All posts by : Media

KUALA LUMPUR (28 SEPTEMBER 2026) – The Children’s Commissioners (CC) of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) extend deepest condolences to the family of the Form Two student who reportedly died after being found unconscious at a boarding school in Kuala Pilah, Negeri Sembilan.

The CC take the reported incident seriously, particularly reports that preliminary police investigations are examining whether the incident was connected to alleged disciplinary action by a senior student against the deceased, reportedly because the junior was believed to have breached hostel rules. Police have stated that the actual cause of death remains under investigation. The CC stress that no conclusion should be drawn at this stage regarding the guilt, intention or criminal or disciplinary liability of any child involved. The identities and personal details of all children must strictly be protected.

The CC’s concern is therefore not to determine who is at fault in the present case, but to address a broader child-safeguarding issue: Whether any student, including a prefect, dormitory leader, senior student or student leader, assume the authority to punish another student? The answer must be clear: students must never be given, or assume for themselves, the authority to punish other students.

Student leaders may appropriately remind fellow students of school or hostel rules, serve as positive role models, assist with appropriate monitoring, encourage compliance and report suspected misconduct to teachers, wardens or the appropriate school authorities. However, they must not conduct their own investigation; determine that another student is guilty; devise or impose their own punishment; use physical force; threaten or intimidate another student; humiliate or coerce another child; or take any disciplinary action into their own hands. Being a prefect, dormitory leader, senior student or student leader is not a license to punish another child.

Malaysia Has a Formal Framework for School Discipline

Malaysia has an established framework for managing student discipline. The Surat Pekeliling Ikhtisas KPM Bil. 3 Tahun 2026 – Garis Panduan Pengurusan Sekolah Selamat provides for alleged misconduct to be handled through a formal school disciplinary process, including investigation by a teacher appointed by the school principal or head of institution. Disciplinary punishment is to be imposed through the appropriate school authority and in accordance with the applicable KPM procedures.

In restricted situations where corporal punishment is permitted, it may only be administered by the PGB or a teacher specifically authorised to do so, subject to the strictest requirements. This reinforces a fundamental principle: disciplinary action must be undertaken through the school’s formal disciplinary process and by persons authorised under the relevant KPM rules and procedures-not by students against fellow students.

Wardens Have a Duty of Care in Boarding Schools

The Garis Panduan Pelantikan dan Portfolio Warden Asrama KPM, Versi Februari 2025 further establishes the responsibilities of wardens in boarding schools. Wardens perform their responsibilities in loco parentis, with duties relating to the welfare, safety and discipline of students. The Chief Warden is responsible for hostel discipline, while wardens are responsible for ensuring compliance with hostel rules and taking appropriate action in accordance with established procedures. Importantly, reports made by the Chief or members of the Hostel Committee and Dormitory Leaders are to be reviewed and investigated by the warden for appropriate follow-up action.

The intended division of responsibility must therefore remain clear. Student leaders may observe, remind and report concerns to the appropriate school authorities, while wardens and school authorities are responsible for reviewing reports, conducting investigations and taking appropriate disciplinary action in accordance with established procedures. Student leaders must never assume the role of investigating alleged misconduct, determining guilt nor imposing punishment on another student.

End the Culture of ‘Vigilante’ Discipline

The CC are concerned that practices such as ‘teach the junior a lesson’, ‘settle it in the dorm’ or ‘seniors disciplining juniors’ must never become normalised within boarding-school culture. School rules cannot be enforced through students taking the law into their own hands against other children. Seniority status or a student leadership position cannot confer disciplinary authority.

Every student, including a child alleged to have breached a school rule, remains a child entitled to safety, dignity and fair treatment. This is consistent with the principles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), including protection from violence and the principle that the best interests of the child must be a primary consideration.

In this regard, CC call on the Ministry of Education to:

1. Issue a clear nationwide reminder that prefects, dormitory leaders and other student leaders have no independent authority to impose or administer disciplinary punishment against other students.
2. Review student leadership Terms of Reference across boarding schools to ensure their roles are clearly defined as: REMIND – MONITOR – REPORT. PUNISHMENTS ARE STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
3. Audit informal disciplinary practices in boarding schools, including senior students punishing juniors, student-imposed physical punishment, informal ‘student courts’, fines or penalties, humiliation, degrading treatment and other coercive practices. This should be undertaken as a preventive safeguarding measure, without prejudging the present case.
4. Strengthen the warden system by ensuring that wardens are accessible, adequately trained and sufficiently resourced to discharge their responsibilities for student welfare, safety and discipline in accordance with the 2025 KPM Warden Guidelines.

The CC reiterate our condolences to the family of the deceased student and respects the ongoing investigation. All parties are urged to refrain from speculation and from sharing information that could identify or further harm the children involved.

This tragedy must prompt a careful review of informal disciplinary practices in boarding schools. No student should ever believe that they have the authority to punish another child. Student leadership must build responsibility and a culture of care-not create a parallel disciplinary system among children.

-END-

Children’s Commissioners (CC)
Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM)
28 September 2026

KUALA LUMPUR (25 SEPTEMBER 2026) – The Governing Board of the South East Asia National Human Rights Institutions Forum (SEANF), under the 2026 Chairpersonship of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM), has commenced a formal review of the Myanmar National Human Rights Commission’s (MNHRC) continued eligibility for SEANF membership. The Governing Board comprises the Chairpersons of SUHAKAM, the Indonesia National Commission of Human Rights (Komnas HAM), the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines (CHRP), the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand (NHRCT), and the Provedor de Direitos Humanos e Justiça (PDHJ), Timor-Leste.

The review was initiated at a special meeting of the Governing Board convened on 14 August 2026 pursuant to Article 11(6) of the SEANF Rules of Procedure. The review assessed whether MNHRC continues to meet the standards of independence, effectiveness and institutional integrity established by the Paris Principles, which are incorporated into SEANF’s definition of a national human rights institution.

In conducting the review, the Governing Board considered relevant information received by SEANF since 2021, MNHRC’s progress in addressing the recommendations made by SEANF members in 2021, and relevant findings contained in the 2024 report of the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions Sub-Committee on Accreditation. The review also considered the institutional implications of MNHRC’s prospective assumption of the rotating SEANF Chairpersonship in 2027 while questions concerning its continued compliance with SEANF’s membership standards remain unresolved.

On 1 September 2026, SEANF gave MNHRC at least 21 days’ written notice, adopting Rule 12.1(c) of the APF Constitution^[1] as an established procedural best practice for a proposed resolution affecting a member’s standing. MNHRC may provide any information, explanation or submission it considers relevant before the Governing Board’s consultation meeting with MNHRC on 1 October 2026.

After considering MNHRC’s response and all other relevant material, the Governing Board will, on 1 October 2026, consider a resolution on whether MNHRC remains qualified for continued membership in SEANF and eligible to assume the rotating SEANF Chairpersonship in 2027, or whether MNHRC should be disqualified from continued membership and declared ineligible to assume the Chairpersonship.

No determination has been made at this stage regarding MNHRC’s continued eligibility for SEANF membership under amended Article 1 of the SEANF Rules of Procedure.[2] MNHRC has been given a reasonable opportunity to respond before the Governing Board considers any resolution, pursuant to Article 24 of the SEANF Rules of Procedure^[3] and the procedural best practice reflected in Rule 12.1(c)(3) of the APF Constitution.^[4]

SEANF is conducting the formal review in good faith to safeguard the credibility, accountability, independence, and effectiveness of the Forum and its work to promote, protect, and fulfil human rights in Southeast Asia in accordance with the Paris Principles.

-END-

[1] Rule 12.1(c) of the APF Constitution states, “If the Forum councillors intend to propose a resolution under rule 12.1(a), they must give the member written notice at least 21 days before the meeting at which the resolution is to be proposed.”

[2] Amended Article 1 of the SEANF Rules of Procedure states, “NHRI refers to an independent national institution that complies with the Paris Principles and holds a constitutional and/or legislative mandate to promote and protect human rights.”

[3] Article 24 of the SEANF Rules of Procedure states, “Any dispute between members concerning the interpretation or application of, or compliance with this Rules of Procedure shall be settled amicably by consultation or negotiation”.

[4] Rule 12.1(c)(3) of the APF Constitution states, “The member must be given a reasonable opportunity to respond before a decision is made by the Forum councillors.”

KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA (23 SEPTEMBER 2026) – The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) and the National Human Rights Commission of Nepal (NHRCN) have reinforced their bilateral relations through the renewal of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on the Rights of Migrant Workers and People Residing in Both Countries for a period of three years from 2026 to 2028. The MoU was signed by SUHAKAM’s Chairman, Dato’ Seri Mohd Hishamudin Yunus and NHRCN’s Chairperson, Honourable Top Bahadur Magar, at the SUHAKAM Headquarters in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

The MoU was first signed in 2019 with the aim of fostering close cooperation, information sharing, two-way communication regarding complaints, joint monitoring, research, and other related activities to protect the rights of migrant workers and people residing in both countries. The MoU was then renewed twice, extending to 28 March 2024. Throughout the duration of the MoU, SUHAKAM engaged with the non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and civil society organisations (CSOs) working on the issues of Nepali migrant workers, and the Embassy of Nepal in Kuala Lumpur to exchange information regarding Nepali migrant workers in Malaysia. SUHAKAM also carried out its core work in investigating any human rights violation cases faced by migrant workers, including the deaths of Nepali migrant workers.

To date, there are approximately 400,000 Nepali workers in Malaysia. From 2021 until August 2026, SUHAKAM has received a total of 46 complaints involving Nepali workers. The complaints received regarding alleged human rights violations include passports withheld by employers, working twelve hours a day and 30 consecutive days without rest days, unpaid or delayed wages, excessive working hours without overtime pay, unsafe working conditions and inadequate protection.

The renewal of the MoU underscores the commitment of both SUHAKAM and NHRCN to strengthen bilateral cooperation by focusing on investigating any human rights violation cases faced by migrant workers, monitor the condition of the detention centres and infringement of human rights of migrant workers, addressing high fatality rates, conduct policy advocacy on recruitment fees and forced labour risk, conduct meetings with the Social Security Organisation of Malaysia (SOCSO / PERKESO) to enhance access to the social security schemes for Nepali migrant workers in Malaysia, conduct advocacy on gender equality for both the Commissions’ joint actions, considering especially the rights of women migrant workers in precarious and informal employment, review policy from a human rights perspective to recommend to both governments to enhance better access to justice for the migrant workers of the respective countries, conduct capacity building for the Nepali migrant security sector, and other mutually agreed areas of collaboration.

Alongside the MoU Signing Ceremony, the NHRCN will conduct a working visit comprising meetings and consultations with various key stakeholders. The NHRCN met with the Embassy of Nepal in Kuala Lumpur, and the Non-Resident Nepali Association (NRNA) Malaysia to gather information on the current status and context of Nepalese workers in Malaysia. In addition, SUHAKAM has facilitated meetings with the Malaysian Prison Department and SOCSO as part of the fulfilments towards the implementation of the MoU.

Both Commissions encourage Nepali migrant workers in Malaysia who have experienced or witnessed possible human rights violations to lodge a complaint with SUHAKAM by scanning this QR code. The complaint submitted will be handled in accordance with SUHAKAM’s complaint-handling and confidentiality procedures.

-END-

Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM)
National Human Rights Commission of Nepal (NHRCN)
23 September 2026

KUALA LUMPUR (21 SEPTEMBER 2026) – The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) expresses serious concern over the decision allowing former Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib Razak to serve the remainder of his sentence under house arrest. While SUHAKAM fully respects the constitutional prerogative of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong in matters of pardon under Article 42 of the Federal Constitution, this decision raises significant concerns regarding equality before the law, the administration of justice, and public confidence in Malaysia’s commitment to accountability and the rule of law.

Article 8 of the Federal Constitution guarantees that all persons are equal before the law and entitled to its equal protection. This principle must remain at the heart of the criminal justice system. Where a convicted person is permitted to serve a custodial sentence under substantially different conditions from other prisoners, there must be a clear legal basis, transparent and objective criteria, and safeguards against unequal or preferential treatment. Any perception that status, position or influence may result in more favourable treatment risks eroding confidence in the equal administration of justice.

SUHAKAM is particularly concerned about the legal framework governing the present arrangement. In December 2025, High Court Judge Justice Alice Loke Yee Ching held that a house-arrest order was not capable of execution because there was no legal provision establishing such a mechanism in Malaysia. The Court also rejected the argument that release on licence under section 43 of the Prison Act 1995 could simply be equated with house arrest. Against this background, serious questions arise as to the legal basis, enforcement, monitoring and accountability of the present arrangement. Administrative guidelines or ad hoc arrangements should not substitute for a clear legislative framework.

The latest decision must also be considered in the context of the substantial clemency already granted in 2024. Dato’ Sri Najib’s original sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment in the SRC International case was reduced to six years, while his RM210 million fine was reduced to RM50 million. Permitting the remainder of that reduced custodial sentence to be served at home represents a further significant concession. The gravity of the underlying offences must equally remain in view. In the SRC International case, Dato’ Sri Najib was convicted on seven charges of abuse of power, criminal breach of trust and money laundering involving RM42 million. His conviction and sentence were ultimately upheld by the Federal Court. These were serious corruption offences involving public funds and an abuse of the trust attached to the country’s highest political office.

Public-interest concerns are further heightened by Dato’ Sri Najib’s subsequent conviction in the 1MDB case on four charges of abuse of power and 21 charges of money laundering involving approximately RM2.2 billion. The High Court sentenced him to 15 years’ imprisonment and imposed a fine of RM11.38 billion. SUHAKAM recognises that this conviction remains subject to the appellate process and should therefore be treated in accordance with the law pending the outcome of the appeal. SUHAKAM also notes that there has been no clear public acknowledgement of wrongdoing or expression of remorse in relation to the SRC offences, despite the conviction having been conclusively upheld by the Federal Court. Accountability and genuine remorse are relevant to the broader public understanding of clemency, particularly where serious corruption and abuse of public office are involved.

This decision therefore raises concerns extending beyond the circumstances of one individual. It risks weakening public confidence in the administration of justice and Malaysia’s anti-corruption efforts, particularly if it creates the perception that accountability for serious corruption operates differently for those who have held positions of power. Such a perception would undermine the principle of equality before the law and the integrity of the justice system.

The rule of law is tested most clearly when it is applied to those who have held power. Any departure from the ordinary administration of a custodial sentence must therefore rest on a clear legal basis and be capable of transparent and objective justification. Equality before the law cannot be merely a constitutional promise, it must be reflected consistently in the administration of justice, regardless of a person’s status, position or influence.

-END-

Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM)
21 September 2026

KUALA LUMPUR (17 SEPTEMBER 2026) – The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) expresses concern over recent remarks made at a political gathering in which Christian religious figures and a passage from the Bible were used as part of a sexually suggestive joke.

Regardless of whether the remarks were intended as humour, religious figures, sacred texts and religious practices should not be sexualised, distorted or used for political entertainment. Such remarks can cause deep hurt to the religious community concerned and undermine mutual trust in Malaysia’s multi-religious society. Malaysia’s diversity demands equal respect for all faiths. There should be no double standard when it comes to religious sensitivities: those who expect their own beliefs and traditions to be respected must extend the same respect to those of others.

Freedom of expression is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 10 of the Federal Constitution. Its exercise, however, carries responsibilities, particularly when addressing religion and other matters that may affect relations among communities. Political leaders and public figures, given the reach and influence of their words, bear a particular responsibility to avoid remarks that demean religious beliefs or figures, marginalise communities, or risk provoking hostility.

SUHAKAM takes note of the apology issued in relation to the remarks. In matters involving religious sensitivities, an apology should be clear, sincere and unconditional, and acknowledge the hurt caused. A meaningful apology should go beyond responding to public criticism and demonstrate a genuine commitment to learn from the incident, avoid its recurrence and rebuild trust.

SUHAKAM urges all parties to respond calmly and responsibly. Any assessment by the authorities must be conducted independently, impartially and in accordance with the law, with due regard to the full context of the remarks. Any restriction on freedom of expression must meet the principles of legality, necessity and proportionality, while enforcement must be consistent and non-selective. Public concern should likewise be expressed through lawful and peaceful means. Political leaders, commentators and social media users should refrain from amplifying the incident in ways that could fuel hostility, collective blame or further division.

Malaysia’s religious harmony must never be taken for granted. The experience of Sabah and Sarawak, in particular, demonstrates that people of different faiths and backgrounds can live together peacefully when relationships are grounded in mutual respect, equality and genuine acceptance of one another.

SUHAKAM reiterates that religion must never be exploited for political amusement or advantage. Respect for religious figures, sacred texts, beliefs and adherents of every faith is fundamental to protecting human dignity and preserving Malaysia’s peace, harmony and unity.

-END-

Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM)
17 September 2026

KUALA LUMPUR (12 SEPTEMBER 2026) – The Children’s Commissioners (CC), Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM), expresses grave concern over the recent attack on a two year old girl by five roaming dogs in Batu Pahat, Johor.

The child was reportedly attacked outside her grandmother’s home at about 7.00 a.m. on 5 September 2026 and sustained serious injuries before being taken to district hospital and subsequently transferred to Hospital Sultanah Aminah in Johor Bahru for further treatment. The Children’s Commissioners extend concern and solidarity to the child and her family, and hope for her continued recovery.

This incident must not be viewed as an isolated occurrence. Based on media reports reviewed by the CC, at least eight serious cases involving children being attacked or bitten by roaming or stray dogs have been reported since 2023, including cases resulting in death. These include attacks involving very young children in Pitas, Klang, Semporna, Langkawi, Sungai Buloh and Cheras, as well as the recent Batu Pahat incident. A separate case in Kuching in 2026 involved a 10-year-old boy who died following a dog bite and subsequent rabies infection.

At least three child fatalities can be identified from the media reports reviewed, namely in Semporna in 2024, Sungai Buloh in 2025 and Kuching in 2026. This review should not, however, be treated as comprehensive national statistics. What is particularly concerning is the vulnerability of the children involved. Some victims were as young as one or two years old. Reported incidents have occurred not only in remote locations, but in or near homes, residential areas and places associated with children’s daily activities. In Klang, for example, an 11-year-old girl was reportedly attacked by two dogs while taking out rubbish and required surgery. In Cheras, a six-year-old boy was attacked while riding his bicycle near his home.

The risk is also not limited to dog bites. In Sitiawan, a child reportedly ran into a road after being chased by a dog and narrowly avoided being hit by a vehicle. In Kedah last month, a school pupil reportedly fell into a drain after being chased by a group of dogs while cycling to school. These incidents demonstrate that roaming or aggressive dogs can create wider risks of falls, road accidents and other serious injuries.

Children have the right to live, play, walk and travel to school in environments that are reasonably safe from foreseeable and preventable risks. Very young children are especially vulnerable because of their physical size, limited ability to defend themselves and limited capacity to respond appropriately when confronted by aggressive animals.

The CC therefore call for a fundamental shift from reactive response after tragedy to proactive prevention before a child is harmed. Action against dangerous or aggressive dogs should not only take place after a child has been hospitalised, seriously injured or lost their life. Where a risk is known, foreseeable and reasonably preventable, preventive action must be taken.

The CC call for all local authorities to establish child-sensitive roaming-dog hotspots, particularly around schools, TASKA and kindergartens, playgrounds, People’s Housing Program (PPR) and flat housing, residential areas, school walking and cycling routes, bus stops and locations with repeated complaints involving aggressive or roaming dogs.

The CC further call on Ministry of Housing and Local Government (KPKT) and State Governments, in collaboration with local authorities (PBT) and the Department of Veterinary Services (DVS), to establish clearer, risk-based response standards:

1. Map and identify hotspots, prioritising areas regularly used by children;
2. Prioritise complaints involving packs or aggressive dogs around homes, schools, playgrounds and other child-sensitive locations;
3. Establish clear SOPs and escalation procedures – from complaint and risk assessment to intervention, feedback and follow-up monitoring;
4. Conduct proactive and coordinated PBT-DVS operations, rather than waiting for a serious attack to occur;
5. Strengthen national data collection on animal attacks involving children, including age, location, injury severity, rabies-related outcomes and intervention outcomes;
6. Implement long-term population and risk management, including responsible ownership, registration and licensing, prevention of abandonment, evidence-based sterilisation, waste and food-source management, appropriate facilities, and stronger cooperation between authorities, NGOs and communities; and
7. Ensure all enforcement is humane and lawful, consistent with the Animal Welfare Act 2015 and other applicable laws and procedures.

Protecting children does not mean disregarding animal welfare. Both objectives can and must be pursued together. Effective animal management should be child-safe, humane, professional and lawful – not indiscriminate or cruel.

The CC also stress that safety education for children, parents, schools and childcare providers is important, including guidance on avoiding aggressive animals and obtaining prompt medical attention following a bite. However, safety education must never transfer responsibility for managing a known public safety risk from authorities to children.

A young child should not have to avoid playing outside their home, using a playground or travelling to school because of a foreseeable risk posed by roaming dogs. When a danger to children is known and reasonably preventable, we cannot wait for another tragedy before acting. Effective management of roaming and aggressive dogs is not merely an animal-management issue; where children are exposed to foreseeable risk, it is a matter of child safety and protection.

The Children’s Commissioners therefore call on the Federal Government, State Governments and all local authorities to act now – not after the next child is seriously harmed. Children’s safety must be built through prevention, preparedness and timely intervention, not only through action after tragedy has occurred.

-END-

Children’s Commissioners (CC)
Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM)
12 September 2026