It is well understood that freedom comes with great responsibility. But responsibility to which parties? And who is responsible? The very fact that the human race goes on ranting about human rights indicates that such rights are restricted, limited, abused and inadequately addressed.

Aimed at addressing some of these issues, the Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) organised a forum last Sunday at the Putra World Trade Centre, Kuala Lumpur. A commendable endeavour considering its age - only in its first year of operation - and the massive task ahead of its commissioners in having to tackle allegations of human rights abuses in the country.

The task is made more daunting by poor public perception and attacks by the international community on the alleged close-knit relations of the country's executive, legislature and judiciary, which they consider "too close for comfort".

Suhakam's effectiveness and objectivity have constantly come under fire due to the fact that all its members were hand-picked by the prime minister and are paid allowances by the government.

It is no wonder then that the panellists chosen to participate in the forum were those who did not represent the government's views per se but those who would speak on various topics such as indigenous groups, women's affairs, and the judiciary.

Defining human rights

When one speaks about human rights, one would think that the term encompasses a universal concept. Yet there are two categories of human rights, as panellist Parti Pesaka Bumiputra Bersatu Sarawak secretary-general Dr Leonard Linggi Jugah pointed out.

One category is universally accepted by most people and governments, for example, prohibition against murder, torture, prolonged arbitration and racial and religious discrimination in accordance with international customary law, he said.

The other category is contested rights, which is a grey area and touches on social and economic rights, rights of minority groups and freedom of speech and assembly. The developed world has tried to democratise these areas according to Western principles, he added.

He said however, there are cultural differences which make the concept of human rights according to the West totally unacceptable to Asians. For human rights to be universal, it must contain the non-Western norms and values.

For example, in an Asian family unit, the father is considered the head of the family and decision-maker. In some cases, the father's say is final; whereas, Western society would prefer to honour the rights and autonomy of the individual person, said Jugah.

Malaysian Human Rights Association (Hakam) chairperson Raja Aziz Addruse argued that he did not want to get into the controversy of defining what are human rights according to Western or Asian values.

He said the basic values were already set in the 1948 United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR), although he admitted some of them may conflict with Asian values such as the relationship between parents and children.

"However, there is no question that the rights mentioned in the UNDHR have been accepted in the Malaysian Federal Constitution," said Raja Aziz.

"The Constitution provides these rights such as freedom of speech and freedom to assemble without arms subject to such restrictions Parliament may deem to impose. There is no such thing then as an absolute right, as the courts will remind us from time to time, for example, in sedition cases," he added.

Collective rights

Women's right activist Shanti Dairiam of the International Women's Right Action Watch was of the opinion that customs, religion and culture could deny women's rights.

She said that the provisions under the law have not been effective and that there is a need to re-examine the definition of human rights because it was made on the rationale of the male individual.

She added that often there was conflict between individual and collective rights. Yet, who is the dominant individual who decides what are collective rights? Usually, as society and culture have it, the male is the dominant shaper of collective rights, she said.

The panellists at the two-hour forum, chaired by Suhakam commissioner Anuar Zainal Abidin, unanimously agreed that the basic responsibility of maintaining the human rights situation in the country lies with the government.

"Saying that human rights come with responsibility is stating the obvious," said Raja Aziz, adding that this is self-evident in every country.

He said that conflict arises when individuals want to exercise rights without limitations but this was impossible as the state has equal rights to impose restrictions in the name of national security and public order.

He cited the sedition case of DAP's Lim Guan Eng in 1995 which had raised international outcry regarding the country's human rights record.

Lim was charged with publishing false news under the Printing Presses and Publication Act against the then Malacca chief minister for the alleged statutory rape of an under-aged girl.

Lim was not satisfied with the conduct of the Attorney-General and accused the former of allegedly practising "selective prosecution". Lim had printed pamphlets saying that the "victim is imprisoned while the criminal is set free".

"Did the things he say threaten national security and public order?" asked Raja Aziz.

"He (Lim) reflected the views of almost everyone in the country. However freedom to speak does not mean what you speak is necessarily right," he added.

Raja Aziz added that in such cases, the accused should be given the right to rebut what has been said about him. There was no need "to hide behind Acts such as the Internal Security Act (ISA) or the Official Secrets Act."

Wrong side

He also pointed out that while freedom to assemble was provided for in Article 10 (B) of the Federal Constitution, it was restricted by Section 27 of the Police Act. Here it states that a police permit is needed for a gathering of more than five persons.

"Where is the right if the Police Act limits this right? Why is the power to allow to gather left to the police?" queried Raja Aziz.

"It is not the intention of the Constitution to restrict such rights. But when conflicts happen between individuals and the state, the judiciary must step in to resolve this conflict," he said.

Raja Aziz said that it is for the judiciary to say if restrictions can be imposed by Parliament to guard national security but often the courts do not appreciate this provision.

According to him, a judge has said "In my view, freedom of speech ends when sedition begins" without further defining whether the act is a threat to national security and public order.

He added that the courts have addressed the question of responsibility from the wrong side. He said the responsibility is with the state to impose restrictions that are reasonable. It (the government) cannot impose restrictions to the extent that rights are violated.

Jugah pointed out that the state and individual must act responsibly according to the moral rights of the society such the Ten Commandments (for Christians) and the Rukun Negara for Malaysians.

"This is not enforced but depends on standards, ethnicity, education, background and social sanctions of the society," he said.

"If these standards are breached, then the government has to pay, as in for example in Lunas," he added, stressing that, "It must also not be forgotten that your rights must not infringe the rights of others."

The Barisan Nasional government lost in the recent by-election in Lunas.

The BN had accused the opposition of exploiting various issues such as the Vision School concept and Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad's Merdeka speech where he equated the Chinese movement Suqiu to communist in the past and Al-Ma'unah for allegedly questioning Malay Special Rights during the campaign to win Chinese votes.

Participants' concerns

The participants at the forum came from various backgrounds but were mostly law students, NGO activists and unionists. The trend of arguments was consistent in that the issues that concerned participants had mostly to do with the objectivity and effectiveness of judges, Suhakam, government transparency and police neutrality.

Participant John Gurusamy opined that good human values should be the basis of a good education system. There should be no discrimination in schools as to the freedom to study one's own religion, an area which the government had neglected.

For example, he said that if children were taught religious values, when they grow up to be judges, they would be reminded of the 'hereafter' and adjudicate fairly.

"We cannot start simply with the deputy prime minister signing a circular that says 'hapuskan rasuah' (get rid of corruption)," said Gurusamy.

Participants also felt that it was necessary that the government define national security or else restrictions imposed by Parliament would override the rights of the rakyat and the government will be seen to be misusing its power for the personal interest of certain individuals.

A law student asked: "How can the government be transparent when the Attorney-General and the Inspector-General of Police are hand-picked by the government?"

Unionist Syed Shahir Syed Mahmud questioned whether citizens should be responsible to a "authoritarian government and a cruel employer". He cited the case of the 700 KLIA limousine drivers who had been protesting against unsatisfactory work and welfare conditions.

He said that although picketing by disgruntled employees was provided for under the Industrial Relations Act of 1967, the police had often intervened and disallowed such pickets.

He added that the government has also been denying the rights of electronic industry workers to form unions.

Draconian laws

Raja Aziz replied that one should not be responsible to the government but to national security and public order. He said that Suhakam had initiated the right mode by recognising in their first meeting the right of citizens to assemble peacefully.

Keadilan Youth representative Lokman Noradam, who introduced himself as an OKT (orang kena tahan or detainee) under the ISA, said: "As long as there are draconian laws such as the ISA, there is no hope for human rights in this country."

However, he praised Suhakam for its initiatives and said that citizens have the next 20 years to think carefully of an elected government which would promote democracy instead of autocracy by the year 2020.

Bar Council president Sulaiman Abdullah advised citizens to speak out directly using various avenues such as the press and vote during elections.

There were also concerns that the forum's emphasis was too much on civil and political rights, neglecting social and economic rights, rights of minority groups as to what kind of development was suitable for them and women's rights under Syariah law.

Raja Aziz argued that civil and political rights were the most important as "if you do not have freedom of speech, then how can you talk about the injustices happening around you?"

SUSAN LOONE is a member of the malaysiakini team.