Open letter - Suhakam’s probe “UNTRUE”

By. G Kanchana

The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) as a supposed independent vanguard of human rights in Malaysia should be the first to come into the defense of victims of abuse, in this case P.Uthayakumar, or at least take the initiative to ensure the truth is unveiled through an appropriate and accurate probe that includes both sides being heard. After all wasn’t Uthayakumar the very person in the centre of the issue? Wasn’t it he who made the complaints?
If a one sided probe is sufficient, than from my very own probe it seems Suhakam deliberately refrained from interviewing Utayakumar. Had they done so, they may well have had to throw accusations at the prison officials and police officers. We know from past history this is something Suhakam abstains from doing. Perhaps that’s why time after time it has earned itself the name of “ toothless tiger ”. If this is the manner in which Suhakam conducted its previous inquiries into other human rights issues than, I fear for the preservation of “truth”.
Suhakam has decided, or perhaps been coached to portrait P.Uthayakumar as a liar. Are they now saying that his sugar level did not rise to three times the normal level and that he had not been admitted to the hospital for this reason, that from the blood test done at the hospital, urea, protein and cholesterol were above the limit and this condition had led to some blurring of his eyesight, that infact there is fear there may be minimal damage to his heart for which he is scheduled to undergo some test’s.
Aren’t these symptoms that a diabetic would suffer if medication was not taken, in this case medication denied? Is Suhakam saying none of the above things took place?
What prove does Suhakam have that he Uthayakumar only received salt and sugar-free food and drinks. Can rice and Malay style foods which are constantly sweet in nature be construed as ‘diabetic diet? Is mere assurance by the party which would otherwise be guilty, sufficient? Uthayakumar has repeatedly conveyed his problems of not obtaining diabetic diet and medication to his family and lawyers. He made similar complaints for his friend Mr. Kengatharan who is a vegetarian. Infact it was claimed by his lawyer, that on a recent visit and upon requesting for hot drinks (with no sugar) for both of them, she had been shocked to find that the drinks came extremely and unnecessarily sweet, that they had to put it away. Uthayakumar has been consistent with his claims. How can Suhakam carelessly or maliciously doubt the victim and not the perpetrator.
As to his medication it is my contention that Suhakam has misled and twisted the issue once again. The statement that Utayakumar had expressed satisfaction with the medication he received (if made at all) would have been while he was admitted at Taiping Hospital and receiving treatment there. Being a well established hospital with dedicated and meticulous doctors they would certainly uphold the need for medical treatment. At all times Uthayakumar was referring to not having been given medication at the Kamunting prison.
Uthayakumar’s contention was that for one month he was not given his diabetic medication by the prison officials and this despite his 6 written requests to see the Director of the prison. The prison authorities can claim or even demonstrate to Suhakam the ample stock of diabetic medication in their possession but that does not mean nor prove that they had given him those medicines.
Medication was brought by his family and lawyers only because he had not received the same from the prison. He was beginning to feel very weak and tired. Despite this he exercised daily in a desperate hope that the sugar level would be lowered. If not for the exercise his sugar level could have been at the most dangerous level. Knowing, that without medication and consumption of non-diabetic meals he was going to be very ill, he requested for medication to be brought by his family. It was not to substantiate the medicine supplied by the prison (as indicated by Suhakam) but rather it was the only medication that he could have had. What was the motive behind refusing Uthayakumar his medication?
Suhakam has further ridiculed itself by claiming medical confidentiality and media reports being sufficient to highlight Uthayakumars plight. Did Suhakam also conduct a similar fact-finding probe on others who claimed medical neglect at Kamunting, namely of a detainee by the name of Sanjay Kumar who apparently made more than 30 request for treatment. He was admitted only after his situation got critical. He is now suspected of being paralysed on one side. Did Suhakam attend to him or his problems ?????

As to the fact that Uthayakumar’s family did not approach Suhakam – can you really blame them? Can you really blame how people feel about Suhakam, a body created by the government for the government. Thus far, apart from preparation of reports and recommendations Suhakam has not played an active role in upholding the rights of the people in this country. Its probe’s and inquiries should not be seen as eyewash for the government.
The very same people came to you as a Group of Concerned Citizens (GCC), lodging a complaint about the incident in Batu Caves that took place on the day before the Hindraf rally. Their allegations encompassed alleged use of excessive force by the police to disperse the crowd that had gathered there. A series of photographs were shown on how the Federal Reserve Unit (FRU) had fired tear gas and used water cannon against those caught within the temple compound. One photograph depicted several FRU members inside the compound - the site of one of the holiest Hindu shrines in Malaysia.” After that, they just kept on pumping tear gas inside.

Where is Suhakam’s public inquiry or at least a ‘fact-finding’ probe into the Batu Caves issue and of course the November 25th 2007 Hindraf Rally itself. A rally that claimed denial of human rights , discrimination and marginalisation. Shouldn’t Suhakam be seen to be acting without fear or favour?

It was once said by Mr. P Ramakrishnan
“……..that the protection of human rights and the preservation of civil liberties in this country will always require the active participation of conscious citizens.”
Uthayakumar and all those we consider as true and active human right advocates personify this statement.

However as concerns Suhakam, I quote Mr. P.Ramakrishnan again :
“ Accordingly, I had always thought that a fundamental assessment of Suhakam’s role and work must determine whether Suhakam is a creature of the BN government, or an ally of the national movement for justice, whether, in other words, Suhakam sides with those who abuse human rights and violate civil liberties or gives true assistance and solidarity to the victims of the same abuses and violations.

Personally, I wouldn’t blame Mr. P.Uthayakumar if he had refused to see you had he even been invited.
He was merely fighting for his rights under Article 5 (1) of the Federal Constitution i.e. his right to life which includes right to proper medical attention.