Teresa Kok

Below is an interesting article written by a SUHAKAM commissioner published in NST today, she analysed the challenges faced by SUHAKAM, the need of ombudsmen for civil service as well as IPCMC. Do you agree with her?

http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/nst/Thursday/Columns/20060420083835/Article/index_html

What kind of watchdog do we really want?
20 Apr 2006
By: Ranita Hussein
————————————————————————————————————————Debates on creating an ombudsman centre on whether it should be an alternative to the IPCMC and what powers the new body should have. RANITA HUSSEIN offers some pointers.

EVER since the proposal was mooted for the creation of an ombudsman, a debate has raged as to whether the ombudsman should be set up as an alternative body to the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) recommended by the Royal Commission of Enquiry.

A pertinent observation made in the debate was that the ombudsman should have “teeth” and not replicate the efforts of existing bodies. In the wings stands the Human Rights Commission (Suhakam), an existing independent body, bearing the label, “no teeth”. What repercussions would the creation of an ombudsman have on Suhakam and vice versa? Indeed, how relevant is Suhakam to the ombudsman debate?

The IPCMC was a significant response to the reports of police abuse and misuse of power by various individuals and organisations to the Royal Commission. One such report came from Suhakam.

In 2004, out of a total of 1,342 complaints lodged by the public to Suhakam, only 721 cases were classified as relating to human rights. The rest were mainly complaints of inefficiency and inaction by government agencies, including the police.

Of the human rights-related complaints against government agencies, the majority involved the Immigration Department and the police. Complaints against the police ran- ged from allegations of abuse of power to police violence to deaths in custody.

At this point , it is instructive to examine further the criticisms levelled against Suha- kam, if only to discover the defects that should not be repeated when establishing the IPCMC or an ombudsman.

ASEAN FMs huddle for retreat as Myanmar question still looms

ASEAN foreign ministers are meeting for their annual informal retreat amid increasing unease over recalcitrant member Myanmar’s refusal to produce evidence of democratic reform.

Ministers from the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) arriving on the resort island of Bali ahead of the talks, as well as the bloc’s chief, expressed frustration with the military-ruled regime.

“There is a certain impatience because the people around the region as well as around the world say, You keep talking, you keep going there—and then what happened?” secretary-general Ong Keng Yong said.

“People want to see some concrete steps forward.”

The ministers held a working dinner Wednesday during which Malaysia’s Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar briefed them over his trip to Yangon, an Indonesian foreign ministry official told AFP.

The official declined however to give details of the Myanmar discussions.

Myanmar agreed at last year’s ASEAN summit to invite Syed Hamid in the face of growing international pressure for evidence of its democratic progress, as well as embarrassment among some members over its 1997 inclusion in the bloc.

Speaking to reporters upon his arrival in Ubud, Syed Hamid said he was “not totally happy” with progress in Myanmar.

“There are still more things to be done,” he said. “Our intention was to engage with everybody. So, since we were not able to, in that respect you can see that,” he said, referring to his failure to meet with Myanmar’s detained opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi.

Ministers appeared meanwhile to agree that regional powerhouses China and India should use their economic clout—considerably mightier than ASEAN’s—to nudge Myanmar towards reform.

“The Myanmar issue is difficult for ASEAN. We must admit that, but we should not see it as solely the burden of ASEAN. There are also major key players that have significant influence: China and India,” Indonesian Foreign Minister Hassan Wirayuda told reporters.

“They can help by promoting democracy in Myanmar.”

Singapore’s Foreign Minister George Yeo also said last month that China’s and India’s open policy on Myanmar diluted the impact of Western sanctions.

Ministers were due to lunch with Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and a press briefing was expected at 0530 GMT.

Myanmar’s junta has spelt out a “road map” for democracy, including talks on a new constitution. But Aung San Suu Kyi’s party has boycotted the process, which critics have called a sham.

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AFP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of Agence France Presse.