On 21 April, government authorities, including the Village Development and Security Committee (JPKK) of Kesidang in the Malaysian state of Malacca, decided that foreign nationals – particularly the Rohingya community – are now prohibited from organising activities in open areas ‘to avoid disputes or disturbing local residents’. This is the latest incident in a pattern of discriminatory rhetoric targeting refugees and foreign nationals.
The Kesidang state assemblyman, Allex Seah, said the decision stemmed from previous incidents that had caused ‘discomfort and disrupted harmony’ among local residents. Soon after, another state assemblyman, Yew Jia Haur, who represents Teratai constituency in the state of Selangor, urged the government to ‘take proactive steps’ to address the Rohingya population in the township of Pandan Perdana, which he described as a serious public safety crisis, invoking negative stereotypes about their impact on cleanliness, safety, and disturbance to residents. He also raised concerns that the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) identification card is being used as a ‘shield’ to justify the alleged violation of local laws.
These comments reflect the troubling and continued pattern of internalised bias, ignorance and discriminatory rhetoric, driven by the perception among some public figures and politicians that Rohingya refugees and asylum seekers pose a threat to public order and security. Speech and measures targeting a particular group risk deepening stigma and social exclusion, undermining their fundamental rights, and could have profound implications. Public officials have a key role in recognising and promptly speaking out against intolerance and discrimination, particularly ‘hate speech’ directed at already marginalised communities. It is essential to avoid perpetuating the familiar ‘us vs. them‘ narrative.
This is not the first time ARTICLE 19 has written about the ongoing discrimination against the Rohingya refugee community in Malaysia. Without protection or a call to end this discrimination, we fear it will persist. Rohingya refugees have been denied recognition, protection, and human rights both at home and abroad. Many Malaysians, including members of the public and authorities, collectively target and spread hatred against them. We have highlighted the issues Rohingya refugees repeatedly, and we will continue to do so.
So what is the new issue? Why highlight it now?
‘Hate speech’ against refugees in Malaysia and the potential harm
In Malaysia, those in power have often fueled hostility or failed to adequately respond to threats made against Rohingya refugee communities. For example, following the escape of 528 detainees from the Sungai Bakap Immigration Detention Depot in 2022, discriminatory comments by then Home Minister Hamzah Zainudin, who called for refugees to leave Malaysia ‘if they wanted freedom’ likely contributed to the wave of hate speech subsequently circulated on social media.
In 2020, during the Covid-19 pandemic, there was a surge of threats of violence and ‘hate speech’ towards the Rohingya community under the misconception that they were demanding citizenship or other legal rights in Malaysia. Instead of a firm and consistent stance, the government response was mixed, and human rights defenders who were vocal on the issue were targeted with vicious gender-based attacks, while petitions were launched online calling for Rohingyas to be returned to Myanmar.
In Malaysia, Rohingya refugees’ lives are extremely vulnerable: they are at heightened risk of arrest, prosecution, detention, and deportation. This limits their ability to access lawful work, health, and education opportunities, and exposes them to exploitation and other human rights violations, as well as making them susceptible to ‘hate speech’.
As such, when public officials or politicians reinforce negative stereotypes that dehumanise the already marginalised community, they impose additional constraints, and this legitimises the long-standing discrimination against one of the most vulnerable populations in Malaysia. This behaviour increases the existing risks of harassment, and further excludes them and restricts their fundamental rights. It also weakens what limited protection they have – including safeguards enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), such as the rights to equality, non-discrimination, life, and security of the person. Instead of fueling hatred in society, politicians should use their influence and position to uphold humanity and acceptance of diversity.
‘Hate speech’ under international human rights standards
There is no uniform definition of ‘hate speech’ under international human rights law. The term is often used to describe language that, while it may be offensive or inflammatory, is actually protected by international standards relating to freedom of expression. For this reason, the incorporation of ‘hate speech’ provisions into criminal law frameworks is often likely to result in the restriction of speech to a degree not permitted by international human rights law.
Under Article 19(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), restrictions on the right to freedom of expression are permitted only if they are: (a) provided by law, (b) in pursuit of a legitimate aim, including protecting the rights of others, and (c) necessary and proportionate to that aim. Additionally, ICCPR Article 20(2) requires that governments restrict speech that incites discrimination, hostility, violence, or international crimes. These standards establish a high threshold for circumscribing speech, but also an obligation to prohibit speech that leads to incitement.
Measures to address ‘hate speech’ and intolerance
There is a growing body of standards and recommendations to guide government efforts to counter intolerance and ‘hate speech’. The Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18 sets out an action plan for states to address intolerance, stigmatisation, discrimination and incitement to violence. The Rabat Plan of Action also suggests actions that states may take to address intolerance beyond merely penalising incitement. These standard-setting documents recommend a range of policy measures, including education and awareness-raising, protecting media freedom and diversity, passing equality legislation, promoting community engagement on the causes of discrimination, building networks and mechanisms to respond to tension between communities, and training government officials on effective strategies to promote tolerance.
As Malaysia aspires to return to the UN Human Rights Council for the 2030-2032 term, it is ever more crucial that the government takes meaningful steps to proactively counter ‘hate speech’ in line with international standards and create an enabling environment for the right to freedom of expression and equality in Malaysia. This includes condemning ‘hate speech’ directed at the Rohingya community, reversing decisions that restrict their fundamental rights, and where such threats or actions have been made, ensuring that prompt and effective investigations are conducted to hold perpetrators to account.