Suhakam chief: 'Local context' human rights in line with Constitution

 

Suhakam will remain at the forefront of upholding human rights principles so long as they are consistent with provisions under the Federal Constitution, said the commission’s chief commissioner Rahmat Mohamad.

Rahmat, who just completed his first year in office, said from the get-go, he emphasised the commission’s role to uphold human rights in a “local context” as provided for in the Suhakam Act 1999.

“But I may have failed in elaborating what is the local context,” he admitted in an interview with Malaysiakini.

“It is a balancing act that we have to play.

“While we embrace the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Sustainable Development Goals, at the same time, as far as Malaysia is concerned, the Suhakam Act itself states that ‘so long as it is consistent with the Federal Constitution’,” he said.

The former law professor argued that various provisions related to human rights under the Federal Constitution are subject to legal exceptions, and so Suhakam’s direction would also be in line with the fact.

In the past, Rahmat’s appointment as Suhakam chief commissioner received brickbats from civil societies concerned about his role in convincing the Conference of Rulers to reject the Rome Statute.

The Rome Statute, a treaty by the International Criminal Court, focuses on genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression.

‘Malaysia not ready’

Rahmat also maintained that Malaysia at the time was not ready to sign the treaty, and since then, little effort was made by elected lawmakers to explain to their constituents the impact of such agreements.

“When the government wants to ratify any treaties or conventions related to human rights, there are fundamental issues which must first be done,” he said, adding that this includes preparing the people for any long-term impact.

On the Rome Statute, Rahmat said he proposed that Malaysia draft its own law in the same spirit but without involving “sensitive issues” such as royal immunity.

Addressing concerns that adopting a Malaysian context may sideline vulnerable groups, particularly the LGBTQ+n community, Rahmat denied it, stressing “human rights is human rights”.

“That means if the human rights of any Malaysian is being infringed, Suhakam will be at the forefront.

“There is no question of certain groups being marginalised, no!” said Rahmat, who was quick to add he also has other pressing concerns regarding Suhakam’s focus.

Specifically, Rahmat cited issues surrounding poverty eradication efforts - the first of 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

He said this is on top of Malaysia’s efforts towards other SDGs, including the right to clean air and the environment.

“Malaysia has committed to enforcing the SDGs... But it looks like not much action was taken when these are human rights, right?

“So I don’t want us to be clouded with so many (other) issues that hold us back from moving forward. I have been given the mandate until 2025, and I would like to continue,” he said.

Rahmat said Suhakam’s immediate priorities include looking at issues surrounding stateless children and assisting the government in developing categorisations for refugees.

“These are some issues where I feel I am overwhelmed, (so) I do not want to be disturbed by all these personal issues,” Rahmat added amid pressure for him to take garden leave pending a probe against him concerning allegations of power abuse and racism.

Probe on Rahmat

In the interview at the Suhakam headquarters on June 27, Rahmat also declared that he has “nothing to hide” and is prepared to be investigated by the Prime Minister’s Department’s Legal Affairs Division (BHHEU).

This was after Suhakam said it would refer the complaints against Rahmat and other complaints on “internal activities” that did not implicate him to the BHHEU for “advice and direction”.

This is to ensure the inquiry remains “transparent and independent”.

In a statement today, the Asian NGO Network and Suaram once again reiterated calls for Rahmat to take garden leave pending the outcome of the inquiry.

The groups also urged Suhakam to provide timely updates on the inquiry’s progress and be transparent about the identity and credentials of the external body tasked to carry out the probe. - Mkini

YOURSAY | Stop little Napoleons from conducting moral policing

 

YOURSAY | ‘Don’t let bullies overstep boundaries to boost their egos.’

Moral policing: Socso suspends Rela personnel pending probe

Hrrmph: This is what happens when there is too much moral policing. There will be bullies/small-minded persons who will overstep because they get a boost to their ego when they get to tell another they cannot do this or that.

Is it the fault of the personnel or the environment that he is operating in? He hears of these cases and how complaints are often brushed aside by the heads of departments.

Perhaps he hears his colleagues talking about how the dress code ought to be enforced. He is just unlucky that he stopped someone who knows the rules and how to phrase his complaint in a way that cannot be ignored.

The dress code is not the law. Yes, it is a courtesy to dress properly.

So perhaps the civil servants can be directed to just advise those who aren’t dressed properly but they must admit everyone, especially to emergency services such as the police and hospitals.

It is ridiculous to allow these little Napoleons’ power to prohibit and support their petty acts of ego-boosting.

Vijay47: At first glance, this disgraceful, bullying act has a happy ending with the almighty security guard being suspended pending an investigation. But the early chapters were slightly different.

In reply to the original complaint by Penang-based lawyer Ajit Singh Jessy, Social Security Organisation (Socso) stated, that while they expected visitors to be in decent attire, whatever that meant, they had no dress code.

And graciously, the agency apologised on behalf of the guard. Supposedly end of cerita (story).

It was only when Ajit pursued the matter that the guard was suspended.

I wonder whether we have reached a level where anyone can introduce dressing standards according to their misguided beliefs, to be waived in the event there is a protest?

Government departments have no business telling the public how to dress, everyone has their own principles of decorum to be guided by. What next? Supermarkets, the beach, playing fields, my bathroom?

What are you doing, Chief Secretary to the Government Mohd Zuki Ali? By your silence, are we to understand that you agree with these abusive policies?

One would have thought that after so many complaints from around the country, you would have issued a directive to the entire civil service to immediately stop this rubbish.

I know you are the Foreign Minister Zambry Abdul Kadir, and not the home affairs minister, but would you care to make a comment on this outrage which is not in Sweden but right here in tanah air (homeland)?

Sorry, Ajit, you may not be in PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang’s good books. Cheers!

Apanama is back: Fellow Malaysians, while we are commenting about moral policing on dress codes, we should remember the real root cause which is also more prevalent now. It goes beyond moral policing.

While this case could just be the tip of the iceberg, there are many cases I personally had come across while queuing up or sitting after taking a queue number in government departments over the last two years. Every time, someone will be ticked off due to their dress.

What I am trying to say is the cases are increasing. This means the votes for certain political parties may also increase. The people doing all this moral policing have been successfully brainwashed by certain narratives.

Take note of how these political parties increase their vote base. Therefore, I call upon all right-thinking voters to come out in full force to ensure we vote out parties that harp on moral policing and dress codes.

Otherwise, the chances they win are there. Remember, even though the personnel is suspended and/or sacked, he/she is still a voter!

I Will Keep My Promise: Do security guards have the legal authority to stop people from entering the premises of government departments or government-linked bodies they are supposedly guarding at their private moral whims and sexual fancy or fantasy?

Is this moral policing or a breach of civil/criminal law? By denying entry because of supposedly ‘indecent’ dressing, the guards are in fact accusing the aggrieved party of committing a public indecency nuisance crime under the Penal Code.

Can the aggrieved party lodge a police report against the security guard and/or his employer about the indecency accusation incident?

Can the aggrieved or defamed party sue the security guard and/or the employer for civil or criminal defamation?

Of course, if the security guard is a civil servant, then nothing really can be done because they are protected under the Public Authorities Protection Act and can continuously go on a private moral or indecency policing frolic without a care in the world.

It is time for this current government to stop remaining silent on this delicate issue and put a full stop to all this nonsense once and for all. If not, this current government might be seen as supporting the ‘green wave’.

Darwin Fernandez: All of this has got to do with the Marang MP and his party. They talk about how people should dress. Very soon, all Malaysian must dress like him and his party members.

However, they have forgotten Malaysia has traditional dresses or costumes which are Baju Melayu, Kebaya, and Baju Kurung, among others. These are the traditional costumes of our beloved county Malaysia.

None of them wear any of that but they are following what the Arabs are wearing. My question will be, if you are saying, “This is my country and this is my land”, why are you following the Arabs when we have our own traditional dresses?

People should not follow these hypocrites. - Mkini