Posts in category: Press Statement

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

KUALA LUMPUR (9 MARCH 2026) – The Children’s Commissioners refer to the press conference held by the Inspector-General of Police on 6 March 2026 concerning the detention of six individuals under the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (SOSMA), including three children, following a special operation conducted on 14 and 15 February 2026.

The Children’s Commissioner of SUHAKAM wish to state that the detention of children under SOSMA contravenes Section 84(1) of the Child Act 2001 [Act 611], which requires that a child who is arrested must be brought before the Court for Children within twenty-four hours. Furthermore, Section 83(1) of Act 611 expressly provides that the Child Act prevails over all other laws relating to the arrest, detention and trial of children. The failure to observe this overriding safeguard constitutes a clear violation of the child’s rights.

The Office of the Children’s Commissioner (OCC) of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) received a complaint regarding the matter on 26 February 2026 and issued notifications on 2 March 2026 and subsequently on 5 March 2026 to the the Royal Malaysia Police informing them of its intention to visit the children concerned in order to ensure that their rights while under police detention are protected. These notifications were made pursuant to the powers of the Children’s Commissioners under Section 4(2)(c) and (d) of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999 [Act 597]. The same Act further provides that such visits shall not be prevented, provided that the procedures prescribed by the laws governing the place of detention are complied with. Despite the police being in communication with the OCC regarding this matter, access has yet to be granted.

The Children’s Commissioners express disappointment at the continued delay in allowing the OCC to visit the children currently detained under SOSMA, particularly when the Inspector-General of Police stated during the press conference that the police would adopt a prudent approach to ensure that the identity, dignity and future of the three child suspects are protected, in accordance with the Child Act 2001 and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. If such assurances are genuine, the OCC should be granted immediate access to the children concerned without further delay.

The OCC reiterates its clear and unequivocal position that children must not be detained under SOSMA. As the Act permits detention without judicial oversight, it is fundamentally incompatible with established child rights standards. Accordingly, any provision allowing for the detention of children under SOSMA should be repealed in its entirety.

-END-

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

KUALA LUMPUR (24 FEBRUARY 2026) – The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) refers to the findings reported in the Auditor-General’s Report 2026 Series 1 and the related media coverage. SUHAKAM wishes to state unequivocally that there has been no misappropriation of funds or assets or any form of wrongdoing.

The Auditor-General’s Report noted that SUHAKAM was “unable to verify cash and bank balances of RM0.75 million as of 31 December 2024”. We wish to clarify that this matter arose from technical variances following the upgrading of SUHAKAM’s accounting system.

In late 2022, SUHAKAM transitioned to a new enhanced financial application system based on the Standard Accounting System for Government Agencies, incorporating updated public sector accounting standards and reporting practices. During this transition, historical cash and bank records were migrated into the new Bank Reconciliation Statement module. As reflected in the audit findings, certain transactions exceeded the stipulated reconciliation period. These transactions relate to journal entries from the transition process, accumulated journal adjustments and accumulated payment cancellations undertaken since 2022.

As a result, the reported Cash and Bank Balance of RM754,592 as of 31 December 2024 could not be verified during the audit due to system-generated unreconciled disbursements of RM13.56 million and unreconciled receipts of RM12.88 million originating from the migration period. This created a reporting variance when the Auditor-General matched SUHAKAM’s bank account statements against the bank reconciliation reports generated by the new system. However, the underlying cash and bank balances remain intact. The variance did not affect SUHAKAM’s overall financial position or the integrity of its reported assets.

The technical variance is being progressively resolved and will be fully addressed in the 2025 Financial Statements, where alignment between the updated accounting system and audit verification requirements will be completed.

In summary, the audit statement reflects a verification limitation arising from system upgrade and reconciliation presentation issues. It does not indicate missing funds, financial loss or concerns regarding the integrity of SUHAKAM’s cash position. SUHAKAM has undertaken corrective measures to address the matter and strengthen its reconciliation and reporting processes.

SUHAKAM remains firmly committed to transparency, accountability and sound financial governance. Reconciliation discrepancies are being progressively resolved, internal control processes have been strengthened and improvements will be reflected in the 2025 financial statements. SUHAKAM will continue to cooperate fully with the relevant authorities to uphold the highest standards of public financial management.

-END–

Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM)
24 February 2026

KUALA LUMPUR (20 FEBRUARY 2026) – The Children’s Commissioners express profound sadness and shock over the tragic incident involving five members of a family in Kuantan on 17 February 2026. The tragedy is made even more heartbreaking by the loss of two young children, aged two and four years old. The two-year-old child was due to celebrate her birthday the following day, on 18 February 2026.

Initial reports indicate that the father was known among neighbours as a friendly and well-mannered individual. While there has been no indication of a prior mental health diagnosis, the police have not ruled out financial stress as a possible contributing factor, particularly in light of reports of a quarrel between the parents on the morning of the incident.

This deeply distressing tragedy serves as a painful reminder that more must be done to prevent such incidents from recurring, especially where innocent children are concerned. This period coincides with significant festive seasons, including Chinese New Year and the month of Ramadan, which are meant to be times of joy, reflection and togetherness for families and children. Incidents such as this profoundly affect society’s collective conscience.

The Children’s Commissioners call upon the Ministry of Health and the National Population and Family Development Board (LPPKN) to strengthen and expand community-based outreach programmes, particularly those offering early mental health screening, psychosocial support and counselling services. Special attention should be given to parents and caregivers, including fathers or sole breadwinners, who may be experiencing overwhelming financial and emotional pressures.

At the same time, the Children’s Commissioners urge families, extended family members, neighbours and communities to remain attentive, compassionate and responsive to those who may be facing distress or hardship. A supportive and caring environment can play a critical role in preventing crises and safeguarding the well-being of children.

The protection of children must remain a shared responsibility, one that requires vigilance, empathy and timely support.

-END-

Dr Farah Nini Dusuki
Chief Children’s Commissioner
The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM)
20 February 2026

KUALA LUMPUR (28 JANUARY 2026) – While the Government of Malaysia was undergoing its review by the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) on 22 and 23 January 2026 in Geneva, the Children’s Commissioners present were informed on 23 January 2026 that a 16-year-old girl who had been detained under the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (SOSMA) had been released by the police.

The child had been detained since 14 January 2026 in connection with investigations under the Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2007.

The Office of the Children’s Commissioner (OCC) of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) welcomes the child’s release. However, it must be stated unequivocally that the detention should never have occurred in the first place.

The apprehension and detention of the child were not in compliance with the Child Act 2001 [Act 611]. Section 84 of Act 611 requires that a child be brought before a Court for Children within 24 hours of arrest, a requirement that was not met. Further, Section 83(1) of Act 611 expressly provides that the Child Act prevails over all other laws relating to the arrest, detention, and trial of children. This overriding safeguard was disregarded, resulting in a clear violation of the child’s rights.

In addition, the placement of the child in a lock-up together with adult female detainees contravenes Section 85(a) of Act 611 and breaches Article 37(c) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which requires that children be detained separately from adults and treated in a manner appropriate to their age.

The OCC is also deeply concerned that the child was denied the safeguards provided under Section 13(2)(a) and (b) of SOSMA. As a child and a female, she ought to have been granted bail rather than subjected to SOSMA’s 28-day pre-charge detention under Section 4(5). This concern is further reinforced by Article 37(b) of the CRC, which stipulates that the detention of a child shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time. The child’s detention for close to ten days, which reportedly resulted in health complications, constitutes a violation of the child’s best interests under Article 3 of the CRC.

The OCC’s position is clear and unequivocal: children must not be detained under SOSMA. As the Act permits detention without trial, it is fundamentally incompatible with child rights standards, and any provision allowing for the detention of children under SOSMA should be repealed in its entirety. In light of Malaysia’s recent CRC review, during which the Government reaffirmed its commitment to prioritising the protection, development and participation of children, this commitment cannot be meaningfully realised unless SOSMA is amended to expressly exclude its application to children.

-END-

Dr Farah Nini Dusuki
Chief Children’s Commissioner
The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM)
28 January 2026

KUALA LUMPUR (21 JANUARY 2026) – The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) takes note of a question posed by a journalist, Rex Tan, at a public lecture which has generated public debate, particularly on issues relating to racial discrimination. SUHAKAM recognises the sensitivity of the question raised and the subsequent reactions that have affected social harmony within the Malaysian community. We emphasise that matters relating to racial discrimination are serious and must be addressed through open, honest and inclusive public discourse, in line with the constitutional values of equality and non-discrimination.

At the same time, SUHAKAM is appalled that the journalist was arrested and is being investigated under Section 4(1) of the Sedition Act 1948, Section 505(c) of the Penal Code and Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act (CMA)1998, as stated in the media statement issued by the Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM). In this regard, SUHAKAM wish to refer to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Heidy Quah Gaik Li v Kerajaan Malaysia (26 August 2025), where the Court held that the words “offensive” and “annoy” in Section 233 of the CMA constituting an offence, to be inconsistent with Article 10(1)(a) and (2)(a) read with Article 8 of the Federal Constitution, and hence, unconstitutional and void.

The invocation of multiple criminal provisions in response to journalistic questioning on matters of public interest raises serious implications for the exercise of freedom of expression and media freedom in Malaysia. SUHAKAM is of the view that actions taken by the authority are too harsh as to tantamount to an overkill. Such an approach reflects an outdated and intolerant mindset that prioritises punitive measures over engagement, dialogue and rights-based responses. SUHAKAM stresses that there is an urgent need for a shift in mindset on the part of enforcement agencies towards approaches that are proportionate, measured and consistent with democratic values and fundamental liberties. The actions taken raise serious questions of compatibility with the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 10 of the Federal Constitution.

SUHAKAM wishes to highlight that Section 233 of the CMA 1998 is intended to address the misuse of network facilities or services for improper online communications. The journalist’s question was asked verbally during a physical public forum and was not transmitted online by him. Section 233 applies only to communications initiated or transmitted via network services, and any recording or online dissemination by a third party does not attract liability to the speaker. In the absence of evidence that the journalist initiated or participated in the online transmission, Section 233 is inapplicable.

SUHAKAM further notes that Section 505(c) of the Penal Code criminalises statements that may incite fear or alarm among the public or disturb public tranquillity. While the maintenance of public order is a legitimate objective, the application of this provision must be approached with caution, particularly where the expression in question forms part of journalistic inquiry or public discussion on matters of public interest. Any restriction imposed must meet the constitutional test of legality, necessity and proportionality.

SUHAKAM is consistent with its longstanding position that the Sedition Act 1948 is overly broad and susceptible to arbitrary application, creating a chilling effect on legitimate discourse, especially on issues of public importance. Its preventive nature, which does not require proof of actual harm, poses significant risks to fundamental freedoms in a democratic and plural society. We wish to emphasise that criminal proceedings against journalists should be used only as a measure of last resort. Matters relating to journalistic ethics or professional conduct should primarily be addressed through robust and effective self-regulatory mechanisms, consistent with democratic principles and international best practices in the protection of media freedom.

In view of the above, SUHAKAM calls upon the Government to:

1. Repeal the Sedition Act 1948 and Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, and undertake comprehensive legislative reforms to ensure full alignment with constitutional guarantees and international human rights standards;
2. Adopt non-punitive, rights-based approaches in addressing sensitive issues such as race and discrimination, including through dialogue, education and institutional reforms; and
3. Strengthen and accord due recognition to the Malaysian Media Council (MMC) as the primary independent self-regulatory mechanism for the media, including by prioritising recourse to the MMC in addressing complaints against journalists before any criminal proceedings are initiated.

SUHAKAM reiterates that freedom of expression and media freedom are fundamental pillars of a democratic society. While the Federal Constitution permits restrictions in the interest of public order, such limitations must always be lawful, necessary and proportionate. Safeguarding these rights, alongside the promotion of responsible journalism, is essential for democratic governance, social cohesion and public trust.

-END–

Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM)
Date: 21 January 2026