In mid-March this year the National Human Rights Commission of India (NHRC) directed the Kerala state government to pay RM82,000 to a victim of illegal detention and torture by the police.

In Malaysia, however, the police are still denying access to the Malaysian Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) to even visit ten reformasi activists detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA) purportedly for being a national threat. Suhakam wanted to see the detainees following complaints by the families who feared torture and abuse of their loved ones in detention.

These two instances portray the huge chasm Suhakam must bridge before it can proclaim to be the true guardians of human rights in this country.

The body still lacks the power and authority that provides the needed bite for it to play its role. Even at the moment, apart from submitting its maiden report to the Parliament recommending certain changes, Suhakam has not performed any starring role in safeguarding local human rights conditions.

True, it has conducted an inquiry into alleged police brutality during the Kesas Highway opposition rally last year. But has the Commission any power to turn its recommendations from the inquiry into action?

In a private conversation recently, a Suhakam commissioner agreed that the commission needed more authority and power to conduct inquiries more effectively.

"What we lack are powers relating to inquiries that we are entitled to hold," said the commissioner.

Statutory powers

At present, the one-year-old Suhakam is allowed by the Malaysian Human Rights Commission Act to launch an inquiry on its own initiative or on a complaint.

Section 12 (1) of the Act states:

"The Commission may, on its own motion or on a complaint made to it by an aggrieved person or group of persons or a person acting on behalf of an aggrieved person or a group of persons, inquire into allegations of the infringement of the human rights of such a person or group of persons."

The Act does not allow any inquiry into allegations of human rights infringements which are still pending in court and on cases which the courts have already made a ruling.

The Act also prohibits the Commission to continue with its inquiry if the incident becomes the subject matter of any proceedings in court.

Upon completion of its inquiry, the law allows the Commission to record its findings and inform the person making the complaint. In the event it finds that there were human rights infringements, the commission has the power to refer the matter, where appropriate, to the relevant authority or person with the necessary recommendations.

Apart from these powers, Suhakam can seek and receive evidence, written or by examining witnesses and may ask for these evidence to be given on oath. The commission may also summon "any person residing in Malaysia to attend any meeting of the Commission to give evidence or produce any document or other things in his possession, and to examine him as a witness or require him to produce any document or other things in his possession."

Suhakam can also admit evidence that would otherwise be inadmissible in civil or criminal proceedings and to admit or exclude the public from such inquiry or any part of it.

In a nutshell, Suhakam may call for an inquiry and seek evidence and submit its findings to the relevant authorities. And after this, its duties, by law, end.

Powers to punish

If the commission is to play a more active role in ensuring human rights infringements in this country are effectively tackled, it must be given additional powers. Perhaps the law makers can look at India's NHRC for inspirations.

The NHRC came into creation in 1994 by the passing of the 1993 Protection of Human Rights Act and its main function is to inquire into the violation of human rights as well as negligence in the prevention of such violation.

In inquiring into any complaint, the NHRC has all the powers of a civil court and as such has the weapon to punish the person or body committing human rights violations.

In recent years, the NHRC had, for example, ordered compensation for victims of police brutalities. In Bihar, the NHRC ordered the state government to pay about RM8,000 to a father of a boy who was killed in indiscriminate police firing. Similarly the Utter Pradesh state government was ordered to pay RM131,000 to the families of four persons killed by the police.

NHRC is also allowed to approach the Indian Supreme Court or High Court for directions, orders and writs to punish offenders. For the purpose of providing speedy trial of offences arising out of human rights violations, NHRC is allowed to gazette a special human rights court and to have a special public prosecutor to conduct human rights cases.

The NHRC may also utilise non-government organisations (NGOs) as well as any government investigation agency staff to assist it to investigate human rights violations.

Unfortunately, such wide powers are not available to Suhakam. However Suhakam's situation is not all that bad. Though its powers in relation to inquiries pale in comparison with NHRC, it is still a notch better than the powers of the Indonesian National Commission on Human Rights.

Better off

The Indonesian commission was established in 1993, widely thought to be a response to the intense international pressure mounted on the Indonesian government in the wake of the 1991 massacre in East Timor, where security forces shot and killed over 200 demonstrators

The Indonesian commission has similar areas of concern like Suhakam, namely to spread human rights awareness, to monitor and investigate human rights practices, to provide opinions and suggestions to the Government and to encourage regional and international cooperation in the promotion and protection of human rights.

But however, it has no power at all to undertake investigations into human rights violations, request technical assistance in investigations, hear or consider complaints, subpoena witnesses or documents, visit jails or prisons, or file information with the courts.

In comparison to this, whatever powers Suhakam has at present looks sufficient. Nevertheless, Suhakam must be accorded more powers, especially powers to punish human rights offenders. This will definitely equip the Commission with enough clout to ensure that its recommendations are looked at seriously and not merely 'weekend reading material', as one observer put it.

Towards this goal, a starting point would be allowing Suhakam to visit ISA detainees without any restrictions.

K KABILAN is malaysiakini's chief reporter.