Oral Intervention at the 
UN Commission on Human Rights

Item 18: Effective functioning of human rights mechanisms
(b) National institutions and regional arrangements

(Delivered by Deborah Stothard, April 19, 2001, 2310 Geneva time)

Foxes and chickens in Burma and Malaysia

Owing to time constraints, content in [ ] will not be uttered

Mr/Madam Chairperson,

I speak on behalf of Aliran [Kesedaran Negara].

While the commitment of various governments to establish human rights agencies is to be applauded in principle, most human rights defenders cannot help but feel some degree of skepticism. [Given their track records], we have cause to think that some of these initiatives are more motivated by a need to "keep up with the Joneses" [than a commitment to promote and defend human rights]. The emphasis on form instead of content, and more importantly, effectiveness makes these institutions vulnerable to contempt and ridicule.

Let's start with Burma, also known to the Commission as Myanmar. I am referring to the country on planet earth bounded by Thailand, China, India and Bangladesh, and not the human rights violations-free Shangri-la located in a parallel universe that is often spoken of by the Myanmar delegation.

A human rights committee was established a year ago by the regime in preparation for the establishment of a national human rights institution. Amazingly, the membership of the Committee reads like a "Who's Who" of human rights violators in that country. For example, Lt. Gen. Khin Nyunt, [the regime's Secretary 1 and] the head of Military Intelligence is the chief patron of this Committee. [When he is not patronizing the Human Rights Committee], Lt. Gen. Khin Nyunt spends most of his time directing the persecution of human rights and democracy activists utilizing arbitrary arrests, interrogation and torture. He also toys with the judicial system and officiates at religious structures that have been built with forced labour.

Col. Tin Hlaing, the Home Affairs Minister, responsible for the atrocious state of the country's prisons, chairs the Myanmar Human Rights Committee. It is Col. Tin Hlaing's "contribution" to human rights that has seen such prisoners as 55-year-old writer Mrs San San Nwe imprisoned in a dog kennel, where she is unable to stand up.

To quote Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, this is indeed a case of the fox looking after the chickens.

Now, let's move on to the National Human Rights Commission of Malaysia, Suhakam.

While I cannot deny that Suhakam is doing some good work under adverse conditions, it has not lived up to expectations [of the civil society in promoting and protecting human rights in Malaysia]. This is mainly due to:

1. Lack of independence [as outlined in the Paris Principles] and abundance of general restrictions [contained in the Suhakam Act].

2. Lack of a reasonable level of [material and human] resources

3. Lack of understanding of key human rights concepts amongst some of its commissioners.

4. Inability to ensure that its findings, if any, are abided by.

[Since its inception in April 2000], Suhakam has received hundreds of complaints but has not been able to investigate or respond to most of them. The commission has only managed to carry out one public inquiry [into allegations of serious police brutality in relation to a public assembly on November 5 last year].

Last year, I noted that the Malaysian authorities had "launched" Suhakam with a massive crackdown. This year the government is "celebrating" Suhakam's first anniversary with the [Internal Security Act] detentions without trial of 7 human rights defenders. [While calling for the release of the seven people arrested under the Internal Security Act last week, Suhakam failed to call for the abolition of the law that is a root cause of many human rights violations in Malaysia.]

[Suhakam has also made recommendations governing the way in which public assemblies should be conducted, without confronting the reality that arbitrary behavior of the police is the root problem.]

[In response to the Malaysian delegation's assertion that the ISA detainees are militant activists and not human rights defenders, let me take this opportunity to note that] all over the world, national monuments are dedicated to "militants" who struggled for freedom and independence with their fists upraised, not kneeling to beg for police permits. It is regrettable that the upraised fist is now a trigger for police violence and detention without trial. Human rights defenders, regardless of their political affiliation, are also human beings deserving of their rights.

Also worrying are some of the statements made by the Commission itself and some of its commissioners. In one instance, human rights commissioner, [Datuk] Lee Lam Thye made a statement suggesting that freedom of assembly will cause social riots and street violence. A statement made here by commissioner [Tan Sri Datuk Panglima] Simon Sipaun suggests that human rights in Malaysia were practically unknown before Suhakam's formation [last year]. Oh dear! I am lost for words!

Are these institutions to support human rights, or to support human rights violatiors? Human Rights Commissions or human rights omissions? Funding and liberty permitting, I may have a definite answer for you next year.

Thank you.