THE LEADERSHIP OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS

COMMISSION QUERIED

Khoo Ying Hooi

Much has been said about the new line-up of the SUHAKAM
Commissioners. The Star on April 21 was reported that the followings
will be the new team of Commissioners for the next three years and is
eligible for reappointment once for another period of three years:
former UN permanent representative Tan Sri Hasmy Agam, native
customary rights advocate Jannie Lasimbang, lawyer Detta Samen,
childrens rights activist Dr. James Nayagam, womens rights activist
Maria Chin Abdullah, FOMCA Secretary General Muhammad Sha'ani
Abdullah, former ABIM President Ahmad Azam Abdul Rahman,
Universiti Malaya Deputy Vice Chancellor Prof Datuk Dr. Khaw Lake Tee
and International Institute of Islamic Thought and Civilisation Deputy
Dean Prof Datuk Dr. Mahmood Zuhdi Abd Majid.

The term of the past 16 members headed by Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman
expired on April 24, but thus far, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak
has yet to announce the new appointments, which lead to the question
of credibility of the institution. The institution is now left with the
Secretariat without decision-makers.

The appointments of the human rights Commissioners have been

controversial in many parts of the world. This could be seen from our
neighbour countries. There are currently four national human rights
institutions in the Southeast Asia region apart from Malaysia; namely
the Philippines, Indonesia and Thailand.

The Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines (CHRP) as the

oldest national human rights institutions in the region came into
existence when the former late President C. Aquino signed the
Executive Order No. 163 in 1987. In 2008, the sudden news of the
appointment of the Chairperson, Leila de Lima replacing the outgoing
Chairperson Purificacion Quisumbing caused serious concerns from the
human rights activists. The main criticism was that de Lima is known
more as an election lawyer and had virtually no experience in human-
rights work.

Despite the grave concerns over the appointment and parliamentary

approval process of the members of the National Human Rights
Commission of Thailand (NHRCT), Thailands Upper House on May 2009

1
approved the seven nominees for the institution who consist of a top
cop, a judicial administrator, a civil servant, an industrialist, an
academic, a former senator and a road safety advocate.

The Paris Principles is a set of principles guiding the work and structure
of national human rights institutions, establishes in particular the
competence and responsibilities of such institution as well as its
composition and guarantees of independence and pluralism. These
criteria are further elaborated in the UN Handbook with elements of:
nationality, profession and qualifications, which persons are entitled to
dismiss members and for what reasons, as well as the privileges and
immunities. Furthermore, it also stipulates that there shall be a
continuation of the individuals manning the institution. This serves in a
way to prevent a government from being able to silence an institution
which is exactly what happens to the SUHAKAM now.

Section 1 of the Principles said the composition of the such institution

and the appointment of its members, whether by means of an election
or otherwise, shall be established in accordance with a procedure
which affords all necessary guarantees to ensure the pluralist
representation of the social forces (of civilian society) involved in the
protection and promotion of human rights, particularly by powers
which will enable effective cooperation to be established with, or
through the presence of, representatives of: (a) Non-governmental
organizations responsible for human rights and efforts to combat racial
discrimination, trade unions, concerned social and professional
organizations, for example, associations of lawyers, doctors, journalists
and eminent scientists; (b) trends in philosophical or religious thought;
(c) universities and qualified experts; (d) parliament; and (e)
government departments (if these are included, their representatives
should participate in the deliberations only in an advisory capacity).

Looking at the existing institutions, there are a variety of ways to

ensure the independence and pluralism of the institution. For example
through the public advertisement of vacancies, the making of a
recommendation to the Parliament, public nominations for candidates,
public consultation which would allow the civil society groups to
nominate names. An open and transparent appointment process is
critically important to ensure the independency of the institution which
means that politically motivated appointments should be prevented.

A good example could be learned from the Commission for Human

Rights and Good Governance of Tanzania. All posts of appointment
shall be publicly advertised for three days in three leading English and
Kiswahili newspapers, followed by three successive advertisements on
national and private television stations. The civil society may also

2
nominate a person for appointment with the consent of the potential
nominee. All applications (which shall include three letters of
recommendation) are to be then forwarded to the Appointments
Committee; subsequently there shall be a screening process by a ten
member panel to shortlist the candidates.

Generally, it was seen that the independence of the national human

rights institutions in Asia are at decline. Appointment mechanisms are
thus one of the most critical procedures to guarantee the
independence, diversity and accessibility of a national human rights
institution. With the commitment of these three main elements and
avoiding direct appointment by the executive branch of governments,
there is to certain extent a level of guarantee that such institution will
manage to implement its mandate to the fullest.

END.
13 May 2010