Can NHRIs Bridge the Implementation Gap? Assessing SUHAKAM’s Effectiveness in Malaysia’s Universal Periodic Review

  • Ying Hooi Khoo


Progress in addressing human rights concerns in Malaysia is a product of decades of struggles by its citizens, individually and collectively. Despite the recognition of civil liberties in the Federal Constitution, generally in Malaysia, the distribution of civil, political and socio-economic rights remains restricted. Malaysia has engaged with the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) over two cycles. The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) is a key stakeholder in the advancement of human rights in Malaysia and contributes to the UPR process in Geneva as well as by seeking to hold the government accountable to its commitments domestically. A review of the evidence suggests that while SUHAKAM is making good efforts to push the Malaysian government to follow-through on its commitments, its overall effectiveness is in doubt.


  1. BHEUU official portal. 2012. All About the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) (2011). Kuala Lumpur: SUHAKAM at:
  2. Burdekin, Brian, and Jason Naum. 2007. National Human Rights Institutions in the Asia Pacific Region 27. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Cardenas, Sonia. 2001. Adaptive States: The Proliferation of National Human Rights Institutions. Working Paper Series T-01-04. Carr Centre for Human Rights Policy, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  4. COMANGO Ban: Suhakam Wants Societies Act Reviewed, Bar Council Asks for Retraction. 2014. The Star, January 10 at:
  5. Home Ministry: Comango Is an Illegal Entity, Not Registered with ROS. 2014. The Star, January 8 at:
  6. International Council on Human Rights Policy. 2000. Performance & Legitimacy: National Human Rights Institutions. Versoix: International Council on Human Rights Policy.Google Scholar
  7. Lindsnœs, Birgit, and Lone Lindholt. 1998. National Human Rights Institutions: Standard-Setting and Achievements. Human Rights in Development Online 5 (1): xi–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Malaysians Don’t Know Much About Universal Periodic Review – Suhakam. 2016. The Borneo Post, January 8 at:
  9. Pegram, Thomas. 2010. Diffusion Across Political Systems: The Global Spread of National Human Rights Institutions. Human Rights Quarterly 32: 729–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. SUHAKAM. 2011. All About the UPR. Human Rights Commission of Malaysia.Google Scholar
  11. SUHAKAM. 2014. Annual Report. Kuala Lumpur: SUHAKAM.Google Scholar
  12. ———. 2015. Annual Report. Kuala Lumpur: SUHAKAM.Google Scholar
  13. Tee, Khaw Lake. 2012. Progress in Human Rights Over the Past Three Years. New Straits Times, November 12.Google Scholar
  14. UN Human Rights Council. 2013a. National Report Submitted in Accordance with Paragraph 5 of the Annex to Human Rights Council Resolution 16/21 – Malaysia, August 6, A/HRC/WG.6/17/MYS/1.Google Scholar
  15. ———. 2013b. Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review-Malaysia, December 4, A/HRC/25/10.Google Scholar
  16. ———. 2016. Written Submission by the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia, June 10, A/HRC/32/NI/5.Google Scholar
  17. Zurairi, A.R. 2013a. ‘Illegitimate’ Comango Funded by Foreign Powers, Alleges Muslim NGOs. Malay Mail Online, October 24 at:
  18. ———. 2013b. Isma Pledges a Million Supporters in Nationwide Anti-Comango Crusade. Malay Mail Online, December 16 at:

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ying Hooi Khoo
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of International and Strategic Studies, Faculty of Arts and Social SciencesUniversity of MalayaKuala LumpurMalaysia

Personalised recommendations