The Challenge to Ratify Universal Human Rights Conventions
By Rama Ramanathan
Tan Sri Hasmy Agam, head of Malaysia’s Human Rights Commission (Suhakam), Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah, head of Malaysia’s Global Movement of Moderates (GMMF), Proham, an association of former Malaysian Human Rights Commissioners, and many others have urged Malaysia to ratify 7 additional United Nations Core Human Rights instruments by 2020.
The UN’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Malaysia which was conducted on 24 October 2013 continues to be widely discussed.
On 9 December, Proham and GMMF hosted a discussion on the UPR. It included presentations from constitutional expert Professor Shad Saleem Faruqi and Malaysia’s OIC Human Rights Commissioner and specialist in Islamic law, Professor Raihanah Abdullah and Datuk Dr Denison Jayasooria, Principal Research Fellow at UKM and a former Human Rights Commissioner.
On 10 December, the world observed United Nations Day. On this day Tan Sri Hasmy Agam, a retired career diplomat who has often defended Malaysia on the international scene, spoke at a Suhakam/UN event in Kuala Lumpur. He said Suhakam would urge the government to ratify all core UN instruments. He also said Suhakam will meet with Malaysian stakeholders to discuss the UPR. The list of invitees will include MuslimUPRo.
On 15 December, Berita Minggu published an article by Azril Mohd Amin, who led MuslimUPro, a coalition of Muslim NGO’s to the UPR process in Geneva; Azril is also vice president of Malaysia’s Muslim Lawyers Association.
Titled “Cabaran meratifikasi konvensyen hak asasi manusia sejagat” (“The Challenge to ratify Universal Human Rights Conventions”), the article names Hasmy Agam, Saifuddin and Proham.
We will not rehearse what the article says about them. It is enough to note that Hasmy was appointed by the Yang di Pertuan Agung; Saifuddin was appointed by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak and Proham is composed of persons who had been appointed Human Rights Commissioners by careful processes.
The article, seemingly speaking for Muslims in Malaysia, says nothing of the fact that the official Malaysian delegation to the first UPR in 2008 had about 100 members, whilst the second, in 2013 had 36 members. A majority of the official delegates were Muslims.
The article says nothing about Malaysia courting the UN – all our Prime Ministers, all of them Muslims, have taken the UN seriously: our current Prime Minister announced the creation of the GMMF in a speech to the United Nations. GMMF’s goal is to demonstrate to the world how wasattiah (“justly balanced moderation”) can be applied to promote world peace; our diplomats are hard at work to get us a seat on the UN Security Council.
The article fails to acknowledge the wider diplomatic picture, and fails to take into account what 104 nations – including 34 Muslim-majority nations – said. It’s easy to dismiss it as mere ranting. Yet, it’s worth engaging, because it offers an opportunity to examine some common arguments against ratification.
(a) Argument # 1: We have already done much to ensure that Malaysians enjoy a high standard of human rights; therefore we don’t need external standards.
If we have such great enjoyment of human rights, why are Penans protesting the loss of their lands? Why do we have deaths in custody? Why do our policemen and prison wardens work in such filthy, degraded conditions? Why do Indonesia and Bangladesh ask us to improve our treatment of their nationals who work here?
Should we also say that airplanes and drugs developed or used in Malaysia don’t need to be subject to international standards?
Just as all decent businesses sign-up to standards and invite third parties to audit them, many countries do the same. So should we. We should state our aspirations and welcome scrutiny, so that we can be world leaders, not mere followers.
(b) Argument # 2: The number of instruments signed by a nation is not a sufficient measure of the enjoyment of human rights in that nation.
This ‘argument’ is what logicians call a straw-man: saying something which no one is saying, and then cutting it to shreds with sharp arguments.
The fact that we have a law doesn’t necessarily mean we apply it. Just consider how few are prosecuted for giving and receiving bribes in Malaysia, though we acknowledge corruption is a major problem: we even have billboards about corruption in the arrival hall at Kuala Lumpur International Airport.
Ratification is a commitment to an aspiration and a process of improvement, not proof of excellence.
(c) Argument # 3: The ranking of countries according to how many instruments they have signed has no value.
As argued in (b) above, the ranking shows aspiration. Isn’t it worth knowing whether a country aspires to achieve at least a “minimum standard?”
Since the instruments are the result of consensus, and reservations can be placed on selected requirements within each instrument, it’s clear that those who rank low are those who don’t aspire to be better.
In Geneva we as a nation impressed our peers with our presentation of the Government and Economic Transformation Programs. Many of the measures used in these programs are ranking-based. Why would we not do the same for nations?
(d) Argument # 4: Proponents of ratification should not appeal to ratifications by Muslim-majority nations as an encouragement for ratification by Malaysia.
