Many things have been written about the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) since its inception three years ago, mostly in criticism of its work.

Instead of abating, there is increasing dissatisfaction against the statutory body which is still groping with its handling of human rights issues in Malaysia.

Suhakam has been accused of being sluggish, lacking transparency and a paper tiger designed to divert public anger away from the government, but efforts are in progress to improve its operations.

Up close and personal, has Suhakam discharged its prescribed duties to the best of its ability? And if not, why not?

Delayed response

For starters, the inner workings of Suhakam leave much to be desired. Its response time following a rights violation or complaint could do with an urgent upgrade.

Right now, it takes a while before Suhakam responds to any rights violations, and even then, its stand is standard fare that sometimes echoes that of the government. One can sense the apprehension of not wanting to ruffle feathers in the government.

The tacit understanding is that it is important to maintain a good working relationship with the government, since it is the single largest rights violator and nothing can be achieved otherwise.

The chain reaction of delay started by the April 2002 changeover resulted in periodic reports on the rights of remand prisoners, rights of young prisoners and a few others being released only after the 2002 annual report was submitted to Parliament. The annual report was also delayed.

However, in its 2003 annual report, Suhakam stated that after a "period of adjustment" following the changeover in commissioners, the first batch provided work continuity with "little disruption".

How then would it explain the delay in releasing several periodical reports, for instance, a fact-finding report on the resettlement of 1,000 Orang Asal to make way for the Bakun Dam project that remains missing after almost two years?

Also known as the Salleh report after Dr Salleh Mohd Nor, the former commissioner who chaired the inquiry, the report was re-drafted in attempts to water down its contents.

Another 'missing' report is the Kampung Medan attack which claimed the lives of six persons and left scores severely injured in March 2001.

An investigation officer was silently dispatched to the shanty for a low-profile recce, away from the media glare, including interviewing the locals for a more accurate account of the tragedy.

Two years later, and still no sign of the report. Maybe these reports have been re-classified as Suhakam's S-files, for 'sensitive issues'.

Stepping stone

Commissioners also seem divided on certain issues, such as the handling of Internal Security Act (ISA) complaints, which form the bulk of rights violations.

The recent alleged assault of two ISA detainees - Tian Chua ( photo, right ) and Hishamuddin Rais ( photo, left ) - in Kamunting was a hot issue among local and international human rights advocates.

Suhakam has the reports on the incident from both parties, but instead of resolving the matter through a public inquiry, it is dragging its feet. Let the truth be known, either way one party will be vindicated.

One reason which Suhakam claims contributes to the delays is a shortage of human resources. Not surprising, given the high turnover rate of secretariat staff who treat their posts as a stepping stone.

So, is Suhakam's work affected by this?

A few commissioners have also admitted that the workload was more than the 13 of them, plus the 40-odd secretariat staff, can handle.

Two-term commissioner Prof Hamdan Adnan says Suhakam only hires the best.

"But they are the ones who are enticed by greener pastures in the private sector. Of course Suhakam can never, given its government salary scale, top up those offers. So, we end up losing good officers," he says.

"So far, we have recruited the best. The only handicap is paying them civil servant salary benefits similar to government officers."

Insiders claim security of tenure and no future prospects are an issue, with most hired on contract for two years. Suhakam's application to the Public Services Department for all staff to be made permanent has been shelved on financial grounds.

It also operates on seconded staff from other ministries. Recently, its investigations director Mohd Nasir Abdul Hadi, who has handled almost all the investigations since the beginning, was 'returned' to the Anti-Corruption Agency, leaving a vacancy yet to be filled from within. A few other officers have also returned to their respective ministries.

This being a statutory body financed by the government, based on a government salary scheme with the relevant perks, it is little wonder why staff turnover is high.

Avoidance of media

Compare this with the 12 commissioners, each paid a RM7,000 allowance, given a car and a driver with petrol, parking and toll monies included. Chairperson Abu Talib Othman presumably receives an allowance of more than RM10,000.

And all this for a cushy, part-time job. Half the time, the commissioners are not in the Suhakam office or busy with their other commitments despite a roster specifying two commissioners on duty daily in the mornings and afternoons.

Hamdan, a communications lecturer, became the 'designated' spokesperson for all the commissioners. But is there really a need for someone to speak on behalf of the commissioners?

Suhakam hired a communications director, Hanizah Hashim, but she can't speak on record yet. Currently, all public statements come from its secretary Kamaruddin Mohamed Baria, the only secretariat staff authorised to speak to the media.

As for Hamdan, he is among the very few who can be reached for immediate comments at any time, anywhere. And thanks to his outspoken nature, he is rumoured to be serving his last term.

Ideally, all commissioners should be accessible and able to publicly comment on matters handled by their respective working groups as that would do justice in giving an accurate picture of the progress of investigations or review.

Maybe the general reluctance to face the media is due to the professional background of the commissioners, a mixture of both government and corporate mindset. Even the sharp legal minds prefer to take a 'better be safe than sorry' stance.

Retirement home?

General inaccessibility and the desire to be non-controversial are among reasons why eliciting a response from Suhakam is more painful that extracting a bad tooth.

According to a few insiders, it is often better to have a low profile than to attract undue attention, especially if it is adverse or hostile attention which hampers or delays work in progress.

"(Some in) the previous batch were more vocal, but the current commissioners prefer more diplomacy. This is why they don't see the need to tell people what they are doing all the time," says one.

"In fact, sometimes, certain matters get done through personal favours called in by the commissioners because their focus is on getting the work done. The credit is not important to them."

A regular update of all investigations, reports pending and administrative changes made pursuant to Suhakam's recommendations would be excellent. This way, the human rights body would get the public's support and confidence.

Suhakam should also compile all the minor, yet vital, administrative changes that have resulted from its efforts, either by virtue of its recommendations or through consultations and discussions with the relevant government agencies.

This would go some distance in regaining fast-diminishing public confidence in the capability of the organisation to function as a human rights watchdog, especially with the purse-strings still held by the Foreign Affairs Ministry.

I wonder if turning commission work into a full-time job would speed up things. Hopefully, the national human rights watchdog will maintain its role as a defender of Malaysians' rights and avoid being run like a state bureaucracy or a retirement home for government and corporate luminaries.