The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) turns 10 this year. For the past decade, it has fought for human rights in the country but has still wound up being called a “toothless tiger” for its inability to bring about a significant change.
Last week all 16 of its commissioners, some of whom had been serving Suhakam since its inception, stepped down to make way for a fresh team.
In an exclusive interview with FMT, Suhakam's former vice-chairman Simon Sipaun talks about Suhakam's role, challenges and future.
FMT: What does Suhakam have to show for itself after 10 years?
Simon: Suhakam has four roles. The first is to educate the public on human rights and we have done well as more Malaysians are now more aware of human rights issues and Suhakam.
Our second role is to advise the government on existing or proposed laws that violate human rights, like the Internal Security Act (ISA). We still have a long way more to go here. None of our annual reports have been debated in Parliament and the government has constantly turned a deaf ear to our recommendations. So while Suhakam has performed its duties, the results are yet to be seen.
The third role is advising the government on international human right treaties and instruments. When Suhakam first started, the government ratified two instruments. Ten years later, that figure hasn't changed. Again we have done our part but the government hasn't done its part.
The fourth role is to investigate complaints of human rights violations and to propose solutions. We have done this to the best of our abilities, but we are only a recommendatory body and have no decision-making powers. Although we've not done too badly in this area, our main challenge is the authorities not taking our recommendations seriously.
Is Suhakam's reputation as a “toothless tiger” a fair one?
The problem is that no one knew anything about Suhakam until it was created and very few understood our exact role. So when they heard that Suhakam deals with human rights violations, their expectations were very high and they were very disappointed to find out that we are only an advisory body.
So in a way, we are a toothless tiger. Then again, we were never meant to be a tiger with teeth. In my opinion, Suhakam cannot be a tiger based on the existing law. If Suhakam was really meant to be effective, then the government should have consulted the public, the civil society and human rights activists before creating it.
What is the current criteria of selection of commissioners?
The old law states that 'members of the commission shall be appointed from among prominent personalities including those from various religious and racial backgrounds'. Of course this is very subjective. What do you mean by prominent? People are well-known for both the good and bad that they have done.
Under the amended law, this clause has been improved to read 'the members of the commission will be appointed from among men and women of various religious, political and racial backgrounds who have knowledge of or practical experience in human rights matters'.
This amendment has made the selection process more specific and transparent. The government approaches various non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and asks them to submit nominations based on the above criteria. This name list is scrutinised by the committee which will then advise the prime minister on the final selection. As for how the committee members are selected, I myself am not too sure.
What are the biggest human rights issues in Malaysia?
Definitely the ISA and the Emergency Ordinance Act. The fact that the latter still exists indicates that Malaysia is still in a state of emergency. This is serious because the Act is invoked even when the conditions that gave rise to its creation no longer exist.
For instance, there was a recent incident in Perak where the police shot dead a couple. The families wanted to sue the police and the government for abuse of power, but the government invoked a section under the Emergency Law which states that if a police officer shoots to kill someone whom he believes is a threat to security, he cannot be prosecuted. Malaysia is no longer in a state of emergency but yet the Act is still being used.
This is why you have Simpang Renggam. People are being put away simply because they are assumed to be a threat to security, and then they are forgotten.
Racism is another threat to human rights today because it is becoming institutionalised. The treatment of the Orang Asli is akin to apartheid.
What needs to happen for Suhakam to carry out all its roles effectively?
The establishment of a National Human Rights Action Plan. It's a plan of action by the government that will expose it to human rights issues and put it on the same wavelength as us. The human rights bodies in other countries have already implemented this plan and their governments are more receptive towards their recommendations.
We proposed this plan to the government in 2002 but was told that the federal constitution is sufficient to protect and promote human rights. I disagree because more often than not, government enforcement agencies are the violators of human rights. The concept of human rights violation is foreign to them as they have never had their rights violated before.
Do you see this plan coming into place soon?
Not if the current government remains in power.
28/04/10
Last week all 16 of its commissioners, some of whom had been serving Suhakam since its inception, stepped down to make way for a fresh team.
In an exclusive interview with FMT, Suhakam's former vice-chairman Simon Sipaun talks about Suhakam's role, challenges and future.
FMT: What does Suhakam have to show for itself after 10 years?
Simon: Suhakam has four roles. The first is to educate the public on human rights and we have done well as more Malaysians are now more aware of human rights issues and Suhakam.
Our second role is to advise the government on existing or proposed laws that violate human rights, like the Internal Security Act (ISA). We still have a long way more to go here. None of our annual reports have been debated in Parliament and the government has constantly turned a deaf ear to our recommendations. So while Suhakam has performed its duties, the results are yet to be seen.
The third role is advising the government on international human right treaties and instruments. When Suhakam first started, the government ratified two instruments. Ten years later, that figure hasn't changed. Again we have done our part but the government hasn't done its part.
The fourth role is to investigate complaints of human rights violations and to propose solutions. We have done this to the best of our abilities, but we are only a recommendatory body and have no decision-making powers. Although we've not done too badly in this area, our main challenge is the authorities not taking our recommendations seriously.
Is Suhakam's reputation as a “toothless tiger” a fair one?
The problem is that no one knew anything about Suhakam until it was created and very few understood our exact role. So when they heard that Suhakam deals with human rights violations, their expectations were very high and they were very disappointed to find out that we are only an advisory body.
So in a way, we are a toothless tiger. Then again, we were never meant to be a tiger with teeth. In my opinion, Suhakam cannot be a tiger based on the existing law. If Suhakam was really meant to be effective, then the government should have consulted the public, the civil society and human rights activists before creating it.
What is the current criteria of selection of commissioners?
The old law states that 'members of the commission shall be appointed from among prominent personalities including those from various religious and racial backgrounds'. Of course this is very subjective. What do you mean by prominent? People are well-known for both the good and bad that they have done.
Under the amended law, this clause has been improved to read 'the members of the commission will be appointed from among men and women of various religious, political and racial backgrounds who have knowledge of or practical experience in human rights matters'.
This amendment has made the selection process more specific and transparent. The government approaches various non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and asks them to submit nominations based on the above criteria. This name list is scrutinised by the committee which will then advise the prime minister on the final selection. As for how the committee members are selected, I myself am not too sure.
What are the biggest human rights issues in Malaysia?
Definitely the ISA and the Emergency Ordinance Act. The fact that the latter still exists indicates that Malaysia is still in a state of emergency. This is serious because the Act is invoked even when the conditions that gave rise to its creation no longer exist.
For instance, there was a recent incident in Perak where the police shot dead a couple. The families wanted to sue the police and the government for abuse of power, but the government invoked a section under the Emergency Law which states that if a police officer shoots to kill someone whom he believes is a threat to security, he cannot be prosecuted. Malaysia is no longer in a state of emergency but yet the Act is still being used.
This is why you have Simpang Renggam. People are being put away simply because they are assumed to be a threat to security, and then they are forgotten.
Racism is another threat to human rights today because it is becoming institutionalised. The treatment of the Orang Asli is akin to apartheid.
What needs to happen for Suhakam to carry out all its roles effectively?
The establishment of a National Human Rights Action Plan. It's a plan of action by the government that will expose it to human rights issues and put it on the same wavelength as us. The human rights bodies in other countries have already implemented this plan and their governments are more receptive towards their recommendations.
We proposed this plan to the government in 2002 but was told that the federal constitution is sufficient to protect and promote human rights. I disagree because more often than not, government enforcement agencies are the violators of human rights. The concept of human rights violation is foreign to them as they have never had their rights violated before.
Do you see this plan coming into place soon?
Not if the current government remains in power.
28/04/10
No comments:
Post a Comment