Saturday, July 26, 2008

SUHAKAM, a 'below standard' Human Rights Commission...

SUHAKAM does not meet the mark as a Human Rights Commission (Human Rights Institutions) - and it is so true.

When the 1st batch of Human Rights Commissioners (2000-2002) were appointed - we had several real human rights persons, and a strong vocal Chairperson in the person of Musa Hitam, former DPM.

When the first 2-year term expired, some of the human rights persons and good Commissioners like Prof. Mehrun Siraj and Tan Sri Annuar Zainal Abidin were never appointed for a 2nd term. These 2 were involved in the SUHAKAM Inquiry into the Kesas Highway incident – which finally did directly criticize the police for their use of excessive force that turned a peaceful protest into a chaotic incident, and the coming out of the document on Rights of Remand Prisoners Report (2001) – which recommended various reforms including the right to a phone call, etc.

Of course, if you were the PM - you would want to weed out these more independent and critical HR Commissioners. Musa Hitam also was not re-appointed Chairman.

Over the years, more and more human rights persons with guts to act have been weeded out of SUHAKAM - and the last to go maybe Prof Mohd Hamdan Adnan.

Look at who is the Chairperson of SUHAKAM now - is it not that former Attorney General, who was in office during 1987 (operasi lallang)...1988 (Judicial Crisis) --- that appointment of him as Chairperson would have lost SUHAKAM's credibility as a Human Rights Institution.

Now, with regard to SUHAKAM - even the Malaysian government does not respect it. After all, has any SUHAKAM's Reports/Recommendation been discussed or debated in the Malaysian Parliament to date...

The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) may lose its ‘A' status from a key regulator, thus potentially barring it from attending sessions of the UN Human Rights Council.

This is following an accreditation review exercise by the International Coordination Committee (ICC) of the National Human Rights Institution. Suhakam was told by the ICC to provide, in writing, within one year of such notice, evidence to establish its continued conformity with the Paris Principles. - Malaysiakini, 25/7/2008 "Suhakam might lose 'A' status"

What is wrong with SUHAKAM, besides the kind of persons who are now appointed HR Commissioners... a lot.

To omprove, there must be at least a 5 year term of office (not this ridiculous 2-year term).

There must be full-time HR Commissioners - not part-timers as it is now. (It is not a Datukship that we are talking about here - we are talking about Human Rights Commissioners.)

The ICC stated that among the reasons for the possible re-categorisation of Suhakam's status is the need for the "independence of the commission to be strengthened by the provision of a clear and transparent appointment and dismissal process" in the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999.

The ICC also noted the short term of office (two years) by which members of the commission are currently appointed.

There is also a lack of provisions in the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999 to ensure genuine "pluralism" in the make up of Suhakam's commissioners, said the ICC.

-- it will be good if we know what else is wrong with our SUHAKAM... (where is that full report, by the way?)

It was fashionable for countries to have Human Rights Commissions - so Malaysian government created SUHAKAM - that's all. They wanted to have a Human Rights Commission but never really wanted it to fully function as a real and effective Human Rights Commission -- and they have succeeded.

Now, the accreditation body has found the Malaysian Human Rights Commission the extend that it may be degraded to "B" status - which is very embarrassing.

What will Abdullah Ahmad Badawi do about this? Possibly nothing much - for after all he has already got an UMNO man ready to take over as the head of the Malaysian judiciary soon.


And, what is that Paris Principles (taken from the Malaysia and Human Rights website -

Principles relating to the status and functioning of national institutions for
protection and promotion of human rights

Note: In October, 1991, the Center for Human Rights convened an international workshop to review and update information on existing national human rights institutions. Participants included representatives of national institutions, States, the United Nations, its specialized agencies, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations.

In addition to exchanging views on existing arrangements, the workshop participants drew up a comprehensive series of recommendations on the role, composition, status and functions of national human rights instruments. These recommendations, which were endorsed by the Commission on
Human Rights in March 1992 (resolution 1992/54) and by the General Assembly in its resolution A/RES/48/134 of 20 December 1993, are summarized below.

A. Competence and responsibilities

I . A national institution shall be vested with competence to protect and promote human rights.

2. A national institution shall be given as broad a mandate as possible, which shall be clearly set forth in a constitutional or legislative text, specifying its composition and its sphere of competence.

3. A national institution shall, inter alia, have the following responsibilities:

(a) To submit to the government, parliament and any other competent body, on an advisory basis either at the request of the authorities concerned or through the exercise of its power to hear a matter without higher referral, opinions, recommendations, proposals and reports on any matters concerning the protection and promotion of human rights. The national institution may decide to publicize them. These opinions, recommendations, proposals and reports, as well as any prerogative of the national institution, shall relate to the following areas:

(i) Any legislative or administrative provisions, as well as provisions relating to judicial organization, intended to preserve and extend the protection of human rights. In that connection, the national institution shall examine the legislation and administrative provisions in force, as well as bills and proposals, and shall make such recommendations as it deems appropriate in order to ensure that these provisions conform to the fundamental principles of human rights. It shall, if necessary, recommend the adoption of new legislation, the amendment of legislation in force and the adoption or amendment of administrative measures;

(ii) Any situation of violation of human rights which it decides to take up;

(iii) The preparation of reports on the national situation with regard to human rights in general, and on more specific matters;

(iv) Drawing the attention of the government to situations in any part of the country where human rights are violated and making proposals to it for initiatives to put an end to such situations and, where necessary, expressing an opinion on the positions and reactions of the government;

b) To promote and ensure the harmonization of national legislation, regulations and practices with the international human rights instruments to which the State is a party, and their effective implementation;

c) To encourage ratification of the above-mentioned instruments or accession to those instruments, and to ensure their implementation;

d) To contribute to the reports which States are required to submit to United Nations bodies and committees, and to regional institutions, pursuant to their treaty obligations, and, where necessary, to express an opinion on the subject, with due respect for their independence;

e) To cooperate with the United Nations and any other agency in the United Nations system, the regional institutions and the national institutions of other countries which are competent in the areas of the protection and promotion of human rights;

f) To assist in the formulation of programmes for the teaching of, and research into, human rights and to take part in their execution in schools, universities and professional circles;

g) To publicize human rights and efforts to combat all forms of discrimination, in particular racial discrimination, by increasing public awareness, especially through information and education and by making use of all press organs.

B. Composition and guarantees of independence and pluralism

1. The composition of the national institution and the appointment of its members, whether by means of an election or otherwise, shall be established in accordance with a procedure which affords all necessary guarantees to ensure the pluralist representation of the social forces (of civilian society) involved in the protection and promotion of human rights, particularly by powers which will enable effective cooperation to be established with, or through the presence of, representatives of:

Non-governmental organizations responsible for human rights and efforts to combat racial discrimination, trade unions, concerned social and professional organizations, for example, associations of lawyers, doctors, journalists and eminent scientists;

Trends in philosophical or religious thought;

Universities and qualified experts;


Government departments (if they are included, these representatives should participate in the deliberations only in an advisory capacity).

2. The national institution shall have an infrastructure which is suited to the smooth conduct of its activities, in particular adequate funding. The purpose of this funding should be to enable it to have its own staff and premises, in order to be independent of the government and not be subject to financial control which might affect this independence.

3. In order to ensure a stable mandate for the members of the institution, without which there can be no real independence, their appointment shall be effected by an official act which shall establish the specific duration of the mandate. This mandate may be renewable, provided that the pluralism of the institution's membership is ensured.

C. Methods of operation

Within the framework of its operation, the national institution shall:

1. Freely consider any questions falling within its competence, whether they are submitted by the government or taken up by it without referral to a higher authority, on the proposal of its members or of any petitioner,

2. Hear any person and obtain any information and any documents necessary for assessing situations falling within its competence;

3. Address public opinion directly or through any press organ, particularly in order to publicize its opinions and recommendations;

4. Meet on a regular basis and whenever necessary in the presence of all its members after they have been duly consulted;

5. Establish working groups from among its members as necessary, and set up local or regional sections to assist it in discharging its functions;

6. Maintain consultation with the other bodies, whether jurisdictional or otherwise, responsible for the protection and promotion of human rights (in particular, ombudsmen, mediators and similar institutions);

7. In view of the fundamental role played by the non-governmental organizations in expanding the work of the national institutions, develop relations with the non-governmental organizations devoted to protecting and promoting human rights, to economic and social development, to combating racism, to protecting particularly vulnerable groups (especially children, migrant workers, refugees, physically and mentally disabled persons) or to specialized areas.

D. Additional principles concerning the status of commissions with quasi-jurisdictional competence

A national institution may be authorized to hear and consider complaints and petitions concerning individual situations. Cases may be brought before it by individuals, their representatives, third parties, non-governmental organizations, associations of trade unions or any other representative organizations. In such circumstances, and without prejudice to the principles stated above concerning the other powers of the commissions, the functions entrusted to them may be based on the following principles:

1. Seeking an amicable settlement through conciliation or, within the limits prescribed by the law, through binding decisions or, where necessary, on the basis of confidentiality;

2. Informing the party who filed the petition of his rights, in particular the remedies available to him, and promoting his access to them;

3. Hearing any complaints or petitions or transmitting them to any other competent authority within the limits prescribed by the law;

4. Making recommendations to the competent authorities, especially by proposing amendments or reforms of the laws, regulations or administrative practices, especially if they have created the difficulties encountered by the persons filing the petitions in order to assert their rights.


1. A/36/440 (1981), A/38/416 (1983), E/CN.4/1987/37 (1987), E/CN.4/1989/47 and Add. 1(1989), E/CN.4/1991/23 and Add. 1(1991). [back to the text]

Printed at United Nations, Geneva
April 1993


Anonymous said...

Anonymous said…

Why both the Kiasu PeeM and Kiasu DPeeM must go now because these liars who blocked and spinned lies & deceits in the MSM of the non-existent Oil Subsidies and hike the fuels prices to revenge against the Rakyats for their Poll Defeats in losing the 5 States & 2/3 majority in Parliament, cannot rule for long as they have destroyed the BN and lost the trust of all the Rakyats??? This is why Tun Dr. Mahathir is always correct, they must be removed with a surgical knife immediately internally or externally.

Why the Malaysian Police is more interested in the allegation of DSAI than those against of DPeeM Najeeb??? Also, the Malaysian Police has now been tarnished by not serving the Rakyat’s interests but instead becomes the tools for the Kiasu BN to cling on to Power by bullying the ordinary citizens fighting for their basic rights!!!

Also, why hasn’t the police found the source from where did the C4 came from and the culprit C4 expert who placed the charges and detonated the C4 on the Mongolian Woman, there could not be many real sources of the C4 and nor are there many C4 experts in Malaysia unless there is a conspiracy to cover up. Also, the Immigration Entry record of Altantuya’s coming into Malaysia was deleted but the Police did not get the Immigration Personnel Culprit who has had the access into the Immigration Computerized System for the Entry Records to have done this in his conspiracy with the Murderers, there could not be many who have authorized access to these Entry Records. The Malaysian Police has now become the tools of those in power to suppress the truths even Murder.

The Malaysian Police are all not only bullying thugs but also all are cowards who are cowed by the mighty high ranking BN politician and are cowed into covering up for him. The DPeeM has been denying that he ever met, nor never met Altantuya.

The Malaysian Police are nothing but all bullying thugs who know how to bully the ordinary citizens fighting for their basic rights like fighting for the access road in Cheras and also bullying the ordinary citizens who recently protested the fuels price hikes, which did have a domino effect resulting in price hikes in foods and essentials, which should not have been hiked in the first place as well because Malaysia is the nett producer and exporter of Crude Oil and we should be enjoying the windfall profits from Crude Oil like all Oil Producers and Exporters if the Country’s resources are not badly mis-managed by the greedy, corrupted, incompetent & moronic high ranking Kiasu BN politician who helm the BN Government to hike the fuels prices not out of necessity but out of greed in order to plunder, cheat & rob the Malaysian Citizens of their Purchasing Power & reasonable cost of livelihood in revenge for their GE12’s losses to the opposition. Throw out that despotic moronic rotten tyranny soonest possible to stop the rot now otherwise Malaysia’s wealth could be decimated in no time with such chronic rotten tyranny. So therefore in order to desperately cling to Power they now attempt to use the Police to do their bidding by whatever dirty tricks and cook up false evidences & to hide PI Balasubramaniam, & to put RPK & DSAI away to save themselves harmless by their under-handed tactics shamelessly as can be seen by planting Saiful to work for DSAI in-order to trap and remove him at the slightest chance. Where has natural justice in Malaysia gone, perhaps most probably gone to the dogs, if Kiasu BN remains in power???

Also PAS was not born yesterday to be taken in by the Kiasu Umno's ploy to make use of the full support PAS is getting from the Rakyats of all races because of their present status in the fold of their membership in Pakatan Rakyat. If they leave Pakatan Rakyat to join the Kiasu power crazy Umno in an evil alliance it is obvious their popularity will be decimated in no time.

See for yourself whether the DPeeM of Malaysia is lying that he never met Altantuya:-

See for yourself that the Photos are real or fake?

Anonymous said...

This is following an accreditation review exercise by the International Coordination Committee (ICC) of the National Human Rights Institution. Suhakam was told by the ICC to provide, in writing, within one year of such notice, evidence to establish its continued conformity with the Paris Principles. This doesn’t come as a surprise as Suhakam have always dragged it feet and shown reluctance in wanting to take on the government whether it was about the BN/Umno regime and Police’s handling of the Hindraf issue, Bersih BMC fracas etc...

raj raman said...

I have seen or withness nothing in Suhakam report other than some opera show.

One man carry the Master balls - clear cut -Siva Subramaniam.

This Siva without seeing or meet the HINDRAF man which need medical attention issued a press statement-The ISA detainess medical needs well taken care.

By whom?
By Siva Subramaniam from SUHAKAM.
For what - to carry the balls of the paymaster.

rajraman666.SUHAKAM - my grading not to mention for SUHAKAM.Z FOR ZERRO.