馬來西亞國家人權委員會之研究

Research of Malaysian National Human Rights Commission

10.6774/TULR.200806.0077

廖福特(Fort Fu-Te Liao)

馬來西亞國家人權委員會 ； 國家人權機構 ； 巴黎原則 ； 憲政體制 ； 國際人權 ； SUHAKAM ； Human Rights Commission of Malaysia ； national human rights institution ； Paris Principles ； constitutional system ； international human rights

臺北大學法學論叢

66期（2008 / 06 / 01）

77 - 137

繁體中文

本文以聯合國針對國家人權機構所建構之理想及準則爲基礎，分析馬來西亞國家人權委員會，並且著重於法律規範、組織及職權等三個面向。 本文認爲，馬來西亞設立國家人權委員會之源起，國際壓力占了相當大之因素。而因爲大英國協及亞太區域發展趨勢，影響馬來西亞設立了獨立人權委員會模式之國家人權機構，並制定新法律以規範其組織及職權。 從組機架構觀之，「馬來西亞人權委員會法」已建構了基本規範，但是其問題包括行政權掌握任命及解職委員之完全權力、委員任期太短、專任委員不足等。在經費部分，馬來西亞政府所提供之經費是否完全充分尚有疑問，或可將其預算編列直接由國會決定之。馬來西亞國家人權委員會已有相當不錯之辦公空間、地區辦公室及內部組織，也能聘任相當數量之職員，但是遺憾的是其並無權力訂定對職員之懲戒規則。 有關職權部分，「馬來西亞人權委員會法」確認了國家人權委員會之職權方向，也包括了聯合國所期待的橋樑、促進者及保護者三大功能。國家人權委員會已扮演好橋樑及促進者之角色，其已建議政府應積極加入國際人權條約，並針對各種人權議題提出意見，因此民間團體已漸能肯定國家人權委員會之獨立性及專業性。但是國家人權委員會並沒有扮演好保護者之角色，其沒有提出對於個案之完備建議及追蹤政府改善，對於訪視各拘禁處所亦未提出完整內容及具體建議。 本文認爲馬來西亞國家人權委員會職權無法完全發揮的重要原因是政府未善意回應各種意見及建議，其根本法律理由是「馬來西亞人權委員會法」並沒有規定國家人權委員會各種意見及建議之效力。

This paper examines Malaysian National Human Rights Commission by the ideas and principles established by the United Nations, and focuses on three issues: legal basis, structure and functions. It considers that, because of international pressure, Malaysia established the Commission. Influenced by developments of British Commonwealth and Asia Pacific region an independent Commission was established and a new law was enacted to rule its structure and functions. Regarding its structure, the Commission has established basic rules. However, its problems include administrative branch holding power to appoint all commissioners, commissioners having short term and fewer full-time members. There is a doubt whether the Malaysian government provided adequate budget, and it is suggested that the Commission's budget can be allocated directly by the Parliament. The Commission has three-floor office, regional branches and interior departments, which have many staffs. It is however regret that the Commission has no power to draw up discipline rules. Concerning its functions, the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act endorses its direction, which includes three main roles: bridge, promoter and protector that the UN expects. The Commission has played a good role as bridge and promoter, as it has recommended that government should positively access to several international human rights treaties, and also has provided numerous opinions on human rights issues. The result of such efforts was that NGOs have affirmed the Commission's independence and specialty. However, the Commission may not be a good protector. It did not offer fully opinions and suggestions on individual petitions and places that it visited. This paper argues that a main reason that the Commission can not be a protector was due to the government's negative response of which the legal reason is that the Act did not rule the effect of the Commission's opinions and recommendations.

1. (2005).INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON HUMAN RIGHTS POLICY AND OFFICE OF THE UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS.ASSESSING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTITUTIONS.
2. (1997).Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, A/52/36.
3. (2001).Memorandum from Civil Society to THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION OF MALAYSIA (SUHAKAM) AND GOVERNMENT OF MALAYSIA, in ERA CONSUMER MALAYSIA.PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL CONSULTATION ON "SUHAKAM AFTER ONE YEAR".
4. (2001).Geneva.
5. Guidelines for National Human Rights Institutions for submission of written statements
6. (2000).Speech by Mary Robinson at National Human Rights Workshop, Surabaya
7. ABDUL AZIZ BARI(2003).MALAYSIAN CONSTITUTION A CRITICAL INTRODUCTION.
8. ABDUL AZIZ BARI(2002).CABINET PRINCIPLES IN MALAYSIA THE LAW AND PRACTICE.
9. Amanda Whiting(2003).STAN. J INT'L L..
10. AMARJIT KAUR,IAN METCALFE(1999).THE SHAPING OF MALAYSIA.
11. ANDREW HARDING(1996).Law, GOVERNMENT AND THE CONSTITUTION IN MALAYSIA.
12. ANNA-ELINA POHJOLAINEN(2006).THE EVOLUTION OF NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTITUTIONS THE ROLE OF THE UNITED NATIONS.
13. C. Raj Kumar(2003).AM. U. INT'L L. REV.
14. Carolyn Evans.Human Rights Commissions and Religious Conflict in the Asia-Pacific Region.Human Rights Commissions and Religious Conflict in the Asia-Pacific Region, ICLQ.
15. Charles Santiago(2003).Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in ERA CONSUMER MALAYSIA.PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL CONSULTATION ON "SUHAKAM AFTER 3 YEARS".
16. Cheah Boon Kheng,Amarjit Kaur,Ian Metcalfe (eds.)(1999).Politics, in THE SHAPING OF MALAYSIA.
17. Chiam Heng Keng(2003).SUHAKAM's Recommendations and the Government's Response, in ERA CONSUMER MALAYSIa.PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL CONSULTATION ON "SUHAKAM AFTER 3 YEARS".
18. Chiam Heng Keng(2002).The Role and Challenges of SUHAKAM in Promoting and Protecting Human Rights, in ERA CONSUMER MALAYSIA.PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL CONSULTATION ON "SUHAKAM AFTER 2 YEARS".
19. Chiam Heng Keng(2004).Overview of SUHAKAM's Annual Report 2003, in ERA CONSUMER MALAYSIA.PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL CONSULTATION ON "SUHAKAM AFTER 4 YEARS".
20. Colin Nicholas(2001).SUHAKAM and Indigenous People, in ERA CONSUMER MALAYSIA.PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL CONSULTATION ON "SUHAKAM AFTER ONE YEAR".
21. Commission on Human Rights(1999).Resolution 1999/72, E/CN.41 RES/1999/72.
22. Cynthia A.(1998).Williams, Corporate Compliance with the Law in the Era of Efficiency.N. C. L. REV.,76
23. Dato'' Siew Kioh Choo(2005).Taipei.
24. Datuk Param Cumaraswamy(2004).PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL CONSULTATION ON "SUHAKAM AFTER 4 YEARS".
25. David Rosenberg(2004).Making Sense of Good Faith in Delaware Orporate Fiduciary Law: A Contractarian Approach.DEL. J. CORP. L.,29
26. Dennis J. Block,Michael J. Maimone,Steven B. Ross(1993).Stephen Mcg. Bundy|Einer Elhauge.
27. Edward Rock,Michael Wachter(2002).Dangerous Liaisons: Corporate Law, Trust Law and Interdoctrinal Legal Transplants.NW. U. L. REV,96
28. Elizabeth Wong(2000).The NGO Perspective, in ERA CONSUMER MALAYSIA.PROCEEDINGS OF FORUM ON UNDERSTANDING THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION ACT 1999.
29. ELIZABETH WONG(2002).CRITICAL VOICES ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT.
30. ERA CONSUMER MALAYSIA(2004).PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL CONSULTATION ON SUHAKAM： AFTER 4 YEARS "CHANGING THE HUMAN RIGHTS PARADIGM IN MALAYSIA".
31. ERA CONSUMER MALAYSIA(2002).PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL CONSULTATION ON "SUHAKAM AFTER 2 YEARS" HOW HAS THE COMMISSION PLAYED A ROLE IN PROMOTING AND PROTECTING HUMAN RIGHTS IN MALAYSIA?.
32. ERA CONSUMER MALAYSIA(2000).PROCEEDINGS OF FORUM ON UNDERSTANDING THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION ACT 1999.
33. ERA CONSUMER MALAYSIA(2002).SEMINAR ON UNDERSTANDING HUMAN RIGHTS & ISLAM: MOTIVATION.IDEOLOGY AND RELEVANCE IN A CONTEMPORARY SOCIETY.
34. ERA CONSUMER MALAYSIA(2001).PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL CONSULTATION ON "SUHAKAM AFTER ONE YEAR".
35. ERA CONSUMER MALAYSIA(2003).PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL CONSULTATION ON "SUHAKAM AFTER 3 YEARS" RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE.
36. Frank H. Easterbrook,Daniel R. Fischel(1982).Antitrust Suits by Targets of Tender Offers.MICH. L. REV.,80
37. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK,DANIEL R. FISCHEL(1992).THE ECONOMIC STRUCTURE OF CORPORATE LAW.
38. UNJUST ORDER: MALAYSIA'S INTERNAL SECURITY ACT
39. General Assembly(1998).Resolution 52/128, A/RES/52/128.
40. GOVERNMENT OF MALAYSIA(2003).FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.
41. GOVERNMENT OF MALAYSIA(1979).MALAYSIA FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.
42. Hillary A. Sale(2004).Delaware's Good Faith.CORNELL L. REV.,98
43. IRENE FERNANDEZ(2001).CRITICISM AND EVALUATION OF SUHAKAM.IN ERA CONSUMER MALAYSIA, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL CONSULTATION ON "SUHAKAM AFTER ONE YEAR".
44. Irene Fernandez(2000).Gender and NGO Perspective, in ERA CONSUMER MALAYSIA.PROCEEDINGS OF FORUM ON UNDERSTANDING THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION ACT 1999.
45. JAMEAH MOHD JAN(2003).MALAYSIA IN BRIEF 2003.
46. Jonathan Macey(2006).IOWA J. CORP. L..
47. Kent Greenfield(2001).Ultra Vires Lives! A Stakeholder Analysis of Corporate Illegality (with Notes on How Corporate Law could Enforce International Law Norms).VA. L. REV.,87
48. KEVIN YL TAN,THIO LI-ANN(1999).CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IN MALAYSIA & SINGAPORE.
49. KUA KIA SOONG(2005).THE MALAYSIAN CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT.
50. MALAYAN LAW JOURNAL SDN BHD(2000).MLJ STATUTE SERIES.HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION OF MALAYSIA ACT 1999
51. MALAYSIAN NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS(1999).MALAYSIAN CHARTER ON HUMAN RIGHTS.
52. Maria Chin Abdullah(2004).PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL CONSULTATION ON "SUHAKAM AFTER 4 YEARS".
53. Marimutbu Nadason(2000).WELCOME ADDRESS, IN ERA CONSUMER MALAYSIA.PROCEEDINGS OF FORUM ON UNDERSTANDING THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION ACT 1999
54. MARY LOUISE CLIFFORD(1968).THE LAND AND PEOPLE OF MALAYSIA.
55. MARY ROBISON(2006).A VOICE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS.
56. Melvin A. Eisenberg(2006).The Duty of Good Faith in Corporate Law.DEL. J. CORP. L.,31
57. MICHAEL JACOBSEN,OLE BRUUN(2000).HUMAN RIGHTS AND ASIA VALUES: CONTESTING NATIONAL IDENTITIES AND CULTURAL REPRESENTATIONS IN ASIA.
58. MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS(2004).HUMAN RIGHTS 2003 ANNUAL REPORT ON NORWAY'S EFFORTS TO PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS.
59. Mohd Nasir Hashim(2001).General Overview on SUHAKAM, in ERA CONSUMER MALAYSIA.PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL CONSULTATION ON "SUHAKAM AFTER ONE YEAR".
60. MUHAMMAD IKMAL SAID,ZAHID EMBY(1996).MALAYSIA: CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF SYED HUSIN ALI.
61. Nicholas Howen(2002).Legitimacy & Effectiveness: Putting the Paris Principles, in ERA CONSUMER MALAYSIA.PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL CONSULTATION ON "SUHAKAM AFTER 2 YEARS".
62. OFFICE OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS(2003).NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS PROGRAMMES, EUROPE, CENTRAL ASIA AND THE CAUCASUS REGIONS NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS REGIONAL ACTIVITIES UPDATE.
63. OFFICE OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS(2002).THE OFFICE OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS BOOKLET.
64. P. Ramakrishnan(2003).SUHAKAM: What Assessment, Whose Future? in ERA CONSUMER MALAYSIA.PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL CONSULTATION ON "SUHAKAM AFTER 3 YEARS".
65. Patrick J. Ryan(1991).WASH. L. REV..
66. PERCETAKAN NASIONAL MALAYSIA BERHAD(2000).HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION OF MALAYSIA ACT 1999 LAWS OF MALAYSIA ACT 597.
67. PHILIP ELDRIDGE(2002).EMERGING ROLES OF NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTITUTIONS IN SOUTHEAST ASIA.
68. R. H. HICKLING(1997).MALAYSIAN PUBLIC LAW.
69. Ramdas Tikamadas(2004).Government's Response to SUHAKAM Reports and Recommendations to Protect and Promote Human Rights, in ERA CONSUMER MALAYSIA.PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL CONSULTATION ON "SUHAKAM AFTER 4 YEARS".
70. Ramdas Tikamdas(2002).Evaluation of SUHAKAM, in ERA CONSUMER MALAYSIA.PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL CONSULTATION ON "SUHAKAM AFTER 2 YEARS".
71. Ramdas Tikamdas(2001).SUHAKAM: Analysis of Maiden Parliamentary Report, in ERA CONSUMER MALAYSIA.PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL CONSULTATION ON "SUHAKAM AFTER ONE YEAR".
72. ROBERT CHARLES CLARK(1986).CORPORATE LAW.
73. Robert Cooter,Bradley J. Freedman(1991).The Fiduciary Relationship: Its Economic Character and Legal Consequences.
74. Ronald J. Gilson(2001).Globalizing Corporate Governance: Convergence of Form or Function.AM. J. COMP. L.,49
75. Shad Saleem Faruqi(2000).A Constitutional Perspective, in ERA CONSUMER MALAYSIA.PROCEEDINGS OF FORUM ON UNDERSTANDING THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION ACT 1999.
76. SOUTH ASIA HUMAN RIGHTS INFORMATION CENTRE(1998).NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTITUTIONS IN THE ASIA PACIFIC REGION.REPORT OF THE ALTERNATE NGO CONSULTATION ON THE SECOND ASIA-PACIFIC REGIONAL WORKSHOP ON NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTITUTIONS.
77. Stephen Mcg. Bundy,Einer Elhauge(1993).Knowledge about Legal Sanctions.MICH. L. REV.,92
78. Steve Gan(2001).Press Freedom: Three Things SUHAKAM can do, in ERA CONSUMER MALAYSIA.PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL CONSULTATION ON "SUHAKAM AFTER ONE YEAR".
79. STEVEN SHAVELL(2004).FOUNDATIONS OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF LAW.
80. SUARA RAKYAT MALAYSIA (SUARAM)(2001).MALAYSIAN HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS IN 2001.
81. SUARA RAKYAT MALAYSIA (SUARAM)(2005).MALAYSIA: HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT 2004.
82. SUARA RAKYAT MALAYSIA (SUARAM)(2000).MALAYSIAN HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS IN 2000.
83. SUARA RAKYAT MALAYSIA (SUARAM)(2003).MALAYSIA: HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT 2003.
84. SUHAKAM(2004).MALAYSIAN HUMAN RIGHTS DAY 2002 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONFERENCE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND EDUCATION.
85. SUHAKAM(2002).ANNUAL REPORT 2001.
86. SUHAKAM(2004).ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION ON EDUCATION FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES.
87. SUHAKAM(2005).ANNUAL REPORT 2004.
88. SUHAKAM(2004).HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF LAW: A REPORT OF SUHAKAM'S CONFERENCE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE THIRD MALAYSIAN HUMAN RIGHTS DAY.
89. SUHAKAM(2004).ADEQUATE HOUSING: A HUMAN RIGHT. A REPORT OF SUHAKAM'S SEMINAR ON HUMAN RIGHTS PERTAINING TO BASIC NEEDS.
90. SUHAKAM(2003).REVIEW OF THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT 1960.
91. SUHAKAM(2006).ANNUAL REPORT 2005.
92. SUHAKAM(2004).REPORT ROUND TABLE DISCUSSION: RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS UNDER CEDAW.
93. SUHAKAM(2003).ANNUAL REPORT 2002.
94. SUHAKAM(2004).ANNUAL REPORT 2003.
95. SUHAKAM(2004).TRAFFICKING IN WOMEN AND CHILDREN REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION OF MALAYSIA.
96. Tan Sri Anuar Zainal Abidin(2000).PROCEEDINGS OF FORUM ON UNDERSTANDING THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION ACT 1999.
97. Tan Sri Harun Hashim(2001).Assessment of Human Rights in Malaysia and the Role of Suhakam in Promoting and Protecting Human Rights, in ERA CONSUMER MALAYSIA.PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL CONSULTATION ON "SUHAKAM AFTER ONE YEAR".
98. Tan Sri Harun Hashim(2003).SUHAKAM's Achievements in Monitoring Democracy and the Rule of Law in ERA CONSUMER MALAYSIA.PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL CONSULTATION ON "SUHAKAM AFTER 3 YEARS".
99. THOMAS A. J. A.(2001).VANDAMME AND JAN-HERMAN REESTMAN.AMBIGUITY IN THE RULE OF LAW THE INTERFACE BETWEEN NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL LEGAL SYSTEM.
100. UNITED NATIONS(1995).PROFESSIONAL TRAINING SERIES NO. 4 NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTITUTIONS.
101. UNITED NATIONS(1994).Fact Sheet No. 19, NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS FOR THE PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS.
102. WILLARD A. HANNA(1964).THE FORMATION OF MALAYSIA NEW FACTOR IN WORLD POLITICS.
103. Wm. Theodore De Bary著、陳立勝譯(2003)。亞洲價值與人權。正中書局。
104. WU MIN AUN(2004).THE MALAYSIAN LEGAL SYSTEM.
105. ZAKARIA HAJI AHMAD(1987).GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS OF MALAYSIA.
106. 大英國協秘書處(2001)。國家人權機構最佳作法。大英國協秘書處。
107. 林子儀、葉俊榮、黃昭元、張文貞(2003)。憲法－權力分立。學林。
108. 林若雲(2001)。馬哈迪主政下的馬來西亞國家與社會關係（1981-2001）。韋伯文化。
109. 廖福特、國史館主編(2004)。人權理論與歷史論文集
110. 廖福特、湯德宗主編(2007)。憲法解釋之理論與實務第五輯。中央研究院法律學研究所籌備處。
111. 蔡源林(2003)。世界宗教學刊
112. 蔡源林、蕭新煌主編(2000)。東南亞的變貌。中研院。
113. 獨立出版社翻譯(1958)。梹榔嶼州憲法‧馬六甲州憲法。藝華出版印刷有限公司。

1. 黃俊榮(2011)。2010年憲法發展回顧。臺大法學論叢，40(S)，1625-1658。
2. 李健源(2023)。聯合國「關於促進和保護人權的國家機構的地位的原則（巴黎原則）」之研究。弘光學報，91，59-76。
3. 廖福特(2009)。愛爾蘭人權委員會—和平與人權之互動。東海大學法學研究，31，1-67。
4. (2009)。泰國國家人權委員會之設立及發展—在軍事政變與民主立憲之間。中研院法學期刊，4，1-80。
5. (2010)。菲律賓人權委員會─人民力量之興起與失落。臺灣國際法季刊，7(4)，163-232。
6. (2017)。地方自治體人權保障組織之運作與困境─以台北市人權保障諮詢委員會為對象。華岡法粹，63，1-29。