[Joint Media Statement]: Police Conduct Against Palestine Solidarity Protesters Raises Serious Concerns Over Police Professionalism

We, the undersigned civil society organisations, express serious concerns over the violations of privacy, dignity, and due process of two human rights defenders (HRD) who were arrested at a Palestine solidarity protest outside the US embassy on 2 October 2025. 

Following their release on police bail, the Kuala Lumpur police released a video on their Facebook page, which shows the investigating officer lecturing the two HRDs as they are given their bail sheets. In the video, the officer is seen 'advising' them not to repeat their actions—even before any investigation had been completed—despite other video evidence and eyewitness accounts suggesting that plainclothes police officers provoked the protesters. This act undermines the presumption of innocence of the HRDs. 

The police, as enforcers of rule of law, must always maintain a non-prejudicial position and refrain from presuming guilt before it is established in a court of law. This is critical in ensuring separation of powers, as well as in ensuring the independence, impartiality, and integrity in the delivery of justice. 

While the police replaced their first post with a second version that blurred the HRDs’ faces, both posts breach the HRDs’ privacy, security and dignity, safeguarded under Article 5 of the Federal Constitution. These actions reinforce negative public perception and prejudice, damaging their employment and livelihoods; perpetuate a chilling effect on civic participation. 

According to international human rights standards, all persons under detention must be treated in a humane manner and with respect for their inherent dignity, which includes their privacy. By recording and posting the footage of the two HRDs, the police effectively breached these rights. 

In the absence of a clear, documented operational or evidentiary need, the recording and dissemination of the footage on official channels fail the requirements of legality, necessity, and proportionality that govern police processing of personal data. 

The EU’s Practical Guide On The Use Of Personal Data In The Police Sector states that “the collection of personal data for police purposes should be limited to what is necessary and proportionate for the prevention of a real danger or the prevention, investigation and prosecution of a specific criminal offence. Any exception to this provision should be the subject of specific national legislation.” This is further affirmed by the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) which clearly states that collection and use of personal data must be “purpose specific” and not further “processed in ways incompatible with those purposes”. It must be respectful of individual rights and provide for “appropriate safeguards for the rights and freedoms of data subject”.    

Similarly, the Checklist on 10 principles for the proper management of assemblies by the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Assembly and Association underscores that “legislation and policies regulating the collection and processing of information relating to assemblies or their organizers and participants must incorporate legality, necessity, and proportionality tests.” 

In line with protecting the privacy of detainees, the police must also obtain consent from the detainees before recording and publicly disseminating such footage. In this case, no such consent was obtained. The police must also clearly state the purpose of such recordings, especially if it is outside of the context of an investigation or prosecution of a crime. 

The overall conduct of the police in this case neither inspires public confidence nor addresses the existing trust deficit in the police force - especially following a series of missteps and unprofessional statements by the police. 

Further, the police conduct during the protest highlights a broader structural issue: amendments to the Peaceful Assembly Act (PAA). Presently, the role of the police in facilitating assembly is not explicitly outlined under Section 8 of the PAA. This legal ambiguity may result in the continued misuse of Section 186 of the Penal Code, which penalizes obstruction of any public servant in the discharge of their public functions. 

Finally, we urge the police to remove all social media posts related to the two HRDs, with no further delays. In addition, we make the following recommendations 

1. The Ministry of Home Affairs to 

   a. Amend Section 8 of the PAA to explicitly outline the role of the police in facilitating public assemblies, in line with international good practices and the UN SR's Checklist of 10 Principles.

   b. Develop guidelines to ensure safeguards against the arbitrary use of Section 186 of the Penal Code during peaceful assembly.

2. SUHAKAM in collaboration with the police and civil society organisations to 

   a. Develop guidelines to strengthen privacy and data protection in police action and practices, including on prohibiting unauthorised recording and public dissemination of detainees' images and personal data without their consent, unless it is strictly necessary and meets the lawful proportionality requirements for investigations and prosecution purposes. 

   b. Strengthen training on proper management of assemblies and protection of human rights. 

3. Social media platforms to 

   1. ensure that their practices adhere to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) as well as their own community standards. 

   2. Establish transparent processes for assessing and removing state-generated content that violates privacy, security and dignity of the individuals.

Endorsed by:

1. Justice for Sisters 

2. MANDIRI

3. Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ)

4. SIS Forum (Malaysia)

5. Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM)

6. Sisters United

7. JEJAKA

8. KL Queer Space

9. Association of Women Lawyers (AWL)

10. Amnesty International Malaysia (AIM)

11. Persatuan Kesedaran Komuniti Selangor (EMPOWER)

12. Gegar