Over the 100 days, we acknowledge that SUHAKAM has to some extent discharged its education function positively. In particular, the Human Rights Training Workshop for Senior Police Officers and the announcement of the forthcoming workshop on Press Freedom and Conference on Human Rights and Education.

However, we wish to state that while SUHAKAM’s educative function on human rights issues cannot be overstated, their all important investigative role into human rights violations and recommendations to protect and promote human rights in the country is sadly lacking.

Some of the serious human rights violations over the 100 days in respect of which investigations by SUHAKAM have either not commenced or are pending relate to:

• the death of two youths while under police custody.
• the use of sedition law and violation of the right of free speech and expression when the police arrested DAP Chairman Lim Kit Siang and raided DAP offices for distributing leaflets relating to the issue of the “Merdeka Constitution” and the “Islamic State”.
• the executive control of and restrictions on the media
• the disciplinary action taken against students in Universities for making a formal complaint to SUHAKAM about election irregularities in the institutions of higher learning.

We have also witnessed the high-handed and aggressive dispersal of this year’s May Day march and the resulting arrest of 17 peaceful demonstrators by the police. In contast to SUHAKAM’s previous monumental and commendable Kesas Highway Inquiry Report and the Freedom of Assembly Report, the failure of the new commissioners to react to these abuses stand out starkly as a terrible blot.

With regard to the ISA inquiry from 18 to 20 June, the scope and manner in which the ISA inquiry was conducted also left much to be desired and did not live up to its promise.

In the press statement dated 15 April, it was stated very forthrightly that SUHAKAM: “will conduct an inquiry into the complaints raised in the memorandum of 10 April 2002 (by Gerakan Mansuhkan ISA and Barisan Alternatif) and all previous memoranda submitted in relation to the six Reformasi detainees”.

SUHAKAM, acting contrary to this pledge, decided to limit the inquiry to the condition of detention at the Kamunting Detention Centre. This prompted the six Reformasi detainees to shun the inquiry as fundamental issues pertaining to the ISA could not be addressed, for example its abuse and misuse against alleged criminals and political dissidents, its arbitrariness, the physical and psychological oppression and torture during the initial 60 days of solitary confinement and the subjective executive power to impose repeated renewable two-year detention orders. However, we note that during this inquiry, there were no restrictions on the testimonies of the detainees pertaining to the condition of detention at the centre and the detainees were free to recount the abuses suffered by them while in the hands of the police. But by limiting the scope of the inquiry, Suhakam in effect excluded the six Reformasi detainees, who had wanted the scope to be broader as SUHAKAM had promised in its press statement.

Further, we regret that SUHAKAM used the excuse of the lawsuit filed in court against it to compel it to inquire into the Kampung Medan incident, which resulted in six deaths and about a hundred injured, to justify its refusal to inquire further. In fact the suit was filed in the first place because SUHAKAM had failed to inquire despite repeated requests and demands to do so. We consider this a reflection of SUHAKAM’s lack of courage and conviction to confront “difficult” human rights issues. This is a failure to fulfill its statutory role to protect and promote human rights in the country.

It is clear that SUHAKAM needs to do much more if the dire situation of human rights is to be reversed.

We realise that there are many pressing issues to be addressed. We are conscious of the need to move ahead and challenge SUHAKAM to live up to its obligations under the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999, i.e. to promote and defend human rights without fear or favour and at all times.

We also like to draw Suhakam’s attention to the first NGO Memorandum handed in on May 15, 2000. This memorandum touches on many concerns and spells out very lucidly what is expected of Suhakam.

We take this opportunity to remind SUHAKAM of the following points raised in that memorandum.

First, SUHAKAM should immediately and seriously impress upon the government to carry out the following actions:

• Parliament should amend HRCMA 1999 to bring the ‘Malaysian definition of human rights’ in line with universally recognised human rights standards.
• The Government should ratify the various UN covenants and international instruments relating to human rights.
• Parliament should annul the four proclamations of states of emergency, and,
• Parliament should review harsh and coercive statutes, and repeal entire laws or relevant portions of pertinent laws, so as to guarantee Malaysian citizens the broadest range of human rights as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other related international instruments.

1. Accessible to the public, and particularly to victims of infringements of human rights, by various means, including:
   • maintaining an open working environment that encourages regular interface with the public
   • adopting informal and flexible, not bureaucratic or legalistic, guidelines for making and lodging complaints of human rights violations
   • decentralising its structure to prevent SUHAKAM from becoming just a Peninsular Malaysia- or Kuala Lumpur-centric institution, and,
   • devolving its power so that SUHAKAM can more quickly and effectively reach particularly vulnerable sectors of Malaysian society which are often found at grassroots level

2. Responsive to complainants who report infringements and violations of human rights, among other things, by:
   • attending promptly to complainants and informing them of Suhakam’s decision and plan of action
   • helping complainants do what is necessary to lodge complaints and reports of human rights infringements and violations, and,
   • recommending remedial action as soon as it is clear that complainants require redress or assistance that cannot await a protracted investigation

3. Transparent in its proceedings so as to ensure:
   • that ‘justice is done and seen to be done’ in cases of human rights violations
   • the highest possible level of exposure of human rights infringements
   • an increased public awareness of the need and the means available to check the erosion of human rights in the country, and,
   • the widest possible mobilization of public support in defence of human rights

4. Accountable in its judgments and findings in order to establish:
   • proper bases and precedents for understanding and dealing with human rights violations
   • clear criteria for reviewing and/or appealing decisions taken on cases of human rights infringements, and,
   • consistency in abiding by universally recognized human rights standards

5. Pro-active in its investigations and activities so that SUHAKAM will:
   • of its own volition conduct inquiries into human rights infringements and violations
   • retain an active stance and not end up as a passive repository of complaints
   • demonstrate an independent scope of action, free of Government prompting, priority or position, and,
   • take the lead in protecting human rights

We will continue to be vigilant and speak out without fear or favour whenever there is any violation of human rights.

2 August 2002

Now tell us what you think. E-mail us.