The New Straits Times Online......

Saturday, November 22, 2008, 09.56 PM

Search NST :

EDITORIAL: Righting wrongs of human rights

Understandably, Suhakam is unhappy. Its chairman Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman says the body, established in 2000, has done its best but is being constrained by provisions in the law which gave it birth, and the obstructionist actions of certain government agencies. The ICC, says Abu Talib, wants transparency in the appointment of Suhakam commissioners and their tenure as commissioners to exceed the current two years. Suhakam had, Abu Talib adds, suggested this to the government much earlier.

Can one blame the ICC for wanting to downgrade Suhakam when even our members of parliament appear indifferent to the annual reports that, as required by law, it presents to Parliament? Abu Talib laments that these are never debated. He has reason to. So does everyone who voted them in. It seems rather ridiculous to require Suhakam to present the report to Parliament and yet not debate its contents.

Suhakam wants the Suhakam Act 1999 to be amended to give it more bite. The government appears receptive, as evidenced by Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak's remarks on July 30. Saying the government would consider public views on improving the protection and promotion of human rights, he added that any move to amend the act would have to be studied carefully. Fair enough. Minister in the Prime Minister's Department, Datuk Zaid Ibrahim, said: "Governments can no longer say they subscribe to the rule of law and yet compromise on the issues of human rights." Particularly so, we might add, when work has begun on establishing an Asean human rights commission.

For a start, the government could lean on ministries and departments which disregard Suhakam, table Suhakam's annual reports for debate in Parliament and ensure greater transparency in the appointment of commissioners. It would be but an extension of its drive towards greater transparency and democratisation.

Suhakam, on its part, should explore avenues within its existing framework to perform better. For instance, it could fully exploit the provision for holding inquiries and hound those who have infringed on human rights. It could also keep firing salvoes at those contemptuous of human rights and shame them publicly. Then, perhaps, it will get an A for effort.