KUALA LUMPUR (24 APRIL 2026) – The Children’s Commissioner refers to the recent decision of the Federal Court, chaired by Chief Justice The Right Honourable Datuk Seri Panglima Wan Ahmad Farid bin Wan Salleh, which dismissed applications by seven inmates seeking a review of their detention ‘at the pleasure’ of the Ruler.

The applications, brought under Order 137 of the Rules of the Federal Court 1995, challenged Section 97(2) of the Child Act 2001, which allows for the indefinite detention of children at the pleasure of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Ruler or Yang di-Pertua Negeri, in lieu of the death sentence. The applicants argued that this provision is discriminatory and unjust, particularly in light of reforms under the Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023 and the Revision of Sentence of Death and Imprisonment for Natural Life Act 2023, which now permit adult offenders previously subject to mandatory death sentences, to receive determinate terms of imprisonment as an alternative sentence, while children, falling within the ambit of Section 97 of the Child Act 2001 may still be subjected to the indeterminate period of imprisonment, without a clearly defined sentence and without meaningful judicial review of the continuation of that detention. The Federal Court dismissed the applications, holding that Section 97(2) remains valid in law, that distinctions between adult and juvenile offenders are permissible and that detention ‘at the pleasure’ is non-justiciable as it falls within the prerogative powers of the Ruler.

While the Children’s Commissioner respects the Court’s decision, the continued retention of indefinite detention for offences committed by children remains a matter of grave concern. Such a framework is difficult to reconcile with the core principles of children’s rights, including legal certainty, proportionality, rehabilitation, reintegration and the best interests of the child. A child should never be left without clarity as to the basis, duration and review of his or her detention.

Although Section 97(4) of the Child Act 2001 provides for a mandatory annual review by the Board of Visiting Justices, with potential recommendations for release, this mechanism does not provide sufficient transparency, consistency or accountability. In the absence of clear statutory criteria, regularised disclosure and judicially cognisable safeguards, the review process may operate inconsistently and may fail to provide an effective rights-based pathway towards early release and reintegration.

Anecdotal evidence from past detainees indicate that the period of detention can be exceedingly long, from 15 to over 25 years. There are offenders, who committed the offences when they were children but are now over 40 years old currently languishing in prison under this order. Such a predicament underscores the human rights consequences of a sentencing framework that allows childhood offending to result in incarceration extending far into mature adulthood, without a determinate sentence imposed by the court at the outset. Such an outcome is fundamentally at odds with the philosophy of child justice, which must be directed toward rehabilitation and social reintegration rather than open-ended punitive incapacitation.

In February 2026, the CRC Committee listed Section 97 as an indefinite detention, which is a form of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of children. In this regard, upon the recent review of our Country Report on the Convention of the Rights of the Child, the United Nation Committee on the Rights of the Child has explicitly called on Malaysia to repeal Section 97(2) and to establish periodic, rights-based review mechanisms grounded in the best interests of the child.

The need for legal reform is therefore compelling. From a children’s rights perspective, any law governing children in conflict with the law must satisfy at least four minimum requirements: first, the child must know the legal consequences of the sentence imposed; second, detention must remain exceptional and for the shortest appropriate period of time; third, the law must provide a real and reviewable opportunity for release based on rehabilitation and maturity; and fourth, the process must be transparent enough to prevent arbitrary or disproportionate deprivation of liberty. Section 97, in its present form, raises serious concern on each of these fronts.

The Children’s Commissioner therefore calls on the Government to urgently reform Section 97 of the Child Act 2001 by abolishing detention at the pleasure for children found guilty of offences punishable by death penalty and replacing it with a sentencing and review framework that is determinate, transparent, reviewable and fully consistent with constitutional guarantees and Malaysia’s obligations under the UNCRC.

A child-centred justice system must prioritise rehabilitation over punishment and ensure that no child is left in prolonged legal uncertainty.

-END-

Office of the Children’s Commissioner
The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM)
24 April 2026

KUALA LUMPUR (23 APRIL 2026) – The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) refers to the recent decision of the Federal Court of Malaysia, in which a 2-1 majority held that judicial caning is constitutional under Malaysian law, following the dismissal of review applications by prisoners challenging their sentences. The majority decision was delivered by Chief Justice The Right Honourable Datuk Seri Panglima Wan Ahmad Farid bin Wan Salleh and Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak The Right Honourable Datuk Hajah Azizah binti Haji Nawawi, whilst the dissenting judgment was delivered by Federal Court Judge The Honourable Justice Dato’ Lee Swee Seng.

SUHAKAM reiterates its longstanding position that judicial caning is inherently cruel, inhuman, and degrading, and cannot be reconciled with the constitutional guarantees of dignity and equal protection. International human rights standards, including those reflected in the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT), consistently regard corporal punishment as incompatible with human dignity.

Whilst caning remains lawful under existing Malaysian legislation, its compatibility with evolving human rights norms remains deeply problematic. SUHAKAM therefore expresses its profound disappointment with the majority decision, which held that judicial caning does not violate constitutional guarantees under Articles 5 and 8 of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia. As reported, the majority ruled that whipping does not infringe the rights to life, personal liberty and equality before the law. Whilst SUHAKAM respects the majority ruling of the Federal Court, we are of the view that the majority decision represents a step backward in the development of a rights-based constitutional order. The interpretation adopted by the majority reflects a narrow and formalistic reading of fundamental liberties, one that does not sufficiently engage with the lived reality, severity and irreversible harm associated with corporal punishment. SUHAKAM emphasizes that constitutional interpretation must be progressive and responsive to contemporary human rights standards; and principles relating to fundamental liberties should be read generously and purposively, particularly where the treatment of individuals implicates dignity and integrity.

SUHAKAM strongly commends the dissenting judgment of Justice Dato’ Lee Swee Seng which represents a more principled, rights-consistent and constitutionally faithful approach. It was an enlightened judgment; a breath of fresh air; and a manifestation of judicial activism. The learned Judge rightly recognised that judicial caning infringes Articles 5(1) and 8(1) of the Federal Constitution, exposes individuals to severe physical harm, long-term psychological trauma, and the risk of death, and constitutes cruel, inhumane, and degrading punishment. The learned Judge further observed that the way whipping is carried out under the Criminal Procedure Code and the Prison Regulations 2000 may result in significant long-term physical consequences. Some prisoners may experience lasting limitations affecting their ability to work, particularly in manual labour, while others may become permanently disabled and unable to support their families. Importantly, the learned Judge proposed that a declaration of unconstitutionality should apply prospectively, meaning that sentences of whipping not yet carried out should not be executed and no further such sentences should be imposed under the relevant legal provisions.

SUHAKAM considers this reasoning to be firmly aligned with international human rights standards and reflective of a progressive constitutional jurisprudence that Malaysia should aspire towards. The dissenting judgment of Justice Lee Swee Seng stands as a powerful affirmation that the Constitution must be understood as a living document, one that safeguards not only legality, but also the dignity and humanity of all persons, including those convicted of offences.

In light of the above, SUHAKAM calls for:

1. a comprehensive review of laws permitting corporal punishment, in line with international human rights obligations;
2. the adoption of alternative sentencing approaches that prioritise rehabilitation over retribution;
3. continuous engagement between policymakers, the judiciary, civil society, and the public to align Malaysia’s legal framework with evolving standards of human dignity; and
4. Malaysia to accede to the UNCAT, a core international human rights treaty adopted by the United Nations General Assembly through Resolution 39/46 on 10 December 1984, and came into force on 26 June 1987.

To date, 176 countries have ratified or acceded to this treaty, with leaving only a small number of countries that have yet to be parties to UNCAT. Within ASEAN, six member states, namely, Timor-Leste, Vietnam, Laos, Indonesia, Philippines, and Thailand are already parties to UNCAT. SUHAKAM fervently hopes that Malaysia will join this growing global and reaffirm its commitment to upholding human dignity and strengthening the protection of fundamental rights for all.

– END –

Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM)
23 April 2026

KUALA LUMPUR (17 APRIL 2026) – The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) expresses grave concern over the arrest and remand of a TikTok user, reportedly in connection with a video containing remarks against the Prime Minister of Malaysia.

SUHAKAM reiterates that freedom of expression is a fundamental liberty guaranteed under Article 10 of the Federal Constitution and is essential to the functioning of a democratic society. This right includes the freedom to express dissent, criticism, and opinions on matters of public interest, including those concerning public officials and government leadership.

In this context, SUHAKAM emphasises that the arrest and custodial remand of an individual for non-violent expression was a disproportionate and unlawful measure. The use of criminal sanctions in such cases raises serious concerns regarding the shrinking of civic space and risks creating a chilling effect on the exercise of free expression in Malaysia.

SUHAKAM is particularly concerned with the continued reliance on broad and vaguely worded provisions under laws such as the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (Section 233) as well as the Sedition Act 1948. These laws have long been subject to criticism for their wide scope and susceptibility to inconsistent interpretation which may result in the undue restriction of legitimate expression, including criticism of public office holders.

While SUHAKAM acknowledges that freedom of expression may be subject to restrictions, international human rights standards are clear that such limitations must meet the strict tests of legality, necessity, and proportionality. In particular, restrictions must pursue a legitimate aim and must be the least intrusive means available. Arrest and detention should be measures of last resort, not default responses to speech-related offences.

SUHAKAM therefore calls on the Government and relevant enforcement authorities to:

1. Immediately review the necessity of custodial measures in this case and similar cases involving non-violent expression;
2. Exercise maximum restraint in the use of criminal laws against individuals expressing opinions online;
3. Undertake a comprehensive review of Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 and other related laws, with a view to aligning them with international human rights standards on freedom of expression;
4. Ensure that all enforcement actions are carried out in full compliance with due process guarantees, including transparency, accountability, and access to legal representation.

SUHAKAM further underscores that public officials must be prepared to tolerate a higher degree of scrutiny and criticism. The use of criminal law to shield public figures from criticism is inconsistent with democratic principles and undermines public confidence in governance. This incident highlights the urgent need for a rights-based recalibration of Malaysia’s approach to regulating online expression, one that protects individuals from harm without suppressing legitimate dissent.

SUHAKAM remains steadfast in its commitment to safeguarding freedom of expression and calls on all stakeholders to uphold and respect this fundamental right.

– END –

Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM)
17 April 2026

KUALA LUMPUR (26 MARCH 2026) – In conjunction with the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, observed annually on 21 March. The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) calls for a renewed national commitment to eradicate racial discrimination and to strengthen unity, social cohesion, and mutual respect in building a more inclusive and harmonious Malaysia.

As Malaysia celebrates the richness of its diversity through various cultural and religious festivals throughout the year, these moments of celebration should serve as important reminders of the values that bind the nation together. Festivals in Malaysia provide opportunities for people of different backgrounds to interact, appreciate one another’s traditions, and reinforce the spirit of mutual respect and solidarity that is essential to maintaining national harmony.

Nevertheless, recent public discourse, including incidents that have sparked racial and religious tensions, demonstrates that the risk of discrimination and division remains present within society. These developments highlight the need for sustained and collective efforts by all segments of society to promote mutual understanding, respect for diversity, and responsible public dialogue that safeguards harmony in Malaysia’s plural society. Strengthening national unity requires a sustained commitment to the constitutional principle that all persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law, as guaranteed under Article 8(1) of the Federal Constitution, while also recognising that Article 8(2) prohibits discrimination against citizens on the grounds of religion, race, descent, place of birth or gender.

In this regard, SUHAKAM urges the Government of Malaysia to take steps towards acceding to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), a core international human rights treaty ratified by the vast majority of United Nations Member States. Within the ASEAN region, several countries are already States Parties to ICERD, including the Philippines (1967), Lao PDR (1974), Vietnam (1982), Cambodia (1983), Indonesia (1999), Thailand (2003), and Singapore (2017), reflecting a shared regional commitment to addressing racial discrimination. Accession to ICERD would provide Malaysia with a comprehensive and internationally recognised framework to guide national efforts in preventing and addressing racial discrimination, strengthen legal safeguards and institutional accountability, and enhance policy coherence across sectors. It would also support greater public confidence by demonstrating Malaysia’s commitment to upholding the principles of equality and non-discrimination, while reinforcing its credibility and leadership within the regional and international human rights community.

In this connection, commitments outlined in the Pakatan Harapan manifesto, including the establishment of a National Consultative Council for Harmony and the proposed National Harmony Act to promote unity and address discrimination, provide an important foundation for advancing these efforts. SUHAKAM also recalls that Malaysia had previously indicated its intention to consider accession to ICERD at the 73rd session of the United Nations General Assembly on 28 September 2018. Moving forward, a constructive and inclusive approach, one that takes into account Malaysia’s constitutional framework and societal context, will be important in ensuring that progress in this area continues to foster unity and public confidence. In parallel, continued efforts to align Malaysia’s legal and policy frameworks with international human rights standards would further reinforce national initiatives to combat racial discrimination, strengthen public trust, and promote a more inclusive, just, and harmonious Malaysia.

On this International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, SUHAKAM calls all Malaysians to stand united in rejecting racism, xenophobia, and racial discrimination in all its forms. Building a truly harmonious and inclusive society requires not only strong laws and policies, but also the collective will of all Malaysians to embrace diversity as a strength and uphold the values of equality, dignity, and mutual respect.

-END–

Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM)
26 March 2026

KUALA LUMPUR (18 MARCH 2026) – The Children’s Commissioners (CC) express deep concern over the recent increase in firecracker-related incidents involving children in Malaysia, including a recent case in Kedah where a 4 year old boy lost several fingers and sustained serious injuries to his hand following a firecracker explosion.

Statistics reported in 2025 indicate that more than 200 injuries related to firecrackers occur annually in Malaysia, including cases involving loss of fingers and other grievous injuries. While not all of these cases involve children, the risks to children remain significant.

Although the Explosives Act 1957 [Act 207] provides for severe penalties, including imprisonment of up to seven years, a fine of RM10,000, or both, against those who unlawfully use explosives in a manner that endangers life or property, visibly weak enforcement has rendered the law largely ineffective. At the same time, there is a need to review and strengthen the existing legal framework, including amendments to Act 207, to tighten controls and impose heavier penalties on those who smuggle, distribute, or sell illegal firecrackers. In the best interests of children, the Children’s Commissioners call upon the Royal Malaysia Police and relevant authorities to take immediate and decisive action to curb the sale and use of illegal and unapproved firecrackers.

The responsibility to ensure the safety of children in regards to the usage of firecrackers does not rest exclusively on the shoulders of the authorities. Parents are urged to educate their children that momentary excitement from playing with illegal firecrackers is not worth the lifelong consequences of serious injury or death. Religious leaders, including imams, are also encouraged to reinforce this message through sermons and community engagement. Beyond safety concerns, excessive use of firecrackers constitutes wastefulness – a practice prohibited across religions and moral traditions and one that should be avoided at all times. 

Festive seasons such as Aidilfitri and many more are meant to foster harmony, reflection, and togetherness. Uncontrolled use of firecrackers not only endangers lives but also disrupts rest for the elderly and young children, and causes significant disturbance during religious observances, including Tarawih prayers. 

Therefore, the Children’s Commissioners unreservedly call on all parties to work hand-in-hand to ensure that the safety and wellbeing of children are not threatened by the proliferation of illegal and dangerous fireworks.

-END-

Office of the Children’s Commissioner
The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM)
18 March 2026