A/HRC/11/30* 45. The Federal Constitution confers freedom of assembly and expression. In exercise of such rights, the Government is responsible to ensure that the security of the Federation, public order and morality shall be fully guaranteed, in line with the UDHR. 46. With regard to freedom of religion, the delegation of Malaysia noted that Article 11 of the Federal Constitution guaranteed every person the right to profess and practise his religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it. Much has been said about Clause (4) to Article 11 being restrictive in its application to freedom of religion. However, there was currently no legislation that has been enacted to impose such restriction. Section 5 of the Shari’ah Criminal Offences Act of the Federal Territories was enacted to prohibit propagation of deviationist teachings by one Muslim to another Muslim. That Act was only applicable to Muslims and therefore Non-Muslims cannot be brought before the Shari’ah Courts under that law. 47. The delegation responded to the issue of the demolition of Hindu Temples, which was alleged to be an issue of violation of freedom of religion. Malaysia was of the view that those intending to build places of worship must respect the Federal Constitution and the relevant laws of the country, irrespective of whatever religion. There had been many instances where the affected parties challenged the Government’s actions in court. The acts of demolitions of such illegally constructed buildings by the authorities had no connection whatsoever with the freedom of religion in Malaysia. This had been confirmed by the findings of the complaint procedure mechanism of the Human Rights Council established to investigate this matter. 48. The delegation noted that it was correct to say that currently the Malaysian Penal Code criminalized oral and anal sex. Such sexual conduct was not only against the tenets of Islam, which was Malaysia’s official religion, but also the other major religions in Malaysia such as the Christian and Buddhist religions. Responding to a question raised with regard to the Minor Offences Act, the delegation stated that it was clear that the Act did not provide for cross-dressing to be an offence. 49. On the question of indigenous peoples rights, the delegation stated that the land rights for indigenous people, natives and aborigines were adequately protected under existing laws, including the right to compensation. 50. The delegation of Malaysia noted that another significant area of law which is a subject of frequent debate is the issue of preventive laws in Malaysia. The focus is the ISA, enacted with the purpose of providing for the internal security of Malaysia. The ISA empowered the preventive detention of persons suspected of acting in any manner prejudicial to Malaysia’s national security, maintenance of essential services, or the economic life of Malaysia. 51. The ISA and related Malaysian laws provided the necessary safeguards to ensure the rule of law is observed. A person obtained under the ISA can petition by way of a writ of habeas corpus to the High Court at any time and as many times during his or her detention period. Whether a person is detained under section 73 for investigation purposes or section 8 under the Minister’s order, that person could file for the writ of habeas corpus. The Malaysian Courts in the past had on many occasions granted the writ of habeas corpus to detainees whom they considered were wrongfully detained. Additionally, any person detained under section 8 is entitled to make representations to an Advisory Board chaired by legally qualified person of at least 20 years experience. This Board would make recommendations to the King as opposed to the Executive either to release the detainee or otherwise. The detainees are also accorded right to be heard and counsel at the hearing before the Advisory Board. 52. The delegation of Malaysia provided information on the three most recent cases of detention under the ISA to illustrate that rule of law had always been upheld and due GE.09-16360 11