 |
| Denison, Tan Sri Simon, Andrew & Wan Kassim |
(Thoughts shared at the Proham discussion on the Post UPR on 14th November, 2013)
Diplomatic
Hypocrisy
A few years ago, I had the
opportunity to ask a foreign diplomat what was the main role of a diplomat. He
jokingly told me that a ‘diplomat is an honest person telling lies about his or
her country.’ Joke or otherwise there is some element of truth in the
statement. In international relations, sometimes diplomatic hypocrisy is
unavoidable to promote and maintain cordial relations between governments and
countries for the sake of perceived or real mutual benefits.
President Obama was reported
to have said on 11th October, 2013 that ‘Malaysia is a model of diversity,
tolerance and progress.’ Either Obama was grossly misinformed which is unlikely
or just playing politics. When the US Secretary of State was in Malaysia he
echoed similar sentiments. So were leaders of some western countries notably
the UK and Australia.
The UN is a gathering place
of diplomats representing all the 193 member-states. International matters and
issues are traded and exchanged including those associated with human rights.
In the process, very often the principles and spirit of human rights are given
less attention. Praises are heaped upon Malaysia and its leadership in
preference for political, economic, business, commercial and other
considerations at the expense of realistic recognition of the sad state of
human rights situation in the country.
The promotion and protection of human rights is pushed to the back seat.
Another constraining factor
is the inadequate or lack of effective enforcement mechanism. The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, for example, is just a list of principles and
there is very little, if any, the UN can do if countries choose to violate or
ignore them. Winston Churchill was quoted to have said that ‘the UN was not set
up to get us into heaven, but only to save us from hell.’
The
UPR process
The UPR process provides a
unique forum for the rest of the world to examine, criticise and suggest
improvement to the human rights situation in the country but the government
still has the option to do as it pleases in the name of national interests
which will prevail over its international human rights obligations in the event
that the two clash. National interests are the prerogative of the government to
identify and define. One can only hope that the weight of world opinion could
help to prick the conscience of the government if it has any.
At the international stage
such as the UN, the government has the advantage because it has the financial
resources, facilities, strength and capacity to undertake marketing, diplomatic
and public relations exercise which non-state actors and stakeholders could
only dream of.
During the PROHAM discussion
on the UPR and human rights on 22nd October, 2013 just 2 days before Malaysia
was to appear for the 2nd time for the UPR process on 24th October, 2013, I
argued that the last UPR process on 11th February, 2009 involving Malaysia made
very little, if any, impact in the promotion and protection of human rights in
the country. In many ways, the human rights situation in the country has
deteriorated.
The second UPR for Malaysia
took place in Geneva on 24th October, 2013. The government’s presentation as
expected focussed on Malaysia’s commitment to pursue a national development
agenda. It gave itself marks on certain marginal and incremental progress in
the field of economic and social rights especially the initiatives on housing,
the eradication of poverty and access to educational, medical and health
facilities.
The 13th general elections
was mentioned and portrayed in good light without mentioning public unhappiness
over alleged electoral frauds, excessive gerrymandering and very uneven playing
field. There was no mention of the fact that the government which was formed
represents the minority. What was portrayed did not reflect the true human
rights situation.
Deterioration
of Human Rights in Malaysia
Admittedly Malaysia had made
progress especially at the national and aggregate level. However the picture is
different if the assessment is based on a disaggregated basis. For example, in
Asia Malaysia is believed to come second to Papua New Guinea in terms of income
disparity, Papua New Guinea being the worst.
According to the World Bank
and UNDP 2010 report Sabah is the poorest state despite its status as producer
of oil and gas. Poverty rate exceeds 30% whilst poverty rate for children
exceeds 42%. More than 50% of the total number of poor people in the country
live in Sabah. About 39% of wealth in Malaysia is in the hands of 10% of rich
people. In short, the rich are filthy rich and the poor are really poor and
destitute.
Sarawak sent JC Fong, the
former State Attorney-General and now state legal consultant to Geneva to
represent Sarawak at the last UPR hearing. He portrayed a caring and
responsible state government. He painted a very rosy picture of the life of
displaced natives and that their standard of living had improved and were
handsomely compensated.
According to Baru Bian he
misled the UPR process. I too have a different impression of things based on my
visits to rural Sarawak and dialogues with the natives including the Penans who
were affected by the construction of dams. If what JC Fong claims are true why
are the natives filing cases against the state government in court? Why are
they making blockades in protest? Why are they holding demonstrations? These
are not the behaviour of happy and satisfied people.
It should be remembered that
human rights are indivisible. Civil and political rights cannot be suppressed
in return for more economic, social and cultural rights. It is clear that in
Malaysia political and civil rights are lagging far behind.
Specific
Reference on the UPR Comments & Recommendations
104 countries made comments
and statements using words such as ‘noted, commented, highlighted, concerned,
welcome’ and so on. The Malaysian
response was generally defensive of the government position claiming
that what was done was in line with the laws of the country and in the best
interest of the government, the people and the country.
232 specific recommendations
were directed at Malaysia which will have to be responded on or before the 25th
session of the Human Rights Council in March 2014.
The recommendations which
should be given priority include the following:
·
Signing and ratification of all the core
human rights conventions still not ratified by Malaysia.
·
Repeal of all laws which allow arrest without
trial.
·
Implementation of an Independent Police
Complaints and Misconduct Commission.
·
Formulation and implementation of a National
Human Rights Action Plan.
·
Review of legislative framework to ensure
religious freedom for all Malaysians including Muslims.
·
Repeal of the Printing Presses and
Publication Act.
·
Ensure that laws on indigenous peoples and
their implementation comply with the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples.
·
The establishment of an independent body to
investigate disputes over land, territories and resources.
·
To issue a standing invitation to all Special
Procedures and UN Special Rapporteur and accept their requests when they seek
to visit Malaysia.
Future
Human Rights Agenda in Malaysia (2014 to 2018)
Post UPR has just begun.
Will we see the desired improvement in the human rights situation in the
country during the period between the 2nd UPR process and the 3rd due in 2018?
Only time will tell. In the meantime the ball is at the feet of the government.
People have high expectation that the government will be serious and walk the
talk.
I am delighted to note that
the government delegation to Geneva, COMANGO, JOAS and the Bar Council Human
Rights Committee agree that there is still a lot more to be done in the
promotion and protection of human rights in the country. This being the case,
it would be a good idea for these groups to initiate the establishment of a
permanent consultative body to identify, amongst others, outstanding matters in
terms of priority and to continuously monitor the follow-up actions to be taken
by the government following the adoption of the outcome report on Malaysia.
Such body could be headed and coordinated by Suhakam.
At the same time more awareness programme
associated with the UPR process could be organized. For such effort to succeed
it must get the support of all levels of society especially civil society
organizations. Confrontational approach should be avoided. Constructive views
and criticisms should be welcomed and appreciated. Any improvement in the
promotion and protection of human rights is good for the government, the
country and its citizens.
I sincerely hope that history will not repeat
itself in the case of the outcome of the 2nd UPR process on 24th October, 2013.
To help to prevent this from happening, everyone must play his or her role
especially civil society groups, human rights activists, human rights
institution, and so on by continuously reminding the government of its
obligations through the UPR process. Everyone should take maximum advantage of
this UN mechanism.
Finally, the future of human
rights in this country depends on what the government does today and plan for
the future. If the above priorities could be acted on between now and the next
UPR hearing human rights would be assured of a bright future. What is certain
at present is that awareness of human rights is far greater than before due to
the higher standard of literacy and more and better access to the internet. As
a result, expectation is rising and it is becoming difficult, if not
impossible, for the government to hide the truth.
Nov 14, 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment