Much has been said about the new line-up of the Suhakam commissioners. The media reported that the following will be the new team of commissioners for the next three years and is eligible for reappointment once for another period of three years: former UN permanent representative Hasmy Agam, native customary rights advocate Jannie Lasimbang, lawyer Detta Samen, children’s rights activist Dr James Nayagam, women’s rights activist Maria Chin Abdullah, Fomca Secretary-General Muhammad Sha'ani Abdullah, former Abim president Ahmad Azam Abdul Rahman, Universiti Malaya Deputy Vice Chancellor Prof Datuk Dr Khaw Lake Tee and International Institute of Islamic Thought and Civilisation Deputy Dean Prof Dr Mahmood Zuhdi Abdul Majid.

The term of the past 16 members headed by Abu Talib Othman expired on April 24, but thus far, Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak has yet to announce the new appointments, which lead to the question of credibility of the institution. The institution is now left with a secretariat without decision-makers.

The appointment of human rights commissioners have been controversial in many parts of the world. This can be seen from our neighbouring countries. There are currently four national human rights institutions in the Southeast Asia region apart from Malaysia; namely in the Philippines, Indonesia and Thailand.

The Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines (CHRP) as the oldest national human rights institution in the region, came into existence when the former late President C Aquino signed the Executive Order No. 163 in 1987.

In 2008, the sudden news of the appointment of its chairperson, Leila de Lima replacing the outgoing chairperson Purificacion Quisumbing caused serious concern among human rights activists there. The main criticism was that de Lima was known more as an election lawyer and had virtually no experience in human-rights work.

Despite the grave concerns over the appointment and parliamentary approval process of the members of the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand (NHRCT), Thailand’s Upper House in May 2009 approved seven nominees for the institution who comprised a top cop, a judicial administrator, a civil servant, an industrialist, an academic, a former senator and a road safety advocate.

The Paris Principles are a set of principles guiding the work and structure of national human rights institutions, establishing, in particular, the competence and responsibilities of such institutions as well as their composition and guarantees of independence and pluralism. These criteria are further elaborated in the UN Handbook with elements of nationality, profession and qualifications, which persons are entitled to dismiss members and for what reasons, as well as the privileges and immunities.

Furthermore, it also stipulates that there shall be a continuation of the individuals manning the institution. This serves in a way to prevent a government from being able to silence an institution which is exactly what is happening to Suhakam now.

Section 1 of the Principles said the composition of the such 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 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:

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

(b) trends in philosophical or religious thought;

(d) parliament; and

(e) government departments (if these are included, their representatives should participate in the deliberations only in an advisory capacity).

Looking at the existing institutions, there are a variety of ways to ensure the independence and pluralism of the institution. For example, through the public advertisement of vacancies, the making of a recommendation to Parliament, public nominations for candidates, public consultations which would allow civil society groups to nominate names.

An open and transparent appointment process is critically important to ensure the independency of the institution which means that politically-motivated appointments should be prevented.

A good example could be learned from the Commission for Human Rights and Good Governance of Tanzania. All posts are publicly advertised for three days in three leading English and Kiswahili language newspapers, followed by three successive advertisements on national and private television stations.

Their civil society may also nominate a person for appointment with the consent of the potential nominee. All applications (which shall include three letters of recommendation) are to be then forwarded to the appointments committee and subsequently there shall be a screening process by a ten=member panel to shortlist the candidates.

Generally, it is seen that the independence of national human rights institutions in Asia are on a decline. Appointment mechanisms are thus one of the most critical procedures to guarantee the independence, diversity and accessibility of a national human rights institution.

With the commitment of these three main elements and avoiding direct appointments by the executive branch of government, there is - to certain extent - a level of guarantee that such institution will manage to implement their mandate to the fullest.