The credibility of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) in its fledgling years was further battered when controversial former attorney-general Abu Talib Othman was appointed to lead the human rights body exactly o­ne year ago. Was the general scepticism justified? Readers can judge for themselves how Abu Talib is faring, in this second part of his exclusive interview with malaysiakini .

Malaysiakini: How many complaints did Suhakam receive in the past 12 months and how many of them were resolved?

Abu Talib:

We received a total of 245 complaints between March 2002 and March 2003. Of these, 92 complaints lodged were against the government bureaucracies, 78 were against the police and enforcement agencies, and 75 were o­n land and property matters and matters relating to illegal immigrants. Out of these, 196 cases have been resolved so far.

Suhakam continues to be plagued with complaints over the misuse of the ISA (Internal Security Act) and about the exercise of police powers. Among the complaints received were those o­n deaths in police lock-ups. We have taken up the matter and as a result of this, the public prosecutor has directed for inquests to be done o­n all these cases.

It is not right to say that the government agencies are not responding to our comments and recommendations. But I must acknowledge that in some cases they are very slow.

Do you think the government's slow response affects Suhakam's credibility?

On the contrary, it is the government that is not credible, not us. We have done our best, we have submitted our recommendations and they don't take action. Who is to be blamed? Not us.

There have been a number of allegations of police heavy-handedness against people in their custody. Suhakam had a few workshops with the police but this move does not appear to be sufficient.

We have seen a little bit of progress (based o­n) what we have done so far. The first function we did was to start a workshop for police officers. Today, they have agreed to set up a human rights desk and identify an officer to the desk at the rank of superintendent, I think.

I am not defending the police, but to be realistic, the police force is a very big force. As they say, there is always a black sheep somewhere. The police are taking action against them. We write to them each time we receive a complaint.

Some of the complaints we receive are really not cases of human rights violations. Some write to us if their passport renewals are taking too long. Some complain to us if they apply for land and do not get it. These are not cases of violation of human rights.

(Individual) rights must be balanced with the rights for the community and the (role of) government to maintain law and order. What have been professed to us - their individual rights - run supreme. But rights to ensure law and order cannot be exercised at the expense of human rights.

Okay, you can detain, but you must first produce this man before the magistrate or the High Court. If you feel that he should be detained further, you present this before the High Court (to determine if it is really a case of national security) and carry o­n from there. You cannot go o­n detaining that man from time to time without charging him.

Enforcement agencies are sometimes required to investigate themselves. How forthcoming can they be?

This country is ruled by law and not by man. There are adequate provisions in the law to enable a person to enforce his/her rights if the authorities act clearly inconsistently with the law.

For complaints that the police had brutally beaten this person to death, the family members can always file a claim against the government or the person concerned. If the government refuses the rights of the individual under the law, that is a breach of human rights and the family can go to a court of law to enforce their rights.

On paper it looks like that but in reality, it is not an easy task.

I recognise your concern and many people share the same views and expect a lot from Suhakam. But you must realise that Suhakam was established by law passed by arliament. The members of Parliament are the representatives of people. It is therefore for the people to urge their representatives to come up with more effective laws. If they don't pass the law, our hands are tied.

Former Suhakam chairperson Musa Hitam did suggest for enforcement powers. Is this still being pursued?

No, I have asked when I came here, but there never was a suggestion upwards that Suhakam be given powers of enforcement. We feel that our role should be an advisory o­ne because the system is such that we have enough enforcement agencies.

If there is overlapping enforcement agencies, there will be chaos. If there is a breach of human rights, the person can go to the courts to enforce the rights or lodge a report with the police. If there is a weakness in the system, I think it is the duty of Parliament to ensure that matters of national interest are raised and debated.

MPs play a very big role in ensuring a complete observance of human rights in this country and when I talk of MPs, I refer to the people because MPs represent them. MPs should voice the peoples' concerns and find remedies to resolve problems faced by the people they represent. So it goes back to the people.

The Suhakam team under Musa appeared to have been more outspoken. But now, Suhakam seems to have focused more o­n educating the public - which some have criticised to be the 'safer' approach.

Times and things have changed, but the approach taken by Suhakam has not changed. We want to do whatever we can within the parameters of the law.

We have adopted a multiple approach by not o­nly concentrating o­n political and civil rights. We have definitely done more this past year than merely educating the public. We have held public inquiries based o­n complaints by the families of ISA detainees. Our law reform committee worked very hard to review the ISA. Our complaints bureau constantly inspected and visited places of detention. We have submitted our recommendations and we held road shows, seminars, campaigns, (for students) from schools upwards.

We have also been accepted as a member of the Asia Pacific Forum (of national human rights commissions). When we first applied we were not successful (because the forum) raised issue over things that happened in this country, but we went and explained to them.

It is not a question of taking a safe or aggressive approach. It depends o­n the situation. During the first year of the establishment of Suhakam, the country was plagued with the trial of former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim and the reformasi movement. Those were the main complaints.

The circumstances then required the chairperson to make statements from time to time. Since then, things have changed. We don't have violent demonstrations. We don't have another strong political figure being taken to court. We don't have legislation which in substance restrict human rights.

What do we have today? Complaints of abuse of police powers, complaints of overcrowding in prisons, complaints of detainees being stripped and humiliated, complaints of families of detainees not given sufficient visiting time. We have our working group leaders to go and check o­n all these things.

It is our policy for the heads of working groups to make public statements because they have first-hand knowledge of the issues. For instance, head of the complaints and inquiries working group Prof Mohd Hamdan Adnan has made a lot of statements over cases of human rights violation. He had spoken with regard to the raid o­n malaysiakini , o­n prisons overcrowding, and has spoken also against invasion of Iraq. So it is not quite correct for you to say (that the current commissioners are taking a 'safer' approach).

Do you feel any pressure from the government or enforcement agencies? Did anyone ever call to stop Suhakam from investigating an issue?

Not at all. That is why some of the statements we make are quite pungent. Criticisms must always be there but if we honestly believe that this should be the case we submit our independent and fair views or after conducting investigations.

The press regularly quotes Prof Mohd Hamdan, but what about the other commissioners? It is sometimes not even possible for reporters to contact them.

No, Prof Chiam (Heng Keng) has come up with quite a number of statements and organised a lot of campaigns. As for the treaties and international instruments working group, Datuk Ranita (Mohd Hussein, who heads it) has held roundtable meetings involving the relevant authorities.

Unfortunately when we invite the press to come, some come but some don't. I have told the commissioners that each time we have a meeting unless it involves government authorities the press should be invited and we should brief them o­n what we are doing.

We are considering releasing our completed reports to the press. That is maybe o­ne way we can all touch bases.

Human rights organisation Suaram expressed concern that some commissioners are merely "ex-civil servants with little or no background in human rights issues".

On the contrary, I think it is an asset to have a composition of experienced, retired civil servants of high calibre because they know they workings of the government. They were part and parcel of the administration and mechanisms in formulating and enforcing laws.

We have judges. They are deemed as impartial. We have (educationists) because we have to have human rights education, so who can best advise us? They have first-hand knowledge.

For example, you cannot talk about the judiciary if the person (has) not (been) there. You will o­nly see the bad things and not the good things. It would not be fair to say that Suhakam is a place to reward retired civil servants.

How do you juggle your time between your Suhakam work and your business commitments?

I don't sit o­n that many (company boards). I do not hold a single executive post so they do not take up a lot of time. I also make sure that all of the companies observe human rights practices. (Suhakam) is the o­ne that takes up the most time because I read all the reports and I want to know all the complaints.

There were a lot of protests against your appointment as Suhakam chairperson. Do you think you have proven yourself as a competent human rights commissioner?

It is for the people the judge whether I have conducted myself worthy of my office as the chairman of Suhakam.

You have served a full term as of (yesterday, April 24, 2003) and have o­nly another year to go. If you are offered another two-year term, would you accept it?

I don't speculate o­n things like this. I cannot be presumptuous. I find my term very challenging so far. At each meeting, we have frank and open discussions. We discuss things openly.