This is the third occasion in three years that civil society groups are meeting to consider and debate on Suhakam's Annual Reports which the Human Rights Commission is bound by statute, the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999 ("the Act"), to submit to Parliament.

Although we have and are continuing to discuss and debate on Suhakam's Annual Reports, unfortunately Parliament itself that established the commission has yet to do so. The government's response to the two (2) earlier reports i.e. Annual Report 2000 and 2001, has been one of measured silence. The fate of the third Annual Report 2002 is yet to be seen when Parliament sits again in mid September 2003.

Suhakam itself has in the Annual Report 2002 expressed its regret in the matter. The report states the "acid test of Suhakam's effectiveness is the response that will be forthcoming from the government and whether the recommendations made in its reports will be debated and acted upon...Advocacy on human rights for Parliamentarians and policy makers is an area which requires attention by the commission as it is only when the government authorities and parliamentarians have a better realization of human rights can they be more willing to accept and implement the commission's recommendations and can we expect the commission's reports to be debated in Parliament".

Crucial part

The submission of Suhakam's Annual Reports to Parliament plays a crucial part in the scheme of the Act whose expressed object is "the protection and promotion of human rights in Malaysia". The Act provides that each year Suhakam shall submit an annual report to Parliament and Section 21(2) states :

"The report shall contain a list of all matters referred to it, and the action taken in respect of them together with the recommendations of the commission in respect of each matter".

The fact that by statute, Suhakam "shall" submit recommendations to Parliament must necessarily envisage and mean that Parliament must receive and consider and debate on the recommendations submitted. But for the two earlier Reports 2000 and 2001, attempts by some parliamentarians to have the reports tabled and debated in Parliament have been rejected by the House. In fact even the "special reports" which Suhakam has prepared from time to time and submitted pursuant to S.21(3) of the Act, have not received any response from the government.

These include the Kesas Highway Inquiry Report submitted on 2.4.2001, the Freedom of Assembly Report submitted on 24.7.2002 and the National Human Rights Plan of Action submitted on 25.2.2002.

Suhakam in its Annual Report 2002 states that as it "continues into its third year, a major challenge that remains unresolved is the slow government response to Suhakam reports on major issues that touch on fundamental liberties". This " slow Government response" can be seen from the various human rights violations and abuses that have continued unabated even after the enactment of the Act and establishment of Suhakam.

Barely a week after the appointment of the Suhakam Commissioners on 3rd April 2000, the authorities unleashed "Black 14", a date which is now etched in the human rights calendar as a stark reminder of abuse of police powers with the all too familiar images of water canons, batons, tear gas, police boots and beatings.

Just another voice

Since then the Executive and various government and law enforcement agencies have gone about their business as usual as if Suhakam is just another human rights voice, nothing more. More and more people have been detained under the ISA and the other emergency enactments and regulations relating to detention without trial. The first Annual Report records 40 persons detained under the ISA, the second records 78 and the third records 112.

Suaram's Human Rights Report 2002 states that there are approximately 400 persons being detained under the Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969 while approximately 1000 persons are detained under the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act, 1985.

Even though after the Federal Court decision on the Ezam case which declared the detention of four (4) persons unlawful, Suhakam in a press release dated 17th September 2002 recommended that the Home Minister should review the detention orders, there was no response from the government and the reformasi detainees continued to be detained until the last hour of the last day of the full two (2) year term.

So far as the right of "freedom of assembly" is concerned, the government response to the Kesas Highway Inquiry Report and the Freedom of Assembly Report is the aggressive dispersal of the May Day March in 2002, and the blanket ban on assembles imposed by the Police on political ceramahs, and this despite Suhakam's press release dated 18 February 2002 that there is no legal provision for the ban. The May Day gathering for 2003 was however permitted to proceed without resulting in any breach of the peace or public order.

Further, since the establishment of Suhakam there has been unabated and continuing misuse and abuse of the arsenal of repressive laws such as the Sedition Act 1948, Official Secrets Acts 1972, the University and University Colleges Act 1971 and the Printing Presses and Publication Act 1984, the combination of which has further stifled and repressed the right of free speech and expression and undermined press freedom.

Suhakam could only stand by helplessly as democracy continued to recede and as Malaysia came to be ranked 110 out of 139 countries in a press freedom index in a survey by Reporters Sans Frontiers (RSF), an international organization dedicated to the worldwide protection and promotion of press freedom. This ranking was below that of other Asean countries such as Indonesia (57), Thailand (65), Cambodia (71) and Philippines (89).

Focus on police

Further, during this period there was increasing concern with the issue of excessive use of police powers and police interrogation methods as increasing numbers of detained persons died in police custody with 6 deaths in 2000, 10 deaths in 2001 and 18 deaths as of September 2002. Suhakam in its Report 2002, beyond stating that it "views with concern the allegation of police brutality and negligence in the complaints received" offers no in depth review or recommendation.

There is also no reference to the growing concern of civil society in respect of deaths in police shootings. According to Police Watch and Human Rights Committee, set up by concerned citizens, from January to October 2002, there were 35 persons reportedly killed by the police in shoot-outs. Invariably, the mainstream newspaper reports carried the police version of the incidents with the deceased persons normally painted as highly dangerous criminals, with accompanying statements attributed to senior police officers that many old files were being closed.
Suhakam in its Report 2002 however reported some progress and expressed its appreciation to the Judiciary, the Police and the Prisons Department for steps taken to improve the welfare and rights of young prisoners. Suhakam also reported that RM 20 million had been allotted to the Police to improve the condition of several lockups and a nationwide study would be conducted to evaluate the state of police lockups in the country.

There is one continuing omission by Suhakam that civil society will not and cannot forget. That is the failure to consider, inquire into and make recommendations in respect of the six (6) deaths and serious bodily injuries sustained by about a hundred persons in Kampung Medan. To date despite repeated requests from various groups, the authorities don't seem to have the political will to commence a public investigation or inquiry into the tragic incident to find out what happened, how it happened, who are responsible for the travesty and what steps need to be taken to ensure that it doesn't happen again.

Any attempt to cheat history will inevitably fail and worse, social ills and injustices which are left untreated will invariably manifest themselves in unpredictable ways in time. We urge Suhakam to do its duty without fear or favour and to forthwith commence an inquiry into the Kampung Medan incident pursuant to S.12(1) of the Act.

Suhakam has in its Reports made four (4) significant recommendations for the systemic advancement of human rights. These are pertaining to preventive detention, the emergency proclamations, the legislative process and the ratification of international human rights covenants. These recommendations if adopted, would undoubtedly lead to the protection and promotion of human rights in Malaysia.

Scheduled offences

The first is their recommendation that preventive detention without trial is an infringement of universal human rights principles. Suhakam has prepared two (2) reports, firstly in respect of the Conditions of Detention under the ISA and secondly the Review of the Act. Its recommendation is that the Act should be repealed and in its place a new comprehensive legislation which deals with national security (including terrorism) be enacted.

These special offences will be listed as scheduled offences. Under this proposed enactment, the Police can detain a person for a maximum period of 24 hours after which the person must be produced before the High Court. Pursuant to an Order of the High Court, a person may be further detained for maximum periods of seven days each time for a maximum of 29 days.

Upon the expiry of the 29 days, the person must either be released or charged in court for the scheduled offence. The legislation shall only be in force for a period of one year renewable for one year periods by authority of Parliament.

Suhakam states in its Report 2002 that it now proposes to review the other preventive detention laws such as the Prevention of Crime Act, 1959, the Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969, the Essential (Security Cases) Regulations 1975 and Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985.

The second recommendation is their proposal to review the necessity of the Emergency Proclamations that are still in force in Malaysia. The Annual Report 2000, states 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 had come to pass. The position of civil society is that this perpetual overhanging dark cloud of emergency in our body politic is a blot on our system of parliamentary democracy.

Legislative process

The third recommendation is that Bills of Parliament be debated by interest groups and be drafted in consultation with public interest groups. Unfortunately this positive recommendation by Suhakam has also not been adopted by the Government, so much so that even Suhakam gets to know about Bills only when they are presented in Parliament. Suhakam therefore is unable to give its consideration and input as to whether laws passed by Parliament have human rights implications and consequences.

The fourth recommendation in Suhakam's Annual Report 2001 is that Malaysia should ratify the international human rights covenants as soon as possible, namely :
  • International Covenant on Civil And Political Rights (ICCPR)
  • International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)
  • Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT).

The ratification of these international human rights instruments will demonstrate the government's respect for and commitment to protect and promote human rights as envisaged in the Act. Further Hakam repeats its proposal made during the National Consultation in Ipoh on 7.9.2002 that the time has also come for the Government to ratify the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD).

In Suhakam's Annual Report 2001, this international convention has been identified as "crucial to the protection of human rights". The Commission should therefore also recommend this international convention for ratification by the Government.

However, recommendations by Suhakam without the political will to consider and implement them will be a mere public relations exercise and will not realize the object of the Act and the aspirations of the people. Civil society and public interest groups have a legitimate expectation that Suhakam reports and recommendations will receive the due respect and consideration they deserve.

Hakam therefore proposes that a motion be put before Parliament in the next sitting in September 2003 that the Chairman of Suhakam Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman be invited by Parliament to present the three (3) Annual Reports and the special reports and Suhakam's recommendations to protect and promote human rights in Malaysia be debated and considered for implementation.

This would be a positive step in heralding a new era in government based on civil liberties, human rights and the rule of law. It would also mark our onward progress in both development and democracy as we move forward towards Vision 2020.

RAMDAS TIKAMDAS is president of Hakam.