Good Suhakam, Bad Suhakam

SUHAKAM, the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia, has made not one but two articles in today's newspapers.

One is in conjunction with the release of a report titled Human Rights and the Administration of the Law (Executive Summary [PDF] and Full Report [PDF]). This is reported in The Star and The New Straits Times.

In particular, the newspaper reports focus on extended remand periods, when suspects are moved between one prison and the next. A person under remand is not under arrest, but the police are investigating and there is a risk of the suspect fleeing. The law only allows a maximum remand of 14 days. However, it is possible to get around this restriction by bringing a suspect to a police station under another jurisdiction and applying for another remand.

The report itself says:

"'Road Show Remand' is a term coined to describe the situation where a suspect is arrested by the Police and is subsequently remanded by a Magistrate in a particular jurisdiction. Upon the expiration of the remand period by the Magistrate in the first jurisdiction, the suspect is then detained at another police station and remanded by a Magistrate in another jurisdiction. Upon the expiration of the remand period by the Magistrate in the second jurisdiction, the suspect is again detained in a third police station and subsequently remanded by the Magistrate in a third jurisdiction and process of remand goes on. The suspect may therefore be continuously remanded for a long period of time."
Human Rights and the Administration of the Law, Executive Summary, page VI, Footnote 11

Anyway, it seems that in one case, someone was effectively held for 77 days in remand, which is some way over the 14-day limit. He died in hospital while still under police custody.

ON THE OTHER HAND, SUHAKAM has also released a media statement titled Whipping Demonstrations Against the Spirit of Children's Rights (PDF). This is reported in The Star and The Sun.

This one, I have a tough time figuring out. I don't think SUHAKAM has done itself any favours. The way it is reported in the press, it makes it sound as if whipping demonstrations in schools are bad because children should not be exposed to such cruel and excessive punishment. On the other hand, I've never seen SUHAKAM comment about excessive violence on TV, and then one man's violence is another man's entertainment.

However, if you read the press release, they have this to say:

The Human Rights Committee of the United Nations, which is established to monitor the implementation of ICCPR in member states, has recommended that torture, cruel and degrading treatment must extend to corporal punishment including excessive chastisement as an educational or disciplinary measure.
Accordingly, demonstration of whipping which is taken as educational and
disciplinary measure is contrary to international standards.
SUHAKAM media statement, "SUHAKAM: WHIPPING DEMONSTRATIONS AGAINST THE SPIRIT OF CHILDREN’S RIGHTS", 27 May 2004

In other words, they are first saying that whipping is "excessive chastisement" and then to say that you shouldn't use this as an educational measure. The link is sort of there, and yet not made clear at all in the newspapers.

Personally, I think that the link was originally made by the UN in relation to corporal punsihment in schools (you know, caning, knuckle-rapping and the like), and to extend it to this is a bit of a stretch. Are you saying that students shouldn't be told and shown what happens to lawbreakers when they are punished under accordance of the law? Are you saying that the law is excessive in the first place?

Part of the fight for human rights is in the communication. If this comment on whipping degenerates into an "I'm right, you're wrong" argument between the Government and SUHAKAM, we will have take a step backwards.