NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS ACTION PLAN

Legal Affairs Division

Prime Minister’s Department

SEMINAR PROCEEDINGS

NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS ACTION PLAN

24 & 25 MAY 2012


1 Legal Affairs Division, Prime Minister’s Office

CONTENTS

NO. INDEX PAGE

1. INTRODUCTION 2

2. ORGANISATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS 2

3. OVERVIEW OF SEMINAR

OPENING CEREMONY

3

3

4. SESSION 1 - INTRODUCTORY

SESSION 2 - FORUM

SESSION 3 - FORUM

5

11

19

5. FINDINGS 27

6. CONCLUSION 30

7. APPENDICES:

A. Organising Committee members and Secretariat

B. Seminar program

C. List of participants

D. List of guests for the opening ceremony

E. List of speakers & moderators

F. Opening speech by the honourable Dato’ Seri

Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz, Minister in the Prime

Ministers Department

G. The Role of National Human Rights Action Plan by

Mr. Laurent Meillan

H. Power point presentation by Rosette Gilda Librea

I. Power point presentation by Cik Shazelina Zainul

Abidin

J. Power point presentation by Dr. Mohd Azizuddin bin

Mohd Sani

31



1. INTRODUCTION

The Legal Affairs Division, Prime Minister’s Department of Malaysia organised a Seminar on

National Human Rights Action Plan (NHRAP) on 24 and 25 May 2012 at the Institute of

Diplomacy and Foreign Relations (IDFR), Kuala Lumpur. Participants included

representatives of Ministries and 13 government agencies. The purpose of the seminar was to

raise awareness among government officers on the concept of NHRAP, expose them to

international best practices related to the development of the document and provide them the

opportunity to share and exchange ideas on the subject.

2. ORGANISATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS

This proceeding records presentations and discussions from the seminar. The order of the

presentations which include papers presented or presentation slides and report of question and

answer sessions which follow each session are according to the seminar program. The

following are included as appendices:

i. List of Organising Committee members and Secretariat – Appendix A;

ii. Seminar program - Appendix B;

iii. List of participants - Appendix C;

iv. List of guests for the opening ceremony – Appendix D;

v. List of speakers & moderators - Appendix E;

vi. Opening speech by the honourable Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz, Minister in

the Prime Ministers Department - Appendix F.



3. OVERVIEW OF SEMINAR

Opening Ceremony

The opening ceremony was officiated by the honourable

Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz, Minister in the

Prime Minister’s Department. Guests included the

honourable Tan Sri Hasmy Agam, Chairperson of the

Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM)

and Her Excellency Embassador Aminahtun Haji. A.

Karim, Deputy Director General of IDFR. The

ceremony was attended by officers from various

government agencies, institutions of higher learning, representatives of the SUHAKAM and

United Nations Malaysia. In his speech, honourable Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz among

others spoke of:

i. Malaysia’s obligation as a United Nation member state to uphold the principles of the

United Nations Declaration;

ii. human rights not being a static concept

and that many countries believe in each

region formulating its own structures

for protection of human rights based on

its own ideologies and cultures;

iii. NHRAP being a mechanism to ensure

human rights issues in Malaysia are

tackled structurally and strategically and that developing the Plan will require

considerable planning and effort which needs not only political support and financial

resource but a process that is transparent as well as participatory;



iv. the importance of public servants as policy makers being made aware that improving

human rights is a public policy objective and it can, and may be implemented through

the normal planning and resource allocation processes of government;

v. the seminar as a step to introduce participants to the concept and ideals of a NHRAP

and allow participants to share experiences of speakers who have played active roles in

the development of action plans specifically in the Asian region as well as discuss the

context of human rights in Malaysia; and

vi. his hope that the NHRAP that Malaysia aspires to develop will demonstrate how the

government machinery is turning commitments made at the Universal Periodic Review

into specific actions to improve and promote human rights.



DAY 1

MARCH 24 2012 (11.00 am-12.30 pm)

INTRODUCTORY SESSION

The Role of National Human Rights Action Plan

The introductory session was by Mr Laurent Meillan from the Office of the High Commissioner

of Human Rights in Bangkok, Thailand,

on the topic of The Importance of a

NHRAP. Laurent Meillan spoke on the

origin of NHRAP and its purpose. He felt

that a NHRAP is an important means to

identify human rights priorities within the

country and set time-bound goals and

programmes to meet them. To him,

although experiences of countries in

developing and implementing NHRAPs is not yet exhaustively documented and information,

especially on their implementation, is not systematically available, it is possible to draw some

lessons from practice to date, and identify some key elements of the role of NHRAPs. According

to Meillan, the experience of the past decade in developing NHRAPs has highlighted not only the

strengths and advantages of using it as a tool to pursue better respect for human rights, but also the

drawbacks and challenges that may arise.

Laurent Meillan stressed that experience from across the world shows that prerequisites for a

successful development of NHRAPs include a political commitment at the highest level, high-

level political representation on the coordinating bodies overseeing the NHRAP’s development,

and ownership of the Plan and its implementation being in the hands of the Government. Broad

participation of the various civil society sectors in the development of the Plan also ensures that

public opinion is a primary basis for identifying human rights priorities, guarantees widespread



recognition and support for the Plan, and

will encourage all interested actors to help

implement it. It also provides a platform

for citizen and their representatives to

express their views on the human rights

situation of their country.

Please refer to Appendix G for the full

text.



QUESTION AND ANSWER (Session 1)

Q1: Cik Shazelina Zainul Abidin, MOFA

Does the OHCHR ASEAN provide financial assistance for the development of National Human

Right Action Plans and how big is the allocation if any?

A: We do not have specific budgets allocated for the development of National Human Right Action

Plans. However, on request by the government, the UN Bangkok office may, tailor its existing

budget towards NHRAP. With further discussion on the subject, we may be able to work with you

and render our support especially if you can identify particular topics which you may want to work

with us on. Having said that, the UN HQ has appointed a personnel as a focal point for NHRAP

whom you may communicate with on the matter.


Why is there a relaxing by countries in coming up with NHRAP in the last 3 years? How have

countries in ASEAN been performing in terms of ratifying UN conventions and things like that?

A: In general it is true that we find less NHRAP being developed. However, in the region,

Indonesia already has two and Thailand is preparing its second document.

With the Universal Periodic Review coming up, the

situation will be very interesting. We can only assume

that governments will embrace, support or comply with

the UPR recommendations. However, NHRAPs can

become a document that binds together all these

recommendations and see how it can be implemented.

I think this is certainly not the end of National Human

Rights Action Plans.



Q4: YBhg. Datuk Dr. Denison Jayasooria, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

To what extend have there been movements within countries in ASEAN for example Indonesia,

Thailand, the Philippines and even Cambodia and Myanmar recently towards more compliance in

order to achieve healthier Human Rights situation? How can NHRAP act as key focal plan for

change in Human rights?

A: Through discussions and engagements with the 9 countries which my office is covering, we

find that these countries continue looking into UN resolutions and the UPR recommendations.

However, we have to wait for the next cycle to see how these governments are actually able to

follow the recommendations. The trend among countries in the region however, is to show a

willingness to constructively engage with us. This includes Malaysia with which communication

has improved as compared to Indonesia, the Philippines and Myanmar. As a whole, countries in

the region are doing okay in corresponding and

reporting to treaty bodies. When it comes to

Malaysia, I would like to see you identifying more

UN Conventions to ratify. At the same time, we

are concerned that there may be setbacks for

example in terms of the right to peaceful assembly

and the rights to expression.

Q5: Encik Muhammad Sha’ani Abdullah, (SUHAKAM)

Which way is more appropriate? To ratify first or to comply then ratify?

A: From my point of view, you should ratify first because once you do that you clearly express a

political commitment towards the promotion and protection of human rights. This is important for

the image of the country especially when you have ratified so little compared to others. By ratifying

you may get more support from the UN especially in terms of expertise and guidance.



Q6: Encik Nik Muhd Marzuki bin Muhd Nor, Malaysian Department of Islamic

Development (JAKIM)

How do we reconcile between UDHR (Universal Declaration on Human Rights) and CDHRI

(Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam)? How does this relate to the development of a

NHRAP?

A: From my experience in Maldives when they were drafting the constitution, it is better for

someone like me from the UN to take a seat back. At the same time we brought in experts from

other countries to engage in dialogues with parliamentarians who were involved in the drafting of

the laws. Although we find similarities between sharia

law and human rights concepts, we often say that there

is a divide. There are conflicts sometimes but they are

similar in many ways and there are shared values. The

sharia scholars brought awareness to the

parliamentarians who were then able to reconcile the

misconceptions which they once had only because they

lack knowledge. I would say it is always possible to

reconcile and that things are better left to the experts.

Q8: YBhg. Datuk Dr. Denison Jayasooria, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

Which are the countries in the OIC that have accepted the UDHR? Which have they endorsed and

where have they had reservations?

A: I cannot give you a list. However, there are countries who are already party to core human

rights conventions such as Pakistan, Yemen and Indonesia.



Q9: Encik Mohd Syahrizal Syah bin Zakaria, JAKIM

How do we reconcile or deal with contents of the NHRAP which may concern human rights issues

which at the same time touches or infringes matters which have been given special position under

the Constitution?

A: The situation depends again on whether certain conventions have been ratified. If you have

ratified than there may be treaty bodies coming in with guidelines on how the government can

move forward in terms of making changes in the law. This may sometimes be possible and

sometimes not, depending on further discussions on the issues at hand. If you ratify, it may be

easier as you will provided guidance, and recommendations from international expert bodies which

may or may not be integrated in the plan. On the other hand, if you don’t ratify, it’s more

complicated because it means that you have to do it all by yourselves with only inside expertise.

Then comes the question of how to do it in practical terms. I do not have myself the experience of

drafting the plan. However, the idea is that you establish a process during which issues such as

you have mentioned can be discussed with experts whom you bring in. Prioritizing is important as

you cannot do everything. If you have a 2 year plan for example, you’ll have to start with

something that is doable like try to amend

a law that you know you can be done in a

short period of time then maybe set up a

long term goal for those who are more

complicated and more complex. But again, my

advice would be to ratify first because you

can get recommendations from

treaty bodies and you can use that to frame the

content of your plan.



DAY 1

MARCH 24 2012 (2.00 am-4.00 pm)

SESSION 2

Drafting a Human Rights Action Plan

Session 2 : FORUM

Date : 24th May 2012

Time : 2.00 pm – 4.00 pm

Moderator : Encik Nisar Muhammad bin Ahmad

Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia

Speakers :

i. Dr. Rosette Gilda Librea

Consultant to the Ombudsman and Presidential Human Rights Committee of the

Philippines



ii. Cik Shazelina Zainul Abidin

Undersecretary

Human Rights and Social Division

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

iii. Mr Andrew Khoo Chin Hock

Co-Chairperson

Bar Council Human Rights Comittee

Bar Council Malaysia

Session 2 : Drafting a Human Rights Action Plan

Session 2 was composed of 3 presentations: first by Dr. Rosette Gilda Librea, second by Cik

Shazelina Zainul Abidin, and third by Mr Andrew Khoo Chin Hock.

Dr Rosette Gilda Librea, who is the Consultant to the Ombudsman and Presidential Human Rights

Committee of the Philippines presented on lessons learned by the Philippines in drafting their

NHRAP. Her presentation was divided into two main subjects i.e. The Philippines Human Rights

Plan II (PHRPII) (2012-2016) and its status and her recollections on being part of the team in the

development of the Plan.

Rosette explained that there was a need for PHRPII after the government went through a major

transition in 2010-2011 and the new government adopted a new national development agenda

centred on good governance. She talked about the process being extensive and divided into

preparatory, consultative, development, implementation and monitoring and evaluation phases.

She discussed how earlier on in the process, there was a need for guidelines which were then

produced in the forms of Handbook, Consultation Guide and Baseline Study Guide. Further on,

Rosette gave a comprehensive explanation of the process which took place in the development of

PHRPII which includes extensive consultations with 13-16 vulnerable sectors, 14 regions and lead

agencies of 8 core international human rights instruments. These consultation exercises then led



to the formation of 8 planning clusters of agencies which were made up of representatives of

government agencies and NGOs. With good governance as a crosscutting theme, PHRPII was to

transform government institutions into human rights and gender responsive forces of government

and on the whole tighten accountability. A copy of the power point presentation of Dr Rosette

Gilda Librea’s presentation is enclosed as Appendix H.

Cik Shazelina Zainul Abidin, Undersecretary, Human Rights and Social Division, Ministry of

Foreign Affairs (MOFA) discussed why a NHRAP document is important for Malaysia and most

importantly on the question of how Malaysia should go about developing it. She stressed on the

importance of determining the composition of an ideal Drafting Committee and setting an

appropriate and suitable time line to produce an achievable plan. According to Shazelina, what

starts from a wish list needs to be worked on by going through a process of research, consultation

and drafting. The process after the

completion of the document than continues

with a cycle of implementation, monitoring

and reporting which are just as important.

A copy of power point presentation by Cik

Shazelina is enclosed as Appendix I.

Andrew Khoo Chin Hock, Co-Chairperson, Bar Council Human Rights Committee, Bar Council

Malaysia, discussed how important it is for ministry representatives to understand human rights

in relation to matters under their purview. Despite the fact that Malaysia has only signed or acceded

to very few international conventions on human rights, the Government has an obligation to ensure

that policies and decisions made by the Malaysian government are in line with human rights

principles. More importantly, the Government has to be sensitive to developments relating to

human rights not only within the country but in the international arena. Efforts have to be taken to

ensure that what we already have going on and what we plan for the future commensurate with

standards, laws and our international commitments. It is important that drafters understand

standards set and expected by the UN and recommendations made by international organisations

should be given priority to be included in the NHRAP. These will become benchmarks when the



time comes for evaluation and when we need to implement improvements. Referring to the

recommendations in the UPR may perhaps he said, be the best way to begin and regional

instruments should also not be side lined in the process. Reference also should be made at all times

to pledges made on 3 May 2012 (A/64/ 765) by Malaysia to the UN General Assembly to promote

and protect human rights in Malaysia. To conclude, Andrew stressed on the importance to involve

everyone including civil society in the process of developing the plan.




Q1: Encik Wan Kasim bin Wan Kadir, SUHAKAM

The handbook mentioned a need for a baseline study in the process of drafting NHRAP. What is

your (Shazelina) view on the need of a baseline study? Is it better to have it prior to the drafting?

A : Cik Shazelina Zainul Abidin

The handbook does give us a good guideline. It suggests a baseline study which is a general study

or a research we need to undertake in order to identify

the actual situation of human rights in Malaysia. These

need to be compiled. However, the question on how

we are going to do the research and what should be

included in the action plan, I prefer to leave to the

drafters. The handbook will I am sure be very valuable

to them.

A : Dr. Rosette Gilda Librea

In respect to baseline study, when we have set objectives, that is where we start the baseline study

which does not necessarily need to be through a survey. We can start by getting available

information from relevant agencies.


Will a baseline study be more effective when you have done the action plan or during the progress,

I mean that you need to have some sort of a point where you are starting from or what you have

achieved according from the objectives that you have identified?

A: Dr. Rosette Gilda Librea



In our experience (in the Philippines), we found that once we have set the objectives, there are

indicators to be found within information that are already available. These are inserted into our

plan and connected to objectives which are arranged into Chapters. There is no need to provide

baseline information if they are not linked to objectives. On the other hand, if you don’t have any

baseline information about a particular objective, this will have to be indicated in your plan

whereby part of your activity will then be to conduct a baseline study on specific issues or

specific concerns where you don’t have baseline information. Base line information is definitely

important and for the Philippines, it is one of the first comments made in our Plan.

Q3: Puan Marietta Rachel Lukie, BHEUU

During the process of developing NHRAP for the Philippines, are there any issues or obstacles

that you faced? Why is there a 10 year gap between the first and the second one?

A: Dr. Rosette Gilda Librea

The Philippines faced many obstacles during the development of PHRP I basically because the

development team did not have the level of authority that was needed over neither government

agencies nor Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and Civil Society Organizations (CSOs).

Some of the NGOs and CSOs who were very much involved in the consultation and drafting

process still found it hard to actually agree to the document because they felt they could face

difficulties for being seen to be monitoring the government. So there were also issues on which

they were uncertain and undecided as well as budget problems.

However, when coming up with PHRP II, we managed to engage NGOs and CSOs into identifying

within their existing budget any specific part or aspect

on which they can support the plan. We also drafted a

matrix and set goals for each with the view that all

targets must be achieved by the stipulated time. We

monitor them by asking them to report their yearly

progress and what activities they have planned for the



year. They are also expected to report results by way of outputs. Throughout, allocation of budget

has not been easy as agencies have their own priorities.

Q4: Encik Mohd Sabri Bin Othman, Chief Registrar’s Office Federal Court of Malaysia

On monitoring and evaluating, how does it work in the terms of evaluation? How does it reflect

on performance?

A : Monitoring should be part of the plan. We cannot start monitoring without having indicators

and these each agency would have to identify. Frequent reporting is important in order to see

whether or not indicators have been achieved.

Q5: Encik Nisar Muhammad bin Ahmad, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia

How far we have gone to follow up on the UPR recommendations? When is the next review and

do we have any improvement to report?

A : Cik Shazelina Zainul Abidin

We have provided answers to all the 62 recommendations in a draft form. 21st Mei 2012 was the

first review where Indonesia was involved. It’s still a big exercise in 2013. We hope to finish on

August 2012 for the 1st round. A major thing is to getting feedback from all relevant agencies and

issues will be addressed in sections.

Q7: Mr Andrew Khoo Chin Hock, Malaysian Bar Council

About the UPR Recommendations, what about all the substantive requests? What are those which

we can accept and cannot accept? How is the government going to respond in terms of the

recommendations?

A : Cik Shazelina Zainul Abidin , MOFA



We intend to get constructive consultation from civil society. However, for recommendations that

we don’t take on board, negotiations continue between Malaysia and members of the UN counsel.

There need to be more documentation of these processes. These documents should be made public

and accessible by local civil society.



DAY 2

MARCH 25 2012 (9.00 am-11.00 am)

SESSION 3

Session 3 : FORUM

Title : Malaysian Uniqueness in the Human Rights Arena

Date : 25th May 2012

Time : 9.00 am – 11.00 am

Moderator : Mdm. Dina Imam Supaat

Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia (USIM)

Speakers :

i. YBhg. Datuk Dr. Denison Jayasooria,

Principal Research Fellow of Institute of Ethnic Studies (KITA),

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM).



ii. Dr. Mohd Azizuddin bin Mohd Sani

College of Law, Government and International Studies

Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM)

iii. Encik Abdul Rahim Sinwan

Malaysian Muslim Laywers Association

Session 3 : Malaysia’s Uniqueness in the Human Rights Arena

Session 3 was composed of 3 presentations: first by YBhg. Datuk Dr. Denison Jayasooria, second

by Dr. Mohd Azizuddin bin Mohd Sani, and third by Encik Abdul Rahim Sinwan.

YBhg. Datuk Dr. Denison Jayasooria, Principal Research Fellow of Institute of Ethnic Studies

(KITA), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) discussed the uniqueness of human rights in

Malaysia by first introducing the audience to the concept of Asian values which Tun Mahathir

strongly promoted during his tenure as the Prime Minister. The concept stresses on the significance

of collective as opposed to individual rights and this is supported by the argument that Asian and

Islamic countries hold on to values which are very different as compared to those held by those in

the West. To Dr Denison, it is therefore a matter of choice whether Malaysia wants to adopt a

NHRAP framework which is based on international standards of human rights or something which

is more skewed to religion and culture. He pointed out that it is rather sad that although Malaysia

shows strong support against issues like apartheid and the oppression in Palestine, the country

continues to rank low in terms of ratification of United Nations Human Rights conventions as

compared to neighbouring countries such as Indonesia and Thailand as well as numerous OIC

countries.

Dr Denison concluded by pointing out that in his personal opinion, it would be easier for Malaysia

to follow UDHR rather than CDHRI. This he based on two arguments. Firstly, the CDHRI which

is based on God’s sentences is harder to debate as opposed to UDHR which is more humanistic

and academic in nature. Secondly, he pointed out that UDHR looks more on rationality and human



goodness drawn from broader universal values as opposed to CDHRI which uses the Sharia and is

subject to different interpretations by various Muslim societies. Dr Denison however felt that

CDHRI does not contradict UDHR. Although there may be provisions that may invite debates, it

is still possible to find a middle ground. Again, what is important according to Dr Denison is the

need for Malaysia to reflect on obligations which we have made internationally because these have

to be applied also in the local context.

Dr. Mohd Azizuddin bin Mohd Sani, from the College of Law, Government and International

Studies, Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM) discussed the topic of Malaysia’s uniqueness in relation

to concepts such as identity and human dignity. A point stressed by Dr Mohd Azizuddin was that

human rights must always be considered alongside human dignity and social responsibility. His

arguments include that freedom comes with social responsibility; that there is a need to balance

between groups’ and individual’s rights;

and that social and economic rights should

be balanced with civil and political rights.

These according to Dr. Mohd Azizuddin

have got to take into consideration

Malaysia’s uniqueness from its own

perspective. A copy of the power point

presentation is enclosed as Appendix J.

Encik Abdul Rahim Sinwan, from the Malaysian Muslim Lawyers Association, discussed

Malaysia’s uniqueness in human rights in the context of the Federal Constitution (FC). He

emphasised that rights provided under the FC are not all absolute. He further discussed the position

of Malaysia in abiding and obliging to international declarations (particularly the human rights

declarations). According to the Supreme Court in the case of Merdeka University Berhad vs

Kerajaan Malaysia [1981] CLJ175; the 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights is a non-legally

binding instrument. In another case, Siti Norma Yaakob FCJ affirms that the principles are only

declaratory in nature and do not have the force of law or legally binding on member states. On the

issue of whether individual rights or national security or interest should prevail, processes are quite

clear. In the instances when an individual’s right is violated, application for habeas corpus can be



made. Many a time, people forget that in exercising their rights, sometimes laws are infringed.

Rahim pointed out that whether to be subject to any treaty or obligation is for Malaysia to decide

as a declaration remains a non-legally binding document with no legal obligations. What is most

important to him is that every law we make now or in the future must adhere to the FC.




Q1: Cik Nor Azura Binti Abdul Karim, MOFA

Comments: Talking about resolution 1618, about tolerance on religion, I would like to go back to

history on how the resolution was adopted by Human Rights Council and eventually by the UN

Assembly. The OIC first came up with a resolution on Combating of Defamation of Religion

pursuant to the incident that happened in 2001, the 9/11 incident. Over the years the resolution has

received less and less support from the members of the UN due to the argument that the notion of

defamation of religion contradicts the exercise of freedom of speech and expression according to

the UN. OIC has sought to discuss this matter with the western side especially to reconcile the

issue on how we should not lose track on the objective of the resolution but to also address the

concern of the western countries at that time. After long discussion and consultation on the matter,

The OIC and the western parties agreed on coming up with a resolution called 1618 during the

second session of the HR Council not to replace the Combating of Defamation of Religion

resolution but to find a middle ground on how we should address the issue.

Q: What is the issue right now in terms of uniqueness of Malaysia and how should we address

human rights issue in the country in the context of boundaries. How do you define certain

boundaries in the context of Malaysian society in addressing issues on human rights?

A: YBhg. Datuk Dr. Denison Jayasooria

If we promote 1618 globally then we are bound to it nationally. What then is it’s implication on

us nationally in terms of majority, minority and dominance and what role is played by religious

institutions and both the federal and state government in handling minority religious groups?

Malaysia should set the example where all religious groups in the country are able to hold

discussions on issues such as tolerance. These discussions should not be close door or politicized.

On the issue of boundaries, I would agree that no right is absolute as clearly stated by the Federal

Constitution. Fundamental violation of rights such as detention without trial and some other

restrictions are already being lifted but some still need to be looked into. The civil society has been

articulate on this and since 2008, political parties other than Barisan Nasional have been taking up



more active roles in watching out for violations. I think we all agree to responsibility with right

but this then has to be unpacked and this is where the international guidelines should facilitate.

A2: Dr. Mohd Azizuddin bin Mohd Sani

Culture is not static, it evolves. One day a thing is taboo and another day it is not. Therefore, culture

is something we can consider in drawing the boundaries. The other thing is society because

societies also evolve. The boundaries can change depending on the period and circumstances. On

our part, if we want to draw an action plan, we have to determine through consensus and

deliberation between policy makers and civil society to come up with a decision on how to draw

the boundaries. This is the line from which we take off and this line has to be reviewed from time

to time depending on circumstances in the country.

A3: Encik Abdul Rahim Sinwan

Reminds me of the book in 1984 by George Howell, where he wrote, “all men are equal but some

men are more equal than others”. On the part of the lawyers, given the opportunity, the law should

be tested and it is for the court to define the law. The lawyers would love to ask the court to define

or redefine or reinterpret the position of law. In a sovereign nation like Malaysia, the court will

interpret the law whether it is a new or old law, whether it was repealed or ultra vires.


How far should we go in accepting in the Malaysian uniqueness within the national human rights

action plan when we are drafting?

A 1: Encik Abdul Rahim Sinwan

Islam is the religion of the Federation and other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony.

Malaysia is made up of what used to be sovereign Malay States. This has led to the uniqueness of

the country in terms of the position of the Malay States, Islam, the institution of Sultan and the

Malay language. Therefore in preparing the Plan, the bases should be that firstly we a multi-

cultural society and that Islam is the religion of the federation.



A2: Dr. Mohd Azizuddin bin Mohd Sani

Managing human rights is very difficult. We are unique and we have our own perspective of human

rights. However, it does not mean that we should sideline what have been accepted under the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights because some of the values are universal.

A3: YBhg. Datuk Dr. Denison Jayasooria

I don’t think UDHR contradicts the Federal Constitution. By endorsing it, the position of Islam

and pillars of the Federal Constitution will not be in danger. In drafting the Plan objectively, it is

important for civil servants to understand and have an unbiased reading of the declarations. We

need to unpack the convention in order to understand what it is promoting, what is relevant to us

and where is it in conflict. Issues like right to education and right to life moves beyond culture

specific. We need to have a broad understanding of it and we have to see the principles from

objectivity.

Q3: Encik Nik Muhd Marzuki bin Muhd Nor, JAKIM

How can we make sure that our NHRAP does not have kind of religiofobia elements in it?

A: Dr. Mohd Azizuddin bin Mohd Sani

We need not just to reconcile those two documents but as an ASEAN country, we need to realize

that ASEAN has established an ASEAN Committee and there is an ASEAM Commission on

Human Rights that we need to comply to. It is the job of this commission to bring everybody in

our community within ASEAN to compromise on which rights to be implemented or not. I am not

sure on how far ASEAN will go in term of establishing on human rights or to have an ASEAN

court but I believe that human rights have become an important issue in ASEAN. In ASEAN we

need to have something that show that human rights will be protected. In the context of Malaysia,

I believe that Islamic laws need to be brought up in the discussions. Therefore, more discussions,

seminars and talks should be held to discuss and resolve what practices we want to include in our

NHRAP.



A: YBhg. Datuk Dr. Denison Jayasooria

I think there is a need for the MOFA to organize a range of close doors discussions to unpack the

OIC sponsored resolutions 1618 and the Cairo Declaration. JAKIM should present a paper on

consistencies and inconsistencies between UDHR and practices in Malaysia using these two

documents. Muslim Lawyers Association, the Sharia Lawyers Association, the Bar Council,

SUHAKAM and PROHAM should sit together and discuss what are the commonalities and

differences. The question whether we can implement, reconcile and make it work, then depends

on whether we can list down the irreconcilables and move from it. Where the differences and

difficulties are recognized, we need to look it up and see if we can work it out in years to come.

A: Encik Abdul Rahim Sinwan

When you have an issue, you need to draw a philosophy and then bring in the law, its objectives

and other references, for example on the position of Islam. We need to remember that Malaysia is

a sovereign country which decides its own fate and agenda and it has the opportunity to decide

whether to be bound or otherwise. While there are differences, there are also similarities. In view

of national interest, these need to be further discussed.



FINDINGS

Many suggestions emerged during the seminar. Continued information exchange and further

exploration of related issues and the accumulation of a list of best practices from the presentations

and question and answer sessions include as follows:

i. NHRAP is seen as a tool to improve the human rights situation of a country and

contribute to democracy, in which it vary in scope and focus;

ii. the development of NHRAP should be based on existing national institutional

frameworks: parliament, government, courts, NGOs, law enforcement agencies as well

as national human rights institutions;

iii. it is possible to draw some lessons from experiences of other countries, to enable us to

identify some key elements of the role of NHRAPs;

iv. both the process and outcome of a NHRAP are equally important;

v. the plan should be regarded as a truly national undertaking involving all elements of

society and include broad and intensive consultations with civil society and the general

public;

vi. the plan should be comprehensive in scope, reflecting the interdependence and

indivisibility of human rights;

vii. NHRAP must be adequately funded and resourced;

viii. it should be action-oriented and ensure that all involved in implementing the plan fully

accept the need for concrete outcomes and its implementation should be effectively

monitored and reviewed;



ix. a key feature suggested was to establish a national Coordinating Committee, including

of government agencies and civil society organizations, to conduct a baseline study on

the human rights situation in the country as well as to lead the process;

x. the plan should stress on the participation of various sectors of the civil society in the

development and implementation of the Plan; and the inclusion of implementation,

monitoring and evaluation mechanisms;

xi. among the major benefits for the country is that the very process of developing the

Plan, if well designed, is an opportunity to raise awareness of human rights and to

educate the public. NHRAPs assist in raising the profile of human rights in national

policy debates, provide a vehicle for public education at the community level and can

contribute to strengthening a human rights culture;

xii. political commitment at the highest level is a prerequisite for a successful development

of NHRAPs. High-level political representation on the coordinating bodies overseeing

the NHRAP’s development, and ownership of the Plan and its implementation being in

the hands of the Government;

xiii. a thorough baseline study should be conducted. It is the essential starting point for the

formulation of a Plan of Action on Human Rights. It should be carry out by focusing

on the identifying gaps in human rights promotion or protection in Malaysia;

xiv. planning and developing the NHRAP may be so time-consuming and labor-intensive;

xv. establishment of an efficient governmental body that is capable of carrying out the Plan

is a precondition for success. Choosing precise, achievable and realistic goals, within

reasonable time frames, is critical for implementation;

xvi. NHRAP will be successful if it effectively addresses human rights concerns expressed

by citizen, which often are reflected in the recommendations of the UN Human Rights

Mechanisms;



xvii. the UN system such as Resident Coordinator Office (RCO) and UN Country Team, has

often provided assistance on the development of NHRAPs in various countries;

xviii. the drafting of the NHRAP should take into consideration both the UDHR and CDHRI.

Both declarations should be reconciled to ensure that human rights aspects from the

view of Islam will merge together with the universal human rights to be inserted into

the NHRAP; and

xix. the drafters should be reminded that all sensitivity with regards to religious, culture and

beliefs should be address in the best way possible to ensure that the plan will be

acceptable and workable.



CONCLUSION

The seminar demonstrated that the subject of the development of a NHRAP for Malaysia involves

complex issues. A mixture of ethnicities and cultures gives Malaysians their share of diversity,

which is distinctively more communal and ethnic related. These are reinforced by linguistic,

cultural, religious and most importantly, economic divisions which make human rights issues

interwoven with ethnic considerations. The seminar has been a success in introducing participants

to the ideals of a NHRAP. Perhaps, it has even heightened their appreciation of the importance of

the document in promoting human rights and more importantly of the need for Malaysia to develop

not only an acceptable but an achievable Plan. The seminar has contributed to providing examples

and best practices in the development of NHRAP, some from first-hand experience of speakers

and panelists. Exchange of ideas has been encouraging as well as participation in question and

answer sessions. Most importantly, participants demonstrated a high level of understanding that

development of the Plan will require hard work and cooperation from all relevant parties.



APPENDICES

APPENDIX A



ORGANIZING COMITTEE

Honourable Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri

Abdul Aziz - Patron

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department

Dato’ Haji Ismail Bin Ibrahim -Advisor

Director General of the Legal Affairs Division


Mohd Rosli Bin Ramli -Chairperson

Deputy Director of the Legal Affairs Division


Nor Mazny Binti Abdul Majid -Secretary

Head of Sub Comittees:

Ross Rafizal Bin Rosli -Protocol

Akhzailina Binti Md Akhir - Invitation/

Secretarial

Selvakumari a/p Selvadasan - Logistics

Noorashikin Binti Bahari - Finance / food

Mohd Zohdi Bin Mohd Yusoff - Technical



NO

NAMES

SECTION / UNIT

TASK

A

SUB-COMITTEE (PROTOCOL)

1. Mahani binti Mohd. Yusoff Corporate Communication

Unit

Media

2. Isnaniwati binti Ginulis @

Imran

Corporate Communication

Unit

Media

3. Sheikh Farhan bin Ahmad Corporate Communication

Unit

Media

4. Amir Shah bin Abu Adam Corporate Communication

Unit

Photographer

5. Ross Rafizal bin Rosli Management & Human

Resource Section

Protocol

6. Sarune Beh Management & Human

Resource Section

Protocol

7. Norafidah binti Gusili Management & Human

Resource Section

Protocol

8. Normazliana binti Ahmad Management & Human

Resource Section

Protocol

9. Ahmad Syazwan bin Ahmad

Nordin

Innovation Unit Protocol

10. Rohanizal binti Ma’all Corporate Communication

Unit

Protocol

11. Zaiheza binti Badaruzaman Management & Human

Resource Section

Protocol

12. Fadzliatun Nafisah binti Ahmad Management & Human

Resource Section

Protool

13. Saiful Bakhtiar bin Nasruddin Development section Protocol



NO

NAMES

SECTION / UNIT

TASK

14. Salehah binti Abu Nor Development section Protocol

15. Zaiton binti Mohd Yusoff Development section Protocol

16. Mahnum binti Daud Development section Protocol

17. Siti Azura binti Ismail Finance Section Protocol

18. Rozaina binti Mohd Aini Information management

Section

Protocol

19. Siti Shuhaila binti Mohd Rawi Information management

Section

Protocol

20. Zalina binti Mohd Nayan Legal Reform Committee

Unit

Protocol

B SUB –COMITTEE INVITATION AND SECRETARIAL

21. Azra Haida binti Baharom Policy Section Secretariat

22. Akhzailina binti Md Akhir Policy Section Secretariat

23. Nur Taqiyyah binti Mohamad

Kamil

Policy Section Secretariat

24. Nor Amizatul Akma binti

Zamaruddin


25. Marietta Rachel Lukie Policy Section Secretariat



NO

NAMES

SECTION / UNIT

TASK

26. Norliza binti M Jamil Policy Section Secretariat

27. Lau Yin Theng Policy Section Secretariat

28. Safuan bin Hazalan Legal Unit Rapporteur

29. Aryati binti Ismail Policy Section Secretariat

30. Sukhairah binti Abdul Latif Officeof the Deputy Director

General

Secretariat

31. Shah Rizal bin Aznam Policy Section Secretariat

32. Susilawati binti Abdul Muid Policy Section Secretariat

33. Mohd Yusmizal bin Yusof Policy Section Secretariat

34. Ismariseh binti Ismail


35. Zalina binti Mohd Nayan


36. Nor Hafizah binti Zainal Policy Section Secretariat

37. Mohamad Fadli bin Sulaiman Policy Section Secretariat

C SUB-COMITTEE FOR FOOD ARRANGEMENT



NO

NAMES

SECTION / UNIT

TASK

38. Noorashikin binti Bahari Finance Section Food

39. Siti Aishah binti Yahaya Finance Section Food

40. Zurina binti Yusof Finance Section Food

41. Sariman bin Sabdin Finance Section Food

42. Siti Azura binti Ismail Finance Section Food

43.

Rafidah binti Shukor

Finance Section

Food

44.

Yuni binti Yaakob

Finance Section

Food

45.

Norsafura binti Yusof

Finance Section

Food

D SUB-COMITTEE LOGISTICS

46. Selvakumari a/p Selvadasan Management & Human

Resource Section

Logistic

E SUB-COMITTEE TECHNICAL

47. Mohd Zohdi bin Mohd Yusof Information management

Section

Technical

48. Mohd Asri bin Musa Information management

Section

Technical



NO

NAMES

SECTION / UNIT

TASK

49. Nursyahidah binti Azri Information management

Section

Technical

50. Muhammad Salahuddin bin

Mohd Zakri

Information management

Section

Technical



APPENDIX B

OPENING CEREMONY MAJLIS PERASMIAN

24 MEI 2012

AUDITORIUM, IDFR

8.30 pagi : Pendaftaran peserta dan tetamu

8.30 am Registration of participants and

guests

Sarapan pagi

Breakfast

9.15 pagi : Majlis Perasmian

9.15 am Opening ceremony

9.30 pagi : Ketibaan

9.30 am Arrival

YB Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz


Menteri di Jabatan Perdana

Menteri

Minister in the Prime Minister’s

Department

Lagu Negaraku

National anthem

Bacaan doa

Recitation of du’a

9.45 pagi : Ucapan perasmian oleh

9.45 am Opening speech by

YB Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri

Abdul Aziz


Menteri di Jabatan Perdana

Menteri

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department

10.00 pagi : Minum pagi

10.00 am Tea break



SEMINAR PROGRAMME PROGRAM SEMINAR

24 – 25 MEI 2012

TRAINING ROOM BILIK LATIHAN

24 MEI 2012 (KHAMIS)/ THURSDAY

10.30 pagi : Pembentangan Kertas

10.30 am Paper Presentation

“The Importance of a National Human Rights Action Plan”

Oleh

By

Mr. Laurent Meillan

Regional Representative of South-East Asia from the Office of the High

Commissioner for Human Rights

Moderator

Mr. Sha’ani Abdullah

Human Rights Commission of Malaysia

(SUHAKAM)

: Sesi soal jawab

Question and Answer session

12.00 petang : Makan tengah hari

12.00 noon Lunch

2.00 petang : Perbincangan Panel 1

2.00 noon Panel discussion 1

Tajuk

Title

“Drafting a National Human Rights Action Plan”

Ahli panel

Speakers

1. Dr. Rosette Gilda Librea

Consultant to the Ombudsman and Presidential Human Rights

Committee of the Philippines

2. Miss Shazelina Zainul Abidin

Undersecretary



Human Rights and Social Division


3. Mr Andrew Khoo Chin Hock

Co-Chairperson

Bar Council Human Rights Comittee

Bar Council Malaysia

Moderator

Mr. Nisar Mohammad bin Ahmad


: Sesi soal jawab


4.00 petang : Minum petang / Bersurai

4.00 afternoon Tea / End of day 1

25 MEI 2012 (JUMAAT)/ FRIDAY

8.30 pagi : Minum pagi

8.30 am Breakfast

9.00 pagi : Perbincangan Panel 2

9.00 am Panel discussion 2

Tajuk:

Title

“Malaysian Uniqueness in the Human Rights Arena”

Ahli Panel

Speakers

1. YBhg. Datuk Dr. Denison Jayasooria,

Principal Research Fellow of Institute of Ethnic Studies (KITA), Universiti

Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM).

2. YBhg. Dr. Mohd Azizuddin bin Mohd Sani


Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM)

3. Mr. Abdul Rahim Sinwan

Malaysian Muslim Laywers Association

Moderator

Mrs. Dina Imam Supaat


: Sesi soal jawab




11.00 pagi : Majlis penutup

11.00 am Closing: Keynote address

11.30 tengah hari : Makan tengah hari / Bersurai

11.30 noon Lunch / End of seminar



APPENDIX C

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS ACTION PLAN SEMINAR 24-25 MAY 2012

NO. NAMES MINISTRY / AGENCY

1. Pn Nadeeya Iqbal

Ministry Of Finance

2. Encik Sathiaseelan Selvaraj

Ministry Of Home Affairs

3. Encik Wong Nen Hua Ministry Of Home Affairs

4. Encik Chris Alexson Wong Ministry Of Transportation

5. Encik Muhammad Naim Saad Ministry Of Transportation

6. Pn Nurul Syaza Azlisha Ministry of Foreign Affairs

7. Cik Shazelina Zainul Abidin Ministry of Foreign Affairs

8. Pn.Fazlisya Ramly Ministry of Foreign Affairs

9. Pn.Siti Fatma Omar Ministry of Foreign Affairs

10. Nor Azura Abdul Karim Ministry of Foreign Affairs

11. Puan Noorsham bt Muhamad Din Ministry of Education

12. Puan Noorzaidah Mohamed Noor Ministry of Education

13. Puan Norkiah bt A.Kadir

Ministry OF Rural and

Regional Development

14. Puan Nor Hanna Ahmad Basir

Ministry Of Federal territories

and Urban Wellbeing

15. Encik Unny Sankar a/l Ravi Sankar Ministry Of Health

16. Puan Suriani bt Ujang Ministry Of Health

17. Encik Kuan Thai Khim Ministry of Domestic Trade,

Co-Operative and

Consumerism

18. Puan Ellissa Cormellia Ahmad Ministry of Domestic Trade,

Co-Operative and

Consumerism

19. Puan Fara Zaila bt Abdullah Ministry of Youth and Sports

20. Puan Asliza Ali Ministry of Youth and Sports

21. Puan Michelle Hoh Suhuey Attorney General’s Chamber

22. Supt.Moktar bin Mohd Noor Royal Malaysia Police

23. ASP Mohd Fahmi Visuvanathan Abdullah Royal Malaysia Police

24. ACP Kamal Kordi Royal Malaysia Police

25. Puan Noridayu binti Md.Kassim Syariah Judiciary Department

Malaysia

26. Ruhmawati bt.Khuzaimah Prime Minister’s Department

http://www.google.com.my/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=kementerian%20wilayah%20persekutuan%20dan%20kesejahteraan%20bandar&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CFAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kwpkb.gov.my%2F&ei=jj8FUJTmO86GrAfohcTLBg&usg=AFQjCNH_DekMBQ5-OwCN90Hr5oVHYoClBw&cad=rja

http://www.google.com.my/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=kementerian%20wilayah%20persekutuan%20dan%20kesejahteraan%20bandar&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CFAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kwpkb.gov.my%2F&ei=jj8FUJTmO86GrAfohcTLBg&usg=AFQjCNH_DekMBQ5-OwCN90Hr5oVHYoClBw&cad=rja



27. En.Abdullah Zuhdee bin Ab.Halim Prime Minister’s Department

28. En.Mohd Syahrizal Syah bin Zakaria Malaysia Department Of

Islamic Development

29. En Nik Muhd Marzuki bin Muhd Nor

Malaysia Department Of

Islamic Development

30. Puan Nor Tipah Majin Ministry of Women, Family

and Community Development

31. Lim Mei Ying Ministry of Women, Family


32. Ramona Mohd Razali Ministry of Women, Family


33. Pn.Neila Shuhaime Ministry of Women, Family


34. Encik Ag Shahminan Datuk Hj Ag Sahari Office Of the Chief Minister

Sabah

35. Pesuruhjaya James Nayagam Human Rights Commission

Malaysia

36. Wan Kasim Wan Kadir Human Rights Commission

Malaysia

37. Jesrina Grewal Human Rights Commission

Malaysia

38. Dr.Lin Mui Kin United Nation Malaysia

39. En.Zairin Izwan Zainal Abidin National Security Council

40. Mohd Yunos Mohd Salleh Prison Department

41. En.Fairus bt Yahaya Department of Orang Asli

Development

42. Pn.Farahliza Putri bt Naaim Yazid Ministry Of Human Resource

43. Malaysia Department Of

Islamic Development

44. Encik Mohd Sabri Bin Othman Chief Registrar’s Office

Federal Court Of Malaysia



APPENDIX D

INVITED GUESTS FOR OPENING CEREMONY

1. Ketua Setiausaha

Kementerian Dalam Negeri

Aras 13 Blok D1, Kompleks D

62546 PUTRAJAYA

2. Ketua Setiausaha

Kementerian Pertahanan

Tingkat 5, Wisma Pertahanan

Jalan Padang Tembak

50634 KUALA LUMPUR

3. Ketua Setiausaha

Kementerian Luar Negeri

Aras 3, Wisma Putra I

No. 1, Jalan Wisma Putra

Presint 2

62602 PUTRAJAYA

4. Ketua Setiausaha

Kementerian Pelajaran

Aras 8, Blok E8, Kompleks E

62604 PUTRAJAYA

5. Ketua Setiausaha

Kementerian Kemajuan Luar Bandar dan Wilayah

Aras 30, No. 47, Persiaran Perdana

Presint 4,

62100 PUTRAJAYA

6. Ketua Setiausaha

Kementerian Wilayah Persekutuan dan Kesejahteraan Bandar

Tingkat 4, Blok B2

Menara Seri Wilayah

Presint 2

62100 PUTRAJAYA

7. Ketua Setiausaha

Kementerian Kesihatan

Aras 12, Blok E7

Kompleks E , Presint 1

62590 PUTRAJAYA



8. Ketua Setiausaha

Kementerian Pembangunan Wanita, Keluarga dan Masyarakat

Tingkat 5, Blok E, Kompleks Bukit Perdana

Jalan Dato Onn

50515 KUALA LUMPUR

9. Ketua Setiausaha

Kementerian Sumber Manusia

Aras 9, Blok D3, Kompleks D

Pusat Pentadbiran Kerajaan Persekutuan

62502 PUTRAJAYA

10. Ketua Setiausaha

Kementerian Perdagangan Dalam Negeri, Koperasi dan Kepenggunaan

Aras 11, (Menara)

No. 13, Persiaran Perdana, Presint 2

62623 PUTRAJAYA


Kementerian Perumahan Dan Kerajaan Tempatan

Aras 18, No. 51,

Persiaran Perdana, Presint 4

62100 PUTRAJAYA


Kementerian Belia dan Sukan

Aras 15, Menara KBS

Lot 4 G4

Presint 4

62570 PUTRAJAYA

13. Peguam Negara Malaysia

Jabatan Peguam Negara

Aras 16, No. 45, Persiaran Perdana

Presint 4


62100 PUTRAJAYA

14. Ketua Polis Negara

Ibu Pejabat Polis Diraja Malaysia

Bukit Aman

50560 KUALA LUMPUR



15. Ketua Pengarah/Ketua Hakim Syarie

Jabatan Kehakiman Syariah Malaysia

Jabatan Perdana Menteri


62677 PUTRAJAYA

16. Pejabat Ketua Pendaftar Mahkamah Persekutuan

Ketua Pendaftar

Pejabat Ketua Pendaftar

Mahkamah Persekutuan Malaysia

Istana Kehakiman, Presint 3

62506 PUTRAJAYA

17. Ketua Pengarah Penjara

Ibu Pejabat Penjara Malaysia

Bukit Wira

43000 Kajang

SELANGOR

18. Ketua Pengarah

Jabatan Kemajuan Islam Malaysia (JAKIM)

Jabatan Perdana Menteri



62519 PUTRAJAYA

19. Ketua Pengarah

Jabatan Kebajikan Masyarakat

Aras 6, 9-18

No. 55, Persiaran Perdana

Presint 4,

62100 PUTRAJAYA

20. Ketua Pengarah

Jabatan Kemajuan Orang Asli

Tingkat 10,20 & 20 M, West Block,

Wisma Selangor Dredging,

Jalan Ampang,

50450 KUALA LUMPUR

21. Pejabat Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri Sabah

Jabatan Ketua Menteri

Tingkat 6, Wisma Innoprise,

Teluk Likas, 88817

KOTA KINABALU, SABAH



22. Pejabat Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri Sarawak

Jabatan Ketua Menteri

Aras 20, Wisma Bapa Malaysia

Petra Jaya,

93502 KUCHING



APPENDIX E

LIST OF SPEAKERS

(i) Mr. Laurent Meillan

Human Rights Officer

Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights

Bangkok

(ii) Dr. Rosette Gilda Librea

Project Consultant to the Presidential Human Rights Committee

Philippines

(iii) Datuk Dr. Denison Jayasooria

Principal Research Fellow

Institute of Ethnic Studies

University Kebangsaan Malaysia

(iv) Dr. Mohd Azizuddin Mohd Sani

Dean


Universiti Utara Malaysia

(v) Miss Shazelina Zainul Abidin

Under Secretary

Human Rights and Social Affairs Division


(vi) Mr. Abdul Rahim Sinwan

Deputy President

Malaysian Muslim Lawyers Association

(vii) Mr. Andrew Khoo Chin Hock

Co-Chairperson

Human Rights Committee

Malaysian Bar Council



MODERATORS

i. Mr. Muhammad Sha’ani Abdullah

Commissioner

Human Rights Commission of Malaysia

ii. (ix)Madam Dina Iman Supaat

Senior Lecturer


iii. Mr. Nisar Muhammad bin Ahmad

Tutor




APPENDIX F

OPENING SPEECH BY YB DATO’ SERI MOHAMED NAZRI ABDUL AZIZ

MINISTER IN THE PRIME MINISTER’S DEPARTMENT

SEMINAR ON NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS ACTION PLAN

24 MAY 2012 (THURSDAY), 9.30 AM

INSTITUTE OF DIPLOMACY AND FOREIGN RELATIONS (IDFR)

Assalamualaikum w.b.t., Good Morning, Salam Sejahtera & Salam 1Malaysia.

Saudara Pengacara Majlis.

Yang Berbahagia Dato’ Haji Ismail bin Ibrahim, Director General Legal Affairs Division, Prime

Minister’s Department.

Yang Berbahagia, Ambassador Aminahtun Haji A. Karim, Deputy Director General Institute of

Diplomacy and Foreign Relations.

Distinguished guests and participants.

Terlebih dahulu saya ingin merakamkan penghargaan dan terima kasih kepada pihak penganjur

dan semua yang hadir pada hari ini. Bersyukur kita ke hadrat Ilahi kerana dengan limpah kurnianya

dapat kita berkumpul pada hari ini untuk berkongsi ilmu dan pengalaman mengenai Pembangunan

Pelan Tindakan Hak Asasi Manusia Kebangsaan terutamanya dengan pakar-pakar daripada luar

Negara yang mempunyai pengalaman yang luas dalam bidang ini.

It is an honor and I am delighted to be here today as you start the Development of National Human

Rights Action Plan. First of all, let me add a word of welcome to our international guest speakers,

Mr. Laurent Meillan, Human Rights Officer from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human

Rights and Dr. Rosette Gilda Librea, Consultant to the Ombudsman and Presidential Human

Rights Committee of the Philippines as well as our local distinguished speakers. I would also like

to commend the Legal Affairs Division for organising the seminar.

Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, Chairperson of UN Human Rights who drafted the Universal Declaration

of Human Rights once said, “Universal human rights begin in the world of the individual person,

the neighborhood he lives in, the school or college he attends, the factory, farm, or office where

he works. Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere. Without

concerted citizen action to uphold them close to home, its hope for progress in the larger world

shall be in vain.”



Ladies and gentlemen,

In the international human rights system, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was

adopted by national leaders in 1948 is of great symbolic significance. The Declaration lays down

basic principles of human rights and a structure for their better protection. It represents a pledge to

promote universal respect for rights and fundamental freedoms. As a member of the United

Nations, Malaysia has an obligation to uphold the principles of the Declaration.

Human right however, is not a static concept. Many countries believe in each region formulating

its own structures for protection of human rights based on its own ideologies and cultures.

Therefore, the 26th ASEAN ministerial meeting in Singapore in 1993 reaffirmed its members’

commitment to, and respect for, human rights as set out in the Vienna Declaration of 25 June 1993.

It included recognition of political, social and economic rights along with the right to development.

It added that the promotion of human rights principles, respect national sovereignty, territorial

integrity and non-interference in the internal affairs of the state.

Dato’-Dato’, ladies and gentlemen,

Recognizing the importance of the protection and promotion of human rights in Malaysia, the

Government established the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia or SUHAKAM in July 1999.

Since its establishment, SUHAKAM had played a major role to determine complaints of the

infringements of rights, as well as to promote awareness of human rights education, and to advise

the government in formulating human rights legislation. The commission’s mandate defines

human rights as those fundamental liberties enshrined in Part II of the Constitution which consists

of Articles 5 to 13.

In the past few years, we have also seen the establishment of the Judicial Appointment Commission

of Malaysia, enacted the Evidence of Child Witness Act 2007 to assist child witnesses, the

enactment of Anti Trafficking in Persons Act 2007, and the enactment of Persons with Disabilities

Act 2008. More recent is the repeal of the Internal Security Act 1960, Emergency Ordinance,

Banishment Act 1959, review of Restricted Resident Act 1933 and the Printing Presses and

Publication Act 1984. These progresses speak greatly of the Government’s seriousness to

constantly review laws and policies in order to ensure human rights are protected in the country.

There are various mechanisms to keep track of our performance in the promotion of human rights

in Malaysia. As you all know, as United Nations Member State, compliance to our human rights

obligation is reviewed under a special process called the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). The

review provides an opportunity for all member states to declare actions that are taken to improve

human rights situation in the country and to overcome obstacles that impede the development and

progress of human rights. Various actions and plan have been taken and formulated in order to

improve human rights situation in the country and implement the recommendation by the UPR.



Ladies and gentlemen,

As part of our continuous effort at building the Malaysian human rights framework, we are now

looking into the possibility of developing a National Human Rights Action Plan. First and

foremost, the main goal of an action plan is to ensure that elements of human rights are included

in existing government policies, deliberated in the process of drafting of policies and considered

as being the fundamental values in the implementation of policies. It is a mechanism to ensure

human rights issues in Malaysia are tackled structurally and strategically. The development of this

action plan will offer us an opportunity to systematically exploit our strengths as well as overcome

our shortcomings in the protection of human rights in the country.

However, a national action plan will require considerable planning and effort. Not only does it

need political support and financial resource, we also need to ensure the process is transparent as

well as participatory. Under such circumstances, we need to give serious thought before we embark

on such a plan.

Therefore, it is immensely useful that this seminar has been arranged for public servants or officials

representing ministries as well as relevant departments dealing with key human rights issues in the

country. This is because we strongly feel that public servants as policy makers must be made aware

that improving human rights is a public policy objective. It can, and may be implemented through

the normal planning and resource allocation processes of government. As you can see from the

programme, the seminar will introduce participants to the concept and ideals of a National Human

Rights Action Plan, allow participants to share experiences of speakers who have played active

roles in the development of action plans specifically in the Asian region as well as discuss the

context of human rights in Malaysia.

Malaysia’s ethnic composition gives our country its modern multiethnic and multicultural

character. However we can be proud that as the country undergoes the phases of development, the

bonds of citizenship and the sense of belonging to one nation is becoming more evident. As our

citizens become better educated and more exposed to international trends and developments and

as globalization takes place, the demand for civil and political rights increases. In the midst of the

corporate race, social climbs, economic expansion, and government transformation, let us not

forget that we have to retain our unique Malaysian values and maintain high ethical standards.

Development of a National Human Rights Action Plan is just another way of reminding us all that,

these standards must not be left behind in pursuing our goals.

Dato’-Dato’, ladies and gentlemen,

Strengthening human rights requires serious commitment by all concerned. It is my hope that the

National Human Rights Action Plan that we aspire to develop will demonstrate how the

government machinery is turning commitments made at the Universal Periodic Review into

specific actions to improve and promote human rights.

To the participants, with your commitment and support, I am confident that the seminar will be

able to pave the way to enable us to share and appreciate the ideals of a National Action Plan.

This is important before we consider and contemplate if Malaysia will benefit from having the



plan and go on to not only identify but prioritise existing major government initiatives designed to

tackle human rights issues so that the plan is workable and achievable.

On behalf of the Legal Affairs Division of the Prime Minister’s Department which has been

appointed as the main agency for the development of the National Human Rights Action Plan, I

am pleased to inform that this seminar is just a beginning. A steering committee will be established

subject to the approval of the Government. This Committee will look into and do the drafting of

the plan. We hope that we shall be able to deliver a plan that will reflect our strengths as well as

address our shortcomings in the protection of human rights in the country.

I wish to thank everyone here and look forward for your support and cooperation in the future. To

all participants of this seminar, I hope that you will find your time here constructive and beneficial.

Therefore I have great pleasure in declaring this seminar open.

Thank you. Wassalamualaikum w.b.t.



APPENDIX G

Seminar on National Human Rights Action Plan

24-25 May 2012, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

The role of National Human Rights Plan of Action

Laurent Meillan,

Officer in Charge, Regional Office for South East Asia, Office of the High Commissioner

for Human Rights

Distinguished participants,

First, I would like to thank the Government of Malaysia for extending an invitation to OHCHR

and the UNCT. We very much welcome this initiative, and I am looking forward to hearing views

from participants in the next two days.

The idea of National Human Rights Plans of Action (NHRAPs) originated in the Vienna

Declaration and Programme of Action adopted at the World Conference on Human Rights in

Vienna in 1993. The fundamental purpose of a NHRAP is to improve the promotion and protection

of human rights. It does this by placing human rights improvements in the context of public policy,

so that the government, communities and individuals can endorse human rights improvements as

practical goals, devise programmes to ensure the achievement of these goals, engage all relevant

sectors of government and society, and allocate sufficient resources.

Close to 30 countries have since adopted NHRAPs. One third of these plans have been developed

in the Asia Pacific Region, including Australia, China, Indonesia, Mongolia, Nepal, New Zealand,

Philippines, Republic of Korea and Thailand. The Plans, which are seen as a tool to improve the

human rights situation of a country and contribute to democracy, vary in scope and focus. From

freedom of expression and assembly to the right to health, these plans have paid equal attention to

civil and political rights as well as economic, social, and cultural rights, and often specifically

target particularly groups at risk. They look at the existing national institutional frameworks:

parliament, government, courts, NGOs, law enforcement agencies as well as national human rights

institutions.

The experience of countries in developing and implementing NHRAPs is not yet exhaustively

documented and information, especially on their implementation, is not systematically available.

However, it is possible to draw some lessons from practice to date, and identify some key elements

of the role of NHRAPs.

Let me first elaborate on the lessons learned coming from the formulation of these action plans.

The OHCHR Handbook on National Human Rights Plans of Action suggests general principles

that should apply to all Plans. The process and outcome of an NHRAP are equally important; the

plan should be regarded as a truly national undertaking involving all elements of society and

include broad and intensive consultations with civil society and the general public; the plan should



be comprehensive in scope, reflecting the interdependence and indivisibility of human rights; the

NHRAP must be adequately funded and resourced, it should be action-oriented and ensure that all

involved in implementing the plan fully accept the need for concrete outcomes and its

implementation should be effectively monitored and reviewed. Some of the key features of the

suggested approach to developing an NHRAP are: the establishment of a national Coordinating

Committee, including government agencies and civil society organizations, to conduct a baseline

study on the human rights situation in the country as well as to lead the process; the participation

of various sectors of the civil society in the development and implementation of the Plan; and the

inclusion of implementation, monitoring and evaluation mechanisms within the NHRAP. These

principles have found varying application in the experience of countries that have developed

NHRAPs.

The experience of the past decade in developing NHRAPs has highlighted the strengths and

advantages of using this tool in pursuing better respect for human rights, but also the drawbacks

and challenges that may arise. Among the major benefits for countries is that the very process of

developing the Plan, if well designed, is an opportunity to raise awareness of human rights and to

educate the public. NHRAPs assist in raising the profile of human rights in national policy debates,

provide a vehicle for public education at the community level and can contribute to strengthening

a human rights culture. They can promote dialogue among different sectors of a society, and

broaden the public’s participation in the development of human rights policies.

They are also important means to identify human rights priorities within the country and set time-

bound goals and programmes to meet them. For example, in the context of Malaysia, a road map

for an early ratification of the 1966 Covenants, Convention Against Torture and Convention on

the Elimination of Racial Discrimination would represent a significant step.

The mechanisms that have been set up for the development and implementation of NHRAPs are

diverse. In some cases, National Committees for Human Rights consisting of ministries, civil

society and the media are established to develop the Plan, some coordinated by the Ministry of

Justice. In others, a National Commission on Human Rights has primary oversight responsibility,

while a Committee (ministries, civil society, universities, media, independent individuals) has been

set up to develop the plan. In yet another model, the Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights

is politically responsible for the NHRAP and oversees its implementation, while a National

Commission comprising representatives of public institutions, NGOs and the UN coordinates the

implementation of the Plan. Other Plans provide for the establishment of a Committee to monitor

its implementation. In some cases, the United Nations has had a key role in facilitating or

supporting the development of the Plan. In others, Governments have done so without external

assistance.

Experience from across the world shows that prerequisites for a successful development of

NHRAPs include a political commitment at the highest level, high-level political representation

on the coordinating bodies overseeing the NHRAP’s development, and ownership of the Plan and

its implementation being in the hands of the Government. Broad participation of the various civil

society sectors in the development of the Plan also ensures that public opinion is a primary basis

for identifying human rights priorities, guarantees widespread recognition and support for the Plan,

and will encourage all interested actors to help implement it. It also provides a platform for citizen



and their representatives to express their views on the human rights situation of their country. This

will therefore require the involvement of all relevant actors, including civil society organizations,

which may have different views from Governments.

A baseline study to identify gaps in human rights promotion or protection is also an essential

starting point for the formulation of a Plan of Action on Human Rights. In this regard, a review of

the constructive dialogue between the Government and the UN Human Rights Mechanisms

(Treaty Bodies, Special Procedures and Universal Periodic Review (UPR) would provide a first

assessment of the key human rights concerns to be addressed. Recommendations made by these

mechanisms can help to frame the content of NHRAPs.

Excellency,

Ladies and gentlemen, dear participants,

Let me now focus on the lessons learned coming from the implementation of these action plans.

The implementation of the Plans is where countries experience the greatest challenges. The few

examples of NHRAPs that have entered the implementation phase point to some of the possible

pitfalls. Planning and developing the NHRAP may be so time-consuming and labour-intensive that

it uses up the time and energy that would otherwise be devoted to its implementation. Also, long

NHRAPs that are overly ambitious are arduous to implement and can become very difficult for a

Government to manage. Where new Governments come to power during the time frame of a

NHRAP, there is a risk of a lack of continuity, ownership and commitment vis-à-vis Plans

officially adopted by previous Governments. Lack of State support, both in terms of financial

allocations and human resources, is a clear impediment to the implementation of Plans.

Duplication can be another issue of concern. For example, Governments are now putting a lot of

energy in the follow of the UPR. Some have even elaborated national plan to follow-up on the

UPR recommendations.

The establishment of an efficient governmental body that is capable of carrying out the Plan is a

precondition for success. Choosing precise, achievable and realistic goals, within reasonable time

frames, is critical for implementation. There seems to be a clear need for viable and practical goals

to ensure implementation. Some countries have extracted recommendations and action proposals

from their NHRAP and included them into a multi-annual plan for human rights or a broad

governmental action plan to make them easier to realize. Plans that are concise and very practical,

recommend solutions, identify key players, foresee their financial impact, make implementation

easier and more likely to succeed.

A key factor in adequately implementing a NHRAP, despite the difficulties that it may involve,

seems to be the willingness and active participation of State institutions, that is to say the

commitment and support of all government agencies, line ministries and their partners. State

constituents would need to become motivated during the drawing-up of the Plan. For instance, the

creation of a network of human rights focal points within relevant institutions during the Plan’s

development would provide a support mechanism for its implementation. The organization of

seminars for civil servants and NGOs, at the final stage of the development process, has been



reported as a good practice to assist them in incorporating a human rights approach in their daily

work. Indeed, civil servants in charge of drafting public policies, evaluation mechanisms and

indicators, as well as NGOs, play a key role in implementing NHRAPs.

Excellency,


More importantly, a NHRAP will be successful if it effectively addresses human rights concerns

expressed by citizen, which often are reflected in the recommendations of the UN Human Rights

Mechanisms. In the case of Malaysia, an effective implementation of a NHRAP will require a

genuine and broad consultation with all kind of stakeholders, even those who may have different

views from the Government. It will also demand the formulation of legislation in accordance with

universal human rights standards and continued efforts to pay an equal attention to both economic,

social and cultural rights, and civil and political rights. In this particular context, moving toward

an early ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights would be an

important and timely step, showing a firm commitment towards fuller protection of human rights

in Malaysia.

During this process, close cooperation with the UN human rights mechanisms will be important.

For example, official visits by UN Special Rapporteurs of the Human Rights Council can very

much help to address complex and sensitive issues which are debated among the public, such as

freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, torture, fair trial and arbitrary detention.

Excellency,


The UN system has often provided assistance on the development of NHRAPs in various countries.

If the Government of Malaysia decides to develop a Plan, and wishes to request assistance from

the Resident Coordinator Office (RCO) and UN Country Team, UN colleagues will be able to

identify relevant expertise in the UN system to support the work of the Government.

Thank you for your attention.

23 May 2012

NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS ACTION PLAN

Documents

Transcript of NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS ACTION PLAN