2015 ANNI Report on the Performance and Establishment of National Human Rights Institutions in Asia The Asian NGO Network on National Human Rights Institutions (ANNI) Compiled and Printed by Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-­‐ASIA) Secretariat of ANNI Editorial Committee: Balasingham Skanthakumar (Editor---in---chief) Joses Kuan Tessa Baizer Layout and Printing: Prachoomthong Group IBSN: 978-616-7733-10-4 Copyright © 2015 This book was written for the benefit of human rights defenders and may be quoted from or copied as long as the source and authors are acknowledged. Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-­‐ASIA) 66/2 Pan Road, Silom, Bang Rak Bangkok, 10500 Thailand Tel: +66 (0)2 637 91266-­‐7 Fax: +66 (0)2 637 9128 Email: [email protected] Web: www.forum-asia.org Table of Contents Foreword Regional Overview Southeast Asia Burma: All Shook Up Cambodia: Symbolic Institutions Are No Substitute Malaysia: Room To Be Pro-Active Thailand: Human Rights Crisis Timor-Leste: Proactive Steps Needed for Further Improvement South Asia Afghanistan: Still Stumbling Ahead Bangladesh: Failing To Fulfil Its Commitments India: Immediate Reforms Needed The Maldives: Zipped, Packed And Ready To Head Home Nepal: All Eyes On New Team Sri Lanka: Lost Opportunities Northeast Asia Japan: Eager To See A Breakthrough Mongolia: Amend The Law South Korea: Looking On When Not Looking Away Taiwan: Betting on the 2016 Elections Foreword The Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), as the Secretariat of the Asian NGO Network on National Human Rights Institutions (ANNI), humbly presents the publication of the 2015 ANNI Report on the Performance and Establishment of National Human Rights Institutions in Asia. Our sincere appreciation goes to all 30 ANNI member organisations from across 17 countries in Asia for their participation and commitment to ANNI and continued advocacy towards the strenghtening and establishment of NHRIs in Asia. Similarly, we would also like to extend our sincere thanks to the National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) that have contributed valuable inputs and feeback to the concerned country reports. Reports submitted by organisations representing 15 countries consider the developments that took place in respective countries over the course of 2014 and significant events in the first quarter of 2015 As in previous years, the country reports have been researched and structured in accordance with ANNI Reporting Guidelines that were collectively formulated by the ANNI members at its 8th Regional Consultation in April 2015 (Dhaka, Bangladesh). The Report primarily focuses on issues of independence and effectiveness of the NHRIs and their engagement with other stakeholders such as civil society and Parliament. We believe that this annual report will continue to serve its purposes as an advocacy tool to enhance the effective work and functioning of NHRIs so that they can continue to play their role as public defenders and protectors of human rights on the ground. FORUM-ASIA would like to acknowledge the contribution of everyone who has dedicated their time and effort to the publication of this Report; namely Aklima Ferdows Lisa (Bangladesh), Shahindha Ismail and Jauza Khaleel (Maldives), Dinushika Dissanayake, Sabra Zahid, K. Aingkaran and PM Senarathna (Sri Lanka), Sue-yeon Park, Minjoo Kim, Da Hye Lee, Ha-neui Kim and Eunji Kang (South Korea), Shoko Fukui (Japan), Enkhtsetseg Baljinnyam and Urantsooj Gombosuren (Mongolia), Jose Pereira (Timor- Leste), Khin Ohmar, Alex James and Matthew Gumley (Burma), Almaz Teffera and Stella Anastasia (Cambodia), Mathew Jacob (India), Sevan Doraisamy (Malaysia), Prashannata Wasti (Nepal), E-ling Chiu, Song-lih Huang and Yibee Huang (Taiwan), Chalida Tajaroensuk and Chutimas Suksai (Thailand), and Hassan Ali Faiz (Afghanistan). Our sincere thanks extend to the Country Programme of FORUM-ASIA who has assisted throughout the process. ANNI would also like to convey its deep gratitude to Balasingham Skanthakumar for his expertise and guidance in editing the Report for a third successive year. Finally, we would like to acknowledge the financial support from the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) in the publication of this Report. We hope that this publication will be beneficial for all stakeholders involved in the strengthening and establishment of NHRIs in the region. Evelyn Balais-Serrano Executive Director Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA) Secretariat of ANNI Regional Overview ANNI Secretariat INTRODUCTION Approaching twenty-five years since the Principles Relating to the Status of National Institutions (Paris Principles) were first drafted, National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) have grown at an unprecedented rate. They total some 106 globally today. NHRIs have also been conferred a certain pride of place in the international human rights system, with formal roles and rights designated to them. This is further evinced in the steadily growing number of resolutions at the United National Human Rights Council and General Assembly. Notable shifts have been observed, from procedural texts to more issue-specific resolutions that reflect contemporary trends and issues (such as reprisals against NHRIs). Indeed, there seems to be a “global adoption” of NHRIs today. The sheer increase in recommendations made, as well as enthusiasm with which they are met and accepted, at various platorms such as the Universal Periodic Review and treaty bodies, lends further credence to this assertion. This seemingly unassailable tide has produced several milestones and achievements that should also be noted. These range from instituting dedicated HRD focal points/desks within NHRIs, to pivotal roles played in the passage of landmark legislation, to conducting national inquiries to investigate widespread, chronic and institutional human rights abuses and violations, and even joint campaigns with civil society to pressure governments to ratify important human rights instruments. However, the assessment by human rights defenders (HRDs) and civil society in the ANNI Report 2015 depicts a more nuanced picture that reflects the political contexts as well as circumstances governing the existence and performance of NHRIs in this region. CLOWNING AROUND WITH THE PARIS PRINCIPLES The “Paris Principles” spells out the minimum international standards for an NHRI’s structure, competence, working procedures. These principles provide guidelines for how NHRIs are to be independent from the government and reflect the pluralism of society in its membership. They address both promotional and protection aspects of the mandate and even provide some direction concerning the quasi-jurisdictional competence of NHRIs that possess such powers; a common feature of many NHRIs in Asia. However, it appears that many NHRIs are “set up to fail”, and this is most evident in problematic appointment and selection processes adopted by Asian NHRIs and their governments. With the exception of very few NHRIs, most are conducted in secrecy, devoid of consultation and public participation in the application, screening and selection process. There might be the occasional piecemeal concessions made through public calls in the national broadsheets or to civil society mailing lists, but very little else to substantially ensure the rigor and integrity of the process. A cursory scan of Asian NHRIs under review by the International Coordinating Committee of NHRIs’ Sub-Committee on Accreditation will reveal that recurring recommendations made in relation to independence and the process for the selection of Commissioners remain ignored (over at least two review cycles). This is certainly worrisome and a missed opportunity to restore confidence and legitimacy deficits, because a comprehensive selection criteria and a coherent selection processes can certainly bolster the independence and good governance of an NHRI. It is most ironic that civil society and HRDs- main constituencies of NHRIs- continue to be excluded from the process. The impacts are wide-reaching and long-lasting. The NHRC Thailand, criticized by the ICC-SCA for its lack of independence and neutrality and currently facing the imminent threat of downgrade, conducted a public inquiry into the 2010 political violence that suffered from poor turnout and distrust. More recently, while successful advocacy and pressure finally prevented the proposed merger of the NHRCT and Ombudman’s Office, deeply-entrenched issues continue to fester. Given a year after the ICC-SCA November 2014 review to “show cause” before the downgrade takes effect, a highly regressive selection process adopted by the military government that fell considerably short of the Paris Principles unsurprisingly resulted in the nomination of a candidate with a proven poor track record on human rights. The individual had even previously filed lese majeste (defamation of monarchy) charges against civil society activists and called for harsher enforcement and penalties under Article 112 of the Penal Code! In Korea, the controversial appointment of a Commissioner who had previously gone on record taking positions that openly endorse discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity. This unilateral, non-transparent and non-inclusive selection process was again repeated in the nomination and confirmation of the incoming Chairperson (in August 2015), even despite being under intense scrutiny and confronting the possibility of a downgrade