Something is definitely amiss with our policy makers. Either they care little for what comes out of the policies made or the effort is done half-heartedly.

Take the issue of our very own Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam). The government has finally shown its true colours by implying that the set up of this human rights body was basically a case of government propaganda at work.

It was no hidden secret that Suhakam merely served as a government mouthpiece and that 'the powers that be' were not in favour of issues relating to human rights.

And recently when Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz said the commission was never meant to have any 'teeth', he was finally admitting what many suspected all along.

Replying to Teresa Kok (DAP-Seputeh) in Parliament, Nazri said the government never planned to give any teeth to Suhakam and Kok would be dreaming if she thought otherwise.

Nazri said Suhakam does not have prosecuting powers because this could be carried out by other enforcement agencies. Hence, to give Suhakam teeth was never a proposal.

While Kok went on lamenting that the problem was that Suhakam did not have enforcement powers to act against government agencies which abuse human rights.

Shut it down

'Freedom of speech' too is not an asset owned by Suhakam. While it seems to be working hard to protect the welfare of the 'mistreated', the truth is that political powers often overrule the efforts of some of the commissioners in wanting to reveal the truth.

Suhakam stands unique among human rights organisations in that it is funded by the government, which means in one way or another Suhakam's independence and transparency is compromised. The 1957 Federal Constitution incorporates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) as fundamental liberties. And the promotion and protection of human rights in many countries is the function of national human rights commissions.

Suhakam's observance of UDHR is constrained only by the Articles of Malaysia's Federal Constitution. Like everyone else in Malaysia, Suhakam is subordinate to the Constitution. And this means Suhakam cannot function as a pressure group, lobbyist or non-governmental organisation.

Power-wise, the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999 empowers Suhakam to subpoena witness, investigate complaints and advise the government on human rights-related matters but does not provide the commission with enforcement powers. Suhakam had previously proposed the need for amendments that would provide it with quasi-judicial powers.

The country's relatively 'peaceful' history is no excuse not to grant enforcement and prosecution functions to Suhakam, as might be the justification of not equipping Suhakam with too many 'teeth'.

If indeed Suhakam was as 'respectful' an organisation as the government would like the people to believe, then there should be no reason why the commission's annual reports were never debated in Parliament since its inception in 1999. This clearly shows just how much truth the government is willing to hear and see exposed. Conscience is a concept foreign to the government and this therefore explains its unscrupulous move to conceal truth in one way or another.

Should the government have no compunction in degrading an agency as respectable like the human rights organisation, then the morally rightful move will be to 'shut' Suhakam down.

Otherwise, the government has to accord the commission the due respect and authority to deal with issues that impinge on human rights. And all recommendations made by Suhakam must be viewed seriously and be given the necessary attention. To simply dismiss suggestions coming from Suhakam only reflects on the government's lack of confidence in trusting the commission to do its job as per tasked.

Disgraceful and dictatorial

Having made such a callous remark, it was apt that Nazri anticipated some response from the commissioners. As Suhakam commissioner Prof Hamdan Adnan rightly said, the commission was not established by the government of the day to which Nazri belonged to but by Parliament. As such, Nazri's statement that the commission served merely as window-dressing only reflected badly on the government.

Was Nazri echoing the ruling government's stand on how it wants Suhakam to play a role? Otherwise how does one explain the chilling silence from the politicians on Nazri's irresponsible statement?

Nazri's 'caution' continues to raise a host of questions:

1) Is the government 'afraid' to see the people empowered vis-a-vis understanding of their rights?

2) Is Nazri above the law? Is he privy to information affecting the public with the public having no say at all?

3) What really is the function of Suhakam? Is it to act as a government showcase in display of democracy or does its existence bear any substance?

If his ignorance in handling an issue so fragile like that of human rights was not bad enough, Nazri went a step further with his disgraceful and dictatorial way of handling the rebuke coming from Suhakam on his statement.

Upset that commissioners Prof Hamdan and N Siva Subramaniam took him to task for making such a 'shameful' statement, Nazri, in all his act of defensiveness continued to rattle that Suhakam has no power and that 'we' (presumably the government) has no intention of giving them power.

Instead of tackling the issue like a seasonal politician, the arrogant Nazri leaped to his own defence and came out performing an out-an-out amateurish act, censuring Hamdan and Siva and so-called turning the tables on these two commissioners instead.

Nazri's insinuation that "Suhakam is in a mess" calls for accountability on his part. Is he trying to hide the truth that it is the government that 'messed' Suhakam and has conveniently dumped the blame on the de-motivated commissioners?

Brave commissioners

While Hamdan and Siva must be lauded for showing Suhakam's displeasure over Nazri's remark, they must by now have realised that politicians in Malaysia lack the most basic qualification - the ability to discuss an issue in the most sensible and matured manner.

Looking at Nazri's uncalled for reaction, it is little wonder why many articulate social activists shy away from speaking their minds.

In Malaysia, stupidity is the order of the day as shown and proven by so-called leaders like Nazri.

If there is a name that does Suhakam proud, it is none other than that of Hamdan. At one time it was the Federation of Malaysian Consumer Associations (Fomca) which became synonymous with Hamdan and today it is Suhakam.

Hamdan's courage and vocal concerns in dealing with the cases brought to Suhakam's attention have given people some hope that the commission is indeed doing some good work.

One should be forgiven to assume that Suhakam is Hamdan and Hamdan is Suhakam.

Why are the other members not pro-active in highlighting the problems brought to Suhakam. Why the need to play safe?

JJ RAY started her career with a mainstream publication. A non-conformist, she soon saw the barriers that went up whenever, through her writing, she tried to make the world a home for one and all.