I to the Malaysiakini report Groups want a trimmed-down Suhakam .

The gist of the report appears to be a call from certain organisations on the need for full-time commissioners for Suhakam. Even if one were to acknowledge that the commission is, at present, ineffective, whether the problem would be resolved by the appointment of full-time commissioners is open to debate.

One of the advantages of the present system is that the Suhakam commissioners are able to draw from their diverse life experiences when dealing with matters that are brought before our human rights commission.

Another advantage is that prominent persons would be able to serve without giving up their full- time jobs and thus not taxing the public purse. In any case, the present remuneration of Suhakam commissioners is unlikely to persuade capable persons to give up their lucrative careers to serve the commission full time.

The Malaysian judiciary is facing a similar problem where judges earn far less than senior lawyers, thus making it difficult to recruit from the Bar.

Conversely, many bodies, such as the Bar Council, comprise of persons who otherwise hold full- time jobs. No one would seriously argue that the effectiveness of these bodies is somewhat compromised by virtue of these ‘part-timers’.

Ultimately, it is the caliber of the persons appointed, rather than the number of hours worked, which will determine the effectiveness of Suhakam. In comparison, there appears to be serious misgivings about the state of the judiciary notwithstanding it comprising full-time judges.

In fact the Bar Council is pushing for pro tempore judicial commissioners to be appointed and, no one has argued that such judicial commissioners would in any way be less effective than full- time judges.

As ineffective as Suhakam may be perceived now, it would be disastrous if full-time commissioners, with security of tenure, but lacking in capability, are appointed. The focus should and must always be on quality.