Whilst I am not that all surprised that Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad criticised Suhakam's 66-page report of being influenced by western liberal values and bias, I am very surprised that DAP national chairperson Lim Kit Siang himself queried if the Suhakam commissioners had joined the ranks of the 'anti-nationals', a most "remarkable addition to the ranks of the 'anti-nationals', as they not only include a former deputy prime minister but many former senior members of the judiciary and the civil service as well."

I must take Kit Siang' remarks not at their face value but tainted with sarcasm at, and a tongue-in-cheek reference to, those who scoff at Suhakam's findings as being anti-national.

It occurs to me that if Suhakam's commissioners are members of the establishment, it speaks well of their impartiality because there is simply no reason for them to make findings with a bias against the police or the establishment to which they belong!

The whole issue revolving around its alleged partiality stems from the regrettable fact that every time the commissioners have been called to investigate, the call has been made by either leaders or members of the opposition or demonstrators for the opposition. And every time they make an impartial finding of abuse, such a finding is suspected of being coloured by pro-opposition bias.

We surely live in very difficult time and the work of the commissioners is thankless. Because of this duty they are alienated from their own members of the establishment and are subject to their judgment being publicly attacked.

I agree with commissioner Anuar Zainal Abidin that human rights are more or less universal in certain clear-cut cases as, for example, withholding medical attention from injured protestors. Even if a bank robber were shot, he would be sent to the hospital.

As per the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999, 'human rights' refers to fundamental liberties as enshrined in Part II of the Federal Constitution; and regard shall be had to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 to the extent that it is not inconsistent with the Federal Constitution. (Mark the words 'Federal Constitution' - not 'Asian values').

I am sure Anuar, being an ex-judge and registrar of the courts, would be competent to sieve through the facts as adduced by the evidence and was competent to interpret the meaning of 'human rights' and what constitutes infringement thereof. It must be a revelation to him that human rights might now be bifurcated to 'Western' and 'Asian'!

But never mind. If Suhakam were to exist meaningfully as a watchdog of human rights, the commissioners should execute their public duties impartially without fear and favour whatever the criticism and from whatever quarters.

No matter how unpleased the government may be of Suhakam's findings and conclusions, there appears to exist no mechanism to disband it nor remove any commissioners unless he or she is adjudged insolvent by a court, physically or mentally incapable of continuing his or her office; is absent from three consecutive meeting of the commission without obtaining leave of the commission, has engaged in any paid office or employment which conflicts with his duties as a member of the commission, has misbehaved or has conducted himself in such a manner as to bring disrepute to the commission or has acted in contravention of this Act and in conflict with his duties as a member of the commission.

The commissioners may however resign on their own accord if they feel that their integrity has been unjustifiably impugned and that they can no longer carry out their work in the face of strong criticism and no co-operation from the government.

However, if they really believe that they are acting in the best of national interest, they should not in dereliction of national duty so resign. Neither should they shirk from deducing the necessary conclusions based on the facts. They should be vigilant not to gloss over human rights abuse and lend their credibility to anyone who seeks to use them for legitimacy.