Screenshots

Lawyer/Blogger Malik Imtiaz Sarwar outlines the fundamental difference between the two.

It is important to note that a Commission like Suhakam is more concerned with the question of violations of human rights or civil liberties. The records show that the Government would unlikely take any step towards a Suhakam type of inquiry that could result in an expose of its wrongdoing.

Whereas, a Royal Commission is a commission that is established under the Commissions Of Enquiry Act 1950 (Revised 1973). This Act authorizes the Yang Dipertuan Agong to institute a Commission without having to act on advice of the Prime Minister or Cabinet.

As such, the establishment of such a commission is not a decision of the Government to take, or not to take, as the case may be.

Royal Commission on 'Black-Eye'

Imtiaz quoted one of the more prominent Royal Commissions in recent times, and that was the commission that conducted an enquiry into the assault on Anwar Ibrahim during his detention.

The findings of the enquiry led to the prosecution and conviction of a former IGP.

And here's the context Imtiaz raised to illustrate the effectiveness of a Royal Commission:

As the Anwar Ibrahim commission showed, the powers of such a commission to delve into the evidence, through the summoning of witnesses and the holding of hearings, are sufficiently wide so as to allow for the Commission to get to the truth of a matter efficiently and efficaciously. The fact of its ‘royal’ status and the freedom of the (Agong) to appoint His Majesty’s commissioners who are more usually retired and respected judges and community leaders, work towards inspiring confidence in such a Commission’s decision making process and the impartiality of its decision.

That said, Imtiaz suggested that a Royal Commission would be an appropriate way to probe the Batu Buruk Incident, as well as dealing with the matters raised in the Petition Rakyat. [ See draft of Petition Rakyat here ]

Read his reasoning here.