ERA Consumer Malaysia welcomes the government’s sudden renewed interest in amending the National Human Rights Commission Act 1999. However, we express grave disappointment over the manner and the timing of tabling such an important Bill.

We question the intention of the government in bulldozing the Act and not giving enough time for members of Parliament to comprehend the content of the proposed amendments. Further, the amendments were made without any consultation with civil society organisations like us.

The whole process is shrouded with secrecy that even the members of Parliament and NGOs were caught by surprise with the sudden tabling of the amendment Bill.

The new amendments obviously lack substance and do not correspond with the concerns raised by the International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (ICC) Sub-Committee on Accreditation when Suhakam was up for review in April 2008.

The Sub-Committee notes the following:

The independence of Suhakam needs to be strengthened by the provision of clear and transparent appointment and dismissal process in the founding legal documents, more in line with the Paris Principles. The sub-committee refers to General Observation ‘Selection and appointment of the governing body’.

With regard to appointments, the Sub-Committee notes the short term of office of the members of Suhakam (two years). It refers to General Observation ‘Guarantee of tenure for members of governing bodies’.

It further refers to General Observation ‘Ensuring pluralism’ to highlight the importance of ensuring the representation of different segments of society and their involvement in suggesting or recommending candidates to the governing body of the commission.

The Sub-Committee refers to General Observation ‘Interaction with the International Human Rights System’.

Therefore, the Sub-Committee in its report and recommendations to the Commission states of its intention to recommend status B to Suhakam from its current ‘A’ status. However, it gives Suhakam the opportunity to provide, in writing, by March 26, 2009, the documentary evidence deemed necessary to establish its continued conformity with the Paris Principles. Therefore, the tabling of the amendment Bill on March 25, 2009, obviously raised many questions.

Furthermore if one were to scrutinise the tabled Bill carefully, we will see that the proposed amendments were cosmetic in nature and that it fails to address the fundamental issues raised by the ICC sub-Committee. This can be illustrated as follows:

Section 5(2) of the amended Bill provides that Suhakam will be appointed by the Yang Di Pertuan Agong (King) on the recommendation of the prime minister, who shall now, before tendering his advice, consult the committee referred to in Section 11(A).

Section 11(A), on the other hand, provides for the composition of the select committee which comprises of the following persons:

a. The chief secretary to the government who shall be the chairperson;

b. The chairperson of the commission; and

c. Three other members, from amongst eminent persons to be appointed by the prime minister.

It went on to state further as to who is and who is not eligible to be nominated in this selection committee. Further, it is also stated that this committee shall determine the course of its own proceedings. Also, there is no provision provided under the amended Bill for civil society participation in giving recommendations and views on the selection process.

In our opinion, it once again gives the prime minister a free hand in such appointments as there is a high possibility that these eminent persons will be people who were particularly ‘friendly’ and thus negate the issue raised by ICC Sub-Committee on the need to strengthen the independence of Suhakam by having a clear and transparent provision on appointment and dismissal processes and in ensuring a pluralistic representation.

It is also pertinent to note that Section 11(A)(6) further states that any opinion, view or recommendation of the committee upon consultation by the prime minister under subsection 5(2) shall not be binding. This again, in our opinion, renders this whole amendment as irrelevant.

We also refer to the Sub-Committee’s report in April 2008, which noted, ‘Members of the NHRIs should include full-time remunerated members […]’. This was not addressed in the amended Bill.

We are, however, pleased to note that the Bill recommended that the commissioner should be appointed for a three-year term with possibility of only one term reappointment. Then again, we are concerned that an increase of one year from the previous two years will not ensure independence as they still risk being not reappointed.

Therefore, for these reasons, we still maintain that these amendments are superficial and only a knee-jerk reactions to salvage Suhakam from being downgraded rather than a genuine effort to ensure a constructive reform of Suhakam.

We strongly believe that there is a nexus between the government’s rush in passing the Bill and the ICC Sub-Committee on Accreditation meeting on March 26 to discuss the Suhakam’s re-accreditation.

The writer is secretary-general, ERA Consumer Malaysia.