THE APPLICATION OF MEDIATION IN RESOLVING HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLAINTS: COMPARISON BETWEEN THE PRACTICE OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION OF MALAYSIA AND AUSTRALIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

by

Shahizad Sulaiman* Nur Ezan Rahmat**

ABSTRACT 

The adoption of the United Nations Principles relating to the Status of National Institutions (‘Paris Principles’) in 1993 has encouraged many countries to establish their own National Human Rights Institution (‘NHRI’) with a broad mandate and function to promote and protect human rights, which includes the power to receive and resolve complaints of human rights violations. While most disputes are settled through a court trial mechanism, establishing an NHRI has given an alternative to the human rights-related grouses to be dealt with through an independent institution specialising in human rights matters. Each NHRI has applied different complaint resolution methods in resolving the complaints, including mediation and conciliation, depending on their statutory power. Similarly, the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (‘SUHAKAM’) has employed informal mediation as one of the approaches to resolve human rights complaints despite having no explicit provision to conduct mediation in its legislation. In comparison, the Australian Human Rights Commission (‘AHRC’) legislation provides conciliation as one of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (‘ADR’) mechanisms to resolve human rights complaints in Australia. This paper attempts to undertake a comparative analysis on the application of mediation as an (ADR) mechanism for SUHAKAM and AHRC in resolving human rights disputes. At the end of the analysis, some recommendations are offered to SUHAKAM to enhance the ADR’s effectiveness in resolving human rights disputes.

Keywords: SUHAKAM – human rights – mediation – conciliation – complaint

INTRODUCTION

The consequences of World War II prompted the world leaders to establish an international organisation to prevent such devastation from recurring in the future. Consequently, the United Nations (‘UN’) was established on 24 October 1945,[1] and the preamble of its Charter states that: We the peoples of the United Nations determined to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small.[2]

The fundamental human rights concept as entrenched in the UN’s Charter was further elucidated by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (‘UDHR’), adopted by the UN on 10 December 1948. While the UDHR is a non-legally binding document, the UN subsequently adopted various human rights treaties to ensure that human rights are enshrined on paper and effectuated in the real world.[3] The international human rights treaties contain domestication provisions. It mandates domestic institutions to give effect to international human rights and provide effective remedies for violations.[4] In response to this, the National Human Rights Institutions (‘NHRIs’) were established at the national level, with the earliest being the New Zealand Human Rights Commission in 1978, the Australian Human Rights Commission in 1986 and the Philippines Human Rights Commission in 1987.[5]

Following the establishment of several NHRIs, the Vienna World Conference on Human Rights, held on 14 to 25 June 1993, urged all countries to establish an NHRI in compliance with the ‘Principles relating to the Status of National Institutions’ known as the Paris Principles. The UN adopted the Paris Principles through resolution 48/134 on 20 December 1993. The document listed the minimum standard of an effective and credible NHRI. The principles were later accepted as the yardstick for the accreditation of NHRIs by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (‘GANHRI’).[6] One of the principles in the document was related to equipping the NHRI with quasi-jurisdictional competence. It stipulates that the NHRI is to be accorded with the function of receiving complaints from individuals or organisations and would then be given the means to seek an amicable settlement to the complaints through conciliation.[7] The Paris Principles affirms the role of NHRI to offer an out-of-court redress mechanism. In other words, the NHRI is a form of alternative dispute resolution for human rights-related cases.

There are different types of NHRI models depending on the mandate, their organisational composition, or the political and legal traditions. The majority of the countries established a Commission to undertake the NHRI role in their country. For countries such as Eastern Europe, Central and South America, and the Commonwealth of Independent States, the Ombudsman is more popular to shoulder the NHRI role.[8]

The Australian Human Rights Commission (‘AHRC’) is one of the earliest NHRIs established and provided with quasi-judicial function by its founding law.[9] Since its establishment, AHRC has successfully resolved human rights-related complaints mainly through conciliation.[10] In contrast, the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia or in Malay abbreviation known as SUHAKAM was established with the passing of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999 (Act 597) on 9 September 1999. Section 4(1)(d) of Act 597 prescribes the functions of SUHAKAM, among other things, is ‘to inquire into complaints regarding infringements of human rights’. Although SUHAKAM has a quasi-jurisdictional function, its founding Act does not expressly empower it with the conciliation role advocated by the Paris Principles. This article seeks to examine the method of ADR employed by SUHAKAM and AHRC in resolving human rights complaints and its effectiveness. A comparative analysis between the ADR practices of SUHAKAM and AHRC is undertaken to identify the good practices and to offer recommendations for improvement.

HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION COMPLAINTS

According to the UN, human rights are defined as rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or other status.[11] While the notion of human rights can be traced back to ancient times and within various religious traditions, the ‘human rights’ term only gained popularity after the UN drafted and adopted the UDHR. The document contains a preamble and 30 articles in which 27 articles clarify every individual’s guaranteed rights, of which the violation of those guaranteed rights is prohibited. Following the adoption of the UDHR, several other human rights instruments were drafted and subsequently adopted by the UN to reinforce the unbinding general principles of human rights in the UDHR with the legally binding human rights treaties. Currently, there are nine core human rights treaties, namely the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination 1965 (‘ICERD’), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 (‘ICCPR’), International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966 (‘ICESCR’), Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women 1979 (‘CEDAW’), Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 1984 (‘CAT’), Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 (‘CRC’), International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families 1990 (‘ICMW’), International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance 2006 (‘CPED’), and Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2006 (‘CRPD’).[12]

SUHAKAM’s jurisdiction

Under the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999 (‘SUHAKAM Act’), section 2 states that ‘human rights’ refers to the fundamental liberties enshrined in Part II of the Federal Constitution. There are nine articles under Part II of the Federal Constitution which are Article 5 to Article 13, that cover the right to life and personal liberty; prohibition of slavery or forced labour; protection against retrospective criminal laws and repeated trials; equality; freedom of movement; freedom of speech, assembly and association; freedom of religion; education rights; and property rights. Besides these rights, many other Articles of the Federal Constitution grant such civil and political protections.[13] However, the Act limits the definition of human rights to only Part II. In addition, section 4(4) of the SUHAKAM Act states that ‘for the purpose of this Act, regard shall be had to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 to the extent that it is not inconsistent with the Federal Constitution’.

As for human rights complaints, SUHAKAM defines it as any complaint involving any human rights violations issues and involving any of the matters specified in Part II of the Federal Constitution, UDHR, CRC, CEDAW, CRPD and other international human rights documents.[14] The human rights complaints received by SUHAKAM are divided into categories based on the subject matters.[15]

AHRC’s jurisdiction Section 3(1) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act defines human rights as the rights and freedoms recognised in the ICCPR, declared by three listed Declarations, namely the Declaration on the Rights of the Child 1959, the Declaration on the Rights of Mentally Retarded Persons 1971, and the Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons 1975, or recognised or declared by any relevant international instrument. In addition, section 46C(4) of the Act emphasises that AHRC must have regard to UDHR, ICCPR, ICESCR, ICERD, CRC, and other instruments relating to human rights as the Commissioner considers relevant as well as the object of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation Act 1991. Section 46P(1) of the Act further stipulates that complaints lodged with AHRC should contain an allegation of unlawful discrimination. Unlawful discrimination is referred to any acts, omissions or practices that are unlawful or an offence under the Age Discrimination Act 2004, Disability Discrimination Act 1992, Racial Discrimination Act 1975, or Sex Discrimination Act 1984. Hence, the complaints lodged with AHRC are classified into five categories: age discrimination, disability discrimination, race discrimination, sex discrimination, or other discrimination in employment.

MEDIATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLAINTS

Mediation is an alternative dispute mechanism. It is a facilitative process in which the disputing parties engage the assistance of an impartial third party to mediate their dispute aiming to achieve a mutual resolution of their dispute. The decisions achieved through mediation are not binding on the parties involved unless formalised into a signed agreement. The mediator has no authority to determine the resolution, but the mediator employs specific procedures, techniques and skills to help the disputing parties to negotiate an agreed resolution of their dispute without adjudication.[16]

SUHAKAM defines mediation as a process of finding a solution in which it acts as a neutral party, encouraging and/or facilitating the disputing parties to discuss their differences and assist in finding a solution and/or reaching a mutual agreement.[17]

Mediation and Conciliation

There is a discussion on the similarities and differences between mediation and conciliation. The active and passive involvement of a middle person in the actual resolution of a dispute is commonly stated to be the determining distinction between conciliation and mediation. The conciliator usually is involved actively in suggesting the best solution for parties, whereas the mediator facilitates the parties’ discussion.[18] Occasionally mediation and conciliation are used interchangeably. In Malaysia, three legislations provide conciliation as dispute resolution, namely the Industrial Relations Act 1967,[19] Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976[20] and Islamic Family Law (Federal Territories) Act 1984.[21] However, conciliation is not given a legal definition under these three Acts.

On the other hand, section 3 of the Mediation Act 2012 defines mediation as a voluntary process in which a mediator facilitates communication and negotiation between parties to assist the parties in reaching an agreement regarding a dispute. Thus, it could be concluded that mediation in human rights complaints would mean:

(i) a negotiation process to reach an agreement between disputing parties, namely the complainant and the respondent;

(ii) the disputing issue relates to an allegation of a human rights violation; and

(iii) a Human Rights Commissioner or officer mediates the complaint.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Mediation in Human Rights Disputes

As in any discussion on the advantages of the ADR, mediation in human rights disputes is also preferable due to its accessibility, flexibility, confidentiality and facilitative approach in arriving at a resolution of a dispute in contrast with litigation proceedings. Most victims of human rights violations cannot afford the litigation costs, and specific issues may be inappropriate or trivial for the court due to the court’s lengthy and complicated procedure. In some other cases, the complainants are vulnerable individuals who are not psychologically capable of facing the adversarial approach of a litigation proceeding. As for the respondent, mediation provides an avenue to resolve any complaint without denting his or her reputation as what transpired during the mediation session is kept strictly confidential between the involved parties and the mediator only. Therefore, mediation allows individuals to address conflict and for participants to put forward their interests and arguments while respecting each other’s viewpoints and arriving at their solution. The opportunity to be in the same room as the disputing party and raise issues of concern during mediation with a human rights officer enhances an individual’s sense of satisfaction and security.[22]

Referring human rights complaints to a mediation session is not without its disadvantages. One of the arguments against human rights mediation is that it condones human rights violations as the alleged perpetrator is not prosecuted in a formal justice system. The critics of mediation also elucidate that such victim-perpetrator communication may exacerbate the damage already inflicted.

Since mediation is conducted in private, the respondent may monopolise the resolution of the complaint due to the complainant’s vulnerability. Furthermore, suppose mediators are entirely impartial and passive. In that case, the mediators will not be able to influence the final resolution of the parties even if the final resolution does not reflect the NHRIs’ stand on a particular human rights issue. Thus, mediation may not effectively protect and promote the human rights of the complainant involved when the parties do not have equal bargaining powers, and the mediator is unable to ensure that a just settlement is achieved.

Additionally, as mediation is conducted between the disputing parties, unlike in litigation, it could perpetuate public ignorance of the legal consequences of violating human rights. In contrast, in a justice system based on the rule of law, the law must be understandable by the general public, clear in meaning, and universal in application.[23] Thus, in addressing all these criticisms, mediation of human rights complaints must adhere to some standards so that the NHRI never compromises on its ultimate purpose of protecting human rights.

OVERVIEW OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION OF MALAYSIA’S MEDIATION PROCESS

A Commission is another form of NHRI, and Malaysia is one of the countries that has established one (SUHAKAM) as its NHRI. In order to enable SUHAKAM to discharge its functions under section 4(1) of the SUHAKAM Act effectively, SUHAKAM has the following authorities:

(i) to promote awareness of human rights and conduct research through programmes, seminars and workshops and to disseminate and distribute the results of such research;

(ii) to advise the government and/or relevant authorities of complaints against them and to recommend appropriate measures to be taken;

(iii) to study and verify any infringement of human rights;

(iv) to visit places of detention according to procedures prescribed by law relating to the places of detention and to make necessary recommendations;

(v) to issue public statements on human rights as and when necessary; and

(vi) to undertake appropriate activities as are necessary.[24] However, the Act does not expound on the process for complaints handling. Hence, SUHAKAM developed an internal Standard Operating Procedure on Complaint Handling and Inquiry (‘SOP’) that spells out details of handling the complaints.

     Figure 1: Flow chart of SUHAKAM’s complaint handling process[25]

Although the SUHAKAM Act makes no mention of mediation as a means of resolving complaints, nonetheless section 4(2)(f) of the Act states that ‘... the Commission may undertake any other appropriate activities as are necessary in accordance with the written laws in force, if any, in relation to such activities’. In light of section 4(2)(f) of the SUHAKAM Act, mediation has been utilised in dealing with complaints involving human rights violations and SUHAKAM’s SOP refers to mediation as an alternative course of action for complaints resolution. SUHAKAM would undertake either a public or a closed inquiry to resolve the complaints received, and mediation is considered one of the methods under the closed inquiry. However, not all cases could be referred to mediation even if both parties, the complainant and respondent, agree. The SOP stipulates that serious human rights violations such as criminal cases against human beings, murder cases, torture, child abuse, domestic violence, and other cases in which a mediation process is deemed inappropriate cannot be referred to mediation for resolution. Doing so would prevent mediation from being used as a tool of impunity for grave human rights abuses.

The SOP stresses that mediation can only be held if the complainant and the respondent consent. Section 12(1) of the SUHAKAM Act states that: The Commission may, on its own motion or on a complaint made to it by an aggrieved person or group of persons or a person acting on behalf of an aggrieved person or a group of persons, inquire into an allegation of the infringement of human rights of such person or group of persons.

It is the sole discretion of SUHAKAM whether to inquire into a complaint. Should SUHAKAM decide to inquire into a complaint, it would impliedly mean that SUHAKAM has the discretion to decide which approach to be employed in resolving that complaint. A complainant or even a court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the discretion of SUHAKAM in relation to the complaint lodged.[26] The SOP also clarifies that SUHAKAM’s role as mediator is not passive but rather active by submitting proposals that are likely to seek resolution in disputes over such human rights issues. This clarification blurs the distinction between the role of mediator and conciliator. With regards to the parties involved in the mediation process, they are limited to: (i) SUHAKAM Commissioner; (ii) officers of the Commission; (iii) the complainant; (iv) the respondent; and (v) the parties concerned.

A private lawyer representing any party is not allowed to participate in the mediation process. However, the disputing parties are not barred from consulting or seeking legal advice outside the mediation room throughout the process. The SOP also stipulates that the Commission must:

(i) ensure that the parties are given an equal and fair opportunity to be heard and explain their respective positions on matters raised;

(ii) ensure resolution of the issue is reached through voluntary and mutual decisions of the parties, and not contrary to the law and policy of the country; and (iii) the resolution or mutual agreement is recorded.[27]

In 2019, SUHAKAM received 1,154 complaints, of which 783 were within its jurisdiction and being investigated further, and at the end of the year, 222 of the complaints were completed.[28] SUHAKAM does not make the number of mediation cases public because it considers mediation to be part of its complaint handling process, and mediation is not explicitly stated in the SUHAKAM Act. However, based on an interview with the SUHAKAM complaints officer, two cases were mediated by SUHAKAM in the past. These two cases were referred to mediation by SUHAKAM as case studies:

Case study 1

In 2019, a group of town settlers filed a complaint regarding their right to an adequate standard of living, specifically housing. The town settlers claimed that they had been staying on a piece of government land since early independence until the land was conferred to a company to develop houses on the land. The settlers were dissatisfied with the developer company’s offer of compensation for eviction. Before evacuating the settlers, the government granted the developer the land on the condition that the developer compensates them. The complainants, the developer and the city council agreed to have a mediation session. The developer argued that they had followed all the laws and policies as stipulated by the city council. While the complainant argued that other settlers offered a more favourable compensation, it was explained that the additional compensation was due to a court judgment obtained by a particular group of settlers. The mediators were unable to reach an agreement during the mediation session, and the complainants were advised to pursue the matter in court. Nonetheless, at the session, the complainants were able to express their concerns to the developer and the city council. [29]

Case study 2 

The complaint was lodged with SUHAKAM in 2017 under the right to an adequate standard of living in particular housing. The complainant bought a house with a loan from a bank. After ten years living in the house and paying the loan, he was involved in an accident which caused him to become a disabled person, i.e. paralysed waist-down. He was hospitalised for almost nine months. He then received a letter from the bank stating that he had defaulted on his loan repayments for some months. Since purchasing the house, he diligently serviced the loan without any unpaid dues. He was unable to pay only after the accident. After contacting the bank, he was advised to make an insurance claim. His application was rejected due to incomplete documentation. Consequently, his house was auctioned in the Seremban High Court. The case was brought to SUHAKAM. The bank, the new buyer and the complainant agreed to mediation. Two mediation sessions were held. The second session ended abruptly when the involved parties could not reach an agreement due to the interference of unrelated persons in the session. [30]

OVERVIEW OF THE AUSTRALIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION’S CONCILIATION PROCESS 

Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is one of the earliest NHRI established in the Asia Pacific region and the world. Section 11(f)(ii) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 states that the functions of the Commission are, among other things, to inquire into any act or practise that may be inconsistent with or contrary to any human right and to conduct conciliation for settlement of the matters. Section 11(1)(a) of the Act broadened the jurisdiction of AHRC to include functions as conferred on the Commission by the Age Discrimination Act 2004, the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. Hence, the provision empowers AHRC with legal authority to deal with disability, racial and sex discrimination complaints. 

Figure 2: Flow Chart of AHRC’s complaint handling process[31]

AHRC defines conciliation as an informal, flexible approach to resolving complaints and it could be held either by a telephone conciliation conference or a face-to-face conciliation conference.[32] The conciliation mechanism is clarified in detail under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 under Division 1 on conciliation by the President. During the conciliation process, AHRC acts as an impartial third party to provide information about settlement terms and assist the parties in evaluating various options for resolving the complaint. The legislation provides that the person presiding the conciliation must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the conduct of the conference does not disadvantage any complainant or respondent.[33] AHRC also assists in writing up the conciliation agreement. The conciliation conference is held in private, and those who are allowed to attend the conciliation conference are: (i) the President or his representative as the conciliator; (ii) the complainant; (iii) the respondent; or (iv) any other person by invitation from the President.

The disputing parties are not allowed to be represented by lawyers or any other person unless prior permission from the conciliator is obtained. However, some leeway is given to a disabled person who has difficulty attending the conference due to his disability. He or she is entitled to nominate another person to attend the conference on his or her behalf.

AHRC statistics reveal that many complaints received by AHRC are resolved through conciliation. Between 2019 to 2020, AHRC finalised 2,237 complaints, of which 1,004 complaints were successfully resolved through conciliation. In total, AHRC conducted approximately 1,432 conciliation processes. Of that number, 39% of the complaint resolution benefited the complainant and the public as the resolutions were in the form of agreements to introduce anti-discrimination policies and provide anti-discrimination training in workplaces, agreements to undertake modifications to buildings and services to address potential discriminatory factors.[34]

AHRC’s survey data also highlights the educative effect of its complaint process. It was found that 77.5% of surveyed participants involved in conciliated complaints stated that they had a better understanding of their rights and responsibilities under federal human rights and anti-discrimination law after their involvement in the complaint process. The statistics for complaints between 2019 to 2020 also indicate that only 2% of finalised complaints regarding unlawful discrimination proceeded to court. It demonstrates that conciliated complaints were successfully resolved between parties. If conciliation is unsuccessful, the complainants may apply to have the allegations heard and determined by the Federal Court of Australia or the Federal Magistrates Court. However, AHRC does not have a role in advocating for complainants in subsequent court proceedings, nor does it have a role in enforcing conciliation agreements. AHRC also publicises its conciliation cases registry and provides a guideline on its website’s conciliation process. To spread awareness and promote its conciliation powers to the public, AHRC also published a short video on YouTube explaining the conciliation process.[35]

In order to gain a better understanding of the cases that were referred to AHRC for conciliation, five actual complaints are presented as case studies:[36]

Case study 1

The complaint was lodged under the Disability Discrimination Act in the year 2021. The complainant was not permitted to use his mobility scooter inside the club premises and would need to leave it at the club entrance. He said the club offered him the use of a wheelchair, but this was not suitable as he could not move from the wheelchair independently. He alleged that the club insisted that he could not use his mobility scooter inside the premises despite being informed. Both agreed to participate in conciliation to resolve the complaint. The club resolved the complaint with an undertaking to revise the terms and conditions of entry for patrons who use mobility scooters and motorised wheelchairs to ease the impact on the disabled. Patrons with mobility scooters or electric wheelchairs would be granted access to club premises so long as they:

(i) operate the mobility scooter or wheelchair in a safe manner;

(ii) not travel faster than walking pace when inside the club or within a crowded area to avoid ‘overtaking’ of patrons who are walking;

(iii) avoid distractions such as headphones, mobile phones or other electronic devices when operating the mobility scooter or wheelchair; and

(iv) slow down and take care when turning around corners.

The club advised patrons using mobility scooters or electric wheelchairs who do not abide by these requirements may be asked to leave.

Case study 2

The complaint was lodged under the Sex Discrimination Act in the year 2020. The complainant was employed by the respondent, an investment firm, as a business partner. She alleged that while she was on maternity leave to have her third child, the firm employed someone to fill her role permanently without consulting her. She said that when she sought to return to work part-time, the firm asked her to move to a similar role as a business consultant. However, the complainant alleged that when she commenced the role, it became clear that the role was a demotion. She claimed the firm was not responsive to her concerns. The firm denied said discrimination against the complainant but indicated their willingness to resolve the matter through conciliation. The complaint was resolved. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship. The firm agreed to pay the complainant $42,000 as general damages, provide her with a reference and provide a statement of service. The firm also agreed to develop a strategy to inform staff of the complainant’s resignation.

Case study 3

The complaint was lodged under the Racial Discrimination Act in the year 2020. The complainant, an aboriginal woman, alleged that her colleagues at the fast food outlet made racist and derogatory comments about aboriginal people. She claimed she raised the issue with the store owner, but nothing was done. The complainant said she felt she had no option but to resign. The store owner responded that he had investigated the complainant’s claims and provided statements given by the two colleagues concerned. The respondents said the complainant’s former manager had been issued a formal warning. The respondents said no action was taken against the other colleague because there was no evidence that he made inappropriate statements and because the complainant was alleged to have made offensive comments about his sexuality. The conciliation conference was held. The store owner agreed to direct the two staff members referred to in the complaint to undertake an online training module on appropriate workplace conduct. They also agreed to pay the complainant $3,000 net and apologise in writing. The franchise also undertook to investigate the workplace culture at the outlet where the complainant worked.

Case study 4

The complaint was lodged under the Age Discrimination Act in 2019. The complainant is 70 years of age and was employed as a coordinator at the respondent childcare provider. She claimed her manager fabricated concerns about her performance, and the organisation placed her on a performance management plan. She alleged that her manager and the company were pressuring her to resign because of her age. The company claimed genuine concerns were held about the complainant’s performance and arose from complaints by co-workers about her conduct. The company claimed the performance improvement plan was designed to help the complainant improve her performance rather than pressure her to resign. The complaint was resolved. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship. The company agreed to pay the complainant approximately $17,000 in outstanding entitlements on a fortnightly basis, followed by a lump-sum payment of approximately $7,500.

Case study 5

The complaint was categorised as other discrimination in employment and was lodged in 2019. The complainant alleged that an offer of employment as a support worker in a community organisation was revoked by senior management because of her criminal record. She said she disclosed her criminal record during the recruitment process. The complainant had been convicted of minor theft and fraud offences approximately nine years earlier. She claimed the organisation offered no opportunity to discuss her criminal record’s circumstances before deciding. The organisation claimed the complainant’s criminal record was inconsistent with the inherent requirements of the support worker role, which involved working without supervision in the homes of vulnerable persons and with full access to their possessions. The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the organisation pays the complainant $1,500, the equivalent of six weeks’ wages. The organisation also apologised to the complainant for the distress caused by offering employment and then revoking it.

COMPARISON BETWEEN THE MEDIATION BY SUHAKAM AND AHRC

Mediation and conciliation terminology

Even though SUHAKAM applies the term ‘mediation’ for its ADR in contrast with AHRC, which employs the term ‘conciliation’, the mediation by SUHAKAM and conciliation by AHRC have many similarities in terms of operation. The active role played by the SUHAKAM mediator as provided under its SOP further blurs the distinction between mediation and conciliation. If we refer to the Paris Principles, it explicitly advocates for the NHRI to seek an amicable settlement of human rights disputes through conciliation. In this case, the difference in terminologies does not hamper the comparison because the operation between the two ADRs is similar.

The incorporation of ADR in the founding Act

Mediation is not explicitly stated as one of SUHAKAM functions in its founding Act but impliedly derived from section 4(2)(f) of the Act, which states that ‘the Commission may undertake any other appropriate activities as are necessary in accordance with the written laws in force, if any, in relation to such activities’. Since 2014, SUHAKAM has recommended that the government amend its legislation, and one of the proposed amendments was incorporating mediation as its explicit mandate.[37] The proposal was made to strengthen the Commission’s role by providing it with a legal mandate to conduct mediation.

Since Malaysia has specific legislation on mediation, namely the Mediation Act 2012, it is essential to peruse the Act to see whether such a recommendation is practicable for SUHAKAM. Section 2 of the Mediation Act 2012 provides that the Act would become applicable to all mediations except for what is exempted under the section, namely:

(i) any dispute regarding matters specified in the Schedule;[38]

(ii) any mediation conducted by a judge, magistrate or officer of the court under any civil action; and

(iii) any mediation conducted by the Legal Aid Department.

The Mediation Act does not exempt human rights disputes or mediation by SUHAKAM from its scope. Thus, the Mediation Act may become applicable to human rights disputes mediated by SUHAKAM should the mediation mandate be explicitly provided under the SUHAKAM Act. This implication could be an issue of concern for SUHAKAM as it would undermine its independence in conducting mediation to resolve human rights disputes.

Regarding conciliation by AHRC, its founding law details the operation of conciliation under section 11(f)(ii) of the Australian Human Rights Act. Moreover, AHRC’s power is not limited to one Act but extended to cover four other legislation: the Age Discrimination Act 2004, the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. Hence, the law provides AHRC with a broad scope of conciliation powers. In addition, the Australian Human Rights Act provides AHRC with the ability to involve a third person to attend the conciliation conference to provide information or document relevant to the disputing issue. Anyone who refuses or fails to fulfil AHRC’s requirement could be fined ten penalty units.[39] These give AHRC much more legal power and authority to conduct conciliation than SUHAKAM.

Standard Operating Procedure on Mediation

SUHAKAM developed a Standard Operating Procedure on Complaint Handling and Inquiry (SOP) to detail the inquiry processes, including the mediation procedure. The SOP also prescribes the type of cases that can and cannot be referred to mediation. However, mediation is only a part of the closed inquiry and other methodologies, which indicates that it is not the primary approach in resolving human rights complaints. Moreover, the SOP is an internal document and is not made known to the public.

In contrast, AHRC’s conciliation process is specified in detail under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act. Such provisions in the Act ensure that AHRC is legally mandated to conduct conciliation and give the public the confidence to resolve their complaints through conciliation. In addition, AHRC also published a guideline on conciliation in simple language on its webpage to enlighten the general public about its conciliation process. AHRC has emphasised and promoted conciliation based on promotional materials or videos it produces to ensure the public is aware of the conciliation process. In contrast to SUHAKAM, which places a greater focus on public inquiry than mediation, SUHAKAM’s website and annual report contain no information about mediation. On the other hand, since the establishment of SUHAKAM, there have been 11 public inquiries and one national inquiry conducted by SUHAKAM.[40].

The availability of the SOP on mediation is necessary to ensure that the mediation is conducted appropriately and to avoid distraction from the ultimate purpose of NHRIs, which is to uphold human rights. The exclusion of specific severe human rights violations from mediation would address the criticism that mediation would be used to condone human rights violations.

Publication of mediation cases registry

As SUHAKAM treats complaints it receives as private and confidential, the cases handled by SUHAKAM are not readily accessible to the public. However, SUHAKAM highlighted several interesting complaints in its Annual Report. Private information such as the complainant’s and respondent’s name and location were kept confidential. However, the information on mediation cases and statistics of mediated complaints have never been reported in the Annual Report.

As for AHRC, the mediation cases registry is available to the public on its website. The cases were reported based on the sequence of years and information such as the results of the conciliation and a summary of the complaint were made public. Specific details, such as the complainant’s and defendant’s names, were obliterated.

The publication of cases referred to mediation and their outcomes would enlighten the public that a particular action or omission is against human rights and should not be practised. Such initiative would ensure that the public knows the consequences of practising such discrimination and prevent it from recurring.

Type of cases referred to mediation

SUHAKAM has only referred two complaints on the right to an adequate standard of living or housing to mediation, and both cases were not resolved. This is despite SUHAKAM receiving more than 1,000 complaints per year on average. It shows the lack of utilisation of mediation in resolving human rights disputes by SUHAKAM, and it could be attributed to several reasons, among others, the lack of clear mandate to conduct mediation as discussed before. Complaints about freedom of religion, such as banning tudung or headscarf for Muslim frontline hotel staff,[41] which received much media coverage, is an example of a complaint that could have been referred to mediation for resolution but wasn’t.

In comparison, AHRC has referred various types of complaints to mediation in line with its jurisdiction under their Act, namely sex discrimination, racial discrimination, disability discrimination, age discrimination, and other discrimination in employment.

The capability of NHRI members to mediate Another aspect that SUHAKAM lacks is the ability of officers to mediate. Although there is training on mediation arranged for officers, it is not periodical, and new officers are not exposed to mediation. Nonetheless, due to their background in the legal profession, some SUHAKAM Commissioners are experienced in mediation. In contrast, most conciliators at AHRC are nationally accredited under the National Mediator Accreditation System. Such accreditation will ensure that the public is confident in the conciliation process and that each conciliation session achieves the desired goals.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Based on the comparative analysis of the two NHRIs’ use of ADR in resolving human rights complaints, the following recommendations are made to address some of the weaknesses and gaps in SUHAKAM’s mediation:

(i) Incorporate a conciliation mandate in the SUHAKAM Act, including its procedure to provide more legal authority for SUHAKAM to resolve complaints through ADR. This could also avoid the possibility of SUHAKAM being bound by the Mediation Act as well as fulfilling the criteria of the Paris Principles, which specifically mentioned conciliation.

(ii) Widen the scope of the cases considered for conciliation to include discrimination cases in terms of gender, race and disability and explore other human rights violation cases.

(iii) Make SUHAKAM’s case registry available to the public on its website to build disputing parties’ confidence to go for the conciliation process.

(iv) Provide regular training on conciliation for the Commissioners and complaints officer to enable the conciliation conference to be held effectively and appoint more authorised conciliators.

Based on the analysis conducted, it may be concluded that there are some differences in terms of the effectiveness and implication of mediation conducted by SUHAKAM and the conciliation conducted by AHRC for complaints received by the respective institutions. AHRC has made conciliation the primary method of resolving complaints, and this has had a positive impact on its track record for successfully resolving the complaints it has received. SUHAKAM, on the other hand, only makes mediation an alternative approach in resolving complaints causing it to be less effective. Based on the comparative analysis conducted, several recommendations were made to improve the ADR used by SUHAKAM in resolving complaints. The improvements would assist SUHAKAM to fulfil the international standards set by the Paris Principles to be an effective and credible NHRI.

*Shahizad Sulaiman is the Head of Education and Training Division at the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia.

**Assoc. Prof. Dr Nur Ezan Rahmat is the Deputy Dean (Research and Industrial Linkages), Faculty of Law, UiTM.

Endnotes:

[1] United Nations, ‘History of the United Nations’ (Web Page) <https://www.un.org/ en/about-us/history-of-the-un>.

[2] United Nations, ‘United Nations Charter’ (Web Page) <https://www.un.org/en/ about-us/un-charter/preamble>. Article 1 of the United Nations Charter lays down four purposes of the United Nations, namely to preserve peace and security in this world; to develop friendly relations among nations based on equality and self-determination; to cooperate in resolving international problems and promotion of human rights and as a centre to harmonise actions between nations in achieving these purposes.

[3] Johannes Morsink, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Origins, Drafting, and Intent (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000).

[4] The provision on the domestication of international law is usually found under Article 2 of each law. For instance, Article 2(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that:

Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such laws or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant.

[5] Tracey Raymond, Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Law Context: Reflections on Theory, Practice and Skills (Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, 2006).

[6] GANHRI is a coalition of National Human Rights Institutions responsible for accrediting the NHRI based on the Paris Principles standard. ‘A status’ NHRI is assessed as complying with the Paris Principles, while those that partially comply are accredited with ‘B status’. As of 2021, GANHRI comprises 117 members, with 84 ‘A status’ NHRIs and 33 ‘B status’ NHRIs. ‘A status’ NHRIs have independent participation rights at the United Nations Human Rights Council, its subsidiary bodies and some General Assembly bodies and mechanisms. They are eligible for full membership of GANHRI, including the right to vote and hold governance positions. The NHRIs accredited with ‘B status’ participate in GANHRI meetings but cannot vote or hold governance positions. SUHAKAM and AHRC are both accredited with A-status. See <https://ganhri.org/>.

[7] The Paris Principles on ‘Additional principles concerning the status of commissions with quasi-jurisdictional competence’ states that:

A national institution may be authorised to hear and consider complaints and petitions concerning individual situations. Cases may be brought before it by individuals, their representatives, third parties, non-governmental organisations, associations of trade unions or any other representative organisations. In such circumstances, and without prejudice to the principles stated above concerning the other powers of the commissions, the functions entrusted to them may be based on the following principles:

(a) Seeking an amicable settlement through conciliation or, within the limits prescribed by the law, through binding decisions or, where necessary, on the basis of confidentiality;

See <https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/statusofnationalinstitutions. aspx>.

[8] Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (‘OHCHR’), ‘National Human Rights Institutions: History, Principles, Roles and Responsibilities’, 2010, HR/P/PT/4/Rev.1 <https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/PTS-4Rev1 -NHRI_en.pdf>.

[9] Section 11(1)(aa) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (‘AHRC Act’) states that the function of the Commission is to inquire into and attempt to conciliate complaints of unlawful discrimination.

[10] Rosalind Croucher, ‘The Australian Human Rights Commission and Conciliation — a 40+ year success story, but …’ (National Mediation Conference, Canberra, 17 April 2019).

[11] OHCHR, ‘What are human rights’ (Web Page) <https://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/ pages/whatarehumanrights.aspx>.

[12] OHCHR, ‘The Core International Human Rights Instruments and their monitoring bodies’ (Web Page) <https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/core instruments.aspx>. As of 2021, Australia is a party to the seven core international human rights treaties, namely ICCPR, ICESCR, CERD, CEDAW, CAT, CRC and CRPD, whereas Malaysia is a party to the three core international human rights treaties, namely CRC, CEDAW and CRPD.

[13] Shad Saleem Faruqi, Our Constitution (Sweet & Maxwell, 2019). Besides Articles 5–13 of the Federal Constitution, the writer listed other Articles of the Constitution that grant such civil and political protections such as:

(i) citizenship rights under Articles 14–22;

(ii) right to contest a seat for the Dewan Rakyat under Articles 47–48;

(iii) right to vote under Article 119;

(iv) protection for Malay reservation and customary lands under Article 89;

(v) protection for the customs of the Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak even in times of emergency under Article 150(6A);

(vi) special protection for the rights of Sabah and Sarawak in the federal set-up under Articles 161–161E;

(vii) protection against dismissal or reduction in rank for public servants under Article 135;

(viii) protection against racial discrimination in the public service under Article 136;

(ix) pension rights under Article 180;

(x) safeguards for preventive detainees under Article 151;

(xi) the right of citizens to sue their government under Article 167(6); and

(xii) the right to sue the Malay Rulers under Articles 182–183.

[14] Conversation with Abdul Rahman Abdullah, Head of SUHAKAM’s Complaints and Monitoring Division (Shahizad Sulaiman, 8 June 2021). The definition is included in SUHAKAM’s Standard Operating Procedure on Complaint Handling and Inquiry. Only three treaties are mentioned explicitly by name as they are ratified by Malaysia. Nonetheless, it is worthy to note that SUHAKAM does take into account other non-ratified treaties as it is referenced by the inclusion of ‘other international human rights documents’ in the definition of human rights complaints.

[15] Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (‘SUHAKAM’) Annual Report 2019 (Report, 2020) <https://suhakam.org.my/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/SUHAKAM-AR2019-1.pdf>. The categories are based on the arrangement of rights under UDHR.

[16] John Andrew Faris, ‘An Analysis of The Theory and Principles of Alternative Dispute Resolution’ (LLD Thesis, University of South Africa, 1995).

[17] Conversation with Abdul Rahman Abdullah, Head of SUHAKAM’s Complaints and Monitoring Division (Shahizad Sulaiman, June 2021).

[18] Adnan Yaakob et al (eds), Alternative Dispute Resolution: Law & Practice (CLJ Publication, 2020).

[19] Section 18 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 provides for industrial disputes to be referred to the Director General of Industrial Relations and section 19 of the Act for the Director General to initiate compulsory conciliation conference.

[20] Section 106(1) of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976:

No person shall petition for divorce, except under sections 51 and 52, unless he or she has first referred the matrimonial difficulty to a conciliatory body and that body has certified that it has failed to reconcile the parties …

[21] Section 47(1)(e) of the Islamic Family Law (Federal Territories) Act 1984: 

A husband or a wife who desires divorce shall present an application for divorce to the Court in the prescribed form, accompanied by an iqrar containing–

(e) a statement as to whether any, and, if so, what steps had been taken to effect reconciliation;

[22] Heather M MacNaughton, ‘The Role of Mediation in Human Rights Disputes’ in Ronalda Murphy and Patrick A Molinari (eds), Doing Justice: Dispute Resolution in the Courts and Beyond (Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice, 2007). See also Gail H Forsythe, ‘Using Mediation to Resolve Human Rights Issues in the Workplace’ (Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission, 2003).

[23] Chris deLaubenfels, ‘The Problem with the Duty to Adjudicate: How Mediations Can Promote International Human Rights’ (2013) NYU J Int’l L & Pol 46:541.

[24] SUHAKAM Act, s. 4(2).

[25] The unofficial flow chart of SUHAKAM’s complaint handling process is constructed based on the explanation provided by the SUHAKAM officers.

[26] Subramaniam Vythilingam v. The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) & Ors [2003] 6 CLJ 175 (HC). In this case, the plaintiff alleged that SUHAKAM had breached its statutory duty by deciding not to conduct an inquiry into the Kampung Medan violence incident in March 2001. He applied for orders for SUHAKAM to conduct an inquiry into the alleged incident and for damages of RM50 million. In dismissing the application, the learned judge held that:

… Section 14 of the Act gives the requisite mandatory powers to Suhakam for purposes of conducting an inquiry under the Act. However, it is entirely up to Suhakam to decide whether or not it should hold an inquiry. Bearing in mind s. 12 of the Act, the court cannot interfere with the discretion if Suhakam decides not to hold an inquiry.

[27] Conversation with Abdul Rahman Abdullah, Head of SUHAKAM’s Complaints and Monitoring Division (Shahizad Sulaiman, 8 June 2021).

[28] SUHAKAM (n 15).

[29] Conversation with Muhammad Faiz Abdul Rahman, an officer of SUHAKAM’s Complaints and Monitoring Division (Shahizad Sulaiman, 8 June 2021).

[30] S Arutchelvan, ‘Balan’s unfulfilled wish: How the country’s support system failed’, Malaysiakini (online, 30 May 2019) <https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/ 477977>.

[31] Australian Human Rights Commission (‘AHRC’) (Web Page) <https://human rights.gov.au/our-work/complaint-information-service/complaints-about-breaches-human-rights>.

[32] AHRC, ‘Conciliation — How it works?’ (Web Page) <https://humanrights.gov.au/ complaints/complaint-guides/conciliation-how-it-works>.

[33] AHRC Act, s. 46PK(3).

[34] AHRC, 2019–20 Complaints Statistics (Report, 2020) <https://humanrights.gov. au/sites/default/files/2020-10/AHRC_AR_2019-20_Complaint_Stats_FINAL.pdf>.

[35] AHRC, ‘Pathways to Resolution: The Conciliation Process of the Australian Human Rights Commission’ (YouTube, 25 August 2011) <https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=9BfFB2mOg2o>.

[36] AHRC, ‘Conciliation Register’ (Web Page) <https://humanrights.gov.au/ complaints/conciliation-register/list>.

[37] OHCHR, ‘The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM)’s Responses to OHCHR Questionnaire on “The role of prevention in the promotion and protection of human rights”’ (Web Page) <https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/IntLaw/ PreventionStudy/NHRI/Human_Rights_Commission_Malaysia.pdf>.

[38] The Schedule specifies items of the non-application of the Mediation Act 2012 as follows:

(i) proceedings involving a question which arises as to the effect of any provision of the Federal Constitution;

(ii) suits involving prerogative writs, as set out in the Schedule to the Courts of Judicature Act 1964;

(iii) proceedings involving remedy of temporary or permanent injunctions;

(iv) election petitions under the Election Offences Act 1954;

(v) proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act 1960;

(vi) proceedings involving the exercise of the original jurisdiction of the Federal Court under Article 128 of the Federal Constitution;

(vii) judicial review;

(viii) appeals;

(ix) revision;

(x) any proceeding before a native court; and

(xi) any criminal matters.

[39] AHRC Act, s. 46PJ(5).

[40] The 11 public inquiries are:

(i) public inquiry into the disappearance of Pastor Raymond Koh (2019);

(ii) public inquiry into the disappearance of Amri Che Mat (2019);

(iii) public inquiry into the incidents during and after the public assembly of 28 April 2012;

(iv) public inquiry into the infringement of human rights, including the use of excessive force prior to and during the assembly on 9 July 2011;

(v) public inquiry into the arrest and detention of five lawyers of the Kuala Lumpur Legal Aid Centre on 7 May 2009;

(vi) public inquiry into the allegation of excessive use of force by law enforcement personnel during the incident of 27 May 2008 at Persiaran Bandar Mahkota Cheras 1, Bandar Mahkota Cheras;

(vii) public inquiry into the incident at KLCC on 28 May 2006;

(viii) public inquiry into the death in custody of S Hendry on 17 and 18 February 2006;

(ix) Kundasang public inquiry (2004);

(x) inquiry on its own motion into 5 November incident at the Kesas Highway (2001); and

(xi) public inquiry into the conditions of detention under the Internal Security Act 1960.

One national inquiry is the national inquiry into the land rights of indigenous peoples (2013). See <https://suhakam.org.my/ms/publications/national-public-inquiry-reports/>.

[41] SUHAKAM, Annual Report 2017 (Report, 2018) <https://drive.google.com/file/d/ 1fTHb17EOl10UZedlB38v2t0W-VeS9q34/view>.

References

Australian Human Rights Commission, 2019–20 Complaints Statistics (Report, 2020) <https://humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-10/AHRC_AR_2019-20_Complaint_ Stats_FINAL.pdf>.

Australian Human Rights Commission, ‘Conciliation — How it works?’ (Web Page) <https://humanrights.gov.au/complaints/complaint-guides/conciliation-how-it-works>.

Australian Human Rights Commission, ‘Conciliation Register’ (Web Page) <https://humanrights.gov.au/complaints/conciliation-register/list>.

[2021] 1 LNS(A) clviii Legal Network Series 33

Australian Human Rights Commission, ‘Pathways to Resolution: The Conciliation Process of the Australian Human Rights Commission’ (YouTube, 25 August 2011) <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BfFB2mOg2o>.

Chris deLaubenfels, ‘The Problem with the Duty to Adjudicate: How Mediations Can Promote International Human Rights’ (2013) NYU J Int’l L & Pol 46:541.

Gail H Forsythe, ‘Using Mediation to Resolve Human Rights Issues in the Workplace’ (Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission, 2003).

Johannes Morsink, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Origins, Drafting, and Intent (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000).

John Andrew Faris, ‘An Analysis of The Theory and Principles of Alternative Dispute Resolution’ (LLD Thesis, University of South Africa, 1995).

Heather M MacNaughton, ‘The Role of Mediation in Human Rights Disputes’ in Ronalda Murphy and Patrick A Molinari (eds), Doing Justice: Dispute Resolution in the Courts and Beyond (Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice, 2007).

Human Rights Commission of Malaysia, Annual Report 2019 (Report, 2020) <https://suhakam.org.my/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/SUHAKAM-AR2019-1.pdf>.

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, ‘National Human Rights Institutions: History, Principles, Roles and Responsibilities’, 2010, HR/P/PT/4/Rev.1 <https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/PTS-4Rev1-NHRI_ en.pdf>.

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, ‘The Core International Human Rights Instruments and their monitoring bodies’ (Web Page) <https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/coreinstruments.aspx>.

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, ‘The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM)’s Responses to OHCHR Questionnaire on “The role of prevention in the promotion and protection of human rights”’ (Web Page) <https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/IntLaw/PreventionStudy/NHRI/Human_Rights_Commission_Malaysia.pdf>.

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, ‘What are human rights’ (Web Page) <https://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/pages/whatarehumanrights. aspx>.

S Arutchelvan, ‘Balan’s unfulfilled wish: How the country’s support system failed’, Malaysiakini (online, 30 May 2019) <https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/477977>.

Tracey Raymond, Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Law Context: Reflections on Theory, Practice and Skills (Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, 2006).

United Nations, ‘History of the United Nations’ (Web Page) <https://www.un.org/ en/about-us/history-of-the-un>.

United Nations, ‘United Nations Charter’ (Web Page) <https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/preamble>.

Legislation

Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986.

Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999.

Industrial Relations Act 1967.

Islamic Family Law (Federal Territories) Act 1984.

Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976.

Meluruskan Pemahaman Hak Asasi Manusia

Isu hak asasi manusia acuan tempatan dan hak asasi manusia acuan barat seringkali dipolemikkan.

Polemik ini tidak membawa sebarang keuntungan dari segi praktikal terutama kepada golongan rentan yang mana hak asasi manusia mereka dinafikan.

Dalam satu temubual portal berita baru-baru ini, Pengerusi Suhakam, Rahmat Mohamad, menyatakan Suhakam di bawahnya membawa hak asasi manusia konteks tempatan dan bukan sejagat.

Peliknya, dalam masa yang sama Rahmat mengakui kegagalan menerangkan apakah yang dimaksudkan dengan hak asasi manusia konteks tempatan.

Kecelaruan ini timbul mungkin disebabkan kurang pengetahuan berkaitan sejarah perkembangan hak asasi manusia moden dan peranan Pertubuhan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu.

 

Tiada pertikaian pada istilah

Walaupun istilah hak asasi manusia tidak dijumpai di dalam Al-Quran dan As-Sunnah, namun ulama’ Islam dunia, Almarhum Dr. Yusuf Al-Qardawi dalam syarahan beliau berkaitan ‘Hak Asasi Manusia dalam Islam’ menegaskan bahawa ketiadaan istilah hak asasi manusia di dalam Al-Quran dan As-Sunnah tidak bermakna bahawa Islam tidak memberi perhatian tentang hak asasi manusia.

Mengikut beliau, ia seumpama istilah Syariah yang hanya disebut sekali sahaja di dalam Al-Quran dan terma Aqidah yang tiada satu pun di dalam Al-Quran dan As-Sunnah.

Ini tidak bermakna Islam tidak mementingkan Syariah dan Aqidah kerana yang utama kandungan Syariah dan Aqidah adalah berdasarkan kepada Al-Quran dan As-Sunnah.

Begitu jugalah hak asasi manusia yang merangkumi ajaran Islam berkaitan kemuliaan insan, keadilan, kesaksamaan dan tiada diskriminasi. 

Kaedah yang terpakai adalah:

‘Penilaian adalah kepada kandungan apa yang dinamakan dan bukan pada nama-nama’

 

 Sejarah perkembangan hak asasi manusia moden

Terma hak asasi manusia dipopularkan setelah Pertubuhan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu dibentuk pada tahun 1945  ketika mana dunia baru menyaksikan kesan tragedi Perang Dunia Kedua yang dimulakan oleh mereka yang berkuasa (Kerajaan) mengakibatkan kehilangan jutaan nyawa manusia terutama golongan rentan di kalangan wanita, orang kurang upaya dan kanak-kanak serta kesengsaraan manusia disebabkan oleh pelbagai pelanggaran hak asasi manusia.

PBB telah menjadikan pengiktirafan hak asasi manusia sebagai asas utama dalam Piagam PBB di mana kerajaan-kerajaan yang berkumpul di parlimen dunia tersebut menyatakan komitmen: 

“Kami ahli-ahli Pertubuhan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu bertekad untuk mengesahkan semula kepercayaan kepada hak asasi manusia, maruah diri dan nilai seseorang manusia, hak saksama lelaki dan wanita dan bangsa-bangsa sama ada yang kecil atau besar”.

Memang ada yang memandang sinis usaha negara yang menang peperangan menubuhkan PBB dan menonjolkan konsep hak asasi manusia.

Ulama’ nusantara, Haji Abdul Malik Karim Amrullah, walaupun mempersoalkan piawaian hak asasi manusia yang dihasilkan PBB tetapi tetap memperakui keikhlasan usaha mereka dengan komentarnya:

“Bagaimana tidakkan ikhlas, padahal betapa pun hebatnya peperangan dan ada yang menang dan ada yang kalah, namun yang menang tetap jadi bara dan yang kalah tetap jadi abu. Berjuta-juta bergelimpangan bangkai di medan perang, namun yang bergelimpang itu adalah manusia belaka, bukan kuda dan bukan burung. Dendam boleh menggelegak sebentar, tetapi sehabis segala dendam, orang akan berfikir, apa ertinya pekerjaan kita ini. Di sinilah sebab timbul segala deklarasi, dan yang kita alami sekarang ialah hak-hak asasi manusia.” - HAMKA, 'Hak Asasi Manusia dalam Islam dan Deklarasi PBB'

Oleh kerana PBB merupakan satu kesatuan pelbagai negara dengan pelbagai kepercayaan serta tradisi, maka hak asasi manusia perlu diberikan piawaian sejagat yang boleh diterima oleh setiap negara.

Justeru, PBB menubuhkan satu jawatankuasa mendraf piawaian tersebut yang diwakili oleh beberapa individu daripada beberapa negara yang mewakili pelbagai benua iaitu China (Dr. Peng-Chun Chan), Lubnan (Dr. Charles Malik), Perancis (Rene Cassin), United Kingdom (Charles Dukes), Chile (Hernan Santa Cruz), Kanada (John P. Humprey), Amerika Syarikat (Eleanor Roosevalt), Kesatuan Republik Sosialis Soviet (Alexandre Bogomolov) dan Australia (William Hodgson).

Draf piawaian tersebut kemudiannya dibentang di Persidangan Agung PBB untuk dibahas dan diundi.

Ia dibahas serta dipinda oleh 56 negara ahli PBB yang ketika itu turut dianggotai oleh negara-negara Islam antaranya Arab Saudi, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Mesir, Syria, Iran dan Iraq sebelum diundi. 

Akhirnya pada 10 December 1948, piawaian tersebut yang dikenali sebagai Perisytiharan Hak Asasi Manusia Sejagat atau UDHR diterimapakai oleh PBB dengan undian majoriti 48 negara menyokong dan tiada yang membantah manakala 8 negara berkecuali.

Negara yang berkecuali adalah 6 negara komunis kerana mereka mendakwa perisytiharan tersebut tidak cukup menyokong hak ekonomi dan sosial serta ia menolak fasisma; Afrika Selatan kerana melindungi sistem Apartheid; dan hanya sebuah negara Islam iaitu Arab Saudi kerana tidak bersetuju dengan Artikel 16 mengenai hak perkahwinan yang saksama dan juga Artikel 18 mengenai hak menukar agama.

Walaupun 8 negara berkenaan berkecuali tetapi mereka turut terlibat dalam proses mendraf dan mengundi cadangan pindaan kepada UDHR.

Harus ditekankan bahawa tidak ada satu pun negara yang mengundi untuk menolak UDHR.

Pada ketika itu tidak timbul berkenaan hak LGBTQ.

Ketika UDHR masih dideraf, Persatuan Antropologi Amerika (AAA) mengeluarkan kenyataan awam pada bulan Jun 1947 menyatakan kebimbangan mereka bahawa piawaian yang akan dihasilkan tersebut akan menjadi produk etnosentrik negara Barat dan Amerika.

Bagi menjawap kebimbangan ini, Pertubuhan Pendidikan, Santifik dan Budaya PBB (UNESCO) ditugaskan untuk mendapatkan pandangan pemikir dan ahli falsafah yang mewakili pelbagai fahaman dari pelbagai latar belakang berkenaan asas kepada penghasilan satu piawaian yang sejagat.

Hasilnya UNESCO menerbitkan laporan ‘Human Rights: Comments and Intrepretations’ yang menjadi respon empirikal kepada kebimbangan AAA dan sekurang-kurangnya menolak dakwaan bahawa UDHR adalah produk langsung etnosentrik.

 

Hak asasi manusia dan kemerdekaan

Penzahiran UDHR ini juga menjadi pemangkin kepada kemerdekaan negara-negara yang masih dijajah kerana salah satu prinsip hak asasi manusia adalah hak untuk menentukan nasib sendiri atau ‘rights to self-determination’.

Malah Artikel 73 Piagam PBB, mengiktiraf  hak negara yang masih dijajah untuk membentuk kerajaan sendiri.

Susulan itu, PBB menerimapakai Perisytiharan Pemberian Kemerdekaan kepada Negara dan Rakyat yang Dijajah pada 14 Disember 1960.

Persekutuan Tanah Melayu antara yang mendapat kemerdekaan melalui rundingan pada 31 Ogos 1957.

Malah ‘kebebasan asasi’ di masukkan sebagai sebahagian daripada Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Melihat pentingnya peranan PBB, Persekutuan Tanah Melayu memohon dan diterima menjadi ahli PBB tidak sampai sebulan selepas kemerdekaan iaitu pada 17 September 1957.

Daripada 56 buah negara ahli PBB pada tahun 1948, kini PBB mempunyai 193 negara ahli, apabila negara-negara yang dijajah mendapat kemerdekaan masing-masing. 

 

Adakah UDHR produk Barat?

Mereka yang masih terperangkap dalam minda yang dijajah akan memberikan kredit kepada Barat dengan mendakwa bahawa UDHR adalah hasil pemikiran Barat.

Nabi berpesan ‘Hikmah itu adalah barang yang hilang milik orang yang beriman. Di mana kami dapati ia maka ambillah.’

Sejarah membuktikan pelbagai negara Islam dan Timur terlibat secara aktif dalam menghasilkan UDHR.

Bagi mereka yang ingin meneliti perbahasan semasa UDHR dihasilkan boleh merujuk kepada buku The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Origins, Drafting and Intent oleh Johannes Morsink.

Memang benar tiada ayat Al-Quran dan As-Sunnah yang dipetik di dalam UDHR tetapi yang penting sebagaimana ungkapan Dr. Yusuf Al-Qaradawi adalah kandungan dan matlamat UDHR adalah selari dengan Al-Quran dan As-Sunnah iaitu memelihara hak golongan rentan daripada dicabuli mereka yang berkuasa. 

UDHR mengandungi 30 Artikel. Artikel 1 dan 2 mengungkapkan prinsip asas kepada hak asasi manusia iaitu ia adalah fitrah (inherent) kepada setiap manusia dan tiada diskriminasi dalam menikmati hak-hak tersebut.

Artikel 3 – 21 menyenaraikan hak sivil dan politik manakala Artikel 22 – 27 menyenaraikan hak ekonomi, sosial dan budaya.

Manakala Artikel 28 – 30 adalah syarat dalam mengeksesais hak-hak tersebut.

Bertentangan dengan tanggapan sesetengah pihak, UDHR juga turut menekankan tentang tanggungjawab individu kepada masyarakat dan sekatan terhadap negara, kumpulan dan individu daripada terlibat dalam sebarang aktiviti atau tindakan yang boleh memusnahkan hak dan kebebasan yang termaktub di bawah UDHR.

Artikel 29 UDHR menyatakan bahawa setiap individu mempunyai tanggungjawab terhadap masyarakat dan hak asasi manusia boleh dikenakan sekatan yang munasabah melalui undang-undang setakat untuk menjamin moral, ketenteraman awam dan kebajikan umum.

Artikel 30 UDHR mengasaskan ‘pendekatan maqasidi’ (purposive approach’) apabila menetapkan bahawa apa-apa artikel di dalam UDHR tidak boleh difahami untuk membenarkan sebarang aktiviti yang boleh menafikan mana-mana hak yang terdapat dalamnya.

Ringkasnya tiada mana-mana pihak boleh menggunakan hak asasi manusia bagi menafikan hak asasi individu lain.

Konsep hak asasi manusia yang diperkenalkan oleh PBB ini menekankan bahawa Kerajaan/Pemerintah sebagai pemikul tanggungjawab dan individu sebagai pemegang hak.

Ini kerana PBB adalah satu kesatuan yang mengumpulkan pemerintah bagi sesebuah negara dan sejarah membuktikan pelanggaran hak asasi manusia banyak berlaku disebabkan penyalahgunaan kuasa yang ada pada pemerintah atau agen mereka.

Tanggungjawab kerajaan adalah memenuhi, menghormati dan melindungi hak asasi manusia.

Pemahaman ini berterusan sehinggalah pada tahun 90-an timbul kebimbangan tentang operasi syarikat multinasional yang memberi impak kepada hak asasi manusia dan kadangkala lebih berkuasa daripada kerajaan kerana mereka mempunyai kuasa wang yang mendanai parti-parti politik yang membentuk kerajaan.

Atas desakan aktivis hak asasi manusia dan siri konsultasi, akhirnya PBB menerimapakai Prinsip Panduan PBB mengenai Perniagaan dan Hak Asasi Manusia atau UNGP BHR pada 16 Jun 2011.

Tiga teras UNGP adalah tanggungungjawab Kerajaan untuk melindungi hak asasi manusia, tanggungjawab korporat menghormati hak asasi manusai dan hak mangsa pelanggaran hak asasi manusia kepada remedi.

Jika dibaca secara harmoni, UDHR tidak bertentangan dengan konsep hak asasi manusia yang difahami dalam tradisi atau agama tertentu sebaliknya ia saling melengkapi.

Sebagai sokongan dan pelengkap kepada UDHR, setiap kesatuan sama ada berasaskan geografi atau fahaman yang disertai oleh negara-negara menghasilkan perisytiharan hak asasi manusia masing-masing antaranya Konvensyen Hak Asasi Manusia Eropah  1950, Konvensyen Hak Asasi Manusia Amerika 1969, Piagam Afrika Mengenai Hak Asasi Manusia dan Individu 1981, Perisytiharan Kaherah Mengenai Hak Asasi Manusia dalam Islam 1990 dan Perisytiharan Hak Asasi Manusia ASEAN 2012.

Perisytiharan Kaherah dalam Bahasa Malaysia dan infografik boleh dimuatturun di laman sesawang Suhakam yang telah diterbitkan sejak 30 Mac 2021 sebelum Rahmat dilantik sebagai Pengerusi Suhakam lagi.

 

Pandangan berkenaan kesejagatan hak asasi manusia

Wacana berkaitan kesejagatan dan kerelatifan budaya hak asasi manusia ini telah dibahas oleh ramai cendiakawan dan pakar.

Pertembungan ini dilebarkan oleh mereka di kalangan ekstrem kanan dan ekstrem kiri dan ia tidak menguntungkan individu di kalangan golongan rentan di mana hak mereka dinafikan.

Prof. Emeritus Shad Saleem Faruqi, pakar perlembagaan, menjelaskan bahawa hak asasi manusia adalah sejagat pada terasnya dan relatif dari segi ranting dan pelaksanaan.

UDHR diterima sebagai prinsip sejagat dan pelaksanaan setiap hak tersebut mengambil kira konteks setempat.

Ini adalah selari dengan Perkara 5 Perisytiharan Vienna dan Program Tindakan yang diterimapakai pada 25 Jun 1993 yang menyatakan:

‘Semua hak asasi manusia adalah sejagat, tidak boleh dibahagikan dan saling bergantungan dan berkaitan. Komuniti antarabangsa hendaklah melayan hak asasi manusia secara global dengan cara yang adil dan saksama, pada asas yang sama dan tumpuan yang sama. Sementara kepentingan khusus nasional dan rantau serta pelbagai latarbelakang sejarah, budaya dan agama perlu diberi perhatian, Negara bertanggungjawab untuk mempromosi dan melindungi semua hak asasi manusia dan kebebasan asasi, tidak kira apa sistem politik, ekonomi dan budaya mereka.’  

Prof. Mashood A. Baderin, profesor undang-undang di School of Oriental Study, melalui kajian perbandingan beliau terhadap Kovenan Antarabangsa Mengenai Hak Sivil dan Politik (ICCPR) dan Kovenan Antarabangsa Hak Ekonomi, Sosial dan Budaya (ICESCR) dengan undang-undang Islam mendapati kewujudan asas persamaan yang luas antara undang-undang hak asasi antarabangsa dan undang-undang Islam.

Walaupun wujud sedikit perbezaan, namun pendekatan saling melengkapi melalui ‘margin of appreciation’ dan ‘maqasid shariah’ akan dapat mengatasi perbezaan tersebut. 

Begitu juga Jonathan Brown, professor pengajian Islam di Universiti Georgetown,   melalui buku beliau ‘Slavery dan Islam’ menjawab persoalan kenapa Islam tidak menghapuskan perhambaan serta-mereta sekiranya penghapusan perhambaan itu adalah hak yang sejagat.

Beliau mengemukakan hujahan bahawa terdapat perkara sejagat yang secara intrinsik atau semulajadi dan terdapat sejagat yang berdasarkan budaya.

Sejagat yang semulajadi adalah sesuatu yang diterima sepanjang zaman dan tempat.

Ia ditetapkan oleh agama dan rasional. Dalam isu perhambaan, penganiayaan dan eksploitasi adalah sesuatu yang salah secara sejagat yang intrinsik.

Manakala penghapusan perhambaan yang diterima pada zaman sekarang sebagai hak sejagat adalah hasil bentukan budaya akibat perubahan ekonomi dan sosial semasa.

Penghapusan perhambaan adalah selari dengan Maqasid Shariah.

 

Pendirian Wasatiyyah Suhakam dulu

Sebagaimana ada pihak menghalalkan keganasan ke atas pihak lain dengan mengatasnamakan Islam, hak asasi manusia juga tidak terlepas daripada penyalahgunaan pihak tertentu.

Dalam hal ini, Islam tidak wajar dipersalahkan atas perbuatan yang menyalahi ajaran Islam itu sendiri.

Begitu juga hak asasi manusia tidak seharusnya dihakimi atas tindakan mereka yang menggunakan hak asasi manusia untuk mempromosikan agenda tersembunyi.

Akhir-akhir ini, hak asasi manusia cuba dimomokkan sebagai mempromosi gaya hidup LGBTQ oleh penganjur atau penentang.  

Suhakam juga terpalit dengan tuduhan tersebut.

Suhakam pernah menjawap tohmahan seumpama ini secara tegas dalam kenyataan media pada 22 September 2018 apabila menyatakan bahawa Suhakam tidak menyokong perkahwinan sejenis di Malaysia.

Sebaliknya Suhakam cuba menyelesaikan aduan diskriminasi yang jelas bertentangan dengan Islam dan undang-undang negara.

Walaupun pelbagai program hak asasi manusia dan Islam (rujuk di sini) telah dilaksana, tetapi Suhakam masih ditohmah membawa hak asasi manusia sejagat yang bertentangan dengan Perlembagaan semata-mata kerana menjalankan kajian berkaitan gender ketiga.

Sebenarnya, banyak lagi kajian di universiti-universiti tempatan jika diteliti pasti didakwa liberal dan membawa agenda barat oleh golongan ekstrem kanan.

Contohnya seperti kajian ‘Trangederism in Malaysia’ (2012) oleh Chang Lee Wei, Azizan Baharuddin, Raihanah Abdullah dan Zuraidah Abdullah daripada Universiti Malaya (UM) serta ‘Gender Change of Transsexuals in Shariah: An Analysis’ (2018) oleh Zahra Sarcheshmehpour, Raihanah Abdullah dan Muhammad Bashir Alkali dari UM juga.

Prof. Dr Raihanah Abdullah adalah mantan ahli Suruhanjaya Bebas Tetap Hak Asasi Manusia (IPHRC), Pertubuhan Kerjasama Islam (OIC)  dan Prof Datuk Dr Azizan Baharuddin ialah mantan Ketua Pengarah Institut Kemajuan Islam Malaysia.

Ini tidak pelik kerana kajian dibuat untuk menyelidiki permasalahan semasa dalam masyarakat.

Sama ada kita bersetuju dengan kajian atau dapatannya adalah perkara yang berbeza.

Sesuatu kajian jika tidak dipersetujui maka hadapilah dengan kajian atau hujahan juga bukan dengan label dan tuduhan.

 

Jauhi Ruwaibidhah dengan 1I 3T

Menerima sifat (alamiyyah) kesejagatan ajaran Islam tidak bermakna hukum feqah di mana-mana tempat adalah seragam tanpa mengambilkira situasi dan adat setempat.  Begitu juga hak asasi manusia.

Menerima kesejagatan hak asasi manusia tidak bermakna menolak peranan agama, sejarah dan budaya setempat kerana UDHR dan Perisytiharan Vienna menyatakan sebaliknya.

Penolakan hak asasi manusia sejagat ini bukan unik di negara kita sahaja.

Di Barat juga melihat penentangan terhadap hak asasi manusia oleh golongan ekstrem kanan di mana berlaku peningkatan xenophobia dan diskriminasi terhadap pelarian serta migran.

Bekas Menteri Kehakiman Israel, Ayelet Shaked, pernah mengatakan pada tahun 2017 bahawa "Zionisma tidak akan tunduk kepada sistem hak individu berdasarkan nilai sejagat" membayangkan penindasan ke atas hak asasi rakyat Palestin akan diteruskan.

Malangnya Suhakam sekarang turut masuk dalam pertikaian hak asasi manusia sejagat lawan acuan tempatan.

Nabi Muhammad s.a.w pernah mengingatkan kita akan ketibaan satu zaman yang penuh dengan penipuan dan manipulasi.

Yang jujur didustakan dan pendusta dibenarkan, yang khianat diberikan amanah manakala yang jujur dikhianati.

Ruwaibidhah pula akan berbicara dan mereka ialah orang bodoh yang menguruskan urusan awam (Ibn Majah, No. 4172). 

Dari sudut bahasa arab, Rabidhah merujuk kepada individu lemah dan tenggelam dengan hal keduniaan.

Bagi mendepani situasi ini, Islam telah memberikan panduan melalui Al-Quran di mana kaedah 1I 3T iaitu Iqra’ (pengumpulan maklumat), Tabayyun (pengesahan maklumat) dan Tafakkur serta Taa’qul (analisis kritis) mengelakkan manusia menjadi mangsa penipuan walaupun golongan Ruwaibidhah memakai pelbagai gelaran dan pangkat.

 

Hamka