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)

隆雪华青反对任何胜选政党联盟欲修改马六甲州宪法以增设官委议员的做法，并认为官委议员是民主倒退。国阵署理主席兼甲州选选举主任莫哈末哈山在宣布宣言时指出，一旦执政就会修宪，增设五名官委议员，他所给予的理由是官委议员可以确保政治稳定。

沙巴是我国首个落实官委州议员的州属。1986年，沙巴团结党时任首长百林于闪电大选后，掌握议会三分之二绝对优势，修改州宪法立即委任6名官委州议员。2020年7月大量州执政党议员跳槽而触发沙巴州闪电选举，当中跳槽的议员也包括官委议员。由此可见，官委议员无法保证政治稳定，其实是沦为政党巩固政权和拉拢对象。

官委议员制度，其实是英殖民地政府的产物。当英国还是马来半岛殖民地政府的时候，我国的议员都是由英国驻马来亚最高专员署全权任命。二战后，英殖民地政府迫于回应马来亚争取独立的呼声，逐步开放议会选举。1955年，马来亚半岛举行独立前的议会选举，以选出52名马来亚联合邦立法会议员，其余46位议员不开放竞选，保留为英国委任之。

1959年，马来亚举行独立后的首次议会选举，议会所有104位议员都是民选议员，不再有官委议员。我国议会从殖民政府的委任制到选民自决的选举制，这是一个民主前进的表现。

隆雪华青认为，官委议员是执政党犒赏支持者的政治酬劳，且不受民意的制约。我们担忧，由于官委议员没有选票的压力，在议会中会直接冲淡民选议员对政府所造成的压力，以致执政党漠视其他异见，一些法令或施政得以轻易过关。

沙巴之后，登嘉楼和彭亨先后修宪增设官委州议员，槟城亦研究落实官委女性州议员，如我们不加以反对，恐怕其他州属甚至国会也会纷纷仿效。官委议员制是一个不健康的现象，长远看来它将会破坏议会反映民意的功能。这是因为民选议员和政府必须向选民交代，但官委议员则不必。

隆雪华青在此呼吁马六甲的选民认真看待官委议员所带来的民主破坏，善用手中的一票拒绝官委议员的落实。

隆雪华青文告
2021年11月11日

隆雪华青谴责一宗发生在武吉加里尔警局的警员暴力事件。据媒体报导，24岁印裔男子控诉警方滥权及使用暴力，未查明先毒打。有关事主以目击者的身份协助一宗发生在住家附近的抢劫案，结果被警员当成嫌犯，并对事主拳打脚踢，甚至还亮出枪支恐吓事主，企图逼使事主屈打成招。

尽管事主已经就是警察暴力事件报警，但反遭涉案警员对事主撂下狠话，并指警员胜诉在望，可见该警员态度嚣张之极。

不管是前朝政府还是现任政府，警察滥权和警察暴力的丑闻时有所闻，不曾间断。希盟上台后，警方恶意逮捕人权律师西蒂卡欣，援引煽动法令调查人民之声执行主任斯文。

我们认为单靠警方的内部机制是不足以解决警察滥权的问题。因此，我们要求独立警察投诉与行为不检委员会（IPCMC）的权限除了拥有调查权外，也应该包括执法权，可以停职或开除犯错的警员。

希盟其中一项竞选宣言便是承诺成立独立警察投诉与行为不检委员会。尽管政府表示将会在今年3月提呈独立警察投诉与行为不检委员会法案，不过据过去9个月的表现，政府的法案随时可能U转。

为此，隆雪华青强烈要求政府於今年3月如期成立独立警察投诉与行为不检委员会（IPCMC），并促请政府拿出政治改革决心，大刀阔斧整顿警察滥权问题，实践竞选承诺。