The first chairperson to the Malaysian Human Rights Commission or Suhakam, Musa Hitam saw Suhakam among others, as a vehicle to restore a measure of confidence in the government under the administration of Dr Mahathir Mohamad.
Suhakam was born in 2000, barely two years after the sacking of Anwar Ibrahim, then deputy prime minister in September 1998 and hardly a year after an increase in support to opposition political parties in the 1999 general election.
The most memorable public show of loss of confidence in the Mahathir administration in the recent past was the reformasi demonstrations of 1998 to1999.
This occurred almost on a weekly basis in Kuala Lumpur. People would stream out from bookshops, malls and restaurants, a book or shopping bag in hand and converge on the streets in seeming protest against the Anwar sacking. This was a 'happening' in the city. Peace walkers, shoppers, tourists and curious onlookers and bystanders claimed the streets and sidewalks.
People-to-people action
During the early days, palm-sized slips of paper would provide information of these Saturday happenings. Human rights groups were informed by people working in high-rise offices acting as volunteer look-outs, of where and how many FRU trucks were in the vicinity. Sometimes they would be able to give a rough estimate of ground police, easily spotted communicating on walkie-talkies, long before the crowds gather. It was a people-to-people networking.
The motley crowd created a 'fiesta-like' atmosphere, possibly rivalling anything that the Arts, Culture and Tourism Minister could cough up (in the haze) at that time. Commentaries would be posted on the Internet by anyone and everyone at the end of the day, including the number arrested and where urgent arrest lawyers should go the next day.
People watched the police and posted advice on identification of secret police such as sunglasses, wristbands or waist pouches, regardless of the fact that police were video-taping and identifying possible dalang (instigators) at every incident. Police-watch civilians posted faces of police 'journos' and 'camera-crew' on the Net as well. Peace walkers were able to ferret out secret police in subsequent peace marches. It was civil disobedience and counter-surveillance like the post-Merdeka crowd has never seen before.
Street action soon articulated protests against corruption, nepotism and cronyism and innumerable peaceful gatherings were initiated by political parties, human rights groups and students on anything from corporate bail-outs, the misuse of EPF funds, accounts of the Anwar trial, independence of the judiciary. Issues of justice and liberty gripped the nation.
Police permits irrelevant
For the first time since May 13, 1969, police permits for public meetings and assemblies were considered irrelevant to the demands of justice, the police being stripped of any moral authority especially after the Anwar 'black-eye' incident. Anwar, blindfolded and handcuffed was brutally beaten in police custody by Rahim Noor, then the inspector-general of police.
The common people spilled their guts out in public. Information on the holiday scandal of Eusoff Chin, then the chief justice for example, was left with the editor of malaysiakini . The judiciary was on public trial through public information and networking. A backlash from what is perceived as the injustice of the Anwar trial.
Free speech and expression, alternative independent print and Internet media, and the right of peaceful assembly were the mechanisms, the people's tools to mobilise public opinion and action. Things are falling into place by sheer public will. The people were newsmakers. They reclaimed the public spaces.
The power unleashed against the regime created fear and the state attempted to garner public support against reformasi in the streets as 'Western', ruling that street action is alien to Asian culture and values.
Then it's just sheer brute force. While Anwar's black eye resulted in a royal commission which found Rahim Noor alone guilty of the attack, the public is simply left at the mercy of the police.
There were increasing incidents of police manipulating their powers to question any person under the Criminal Procedure Code to weed information on future gatherings. On several occasions, people were arrested based on information obtained in these so-called interviews (as the person questioned is not under arrest). Police have been using this tactic as 'normal' procedure although it is flawed in its human rights perspective.
The first-term Suhakam commissioners came into office close to April 14, 2000, the day judgment was handed down in the sodomy trial of Anwar Ibrahim. That Anwar was singled out for trial for sexual misconduct is something that the public does not easily forget either.
In the last month or so, the public was kept spellbound with allegations of sexual misdeeds of ministers and political appointees. No similar trial at the initiation of the powers that be, however, looms in their future. Indeed the initial grievances of Anwar's supporters and political observers that the Anwar trail is politically motivated is confirmed by the new events.
Agent provocateurs
The first-term Suhakam commissioners had an unenviable task. They had to deal not only with the laws at hand but also the nature of the political power wielding these laws. It had to go where the judiciary had not gone before; it had to enter the political realm of law enforcement.
In this many would agree, that the first-term commissioners have done exceedingly well in coming up with press statements in the first year of office with a view to maintain some kind of balance between democratic rights of the people and law enforcement.
The Freedom of Assembly report echoes much of the concern of civil liberty groups. In its press statement dated Aug 3, 2001, Suhakam maintained that "freedom of assembly is the right of every individual in a democratic country as it is one means of public participation in the democratic process.
Our recommendations are based on the firm belief that peaceful assemblies are possible in the present day Malaysia. We have suggested measures that could be taken to ensure that assemblies are peacefulorganisers of assemblies are responsible in ensuring good behaviour of the participantsand the police are to exercise restraint in crowd and traffic control and in the dispersal of assemblies".
With due respect to the commissioners, most of the gatherings and peace marches have always maintained a level of discipline and respect for non-violence. Announcements in the Internet of reformasi demonstrations provide educational information of the conduct of peaceful assemblies. Marshals are identified at the commencement and people generally intend to stay out of trouble. Subsequently it became necessary in these gatherings to identify agent provocateurs.
If we frequent police stations in the city we may be able to recognise familiar faces who have at some point in time attended peace gatherings with a view to disturb peaceful meetings. On May Day this year for example, human rights activists saw a woman in her late 40s at the Dang Wangi station who occasionally turns up in peace gatherings and get into an "uncontrolled" frenzy of name-calling and curses to incite police to arrest and violate the peace. She has been spotted at Bukit Aman and at the Jalan Stadium police stations.
A measure of respect to Suhakam
The Freedom of Assembly report and the report of the incident at Kesas Highway are important reports, a report card of the state disrespect of the right of speech, assembly and association of the people.
A measure of respect and confidence in Suhakam (and for the commissioners who felt strongly about the task they are required to perform under the 1999 Act), was evident when groups are quite prepared to accept the proposals of police permits in certain situations noted in the Freedom of Assembly report.
One of the problems Suhakam has to face is the paradoxically powerful yet insecure government it has to address. Parliament which is controlled by a majority of the party in power, did not provide any space to have these reports debated, much less seeing to the implementation of the recommendations.
It be may fair to conclude that as far as the people are concerned, the jury is back with the verdict that our insecure institutions of governance are not ready for such an institution as Suhakam. Perhaps when the prime minister was persuaded to institute Suhakam at Musa Hitam's cajoling, it was to see if leverage for his party could be made? But Musa himself had declared in an early interview with Asia Times , that he will not kowtow.
The insecurity of the powers that be is confirmed by the non-renewal of the terms of three commissioners, two of whom were seen as responsible for the Kesas and Freedom of Assembly reports. In addition, as if to indicate that the ruling party is ever so powerful regardless of Parliament (which it controls anyway through a process of elective dictatorship, a problem in Westminster-style parliaments), a chairperson who does not command the confidence of human rights groups and civil libertarians was appointed to replace Musa Hitam this April.
Many, including the 32 NGOs which launched the 100-day boycott
on May 4 this year, have indicated dissatisfaction with Suhakam. What is perhaps not articulated as clearly is the fact that the measure of confidence spoken of by Musa in 2000 has not yet been realised in relation to the government's human rights record.
SALBIAH AHMAD is a lawyer and an independent researcher. To answer all recent queries, she is no longer affiliated to Sisters in Islam as of July 1997. MALAYA! as the name for this column was inspired by the meaning of "Malaya" in Tagalog which means freedom. The events at the end of 1998 in KL offer a new inspiration. MALAYA! takes on the process of reclaiming the many facets of independence.
