Human rights... who calls the shot?
Is our Suhakam Act compliant with United Nation's Paris Principles?
That has been challenged by the UNHCHR (United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights), and Malaysia was given a 28-day ultimatum to respond to the observations of the Accreditation Sub-Committee of the International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights (ICC).
The deadline ended yesterday, May 3. Malaysia failed to respond in due course, despite seeing Suhakam chairman Abu Talib Othman sound the alarm bells on April 29.
As a consequence, Malaysia may lose the A-Status as a country committed to protecting, upholding and promoting human rights. Suhakam will be downgraded to equate that of yet another government bureaucracy.
As it is, the Suhakam (Amendment) Bill 2009 was bulldozed through the Dewan Rakyat during its first sitting 2009, seen apparently as a BN Government’s attempt to make the Suhakam Act compliant with the Paris Principles, which were institutionalised in 1991.
For context, Malaysians need to know that the Suhakam (Amendment) Bill 2009 was passed by the BN-dominated Dewan Rakyat the day before Suhakam’s review in Geneva that took place on March 26.
Now, the UN had challenged and questioned Suhakam as being non-compliant to the Principes de Paris.
Earlier, the ICC issued a notice to Malaysia last April, threatening of a possible downgrade if improvements were not made by March 26.
Malaysia was given an extension of 28 days when it did not reply by March 26, the day the notice expired.
As a Member of Parliament, I was given a briefing on this in April when the Dewan Rakyat was in session.
However, I have heard nothing more thereafter.
BY THE WAY... The Paris Principles list 5 key areas of responsibilities for national institutions like Suhakam, namely:
- The institution shall monitor any situation of violation of human rights, which it decides to take up.
- The institution shall be able to advise the Government, the Parliament and any other competent body on specific violations, on issues related to legislation and its compliance with international human rights instruments, and on the implementation of these instruments.
- The institution shall relate to regional and international organizations.
- The institution shall have a mandate to educate and inform in the field of human rights.
- Some of these nationally-sponsored institutions may be given a quasi-judicial competence.
The ICC had challenged Malaysia on these principles based on the provisions of the newly passed Suhakam (Amendment) Bill 2009, particularly on the parts relating to the promotion and protection of human rights.
It wanted Suhakam’s independence to be strengthened by a clear and transparent appointment and dismissal process in the Suhakam Act. It also human rights commissioners to serve longer than two years and for them to represent different segments of society.
Apparently, the Government’s Bill on Suhakam (March 2009), in response to the ICC's demands, still fell short of the Paris Principles. A Malaysia NGO described the amendments on the Suhakam Act as "superficial and irrelevant".
Again, for context, Malaysia's track records in the eyes of UNHCHR can be found this special online location.
An “A” status accreditation means that Suhakam, originally designed as a national human rights institution (NHRI), complies with the Paris Principles and is able to participate directly in all meetings of the UN Human Rights Council.
A “B” means it is not fully compliant and has observer status only. A “C” means total non-compliance, an international pariah.
Comments
Things are starting to get diffused. There is no closure for the rakyat.
You get a topic here, a response there. That seems to be the way blogosphere seems to be operating in this country.
There is no focus. It is like water running down the tap. Where it goes, no one knows. When people don't know, they will soon stop caring.
Closures are what oppositions should use to stamp their print.
Diffusion is dangerous. It says there is no direction nor target. It says the organization is attenuated when it should be strong. It says people are defocused from the big picture they must canvas and share. It brings up the notion of overconfidence. It derides at its own future cost the competitor's ability to assemble and marshal their resources and forces. It enables the competitor to fight the battle on one's turf instead of on the competitor's turf.
And they have been more creative. They have been hitting back hard.
It's not just grassroots support which counts. Grassroots can be split. Grassroots are dependent on many things.
One of that is that body of things that encompass burning platforms, key issues, direct correlates between what they face every day and what has been shown to have been hidden from them all the while which if revealed would have prompted remedies and proactive action to have been taken in bigger measures for swifter resolution.
A new website is needed. It should be multilingual. Neat. With photos. In simple language. Informative. Direct. Hitting all those burning platforms, issues,..... and nothing else.
The website will list all the things in need of closure.
Throw a stone now and pick some up.
Toyo's mansion - true or not true? how much does an MB draw? how was it funded? what is the MACC going to do about it? when? by who?
Altantuya's killers - did they report to someone? who could it be? will the judiciary system raise that for closure? what next? remember, global platform, precedent, and a simple thing called justice to a young mother with a child.
Perak state assembly - was it a coup d'etat? will the rakyat be reminded of what actually happened?
The one hundred k in the drawer - was it true? will the MACC reopen the file?
The lingam case - what has happened? will the MACC and BC reopen their files? when? by who?
The exMiti officer with the billion-ringgit APs - what has happened? will the MACC open a file? when? by who?
The screwdriver fiasco? what has happened to all of them? will the MACC open a file? when? by who?
In that website, the content will briefly state the matter, adduce relevant facts, edit comments for quality (facts, data, confirmation or otherwise, insights, other abuses...); nothing else. The issues will remain, and stick like radioactive waste until each is resolved. They will grip the minds of the rakyat, and act as thorns in the soles of the competitors. They will only be removed when justice is done, remedies are made, people are punished as an example that this country still has values, and its governance has returned to higher purity, better standards, greater honesty.
The present is otherwise. When there is too much noise, people will forget there was a reason, a big picture, an urgency. They will be confused by the plethora of issues. They will be swayed by opinion pieces written well but by the very groupings which have motives not to resolve matters but cast indirection, pseudo explanations and disinformation. Plenty around.
What is the role of an opposition? To foist reform by the incumbent? So, if the incumbent seeds the perception in the minds of the rakyat that it is reforming, what will happen to the role of the opposition then?
It's all about reading the land, sea and air.
And yes, put human rights as one of the key issues in that website. Insert photos, examples, testimonies, facts and figures. Make it as painful as the pictures on the pack of cigs.
Let the rakyat have things to grip on, moving forward.
Blogging is serious business.
Posted by: Neil![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jeffooi.my/nav-commenters.gif)
|
May 4, 2009 10:51 AM