HUMAN RIGHTS PRIORITIES FOR MALAYSIA BEYOND 2013 UPR TO 2018

Malaysia recently underwent the second UPR Review on Oct 24, 2013. During the session at the Geneva based Human Rights Council, 104 UN member states made 249 specific comments and recommendations which are recorded in 232 paragraphs.

 

The UPR process which is a global peer group review by UN member states provides a global standard setting exercise. This process enables the nation state to review each other and be held accountable for human rights compliance. Each country makes global commitments and therefore is morally and legally obligated to fulfil the obligations they agree to.

For the 2013 Human Rights Day event Proham is jointly organising a discussion with Global Movement of Moderates (GMM) on this theme of setting human rights priorities for Malaysia for the period 2014 to 2018. Malaysia will undergo a three UPR in 2018 and therefore we can collectively ensure Malaysia fulfils its obligations.

HUMAN RIGHTS DAY DISCUSSION

Date:                 Dec 9, 2013 (Mon)

Time:                 2.30pm to 5.30pm

Venue               15th Floor, Menara Manulife,  No. 6, Jalan Gelenggang,

                          Damansara Heights, Kuala Lumpur,

 

Objectives

In this discussion:-

We will appreciate Malaysia’s achievements and critically review the weakness, gaps and draw out some pointers toward the formulation of a human rights action plan for Malaysia.

We will review the UPR comments and recommendations by member UN nations and draw out a priority list for Malaysia’s focus.

We will reflect critically on Malaysia’s slowness and non-ratification of remaining 6 core human rights conventions and chart an action plan

We appreciate Malaysia’s global commitments for human rights in Asean and the International stage through a number of good initiatives such as GMM and note future commitments

We recognise the importance of Human Rights from an Islamic perspective and note the commitments made by the OIC through its Independent Human Rights Commission and its commitment through UN Resolution 16/18 on Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization…”

PANEL

UPR Review and implications for Malaysian Human Rights Agenda - Datuk Dr Denison Jayasooria (Proham Secretary General)

Malaysia & Ratification of UN Human Rights Conventions - Dr Lin Mui Kiang (Former UN Coordination Specialist)

Islam and Human Rights - Prof Dr Shad Faruqi  (UITM)

Malaysia, OIC Human Rights Commission & Commitments - Assoc. Prof. Dr. Raihanah Abdullah Director, UM Centre for Civilisational Dialogue

Malaysia’s Asean & International Human Rights Obligations - Tan Sri Michael Yeoh (ASLI & CPPS)

Moderator: Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah, CEO, GMM

--------------------------------

For registration please confirm participation with Rama Ramanathan ramajoyce@gmail.com. For directions and parking please contact: GMM Tel: 03-2095 1115

ARGENTINA & HUMAN RIGHTS – 30 YEARS ON - STATE POLICY ON HUMAN RIGHTS

Ambassador Maria, Ms Michelle (UN-Malaysia) & Denison

By Ambassador Maria Isabel Rendon
Ambassador of Argentina to Malaysia

Thirty years after democracy was restored, Argentina is currently in the process of strengthening different aspects of its human rights policy, and this process is being attentively observed by the international and regional communities.

Social inclusion policies centred on respect for social and economic rights; the integration of migrants into national development from a human rights perspective (regardless of their migration status); recent groundbreaking laws approved in Congress, such as the Gender Identity, Decent Death, Equal Marriage and Mental Health Laws; and transcendental public policies for cultural change, such as the National Plan Against Discrimination (with more than 200 concrete steps to eradicate discriminatory rules and practices, already being implemented) are some of the concrete contributions of Argentina to international human rights law, in a world which is still debating many of these issues without yet reaching a consensus.

The foundation pillar for the construction of such a progressive human rights agenda in Argentina has been the eradication of impunity in relation to the crimes against humanity perpetrated in times of State terrorism. This process started through an internationally unprecedented step, acclaimed by the international community and the Human Rights Movement.

Over two decades after the recovery of democracy, hundreds of trials were re-opened all over the country in 2005. Since the opening of judicial proceedings, 1053 people have been prosecuted, 559 new cases have reached the oral stage, 430 people have been convicted of varying degrees of participation following oral and public proceedings and 45 people have been acquitted.

Within this context, many witnesses around the world have given their testimony before Argentine courts through video conferences held at Argentine consulates.

Political Leadership

This significant shift after many years of impunity is the result of the maturity achieved by the Argentine people and its institutions, the painstaking work carried out by the human rights movement in its legitimate search for justice, and the political determination of former President Néstor Kirchner, whose efforts are continued by current Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner.

All of these factors made it possible for the three branches of government, for the first time since the restoration of democracy and in response to a new social contract, to remove all existing legal obstacles with a view to identifying and punishing those responsible for systematic and mass violations of human rights.

These actions were taken within the framework of ordinary proceedings, through the application of ordinary criminal law and international human rights law   with constitutional status in Argentina   and with full respect for the guarantees of due process.

This new stage in the fight against impunity has given Argentina renewed legitimacy and leadership at the international level, and has placed our country at the forefront of important initiatives on matters such as genocide prevention, education on and remembrance of the Holocaust as a way of preventing massive atrocities, the elaboration of rules and regulations on matters related to the enforced disappearance of persons, the right to the truth, and the use of forensic genetics in the field of human rights.

At the regional level, the Institute of Public Policy on Human Rights of MERCOSUR (IPPDH) started working in 2011, establishing an institutional framework for the exchange of good practices in this field at the regional level for the first time.

Genocide Prevention

In March 2012, the Latin American Network for Genocide Prevention was launched in Buenos Aires, in association with the Auschwitz Institute for Peace and Reconciliation (AIPR), and in the presence of representatives from the whole region, as well as African observers from human rights institutions.

This network is one of a kind in the world, and it aims at creating a community of public officers who are sensitive to and informed about the issue. Its ultimate goal is to incorporate and develop, through training and regional cooperation, education on the prevention of genocide and mass atrocities as a priority on the Latin American regional agenda.

Moreover, and in connection with this issue, Argentina is working jointly with Switzerland and Tanzania to organize regional fora for the prevention of genocide. Fora were organized in Buenos Aires in 2008, Arusha (Tanzania) in 2010, Berne (Switzerland) in 2011, and Cambodia in 2013.

From mass violations to promoting human rights

Argentina has a tragic history of systematic and mass human rights violations, but today it is internationally recognized for its active role in the promotion of various human rights issues such as memory, truth, justice and reparation, as well as for making significant progress at the world level in connection with issues such as social inclusion, migration policies and the fight against discrimination.

All this progress has made it possible to design a State policy on human rights by building a bridge between the past and the future of Argentina, with a view to consolidating the creation of a fairer and more egalitarian society.

--------------------------------
Source: Extract from the speech delivered by Ambassador Maria at a function on Dec 5, 2013 in Kuala Lumpur to commemorate 30 years of Democracy & Human Rights in Argentine

Fighting domination through equal opportunities: The Mandela style

“During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.”     ― Nelson Mandela

Teach others to Love not hate by Nelson Mandela

No one is born hating another person because of the colour of his skin, or his background, or his religion.

People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite.

from The Autobiography of Nelson Mandela.

What Nelson Mandela Taught Us About Human Rights

By Zack Beauchamp on December 5, 2013 at 7:18 pm

Nelson Mandela took the impossible and made it flesh. He took down an entrenched system of white supremacy and, against all odds, shepherded a scarred country into democracy. Mandela recruited the international community, once a staunch ally of apartheid South Africa, to be an auxiliary in this extraordinary fight.

Mandela’s ability to build a global movement against racial oppression — and to win — should remind us that the brutal realities of the world we live in are not set in stone. Though today’s crises — civil wars in Syria and Central African Republic, grinding global poverty and disease — may seem like things over which the world has no power, Mandela’s life says otherwise. The moral rules of the world politics, the ones that say suffering abroad are “not my problem,” can be changed by people of great moral vision and activists convinced of the rightness of their cause.

It’s easy to forget that apartheid was once a contentious issue in global politics. The anti-apartheid movement’s first big victory, a 1962 U.N. General Assembly resolution establishing a Special Committee Against Apartheid, was not followed by any action in the vastly more powerful Security Council. The State Department is admirably frank about the reasoning: “Defenders of the Apartheid regime” in the West “had promoted it as a bulwark against communism.” The United States, Britain, and other capitalist states saw South Africa as a useful ally, apartheid be damned.
By 1986, the international scene had changed entirely. Every one of South Africa’s most significant trading partners had placed onerous sanctions on the South African government, and the pressure was immense.

The global anti-apartheid movement, which took “Free Mandela!” as one of its most famous slogans, is of course responsible for this sea change. This loose network of Third World governments, activists, artists, and ordinary citizens, organized boycotts, pushed sanctions, and lobbied legislators to turn the Afrikaner government into a global pariah.

These activists succeeded, political scientist Audie Klotz writes, despite the fact that “the interests of great powers did not substantially change.” The world began moving against apartheid well before the end of the Cold War. Rather, Klotz’s research suggests, it was a “consensus around racial equality” as a defining moral norm of global politics, which began taking hold in the late 60s, that eventually turned the West against South Africa. The victory Mandela and the activists he inspired fought for was won by changing people’s beliefs about what was right.

When Mandela was released from prison in 1990, he told the world that “the sanctions that have been imposed by the United Nations and by individual governments should remain in place.” The reason, he suggested, was to avoid ”any situation in which those who are opposed to change in our country find encouragement to resist change.” The sanctions, for Mandela, were power he could wield: they demonstrated that, when he spoke to Afrikaner leaders, he spoke with the weight of the world behind him.

That the global community could, by deciding that racism was no longer acceptable in its ranks, provide freedom fighters like Mandela with such a weapon demonstrates the power of people to organize in the face of grave injustice, even to help people very much unlike themselves. It shows that it’s not hopeless naiveté to believe that people of great moral vision like Mandela can inspire the rest of us to practical action that to improve people’s lives.

The world could not fight black South Africans’ battles for them, and the “white savior” narrative in which the world, rather than Mandela and the ANC, principally ended apartheid is both false and terribly narcissistic. But recognizing the power of the world to develop a moral expansive consciousness, and the ability of that consciousness to allow people to help each other, is not the same thing.

“We’re all moved,” Mandela said in that post-prison address, “by the fact that freedom is indivisible, convinced that the denial of the rights of one diminish the freedom of others.” His life, and the great global good it inspired, is proof that these words are not empty.

Source: http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/12/05/3029161/nelson-mandela-taught-human-rights/

Human Rights: The Next 20 Years

Opening remarks by Ms. Navi Pillay, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, at the Human Rights Day Event 2013 - Geneva, 5 December 2013

Excellencies, friends,  A very good morning to you all. It gives me great pleasure today to open this Human Rights Day event.  This year, as you know, marks 20 years since a historic document, the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, was adopted, leading to the creation of my office – the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.  During this event, we will take stock of where we are today in the implementation of its promises, but also try to look forward over the next 20 years. Hopefully what we have done so far will enable us to face the challenges we will face in the future.

The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action crystallized the principle that human rights are universal. It committed States to the promotion and protection of all human rights for all people, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems.  In the past two decades, much has been achieved, indeed more than people perhaps realize. The fundamentals for protecting and promoting human rights are largely in place – the firm foundation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which is the basis for a strong and growing body of international human rights law and standards, as well as the institutions to interpret the laws, monitor compliance and apply these laws to new and emerging human rights issues.

Today, human rights are increasingly permeating all corners of the work of the United Nations, and that is fundamentally changing the way the UN works with national authorities and the international community.  The key now is to implement the laws and standards to make enjoyment of human rights a reality on the ground. Unfortunately, too often, the political will, and the human and financial resources, to achieve this are lacking.

The 20 years since Vienna have seen many setbacks and a number of tragic failures to prevent atrocities and safeguard human rights. In several instances where deplorable, large-scale violations of international human rights law were occurring, the international community was too slow, too divided, too short-sighted – or just plain inadequate in its response to the warnings of human rights defenders and the cries of victims.  We can and we must do better.  The Vienna Declaration should be viewed as a blueprint for a magnificent construction that is still only half built. It should be viewed as a living document that can and should continue to guide our actions and goals.

I look forward to the panel discussion later this afternoon on building on this vision for an effective human rights system in the next 20 years and beyond.  In any vision for the future, the evolving role of information technology, which is transforming the way we do human rights work, must be taken into account. The World Wide Web, social media and IT innovations are dramatically improving real-time communications and information-sharing. They are also magnifying the voice of human rights defenders, shining a light on abuses, and mobilizing support for various causes in many parts of the world.

I look forward to a lively discussion on human rights and the free flow of information later today. Of course we have also seen how new technologies are facilitating the violation of human rights, with chilling 21st Century efficiency. A Tweet or a Facebook post by a human rights defender can be enough to land him or her in jail.  It is essential that the space for human rights defenders is doggedly defended, both online and offline.

Our first panel today on protecting the space for human rights defenders will, I hope, offer insight and inspiration to States on guaranteeing this important space.  It is also crucial that this space includes those who are frequently excluded from the political, and even economic life, of a State. Women continue to suffer discrimination, violence and persecution. So too do ethnic, racial and religious minorities, and migrants, as well as individuals because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. This shows how far we still have to go. Changing and shifting populations, fuelled by rising poverty, refugee movements and volatile global economics, make countering ‘fear of the other’ a priority.

Bridging the equality gap is fundamental to the work of our office and an important topic for every celebration of Human Rights Day, including today, with a panel discussion this morning.  We will also enjoy a musical performance by Salif Keita, himself an individual with albinism, who, like persons with disabilities, knows all too well what it is like to be placed on the margins of society.

On this Human Rights Day, I urge members States to focus on the many recommendations they receive from the UN system and to ensure effective and inclusive participation in drawing up national action plans to bring about real change.  A huge amount of work remains to be done to transform human rights from abstract promises to genuine improvement in the daily lives of all people, especially those who are currently marginalized or excluded.

On our part, the UN Human Rights Office will continue to ensure that we work with national authorities to prevent human rights breaches from occurring. We will continue to be vocal about human rights violations and bring them to the attention of the international community when this is warranted. And we ask that States do their part – the biggest part by far – to ensure that the tragic mistakes of the past are not repeated and that the human rights of all are protected and promoted. The vision and goals we formulated 20 years ago in Vienna are still valid – and still worth fighting for now, over the next 20 years, and beyond.

Before we begin our first panel discussion on how to better protect the essential space for human rights defenders, allow me to introduce a short video produced by my Office. The video looks back at the human rights successes and failures of the past 20 years and features the views of several familiar personalities on the universality of human rights.

Friday, 6 December 2013, 10:29 am
Speech: UNHCHR

Setting our human rights record straight

More powers: In a bid to strengthen its position, Suhakam is seeking the right to make unscheduled visits to detention centres.

 

  By Shaila Koshy (Sunday Star Dec 1, 2013)

The Malaysian Government underwent the second Universal Periodic Review of its human rights record at the United Nations on Oct 24. Have we done better or is there much more to do?

WHENEVER the international community is looking for a poster child for a “moderate” Muslim country, they like to point to Malaysia.

The number of times Malaysia has been elected to the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) is testament to this.

Which is all very well except the report card on human rights we are getting under the UN’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR) doesn’t paint such a pretty picture of us.

The UPR process involves member states having to field questions from their peers on reasons for not keeping their pledges, not just to the HRC, but to their citizens as well.

That means these states cannot obfuscate anymore the situation in their country because the independent reports filed by stakeholders and national human rights institutions (NHRIs) like our Suhakam can contradict them.

At Malaysia’s 2nd UPR in Geneva on Oct 24, the Government received 232 recommendations from 104 member states – which says a lot about Malaysia’s human rights record. (See http://www.upr-info.org/IMG/pdf/a_hrc_wg.6_17_l.8_malaysia.pdf)

The top five clusters were: accession of international human rights treaties (28 recommendations); review death penalty, (20); healthcare (17); anti-trafficking in persons (14); and right to education (13).

In an interview, Suhakam chairman Tan Sri Hasmy Agam noted that although some members commended the Government’s repeal of the Internal Security Act and Emergency Ordinances, only a few had expressed concern over the recent amendments to the Prevention of Crime Act which were “retrogressive and inconsistent with human rights principles.”

And while Suhakam concurred with the positive comments, he felt that critically constructive comments and recommendations “would have served as valid and useful reminders to the Malaysian Government to redouble its efforts to promote and protect human rights here.”

He also expressed disappointment in the absence of recommendations on business and human rights: “This demonstrates the lack of recognition by state actors on the role and obligation of business entities in promoting and protecting human rights.”

By March 2014, the Government must indicate which of the 232 recommendations it will support.

Should Malaysians trust the Government’s pledges?

As Amnesty International and Suaram have pointed out, the Government pledged to consider ratification of these human rights treaties – International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), and the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) – but had not done so.

Is there any hope for the Rome Statute, the Refugee Convention, the International Convention on Protection of Migrant Workers and their Families or the convention of the rights of indigenous and tribal people, instruments which the Government has not agreed to?

At the 3rd UPR in 2018, Malaysia would be on the threshold of becoming a developed nation, and it would be tragic if we have still only ratified three conventions – Elimination of Discrimination against Women, Rights of the Child, and Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

“When the Government makes a promise, it must be one it can fulfil but it’s taken a long time,” said Hasmy.

He said an Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) on human rights was looking at how far the Government can go in ratifying these treaties.

“The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is coordinating. I hope they will pick up the pace faster.”

The Government said in its statement at the UPR that IASC was expected to submit its recommendations concerning Malaysia’s accession to ICESCR by year-end.

While giving the Government the benefit of the doubt, Hasmy said Suhakam would “nudge them harder this second round,” adding that it wouldn’t reflect too well on Malaysia if the Government made promises it could not keep.

“But as far as I am concerned, we urge the Government to look at all the recommendations and make pledges to do its best to fulfil the recommendations by its peers, especially the ones that are doable.”

Which are the doable ones?
Hasmy said the six core human rights instruments should be implemented, if not all together, then stage by stage, one by one.

“We have targeted to be a developed country in 2020, by which time we will be judged by higher standards.

“Not all developed countries have ratified all the conventions, the United States being one glaring example, but some of these things are in their Constitution.

“There is a mechanism internally for them to be monitored by their people. In our case, some are there but most are not.”

“If they say ‘well, it’s very difficult, we want to put our house in order first before we do it’, for heaven’s sake put your house in order.”

Even in Asean, Hasmy said the Philippines and Indonesia were in the lead having ratified eight treaties.

“Cambodia, Thailand, Laos and Timor Leste, which has observer status in Asean, have ratified seven each. Vietnam has ratified five.

“We are among the last with three ratifications! How proud can we be?”
Hasmy said ratification and accession were his team’s priority, adding that they would also push for the old pledges and the new ones the Government would make in 2014 so that by 2020, there would be none outstanding.

“Whether we will be able to deliver remains to be seen because our role is advisory.”
He is hopeful of talking with the Government before Malaysia makes a statement of commitments, which they feel they would be in a position to fulfil.

Five recommendations called for strengthening Suhakam. What does Suhakam want?
Hasmy said the team led by Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman had recommended Suhakam have more powers but nothing happened.

He said former de facto Law Minister Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz had been positive about two of the recommendations:

>ALLOW Suhakam to make unscheduled visits like other NHRIs to detention centres and prisons, unlike now where they have to alert the authorities first; and

>SET up a parliamentary committee on human rights, short of having a full parliamentary debate on its annual and other reports.

Hasmy said they would be meeting Nazri’s successor – Nancy Shukri – to discuss giving Suhakam the right to appear in court as amicus curiae or to hold watching brief in cases involving human rights infringements.

“Some NHRIs can bring cases to court. That could be our next stage.”

“It may take some time but as we progress to 2020 and beyond, you (Government) have to improve your record otherwise you have no credi­bility.”

The second highest cluster of recommendations called for a review of the death penalty, including a moratorium with a view to abolishing the death penalty.

The Government announced various reviews of the death penalty in 2009. Can the 2013 UPR recommendations bring a result?
Referring to the briefing by Malaysian Bar president Christopher Leong to parliamentarians on Nov 14 on a recent survey on the death penalty here, Hasmy said he hoped so.

“The Death Penalty Project survey shows Malaysian are not in favour of mandatory death sentences and prefer giving judges the discretion.

“The Government said it would act if the public thinks it is no longer relevant. The survey proves this.”

Hopefully, Nancy who moderated the session in Parliament will get things moving.

In July 2012, the Prime Minister pledged to repeal the Sedition Act ahead of the general election. GE13 has come and gone but the Sedition Act remains. This was noted by Australia, the Czech Republic, the United States and Britain at the UPR. What can Suhakam do?

“It’s a commitment on the part of the leadership, we will keep reminding him of it,” said Hasmy.

He said there was talk of a National Harmony Act to replace the Sedition Act but noted there were many stakeholders to consult.

“Our laws are security oriented not human rights oriented. Many countries have shifted from security to human rights. We are pushing for the same.

“Any new bill or legislation must be compatible with international norms. Otherwise it’s like putting old wine in new bottles,” he added.

Are the UPR recommendations a reflection of what Malaysia needs to do or what member states want to impose?

“Some are repeated issues, they’re reminding Malaysia to do what it has not done,” said Hasmy.
“It’s a combination of factors. They want us to improve, perform better.

“Of course, the West has their own perspective of countries they want to be like them.

“That’s why there are some of our people who say it is a Western-driven thing. But this is not true.”
Hasmy said the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 comprised universal principles which Malaysia, as a member of the UN, was obliged to fulfil.

“It can’t be that it is meant for certain countries and not us. There’s a misconception on the universal nature of the principles of human rights,” he said, adding that Suhakam was beginning to engage with different groups on this.

“There’s a misunderstanding even among some people from my community about the UDHR’s universal principles. They instead subscribe to the 1990 Cairo Declaration by the OIC (Organisation of the Islamic Conference).

At a meeting with the International Institute of Advanced Islamic Studies over the two declarations, Hasmy said he was informed there was only a small percentage of differences, which could be resolved in an appropriate manner.

“Islamic scholars agreed with me when I made the point that we shouldn’t be defensive about human rights because in the golden age of Islam, when the West was mostly in the Dark Ages, we were in the vanguard of promoting welfare of mankind which includes human rights.

“There’s no reason why, just because the West is promoting it because of their own traumas of the Second World War, that we should think this is a Western-imposed agenda. I don’t agree.

“For instance slavery, is the fight against it a Western-driven thing?

“Are you going to say that we from the East promote slavery?

“No, it’s universal; the UDHR does not evoke the name of God, it is a secular statement.

“The principles are not underlined by religious, moral principles of any religion but they are mostly the same.”

Hasmy called for greater interfaith dialogue.

“We should move beyond tolerance in Malaysia to understanding and respecting differences, that is, differences of behaviour, lifestyles, religious principles... so we understand where we are coming from and why people are sensitive about certain things.”

Urging the Government to finalise the National Human Rights Action Plan as soon as possible, he expressed hope the Government’s statement of pledges in March would be ambitious but doable.

“Statements like ‘steps have been taken or are being taken’ don’t go down too well,” he added.
Malaysians will have to wait and see whether the Government cares about its reputation in the international sand-box

Source: http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2013/12/01/Setting-our-human-rights-record-straight.aspx