to seriously peruse the Government’s Official Response to the 2016 SUHAKAM Annual Report that was tabled in cabinet and forwarded to parliament. I find that the responses to SUHAKAM’s observations and recommendations inadequate and in some cases, hilarious. Allegations of torture and mistreatment within custodial settings have received specific attention by SUHAKAM this year. SUHAKAM is baffled that the provision of basic necessities to detainees in lock up is dependent on the assessment of the attitude, mentality and ideology of the detainee as evidenced by the Government’s Response to SUHAKAM 2016 Annual Report (page 27). Basic necessities should always be provided to all detainees unless there is evidence that such necessities would pose a threat to a detainee’s safety or well-being, which is hardly the case. SUHAKAM investigated ten deaths in custody and the need to highlight the intensity of the problem of torture and ill treatment in detention is worrying. The government in its response to SUHAKAM’s 2016 Annual Report on a recommendation that interrogation processes be mandatorily video recorded was dismissed without sufficient consideration of the merits of the recommendation. In relation to this, SUHAKAM will continue to find ways to overcome the obstacles to Malaysia’s accession to the UNCAT and has engaged among others the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that remains unsupportive of accession. SUHAKAM is mindful of the strain of all expectations on the police in the context of discharging their functions. SUHAKAM enjoys a good working relationship with the PDRM and has campaigned for the increase in the budget for the PDRM for modernisation, which must be followed by action to grant the police force palpable independence. SUHAKAM’s human rights trainings for the police is, in this context, to underline the professionalism, values and independence of the police. I have taken the pain to seriously peruse the Government’s Official Response to the 2016 SUHAKAM Annual Report that was tabled in cabinet and forwarded to parliament. I find that the responses to SUHAKAM’s observations and recommendations inadequate and in some cases, hilarious. With regard to S U H A K A M A N N U A L R EPOR T 2017 xi C H A I R M A N ’ S R E VI E W I have taken the pain