As five men are now believed to be at imminent risk in Singapore, we, the undersigned civil society organisations, call on the Singaporean authorities to immediately halt all executions. We also urge the Malaysian government to take all possible steps to protect the rights of its nationals facing execution in Singapore and to press for a complete end to the death penalty, at home and internationally.

Among those who are at imminent risk of execution are Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah, Pannir Selvam Pranthaman, Saminathan a/l Selvaraju, Lingkesvaran Rajendaren and Jumaat bin Mohamed Sayed. All of them were sentenced to death for drug trafficking, and have each spent seven to ten years on death row. While Jumaat is a Singaporean, the other four are Malaysians. The five of them had their most recent appeals dismissed, after many years of struggle for justice against all odds.

Singapore has already executed ten men, including two Malaysians, so far this year. In August 2025, Singapore’s Cabinet advised the President to grant clemency to one person on death row—the first time this has been done in almost three decades. While we welcome this rare decision, it only underscores the arbitrariness and cruelty of the death penalty for all others still at risk.

Individuals on death row in Singapore and their families are only given four to seven days’ notice of their execution. As we urge the authorities of both countries to protect human rights and end the death penalty, we also encourage Malaysians and Singaporeans to act now to help stop the imminent executions of these individuals; we cannot afford to wait, knowing that any of these individuals may get an execution notice in the coming days.

At this critical juncture, the Malaysian government must act decisively to protect the lives of its nationals and all those facing execution, as well as push for the abolition of the death penalty in the region. Many young Malaysians, often from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds, have been vulnerable to being recruited into the drug trade, and the Malaysian government has a moral duty to advocate for them, not leave them to die in foreign prisons. Having abolished the mandatory death penalty in 2023, as it continues its journey towards full abolition Malaysia must now go further by extending its advocacy to protect its nationals abroad who remain at risk under Singapore’s harsh and cruel mandatory death penalty regime.

Meanwhile, Singaporeans who are horrified by these executions must speak out against this inhumane punishment. Singapore is increasingly alone in the region in implementing the mandatory death penalty and carrying out executions for drug trafficking.

The Case of Pannir Selvam Pranthaman

One of the Malaysian nationals at grave risk is Pannir Selvam Pranthaman. His case is riddled with violations of international human rights law and standards, and demonstrates fundamental flaws in Singapore’s cruel capital punishment regime.

In 2017, Pannir was convicted of importing into Singapore 51.84g of diamorphine (heroin) and was sentenced to the mandatory death penalty. Despite evidence that he was a mere “courier” and had provided substantive information to the authorities, Singapore’s Attorney-General’s Chambers refused to issue Pannir a Certificate of Substantive Assistance. Without such a certificate, the court had no choice but to sentence him to death. Pannir, through his family, has shared information with the Royal Malaysia Police regarding syndicate operations along Malaysia’s shores. His case has also been affected by the lack of legal representation during police interrogation, restrictive laws that curtailed post-conviction appeals, the denial of legal aid at the post-appeal stage, and breaches of privileged communication between those facing the death penalty and lawyers.

On 5 September 2025, the Singapore Court of Appeal dismissed Pannir’s latest application for a stay of execution, even as his disciplinary complaint against his former lawyer remains unresolved. The court said in its judgment that the Law Society of Singapore may need to act urgently to “preserve” Pannir’s testimony before his execution—a shocking and macabre acknowledgment of the grave cruelty of his looming execution.

The Use of Legal Presumptions of Guilt in Capital Cases: A Valiant Fight by Datchinamurthy, Saminathan, Lingkesvaran and Jumaat

In August 2022, Datchinamurthy, Saminathan, Lingkesvaran and Jumaat filed a challenge against the constitutionality of the legal presumptions of guilt in relation to trafficking, possession and knowledge under Singapore’s Misuse of Drugs Act. They each had been convicted with reliance on two such presumptions contained in Section 18(1) and 18(2) of that Act.

The Misuse of Drugs Act allows legal presumptions to be used by the prosecution, whereby the burden of proof is shifted onto the defendant to be rebutted by them to the legal standard of “on a balance of probabilities”. While other jurisdictions such as Canada, Hong Kong and the United Kingdom have rejected the use of legal presumptions to be rebutted on the balance of probabilities—on the basis that it allows for an accused person to be convicted despite reasonable doubt still existing—Singapore continues to apply such legal presumptions in cases of trafficking, possession and knowledge in capital drug cases. Presumptions of guilt effectively undermine fair trial guarantees under international human rights law and violate the right to be presumed innocent, a peremptory norm of customary international law. Further, the presumption of possession and knowledge can be applied together in Singapore—the use of which has been described in other courts as a severe derogation from the presumption of innocence.

It was a long, arduous journey for the four men to see this challenge through. Legal aid schemes in Singapore do not cover the filing of extra-ordinary appeals. As they had no means to engage a lawyer privately, the four men were unrepresented for a long time, forcing them to appear in court without lawyers to argue their challenge by themselves. When foreign senior counsel offered to represent them pro bono, the court ruled that they would have to argue by themselves the request to admit these foreign counsels to represent them in Singapore —creating an outrageous situation in which persons on death row had to present highly technical legal arguments while the foreign senior lawyers could only watch. In the end, the Singapore Courts rejected their application to have these lawyers represent them.

It was only about two years after their constitutional challenge was filed that some local lawyers agreed to take on the case, which was dismissed last month. With the conclusion of this case, there is no longer any pending legal proceeding to prevent the Singaporean authorities from scheduling their executions.

Grave Concerns Over Other Violations of International Human Rights Law and Standards

We remind the Singaporean authorities that international safeguards on the use of the death penalty prohibit carrying out executions while appeals or other recourse procedures are pending. Surely it can be recognised that Pannir’s involvement—to instruct counsel, give testimony and respond to any evidence raised by his former lawyer—is the only way to ensure a fair outcome in his complaint lodged with the Law Society of Singapore. This is especially critical given that the complaint includes a direct conversation involving Pannir and his former lawyer; and that several other persons on death row who had also filed complaints against this same lawyer have already been executed before their testimonies could be heard.

Like Pannir, both Datchinamurthy and Saminathan also had their private correspondence copied and forwarded by the Singapore Prison Service, without authorisation, to the Attorney-General’s Chambers—an act that Singapore’s Court of Appeal has ruled to be unlawful.

Individuals on death row in Singapore have raised serious concerns about the extremely prohibitive barriers that they face in filing legal applications after their criminal appeal has concluded. They have also repeatedly brought up how difficult it is for them to engage lawyers in Singapore, given the risk of onerous fines, reprimands and costs that lawyers have to bear for taking up capital cases at later stages. Conditions on death row in Singapore have worsened over the years, with prisoners enduring isolation in solitary cells, severely restricted communications between them and their loved ones, and the prison authorities making it close to impossible for persons involved in the same legal challenge to confer with one another.

The death penalty for drug offences violates international human rights law and standards, which limit the use of capital punishment only to the “most serious crimes”, understood as intentional killing. Drug trafficking does not meet this threshold. Both the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the United Nations Special Rapporteurs have consistently affirmed this position. Yet the vast majority of executions that take place in Singapore are carried out as part of the country’s extremely punitive “war on drugs”—demonstrating how far out of step Singapore is with the international community when it comes to human rights and justice.

Lawrence Wong’s New Premiership

As Singapore’s new prime minister, Lawrence Wong has an opportunity to take the momentous step of leading Singapore away from the cruel and inhumane use of the death penalty that has taken hundreds of lives since independence. Imposing an immediate moratorium on executions and repealing the mandatory death penalty would be critical urgent steps that he could lead on, with a view towards full abolition. This will not only spare the many people currently on death row, but also ensure that Singapore is not left behind by the international trend away from the use of capital punishment.

Prime Minister Wong has so far not made any public statements on Singapore’s use of the death penalty. However, the first clemency granted to a death row prisoner in 27 years—which would not have been possible without Wong’s Cabinet advising President Tharman Shanmugaratnam to do so—shows that change is possible. Prime Minister Wong should not remain silent on this issue, and should demonstrate leadership in ending Singapore’s use of the death penalty.

Malaysia’s Role as ASEAN Chair: A Chance to Lead on Abolition

Malaysia’s abolition of the mandatory death penalty came into effect in July 2023, preceding a comprehensive resentencing process in court for all individuals sentenced to the mandatory death penalty prior to the amendments, including those convicted of drug trafficking. As a result, most death sentences have been set aside and replaced with 30 to 40 years imprisonment and, when applicable, whipping.

We are encouraged by the recent announcement that the moratorium on executions continues to be observed in Malaysia and that a new study is being commissioned to consider the potential abolition of the death penalty. As the current Chair of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Malaysia is uniquely positioned to champion human rights in the region. Malaysia’s intervention in these cases would not only demonstrate its commitment to support its nationals facing execution abroad, but also its leadership in advancing a human rights agenda within ASEAN.

We call on the authorities of the two countries to:

1. Engage in swift and effective intervention: Utilise all available channels, including direct diplomatic appeals to urge the Government of Singapore to halt the executions of Datchinamurthy, Pannir, Saminathan, and Lingkesvaran, and to prevent further executions from taking place in Singapore, including those that would be unlawful under international law and standards;
2. Leverage ASEAN mechanisms and lead by example: Utilise Malaysia’s position as ASEAN Chair to advocate for regional cooperation to abolish the death penalty, while moving towards full abolition at home to set a strong example for the region.
3. Commit to steps toward full abolition of the death penalty: Implement or maintain a moratorium on executions, and commission independent, evidence-based and transparent studies on moving away from capital punishment.

This is not merely about saving the lives of a select few men languishing on death row in Singapore’s Changi Prison. It is about ending the cruelty of the death penalty, ensuring that both Singapore and Malaysia uphold the dignity and rights of all, and demonstrating the leadership needed to move their countries and the region towards abolition.

We call on the Malaysian Government to act without delay, and on the Singaporean authorities to implement an immediate moratorium on the death penalty, and refrain from issuing any execution notices.

*On 21 September 2025, Datchinamurthy Kataiah’s family received news that his execution will be carried out on 25 September, 2025 at Changi Prison.

1. On the anniversary of Teoh Beng Hock’s death, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Chief Commissioner Azam Baki issued an apology. Soon after, the Democratic Action Party (DAP) leaders held a press conference to apologize to Teoh’s family and urged them to accept “unconditional” monetary compensation.

2. Yet, perplexingly, neither the government nor the political party has confronted the core of the case — the three simple, powerful demands of Teoh’s family: seeking truth, ii. realising justice, and iii. systemic reform. Even more disappointing is the collective absence and severe dereliction of duty by Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim and Minister of Home Affairs Saifuddin Nasution Ismail on this major human rights issue.

3. An apology cannot replace the judiciary, and compensation does not equate to justice. Any attempt to “settle” this case with money or to diminish it as a private arrangement between a political party and the grieving family would, in fact, condone institutional violence. It allows state power to override the law and breeds a dangerous culture of impunity.

4. An apology without criminal accountability is merely a fig leaf for a culture of impunity; compensation without full truth is more like an ‘indulgence’ for institutional murder. Without action, talk of transitional justice becomes empty noise, and promises of reform become pale, brittle, and meaningless.

5. We are particularly alarmed that, even as the controversy over the “no further action” (NFA) decision in the Teoh Beng Hock case unfolds, both the Prime Minister and the Home Minister remain nowhere to be seen. On the international stage, Prime Minister Anwar’s presence is widely seen. Just one day after Teoh Beng Hock’s death anniversary, the Prime Minister rightly condemned Israel’s unjust air strikes on Syria, which is commendable. However, we urge Prime Minister Anwar to demonstrate the same resolve in addressing long-standing domestic injustices, such as the Teoh Beng Hock case. Only then can his government be seen as consistent in defending human rights at home and abroad. Otherwise, his spirited pronouncements on human rights risk becoming an international laughingstock.

6. We believe that a case involving human life, abuse of state power, and national integrity should not be addressed by departmental levels or individual political parties. Therefore, we demand that the Prime Minister and Minister of Home Affairs personally and directly respond to Teoh’s family’s three core demands:

a. Seek Truth: We demand that the government, in accordance with the Court of Appeal’s ruling, establish an independent, professional international criminal investigation team to thoroughly investigate the death and apprehend all MACC officers involved.

b. Reliase Justice: Prosecute and convict officials who violated human rights under Sections 302 or 304 of the Penal Code.

c. Reform the System: Expedite legislative reforms to prevent deaths in custody due to abuse of power by enforcement officers. This includes amending Section 30 of the MACC Act to limit interrogation and statement-taking times and enacting comprehensive anti-torture legislation.

7. We remind Pakatan Harapan to clarify its responsibilities as the ruling party and to stop dwelling in the “good old days” of being in opposition or glorifying past efforts. Back then, Pakatan Harapan leaders righteously criticized the former administration’s incompetence and pleaded with voters for a mandate to enter Putrajaya to seek justice for Teoh Beng Hock. Now, as the government, Pakatan Harapan which sits in the executive branch, holds investigative, enforcement, and prosecutorial powers. The position of Minister of Home Affairs is even held by a PKR Senator. Pakatan Harapan has no excuse to continue shirking responsibility.

8. As the executive power, there is no need for Pakatan Harapan or DAP to initiate judicial review just to re-examine the NFA decision. The government, which holds investigative and prosecutorial powers, need not wait for court rulings to seek truth and promote transformative justice. Since 2018, Pakatan Harapan has been in power for nearly 52 months, or over four years, and should not use “reform takes time” as an excuse to delay responsibility.

9. We once again call on the government to demonstrate political resolve and directly address Teoh’s family’s three demands.

10. As the ancient wisdom teaches:

• To be without compassion is not to be human;
• To feel no shame is not to be human;
• To lack humility is not to be human;
• To be indifferent to right and wrong is not to be human

11. The Teoh Beng Hock case is a benchmark for political morality and governance. Sixteen years of unredressed injustice serves as a test of whether our political leaders still uphold the baseline of humanity, conscience, morality, and the system.

12. We warn that the upcoming responses from Prime Minister Anwar, DAP, and Pakatan Harapan will profoundly influence how the youth and university students evaluate you — not just as politicians, but as leaders. If you continue to dodge the core issues, we will not forget. And we will respond with our votes in the next general election.

 

 Endorsed by:

1. KLSCAH Youth 隆雪华青
2. ⁠University of Malaya Association for New Youth (UMANY) 马大新青年
3. ⁠MANDIRI
4. Liga Demokratik Rakyat
5. HAYAT
6. ⁠Undi 18
7. Klima Action Malaysia (KAMY)
8. Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM)
9. ⁠New Era University College Student Union 新纪元大学学院学生会
10. ⁠STUDENT PROGRESSIVE FRONT UUM
11. Federasi Pemuda Kebangsaan
12. ⁠Himpunan Advokasi Rakyat Malaysia (HARAM)
13. Demokrat Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (Demokrat UKM)
14. ⁠Ikatan Mahasiswa Demokratik Malaysia
15. ⁠Pertubuhan Mahasiswa Kongres Gombak (CONGRESS)
16. Suara Mahasiswa UMS
17. Liga Mahasiswa Malaysia
18. ⁠⁠Liga Mahasiswa Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
19. ⁠⁠Liga Mahasiswa Universiti Sains Malaysia
20. Liga Mahasiswa Universiti Malaya
21. Liga Mahasiswa Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin
22. ⁠⁠Pejuang Siswa UM
23. ⁠Gerakan Mahasiswa Maju UPM
24. Ikatan Anak Muda Tawau – IKAT
25. ⁠⁠Gerakan Perempuan Melawan
26. Kesatuan Mahasiswa Universiti Alternatif
27. Borneo Komrad
28. Malacca Chinese Assembly Hall Youth Section 马六甲中华大会堂青年团
29. Pemuda Pertubuhan Penganut Dewa Heng Soon Kong Tai Bak Gong Senai
30. ⁠GERAKAN MAHASISWA MAJU UPM
31. ⁠GenZScope
32. Persatuan Kawan Karib Melaka
33. ⁠Selangor and KL Hokkien Association Youth Section 雪隆福青
34. Kuala Lumpur Eng Choon Hoey Kuan Youth Section吉隆坡永春会馆青年团
35. Pertubuhan Anak Muda Maju
36. ⁠⁠The Selangor and KL Nan Ann Association Youth Section雪隆南安青
37. Angkatan Generasi Insaf 新华青
38. Agora Society Malaysia 群议社
39. ⁠Persatuan Kwang Tung Selangor dan Kuala Lumpur Youth Section 雪隆广东会馆青年部
40. Persatuan Bahasa Cina Universiti Malaya 马来亚大学华文学会
41. Gerakan Belia Sepunjabi Malaysia (GBSM)
42. Cahaya Society
43. Sunway University Chinese Cultural Society 双威大学华文学会
44. Youth Bureau of Negeri Sembilan Chinese Assembly Hall 森美兰中华大会堂青年团The Teoh Beng Hock Case: A Test of Pakatan Harapan’s Moral Backbone Youth Voters May Deliver a Harsh Verdict in the Next General Election

在赵明福忌日之际，反贪污委员会（MACC）主席阿占巴基发表道歉声明，民主行动党领袖更召开记者会，向赵家道歉并呼吁家属接受“无条件”的金钱赔偿。令人费解的是，政府与政党都回避案件核心——赵家的三大诉求：寻求真相、实现正义和改革制度。更令人失望的是，首相安华与内政部长赛夫丁在此重大人权议题上集体缺席，严重失责。

道歉不能替代司法，赔偿不等于正义。若企图以金钱“了结”此案，或将之矮化为政党与家属的私相授受，实则是纵容制度暴力，使公权力凌驾于法律之上，助长免责文化歪风。

没有刑事问责的道歉，不过是免责文化的遮羞布；没有真相的赔偿，终将沦为制度杀人的赎罪券。转型正义变相空谈，改革承诺也苍白无力、毫无意义。

此外，我们感叹，自赵明福NFA案件发酵至今，首相安华与内政部长赛夫丁至今不见踪影。在国际舞台上，首相安华身影四处可见。就如在赵明福忌日隔日，首相便谴责以色列空袭叙利亚不义之举，值得嘉许。但是，我们敦促首相安华也应拿出同等魄力，关注国内长期以来的不公不义，如赵明福案件，建立国内外言行一致、捍卫人权的公信力，否则精神喊话只会沦为国际笑柄。

我们认为，一个关系人命、公权力与国家诚信的案件，不应由部门层级或个别政党代为发言。为此，我们要求首相与内政部长亲自回应赵家三大诉求。

一、寻求真相：要求政府根据上诉庭裁决，成立独立专业国际刑事调查团队彻查命案，将所有涉案反贪会官员逮捕归案；

二、实现正义：以《刑事法典》第302或304条，将侵犯人权的官员检控定罪；

三、改革制度：尽快修法，杜绝执法人员滥权导致扣留所死亡，包括修订《反贪会法令》第30条限制盘问和录供时间，并制定反酷刑法规。

我们提醒希盟务必厘清自己作为执政党的职责，勿再沉浸于反对党美好年代或歌颂过往努力。当初，希盟领袖义正言辞批评前朝无能，恳求选民委托进入布城，为明福讨回公道。而如今身为政府，希盟早已掌握行政权、调查权、执法权与提控权，内政部长一职更是由公正党议员出任，希盟无借口再继续推卸责任。

作为行政权，希盟或行动党无需发动司法审核来检讨NFA决定；掌握调查权与提控权的政府，也无需等法院判决才可寻找真相、推动转型正义。况且希盟前后执政近52个月或4年多，不该以 “改革需要时间” 为由推拖责任。我们再次呼吁政府展现政治决心，直球回应赵家三大诉求。

无恻隐之心，非人也；无羞恶之心，非人也；无辞让之心，非人也；无是非之心，非人也。

赵明福案是政治道德与执政修养的标尺。十六载沉冤未雪，它检验着政治领袖是否坚守人性、良知、道德与制度的底线。我们警告，首相安华、行动党与希盟接下来的回应，将深刻影响青年与大专生对你们的政治评估。若继续避重就轻，我们将在下一届大选，以选票作出严厉审判。

 

联署单位:

1. ⁠KLSCAH Youth 隆雪华青
2. University of Malaya Association for New Youth (UMANY) 马大新青年
3. MANDIRI
4. Liga Demokratik Rakyat
5. HAYAT
6. Undi 18
7. Klima Action Malaysia (KAMY)
8. Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM)
9. New Era University College Student Union 新纪元大学学院学生会
10. STUDENT PROGRESSIVE FRONT UUM
11. Federasi Pemuda Kebangsaan
12. Himpunan Advokasi Rakyat Malaysia (HARAM)
13. Demokrat Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (Demokrat UKM)
14. ⁠Ikatan Mahasiswa Demokratik Malaysia
15. Pertubuhan Mahasiswa Kongres Gombak (CONGRESS)
16. Suara Mahasiswa UMS
17. Liga Mahasiswa Malaysia
18. Liga Mahasiswa Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
19. Liga Mahasiswa Universiti Sains Malaysia
20. Liga Mahasiswa Universiti Malaya
21. Liga Mahasiswa Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin
22. Pejuang Siswa UM
23. Gerakan Mahasiswa Maju UPM
24. Ikatan Anak Muda Tawau – IKAT
25. Gerakan Perempuan Melawan
26. Kesatuan Mahasiswa Universiti Alternatif
27. Borneo Komrad
28. Malacca Chinese Assembly Hall Youth Section 马六甲中华大会堂青年团
29. Pemuda Pertubuhan Penganut Dewa Heng Soon Kong Tai Bak Gong Senai
30. GERAKAN MAHASISWA MAJU UPM
31. GenZScope
32. Persatuan Kawan Karib Melaka
33. Selangor and KL Hokkien Association Youth Section 雪隆福青
34. Kuala Lumpur Eng Choon Hoey Kuan Youth Section吉隆坡永春会馆青年团
35. Pertubuhan Anak Muda Maju
36. The Selangor and KL Nan Ann Association Youth Section雪隆南安青
37. Angkatan Generasi Insaf 新华青
38. Agora Society Malaysia 群议社
39. ⁠Persatuan Kwang Tung Selangor dan Kuala Lumpur Youth Section雪隆广东会馆青年部
40. Persatuan Bahasa Cina Universiti Malaya 马来亚大学华文学会
41. Gerakan Belia Sepunjabi Malaysia (GBSM)
42. Cahaya Society
43. Sunway University Chinese Cultural Society 双威大学华文学会
44. Youth Bureau of Negeri Sembilan Chinese Assembly Hall 森美兰中华大会堂青年团

We, the 17 undersigned groups and organizations is appalled at yet another extrajudicial killing by Malaysian police that happened on 13/8/2024(The Sun), whereby immediately after that the public is fed with the police version of what happened in an attempt to absolve the police from guilt, and with allegations that the deceased was a ‘bad person’. Was there even sufficient time for the police to conduct a proper investigation into the killing? Were the police officers in uniform or in a easily identifiable police vehicle?

In cases of extrajudicial killing, it is the police that caused the killing who should be investigated for the crime of murder and culpable homicide, not the deceased.

However, it must be noted that there have been several cases in Malaysia, where the police version of what happened was found to be LIES.

Police Version Of What Happened Found To Be False

The High Court in Ipoh on 1/2/2024  set aside an open verdict delivered in an inquest involving a police shooting in Sitiawan, Perak nearly eight years ago, and ruled it to be a homicide. “This court, under the Chief Justice’s Direction No 2 of 2019, makes a finding of homicide against the police,” he[Judicial commissioner Moses Susayan] said..’ The police and prosecution version were that Mohan got out of the vehicle and fired at the policemen, forcing them to shoot back. However, there were ‘…no bullet casing from the purported revolver used by Mohan was found. Neither were fingerprints, DNA or gunshot residue found on the alleged gun or the deceased. The Inspector-General’s Standing Orders that requires police to fire warning shots and to shoot at the leg was probably not followed. (FMT)

On 31/5/2023 that the coroner’s court, presided by Coroner Rasyihah Ghazali, for ‘police shooting that resulted in death of 3, ‘…. concluded that there was abuse of power and elements of a criminal nature in the death of three men who were shot at close range by police three years ago. “The shots were not fired in self-defense. There was abuse of power and (actions in the nature of) criminal elements by police in the death of the men,”… She said police witnesses gave evidence that shots were fired at the men from an upright position but post-mortem reports stated that the bullets pierced their bodies at a downward angle. … “The weapons described by the ballistic expert (Izzuwan Marzuki) and the investigating officer (P Visvanathan) were also in conflict,” (FMT, 31/5/2023)

We sadly note that there has been no news about the said police personnel found criminally liable for the killing being investigated and/or charged in the courts, despite the findings of the Coroner and/or the Court.

End Perception that Malaysia Protects Law Enforcement Who Broke the Law

The perception that Malaysia protects police and law enforcement officers from criminal prosecution must end. This is not a matter to be dealt with through internal disciplinary actions – but requires the suspected police officers to be charged and tried in Court.

Sadly, in most of these extrajudicial killings, we do not hear about the findings of the Independent Coroner, who is legally the person who will enquire and determine the cause of death, including whether any person, including the police, was criminally liable for the death. Hence, we only have the police version of what happened issued hours after the killing.

The Home Minister must disclose the findings of the Coroner’s Inquiry of all cases of extrajudicial killing by law enforcement. He must explain why the police have not been charged in court for the crime of killing. Whether, the police’s defence of ‘self defence’ will succeed is something for the Court to decide – not the police, the prosecution, the Minister or the government of the day.

Coroner must investigate immediately, and decide fast

In cases of police killing that we hear about the Coroner’s findings, it is simply too long after the said killing occurred. In cases of extrajudicial killings and deaths in custody of law enforcement, Coroners must speedily inquire into the death and render a decision as fast as possible, preferably within a month, not after years. Coroners must not only rely on the police for evidence, but also do their own independent investigations as the police do ‘lie’ at times to maybe protect their own officers.

Police are the suspects – not the deceased

In extrajudicial killings, the suspects of the crime is the POLICE, not the deceased. It is the police suspects that need to be investigated, and not the deceased. It was odd, that a media report stated that the police had commenced an investigation ‘…under the Penal Code for attempted murder’. Are they investigating the deceased, for if they are investigating the police, it should be an investigation for murder, not attempted murder since the victim died. (NST, 13/8/2024)

Extrajudicial Killings Must Be Criminalized – An offence and a deterrent penalty

Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions – is the deliberate killing of individuals outside of any legal framework – are a violation of this most fundamental right. In Malaysia, the Federal Constitution acknowledges the right to life, and in Article 5(1) states that ‘No person shall be deprived of his life …. save in accordance with law’ and this means that the State or its officers can generally only kill someone after he has been tried, convicted and sentenced to death. When it comes to the police, their duty is merely to arrest and investigate suspects – not kill them.

Malaysian law, on arrest is very clear and right to kill is limited to persons who have already been charged in court, being the time, a suspect becomes an accused, for an offence that carries the death penalty or sentence of imprisonment of 30 years or more.

Section 15 of the Criminal Procedure Code, amongst others, state that  ‘…(2) If such person forcibly resist the endeavour to arrest him or attempt to evade the arrest such officer or other person may use all means necessary to effect the arrest.(3) Nothing in this section gives a right to cause the death of a person who is not accused of an offence punishable with death or with imprisonment for a term of not less than thirty years but not exceeding forty years or with imprisonment for life.’

In all the known cases, those that end up being shot dead are certainly not accused persons facing trial for such serious offences.

Malaysia must enact a law making extra-judicial killing by law enforcement a crime with a deterrent penalty, as the killers in these cases are public officers responsible for law enforcement, who should never ignore the law and kill suspects, witnesses or others during the performance of their duties. The fact that we have murder and other killing offences in the law is insufficient, and the criminalizing of extrajudicial killings also will indicate Malaysia’s strong position against such killings.

First response by Home Minister is to APOLOGIZE and ensure proper investigation

After anyone is killed whilst making arrest or in police custody, the Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail first response should be to apologize for the death of any suspect. No one during arrest, custody and investigations by law enforcement should die.

He should also commit to an immediate independent investigation and for a speedy Coroner’s inquiry to determine the truth of what really happened. Was there any acceptable legal defence for the killing of persons by the police? In any case, the police personnel involved should be investigated and charged, and it is up to the Court to determine whether any defence, including self-defence will succeed in avoiding conviction.

The Minister is responsible for the police, but that does not translate that he should always come out in defence of police actions and/or ‘justifying’ possible criminal wrongdoings, trusting the police version of the facts.

On the face of it, the police broke the law when they failed to arrest a suspect alive.

Hence, as Minister responsible, he must come out expressing his remorse for what happened, and commit to a thorough investigation to determine the truth. He must also make sure that the police do not try to prematurely justify killings on the basis that the deceased was a ‘bad person’. He must  leave the determination of guilt to the Courts.

It is not for the police to decide whether one is a criminal or not, or whether they deceive the death sentence. They are not ‘judge, jury and executioner’ – the police is NOT ‘a person or group who has unchecked power to make decisions, impose punishments, and carry out those punishments without due process or oversight.’

Therefore, we call

Call for the criminalization of extrajudicial killing, making it a crime with a deterrent penalty;

Call on Malaysia to adopt the Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, as rrecommended by the United Nation’s Economic and Social Council resolution 1989/65 of 24 May 1989, which, amongst others, state that ‘Governments shall prohibit by law all extra-legal, arbitrary and summary executions and shall ensure that any such executions are recognized as offences under their criminal laws, and are punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account the seriousness of such offences…’

Call on the Home Minister to disclose findings of the Coroner in all cases of extra-judicial killings in Malaysia, and explain why the said police officers or law enforcement personnel have NOT been charged and tried in Court for the said killings.

Call on Malaysia to end the ‘defamation’ of the dead, as an attempt to ‘justify’ the killings by law enforcement.

Call for the police officers responsible for the death of suspects and others be charged and tried in Court, for it is Court only that determines guilt, and whether any defence for the said crime including self-defence is accepted.

Charles Hector
Ng Yap Hwa

For and on behalf of the 16 groups listed below

• ALIRAN
• MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)
• Teoh Beng Hock Association for Democratic Advancement
• WH4C (Workers Hub For Change)
• Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN)
• Association Of Home And Maquila Workers (ATRAHDOM), Guatemala
• Banglar Manabadhikar Suraksha Mancha (MASUM), India
• Citizens Against Enforced Disappearances (CAGED)
• Democratic Commission for Human Development, Lahore, Pakistan
• Global Women’s Strike, United Kingdom
• KLSCAH Youth
• Legal Action for Women, United Kingdom
• Programme Against Custodial Torture & Impunity (PACTI), India
• Redemption, Pakistan
• Sabah Timber Industry Employees Union (STIEU)
• Union of Domestic, Maquila, Nexas and Related Workers (SITRADOM), Guatemala
• Yaung Chi Oo Workers’ Association (YCOWA)