In light of some critical comments about the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia’s role following the release of its 2014 Annual Report, the commission feels obliged to enlighten the public, as primary stakeholders in the promotion and protection human rights, of its purpose and mandate.

It is unfortunate that in spite of having been in existence for 15 years there is continued misunderstanding by some quarters, including those in the government sector, about the status, role and functions of the commission, including the erroneous perception that it is an NGO.

The commission is an independent statutory body, established under the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999 (Act 597), for the purpose of safeguarding the promotion and protection of human rights in Malaysia. Since the capacity and effectiveness of the commission in performing this role depends largely on its independence and ability to act equitably, it has since its inception, made consistent efforts to maintain its strictly non-partisan status.

While the commission engages with all stakeholders, including government agencies and NGOs, it firmly believes that its mandate, civil society goals and government human rights ambitions would be better served by working together as partners.

To eliminate any uncertainty of the commission’s collaborations with the government, some of our basic joint efforts are highlighted:

i. In 2009, the commission together with the Education Ministry embarked on a Human Rights Best Practices Programme in five schools. As at May 2015, there are 144 participating schools throughout Malaysia.

ii. In supporting the country’s efforts to combat human trafficking, the commission made submissions for the National Action Plan against Trafficking in Persons, most of which were adopted by the government.

iii. The commission actively engages with the Prisons and Immigration Departments as well as the Royal Malaysian Police, who have been cooperative in providing feedback, particularly regarding complaints and human rights training.

iv. In collaboration with UN Country Team (UNCT) and with financial assistance from the UK’s Foreign Commonwealth Office, the Commission developed a Business and Human Rights Strategic Framework which has been presented to the government for follow-up action.

In addition, the commission recommended a Human Rights Training Programme for institutes of higher learning. Although this received the green light from the Education Ministry, there were universities which opposed the programme, as well as other programmes organised by the commission, out of concern of it being ‘anti-government’.

Suhakam is not ‘anti-government’

The commission is appalled by this misconception and reiterates that while it may, in fulfilling its mandate be constructively critical of certain government policies from a purely human rights perspective, it is not anti-government.

The commission also has a legal responsibility to advise the government on matters that are likely to have an impact on human rights, as mandated under section 4(1)(b) of Act 597. As such, the Commission hopes that all stakeholders, particularly those in office will take the liberty to be acquainted with the provisions of the commission’s founding Act in the overall public interest.

Although the commission was consulted prior to the formulation of the Persons with Disabilities Act 2008 and during the amendments to the Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2007, where most of the commission’s recommendations were accepted, the commission was neither consulted nor referred to before the amendments to laws and/or passing of new legislation which have a direct impact on human rights.

This includes the recent Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015 (POTA), Sedition (Amendment) Act 2015, Prevention of Crime (Amendment and Extension) Act 1959 and Security Offences (Special Measures) (Amendment) Act 2012. Even as far back as 2003-2004, the commission was not consulted prior to the amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act 2004 and Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2003.

Although the commission is pleased that its repeated recommendations following its public inquiries on the freedom of assembly resulted in the repeal of section 27 of the Police Act 1967, the commission was not consulted prior to the drafting of the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012.

With regard to the annual budget of the commission, over which some queries have been raised lately, the commission makes clear that national human rights institutions (NHRIs) must be guaranteed, at a minimum, sufficient funding for its basic functions. The funding should also be secure and not be altered arbitrarily during the period for which it was approved.

The commission clarifies that its financial grant for 2015 is RM9.89 million and in 2014, it received RM10.47 million, of which it spent RM1.03 million on activities and RM9.44 million on operational costs, which includes building rental. Although Act 597 in section 5 specifies that there may be up to 20 commissioners appointed per term, the commission’s financial allocation is sufficient to provide allowances for seven of its commissioners and remuneration for 79 staff.

As NHRIs must be accorded necessary powers to enable them to discharge their mandate effectively, the commission had in 2013 proposed amendments to its founding Act to the Office of YB Nancy Shukri. Subsequently, a draft cabinet memorandum was presented to the Office of YB Senator Paul Low Seng Kuan. However, as at May 2015, the commission is yet to receive a response from the minister’s office.

It takes note of the minister’s reference about it in Parliament and looks forward to Parliament’s expeditious endorsement of the proposed amendments.

Although the commission has repeatedly urged Malaysia’s accession to the six remaining core international human rights treaties to demonstrate commitment toward eradicating poverty, protecting socio-economic rights, enhancing human dignity and promoting the civil and political rights of citizens since its inception, the government’s response was that the relevant ministries were studying the complexities involved regarding accession.

Perception of lack of political will

Disappointingly, the period of study which is well over a decade has led to an international perception of a lack of political will on the part of the government.

While the decision to debate the commission’s Annual Report lies entirely with Parliament, it believes that as a body established by an Act of Parliament, a full parliamentary debate on its Annual and other human rights reports must take place so as to enable Parliamentarians to not only understand but thoroughly address human rights issues as important national issues as is done in other countries that have their own NHRIs.

Therefore, Parliamentarians must not hesitate to address and prioritise human rights issues in Parliament and must familiarise themselves with the many international human rights instruments, particularly those endorsed and adopted by Malaysia. Regrettably, inasmuch as the commission’s Annual Reports to Parliament have never been debated, many of these human rights treaties remain unheard of.

While holding out hope that its Annual Report will be debated in the Parliament, the commission had proposed in 2011, as an initial step, for the establishment of a Parliamentary Select Committee on Human Rights and places expectations in the relevant government ministry on its realisation.

The commission emphasises that it has and will continue to carry out its duties under the Act with independence, impartiality and utmost professionalism.

Sincerely,

Hasmy Agam

Dr Khaw Lake Tee

Professor Emeritus Dr Mahmood Zuhdi Ab Majid

James Deva Nayagam

Professor Dr Aishah Bidin

Francis Johen

Sylvester @ Nordin Kasim