THE Coalition of Malaysian NGOs for the UPR Process (Comango) and the CSO Platform for Reform take note of Malaysia’s candidature for membership of the 47-member United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) for the 2022-2024 term.
As is the accepted practice for candidates, the government published its list of voluntary pledges and commitments on June 9, 2021. This is seen as a “manifesto” of what a candidate country hopes to contribute should it be elected.
Elections for membership of HRC are an international diplomatic process. It is not a reward or prize for having an excellent or good human rights record at home, and success in the elections is not proof of that. Many countries that are outright violators of human rights are, or have been, members of HRC.
No country in the world has a perfect record when it comes to human rights. In fact, given that elections for membership of HRC are based on geographical representation, it is not even a “free-for-all” vote. For the 2022-2024 term, for the Asia-Pacific region, five countries have announced their candidature for the five available places. To this extent, Malaysia will, unless it fails to gain the support of a majority of the members of the UN General Assembly, be elected.
Given this, the voluntary pledges and commitments may be viewed as a statement of intent, an indication of what will be the focus of a candidate country during its term as a member of HRC. On that basis, we wish to respond to some of the government’s voluntary pledges and commitments.
1. We concur that a whole-of-society approach is needed in the promotion and protection of human rights in Malaysia. However, we note that not all government ministries engage with CSOs. Even within the government, there exists serious contestation between ministries on how to approach the issue of human rights.
So far as can be ascertained, the present government, which came into office on March 1 last year through a political manoeuvre, has not consulted many CSOs in their study and review of security laws.
This may have been the position of the previous government that was in office from May 2018 to February 2020, and not the present one. Other positive developments highlighted in the voluntary pledges and commitment also date back to that time period.
2. We take note of the government’s continued commitment to the three international human rights treaties that it has either acceded to or signed, namely the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).
However, we note that Malaysia continues to maintain reservations in respect of substantive provisions in all three of these treaties. Additionally, there is no firm commitment made by the government towards acceding to any other international human rights treaty. As it stands, Malaysia seems to support racial discrimination, torture, enforced disappearance and the mistreatment of migrant workers, because it has steadfastly refused to accede to any of the international human rights treaties on these issues.
It is uncertain how a country that has adopted an intransigent view of human rights and which possesses a poor record of accession to or signature of international human rights treaties can actually speak of promoting international cooperation on human rights in a truly meaningful way, and provide leadership in enhanced collaboration.
3. The National Human Rights Action Plan (NHRAP) produced by the government in 2018 was (and is) a document that is wrought with many gaps, representing no real comprehensive plan and reflecting no great ambition to improve Malaysia’s record on human rights, nor does it indicate any significant progression on pro-human rights policies and practices.
We are surprised that the government would mention the fact that NHRAP was a result of Malaysia’s first Universal Periodic Review that took place in 2009. That it took the government nine years to produce NHRAP says a lot about the importance and priority placed on human rights in Malaysia.
4. The present government’s focus has been on holding on to power as it came in through undemocratic means and has been swamped by pandemic management.
Ironically, the management of the country was centred around the proclamation of a state of emergency, the suspension of Parliament (and the shutting down of all its consultative mechanisms), the deferring of elections, the waiving of parliamentary financial oversight, and the introduction of emergency ordinances that have criminalised so-called “fake news”. There has also been an increase in investigations and prosecutions in relation to freedom of expression and press freedom.
5. We welcome the government’s continued support for a worldwide moratorium on the death penalty.
Although the government has mentioned that a special committee was established to study alternatives to the mandatory death penalty, it did not go on to mention that the special committee’s work was completed and a report presented to the then government in February 2020. There has not been much publicly stated progress since then.
6. While we acknowledge that the government recently launched the National Unity Policy and National Unity Blueprint 2021-2030, we would like to point out that the systemic and root causes of racism are not addressed.
While looking at racial unity in Malaysia, the policy and blueprint fails to address the issue of gender equality and non-discrimination within the national unity framework.
7. We appreciate the fact that Malaysian Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) continues to maintain its standing as an “A”-status Paris Principles body.
We have noted, however, that the government often uses Suhakam as a proxy for engagement with civil society, preferring for Suhakam to organise dialogues with CSOs and then having them summarise the dialogue in a separate meeting with government agencies.
As indicated earlier, Malaysia’s candidacy for membership of HRC, if successful, does not represent, and should not be seen as, a reward for the progress achieved in the promotion and protection of human rights. Human rights in Malaysia are still in a sorry state; to say that they are improving would be a misrepresentation of the real situation.
The voluntary pledges and commitments lack ambition and do not go far enough. They gloss over many inconsistencies, hypocrisies and contradictions that exist in Malaysia in respect of human rights.
We, Malaysia’s civil society, intend to maximise the period of the country’s membership of HRC to press our demands for an improvement in the human rights situation in Malaysia, and as an opportunity to critically engage with the government in a full, frank, open and transparent manner, and under the full sight of the entire international community.
Stronger commitment from the government is required and demanded. We expect the government to use its HRC membership to make significant improvements and advancements to its human rights track record in its own backyard, even as it seeks to participate in and contribute to the human rights dialogue internationally. Human rights, like charity, begin at home. – The Vibes, July 5, 2021
* Member organisations of Comango and CSO Platform for Reform
