I refer to the letter Suhakam - full-time commissioners may not solve woes .

As we know, Suhakam was established in 1999 under the Act of Parliament (Act 597). The formulation of the commission is believed to be in-line with the Paris Principles which sets up the mandates and functions of National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) in the region.

It is undeniable that whether the problem of Suhakam can be solved by the appointment of full-time commissioners is open to debate. And yet, one of the most important factors in determining the effectiveness of Suhakam is its capacity to act independently in fulfilling its mandate. It is sad to note that even the appointment of its commissioners is not independent from the Executive body.

In most countries especially the Asia-Pacific, the commissioners are appointed on a full-time basis and some countries have opted for a combination of full-time and part-time commissioners. Experience has also proved that full-time commissioners work more effectively. In countries such as Fiji, India, Mongolia, Philippines and Thailand, the commissioners are working on full- time basis. The term ‘full-time’ as described in their laws refer to commissioners who do not engage in any other paid employment.

I visited the Human Rights Commission of Mongolia and was deeply impressed by the way of the commission to discharge its functions. The commission consists of only three commissioners (including its chairperson) but are working full-time and receiving complaints/cases by the public.

A similar working nature can also be found in Indian Human Rights Commission where their commissioners are working full-time and are attentive towards solving public woes. In terms of remunerations, they receive far less than Suhakam’s part-time (spare-time?) commissioners. More importantly, they are not provided with luxury cars.

Thus, it is regrettable to hear that the present remuneration of Suhakam commissioners is unlikely to persuade capable persons to give up their lucrative careers to serve the commission full time. I always believe that those who are really committed and passionate for human rights would not count on remuneration or monetary rewards.

Allow me to echo Malik Imtiaz Sarwar’s salient view that human rights is not ‘a part-time matte’r. Human rights is human dignity and should be treated as part of our basic needs. Human rights violations happen from day to day. Therefore, the fundamental task and responsibility of a human rights commission is to protect human rights especially victims of violations and power abuse.

Again, I disagree with the writer’s opinion that the calibre of the persons appointed should be considered rather that the number of hours they worked in determining the effectiveness of Suhakam.

As one of the victim of human rights abuse, I think the criteria of appointment very much rely on the commitment, integrity and credibility of the individuals appointed. It is also a must for them to have appropriated human rights credentials rather than diverse life experiences which sometimes do not demonstrate their understanding on human rights issues. In relation to this, I am not surprised to hear that one of the Suhakam’s commissioners has no idea about what Rela is.

The reappointment of Suhakam’s commissioners has revealed the stand of government on Suhakam and human rights issues. The non-reappointment of certain commissioners such as Anuar Zainal Abidin, Prof Mehrun Siraj and Hamdan Adnan without justification clearly reflects that the government is neither being transparent nor making just decisions. As a signatory body to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Malaysia is losing its credibility in upholding human rights - right from the very beginning of the formation of its human rights commission.

The appointment of commissioners should, ideally be independent as to afford the strongest possible guarantees of competence, impartiality and independence. The process should involve not only the executive government but also civil society, especially human rights defenders representing the interests of various vulnerable groups in the country.

Therefore, I humbly call on the public to reconsider their votes in the next general election.