OPINION: Keeping on track the civil liberties debate
Abdul Razak Ahmad
February 21, 2006
New Straits Times

Feb 21: A new civil society group wants to prevent the public debate on recent incidents of alleged rights abuses from being hijacked by unrelated religious and ethnic concerns. ABDUL RAZAK AHMAD finds out whether they can succeed.

EACH time a civil liberties infringement allegation surfaces in Malaysia, the debate it leads to leaves lawyer Datuk Zaid Ibrahim feeling disappointed.

Be it the nude squats controversy, the debate over Article 121(1A) of the Constitution, or the case of the 11 men in Kajang whose heads were shaved by police, the resulting public discourse often proves disheartening.

"Whenever there is a dispute or misunderstanding in our society involving so-called ‘sensitive issues’, we tend to miss the real issue.

"We end up being clouded by issues of race, religion and ethnicity, which have nothing to do with the dispute to begin with. It makes finding solutions very difficult," he says.

Zaid, the Member of Parliament for Kota Baru, cites the debate over Article 121(1A) as an example.

"Some Muslims and non-Muslims are up in arms over it.

Each side is arguing not on the Constitution and its interpretation, which is basically what this issue is about, but by citing ethnic and religious interests.

"If we understand that this is an issue rooted in the Constitution instead of religion or the supremacy of one community over another, perhaps we’ll be less prejudiced and more able to find solutions," he says.

He feels that one reason why the debate on civil liberties and human rights keeps veering off tangent is a lack of understanding of the institutional framework of the country, namely the Constitution.

Zaid, in other words, wants to keep the debate on civil liberties in Malaysia on track and prevent it from being "hijacked" by unrelated interests. He’s trying to do this with an organisation called the Malaysian Civil Liberties Society (MCLS).

The society, whose application for registration has yet to be approved by the Registrar of Societies, aims to increase familiarity with the Constitution.

"It’s important because essentially, all the provisions for our civil liberties are contained in the Constitution, whether it is the freedom of expression, association or religion," says Zaid.

The society, whose members are mainly lawyers and social activists, held its inaugural meeting in August last year, with Zaid serving as pro-tem president.

Constitutional law experts Prof Shad Saleem Faruqi and Malik Imtiaz Sarwar were elected as vice-president and secretary respectively.

"The primacy of the Constitution means that all our laws, policies, guidelines and fatwa have to be tested on whether they conform to the Constitution.

"If all Malaysians agree that that is the way to solve problems, then there is not much of a problem, because if you say the Constitution is not right, then you have to change it by constitutional means — not by fighting, not by violence, or by being racist or provocative.

"That’s the culture we want to highlight," says Zaid, who in 2002 took the then Pas-led Terengganu Government to court for trying to implement the State Syariah Criminal Enactment (Hudud and Qisas) which Zaid argued went against the Constitution.

The MCLS will hold seminars and talks and participate in the public debate on civil liberties. It will also push for greater freedoms and civil liberties within the framework of the Constitution.

They include calling for a re-examination of restrictive laws, including the Universities and University Colleges Act, while highlighting the need to protect rights spelt out in the Constitution such as freedom of association and of the Press.

Rights groups are receptive towards the new kid on the block and what it wants to do.

"We welcome the formation of MCLS. There is a lot of work to be done; we are still behind many other countries in terms of the number and size of rights groups," says Yap Swee Seng, executive director of Suara Rakyat Malaysia (Suaram).

"It is a healthy trend in a democracy," concurs Ramdas Tikamdas, former president and current exco member of the National Human Rights Society (Hakam). "If more groups with the objective of promoting democracy come up, it will be good for everyone."

But determining how much the well-intentioned MCLS can realistically accomplish is not going to be easy.

Human rights is one of the most difficult causes to take up in Malaysia. The Government’s emphasis on stability over the risks of unfettered debate mean that relations with rights groups are often uneasy.

The fact that the new outfit is being helmed by a government backbencher would, perhaps, have been unthinkable to some.

After all, both Suaram and Hakam — two of the major rights groups in Malaysia — arose following disagreements with the Government after 1987’s Operasi Lalang security operation.

The engagement between the Government and the rights groups was often confrontational, but the Government’s tough stance began to soften noticeably in 1999, the year the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) was set up by an Act of Parliament.

This was followed by the establishment of a Parliamentary Caucus on Human Rights and Good Governance, and the establishment of a Royal Commission to Enhance the Operation and Management of the Royal Malaysian Police.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, who chairs the parliamentary caucus, explains the greater openness on the Government’s part:

"When talking about wanting to be a developed nation by the year 2020, we realise that we need to focus not just on economic indicators but on developing a healthy human rights climate, which is as important an infrastructure for the nation."

Ramdas expresses a degree of guarded optimism that things may be improving in some areas.

"In the present administration, there is more space for debate and discussion.

"With Suhakam serving as a bridge between us and the establishment, groups like ours now have the opportunity to meet directly and engage with police and prison authorities, which did not happen before," he says.

"Not too long ago, human rights was a subversive term, spoken in select circles and sometimes in whispers.

"Times have changed, or at least, we think they have changed."

Both Suaram and Hakam still have marked reservations on whether the Government’s greater openness will lead to a substantial development human rights and civil liberties.

But Nazri believes that significant space has been freed up to allow meaningful change and development to occur.

"Some people have told me that the greater openness the Government is now displaying to views and debates on human rights is going to lead to chaos," he says.

"But I always tell them that the reason the situation seemed more orderly in the past was because people were afraid to speak up.

"So this is a healthy trend occurring, and more importantly, it’s irreversible."

Source: http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/nst/Tuesday/Columns/20060221082419/Article/index_html