NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS ACTION PLAN

Transcription

Legal Affairs Division
Prime Minister’s Department
SEMINAR PROCEEDINGS
24 & 25 MAY 2012
CONTENTS
NO.
INDEX
PAGE
1.
INTRODUCTION
2
2.
ORGANISATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS
2
3.
OVERVIEW OF SEMINAR
3
OPENING CEREMONY
3
SESSION 1 - INTRODUCTORY
5
SESSION 2 - FORUM
11
SESSION 3 - FORUM
19
5.
FINDINGS
27
6.
CONCLUSION
30
7.
APPENDICES:
31
4.
A. Organising Committee members and Secretariat
B. Seminar program
C. List of participants
D. List of guests for the opening ceremony
E. List of speakers & moderators
F. Opening speech by the honourable Dato’ Seri
Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz, Minister in the Prime
Ministers Department
G. The Role of National Human Rights Action Plan by
Mr. Laurent Meillan
H. Power point presentation by Rosette Gilda Librea
I.
Power point presentation by Cik Shazelina Zainul
Abidin
J. Power point presentation by Dr. Mohd Azizuddin bin
Mohd Sani
1
Legal Affairs Division, Prime Minister’s Office
1. INTRODUCTION
The Legal Affairs Division, Prime Minister’s Department of Malaysia organised a Seminar on
National Human Rights Action Plan (NHRAP) on 24 and 25 May 2012 at the Institute of
Diplomacy and Foreign Relations (IDFR), Kuala Lumpur. Participants included
representatives of Ministries and 13 government agencies. The purpose of the seminar was to
raise awareness among government officers on the concept of NHRAP, expose them to
international best practices related to the development of the document and provide them the
opportunity to share and exchange ideas on the subject.
2. ORGANISATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS
This proceeding records presentations and discussions from the seminar. The order of the
presentations which include papers presented or presentation slides and report of question and
answer sessions which follow each session are according to the seminar program. The
following are included as appendices:
i.
List of Organising Committee members and Secretariat – Appendix A;
ii.
Seminar program - Appendix B;
iii.
List of participants - Appendix C;
iv.
List of guests for the opening ceremony – Appendix D;
v.
List of speakers & moderators - Appendix E;
vi.
Opening speech by the honourable Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz, Minister in
the Prime Ministers Department - Appendix F.
2
3. OVERVIEW OF SEMINAR
Opening Ceremony
The opening ceremony was officiated by the honourable
Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz, Minister in the
Prime Minister’s Department. Guests included the
honourable Tan Sri Hasmy Agam, Chairperson of the
Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM)
and Her Excellency Embassador Aminahtun Haji. A.
Karim, Deputy Director General of IDFR. The
ceremony was attended by officers from various
government agencies, institutions of higher learning, representatives of the SUHAKAM and
United Nations Malaysia. In his speech, honourable Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz among
others spoke of:
Malaysia’s obligation as a United Nation member state to uphold the principles of the
i.
United Nations Declaration;
ii.
human rights not being a static concept
and that many countries believe in each
region formulating its own structures
for protection of human rights based on
its own ideologies and cultures;
iii.
NHRAP being a mechanism to ensure
human rights issues in Malaysia are
tackled structurally and strategically and that developing the Plan will require
considerable planning and effort which needs not only political support and financial
resource but a process that is transparent as well as participatory;
3
iv.
the importance of public servants as policy makers being made aware that improving
human rights is a public policy objective and it can, and may be implemented through
the normal planning and resource allocation processes of government;
v.
the seminar as a step to introduce participants to the concept and ideals of a NHRAP
and allow participants to share experiences of speakers who have played active roles in
the development of action plans specifically in the Asian region as well as discuss the
context of human rights in Malaysia; and
vi.
his hope that the NHRAP that Malaysia aspires to develop will demonstrate how the
government machinery is turning commitments made at the Universal Periodic Review
into specific actions to improve and promote human rights.
4
DAY 1
MARCH 24 2012 (11.00 am-12.30 pm)
INTRODUCTORY SESSION
The Role of National Human Rights Action Plan
The introductory session was by Mr Laurent Meillan from the Office of the High Commissioner
of Human Rights in Bangkok, Thailand,
on the topic of The Importance of a
NHRAP. Laurent Meillan spoke on the
origin of NHRAP and its purpose. He felt
that a NHRAP is an important means to
identify human rights priorities within the
country and set time-bound goals and
programmes to meet them. To him,
although experiences of countries in
developing and implementing NHRAPs is not yet exhaustively documented and information,
especially on their implementation, is not systematically available, it is possible to draw some
lessons from practice to date, and identify some key elements of the role of NHRAPs. According
to Meillan, the experience of the past decade in developing NHRAPs has highlighted not only the
strengths and advantages of using it as a tool to pursue better respect for human rights, but also the
drawbacks and challenges that may arise.
Laurent Meillan stressed that experience from across the world shows that prerequisites for a
successful development of NHRAPs include a political commitment at the highest level, highlevel political representation on the coordinating bodies overseeing the NHRAP’s development,
and ownership of the Plan and its implementation being in the hands of the Government. Broad
participation of the various civil society sectors in the development of the Plan also ensures that
public opinion is a primary basis for identifying human rights priorities, guarantees widespread
5
recognition and support for the Plan, and
will encourage all interested actors to help
implement it. It also provides a platform
for citizen and their representatives to
express their views on the human rights
situation of their country.
Please refer to Appendix G for the full
text.
6
QUESTION AND ANSWER (Session 1)
Q1: Cik Shazelina Zainul Abidin, MOFA
Does the OHCHR ASEAN provide financial assistance for the development of National Human
Right Action Plans and how big is the allocation if any?
A: We do not have specific budgets allocated for the development of National Human Right Action
Plans. However, on request by the government, the UN Bangkok office may, tailor its existing
budget towards NHRAP. With further discussion on the subject, we may be able to work with you
and render our support especially if you can identify particular topics which you may want to work
with us on. Having said that, the UN HQ has appointed a personnel as a focal point for NHRAP
whom you may communicate with on the matter.
Why is there a relaxing by countries in coming up with NHRAP in the last 3 years? How have
countries in ASEAN been performing in terms of ratifying UN conventions and things like that?
A: In general it is true that we find less NHRAP being developed. However, in the region,
Indonesia already has two and Thailand is preparing its second document.
With the Universal Periodic Review coming up, the
situation will be very interesting. We can only assume
that governments will embrace, support or comply with
the UPR recommendations. However, NHRAPs can
become a document that binds together all these
recommendations and see how it can be implemented.
I think this is certainly not the end of National Human
Rights Action Plans.
7
Q4: YBhg. Datuk Dr. Denison Jayasooria, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
To what extend have there been movements within countries in ASEAN for example Indonesia,
Thailand, the Philippines and even Cambodia and Myanmar recently towards more compliance in
order to achieve healthier Human Rights situation? How can NHRAP act as key focal plan for
change in Human rights?
A: Through discussions and engagements with the 9 countries which my office is covering, we
find that these countries continue looking into UN resolutions and the UPR recommendations.
However, we have to wait for the next cycle to see how these governments are actually able to
follow the recommendations. The trend among countries in the region however, is to show a
willingness to constructively engage with us. This includes Malaysia with which communication
has improved as compared to Indonesia, the Philippines and Myanmar. As a whole, countries in
the region are doing okay in corresponding and
reporting to treaty bodies. When it comes to
Malaysia, I would like to see you identifying more
UN Conventions to ratify. At the same time, we
are concerned that there may be setbacks for
example in terms of the right to peaceful assembly
and the rights to expression.
Q5: Encik Muhammad Sha’ani Abdullah, (SUHAKAM)
Which way is more appropriate? To ratify first or to comply then ratify?
A: From my point of view, you should ratify first because once you do that you clearly express a
political commitment towards the promotion and protection of human rights. This is important for
the image of the country especially when you have ratified so little compared to others. By ratifying
you may get more support from the UN especially in terms of expertise and guidance.
8
Q6: Encik Nik Muhd Marzuki bin Muhd Nor, Malaysian Department of Islamic
Development (JAKIM)
How do we reconcile between UDHR (Universal Declaration on Human Rights) and CDHRI
(Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam)? How does this relate to the development of a
NHRAP?
A: From my experience in Maldives when they were drafting the constitution, it is better for
someone like me from the UN to take a seat back. At the same time we brought in experts from
other countries to engage in dialogues with parliamentarians who were involved in the drafting of
the laws. Although we find similarities between sharia
law and human rights concepts, we often say that there
is a divide. There are conflicts sometimes but they are
similar in many ways and there are shared values. The
sharia
scholars
brought
awareness
to
the
parliamentarians who were then able to reconcile the
misconceptions which they once had only because they
lack knowledge. I would say it is always possible to
reconcile and that things are better left to the experts.
Q8: YBhg. Datuk Dr. Denison Jayasooria, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
Which are the countries in the OIC that have accepted the UDHR? Which have they endorsed and
where have they had reservations?
A: I cannot give you a list. However, there are countries who are already party to core human
rights conventions such as Pakistan, Yemen and Indonesia.
9
Q9: Encik Mohd Syahrizal Syah bin Zakaria, JAKIM
How do we reconcile or deal with contents of the NHRAP which may concern human rights issues
which at the same time touches or infringes matters which have been given special position under
the Constitution?
A: The situation depends again on whether certain conventions have been ratified. If you have
ratified than there may be treaty bodies coming in with guidelines on how the government can
move forward in terms of making changes in the law. This may sometimes be possible and
sometimes not, depending on further discussions on the issues at hand. If you ratify, it may be
easier as you will provided guidance, and recommendations from international expert bodies which
may or may not be integrated in the plan. On the other hand, if you don’t ratify, it’s more
complicated because it means that you have to do it all by yourselves with only inside expertise.
Then comes the question of how to do it in practical terms. I do not have myself the experience of
drafting the plan. However, the idea is that you establish a process during which issues such as
you have mentioned can be discussed with experts whom you bring in. Prioritizing is important as
you cannot do everything. If you have a 2 year plan for example, you’ll have to start with
something
that
is
doable like try to amend
a law that you know
you can be done in a
short period of time
then maybe set up a
long term goal for
those who are more
complicated and more
complex. But again, my
advice would be to
ratify first because you
can
get
recommendations from
treaty bodies and you
can use that to frame the
content of your plan.
10
DAY 1
MARCH 24 2012 (2.00 am-4.00 pm)
SESSION 2
Drafting a Human Rights Action Plan
Session 2
:
FORUM
Date
:
24th May 2012
Time
:
2.00 pm – 4.00 pm
Moderator
:
Encik Nisar Muhammad bin Ahmad
Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia
Speakers
i.
:
Dr. Rosette Gilda Librea
Consultant to the Ombudsman and Presidential Human Rights Committee of the
Philippines
11
ii.
Cik Shazelina Zainul Abidin
Undersecretary
Human Rights and Social Division
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
iii.
Mr Andrew Khoo Chin Hock
Co-Chairperson
Bar Council Human Rights Comittee
Bar Council Malaysia
Session 2 : Drafting a Human Rights Action Plan
Session 2 was composed of 3 presentations: first by Dr. Rosette Gilda Librea, second by Cik
Shazelina Zainul Abidin, and third by Mr Andrew Khoo Chin Hock.
Dr Rosette Gilda Librea, who is the Consultant to the Ombudsman and Presidential Human Rights
Committee of the Philippines presented on lessons learned by the Philippines in drafting their
NHRAP. Her presentation was divided into two main subjects i.e. The Philippines Human Rights
Plan II (PHRPII) (2012-2016) and its status and her recollections on being part of the team in the
development of the Plan.
Rosette explained that there was a need for PHRPII after the government went through a major
transition in 2010-2011 and the new government adopted a new national development agenda
centred on good governance. She talked about the process being extensive and divided into
preparatory, consultative, development, implementation and monitoring and evaluation phases.
She discussed how earlier on in the process, there was a need for guidelines which were then
produced in the forms of Handbook, Consultation Guide and Baseline Study Guide. Further on,
Rosette gave a comprehensive explanation of the process which took place in the development of
PHRPII which includes extensive consultations with 13-16 vulnerable sectors, 14 regions and lead
agencies of 8 core international human rights instruments. These consultation exercises then led
12
to the formation of 8 planning clusters of agencies which were made up of representatives of
government agencies and NGOs. With good governance as a crosscutting theme, PHRPII was to
transform government institutions into human rights and gender responsive forces of government
and on the whole tighten accountability. A copy of the power point presentation of Dr Rosette
Gilda Librea’s presentation is enclosed as Appendix H.
Cik Shazelina Zainul Abidin, Undersecretary, Human Rights and Social Division, Ministry of
Foreign Affairs (MOFA) discussed why a NHRAP document is important for Malaysia and most
importantly on the question of how Malaysia should go about developing it. She stressed on the
importance of determining the composition of an ideal Drafting Committee and setting an
appropriate and suitable time line to produce an achievable plan. According to Shazelina, what
starts from a wish list needs to be worked on by going through a process of research, consultation
and drafting.
The process after the
completion of the document than continues
with a cycle of implementation, monitoring
and reporting which are just as important.
A copy of power point presentation by Cik
Shazelina is enclosed as Appendix I.
Andrew Khoo Chin Hock, Co-Chairperson, Bar Council Human Rights Committee, Bar Council
Malaysia, discussed how important it is for ministry representatives to understand human rights
in relation to matters under their purview. Despite the fact that Malaysia has only signed or acceded
to very few international conventions on human rights, the Government has an obligation to ensure
that policies and decisions made by the Malaysian government are in line with human rights
principles. More importantly, the Government has to be sensitive to developments relating to
human rights not only within the country but in the international arena. Efforts have to be taken to
ensure that what we already have going on and what we plan for the future commensurate with
standards, laws and our international commitments. It is important that drafters understand
standards set and expected by the UN and recommendations made by international organisations
should be given priority to be included in the NHRAP. These will become benchmarks when the
13
time comes for evaluation and when we need to implement improvements. Referring to the
recommendations in the UPR may perhaps he said, be the best way to begin and regional
instruments should also not be side lined in the process. Reference also should be made at all times
to pledges made on 3 May 2012 (A/64/ 765) by Malaysia to the UN General Assembly to promote
and protect human rights in Malaysia. To conclude, Andrew stressed on the importance to involve
everyone including civil society in the process of developing the plan.
14
Q1: Encik Wan Kasim bin Wan Kadir, SUHAKAM
The handbook mentioned a need for a baseline study in the process of drafting NHRAP. What is
your (Shazelina) view on the need of a baseline study? Is it better to have it prior to the drafting?
A : Cik Shazelina Zainul Abidin
The handbook does give us a good guideline. It suggests a baseline study which is a general study
or a research we need to undertake in order to identify
the actual situation of human rights in Malaysia. These
need to be compiled. However, the question on how
we are going to do the research and what should be
included in the action plan, I prefer to leave to the
drafters. The handbook will I am sure be very valuable
to them.
A : Dr. Rosette Gilda Librea
In respect to baseline study, when we have set objectives, that is where we start the baseline study
which does not necessarily need to be through a survey. We can start by getting available
information from relevant agencies.
Will a baseline study be more effective when you have done the action plan or during the progress,
I mean that you need to have some sort of a point where you are starting from or what you have
achieved according from the objectives that you have identified?
A: Dr. Rosette Gilda Librea
15
In our experience (in the Philippines), we found that once we have set the objectives, there are
indicators to be found within information that are already available. These are inserted into our
plan and connected to objectives which are arranged into Chapters. There is no need to provide
baseline information if they are not linked to objectives. On the other hand, if you don’t have any
baseline information about a particular objective, this will have to be indicated in your plan
whereby part of your activity will then be to conduct a baseline study on specific issues or
specific concerns where you don’t have baseline information. Base line information is definitely
important and for the Philippines, it is one of the first comments made in our Plan.
Q3: Puan Marietta Rachel Lukie, BHEUU
During the process of developing NHRAP for the Philippines, are there any issues or obstacles
that you faced? Why is there a 10 year gap between the first and the second one?
A: Dr. Rosette Gilda Librea
The Philippines faced many obstacles during the development of PHRP I basically because the
development team did not have the level of authority that was needed over neither government
agencies nor Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and Civil Society Organizations (CSOs).
Some of the NGOs and CSOs who were very much involved in the consultation and drafting
process still found it hard to actually agree to the document because they felt they could face
difficulties for being seen to be monitoring the government. So there were also issues on which
they were uncertain and undecided as well as budget problems.
However, when coming up with PHRP II, we managed to engage NGOs and CSOs into identifying
within their existing budget any specific part or aspect
on which they can support the plan. We also drafted a
matrix and set goals for each with the view that all
targets must be achieved by the stipulated time. We
monitor them by asking them to report their yearly
progress and what activities they have planned for the
16
year. They are also expected to report results by way of outputs. Throughout, allocation of budget
has not been easy as agencies have their own priorities.
Q4: Encik Mohd Sabri Bin Othman, Chief Registrar’s Office Federal Court of Malaysia
On monitoring and evaluating, how does it work in the terms of evaluation? How does it reflect
on performance?
A : Monitoring should be part of the plan. We cannot start monitoring without having indicators
and these each agency would have to identify. Frequent reporting is important in order to see
whether or not indicators have been achieved.
Q5: Encik Nisar Muhammad bin Ahmad, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia
How far we have gone to follow up on the UPR recommendations? When is the next review and
do we have any improvement to report?
A : Cik Shazelina Zainul Abidin
We have provided answers to all the 62 recommendations in a draft form. 21st Mei 2012 was the
first review where Indonesia was involved. It’s still a big exercise in 2013. We hope to finish on
August 2012 for the 1st round. A major thing is to getting feedback from all relevant agencies and
issues will be addressed in sections.
Q7: Mr Andrew Khoo Chin Hock, Malaysian Bar Council
About the UPR Recommendations, what about all the substantive requests? What are those which
we can accept and cannot accept? How is the government going to respond in terms of the
recommendations?
A : Cik Shazelina Zainul Abidin , MOFA
17
We intend to get constructive consultation from civil society. However, for recommendations that
we don’t take on board, negotiations continue between Malaysia and members of the UN counsel.
There need to be more documentation of these processes. These documents should be made public
and accessible by local civil society.
18
DAY 2
MARCH 25 2012 (9.00 am-11.00 am)
SESSION 3
Session 3
:
FORUM
Title
:
Malaysian Uniqueness in the Human Rights Arena
Date
:
25th May 2012
Time
:
9.00 am – 11.00 am
Moderator
:
Mdm. Dina Imam Supaat
Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia (USIM)
Speakers
i.
:
YBhg. Datuk Dr. Denison Jayasooria,
Principal Research Fellow of Institute of Ethnic Studies (KITA),
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM).
19
ii.
Dr. Mohd Azizuddin bin Mohd Sani
College of Law, Government and International Studies
Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM)
iii.
Encik Abdul Rahim Sinwan
Malaysian Muslim Laywers Association
Session 3 : Malaysia’s Uniqueness in the Human Rights Arena
Session 3 was composed of 3 presentations: first by YBhg. Datuk Dr. Denison Jayasooria, second
by Dr. Mohd Azizuddin bin Mohd Sani, and third by Encik Abdul Rahim Sinwan.
YBhg. Datuk Dr. Denison Jayasooria, Principal Research Fellow of Institute of Ethnic Studies
(KITA), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) discussed the uniqueness of human rights in
Malaysia by first introducing the audience to the concept of Asian values which Tun Mahathir
strongly promoted during his tenure as the Prime Minister. The concept stresses on the significance
of collective as opposed to individual rights and this is supported by the argument that Asian and
Islamic countries hold on to values which are very different as compared to those held by those in
the West. To Dr Denison, it is therefore a matter of choice whether Malaysia wants to adopt a
NHRAP framework which is based on international standards of human rights or something which
is more skewed to religion and culture. He pointed out that it is rather sad that although Malaysia
shows strong support against issues like apartheid and the oppression in Palestine, the country
continues to rank low in terms of ratification of United Nations Human Rights conventions as
compared to neighbouring countries such as Indonesia and Thailand as well as numerous OIC
countries.
Dr Denison concluded by pointing out that in his personal opinion, it would be easier for Malaysia
to follow UDHR rather than CDHRI. This he based on two arguments. Firstly, the CDHRI which
is based on God’s sentences is harder to debate as opposed to UDHR which is more humanistic
and academic in nature. Secondly, he pointed out that UDHR looks more on rationality and human
20
goodness drawn from broader universal values as opposed to CDHRI which uses the Sharia and is
subject to different interpretations by various Muslim societies. Dr Denison however felt that
CDHRI does not contradict UDHR. Although there may be provisions that may invite debates, it
is still possible to find a middle ground. Again, what is important according to Dr Denison is the
need for Malaysia to reflect on obligations which we have made internationally because these have
to be applied also in the local context.
Dr. Mohd Azizuddin bin Mohd Sani, from the College of Law, Government and International
Studies, Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM) discussed the topic of Malaysia’s uniqueness in relation
to concepts such as identity and human dignity. A point stressed by Dr Mohd Azizuddin was that
human rights must always be considered alongside human dignity and social responsibility. His
arguments include that freedom comes with social responsibility; that there is a need to balance
between groups’ and individual’s rights;
and that social and economic rights should
be balanced with civil and political rights.
These according to Dr. Mohd Azizuddin
have got to take into consideration
Malaysia’s uniqueness from its own
perspective. A copy of the power point
presentation is enclosed as Appendix J.
Encik Abdul Rahim Sinwan, from the Malaysian Muslim Lawyers Association, discussed
Malaysia’s uniqueness in human rights in the context of the Federal Constitution (FC). He
emphasised that rights provided under the FC are not all absolute. He further discussed the position
of Malaysia in abiding and obliging to international declarations (particularly the human rights
declarations). According to the Supreme Court in the case of Merdeka University Berhad vs
Kerajaan Malaysia [1981] CLJ175; the 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights is a non-legally
binding instrument. In another case, Siti Norma Yaakob FCJ affirms that the principles are only
declaratory in nature and do not have the force of law or legally binding on member states. On the
issue of whether individual rights or national security or interest should prevail, processes are quite
clear. In the instances when an individual’s right is violated, application for habeas corpus can be
21
made. Many a time, people forget that in exercising their rights, sometimes laws are infringed.
Rahim pointed out that whether to be subject to any treaty or obligation is for Malaysia to decide
as a declaration remains a non-legally binding document with no legal obligations. What is most
important to him is that every law we make now or in the future must adhere to the FC.
22
Q1: Cik Nor Azura Binti Abdul Karim, MOFA
Comments: Talking about resolution 1618, about tolerance on religion, I would like to go back to
history on how the resolution was adopted by Human Rights Council and eventually by the UN
Assembly. The OIC first came up with a resolution on Combating of Defamation of Religion
pursuant to the incident that happened in 2001, the 9/11 incident. Over the years the resolution has
received less and less support from the members of the UN due to the argument that the notion of
defamation of religion contradicts the exercise of freedom of speech and expression according to
the UN. OIC has sought to discuss this matter with the western side especially to reconcile the
issue on how we should not lose track on the objective of the resolution but to also address the
concern of the western countries at that time. After long discussion and consultation on the matter,
The OIC and the western parties agreed on coming up with a resolution called 1618 during the
second session of the HR Council not to replace the Combating of Defamation of Religion
resolution but to find a middle ground on how we should address the issue.
Q: What is the issue right now in terms of uniqueness of Malaysia and how should we address
human rights issue in the country in the context of boundaries. How do you define certain
boundaries in the context of Malaysian society in addressing issues on human rights?
A: YBhg. Datuk Dr. Denison Jayasooria
If we promote 1618 globally then we are bound to it nationally. What then is it’s implication on
us nationally in terms of majority, minority and dominance and what role is played by religious
institutions and both the federal and state government in handling minority religious groups?
Malaysia should set the example where all religious groups in the country are able to hold
discussions on issues such as tolerance. These discussions should not be close door or politicized.
On the issue of boundaries, I would agree that no right is absolute as clearly stated by the Federal
Constitution. Fundamental violation of rights such as detention without trial and some other
restrictions are already being lifted but some still need to be looked into. The civil society has been
articulate on this and since 2008, political parties other than Barisan Nasional have been taking up
23
more active roles in watching out for violations. I think we all agree to responsibility with right
but this then has to be unpacked and this is where the international guidelines should facilitate.
A2: Dr. Mohd Azizuddin bin Mohd Sani
Culture is not static, it evolves. One day a thing is taboo and another day it is not. Therefore, culture
is something we can consider in drawing the boundaries. The other thing is society because
societies also evolve. The boundaries can change depending on the period and circumstances. On
our part, if we want to draw an action plan, we have to determine through consensus and
deliberation between policy makers and civil society to come up with a decision on how to draw
the boundaries. This is the line from which we take off and this line has to be reviewed from time
to time depending on circumstances in the country.
A3: Encik Abdul Rahim Sinwan
Reminds me of the book in 1984 by George Howell, where he wrote, “all men are equal but some
men are more equal than others”. On the part of the lawyers, given the opportunity, the law should
be tested and it is for the court to define the law. The lawyers would love to ask the court to define
or redefine or reinterpret the position of law. In a sovereign nation like Malaysia, the court will
interpret the law whether it is a new or old law, whether it was repealed or ultra vires.
How far should we go in accepting in the Malaysian uniqueness within the national human rights
action plan when we are drafting?
A 1: Encik Abdul Rahim Sinwan
Islam is the religion of the Federation and other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony.
Malaysia is made up of what used to be sovereign Malay States. This has led to the uniqueness of
the country in terms of the position of the Malay States, Islam, the institution of Sultan and the
Malay language. Therefore in preparing the Plan, the bases should be that firstly we a multicultural society and that Islam is the religion of the federation.
24
A2: Dr. Mohd Azizuddin bin Mohd Sani
Managing human rights is very difficult. We are unique and we have our own perspective of human
rights. However, it does not mean that we should sideline what have been accepted under the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights because some of the values are universal.
A3: YBhg. Datuk Dr. Denison Jayasooria
I don’t think UDHR contradicts the Federal Constitution. By endorsing it, the position of Islam
and pillars of the Federal Constitution will not be in danger. In drafting the Plan objectively, it is
important for civil servants to understand and have an unbiased reading of the declarations. We
need to unpack the convention in order to understand what it is promoting, what is relevant to us
and where is it in conflict. Issues like right to education and right to life moves beyond culture
specific. We need to have a broad understanding of it and we have to see the principles from
objectivity.
Q3: Encik Nik Muhd Marzuki bin Muhd Nor, JAKIM
How can we make sure that our NHRAP does not have kind of religiofobia elements in it?
A: Dr. Mohd Azizuddin bin Mohd Sani
We need not just to reconcile those two documents but as an ASEAN country, we need to realize
that ASEAN has established an ASEAN Committee and there is an ASEAM Commission on
Human Rights that we need to comply to. It is the job of this commission to bring everybody in
our community within ASEAN to compromise on which rights to be implemented or not. I am not
sure on how far ASEAN will go in term of establishing on human rights or to have an ASEAN
court but I believe that human rights have become an important issue in ASEAN. In ASEAN we
need to have something that show that human rights will be protected. In the context of Malaysia,
I believe that Islamic laws need to be brought up in the discussions. Therefore, more discussions,
seminars and talks should be held to discuss and resolve what practices we want to include in our
NHRAP.
25
A: YBhg. Datuk Dr. Denison Jayasooria
I think there is a need for the MOFA to organize a range of close doors discussions to unpack the
OIC sponsored resolutions 1618 and the Cairo Declaration. JAKIM should present a paper on
consistencies and inconsistencies between UDHR and practices in Malaysia using these two
documents. Muslim Lawyers Association, the Sharia Lawyers Association, the Bar Council,
SUHAKAM and PROHAM should sit together and discuss what are the commonalities and
differences. The question whether we can implement, reconcile and make it work, then depends
on whether we can list down the irreconcilables and move from it. Where the differences and
difficulties are recognized, we need to look it up and see if we can work it out in years to come.
A: Encik Abdul Rahim Sinwan
When you have an issue, you need to draw a philosophy and then bring in the law, its objectives
and other references, for example on the position of Islam. We need to remember that Malaysia is
a sovereign country which decides its own fate and agenda and it has the opportunity to decide
whether to be bound or otherwise. While there are differences, there are also similarities. In view
of national interest, these need to be further discussed.
26
FINDINGS
Many suggestions emerged during the seminar. Continued information exchange and further
exploration of related issues and the accumulation of a list of best practices from the presentations
and question and answer sessions include as follows:
i.
NHRAP is seen as a tool to improve the human rights situation of a country and
contribute to democracy, in which it vary in scope and focus;
ii.
the development of NHRAP should be based on existing national institutional
frameworks: parliament, government, courts, NGOs, law enforcement agencies as well
as national human rights institutions;
iii.
it is possible to draw some lessons from experiences of other countries, to enable us to
identify some key elements of the role of NHRAPs;
iv.
both the process and outcome of a NHRAP are equally important;
v.
the plan should be regarded as a truly national undertaking involving all elements of
society and include broad and intensive consultations with civil society and the general
public;
vi.
the plan should be comprehensive in scope, reflecting the interdependence and
indivisibility of human rights;
vii.
NHRAP must be adequately funded and resourced;
viii.
it should be action-oriented and ensure that all involved in implementing the plan fully
accept the need for concrete outcomes and its implementation should be effectively
monitored and reviewed;
27
ix.
a key feature suggested was to establish a national Coordinating Committee, including
of government agencies and civil society organizations, to conduct a baseline study on
the human rights situation in the country as well as to lead the process;
x.
the plan should stress on the participation of various sectors of the civil society in the
development and implementation of the Plan; and the inclusion of implementation,
monitoring and evaluation mechanisms;
xi.
among the major benefits for the country is that the very process of developing the
Plan, if well designed, is an opportunity to raise awareness of human rights and to
educate the public. NHRAPs assist in raising the profile of human rights in national
policy debates, provide a vehicle for public education at the community level and can
contribute to strengthening a human rights culture;
xii.
political commitment at the highest level is a prerequisite for a successful development
of NHRAPs. High-level political representation on the coordinating bodies overseeing
the NHRAP’s development, and ownership of the Plan and its implementation being in
the hands of the Government;
xiii.
a thorough baseline study should be conducted. It is the essential starting point for the
formulation of a Plan of Action on Human Rights. It should be carry out by focusing
on the identifying gaps in human rights promotion or protection in Malaysia;
xiv.
planning and developing the NHRAP may be so time-consuming and labor-intensive;
xv.
establishment of an efficient governmental body that is capable of carrying out the Plan
is a precondition for success. Choosing precise, achievable and realistic goals, within
reasonable time frames, is critical for implementation;
xvi.
NHRAP will be successful if it effectively addresses human rights concerns expressed
by citizen, which often are reflected in the recommendations of the UN Human Rights
Mechanisms;
28
xvii.
the UN system such as Resident Coordinator Office (RCO) and UN Country Team, has
often provided assistance on the development of NHRAPs in various countries;
xviii. the drafting of the NHRAP should take into consideration both the UDHR and CDHRI.
Both declarations should be reconciled to ensure that human rights aspects from the
view of Islam will merge together with the universal human rights to be inserted into
the NHRAP; and
xix.
the drafters should be reminded that all sensitivity with regards to religious, culture and
beliefs should be address in the best way possible to ensure that the plan will be
acceptable and workable.
29
CONCLUSION
The seminar demonstrated that the subject of the development of a NHRAP for Malaysia involves
complex issues. A mixture of ethnicities and cultures gives Malaysians their share of diversity,
which is distinctively more communal and ethnic related. These are reinforced by linguistic,
cultural, religious and most importantly, economic divisions which make human rights issues
interwoven with ethnic considerations. The seminar has been a success in introducing participants
to the ideals of a NHRAP. Perhaps, it has even heightened their appreciation of the importance of
the document in promoting human rights and more importantly of the need for Malaysia to develop
not only an acceptable but an achievable Plan. The seminar has contributed to providing examples
and best practices in the development of NHRAP, some from first-hand experience of speakers
and panelists. Exchange of ideas has been encouraging as well as participation in question and
answer sessions. Most importantly, participants demonstrated a high level of understanding that
development of the Plan will require hard work and cooperation from all relevant parties.
30
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
31
ORGANIZING COMITTEE
Honourable Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri
Abdul Aziz
Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department
- Patron
Dato’ Haji Ismail Bin Ibrahim
Director General of the Legal Affairs Division
-Advisor
Mohd Rosli Bin Ramli
Deputy Director of the Legal Affairs Division
-Chairperson
Nor Mazny Binti Abdul Majid
-Secretary
Head of Sub Comittees:
Ross Rafizal Bin Rosli
-Protocol
Akhzailina Binti Md Akhir
- Invitation/
Secretarial
Selvakumari a/p Selvadasan
- Logistics
Noorashikin Binti Bahari
- Finance / food
Mohd Zohdi Bin Mohd Yusoff
- Technical
32
NO
A
NAMES
SECTION / UNIT
TASK
SUB-COMITTEE (PROTOCOL)
1.
Mahani binti Mohd. Yusoff
Corporate Communication
Unit
Media
2.
Isnaniwati binti Ginulis @
Imran
Unit
Media
3.
Sheikh Farhan bin Ahmad
Unit
Media
4.
Amir Shah bin Abu Adam
Unit
Photographer
5.
Ross Rafizal bin Rosli
Management & Human
Resource Section
Protocol
6.
Sarune Beh
Management & Human
Resource Section
Protocol
7.
Norafidah binti Gusili
Management & Human
Resource Section
Protocol
8.
Normazliana binti Ahmad
Management & Human
Resource Section
Protocol
9.
Ahmad Syazwan bin Ahmad
Nordin
Innovation Unit
Protocol
10.
Rohanizal binti Ma’all
Unit
Protocol
11.
Zaiheza binti Badaruzaman
Management & Human
Resource Section
Protocol
12.
Fadzliatun Nafisah binti Ahmad
Management & Human
Resource Section
Protool
13.
Saiful Bakhtiar bin Nasruddin
Development section
Protocol
33
NO
NAMES
SECTION / UNIT
TASK
14.
Salehah binti Abu Nor
Development section
Protocol
15.
Zaiton binti Mohd Yusoff
Development section
Protocol
16.
Mahnum binti Daud
Development section
Protocol
17.
Siti Azura binti Ismail
Finance Section
Protocol
18.
Rozaina binti Mohd Aini
Information management
Section
Protocol
19.
Siti Shuhaila binti Mohd Rawi
Section
Protocol
20.
Zalina binti Mohd Nayan
Legal Reform Committee
Unit
Protocol
B
SUB –COMITTEE INVITATION AND SECRETARIAL
21.
Azra Haida binti Baharom
Policy Section
Secretariat
22.
Akhzailina binti Md Akhir
Policy Section
Secretariat
23.
Nur Taqiyyah binti Mohamad
Kamil
Policy Section
Secretariat
24.
Nor Amizatul Akma binti
Zamaruddin
Policy Section
Secretariat
25.
Marietta Rachel Lukie
Policy Section
Secretariat
34
NO
NAMES
SECTION / UNIT
TASK
26.
Norliza binti M Jamil
Policy Section
Secretariat
27.
Lau Yin Theng
Policy Section
Secretariat
28.
Safuan bin Hazalan
Legal Unit
Rapporteur
29.
Aryati binti Ismail
Policy Section
Secretariat
30.
Sukhairah binti Abdul Latif
Officeof the Deputy Director
General
Secretariat
31.
Shah Rizal bin Aznam
Policy Section
Secretariat
32.
Susilawati binti Abdul Muid
Policy Section
Secretariat
33.
Mohd Yusmizal bin Yusof
Policy Section
Secretariat
34.
Ismariseh binti Ismail
Policy Section
Secretariat
35.
Zalina binti Mohd Nayan
Policy Section
Secretariat
36.
Nor Hafizah binti Zainal
Policy Section
Secretariat
37.
Mohamad Fadli bin Sulaiman
Policy Section
Secretariat
C
SUB-COMITTEE FOR FOOD ARRANGEMENT
35
NO
NAMES
SECTION / UNIT
TASK
38.
Noorashikin binti Bahari
Finance Section
Food
39.
Siti Aishah binti Yahaya
Finance Section
Food
40.
Zurina binti Yusof
Finance Section
Food
41.
Sariman bin Sabdin
Finance Section
Food
42.
Siti Azura binti Ismail
Finance Section
Food
43.
Rafidah binti Shukor
Finance Section
Food
44.
Yuni binti Yaakob
Finance Section
Food
45.
Norsafura binti Yusof
Finance Section
Food
Management & Human
Resource Section
Logistic
D
46.
E
SUB-COMITTEE LOGISTICS
Selvakumari a/p Selvadasan
SUB-COMITTEE TECHNICAL
47.
Mohd Zohdi bin Mohd Yusof
Section
Technical
48.
Mohd Asri bin Musa
Section
Technical
36
NO
NAMES
SECTION / UNIT
TASK
49.
Nursyahidah binti Azri
Section
Technical
50.
Muhammad Salahuddin bin
Mohd Zakri
Section
Technical
37
APPENDIX B
OPENING CEREMONY
MAJLIS PERASMIAN
24 MEI 2012
AUDITORIUM, IDFR
8.30 pagi
8.30 am
:
Pendaftaran peserta dan tetamu
Registration of participants and
guests
Sarapan pagi
Breakfast
9.15 pagi
9.15 am
:
Majlis Perasmian
Opening ceremony
9.30 pagi
9.30 am
:
Ketibaan
Arrival
YB Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz
Menteri di Jabatan Perdana
Menteri
Minister in the Prime Minister’s
Department
Lagu Negaraku
National anthem
Bacaan doa
Recitation of du’a
9.45 pagi
9.45 am
:
Ucapan perasmian oleh
Opening speech by
YB Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri
Abdul Aziz
Menteri di Jabatan Perdana
Menteri
Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department
10.00 pagi
10.00 am
:
Minum pagi
Tea break
38
SEMINAR PROGRAMME
PROGRAM SEMINAR
24 – 25 MEI 2012
TRAINING ROOM
BILIK LATIHAN
24 MEI 2012 (KHAMIS)/ THURSDAY
10.30 pagi
10.30 am
:
Pembentangan Kertas
Paper Presentation
“The Importance of a National Human Rights Action Plan”
Oleh
By
Mr. Laurent Meillan
Regional Representative of South-East Asia from the Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights
Moderator
Mr. Sha’ani Abdullah
Human Rights Commission of Malaysia
(SUHAKAM)
:
Sesi soal jawab
Question and Answer session
12.00 petang
12.00 noon
:
Makan tengah hari
Lunch
2.00 petang
2.00 noon
:
Perbincangan Panel 1
Panel discussion 1
Tajuk
Title
“Drafting a National Human Rights Action Plan”
Ahli panel
Speakers
39
1.
Consultant to the Ombudsman and Presidential Human Rights
Committee of the Philippines
2.
Miss Shazelina Zainul Abidin
Undersecretary
Human Rights and Social Division
3.
Mr Andrew Khoo Chin Hock
Co-Chairperson
Bar Council Human Rights Comittee
Bar Council Malaysia
Moderator
Mr. Nisar Mohammad bin Ahmad
4.00 petang
4.00 afternoon
:
Sesi soal jawab
:
Minum petang / Bersurai
Tea / End of day 1
25 MEI 2012 (JUMAAT)/ FRIDAY
8.30 pagi
8.30 am
:
Minum pagi
Breakfast
9.00 pagi
9.00 am
:
Perbincangan Panel 2
Panel discussion 2
Tajuk:
Title
“Malaysian Uniqueness in the Human Rights Arena”
Ahli Panel
Speakers
1.
YBhg. Datuk Dr. Denison Jayasooria,
Principal Research Fellow of Institute of Ethnic Studies (KITA), Universiti
Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM).
2.
YBhg. Dr. Mohd Azizuddin bin Mohd Sani
Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM)
3. Mr. Abdul Rahim Sinwan
Malaysian Muslim Laywers Association
Moderator
Mrs. Dina Imam Supaat
:
40
Sesi soal jawab
11.00 pagi
11.00 am
:
Majlis penutup
Closing: Keynote address
11.30 tengah hari
11.30 noon
:
Makan tengah hari / Bersurai
Lunch / End of seminar
41
APPENDIX C
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS ACTION PLAN SEMINAR 24-25 MAY 2012
NO.
1.
Pn Nadeeya Iqbal
MINISTRY / AGENCY
Ministry Of Finance
2.
Encik Sathiaseelan Selvaraj
Ministry Of Home Affairs
3.
Encik Wong Nen Hua
Ministry Of Home Affairs
4.
5.
Encik Chris Alexson Wong
Encik Muhammad Naim Saad
Ministry Of Transportation
Ministry Of Transportation
6.
7.
Pn Nurul Syaza Azlisha
Cik Shazelina Zainul Abidin
8.
9.
10.
Pn.Fazlisya Ramly
Pn.Siti Fatma Omar
Nor Azura Abdul Karim
11.
12.
13.
Puan Noorsham bt Muhamad Din
Puan Noorzaidah Mohamed Noor
Puan Norkiah bt A.Kadir
14.
Puan Nor Hanna Ahmad Basir
15.
16.
17.
Encik Unny Sankar a/l Ravi Sankar
Puan Suriani bt Ujang
Encik Kuan Thai Khim
18.
Puan Ellissa Cormellia Ahmad
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
Puan Fara Zaila bt Abdullah
Puan Asliza Ali
Puan Michelle Hoh Suhuey
Supt.Moktar bin Mohd Noor
ASP Mohd Fahmi Visuvanathan Abdullah
ACP Kamal Kordi
Puan Noridayu binti Md.Kassim
26.
Ruhmawati bt.Khuzaimah
42
NAMES
Ministry of Education
Ministry of Education
Ministry OF Rural and
Regional Development
Ministry Of Federal territories
and Urban Wellbeing
Ministry Of Health
Ministry Of Health
Ministry of Domestic Trade,
Co-Operative and
Consumerism
Ministry of Domestic Trade,
Co-Operative and
Consumerism
Ministry of Youth and Sports
Ministry of Youth and Sports
Attorney General’s Chamber
Royal Malaysia Police
Syariah Judiciary Department
Malaysia
27.
28.
En.Abdullah Zuhdee bin Ab.Halim
En.Mohd Syahrizal Syah bin Zakaria
29.
En Nik Muhd Marzuki bin Muhd Nor
30.
Puan Nor Tipah Majin
31.
Lim Mei Ying
32.
Ramona Mohd Razali
33.
Pn.Neila Shuhaime
34.
Encik Ag Shahminan Datuk Hj Ag Sahari
35.
Pesuruhjaya James Nayagam
36.
Wan Kasim Wan Kadir
37.
Jesrina Grewal
38.
39.
40.
41.
Dr.Lin Mui Kin
En.Zairin Izwan Zainal Abidin
Mohd Yunos Mohd Salleh
En.Fairus bt Yahaya
42.
43.
Pn.Farahliza Putri bt Naaim Yazid
44.
Encik Mohd Sabri Bin Othman
43
Malaysia Department Of
Islamic Development
Islamic Development
Ministry of Women, Family
and Community Development
Office Of the Chief Minister
Sabah
Human Rights Commission
Malaysia
Malaysia
Malaysia
United Nation Malaysia
National Security Council
Prison Department
Department of Orang Asli
Development
Ministry Of Human Resource
Islamic Development
Chief Registrar’s Office
Federal Court Of Malaysia
APPENDIX D
INVITED GUESTS FOR OPENING CEREMONY
1.
Ketua Setiausaha
Kementerian Dalam Negeri
Aras 13 Blok D1, Kompleks D
62546 PUTRAJAYA
2.
Ketua Setiausaha
Kementerian Pertahanan
Tingkat 5, Wisma Pertahanan
Jalan Padang Tembak
50634 KUALA LUMPUR
3.
Ketua Setiausaha
Kementerian Luar Negeri
Aras 3, Wisma Putra I
No. 1, Jalan Wisma Putra
Presint 2
62602 PUTRAJAYA
4.
Ketua Setiausaha
Kementerian Pelajaran
Aras 8, Blok E8, Kompleks E
62604 PUTRAJAYA
5.
Ketua Setiausaha
Kementerian Kemajuan Luar Bandar dan Wilayah
Aras 30, No. 47, Persiaran Perdana
Presint 4,
62100 PUTRAJAYA
6.
Ketua Setiausaha
Kementerian Wilayah Persekutuan dan Kesejahteraan Bandar
Tingkat 4, Blok B2
Menara Seri Wilayah
Presint 2
62100 PUTRAJAYA
7.
Ketua Setiausaha
Kementerian Kesihatan
Aras 12, Blok E7
Kompleks E , Presint 1
62590 PUTRAJAYA
44
8.
Ketua Setiausaha
Kementerian Pembangunan Wanita, Keluarga dan Masyarakat
Tingkat 5, Blok E, Kompleks Bukit Perdana
Jalan Dato Onn
50515 KUALA LUMPUR
9.
Ketua Setiausaha
Kementerian Sumber Manusia
Aras 9, Blok D3, Kompleks D
Pusat Pentadbiran Kerajaan Persekutuan
62502 PUTRAJAYA
10.
Ketua Setiausaha
Kementerian Perdagangan Dalam Negeri, Koperasi dan Kepenggunaan
Aras 11, (Menara)
No. 13, Persiaran Perdana, Presint 2
62623 PUTRAJAYA
11.
Ketua Setiausaha
Kementerian Perumahan Dan Kerajaan Tempatan
Aras 18, No. 51,
Persiaran Perdana, Presint 4
62100 PUTRAJAYA
12.
Ketua Setiausaha
Kementerian Belia dan Sukan
Aras 15, Menara KBS
Lot 4 G4
Presint 4
62570 PUTRAJAYA
13.
Peguam Negara Malaysia
Jabatan Peguam Negara
Aras 16, No. 45, Persiaran Perdana
Presint 4
62100 PUTRAJAYA
14.
Ketua Polis Negara
Ibu Pejabat Polis Diraja Malaysia
Bukit Aman
50560 KUALA LUMPUR
45
15.
Ketua Pengarah/Ketua Hakim Syarie
Jabatan Kehakiman Syariah Malaysia
Jabatan Perdana Menteri
62677 PUTRAJAYA
16.
Pejabat Ketua Pendaftar Mahkamah Persekutuan
Ketua Pendaftar
Pejabat Ketua Pendaftar
Mahkamah Persekutuan Malaysia
Istana Kehakiman, Presint 3
62506 PUTRAJAYA
17.
Ketua Pengarah Penjara
Ibu Pejabat Penjara Malaysia
Bukit Wira
43000 Kajang
SELANGOR
18.
Ketua Pengarah
Jabatan Kemajuan Islam Malaysia (JAKIM)
Jabatan Perdana Menteri
62519 PUTRAJAYA
19.
Ketua Pengarah
Jabatan Kebajikan Masyarakat
Aras 6, 9-18
No. 55, Persiaran Perdana
Presint 4,
62100 PUTRAJAYA
20.
Ketua Pengarah
Jabatan Kemajuan Orang Asli
Tingkat 10,20 & 20 M, West Block,
Wisma Selangor Dredging,
Jalan Ampang,
50450 KUALA LUMPUR
21.
Pejabat Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri Sabah
Jabatan Ketua Menteri
Tingkat 6, Wisma Innoprise,
Teluk Likas, 88817
KOTA KINABALU, SABAH
46
22.
Pejabat Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri Sarawak
Jabatan Ketua Menteri
Aras 20, Wisma Bapa Malaysia
Petra Jaya,
93502 KUCHING
47
APPENDIX E
LIST OF SPEAKERS
(i)
Mr. Laurent Meillan
Human Rights Officer
Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights
Bangkok
(ii)
Project Consultant to the Presidential Human Rights Committee
Philippines
(iii)
Datuk Dr. Denison Jayasooria
Principal Research Fellow
Institute of Ethnic Studies
University Kebangsaan Malaysia
(iv)
Dr. Mohd Azizuddin Mohd Sani
Dean
Universiti Utara Malaysia
(v)
Miss Shazelina Zainul Abidin
Under Secretary
Human Rights and Social Affairs Division
(vi)
Mr. Abdul Rahim Sinwan
Deputy President
Malaysian Muslim Lawyers Association
(vii)
Mr. Andrew Khoo Chin Hock
Co-Chairperson
Human Rights Committee
Malaysian Bar Council
48
MODERATORS
i.
Mr. Muhammad Sha’ani Abdullah
Commissioner
Human Rights Commission of Malaysia
ii.
(ix)Madam Dina Iman Supaat
Senior Lecturer
iii.
Mr. Nisar Muhammad bin Ahmad
Tutor
49
APPENDIX F
OPENING SPEECH BY YB DATO’ SERI MOHAMED NAZRI ABDUL AZIZ
MINISTER IN THE PRIME MINISTER’S DEPARTMENT
SEMINAR ON NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS ACTION PLAN
24 MAY 2012 (THURSDAY), 9.30 AM
INSTITUTE OF DIPLOMACY AND FOREIGN RELATIONS (IDFR)
Assalamualaikum w.b.t., Good Morning, Salam Sejahtera & Salam 1Malaysia.
Saudara Pengacara Majlis.
Yang Berbahagia Dato’ Haji Ismail bin Ibrahim, Director General Legal Affairs Division, Prime
Minister’s Department.
Yang Berbahagia, Ambassador Aminahtun Haji A. Karim, Deputy Director General Institute of
Diplomacy and Foreign Relations.
Distinguished guests and participants.
Terlebih dahulu saya ingin merakamkan penghargaan dan terima kasih kepada pihak penganjur
dan semua yang hadir pada hari ini. Bersyukur kita ke hadrat Ilahi kerana dengan limpah kurnianya
dapat kita berkumpul pada hari ini untuk berkongsi ilmu dan pengalaman mengenai Pembangunan
Pelan Tindakan Hak Asasi Manusia Kebangsaan terutamanya dengan pakar-pakar daripada luar
Negara yang mempunyai pengalaman yang luas dalam bidang ini.
It is an honor and I am delighted to be here today as you start the Development of National Human
Rights Action Plan. First of all, let me add a word of welcome to our international guest speakers,
Mr. Laurent Meillan, Human Rights Officer from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human
Rights and Dr. Rosette Gilda Librea, Consultant to the Ombudsman and Presidential Human
Rights Committee of the Philippines as well as our local distinguished speakers. I would also like
to commend the Legal Affairs Division for organising the seminar.
Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, Chairperson of UN Human Rights who drafted the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights once said, “Universal human rights begin in the world of the individual person,
the neighborhood he lives in, the school or college he attends, the factory, farm, or office where
he works. Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere. Without
concerted citizen action to uphold them close to home, its hope for progress in the larger world
shall be in vain.”
50
Ladies and gentlemen,
In the international human rights system, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was
adopted by national leaders in 1948 is of great symbolic significance. The Declaration lays down
basic principles of human rights and a structure for their better protection. It represents a pledge to
promote universal respect for rights and fundamental freedoms. As a member of the United
Nations, Malaysia has an obligation to uphold the principles of the Declaration.
Human right however, is not a static concept. Many countries believe in each region formulating
its own structures for protection of human rights based on its own ideologies and cultures.
Therefore, the 26th ASEAN ministerial meeting in Singapore in 1993 reaffirmed its members’
commitment to, and respect for, human rights as set out in the Vienna Declaration of 25 June 1993.
It included recognition of political, social and economic rights along with the right to development.
It added that the promotion of human rights principles, respect national sovereignty, territorial
integrity and non-interference in the internal affairs of the state.
Dato’-Dato’, ladies and gentlemen,
Recognizing the importance of the protection and promotion of human rights in Malaysia, the
Government established the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia or SUHAKAM in July 1999.
Since its establishment, SUHAKAM had played a major role to determine complaints of the
infringements of rights, as well as to promote awareness of human rights education, and to advise
the government in formulating human rights legislation. The commission’s mandate defines
human rights as those fundamental liberties enshrined in Part II of the Constitution which consists
of Articles 5 to 13.
In the past few years, we have also seen the establishment of the Judicial Appointment Commission
of Malaysia, enacted the Evidence of Child Witness Act 2007 to assist child witnesses, the
enactment of Anti Trafficking in Persons Act 2007, and the enactment of Persons with Disabilities
Act 2008. More recent is the repeal of the Internal Security Act 1960, Emergency Ordinance,
Banishment Act 1959, review of Restricted Resident Act 1933 and the Printing Presses and
Publication Act 1984. These progresses speak greatly of the Government’s seriousness to
constantly review laws and policies in order to ensure human rights are protected in the country.
There are various mechanisms to keep track of our performance in the promotion of human rights
in Malaysia. As you all know, as United Nations Member State, compliance to our human rights
obligation is reviewed under a special process called the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). The
review provides an opportunity for all member states to declare actions that are taken to improve
human rights situation in the country and to overcome obstacles that impede the development and
progress of human rights. Various actions and plan have been taken and formulated in order to
improve human rights situation in the country and implement the recommendation by the UPR.
51
Ladies and gentlemen,
As part of our continuous effort at building the Malaysian human rights framework, we are now
looking into the possibility of developing a National Human Rights Action Plan. First and
foremost, the main goal of an action plan is to ensure that elements of human rights are included
in existing government policies, deliberated in the process of drafting of policies and considered
as being the fundamental values in the implementation of policies. It is a mechanism to ensure
human rights issues in Malaysia are tackled structurally and strategically. The development of this
action plan will offer us an opportunity to systematically exploit our strengths as well as overcome
our shortcomings in the protection of human rights in the country.
However, a national action plan will require considerable planning and effort. Not only does it
need political support and financial resource, we also need to ensure the process is transparent as
well as participatory. Under such circumstances, we need to give serious thought before we embark
on such a plan.
Therefore, it is immensely useful that this seminar has been arranged for public servants or officials
representing ministries as well as relevant departments dealing with key human rights issues in the
country. This is because we strongly feel that public servants as policy makers must be made aware
that improving human rights is a public policy objective. It can, and may be implemented through
the normal planning and resource allocation processes of government. As you can see from the
programme, the seminar will introduce participants to the concept and ideals of a National Human
Rights Action Plan, allow participants to share experiences of speakers who have played active
roles in the development of action plans specifically in the Asian region as well as discuss the
context of human rights in Malaysia.
Malaysia’s ethnic composition gives our country its modern multiethnic and multicultural
character. However we can be proud that as the country undergoes the phases of development, the
bonds of citizenship and the sense of belonging to one nation is becoming more evident. As our
citizens become better educated and more exposed to international trends and developments and
as globalization takes place, the demand for civil and political rights increases. In the midst of the
corporate race, social climbs, economic expansion, and government transformation, let us not
forget that we have to retain our unique Malaysian values and maintain high ethical standards.
Development of a National Human Rights Action Plan is just another way of reminding us all that,
these standards must not be left behind in pursuing our goals.
Dato’-Dato’, ladies and gentlemen,
Strengthening human rights requires serious commitment by all concerned. It is my hope that the
National Human Rights Action Plan that we aspire to develop will demonstrate how the
government machinery is turning commitments made at the Universal Periodic Review into
specific actions to improve and promote human rights.
To the participants, with your commitment and support, I am confident that the seminar will be
able to pave the way to enable us to share and appreciate the ideals of a National Action Plan.
This is important before we consider and contemplate if Malaysia will benefit from having the
52
plan and go on to not only identify but prioritise existing major government initiatives designed to
tackle human rights issues so that the plan is workable and achievable.
On behalf of the Legal Affairs Division of the Prime Minister’s Department which has been
appointed as the main agency for the development of the National Human Rights Action Plan, I
am pleased to inform that this seminar is just a beginning. A steering committee will be established
subject to the approval of the Government. This Committee will look into and do the drafting of
the plan. We hope that we shall be able to deliver a plan that will reflect our strengths as well as
address our shortcomings in the protection of human rights in the country.
I wish to thank everyone here and look forward for your support and cooperation in the future. To
all participants of this seminar, I hope that you will find your time here constructive and beneficial.
Therefore I have great pleasure in declaring this seminar open.
Thank you. Wassalamualaikum w.b.t.
53
APPENDIX G
Seminar on National Human Rights Action Plan
24-25 May 2012, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
The role of National Human Rights Plan of Action
Laurent Meillan,
Officer in Charge, Regional Office for South East Asia, Office of the High Commissioner
for Human Rights
Distinguished participants,
First, I would like to thank the Government of Malaysia for extending an invitation to OHCHR
and the UNCT. We very much welcome this initiative, and I am looking forward to hearing views
from participants in the next two days.
The idea of National Human Rights Plans of Action (NHRAPs) originated in the Vienna
Declaration and Programme of Action adopted at the World Conference on Human Rights in
Vienna in 1993. The fundamental purpose of a NHRAP is to improve the promotion and protection
of human rights. It does this by placing human rights improvements in the context of public policy,
so that the government, communities and individuals can endorse human rights improvements as
practical goals, devise programmes to ensure the achievement of these goals, engage all relevant
sectors of government and society, and allocate sufficient resources.
Close to 30 countries have since adopted NHRAPs. One third of these plans have been developed
in the Asia Pacific Region, including Australia, China, Indonesia, Mongolia, Nepal, New Zealand,
Philippines, Republic of Korea and Thailand. The Plans, which are seen as a tool to improve the
human rights situation of a country and contribute to democracy, vary in scope and focus. From
freedom of expression and assembly to the right to health, these plans have paid equal attention to
civil and political rights as well as economic, social, and cultural rights, and often specifically
target particularly groups at risk. They look at the existing national institutional frameworks:
parliament, government, courts, NGOs, law enforcement agencies as well as national human rights
institutions.
The experience of countries in developing and implementing NHRAPs is not yet exhaustively
documented and information, especially on their implementation, is not systematically available.
However, it is possible to draw some lessons from practice to date, and identify some key elements
of the role of NHRAPs.
Let me first elaborate on the lessons learned coming from the formulation of these action plans.
The OHCHR Handbook on National Human Rights Plans of Action suggests general principles
that should apply to all Plans. The process and outcome of an NHRAP are equally important; the
plan should be regarded as a truly national undertaking involving all elements of society and
include broad and intensive consultations with civil society and the general public; the plan should
54
be comprehensive in scope, reflecting the interdependence and indivisibility of human rights; the
NHRAP must be adequately funded and resourced, it should be action-oriented and ensure that all
involved in implementing the plan fully accept the need for concrete outcomes and its
implementation should be effectively monitored and reviewed. Some of the key features of the
suggested approach to developing an NHRAP are: the establishment of a national Coordinating
Committee, including government agencies and civil society organizations, to conduct a baseline
study on the human rights situation in the country as well as to lead the process; the participation
of various sectors of the civil society in the development and implementation of the Plan; and the
inclusion of implementation, monitoring and evaluation mechanisms within the NHRAP. These
principles have found varying application in the experience of countries that have developed
NHRAPs.
The experience of the past decade in developing NHRAPs has highlighted the strengths and
advantages of using this tool in pursuing better respect for human rights, but also the drawbacks
and challenges that may arise. Among the major benefits for countries is that the very process of
developing the Plan, if well designed, is an opportunity to raise awareness of human rights and to
educate the public. NHRAPs assist in raising the profile of human rights in national policy debates,
provide a vehicle for public education at the community level and can contribute to strengthening
a human rights culture. They can promote dialogue among different sectors of a society, and
broaden the public’s participation in the development of human rights policies.
They are also important means to identify human rights priorities within the country and set timebound goals and programmes to meet them. For example, in the context of Malaysia, a road map
for an early ratification of the 1966 Covenants, Convention Against Torture and Convention on
the Elimination of Racial Discrimination would represent a significant step.
The mechanisms that have been set up for the development and implementation of NHRAPs are
diverse. In some cases, National Committees for Human Rights consisting of ministries, civil
society and the media are established to develop the Plan, some coordinated by the Ministry of
Justice. In others, a National Commission on Human Rights has primary oversight responsibility,
while a Committee (ministries, civil society, universities, media, independent individuals) has been
set up to develop the plan. In yet another model, the Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights
is politically responsible for the NHRAP and oversees its implementation, while a National
Commission comprising representatives of public institutions, NGOs and the UN coordinates the
implementation of the Plan. Other Plans provide for the establishment of a Committee to monitor
its implementation. In some cases, the United Nations has had a key role in facilitating or
supporting the development of the Plan. In others, Governments have done so without external
assistance.
Experience from across the world shows that prerequisites for a successful development of
NHRAPs include a political commitment at the highest level, high-level political representation
on the coordinating bodies overseeing the NHRAP’s development, and ownership of the Plan and
its implementation being in the hands of the Government. Broad participation of the various civil
society sectors in the development of the Plan also ensures that public opinion is a primary basis
for identifying human rights priorities, guarantees widespread recognition and support for the Plan,
and will encourage all interested actors to help implement it. It also provides a platform for citizen
55
and their representatives to express their views on the human rights situation of their country. This
will therefore require the involvement of all relevant actors, including civil society organizations,
which may have different views from Governments.
A baseline study to identify gaps in human rights promotion or protection is also an essential
starting point for the formulation of a Plan of Action on Human Rights. In this regard, a review of
the constructive dialogue between the Government and the UN Human Rights Mechanisms
(Treaty Bodies, Special Procedures and Universal Periodic Review (UPR) would provide a first
assessment of the key human rights concerns to be addressed. Recommendations made by these
mechanisms can help to frame the content of NHRAPs.
Excellency,
Ladies and gentlemen, dear participants,
Let me now focus on the lessons learned coming from the implementation of these action plans.
The implementation of the Plans is where countries experience the greatest challenges. The few
examples of NHRAPs that have entered the implementation phase point to some of the possible
pitfalls. Planning and developing the NHRAP may be so time-consuming and labour-intensive that
it uses up the time and energy that would otherwise be devoted to its implementation. Also, long
NHRAPs that are overly ambitious are arduous to implement and can become very difficult for a
Government to manage. Where new Governments come to power during the time frame of a
NHRAP, there is a risk of a lack of continuity, ownership and commitment vis-à-vis Plans
officially adopted by previous Governments. Lack of State support, both in terms of financial
allocations and human resources, is a clear impediment to the implementation of Plans.
Duplication can be another issue of concern. For example, Governments are now putting a lot of
energy in the follow of the UPR. Some have even elaborated national plan to follow-up on the
UPR recommendations.
The establishment of an efficient governmental body that is capable of carrying out the Plan is a
precondition for success. Choosing precise, achievable and realistic goals, within reasonable time
frames, is critical for implementation. There seems to be a clear need for viable and practical goals
to ensure implementation. Some countries have extracted recommendations and action proposals
from their NHRAP and included them into a multi-annual plan for human rights or a broad
governmental action plan to make them easier to realize. Plans that are concise and very practical,
recommend solutions, identify key players, foresee their financial impact, make implementation
easier and more likely to succeed.
A key factor in adequately implementing a NHRAP, despite the difficulties that it may involve,
seems to be the willingness and active participation of State institutions, that is to say the
commitment and support of all government agencies, line ministries and their partners. State
constituents would need to become motivated during the drawing-up of the Plan. For instance, the
creation of a network of human rights focal points within relevant institutions during the Plan’s
development would provide a support mechanism for its implementation. The organization of
seminars for civil servants and NGOs, at the final stage of the development process, has been
56
reported as a good practice to assist them in incorporating a human rights approach in their daily
work. Indeed, civil servants in charge of drafting public policies, evaluation mechanisms and
indicators, as well as NGOs, play a key role in implementing NHRAPs.
Excellency,
More importantly, a NHRAP will be successful if it effectively addresses human rights concerns
expressed by citizen, which often are reflected in the recommendations of the UN Human Rights
Mechanisms. In the case of Malaysia, an effective implementation of a NHRAP will require a
genuine and broad consultation with all kind of stakeholders, even those who may have different
views from the Government. It will also demand the formulation of legislation in accordance with
universal human rights standards and continued efforts to pay an equal attention to both economic,
social and cultural rights, and civil and political rights. In this particular context, moving toward
an early ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights would be an
important and timely step, showing a firm commitment towards fuller protection of human rights
in Malaysia.
During this process, close cooperation with the UN human rights mechanisms will be important.
For example, official visits by UN Special Rapporteurs of the Human Rights Council can very
much help to address complex and sensitive issues which are debated among the public, such as
freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, torture, fair trial and arbitrary detention.
Excellency,
The UN system has often provided assistance on the development of NHRAPs in various countries.
If the Government of Malaysia decides to develop a Plan, and wishes to request assistance from
the Resident Coordinator Office (RCO) and UN Country Team, UN colleagues will be able to
identify relevant expertise in the UN system to support the work of the Government.
Thank you for your attention.
23 May 2012
57

NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS ACTION PLAN

Transcription

Similar documents

Citrawarna Malaysia

Koperasi Kastam Diraja Malaysia Berhad (KOSKAM)

Brief - Juwita Suwito

catering rating (cr)

CYBERJAYA

YAYASAN BUDI PENYAYANG MALAYSIA (522532-M)

The Soft Skills of Nursing

cancer research laboratory - Universiti Putra Malaysia

community - DailyNews Archives

DPS - Cyberjaya University College of Medical Sciences