Human rights group Suaram today released a less-than-glowing report card for the performance of the Malaysian Human Rights Commission, or Suhakam, over its first two years of operation but lauded the work of two outgoing commissioners.

Im unable to rate Suhakams performance on a scale of 1-10 because they did perform extremely well in some issues, Suaram director Dr Kua Kia Soong told a press conference in Kuala Lumpur today.

But personally, Ill given them good rating for two out of 10 big issues since their inception two years ago.

Suaram had based its appraisal on guidelines from the 1999 Joint NGO Memorandum on National Human Rights Institutions signed by 38 bodies, the National Human Rights Societys book Human Rights and the National Commission , Amnesty International and the Principles Relating to the Status of National Institutions, known also as the Paris Principles.

It also commended two outgoing commissioners, Anuar Zainal Abidin and Mehrun Siraj, on their outstanding performance in handling the Kesas Highway public inquiry and in preparing the Freedom of Assembly report, both of which drew a lot of flak from the government.

Apart from Anuar and Mehrun who sit on the complaints and inquiries committee, Suaram in its report card commended commissioners in the law reform as well as detention centres visitorial committees who had taken up their responsibilities and tasks well.

Two passes

However, Kua said the commission had a flip-flop reaction to issues when faced with governmental pressure.

He was particularly critical of Suhakams reluctance in exerting its statutory visitorial powers to visit Internal Security Act detainees immediately after they are taken in despite numerous complaints from NGOs and family members.

He said section 4(2)(d) of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999 allows Suhakam to visit places of detention in accordance with procedures as prescribed by the laws relating to the places of detention and to make necessary recommendations.

Usually, the worst time for detainees are the first two weeks. That is when Suhakam should have insisted on visiting them, instead of waiting for police clearance which took seven weeks," said Kua, who is a former ISA detainee himself and has written about his experience.

On the issue of sub judice , the Suaram report cited Section 12 of the 1999 Act as frustrating attempts by the commission to examine infringements of human rights such as the right to assemble freely if the complainants case is in court.

Kua urged Suhakam not to hide behind the principle of sub judice and said he hoped that the proposed amendments as announced by Suhakam chief Musa Hitam late last month will address this problem.

This issue ( sub judice ) becomes problematic in cases where, for example, one seeks to exercise ones freedom of expression or assembly but is dealt with as a criminal case.

Independence undermined

Kua was also critical of the governments announcement to set up a guideline for conducting inquiries and investigation procedures as one way of undermining Suhakams independence, but noted that feathers had been ruffled.

The 10-page report stated that there were no existing safeguards in the 1999 Act to ensure autonomy and independence of Suhakam, and pointed out the critical responses and censures from the government as proof of a lack of sincerity to follow through with the recommendations.

Suaram fears that if the efforts of the commission continue to be undermined and brushed aside, the commissioners may be compelled to take less controversial or less sensitive positions and policies in order for them to be considered by the government.

The report also commended the exemplary work of certain commissioners like the commissions education working group chair Prof Chiam Heng Keng who had urged schools to provide an avenue for students to practise human rights in their daily activities such as student-led elections of the prefectorial board and students own rules and regulations with the board.

Commissioners under fire

However, a couple of commissioners were criticised for issuing public statements and taking public positions which are inconsistent with human rights norms.

Commissioner Lee Lam Thyes statement that street demonstrations could disturb public peace, jeopardise livelihood and inconvenience tourists was seen by Suaram as a dismissal of the fundamental rights of Malaysians to gather peaceably.

Another example was Suhakam chairperson Musas remark after the Sept 11 attacks in the US that human rights and democracy should take a back seat in order for the government to deal with security threats in the country.

His defence later was that he was speaking as a former deputy prime minister and not as a Suhakam chair. The same line was also taken by Musas vice-chair Harun Hashim.

Kua proposed that Suhakam establish its own monitoring division so that it can keep track of the recommendations more than Suaram which has a thin budget and is run by volunteers.

Proposals

Among its suggestions are for Suhakam to be allowed to submit advice to courts such as amicus curiae briefs in its independent capacity which will be useful in raising the judiciarys human rights awareness.

Suhakam must also have clear channels to authorities such as the Attorney-Generals Chambers so that recommendations for any criminal investigation and prosecution can be initiated.

This allows Suhakam to be accountable to the complainants and also to seek some form of redress for the victims.

To expedite investigations and inquiries, Suaram proposed that Suhakam engage NGOs in gathering evidence and documentation to help resolve as many complaints as possible.

Suaram also urged Suhakam to stand firm as one of the guardians and protectors of human rights in Malaysia, and to find ways of overcoming the governments inability to comprehend the rights watchdog's proper functions as a national body.