A human rights group, disturbed by the cabinet decision last week to disallow debate of the Suhakam annual report in parliament, has questioned the point of having a rights commission and entrusting it with the task of reporting on abuses annually.

Penang-based Aliran in a statement said the sole-purpose of creating the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia or Suhakam, is to give serious attention to human rights violations in the country, so that it could be swiftly rectified.

In a move that seems to call for a progressive interpretation of the Suhakam Act, its president P Ramakrishnan said the only way to do so is to ensure proper debate of the report, and that perpetrators come under the "full glare of parliamentary scrutiny."

The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999 instructs the human rights body to submit a report yearly to parliament, but is silent on whether the report should be debated.

The law reads: "the Commission shall not later than the first meeting of Parliament of the following year, submit an annual report to Parliament of all its activities during the year to which the report relates."

Created by parliament

However, the cabinet has taken to strict interpretation of the Act, with minister in charge of parliamentary affairs Nazri Abdul Aziz announcing on Thursday that parliament will not reserve any specific time to debate the Suhakam report.

But he added that general debate of the report's contents could still happen if individual MPs raise it during the supplementary bill stage.

Since its inception in 1999, Suhakam's annual reports and recommendations have never been debated in parliament, despite being tabled.

Nazri, in an earlier interview with malaysiakini, had said that Suhakam reports were never meant to be debated in parliament because it is not in the form of either motion, question or bill.

Ramakrishnan also specifically decried Nazri comments.

"Does Nazri realise that Suhakam is the creation of parliament? Is he aware that it is a legislative requirement for Suhakam to submit annual reports to parliament?"

Questioning the motive behind limiting proper discussion of the report, Ramakrishnan said: "We rightly condemn the US and Israel for their lack of transparency and accountability. Shouldn't our conduct be above those we criticise?"

Up to individual MPs

Suhakam deputy chairperson Simon Sipaun, in expressing disappointment at the decision not to allow debate of the report, said he hopes that individuals MPs will take up elements of the report in parliament.

"I personally wish it could be debated. There are a lot of issues in there which requires the government and parliament's response. But at the same time, I believe the government is quite aware of our proposals and the human rights situation in the country."

Throughout the past two years, Suhakam has recommended the repeal and review of a series of restrictive laws, including specific repeal of the controversial Internal Security Act (ISA), to be replaced by a comprehensive law balancing national security concerns and respect human rights.

It also proposed the repeal and review of sections of the Official Secrets Act and the Printing Presses and Publications Act. However, the government has remained silent on these recommendations.

Sipaun said the commission remains undeterred from fulfilling its task as a human rights monitor, and hoped to keep the pressure on the government to fulfill its commitments.