Another CAT

0

When is Malaysia going to sign the CAT? — File photo

HAVING had enough of the controversy over the origin of the name of Kuching, we are talking about a CAT of a different species today.

CAT stands for the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

I recently attended a forum on Human Trafficking. It was organised by Suhakam (the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia) in Kuching. There was also an exhibition in conjunction with that forum.

The lady manning the exhibition gave me a prewritten letter, undated and addressed to the Prime Minister of Malaysia.

Would I like to join the campaign to urge the government of Malaysia to add Malaysia to the list of countries which have ratified the convention called CAT? After careful reading of that letter, I signed on the dotted line.

The signatories of the letter are calling upon the authorities to “(1) ratify the UN Convention against Torture and its Optional Protocol without delay or reservation; (2) ensure that national laws are compatible with the principles and spirit of the UN CAT; (3) establish an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission or a similarly dedicated and empowered body to ensure police accountability.”

According to the letter, many countries have taken the universal prohibition on torture seriously and made significant strides in combating it by taking positive steps such as providing in the laws of their countries appropriate punishment for the perpetrators and adequate redress for the injustice to the torture victims. There should be legal guarantees of safety from torture for any victim caught in one country after crossing international borders.

Unfortunately, Malaysia has not ratified (at the time of writing) the UN Convention, which was signed 31 years ago.

By way of emphasis, as if the authorities did not know about Torture, the letter begins with the statement that “Torture is abhorrent. It is barbaric and inhuman. It can never be justified. It is wrong, self-defeating and it poisons the rule of law, replacing it with terror. No one is safe when governments allow its use.”

It continues, “The world’s governments recognised these fundamental truths when, on the aftermath of the atrocities of the Second World War, they adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. In this Declaration lies the guarantee of the basic right of all of us, everywhere, to live free from torture, from cruelty.” (Text slightly edited by me.)

I have a copy of the letter, which you may like to read. Better still, write one to the Prime Minister in your own handwriting and sign it with your own signature. Send it straightaway or pass it to the local office of the Human Rights Commission for onward transmission to the Prime Minister at his office in Putrajaya.

I’m sure the staff of the local Suhakam office will help you process your epistle through the proper channel. And you would have done something good for your King and Country. Call yourself a true patriot if you like.

Each letter may not make the difference – to influence the recipients – but many letters on this topic may attract the attention of people in authority. The Member of Parliament in your area may like to refer to this subject in his speech during the next parliament. Remember the proverb, “Constant dripping wears away the hardest stone.”

International treaties

I would add that the treaty in respect of human rights among nations is a relatively new thing in the history of the world.

As the letter I referred to above rightly points out, it was only after the terrible violations of human rights during the Pacific War that countries involved or affected began to talk about enacting laws to ban human rights violations by governments themselves. Prior to that Convention, there were numerous wars and human conflicts and horrendous violations of human rights inflicted on humans by humans.

Human rights are rights and freedom to which every human being is entitled.  In the Federal Constitution of Malaysia there is the provision which states, “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law.”

That sentence ‘save in accordance with law’ means that it is lawful to violate human rights left, right and centre if Parliament has passed the law to that effect. That is why there have controversies over the abolition of the Internal Security Act, and even after its abolishment there is raging the “wine in the new bottle” argument.

The trouble with international treaties is that sometimes the nations often ignore them. Even after signing it, the signatory nation is not obliged to apply it if that country has not ratified it.

Protection against breaches of these rights committed by a state including the state of which the victim is a national may in some cases be enforced in international law. It is this right of protection that a Malaysian victim wishes to possess, being a national of the country.

Although the United

Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) spells out most of the main rights that must be protected, yet the Declaration is not binding in international law. So something extra is necessary, namely, a treaty which has the force of law. Such a Convention would be the CAT, which our country should ratify without delay and more importantly those rights should also be enshrined in the local legislation.

Comments can reach the writer via [email protected].