All posts by : Media

KUALA LUMPUR (13 MAY 2026) – The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) calls on all Malaysians to uphold the values of mutual respect, dignity, and inclusivity in preserving national unity and social harmony. Malaysia’s diversity has long been the foundation of the nation’s strength. Our multicultural and multireligious society reflects the principles enshrined in the Federal Constitution, including the guarantee of equality and non-discrimination under Article 8 irrespective of religion, race, descent, or background, as well the protection of freedom of expression and human dignity for all persons. However, in recent years, public discourse has increasingly been marked by racial hostility, inflammatory rhetoric, and divisive narratives, particularly on social media and within political spaces.

In conjunction with the remembrance of the tragic events of 13 May 1969, SUHAKAM emphasises that the lessons of history should guide the nation towards greater understanding and unity, rather than fear, division, or political manipulation. Historical events must never be used to justify intolerance, silence legitimate discourse, or fuel racial animosity.

Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right guaranteed under Article 10 of the Federal Constitution and recognised under international human rights standards. However, this right also carries responsibilities. Expressions that incite discrimination, hostility, or violence against individuals or groups based on race, religion, ethnicity, or other protected characteristics undermine social cohesion and threaten democratic values.

SUHAKAM reiterates that efforts to address hate speech and racism must be grounded in human rights principles, including legality, necessity, proportionality, and accountability. Any measures taken by authorities should clearly distinguish between legitimate criticism, public debate, and advocacy on one hand, and genuine incitement to violence or discrimination on the other.

At the same time, SUHAKAM stresses that elected representatives and political leaders bear a heightened responsibility to set a positive example. Members of Parliament, as leaders entrusted with public confidence, should promote respectful engagement, reject racial or religious provocation, and refrain from making statements that may deepen mistrust and polarisation within society. Political differences must never come at the expense of national unity or human dignity. Public institutions, political parties, civil society organisations, media practitioners, educators, and community leaders all share a collective responsibility to foster an environment that encourages constructive dialogue, empathy, and understanding across communities. National unity cannot be achieved solely through slogans or enforcement measures, but through sustained commitment to justice, equality, and respect for diversity.

SUHAKAM also encourages the Government to strengthen human rights education, intercultural dialogue initiatives, and public awareness programmes aimed at combating racism, xenophobia, and prejudice in all forms. Building an inclusive society requires long-term efforts that address misinformation, stereotypes, and hate-based narratives before they escalate into discrimination or violence. National unity must be built on the recognition that every individual, regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, or background, is entitled to equal dignity, protection, and respect.

-END-

Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM)
13 May 2026

KUALA LUMPUR (27 APRIL 2026) – The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM), in its capacity as Chair of the South East Asia National Human Rights Institutions Forum (SEANF), successfully convened the 1st Technical Working Group (TWG) Meeting of SEANF and two side events from 21 to 23 April 2026 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, with participation both in person and virtually.

The 1st TWG Meeting brought together member institutions of SEANF, namely SUHAKAM, the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines (CHRP), the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand (NHRCT), the Provedor de Direitos Humanos e Justiça (PDHJ) of Timor-Leste, the National Commission on Human Rights of Indonesia (Komnas HAM), and the Myanmar National Human Rights Commission (MNHRC). The three-day engagement also featured meaningful participation from civil society organisations (CSOs), regional experts, and other stakeholders.

The 1st TWG Meeting was officially opened by SUHAKAM Commissioner, Tuan Abdul Kadir Jailani bin Ismail, who underscored the need for SEANF to move beyond dialogue towards coordinated and courageous action, particularly in protecting human rights defenders, advancing human rights in the context of business and climate change, and strengthening regional solidarity in the face of growing challenges

Over the course of the 1st TWG Meeting, SEANF members exchanged updates on key developments, initiatives, and challenges since the 22nd SEANF Annual Conference. Discussions focused on the continued implementation of the 2022–2026 SEANF Strategic Plan, with emphasis on its four strategic priorities: ensuring human rights remain central in a post-pandemic environment, advancing business and human rights, preventing torture and other forms of ill-treatment, and strengthening SEANF as a credible, independent, and effective regional network. Adherence to the Paris Principles was reaffirmed throughout the TWG, underscoring the continued commitment of SEANF members to independence, credibility, and effectiveness in the promotion and protection of human rights.

In line with its leadership role under Strategic Priority 4(a), SUHAKAM shared progress in reviewing SEANF’s institutional framework, including proposed amendments to the Rules of Procedure to enhance clarity on the definition of NHRIs and introduce a two-thirds majority decision-making mechanism where consensus cannot be reached. The 1st TWG Meeting also deliberated on a range of emerging and cross-cutting issues, including the rights of older persons, the Inter-NHRI Mechanism, and the human rights impact of armed conflict and related energy crises in the region. These discussions highlighted the importance of coordinated regional responses and strengthened collaboration among SEANF members.

A dedicated session with CSOs, including the Asian NGO Network on National Human Rights Institutions (ANNI) and Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM), provided a valuable platform for dialogue on the role of NHRIs in advancing environmental rights and supporting human rights defenders (HRDs). Participants also reflected on the ANNI 2025 Report and explored avenues for joint advocacy and capacity-building.

Two side events further enriched the 1st TWG Meeting. The “Defending the Defenders” session underscored the critical role of NHRIs in protecting HRDs, including child human rights defenders, and addressing challenges such as intimidation and Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP). Meanwhile, the Forum on Human Rights, Business and Climate Justice 2026 held on 23 April 2026 examined the intersection of environmental rights, corporate accountability, and climate justice, highlighting the need for stronger governance frameworks and inclusive, rights-based approaches.

The 1st TWG Meeting concluded with a closing address by SUHAKAM Chairman, Dato’ Seri Mohd Hishamudin Yunus, who reaffirmed SEANF’s collective commitment to carry forward the momentum of the meeting by translating dialogue into concrete action, particularly in strengthening the protection of HRDs, including children, while deepening regional cooperation and institutional effectiveness.

The successful convening of the 1st TWG Meeting marks an important step forward as SEANF enters the final year of its current Strategic Plan. SEANF Members reiterated their shared commitments to enhance regional solidarity, respond effectively to emerging human rights challenges, and uphold the fundamental principles of human dignity, justice, and equality across South East Asia.

-END-

Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM)
27 April 2026

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