Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

HRC Co-Chairperson Andrew Khoo kicked the evening off with a few introductory remarks. Subsequently, the Malaysian Bar President Ragunath Kesavan gave a short welcome address, followed immediately by the debate itself.  

The motion for debate was: “This House believes that Malaysia's continuing reluctance to ratify the Rome Statute makes her complicit in crimes against humanity”.  

Aina Syazwani Salleh (law), Joanna Ghazali (business) and Tariq Azfar (law) from University Teknologi Mara (UiTM) formed the team proposing the motion, and their challengers, from International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM), comprised Danial Abdul Rahman (law), Meor Alif (political science) and Khalidah Nazihah (economics). 

Given that the debaters were informed of the motion only 30 minutes prior to the debate, both teams presented spirited and informed arguments.

The proposition contended that the ability of the ICC to operate effectively depends on the amount of support it receives, as evidenced by the number of States Parties to the Rome Statute.  According to the team, Malaysia’s denunciation of genocide and crimes against humanity ring hollow in the face of her continuing reluctance to ratify the Statute.  They argued that ratification would affirm Malaysia’s claim that it believes in human rights, and would be a important step that would symbolise Malaysia’s stance against humanitarian crimes.

On the other hand, the opposition took the position that although ratification of the Rome Statute is desirable, nevertheless Malaysia has the right to decide whether to join the community of 109 States Parties or to prioritise its sovereignty.  They argued that opposition to crimes against humanity could be demonstrated in several ways, and that non-ratification, in and of itself, was not definitive.  The IIUM team drew support from their examination of the legitimacy of the reasons other countries have not ratified the Statute.  Finally, they noted the harm caused if a country were to ratify this international instrument merely to avoid being accused of being complicit in crimes against humanity.  

The adjudicators, Fiona Barnaby (Legal Counsel on International Humanitarian Law at the International Committee of the Red Cross) and Bertrand Xavier-Asselin (Second Secretary at the High Commission of Canada), led by Datuk N. Sivananthan (member of the Bar and List Counsel at the ICC) as the Chief Adjudicator, unanimously named the IIUM team as the winner.  Danial, Meor and Khalidah’s lucid and persuasive arguments clearly won them the event, seeing as, the debate aside, the crowd’s sentiments were strongly in favour of Malaysia ratifying the Rome Statute without delay.

Later that evening, Datuk Sivananthan gave a keynote address titled “International Criminal Tribunals – “Justice or a Propaganda Exercise”, which was followed by a lively question-and-answer session.

It is hoped that the event helped to increase public awareness of the human rights principles and issues behind the Rome Statute and the ICC.  Kudos to both teams!