ii. CH A PT E R 1 That 85% of the respondents believed that human rights protect all people including detainees and inmates while 10% opined that human rights protect only children and women. There were 4% who confined human rights protection to only persons with disabilities and 1% confined it to only politicians. iii. That 74% of the respondents indicated that they were concerned about human rights while 25% were concerned to a certain extent, and 1% were not concerned about human rights at all. iv. That 49% of the respondents thought that SUHAKAM was an NGO that championed human rights as opposed to 42% who thought SUHAKAM was an independent statutory body that promoted and protected human rights. The remaining 9% thought that SUHAKAM was a government department. v. That 95% of the respondents understood that SUHAKAM worked on all issues related to human rights in the country as opposed to 3% who thought that SUHAKAM worked on issues related to interests of particular political parties, and 2% who thought that SUHAKAM worked on issues related to the misconduct of government agencies. vi. That 60% of the respondents opined that SUHAKAM did the best it could to fulfil its responsibility while 25% thought that it did not do well enough because of a lack of follow-up action by the government. The remaining 15% said SUHAKAM did not do well enough because of limitations on its powers. The survey result shows that over 70% of the respondents were concerned about human rights and understood the basic concept of human rights and subscribed to the notion that human rights protection extended to all people including detainees and inmates. There was a marginal difference (7%) between the percentage of respondents who mis-perceived SUHAKAM as a human rights NGO (49%) and the percentage (42%) of respondents who understood that SUHAKAM was a statutory body that promotes and protects human rights. Nevertheless, it was encouraging to note that the majority (95%) knew that SUHAKAM worked on a whole range of human rights issues in the country. The results also reflected that over 60% of the respondents were satisfied with SUHAKAM’s performance while some 20% felt that SUHAKAM did not do enough and they attributed this to the lack of follow-up action by the government or its limited powers. These results are indicative of the continued need for SUHAKAM to raise greater public awareness of its role and function as a National Human Rights Institution created by a statute of Parliament, and to eliminate the erroneous perception that it is an NGO. SUHAKAM ANNUAL REPORT 2018 41