Every member of the civil society should rightly be disappointed and shocked by Suhakam's statement

in reply to Deputy Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's threat to use the Sedition Act against any individual or group who continues to oppose the government's move to use English to teach Science and Mathematics in schools next year.

Suhakam had said that the Sedition Act, which was an act of Parliament, was applicable to all citizens and that it was the prerogative of the attorney-general to institute charges against anyone who had breached the provisions of the act.

By making such a statement, Suhakam is merely trying to justify the unwarranted threat made by Abdullah to invoke the Sedition Act, instead of protecting and preserving human rights in this country.

Suhakam does not seem to regard itself as a statutory body set up to protect and preserve human rights in Malaysia, but an organisation out to defend the executive in its encroachment of human rights in this country.

Suhakam is supposed to be established as a "national human rights institution" for the purpose of meeting international requirements for each country to protect and preserve human rights in the country in question. This time round, it has failed miserably in protecting freedom of expression and freedom of opinion.

Suhakam seems to be more interested in going to the 'letter' of the law, and not upholding the "spirit" of the Federal Constitution, particularly concerning the provisions of fundamental liberties.

In this 21st century, Suhakam is not even up to the mark of what our former prime minister, the late Hussein Onn, said as far back as 17 years ago. This was what he said:

"The Sedition Act should not be invoked too easily just because people express views which do not conform with established views ... the authorities should not stretch the provision of the law to make every non-conformist statement seditious, or the law itself would fall into disrepute ... There is the political aspect which involves the rights of the people to express their views. If it is blatant, one has to be careful in invoking the act as it involves the freedom of speech." ( The Star , Sept 20, 1985).

The reader may be interested in what context Hussein made the statement.

In 1985, at the material time, the then PAS vice-president Hadi Awang uttered a bold statement that "the question of privileges for the Malays will not arise under Islamic law".

In response, the prime minister said the attorney-general would have to determine if the speech was seditious. Not only was the Sedition Act cited, some quarters even maintained that the utterance was tantamount to treason.

Compared with the current concerted opposition by various ethnic communities to the authorities' move to use English to teach Maths and Science, the remark that "the question of privileges for the Malays will not arise under Islamic law" is certainly far more "seditious" (as the powers that be would put it).

It was under such circumstances that Hussein made the remark. That was the voice of reason.

How would then Suhakam account for its shallow understanding of "protecting and preserving human rights" in this country?

Who is to blame if Suhakam is described by someone as "the appendage to the executive", merely serving the purpose of defending the erosion of human rights by the powers-that-be?