

  • Sanctions for defamation should not be so large as to exert a chilling
    effect on freedom of opinion and expression and the right to seek, receive, and
    impart information. Damage awards should be strictly proportionate to the actual
    harm caused.
  • Defamation laws should reflect the importance of open debate about matters
    of public interest.
  • Where publications relate to matters of public interest, it is excessive to
    require truth in order to avoid liability for defamation; instead, it should be
    sufficient if the author has made reasonable efforts to ascertain the
    truth.

“Malaysia has an extremely poor reputation on freedom of expression,” Robertson said. “Improving the right to a free airing of views on
human rights issues won’t be achieved by ‘privatising’ excessive restrictions on speech.”

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , ,

3 Responses to “Requesting the Malaysian subsidiary of Asahi Kosei Japan Co Ltd to kindly withdraw the lawsuit against Myanmar workers’ rights defender”

  1. drkokogyi Says:

    The “Yamashita standard” is based upon the precedent set by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Japanese General Tomoyuki Yamashita. He was prosecuted in 1945, in a still controversial trial, for atrocities committed by troops under his command in the Philippines. Yamashita was charged with “unlawfully disregarding and failing to discharge his duty as a commander to control the acts of members of his command by permitting them to commit war crimes.”
    Ref: Wikipedia @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_responsibility

    Human Rights organizations around the world should start a campaign to force the Asahi Kosei Japan Co Ltd to take Human Rights / Workers’ Rights responsibility. We could make the Asahi Kosei responsible for the COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY for workers’ Rights. Could make the new Standard for Human Rights / Workers’ Rights and name Asahi Kosei Standard.

    After all, the guilty, “Outsourcing company” is IN THEIR PAYROLL. So if that “Outsourcing Company” failed to pay salaries or if they failed to register with the Immigration, PAREND COMPANY, Asahi Kosei Japan Co Ltd should be made responsible, at least morally or in Human Rights Standard.

  2. kyawkyawoo Says:

    According to the news “Before posting about the workers’ complaints on his blog, Mr. Hector sent an email to Asahi Kosei (M) Sdn. Bhd. for clarification and verification. The email explicitly requested that “if there is anything that you would like to correct, kindly revert to me immediately. An urgent response would be appreciated. Failing to hear from you, I would take it that the allegations of the workers are true”. The company did not respond and Mr. Hector went ahead and posted the complaints of the Burmese migrant workers on his blog, advocating for the protection of the 31 workers in general and those workers who were facing immediate deportation in particular.

  3. drkokogyi Says:

    He was an activist Blogger helping Myanmar workers. I hope the Learnt Judge would not entertain those kind of abuse of court process by the RICH Foreign companies. As their EMPLOYEE, Outsourcing agent had committed an offence on others or workers inside their factory, they should act like typical Honourable Japanese and just withdraw the case on Hector, Human Right activist.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: