I refer to the Malaysiakini report Nazri explains why Suhakam was downgraded.

I should point out here that, in my view, the title is rather misleading as it should read 'Nazri explains why Suhakam has been recommended for downgrading'.

Since its inception Malaysia's Human Rights Commission, Suhakam, has been referred to as a ‘toothless tiger’ and this view has now received official sanction in the form of a recommendation by the UN's International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (ICC) to downgrade Suhakam's status from A to B.

The irony, should this recommendation be acted upon, is unlikely to go unnoticed as Malaysia sits on the UN's Human Rights Commission. At present Malaysian individuals recommended for appointment by the Malaysian government to the Human Rights Commission will potentially hear about the progress (or lack of progress) made by other countries in relation to human rights.

Malaysia has clearly been very successful over the years in garnering influence both in the developing and Islamic world. This is evidenced by the fact that until recently, Malaysia chaired both the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC).

It is thus most unfortunate that Malaysia is not using its influence to demonstrate to developing and Islamic countries how a more rigorous attempt at adhering to human rights can benefit them and their citizens in the long run.

If Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Nazri Abdul Aziz's response to opposition MP Charles Santiago as contained in the above report forms the main substance of the Malaysian government's basis for disputing the ICC's recommendation, then I think they need to be advised that their rationale does not even attempt to address the criticisms as laid out by the ICC.

First, in response to the point that the process of appointing Suhakam commissioners is not transparent, Nazri is reported to have replied that the government has appointed capable commissioners with relevant experience. Quite how this translates into a transparent appointment process is beyond me.

Second, on the lack of a firmly entrenched contractual guarantee for appointed commissioners, Nazri is said to have stated that the government has, in the past, extended commissioners' contracts for up to three terms.

Perhaps Nazri (who I understand is a qualified lawyer) has confused the concept of a 'contractual guarantee' with that of 'discretion' because his response certainly bears no relation to the point made by the ICC.

Unfortunately, the report does not contain Nazri's responses to the other four criticisms set out by the ICC.

Nazri then reportedly concludes by stating that the Malaysian government is of the opinion that the recommendation by the ICC to downgrade Suhakam is not because the Malaysian government has failed to uphold human rights. While I would say that this is certainly a nice opinion to hold it would be even nicer if it were true.

If these are the arguments that the Malaysian government will be advancing in an attempt to prevent the downgrade of Suhakam then there is no doubt that they will fail in this task.

Rather than fending of the ICC's criticisms with ill-conceived excuses, the Malaysian government should make a serious attempt at remedying the weaknesses as pointed out by the ICC.