IN THE HIGH COURT AT MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY OF KUALA LUMPUR 

[WRIT SUMMON NO: WA-23NCVC-28-04/2023] 

BETWEEN 

PROF. DATO’ DR RAHMAT MOHAMAD  … PLAINTIFF 

AND

SHAHIZAD SULAIMAN  … DEFENDANT 

JUDGMENT 

Introduction 

[1] The application before me raises an interesting point of procedure. The point being whether the plaintiff one Prof. Dato’ Dr. Rahmat Bin Mohamad, who is the former Chairman of Suruhanjaya Hak Asasi Manusia (Human Rights Commission of Malaysia) [“SUHAKAM”], is entitled – as of right - to discontinue a Writ of Summon that he has filed against a senior staff of Suhakam with liberty to file afresh on the ground that he has filed his Notice of Discontinuance within the timeline prescribed under Order 21 rule 2[1] of the Rules of Court 2012. [“ROC”] 

[2] The plaintiff contends that I, namely, the Court has no power and jurisdiction to impose terms on his withdrawal once he comes within Order 21 rule 2[1] of the ROC. He says that I can only impose terms if his withdrawal is pursuant to Order 21 rule 3 of the ROC.  

[3] In short, the plaintiff contends I cannot order a discontinuance without liberty to file afresh and that the only order I can make is to allow the plaintiff’s application to withdraw the Writ with liberty to file afresh. 

[4] Counsel has informed me there are no reported cases directly on point. I thank counsel as well as Mr Andrew Khoo holding a watching brief for SUHAKAM for their submissions which have greatly assisted me in arriving at my decision. I heard counsel on 19-01-2024. I reserved decision to 26-01-2024. I now deliver my decision with full grounds. 

Background Facts 

[5] The plaintiff is a former Chairman of SUHAKAM. The plaintiff held this position from June 2022 to 31-08-2023. 

[6] The defendant commenced employment at SUHAKAM in 2006 as an Assistant Secretary and since 2014 has been a Ketua Penolong Setiausaha (Principal Assistant Secretary) [“KPSU”]. 

[7] In November 2022, the defendant was promoted to the position of Timbalan Setiausaha (Deputy Secretary) [“TSU”] with a 6-month probationary period. This is a senior management position. In April 2023, the defendant requested that his position be reverted to KPSU. 

[8] The suit here concerns complaints made by the defendant in respect of the actions of the plaintiff during his time as Chairman of SUHAKAM. 

[9] The complaints relate to alleged acts of interference with appointment procedures, conflict of interest, abuse of power, aggression and bullying towards senior management and officers of SUHAKAM and racism. 

[10] These complaints were submitted to various bodies / departments including the Bahagian Aduan dan Pemantauan (Complaints and Monitoring Working Group) of SUHAKAM. 

[11] On 26-04-2023, the plaintiff filed the present suit against the defendant for defamation arising from the complaints, in particular the complaint to the Complaints and Monitoring Working Group of SUHAKAM. 

[12] On the same day, the plaintiff’s solicitors wrote to the Complaints and Monitoring Working Group of SUHAKAM requesting SUHAKAM to immediately stop its inquiry into the complaint to SUHAKAM as required under Section 12 of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999. [See letter from the plaintiff’s solicitors to Suhakam dated 26-04-2023 at pages 34 – 35 of the defendant’s Affidavit in Reply / encl 11]. 

[13] As a result of the filing of the suit by the plaintiff, SUHAKAM citing section 12[3] of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999 informed the defendant that SUHAKAM can no longer continue their investigations into the defendant’s complaint against the plaintiff. [See letter from SUHAKAM to the defendant dated 23-05-2023 at pages 26 – 27 of the defendant’s Affidavit in Reply]. 

Discontinuance of Suit 

[14] At the 1st case management fixed for this matter on 29-05-2023, the Registrar directed that the Defence was to be filed on 21-06-2023. 

[15] On 20-06-2023, one day before the Defence was due, the defendant’s solicitors were notified by telephone and by letter that the plaintiff intends to withdraw the present suit. This was then followed up by the filing of the Notice of Discontinuance (Enclosure 7) on the same day. 

[16] The defendant objected to the Notice of Discontinuance with liberty to file afresh. Hence the plaintiff filed Enclosure 9 seeking to discontinue the present action against the defendant with liberty to file afresh and with costs to be borne by the defendant. [2024] CLJU 127  

The Law on the discontinuance of a suit by a plaintiff 

[17] The law on the discontinuance of a suit by a plaintiff is found in Order 21 of the ROC. Order 21 r. 2[1] ROC allows the discontinuance of an action by a plaintiff without the leave of Court if the notice of discontinuance is filed not later than 14 days after the service of the defence on the plaintiff. Except as provided under Order 21 rule 2, a plaintiff needs the leave of Court to discontinue his suit and the court can impose terms like no liberty file afresh when a defendant is dominus litis. 

[18] Order 21 rule 2 ROC reads as followsDiscontinuance of action without leave (O. 21 r. 2) (1) The plaintiff in an action begun by writ may, without the leave of the Court, discontinue the action or withdraw any particular claim made by him therein, as against any or all of the defendants at any time not later than fourteen days after the service of the defence on him or, if there are two or more defendants, of the defence last served, by serving a notice in Form 32 to that effect on the defendant concerned.” [Emphasis added] 

Issue before me 

[19] The issue before me is whether the Court can still impose the term “without liberty to file afresh” on a plaintiff like the plaintiff here who comes within Order 21 rule 2 ROC and therefore can discontinue without leave of Court. The law on abuse of Court process in relation to Order 21 rule 2 ROC 

[20] The starting principle is that a plaintiff who comes within Order 21 rule 2 ROC is entitled, prima facie, to discontinue without leave of Court. The court will normally allow the plaintiff to discontinue if he wants to, provided no injustice will be caused to the defendant. This is because it is not desirable that a plaintiff should be compelled to litigate against his will. [See Hanyo Sdn Bhd v. Marplan Sdn Bhd & Ors [1992] 1 MLJ 51 Lim Beng Choon J]. 

[21] As to when a Court will compel a plaintiff to litigate against his will, this has been explained in Hanyo Sdn Bhd v. Marplan Sdn Bhd & Ors [1992] 1 MLJ 51 by Lim Beng Choon J and reproduced in Supramaniam a/l Govindasamy v. Ravi a/l Govindasamy [2023] MLJU 1844 HC by Azizan Md Arshad JC at para 17 as follows- [17] In Hanyo Sdn Bhd v. Marplan Sdn Bhd 7 Ors [1992] 1 MLJ 51, the court, after analysing and considering the principles expressed by three cases related to the withdrawal or termination of the action, namely the cases of (i)Costanho v. Brown & Root (UK) Ltd & Anor [1981] AC 557, (ii) Covell Mathews & Partners v. French Wools Ltd [1977] 2 All ER 591, and (iii) Oversea Union Finance Ltd v. Lim Joo Chong [1971] 2 MLJ 124, held as follows: “The principles that can be extracted from the aforementioned cases are that the court would not compel a Plaintiff to continue his action against a Defendant if he does not want to do so provided no injustice is cause to the Defendant. Injustice would be caused to the Defendant if: 

(1) the discontinuance was made with ulterior motive to obtain a collateral advantage as in the case of Costanho v. Brown & Root Ltd; 

(2) the discontinuance was not made bona fide by the Plaintiff but it was made in order to obtain an advantage to which he has no right to retain since he has ceased to be dominis litis as the defendant has perfectly good defence - see Oversea Union Finance Ltd v. Lim Foo Chong; [2024] CLJU 127  

(3) by the discontinuance of the action the defendant would be deprived of an advantage which he has already gained in the litigation - see Covell Matthews & Partners v. French Wools Ltd. (see also Crestronics (M) Sdn Bhd Iwn Panasonic Manufacturing Malaysia Bhd [2021] MLJU 2845) 

[22] In my view, if a Court does not wish to compel a litigant to litigate against his will, the Court can still impose the term “without liberty to file afresh on the same matter set out in the present suit ” on a plaintiff who comes within Order 21 rule 2 ROC who can discontinue without leave of Court, if the Court finds that the discontinuance is an abuse of the process of the Court. There will be an abuse of the process of the Court if the true purpose for filing the suit is something other than to obtain a remedy provided by law, and the discontinuance of the suit comes after the plaintiff arising from the filing of the said suit has achieved an advantage to the prejudice of the defendant. 

[23] Support for this view can be gathered from Jasa Keramat Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Monatech (M) Sdn Bhd [1999] 4 MLJ 637 at 645 CA Gopal Sri Ram JCA, Mohd Sumali bin Reduan (bertindak dalam kapasiti sebagai pegawai awam untuk dan bagi pihak Pertubuhan Kebangsaan Melayu Bersatu) & Anor v. Shabudin bin Yahaya [2020] MLJU 1908 HC, Wong Hok Chong JC and The Malaysian Civil Procedure 2021 Volume 1 paragraph 21/2/2 Sweet & Maxwell. 

[24] This is what the Court of Appeal said in Jasa Keramat Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Monatech (M) Sdn Bhd [1999] 4 MLJ 637 at 645 CA via Gopal Sri Ram JCAAbuse of process It is trite that a person who has a legitimate grievance may invoke the court's process to obtain redress. But cases may arise where the true purpose for invoking the court's process is something other than to obtain a remedy provided by law. It may be to oppress a defendant. Or it may be to apply pressure upon him which the law regards as illegitimate. Or it may be to merely commence an action and let it hang over the head of the defendant with no intention of bringing it to a conclusion (see Grovit & Ors v. Doctor & Ors [1997] 2 All ER 417). Or the plaintiff having commenced an action may take steps to discontinue it after the defendant has become dominis litis, thereby preventing the defendant from obtaining vindication through a judgment of the court. In the last instance, the court will refuse to permit discontinuance, or if a notice of discontinuance has been filed, will set it aside and direct the action to proceed (see Overseas Union Finance Ltd v. Lim Joo Chong [1971] 2 MLJ 124; Castanho v. Brown & Root (UK) Ltd & Anor [1981] AC 557). A fairly recent decision on the point is that of the English Court of Appeal in Gilham v. Browning & Anor [1998] 2 All ER 68. It was a case where the defendant's discontinuance of his counterclaim before the county court was held to be an abuse of process. it was there held that whether in a particular case there was an abuse would be a question of fact and degree. Since the circumstances in which the court's process may be abused are varied and numerous, the categories of such cases are therefore not closed. [Emphasis added] 

[25] Another relevant authority is Mohd Sumali bin Reduan (bertindak dalam kapasiti sebagai pegawai awam untuk dan bagi pihak Pertubuhan Kebangsaan Melayu Bersatu) & Anor v. Shabudin bin Yahaya [2020] MLJU 1908 HC, where Wong Hok Chong JC saidNo Leave Required [14] As the Defence has not been filed, the Plaintiff is entitled to withdraw the Writ without leave - that is as of right - without the Court imposing any conditions. It is implicit that the Plaintiff has liberty to file afresh because the matter has not been decided on the merits and is thus not res judicata. In fact, they could have done so by just serving a notice on the Defendant, without the instant application. [15] It is only where leave is required to withdraw the Writ that the Defendant may move the court to impose conditions -such as it be withdrawn with no liberty to file afresh. This is not the case here. Proviso - No Abuse of Process [16] The only proviso is that the withdrawal must not be tantamount to an abuse of process, where the Plaintiffs have already obtained a substantial advantage in the action to the prejudice of the Defendant. There is no evidence of that here. [Emphasis added] 

Application of law to the facts 

[26] I have perused the facts. It shows that the withdrawal of the defamation suit is an abuse of process as the plaintiff arising from the filing of the suit has already obtained a substantial advantage to the prejudice of the defendant. 

[27] This is because after the filing of the defamation suit on 26-04-2023 the plaintiff’s solicitors, on the same day, have written to Suhakam stating that Suhakam is prohibited by Section 12[3] of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999 from investigating the complaints made by the defendant against the plaintiff once the plaintiff has filed a suit against the defendant for lodging the said complaints. It was upon this premise that Suhakam on 23-05-2023 agreed to stop their enquiry into the conduct of the plaintiff. [See letter from the plaintiff’s solicitors to Suhakam dated 26-04-2023 at pages 34 – 35 of the defendant’s Affidavit in Reply and letter from SUHAKAM to the Defendant dated 23-05-2023 at pages 26 – 27 of the defendant’s Affidavit in Reply]. 

[28] The plaintiff in his supporting affidavit has not stated any reason for seeking a discontinuance of his defamation suit now. He has further not given any reason why he sought a withdrawal with liberty to file afresh. His silence does not dispel the suspicion that the filing of the suit is an abuse of process for the reasons I have stated above. 

[29] I also note that in Mega Crystal Network Sdn Bhd v. Yayasan Selangor & Ors [2020] MLJU 133 HC, Julie Lack JC refused to grant liberty to file afresh as the plaintiff there failed to provide good reasons for the discontinuance. 

[30] It is therefore right that the Court can and should impose the term “without liberty to file afresh on the same matter set out in the present suit” on the discontinuance by the plaintiff here. As stated by the Court of Appeal in Jasa Keramat Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Monatech (M) Sdn Bhd [1999] 4 MLJ 637 at 645 CA via Gopal Sri Ram JCA the Court must be vigilant to ensure that its process is not abused by a litigant. 

[31] To allow a discontinuance with liberty to file afresh, when there has been an abuse of the process, would make a mockery of the law such that right-thinking members of the public will think “The law is an ass - an idiot”, to quote Charles Dickens’ memorable phrase in his novel Oliver Twist. 

Decision 

[32] I allow the discontinuance with no liberty to file afresh on the same matter set out in the present suit. The plaintiff is to pay costs of RM 5,000 to the defendant subject to allocatur. 

Dated: 26 JANUARY 2023 [2024] 

(LEONG WAI HONG) 

Judicial Commissioner High Court of Malaya Kuala Lumpur (NCVC 10) 

COUNSEL: For the plaintiff - Syed Afiq Syed Albakri & Zharif Nizamuddin, Petaling Jaya 

For the defendant - Gokul Radhakrishnan & Sreenevasan, Kuala Lumpur 

Andrew Khoo watching brief for SUHAKAM 

CASES REFERRED TO: 

Castanho v. Brown & Root (UK) Ltd & Anor [1981] AC 557. 

Covell Mathews & Partners v. French Wools Ltd [1977] 2 All ER 591. 

Crestronics (M) Sdn Bhd Iwn Panasonic Manufacturing Malaysia Bhd [2021] MLJU 2845 

Grovit & Ors v. Doctor & Ors [1997] 2 All ER 417. 

Gilham v. Browning & Anor [1998] 2 All ER 68. 

Hanyo Sdn Bhd v. Marplan Sdn Bhd 7 Ors [1992] 1 MLJ 51. 

Jasa Keramat Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Monatech (M) Sdn Bhd [1999] 4 MLJ 637 CA. 

Mega Crystal Network Sdn Bhd v. Yayasan Selangor & Ors [2020] MLJU 133 HC. 

Mohd Sumali bin Reduan (bertindak dalam kapasiti sebagai pegawai awam untuk dan bagi pihak Pertubuhan Kebangsaan Melayu Bersatu) & Anor v . Shabudin bin Yahaya [2020] MLJU 1908 HC. 

Overseas Union Finance Ltd v. Lim Joo Chong [1971] 2 MLJ 124. [2024] CLJU 127 Legal Network Series 2 

Supramaniam a/l Govindasamy v. Ravi a/l Govindasamy [2023] MLJU 1844 HC 

BOOKS REFERRED TO: 

Oliver Twist. 

The Malaysian Civil Procedure 2021 Volume 1 paragraph 21/2/2 Sweet & Maxwell.

REKOD SUHAKAM MEMBUKTIKAN DAKWAAN LIBERAL DAN MENYEBAR AGENDA BARAT ADALAH PALSU

Isu Saman Sivil

Baru-baru ini timbul kekecohan apabila Pengerusi SUHAKAM, Rahmat Mohamad, telah mengambil tindakan memfailkan saman sivil terhadap pegawai SUHAKAM kerana pegawai tersebut membuat aduan dalaman berkaitan salahgunakuasa dan diskriminasi terhadap beliau. Fakta sebenar berkaitan aduan tersebut tidak kita ketahui kecuali melalui dokumen awam yang diperolehi iaitu ‘kenyataan tuntutan’ yang dibuat oleh Pengerusi SUHAKAM. Masyarakat awam masih belum mendengar daripada pihak yang mengadu kerana ‘kenyataan membela diri’ masih belum difailkan. 

Apabila terdapat kritikan daripada masyarakat madani tentang tindakan tersebut yang dilihat sebagai cubaan menyekat siasatan dijalankan, Rahmat bersetuju menarik semula saman berkenaan dan membuat pelbagai janji yang luarbiasa. Namun apa yang membimbangkan adalah kenyataan yang dikeluarkan oleh SUHAKAM seperti yang dilaporkan secara meluas oleh media, tidak secara jelas menyatakan siasatan akan dibuat berkenaan aduan rasmi terhadap Pengerusi SUHAKAM sebaliknya siasatan akan dilaksana ke atas segala dakwaan dan aduan yang telah didedahkan kepada media tidak kira melibatkan pesuruhjaya atau pegawai. 

Kenyataan ini seolah-olah membayangkan siasatan bukanlah berkaitan aduan rasmi terhadap Rahmat sebaliknya berasaskan apa yang dilaporkan oleh media termasuklah terhadap pegawai. Dari satu sudut, ia mengandungi unsur ugutan terhadap pegawai yang telah membuat aduan.  Manakala tuntutan masyarakat madani supaya Rahmat mengambil cuti sementara siasatan bebas berkenaan aduan rasmi yang dibuat terhadap beliau dijalankan tidak diendahkan. 

Walau bagaimanapun, ketika saya cuba mencari kenyataan SUHAKAM  tersebut di laman sesawang SUHAKAM, saya tidak dapat menjumpainya sebaliknya SUHAKAM hanya mengeluarkan kenyataan ringkas di sini (https://suhakam.org.my/2023/06/press-statement-no-17-2023_-withdrawal-of-defamation-suit-to-facilitate-independent-investigation-into-allegations-kenyataan-media-suhakam-no-17-2023_-penarikan-balik-saman-fitnah-untuk-membantu-si/). Adakah SUHAKAM telah menarik balik kenyataan yang dibuat terdahulu atau terdapat usaha ‘manouvering’ sebelum kenyataan rasmi dikeluarkan oleh SUHAKAM. Mungkin SUHAKAM lebih sesuai memberikan penjelasan berkenaan perkara ini. 

Tuduhan liberal dan agenda barat

Isu tersebut tidak terhenti di situ sahaja. Pertubuhan Muslim kemudiannya membuat  pelbagai andaian, spekulasi dan tuduhan berhubung skandal yang berlaku di SUHAKAM. Tuduhan tersebut adalah seperti adanya usaha dalam kalangan puak liberal di SUHAKAM untuk menjatuhkan Rahmat kerana beliau berusaha membawa hak asasi manusia di Malaysia selari dengan Islam dan mewujudkan kerjasama dengan NGO Islam yang mana tidak pernah dilaksana oleh SUHAKAM sebelum ini. Benarkah dakwaan ini? Sehingga sekarang tiada kenyataan dikeluarkan oleh SUHAKAM berkenaan dakwaan ini. Mungkin benar kata Rahmat, SUHAKAM lebih gemar bekerja secara senyap di belakang tabir sekarang ini. Peliknya, bila menyentuh isu Pengerusi SUHAKAM, cepat sahaja kenyataan dikeluarkan.

 

Perlu kita sedar bahawa SUHAKAM telah ditubuhkan sejak tahun 2000. Sepanjang penubuhan SUHAKAM, terdapat ramai tokoh agamawan negara yang disegani masyarakat telah dilantik sebagai Pesuruhjaya SUHAKAM antaranya adalah Prof Madya Dr Nik Salida Suhaila Nik Salleh dilantik dari tahun 2016-2022; Allahyarham Prof Emeritus Dato’ Dr Mahmood Zuhdi Hj A Majid yang dilantik menjadi pesuruhjaya SUHAKAM dari tahun 2010 – 2016; Allahyarham Datuk Dr.Muhammad Uthman El-Muhammady menjadi pesuruhjaya SUHAKAM dari tahun 2006 – 2008; dan Prof. Dato’ Dr. Abdul Monir Yaacob menjadi Pesuruhjaya SUHAKAM dari tahun 2002 – 2010. Pelantikan mereka sebelum ini sebagai Pesuruhjaya SUHAKAM tidak pernah dipertikaikan oleh mana-mana pihak dan tiada pula usaha menjatuhkan mereka. Sekiranya kita menerima tuduhan yang dicanangkan oleh Pertubuhan Muslim tersebut, adakah semua bekas pesuruhjaya SUHAKAM ini adalah tokoh liberal dan menyebarkan agenda barat di Malaysia melalui SUHAKAM sebelum ini? 

Sekiranya budaya ‘Iqra’ diamalkan, sudah pasti ramai yang sedar bahawa tuduhan terhadap SUHAKAM tersebut adalah palsu. Ini kerana SUHAKAM bukanlah institusi yang bergerak secara rahsia. Segala aktiviti SUHAKAM dilaporkan di dalam laporan tahunannya dan kewangan SUHAKAM diaudit oleh Jabatan Audit Negara. Berdasarkan kepada Laporan Tahunan SUHAKAM yang dikeluarkan setiap tahun, terdapat pelbagai program yang melibatkan badan dan tokoh agama Islam serta isu-isu hak asasi manusia yang berkaitan Umat Islam diperjuangkan oleh SUHAKAM. 

Program Hak Asasi Manusia dan Islam

Antara program tersebut adalah Perbincangan Meja Bulat berkaitan ‘Hak Asasi Manusia dan Islam’ pada 20 Mac 2012 anjuran SUHAKAM dan International Institutes of Advanced Islamic Studies (IAIS) Malaysia, ‘Seminar Hak Asasi Manusia dan Islam di Malaysia: Teori, Hakikat Semasa dan Halatuju Masa Depan’ pada 27 – 28 November 2013 anjuran SUHAKAM dan Institut Kefahaman Islam Malaysia (IKIM) dan Seminar Kebangsaan Mengenai Islam dan Hak Asasi Manusia pada 27 November 2018 anjuran SUHAKAM dengan kerjasama Jabatan Kemajuan Islam Malaysia (JAKIM); Seminar Masjid Mesra OKU pada 20 Oktober 2018. 

Selain itu SUHAKAM pada tahun 2018, telah terlibat menyediakan 5 teks khutbah Jumaat berkaitan topik hak asasi manusia kepada Jabatan Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan dan Jabatan Hal Ehwal Agama Islam Negeri Sembilan. Lima teks Khutbah yang telah disediakan oleh SUHAKAM untuk JAWI dan JHEAINS seperti berikut:

 

BIL.	INPUT YANG DIKEMUKAKAN OLEH SUHAKAM	KHUTBAH JUMAAT BERDASARKAN INPUT YANG DIKEMUKAKAN OLEH SUHAKAM	TARIKH KHUTBAH JUMAAT DIBACA
1.	Hak kepada Kesihatan	Khutbah khas memperingati Israk Mikraj – JAWI	13 April 2018
2.	Hak Pelarian	Kemuliaan Membela Golongan Teraniaya – JAWI	6 Julai 2018
3.	Hak Orang Asli	Demi Islam Demi Negara – JAWI	31 Ogos 2018
4.	Hak kepada Pelindungan daripada Seksaan dan Hukuman atau layanan zalim, tidak berperikemanusiaan atau menjatuhkan maruah	Hak Perlindungan daripada Kezaliman - JAWI	26 Oktober 2018
5.	Menyantuni Orang Kurang Upaya	Malaysia Harmoni – JAWI Menyantuni Orang Kurang Upaya - JHEAINS	7 Disember 2018

Jika kita menerima logik yang dibawakan oleh kenyataan pertubuhan Muslim tersebut, sudah pasti IAIS Malaysia, IKIM, JAKIM, JAWI, JHEAINS turut berkomplot dengan SUHAKAM untuk mengembangkan agenda barat dan liberal dan khutbah Jumaat yang telah dibaca di masjid-masjid berkenaan menjadi alat penyebaran tersebut. Selain itu, Laporan Tahunan SUHAKAM juga ada melaporkan bahawa SUHAKAM aktif menganjurkan Program Literasi Hak Asasi Manusia untuk Jabatan Agama Islam Negeri untuk memberikan kesedaran berkaitan isu hak asasi manusia kepada pegawai jabatan agama negeri sejak 2017. Adakah jabatan agama Islam negeri juga telah terpengaruh dengan ideologi barat dan liberal SUHAKAM? 

Apabila isu kebakaran sekolah tafiz berlaku pada tahun 2017, SUHAKAM adalah antara institusi terawal menganjurkan siri Bengkel Hak Asasi Manusia dan Hak Kanak-Kanak untuk pentadbir sekolah tahfiz di negeri-negeri. SUHAKAM bukan sekadar mengadakan program kesedaran dan seminar malah turut membawa isu hak asasi manusia yang melibatkan kepentingan umat Islam tersebut kepada Majlis Raja-Raja apabila mengadakan pertemuan dengan Penyimpan Mohor Besar Raja-Raja pada 1 Oktober 2019, bagi mengemukakan tiga isu untuk pertimbangan dan perbincangan Majlis Raja-Raja iaitu isu pendaftaran sekolah tahfiz, perkahwinan bawah umur dan masjid mesra orang kurang upaya. 

Semua program dan libaturus ini dijalankan oleh SUHAKAM sebelum Rahmat dan pasukan pesuruhjayanya dilantik sekarang ini. Justeru, di manakah asasnya dakwaan bahawa SUHAKAM sebelum ini membawa agenda barat dan liberal bertentangan dengan Perlembagaan Persekutuan. SUHAKAM sendiri telah menjawab dengan tegas dan jelas terhadap pelbagai tuduhan palsu  pada 14 Januari 2022 (https://suhakam.org.my/ms/2022/01/towards-the-realisation-of-human-rights-for-all/). 

Janganlah kuman di seberang laut nampak, gajah di depan mata tak nampak, dengan menafikan pelbagai usaha besar yang telah dilaksanakan oleh SUHAKAM selama ini dari aspek Islam dan hak asasi manusia.

Geran EU

Isu geran Kesatuan Eropah (EU) yang diperolehi SUHAKAM juga dipertikaikan. Perlu kita ketahui bahawa Akta SUHAKAM membenarkan SUHAKAM menerima geran daripada pihak luar bagi tujuan pendidikan dan promosi hak asasi manusia. Berdasarkan kepada laporan tahunan SUHAKAM, penerimaan geran daripada EU kali ini adalah bukan untuk kali pertama. Selain daripada geran EU, SUHAKAM melaporkan di dalam laporan tahunan 2018 penerimaan geran daripada Program Pembangunan Pertubuhan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu (UNDP) untuk untuk menganjurkan tiga forum “Mempromosikan Persefahaman dan Pemakaian Prinsip Panduan PBB mengenai Perniagaan dan Hak Asasi Manusia (UNGP)” di Terengganu, Putrajaya dan Johor masing-masing pada 12, 16 dan 20 Ogos 2018.

Malahan untuk Geran EU yang diterima oleh SUHAKAM pada tahun 2018 telah digunakan untuk mendanai Seminar Kebangsaan Mengenai Islam dan Hak Asasi Manusia pada 27 November 2018 dengan kerjasama JAKIM di Pusat Dagangan Dunia Putra (sekarang dikenali Pusat Dagangan Dunia). Antara ahli panel seminar tersebut ialah Prof. Dato’ Dr. Abdul Monir Yaacob (Universiti Islam Malaysia), Prof. Dr. Mohd Azizudin Mohd Sani (Universiti Utara Malaysia), Prof. Madya Dr. Mohamed Azam Mohamed Adil (sekarang Ketua Pengarah IKIM), YB Prof. Dato’ Dr. Hj Mohd Naim Hj. Mokhtar (sekarang Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri), Prof. Datin Dr. Raihanah Abdullah (UM) dan Tuan Umar Mukhtar (Pejabat Mufti Wilayah Persekutuan). 

Geran EU yang sama juga telah digunakan oleh SUHAKAM untuk menjalankan kajian terhadap kesesuaian deklarasi dan triti hak asasi manusia antarabangsa yang utama dengan undang-undang sivil dan syariah di Malaysia. Hasil kajian tersebut dikongsikan oleh SUHAKAM di sini https://suhakam.org.my/ms/publications/international-human-rights-treaties/. Berdasarkan laporan-laporan tersebut, mereka yang dilantik oleh SUHAKAM menjalankan kajian berkenaan adalah seperti berikut:   

 

Kajian dan Analisis Mengenai Keserasian Undang-undang Sivil dan Syariah di Malaysia dengan Triti di bawah	Pengkaji
Kovenan Antarabangsa Mengenai Ekonomi (ICESCR)	A.Shanmuga Kanesalingam, Sivananthi Thanenthiran Edmund Bon Tai Soon Nawmi Naz Chowdhury Beatrice Chin Yuen Xin Kee Hui Yee
Kovenan Antarabangsa Mengenai Hak Sivil dan Politik (ICCPR)	Dato’ Aishah Bidin Shereen Khan
Konvensyen Antarabangsa Perlindungan Semua Orang daripada Kehilangan Paksa (ICPPED)	Prof. Madya Dr Mohd Hisham Mohd Kamal Dr. Zuraini Ab Hamid Dr. Mohd Yazid Zul Kepli
Konvensyen Antarabangsa Perlindungan Hak Semua Pekerja Migran dan Ahli Kelaurga Mereka (ICMW)	Prof. Madya Dr Salawati Mat Basir Dr. Saidatul Nadia Binti Abd Aziz Prof. Madya Dr. Haniff Ahamat
Konvensyen Menentang Penyeksaan , Layanan Kejam, Tidak Berperikemanusiaan dan Menjatuhkan Maruah (UNCAT)	Encik Edmund Bon Tai Soon, AmerBon Advocates Edmund Bon Tai Soon Shazeera Zawawi New Sin Yew Chin Yuen Xin Ryan Vong Junying
Konvensyen Antarabangsa Penghapusan Segala Bentuk Diskriminasi Kaum(ICERD)	Prof Dr Mohd Azizuddin Mohd Sani Prof. Madya Dr. Nor Idayu Mahat Prof. Madya Dr. Ummu Atiyah Ahmad Zakuan
Perisytiharan PBB Mengenai Hak Orang Asal (UNDRIP)	Dr Izawati Wook Dr. Rohaida Nordin Dr. Muhamad Sayuti Hassan

 

Adakah semua mereka yang dinyatakan yang terlibat dalam program dan kajian yang didanai melalui Geran EU oleh SUHAKAM sebelum ini turut terlibat dalam menyebarkan agenda Barat dan liberal sebagaimana dakwaan Pertubuhan Muslim tersebut? Kenapa sekarang timbul isu Geran EU dan tidak sebelumnya? Berfikirlah dan telitilah laporan-laporan yang dibuat secara adil. Berdasarkan fakta-fakta yang dikemukakan daripada laporan-laporan yang diterbitkan SUHAKAM, nilailah secara adil sama ada dakwaan terhadap SUHAKAM tersebut adalah benar atau sekadar propaganda bagi memesong isu sebenar dan melindungi individu tertentu.

Sejarah di mana-mana negara di dunia termasuk Malaysia telah mengajar kita bahawa terdapat pihak yang akan cuba mempergunakan Agama untuk melindungi sebarang salahlaku atau penyelewengan. Kita telah melihat ini berlaku dalam kes  berkaitan 1MDB apabila segala dakwaan berkaitannya dituduh sebagai agenda orang bukan Islam terhadap pemimpin Islam dan sebagainya sehinggalah kes tersebut berjaya dibuktikan di mahkamah malah diperakui berlaku oleh mereka yang terlibat.  Iqtibas daripada peringatan Allah dalam Surah Al-Hujurat, saya ingin mengingatkan “Wahai Pertubuhan Muslim, jika datang kepada kamu orang yang fasik membawa berita, maka periksalah dengan teliti agar kamu tidak menimpakan suatu musibah kepada suatu Institusi yang telah memberikan sumbangan kepada pelbagai golongan maysrakat rentan secara jahil, maka jadilah kamu menyesal atas perbuatanmu itu.”

 

HAMKA