Has the State of Human Rights Improved in Malaysia?
Ramdas Tikamdas of Hakam reviews Suhakam's Annual Report
Based on that promise, the people waited in hopeful anticipation for a human rights gesture from the Government. Instead history will record one of our darkest days, the “Black 14”. Then about a year later, on 19 April 2001, the maiden report of SUHAKAM on the human rights status of the country was submitted to Parliament. This time the people were greeted with the draconian antithesis of human rights, the Internal Security Act (ISA).
These two dismal events - which commemorated the birth of SUHAKAM and overshadowed its inaugural report in Parliament a year later - clearly betray the real human rights challenges that face civil society in Malaysia.
SUHAKAM’s prognosis of the human rights situation in the country is on page 35 of the Report :
Statutory Duty
The real question is: what are SUHAKAM’s recommendations in “furtherance of the protection and promotion of human rights in Malaysia,” which is its statutory duty pursuant to Section 4 (1) of the Act?
The maiden Annual Report submitted to Parliament is pursuant to Section 21 of the Act, and sub-section (2) states that the Report “shall contain a list of all matters referred to it, and the action taken in respect of them together with recommendations of the commission in respect of each matter”.
In this context, the statement in The Star (21 April 2001) attributed to Syed Hamid Albar that SUHAKAM should not give its recommendations but only a narration of its activities for the year (as if it is a social club) is not a correct interpretation of SUHAKAM’s statutory duties pursuant to the Act.
Detention Without Trial
On page 36 of the Report, SUHAKAM notes that the Internal Security Act 1960, the Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969 and the Dangerous Drugs (Special Prevention Measures) Act 1985 which provide for detention without trial are an infringement of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (“UDHR”).
Unfortunately, the recommendation in the Report on pages 35-36 is that these laws “need to be reviewed and examined in detail” and at Page 13 that SUHAKAM “will examine these laws and recommend appropriate action for their repeal or amendments to restrict their scope.”
The Report itself states that at the end of 2000, 40 persons remained detained under the ISA. Unfortunately, since the submission of the SUHAKAM Report to Parliament, the number of ISA detainees has increased to 50. This is the tragic and bleak backdrop to the state of human rights in Malaysia.
HAKAM calls for the immediate release of all the ISA detainees and the repeal of this lawless law. This dangerous relic of another age and deadly arsenal of the Executive should be buried once and for all.
Emergency Proclamations
SUHAKAM in its Report on page 14 notes that none of the four proclamations of emergency in 1964, 1966, 1969 and 1977 have been revoked and that this “perpetual state of emergency” continues although the events that occasioned them are long gone. Having noted that, it is strange for SUHAKAM to state that it “will review the matter and make the appropriate recommendations.”
HAKAM calls upon SUHAKAM to immediately prevail upon the Government to annul these proclamations and the regulations made thereunder which are a blot on our system of parliamentary democracy.
Freedom of Assembly
The administrative procedures recommended to govern public gatherings are a step in the right direction, but they can only be meaningful so long as permits are issued by the police as of right, subject to the administrative procedures recommended. Based on the past practice of double standards and arbitrary denial of permits, NGO’s and opposition parties have called for a system of prior notification of planned assemblies instead of the requirement for permits.
Legislative Process
The recommendation that Bills of Parliament be debated by interest groups and be drafted in consultation with public interest groups promotes a more open and transparent democracy.
Ratification of International Human Rights Instruments
The recommendation that Malaysia ratifies The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, (ICCPR) The International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and The Convention Against Torture is in my view the most important recommendation. It is the act of ratification that will demonstrate Malaysia’s respect for and commitment to the principles enshrined in the UDHR.
The report however calls for Malaysia to ratify these instruments “as soon as possible” which in the political context would mean an indeterminate period. Why not ratify immediately ? What reason would Malaysia have to continue to delay ratifying The Convention Against Torture unless it wants to reserve for itself the right to torture. As at 30 September 1999, 144 nations had ratified the ICCPR and 141 nations had ratified the ICESCR. There is no pride in remaining in the notorious small club of non-ratifiers.
SUHAKAM with its eminent group of experienced statesmen, legislators, judges, social scientists and professionals should be able to assess the social backdrop of the country and recommend a definite time frame for ratification.
HAKAM’s stand is that the time is long overdue and this is a precondition for the evolution of a human rights culture which would also guarantee our peace and prosperity with justice.
The Way Ahead
SUHAKAM is an important statutory vehicle for the protection and promotion of human rights in the country and can count on the continuing support of the people.
SUHAKAM itself must demonstrate courage and conviction of purpose. To demonstrate its belief in universal human rights standards, SUHAKAM should make an immediate application for membership in the Asia-Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions, which currently comprise the Human Rights Commissions of Australia, Fiji , India, Indonesia, Nepal, New Zealand, Philippines and Sri Lanka. SUHAKAM’s membership in this regional human rights group will also ensure continued commitment and compliance with the Paris Principles of independence, autonomy from government, pluralism, a broad mandate based on universal human rights standards, adequate powers of investigation and sufficient resources.
This should not pose a problem because the Foreign Minister, when presenting the Bill in Parliament gave an assurance that “The Paris principles are used as a guideline for the proposed Human Rights Commission of Malaysia.”
That being so, SUHAKAM must perform its statutory duty and invoke and apply universal human rights standards.
In the continued discharge of its statutory duty, SUHAKAM can continue to count on the full support and cooperation of civil society.
|
|||||||||||||||
The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999, (“the Act”) which gave birth to SUHAKAM was gazetted on 9 September 1999. Thereafter on 3 April 2000, the Government announced the appointment of the Commissioners. Foreign Minister, Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar had promised when presenting the Bill in Parliament that this “should be regarded as a positive development towards protecting the interest and realising the aspirations of our people.”
This recommendation does not have the urgency required in the grave situation we are facing. While a review may be necessary for a whole gamut of laws which impede or restrict fundamental liberties and democracy, laws such as the ISA have been repeatedly abused and misused by the Executive against legitimate democratic dissent and invoked for purposes that have nothing to do with communist insurgency, terrorist activity, national security or public order.