by Andrew Khoo
Malaysia has highlighted its “softly, softly” approach to human rights. It says that, “we have sought to promote a constructive and pragmatic, rather than a confrontational and ideological approach to human rights issues. We firmly believe that such an approach, based on dialogue, non-politicization and technical cooperation, affords the best way of realizing the full spectrum of human rights for all.” It added, “as a developing country, the promotion and protection of human rights have been achieved inter alia through much emphasis on Economic, Social and Cultural (ESC) rights, including through the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). That said, with increased affluence and prosperity, the Government is increasingly sensitive of the need to balance its traditional emphasis on ESC rights with civil and political rights.”
In highlighting specific laws, the Government has intentionally touted our Penal Code and Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act 2007, proving that it is keenly sensitive to criticisms in this area. It has also referred to our Persons with Disabilities Act 2008, but without mentioning that the work of the National Council for Persons with Disabilities is purely advisory and persons with disabilities will have no legal rights of redress if they are discriminated upon. It says that the 6-person Malaysia Law Reform Committee will need 2 years to review 703 principal Acts of Parliament for their continued relevance. It promises public feedback on changes to legislation via a website, and referred to the Government Transformation Process road shows as evidence of public participation.
Malaysia highlighted its huge expenditure on education as proof of “the importance of education as a major tool for national development”. It declared that “Malaysia is in full compliance with its treaty obligation under the CRC [the Convention on the Rights of the Child], prescribing all children in Malaysia will not be denied access to education”. It spoke of “[c]onstant engagements….with various international organizations…. and civil societies [as reflecting] the need in ensuring that children of illegal immigrants attend informal classes to be conducted by NGOs such as through community-based schooling”. It however did not mention that it was not offering such NGOs protection from harassment by law enforcement agencies such as the police, immigration authorities and RELA. It also did not mention that such NGOs, whilst helping Malaysia to meet its CRC commitments, did not receive any regular government funding.
Categorised under cultural rights was a statement that “the various ethnic groups are given the opportunity to participate at every level of political and decision making process as well as administration of the country”, without admitting that the non-Malay level of participation has been shrinking to dangerously low levels over the last few decades.
In terms of Gender Empowerment, Malaysia characterises a 10.5 percentage point difference between men’s and women’s labour force participation rate (57% versus 46.5%) as “only a slight difference”. It also characterises a 0.9 percentage point improvement in women’s participation in politics between 2005 and 2007/2008 (from 12.2% to 13.1%), as “a significant increase”.
As the Government pointed out, “the present situation [with respect to the desecration of places of worship] is the result of a court decision, in which the High Court had found that the Government had erred in its decision to ban the use of the world “Allah” for “God” by non-Muslims. The fact that this situation arose from a court decision is a firm indication of the independence of the Malaysian judiciary, and as an indication that there is a need to balance human rights concerns with those of public order and safety, particularly in multi-ethnic and multi-religious societies.” No doubt this is why the Government has refused to support this decision as an established and acceptable expression of the freedom of religion, and is instead proceeding with an appeal against the High Court decision.
Malaysia went on to say that these national level measures were supplemented by the fact that:-
- The Malaysian Human Rights Commission “regularly undertakes public inquiries into allegations of human rights infringements free from Government interference”, but without stating that the Government rarely if at all took any notice of the recommendations arising from such public inquiries; and
- “the Government continues to ensure that Malaysian practices are compatible with the provisions and principles of [CRC], [CEDAW, the full name of which the document did not even get right] and the [CRPD]”, without admitting that there were still major reservations by Malaysia to both CRC and CEDAW.
The national level measures were also further supplemented by regional measures such as the signing of the ASEAN Charter and the establishment of an ASEAN human rights body. Malaysia, not unjustifiably, boasts of its participation in international peace-keeping operations by the United Nations since 1960, and its donations to the United Nations Central Emergency Response Fund, as well as bilateral disaster financial assistance to various countries.
Finally, it highlights some of the international conventions to which it is now a party, namely the Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery; Convention on the Nationality of Married Women; and Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. For good measure, it mentions that Malaysia attends the Annual Sessions of the Asian-African Legal Consultative Organization; the Commonwealth Law Ministers Meeting; and the Meeting of Senior Officials of Commonwealth Law Ministries, and that SUHAKAM attends various international meetings. However nothing is mentioned about any positive outcomes from such meetings that have actually been implemented.
After stating all this by way of background and introduction, Malaysia then set out its 12 pledges and voluntary commitments. Sadly, some are simply repetitions of a similar document issued by Malaysia in 2006. Those pledges ring somewhat hollow, for example commitments to engage more with civil society. In coming up with this document, the Government ignored the recommended best practice by the Human Rights Council itself for there to be discussion with and involvement of civil society.
Further training and sensitisation of law-enforcement officials has taken place, and yet we still see regular examples of denial of human rights and moral policing (to the extent that deaths occur as a result). Notwithstanding these nice-sounding statements, distinction and discrimination on the grounds of gender, sexual identity and orientation continue unabated. Nothing is mentioned about protecting refugees and asylum seekers. Broadly speaking, Malaysia’s document is “long” on generalities and “short” on specifics. Human rights groups will have a challenging time taking up these issues with the Government in the course of the next 3 years. They certainly have their work cut out for them.
(Andrew Khoo is Chair of the Human Rights Committee of the Malaysian Bar Council.)
The Islamic Republic of Iran has withdrawn from the election to become a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council based in Geneva, Switzerland. Only 4 countries will now go forward to fill the 4 vacancies reserved for countries from Asia on the 47-member Council. This means that, barring any unforeseen circumstances, all 4 countries, the Maldives, Malaysia, Qatar and Thailand, will become members of the Council for the term 2010-2013 without the need for an election.
Without any fanfare, the Malaysian Government had apparently released a letter dated 9 March 2010 declaring its candidature for the Council and seeking the support of the international community. In the letter, Malaysia “reaffirms its full commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights both at the domestic and international levels”. If elected, Malaysia pledged to “continue to support as well as enhance the work of the Human Rights Council in its role as the principal United Nations body mandated to advance the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms around the world”. Together with this letter, Malaysia transmitted its updated pledges and voluntary commitments.
Without any fanfare, the Malaysian Government had apparently released a letter dated 9 March 2010 declaring its candidature for the Council and seeking the support of the international community. In the letter, Malaysia “reaffirms its full commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights both at the domestic and international levels”. If elected, Malaysia pledged to “continue to support as well as enhance the work of the Human Rights Council in its role as the principal United Nations body mandated to advance the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms around the world”. Together with this letter, Malaysia transmitted its updated pledges and voluntary commitments.
Malaysia has highlighted its “softly, softly” approach to human rights. It says that, “we have sought to promote a constructive and pragmatic, rather than a confrontational and ideological approach to human rights issues. We firmly believe that such an approach, based on dialogue, non-politicization and technical cooperation, affords the best way of realizing the full spectrum of human rights for all.” It added, “as a developing country, the promotion and protection of human rights have been achieved inter alia through much emphasis on Economic, Social and Cultural (ESC) rights, including through the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). That said, with increased affluence and prosperity, the Government is increasingly sensitive of the need to balance its traditional emphasis on ESC rights with civil and political rights.”
In highlighting specific laws, the Government has intentionally touted our Penal Code and Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act 2007, proving that it is keenly sensitive to criticisms in this area. It has also referred to our Persons with Disabilities Act 2008, but without mentioning that the work of the National Council for Persons with Disabilities is purely advisory and persons with disabilities will have no legal rights of redress if they are discriminated upon. It says that the 6-person Malaysia Law Reform Committee will need 2 years to review 703 principal Acts of Parliament for their continued relevance. It promises public feedback on changes to legislation via a website, and referred to the Government Transformation Process road shows as evidence of public participation.
Malaysia highlighted its huge expenditure on education as proof of “the importance of education as a major tool for national development”. It declared that “Malaysia is in full compliance with its treaty obligation under the CRC [the Convention on the Rights of the Child], prescribing all children in Malaysia will not be denied access to education”. It spoke of “[c]onstant engagements….with various international organizations…. and civil societies [as reflecting] the need in ensuring that children of illegal immigrants attend informal classes to be conducted by NGOs such as through community-based schooling”. It however did not mention that it was not offering such NGOs protection from harassment by law enforcement agencies such as the police, immigration authorities and RELA. It also did not mention that such NGOs, whilst helping Malaysia to meet its CRC commitments, did not receive any regular government funding.
Categorised under cultural rights was a statement that “the various ethnic groups are given the opportunity to participate at every level of political and decision making process as well as administration of the country”, without admitting that the non-Malay level of participation has been shrinking to dangerously low levels over the last few decades.
In terms of Gender Empowerment, Malaysia characterises a 10.5 percentage point difference between men’s and women’s labour force participation rate (57% versus 46.5%) as “only a slight difference”. It also characterises a 0.9 percentage point improvement in women’s participation in politics between 2005 and 2007/2008 (from 12.2% to 13.1%), as “a significant increase”.
As the Government pointed out, “the present situation [with respect to the desecration of places of worship] is the result of a court decision, in which the High Court had found that the Government had erred in its decision to ban the use of the world “Allah” for “God” by non-Muslims. The fact that this situation arose from a court decision is a firm indication of the independence of the Malaysian judiciary, and as an indication that there is a need to balance human rights concerns with those of public order and safety, particularly in multi-ethnic and multi-religious societies.” No doubt this is why the Government has refused to support this decision as an established and acceptable expression of the freedom of religion, and is instead proceeding with an appeal against the High Court decision.
Malaysia went on to say that these national level measures were supplemented by the fact that:-
- The Malaysian Human Rights Commission “regularly undertakes public inquiries into allegations of human rights infringements free from Government interference”, but without stating that the Government rarely if at all took any notice of the recommendations arising from such public inquiries; and
- “the Government continues to ensure that Malaysian practices are compatible with the provisions and principles of [CRC], [CEDAW, the full name of which the document did not even get right] and the [CRPD]”, without admitting that there were still major reservations by Malaysia to both CRC and CEDAW.
The national level measures were also further supplemented by regional measures such as the signing of the ASEAN Charter and the establishment of an ASEAN human rights body. Malaysia, not unjustifiably, boasts of its participation in international peace-keeping operations by the United Nations since 1960, and its donations to the United Nations Central Emergency Response Fund, as well as bilateral disaster financial assistance to various countries.
Finally, it highlights some of the international conventions to which it is now a party, namely the Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery; Convention on the Nationality of Married Women; and Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. For good measure, it mentions that Malaysia attends the Annual Sessions of the Asian-African Legal Consultative Organization; the Commonwealth Law Ministers Meeting; and the Meeting of Senior Officials of Commonwealth Law Ministries, and that SUHAKAM attends various international meetings. However nothing is mentioned about any positive outcomes from such meetings that have actually been implemented.
After stating all this by way of background and introduction, Malaysia then set out its 12 pledges and voluntary commitments. Sadly, some are simply repetitions of a similar document issued by Malaysia in 2006. Those pledges ring somewhat hollow, for example commitments to engage more with civil society. In coming up with this document, the Government ignored the recommended best practice by the Human Rights Council itself for there to be discussion with and involvement of civil society.
Further training and sensitisation of law-enforcement officials has taken place, and yet we still see regular examples of denial of human rights and moral policing (to the extent that deaths occur as a result). Notwithstanding these nice-sounding statements, distinction and discrimination on the grounds of gender, sexual identity and orientation continue unabated. Nothing is mentioned about protecting refugees and asylum seekers. Broadly speaking, Malaysia’s document is “long” on generalities and “short” on specifics. Human rights groups will have a challenging time taking up these issues with the Government in the course of the next 3 years. They certainly have their work cut out for them.
(Andrew Khoo is Chair of the Human Rights Committee of the Malaysian Bar Council.)
No comments:
Post a Comment