Human Rights Conference
Did you know that SUHAKAM (Suruhanjaya Hak Asasi Malaysia or the Malaysian Commission for Human Rights) is overseen by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Highly appropriate? Well, the official line is that doing so makes it easier to provide high visibility to foreign parties. I shan't comment too much on how this all fits in with the role of SUHAKAM except that part of it's responsibilities is to highlight and educate Malaysians on their rights.

As part of this outreach, they are currently holding a conference on human rights and the administration of the law. I've joined the motley crew of Government officers and NGOs in this two day workshop.

Mention "human rights" in Malaysia, and you get the comment "we have those things here?". Well, it seems we do. And contrary to popular belief, human rights isn't just the concern of the Government but of all Malaysians. With greater priviliege comes responsibility.

Here are some questions I would like to see answered:

• Does the incorporation of human rights imply a reduction in the Government's efficiency to govern?
  
• Is human rights something that must be present in word and deed but is separated? I.e. that the law and implementation are separate issues?
  
• Is human rights always a result of implementing check and balance or can it exist as an independant virtue?
  

---
The Deputy Prime Minister was meant to give the keynote speech but affairs of the state meant that he had to miss this appointment. The second time, it seems, that the Malaysian head of government was invited by SUHAKAM but was not able to attend.

The speech itself was interesting. Points made were:

• The Government, including law enforcement agencies, supports the law and the Constitution.
  
• Inefficiencies and abuse in any level of the Government are not condoned. The credibility of the Government must be maintained.
  
• Members of the forces are in the frontline defending national safety and they have to work under harsh circumstances.
  
• There exist procedural pitfalls and technicalities.
  
• Any shortcomings must be quickly investigated, action taken and the relevant processes changed as necessary. This includes any constraints that the forces are working under and efficiency must be maintained.
  
  

---
A very interesting talk just now which brought up some food for thought. I am suddenly intrigued with the concept of citizen duty that comes with rights.

It's quite a simple idea on the surface that rights and freedom cannot come without responsibility and duty. The more rights that you are given, the more opportunity you have to abuse them.

Hence there is this concept that a citizen has a duty to be a good citizen. Anybody who doesn't meet hs duty runs the risk of forfeiting his rights. For example, all citizens have a right to live, but there are circumstances under which the state can impose the death penalty.

However, for me, here is the crux: Who determines whether a citizen has been negligent in his duties?

In one sense, the answer is simply "the courts". You may have freedom of speech, but if you have said something libellous, you may be restrained by the courts from repeating this.

This is why we have laws. Laws help the courts implement justice. Law enforcement authorities use the law to help determine if somebody needs to be arrested and brought before the courts. And the laws are made public so that no citizen can claim that they didn't what they did was against the law.

Now, what happens if the Government enacts laws that restrict freedoms, based on the idea that citizens have not been doing or cannot be trusted to do their duty?

I maintain that in the end, it is the Government that determines whether or not citizens have been negligent in their duty. Citizens must put their trust in their government that the people they have elected into office will not abuse this priveliege.