Search Results

11 Februari 2026 Disediakan untuk: Ketua Polis Negara Disediakan oleh: Sekretariat Himpun PENDAHULUAN Memorandum ini dikemukakan susulan siri insiden kepolisan yang menimbulkan kebimbangan serius terhadap perlindungan hak asasi manusia, prinsip keadilan, serta tahap akauntabiliti dan profesionalisme pasukan keselamatan di Malaysia. Insiden-insiden ini tidak boleh dilihat sebagai kes terpencil, sebaliknya memperlihatkan pola kegagalan yang berulang dan bersifat sistemik. ISU-ISU BERBANGKIT Berikut adalah beberapa isu-isu yang berlaku kebelakangan ini, antaranya: ISU-ISU BERBANGKIT Berikut adalah beberapa isu-isu yang berlaku kebelakangan ini, antaranya: Penyalahgunaan Undang-Undang Keselamatan terhadap Kanak-Kanak Penggunaan SOSMA pada 14 Januari 2026 terhadap seorang kanak-kanak perempuan berusia 16 tahun di Jitra, yang ditahan hampir sepuluh hari, jelas bercanggah dengan prinsip perlindungan kanak-kanak seperti yang diperuntukkan di bawah Akta Kanak-Kanak 2017. Kes ini mencerminkan kegagalan serius pihak berkuasa membezakan antara prosedur siasatan dewasa dan kewajipan perlindungan khas terhadap kanak-kanak, serta kecenderungan menggunakan undang-undang paling keras tanpa pertimbangan munasabah. Penggunaan Kuasa Maut dan Kegagalan Penilaian Awal SOP Dalam kes tembakan di Durian Tunggal, keputusan Jabatan Peguam Negara untuk mengklasifikasikan semula kes sebagai bunuh menimbulkan persoalan besar terhadap penilaian awal polis berkaitan penggunaan senjata maut. Naratif awal yang dikeluarkan polis berisiko mengalihkan perhatian awam daripada persoalan teras—sama ada penggunaan kuasa tersebut perlu, berkadar dan mematuhi SOP.  Kes ini selari dengan insiden lain, termasuk tindakan menampar seorang penunggang motosikal di Johor Bahru semasa operasi, yang kemudiannya dijustifikasikan sebagai “tindakan spontan”. Justifikasi sedemikian memperlihatkan budaya kepolisan yang menormalisasi penggunaan kekerasan dan kegagalan mematuhi disiplin secara profesional. Kelewatan Keadilan dan Ketidakpatuhan Keputusan Mahkamah Dalam kes kematian Soosaimanicckam a/l Joseph pada Mei 2019 semasa Latihan Pegawai Kadet Graduan TLDM, walaupun laporan polis dan memorandum telah dikemukakan kepada Ketua Polis Negara dan Pejabat Peguam Negara, siasatan hanya dibuka di bawah Seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan hampir tujuh tahun kemudian. Lebih membimbangkan, sejak September 2025 sehingga kini, keluarga masih tidak menerima sebarang perkembangan walaupun wujud keputusan mahkamah yang jelas. Kelewatan ini mencerminkan kegagalan institusi dalam memastikan keadilan yang tepat pada masanya dan berkesan. Pendekatan Represif terhadap Perhimpunan Aman Walaupun kerajaan telah menyatakan komitmen untuk meminda Akta Perhimpunan Aman 2012, pendekatan di lapangan masih memperlakukan perhimpunan sebagai ancaman keselamatan. Insiden semasa penyerahan memorandum “Reform Akta Dadah” di Parlimen pada 22 Januari lalu, di mana anggota keselamatan bertindak secara beremosi dan cuba mencetuskan provokasi, serta tindakan Polis Bantuan Universiti Malaya menarik poster peserta dalam perhimpunan “Tolak Hukuman Tatatertib”, menunjukkan kegagalan memahami perhimpunan aman sebagai hak perlembagaan, bukan risiko keselamatan. Kegagalan Serius dalam Operasi Serbuan dan Perlindungan Hak Individu Serbuan polis pada 28 November 2025 terhadap sebuah pusat kesihatan memperlihatkan kegagalan serius dalam perancangan, pelaksanaan dan pematuhan prosedur operasi standard (SOP). Walaupun lebih 200 individu ditahan dalam operasi bersama polis, pihak berkuasa tempatan dan jabatan agama, tindakan tersebut dilakukan tanpa asas bukti yang mencukupi, sehingga majistret memutuskan bahawa pihak polis gagal memenuhi sebarang elemen kesalahan jenayah dan mengarahkan semua tahanan dibebaskan kerana telah ditahan melebihi 24 jam. Lebih membimbangkan, operasi ini dijalankan dengan kehadiran media, menyebabkan pendedahan identiti individu yang ditahan dan pelanggaran jelas terhadap hak privasi serta prinsip bahawa seseorang itu tidak bersalah sehingga dibuktikan sebaliknya. Terdapat juga aduan berhubung kekerasan lisan, penghinaan dan shaming semasa serbuan dan dalam tahanan, serta soalan-soalan yang tidak wajar dan menceroboh privasi ketika pengambilan kenyataan, khususnya berkaitan orientasi dan amalan seksual. Amalan ini mencerminkan pendekatan siasatan berasaskan stigma, bukannya undang-undang dan profesionalisme. Kenyataan Awam Polis yang Tidak Konsisten dan Menghakimi Dalam beberapa kes, kenyataan awam polis bersifat defensif, tidak konsisten dan cenderung membentuk persepsi awam sebelum siasatan selesai. Sama ada melalui penekanan latar belakang mangsa, justifikasi kekerasan sebagai tindakan spontan, atau pelabelan prematur seperti “pusat songsang” tanpa bukti, pendekatan komunikasi ini bukan sahaja menjejaskan hak mangsa dan keluarga, malah melemahkan integriti polis sebagai institusi penguat kuasa yang sepatutnya neutral dan bertanggungjawab. Kematian dalam Tahanan dan Kegagalan Ketelusan Peningkatan kematian dalam tahanan—22 kes secara keseluruhan dan 12 daripadanya di lokap polis—menimbulkan kebimbangan serius terhadap kewajipan penjagaan (duty of care)  oleh negara. Kenyataan ringkas Menteri Dalam Negeri yang mengaitkan kematian tahun 2025 dengan “faktor kesihatan” gagal memberikan penjelasan bermakna mengenai punca sebenar kematian, sekaligus menutup ruang penelitian awam terhadap kemungkinan kecuaian, pelanggaran SOP, atau layanan kejam dan tidak berperikemanusiaan. Kegagalan Menjamin Akses Keadilan kepada OKU Kes serangan terhadap Ong Ing Keong, seorang individu pekak, menunjukkan kegagalan serius pihak polis dan pendakwaan dalam memastikan akses keadilan kepada Orang Kurang Upaya (OKU). Walaupun pendakwaan akhirnya dibuat, proses siasatan gagal untuk,memberi makluman penuh dan penglibatan undang-undang yang menyeluruh kepada mangsa. Lebih membimbangkan, mangsa ditekan untuk menutup kes tanpa kehadiran peguam, jurubahasa bahasa isyarat, atau akses kepada telefon bimbit, yang merupakan alat komunikasi utama bagi individu pekak. Kes ini jelas mencerminkan kegagalan sistemik yang memerlukan pembaharuan segera agar akses keadilan untuk OKU tidak terus dinafikan. ⁠Melindungi Wanita sebagai Mangsa Keganasan Rumah Tangga Akses kepada keadilan bagi wanita dalam kes keganasan rumah tangga masih berhadapan dengan pelbagai cabaran yang memerlukan perhatian serius. Terdapat keadaan di mana mangsa wanita tidak menerima bantuan yang sewajarnya ketika membuat laporan polis, sekali gus memberi kesan terhadap tahap kepercayaan orang awam terhadap institusi penguatkuasaan undang-undang. Sehubungan itu, adalah penting agar pendekatan penguatkuasaan sentiasa berteraskan perlindungan hak dan keselamatan mangsa. Penekanan yang berlebihan terhadap aspek pentadbiran seperti pematuhan kod pakaian berpotensi mengalihkan fokus daripada tanggungjawab utama penguat kuasa, dan secara tidak langsung boleh menjejaskan akses mangsa kepada keadilan serta perlindungan yang segera dan berkesan. Komuniti Orang Asli Masih Terus Berdepan Diskriminasi Sistemik Komuniti Orang Asli masih berdepan dengan diskriminasi yang berterusan, khususnya dalam mempertahankan tanah adat. Penahanan 21 orang penduduk Orang Asli di Kampung Jemeri, Rompin pada 9 Februari bukanlah isu terpencil. Pada 23 Disember 2025 lalu, penduduk Orang Asli di Kampung Tanam juga turut ditahan hanya kerana mempertahankan kawasan yang menjadi sumber kehidupan komuniti. Kebanyakan kampung Orang Asli menghadapi ancaman pencerobohan oleh pelbagai pihak, termasuk pemaju dan syarikat komersial. Apabila komuniti membantah atau cuba mempertahankan hak mereka, tindakan undang-undang pula dikenakan kepada mereka. Banyak kes Orang Asli sering tidak mendapat perlindungan sewajarnya daripada pihak berkuasa. Dalam banyak keadaan, laporan polis yang dibuat oleh mereka tidak diberikan perhatian serius, manakal ancaman dan gangguan terhadap komuniti terus berlaku tanpa tindakan efektif. Situasi ini mencerminkan kegagalan sistem untuk melindungi hak mereka serta wujudnya layanan tidak adil yang berterusan terhadap komuniti ini. Kesemua isu di atas memperlihatkan persamaan yang jelas, iaitu: Ketidakjelasan dan ketidakpatuhan terhadap SOP; Budaya penggunaan kuasa dan normalisasi kekerasan; Ketiadaan akauntabiliti dan ketelusan yang bermakna; Pengendalian komunikasi awam yang bermasalah dan menghakimi; Kesan emosi, psikologi dan sosial yang mendalam terhadap mangsa, keluarga dan komuniti. Pola ini menegaskan bahawa pembaharuan bersifat kosmetik tidak lagi mencukupi. Reformasi kepolisan yang menyeluruh, berasaskan hak asasi manusia, ketelusan dan akauntabiliti awam, perlu dilaksanakan dengan segera dan tanpa kompromi. TUNTUTAN Kami selaku organisasi masyarakat sivil, dan juga pihak-pihak yang mengambil berat terhadap isu integriti kepolisan di Malaysia ini ingin menuntut: Pembetulan SOP dan Pengendalian Kes Berprofil Tinggi Kami menuntut agar PDRM segera menyemak, memperjelas dan menguatkuasakan prosedur operasi standard (SOP) berkaitan tangkapan, siasatan, serbuan, penggunaan kekerasan dan penggunaan senjata api, selaras dengan prinsip keperluan, kesepadanan dan akauntabiliti.  Kes berprofil tinggi, kes melibatkan kematian, kecederaan serius atau institusi keselamatan lain tidak wajar dikendalikan di peringkat negeri atau oleh pegawai rendah, sebaliknya mesti dinaikkan dan disiasat di peringkat Bukit Aman. Kes kematian pegawai kadet TLDM J Soosaimanicckam, yang telah diputuskan sebagai homisid oleh Mahkamah Tinggi Ipoh tetapi masih tanpa perkembangan jelas, menunjukkan keperluan mendesak untuk peringkat Bukit Aman mengambil kes ini. Ketelusan Awam dan Tanggungjawab kepada Parlimen serta Mangsa Kami menuntut agar PDRM menunaikan tanggungjawab institusinya terhadap orang awam dan Parlimen melalui pelaporan yang berkala, tepat dan telus mengenai penggunaan kuasa, kematian dalam tahanan, serbuan dan tindakan disiplin dalaman. Pada masa yang sama, PDRM mesti menjamin hak mangsa dan keluarga untuk menerima maklumat dan kemas kini siasatan secara bermakna, akses kepada rawatan perubatan bebas serta sokongan psikososial, dan menghentikan amalan kenyataan awam yang bersifat prejudis atau menghakimi sebelum siasatan selesai. Disokong oleh:  Justice for Sisters  Centre for Independent Journalism  MANDIRI Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) Gabungan Pilihan Raya Bersih dan Adil (BERSIH) Liga Rakyat Demokratik Federasi Pemuda Kebangsaan Liga Mahasiswa Malaysia Gerakan Perempuan Melawan SPARC Ruang Lawan Parti Sosialis Malaysia Suara Siswa Universiti Malaya HAYAT Jawatankuasa Hak Sivil KLSCAH New Generation Universiti Malaya Demokrat Malaya Himpunan Advokasi Rakyat Malaysia (HARAM) Bangsa Mahasiswa UKM SIS Forum (Malaysia) Persatuan Kesedaran Komuniti Selangor (EMPOWER) Universiti of Malaya Association of New Youth (UMANY) Neo-Siswa Universiti malaya CRIB Foundation (Child Rights Innovation & Betterment) SIUMAN Collective People Like Us Hang Out (PLUHO) Women’s Aid Organisation (WAO)

Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) acknowledges Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution’s reasserted commitment to tabling amendments to the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (SOSMA) in the upcoming July/August parliamentary sitting. The current pace of reform is, however, concerningly protracted. ‘Policy approval’ to begin the amendment process was close to six months behind schedule, with Saifuddin making the commitment in July last year. Moreover, with the delayed submission of the policy paper to Cabinet, it is concerning that Saifuddin did not engage with the SOSMA recommendations by the Parliamentary Special Select Committee on Human Rights, Election and Institutional Reform that were already available in November last year. By bypassing a report that also accounted the perspectives of the National Human Rights Commission of Malaysia and civil society, Saifuddin has ensured that the Cabinet’s 'policy approval' was based on an incomplete, security-biased narrative. Saifuddin’s justifications for the nine-day detention of the 16-year-old girl under SOSMA, on the other hand, remain indefensible. “Complexity” is an operational challenge for the police that does not justify the override of domestic safeguards under Section 83 of the Child Act 2001, and broadly Malaysia’s international obligations under Article 37(b) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). The protection of minors unequivocally prevails over other laws—even more so when the minor is a witness—as provisions under the Child Act are more than sufficient for obtaining statements while ensuring the child’s welfare. The detention of this minor is a direct symptom of the "arrest first, investigate later" mentality facilitated by the 28-day pre-charge detention period without judicial oversight under Section 4(5) of SOSMA. Without restoring judicial oversight at the remand stage for security offences, the incentive for inadequate police investigations and dragnet arrests—which result in the arbitrary and prolonged deprivation of liberty for individuals, including the innocent and those held on mere association—will persist. For minors, this systemic flaw risks repeating egregious violations by the state of its own statutory protections.     SUARAM demands: Meaningful inclusion of CSOs, the families of SOSMA detainees and SUHAKAM in the upcoming engagement sessions for the amendment matrix to ensure that the fundamental right to fair trial is prioritised; Strict adherence to the July/August timeline to table the SOSMA amendments, and; Substantive amendments to SOSMA that restore judicial oversight, by repealing or amending Section 4(5), while ensuring that revisions to Sections 13 and 30 responsively address issues of prolonged detention and corresponding socioeconomic harm inflicted on detainees and their families.   In solidarity, Azura Nasron (Executive Director at SUARAM)

Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) is concerned by the 2025 death-in-custody (DIC) statistics disclosed by the Home Minister, Saifuddin Nasution, in Parliament yesterday. The spike in police custodial deaths in 2025 is alarming when compared to government figures from 2022 and 2023, which recorded 13 and 22 cases respectively. While deaths in prison custody saw a marginal decrease of three cases compared to 2023, the significant increase in deaths in police custody underscores a systemic inefficiency in the Home Ministry’s (KDN) role in ensuring police accountability. The KDN’s inefficiency is telling in the Independent Police Conduct Commission’s (IPCC) current role in investigations on deaths in police custody. While Section 26 of the IPCC Act 2023 mandates the referral of all custodial deaths to the Commission, Saifuddin’s statement—that cases are referred only "if involving misconduct issues"—indicates that KDN continues to treat PDRM as the sole arbiter of when independent oversight is warranted. This approach effectively bypasses the statutory requirement for automatic notification and relegates the IPCC to a passive role, merely receiving filtered updates from the police’s own Criminal Investigation Unit on Deaths in Custody (USJKT). By the time the IPCC is engaged, the opportunity for a truly independent investigation is likely to already be fundamentally compromised. Such a regressive interpretation prevents the Commission from effectively exercising its already limited powers of investigation and recommendation-giving, as it remains systematically sidelined from cases that PDRM has prematurely classified as non-misconduct. The persistent culture of secrecy surrounding custodial management continues to impede meaningful progress in eradicating DIC. The lack of open data forces a reliance on Parliamentary Question Time for extraction of basic DIC statistics, which is an inefficient use of legislative resources that should instead be focused on constructive policy reform. This data-sharing deficit is further exacerbated by the varying degrees of disclosure across different enforcement agencies, with the Immigration Department (JIM) remaining particularly opaque. Furthermore, Saifuddin’s brief attribution of 2025 deaths in police and prison custody to "health factors" provides no clarity on the manner of death, obscuring public scrutiny of cases that involve potential state negligence in the duty of care to detainees—including poor detention conditions, violations of operational SOPs, or instances of torture and ill-treatment.  SUARAM also notes the lack of information by KDN regarding the effectiveness of preventive measures implemented thus far. Mentions of initiatives undertaken in general have remained the status quo, with no distinction made between longstanding policies and actual new interventions. This lack of specificity is evident in yesterday’s parliamentary response that also conflated the Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM) and the Prison Department’s (JPM) efforts—a stark regression from Saifuddin’s reply to Written Question No. 277 in 2024, which provided a granular breakdown across PDRM, JPM, and JIM. Some preventive steps are repetitions of existing protocols. For example, while the current response highlights 'early health screenings' and 'integrity training' as key measures, these were already listed as ongoing initiatives undertaken by PDRM and JPM in the response to Written Question No. 277. This obfuscation of data prevents any meaningful evaluation, including via public scrutiny, of whether current expenditures and SOPs are actually mitigating the risk of custodial deaths.  On this note, SUARAM demands thus renews its call for systematic reform in how the state addresses and prevents deaths in custody, encompassing: Full Transparency through Open Data: The Home Ministry must commit to the public release of comprehensive, disaggregated data on all deaths in custody. This must include a breakdown by enforcement agencies (PDRM, JPM, JIM etc) and a clear disclosure of the manner of death—not just the clinical cause—to ensure accountability for potential negligence or SOP violations. Immediate Revision of IPCC Referral Protocols: The Home Ministry must ensure the automatic and immediate referral of all custodial deaths to the Independent Police Conduct Commission (IPCC), as mandated by Section 26 of the IPCC Act.  Disclosure of IPCC Investigative Performance and Capacity Audit: The IPCC must publicly disclose the total number of investigations it has undertaken into DIC cases since its establishment in July 2023. Concurrently, the Home Ministry must conduct and publish a transparent audit of the IPCC’s current resources to determine whether the Commission possesses the adequate investigative capacity required to swiftly, independently and effectively investigate deaths in police custody, alongside a clear plan to enhance these powers if found lacking. Swift Disclosure and Implementation of Recommendations by the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission’s (EAIC) Committee on Custodial Deaths: SUARAM notes the draft Cabinet Memorandum submitted by EAIC to the Prime Minister’s Department in December 2025. We demand that the government provide a clear timeline for the review and public disclosure of these 13 preventive measures. Crucially, the Ministry must engage with CSOs working on DICs and detainees’ rights and wellbeing to deliberate on these recommendations prior to their finalisation, followed by the publication of a strict, time-bound roadmap for their implementation across all enforcement agencies. In solidarity, Azura Nasron Executive Director of SUARAM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TUTUP JURANG KETELUSAN DAN AKAUNTABILITI BAGI KES KEMATIAN DALAM TAHANAN Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) khuatir dengan statistik kematian dalam tahanan bagi tahun 2025 yang didedahkan oleh Menteri Dalam Negeri, Saifuddin Nasution, di Parlimen semalam. Peningkatan mendadak kematian dalam tahanan polis pada tahun lalu amat membimbangkan berbanding dengan rekod angka rasmi pada tahun 2022 (13 kes) dan 2023 (22 kes). Walaupun kematian dalam tahanan penjara menunjukkan kadar penurunan sebanyak tiga kes berbanding tahun 2023, peningkatan ketara kematian dalam tahanan polis memperlihatkan kelemahan sistemik peranan Kementerian Dalam Negeri (KDN) untuk memastikan akauntabiliti polis. Ketidakcekapan KDN ini dilihat ketara dalam peranan semasa Suruhanjaya Bebas Tatakelakuan Polis (IPCC) bagi siasatan kematian dalam tahanan polis. Walaupun Seksyen 26 Akta IPCC 2023 mewajibkan semua kes berkenaan dirujuk kepada Suruhanjaya, kenyataan Saifuddin bahawa kes hanya dirujuk “jika melibatkan isu tatakelakuan” menunjukkan bahawa KDN terus menanggap PDRM sebagai pemutus tunggal yang menentukan bila pengawasan bebas diperlukan. Pendekatan ini memintas keperluan dalam peruntukan tersebut yang memberi notifikasi automatik kepada IPCC, malahan meletakkan institusi itu sekadar pihak pasif yang menerima maklumat terpilih daripada Unit Siasatan Jenayah Kematian Dalam Tahanan (USJKT) – dipantau oleh polis sendiri. Berkemungkinan besar, pada saat IPCC dilibatkan, peluang untuk menjalankan siasatan yang benar-benar bebas telah pun terjejas. Kemerosotan tafsiran ini menghalang Suruhanjaya daripada melaksanakan fungsi siasatan dan pemberian syor secara berkesan memandangkan IPCC terus diketepikan secara sistematik daripada kes-kes yang telah diklasifikasikan awal oleh PDRM sebagai tidak melibatkan salah laku. Budaya kerahsiaan yang berterusan dalam pengurusan tahanan terus menghalang kemajuan bermakna dalam usaha membanteras kematian dalam tahanan. Ketiadaan data terbuka memaksa kebergantungan kepada Sesi Soal Jawab Parlimen untuk mendapatkan statistik asas berkaitan kematian dalam tahanan yang merupakan penggunaan sumber perundangan secara tidak berkesan, sedangkan ia sepatutnya tertumpu kepada reformasi dasar yang konstruktif. Kekurangan perkongsian data ini diburukkan lagi oleh tahap pendedahan maklumat yang tidak seragam antara agensi penguatkuasa, dimana Jabatan Imigresen Malaysia (JIM) kekal tidak telus. Tambahan pula, kenyataan ringkas Saifuddin yang mengaitkan kematian dalam tahanan polis dan penjara pada tahun 2025 dengan “faktor kesihatan” langsung tidak memberi penjelasan mengenai cara kematian berlaku. Ini menghalang penelitian awam terhadap kes-kes yang mungkin melibatkan kecuaian pihak berkuasa dalam kewajipan menjaga tahanan – termasuk keadaan tempat tahanan yang tidak terurus, pelanggaran SOP operasi atau insiden penyeksaan dan layanan buruk. SUARAM turut mengambil maklum tentang ketiadaan maklumat daripada KDN berhubung keberkesanan langkah-langkah pencegahan yang telah dilaksanakan setakat ini. Kenyataan bahawa inisiatif yang dilakukan secara umum kekal bersifat status quo tanpa perbezaan diantara dasar-dasar terdahulu dengan intervensi baru yang sebenar. Kekurangan ketelusan ini jelas kelihatan dalam jawapan Parlimen semalam yang turut mencampuradukkan usaha PDRM dan Jabatan Penjara Malaysia (JPM) – suatu kemunduran ketara berbanding jawapan Saifuddin dalam Soalan Bertulis No.277 pada tahun 2024, yang memberikan perincian mengikut agensi iaitu, PDRM, JPM dan JIM. Beberapa langkah pencegahan yang disebut hanyalah pengulangan protokol sedia ada. Sebagai contoh, walaupun jawapan terkini menekankan ‘saringan kesihatan awal’ dan ‘latihan integriti’ sebagai langkah utama, perkara ini telah pun disenaraikan sebagai inisiatif berterusan oleh PDRM dan JPM dalam jawapan kepada Soalan Bertulis No. 277 sebelum ini. Kekaburan data ini menghalang sebarang penilaian bermakna, serta penelitian awam, sama ada perbelanjaan terkini dan SOP semasa benar-benar berkesan dalam mengurangkan risiko kematian dalam tahanan. Sehubungan itu, SUARAM memperbaharui tuntutannya agar reformasi menyeluruh dilaksanakan dalam cara negara menangani dan mencegah kematian dalam tahanan, yang merangkumi perkara berikut: Ketelusan penuh melalui data terbuka: KDN harus komited untuk menerbitkan data komprehensif dan terperinci mengenai semua kematian dalam tahanan kepada umum. Data ini mesti merangkumi pecahan mengikut agensi penguatkuasa seperti PDRM, JPM, JIM dan lain-lain, serta pendedahan jelas mengenai cara kematian berlaku bagi memastikan akauntabiliti terhadap sebarang bentuk kecuaian atau pelanggaran SOP, bukan sekadar sebab klinikal. Semakan segera protokol rujukan IPCC: KDN perlu memastikan rujukan automatik dan segera memberi semua kes kematian dalam tahan kepada Suruhanjaya Bebas Tatakelakuan Polis (IPCC), selaras dengan mandat Seksyen 26 Akta IPCC. Pendedahan prestasi siasatan IPCC dan audit kapasiti: IPCC harus mendedahkan secara terbuka jumlah keseluruhan siasatan yang telah dijalankan terhadap kes-kes kematian dalam tahanan sejak penubuhannya pada Julai 2023. Pada masa yang sama, KDN perlu menjalankan dan menerbitkan audit telus mengenai sumber dan kapasiti semasa IPCC bagi menentukan sama ada Suruhanjaya mempunyai keupayaan siasatan yang mencukupi untuk menyiasat kematian dalam tahanan polis secara pantas, bebas dan berkesan serta mengemukan pelan jelas untuk memperkukuh kuasa tersebut jika didapati tidak mencukupi. Pendedahan segera dan pelaksanaan syor Jawatankuasa Kematian Dalam Tahanan EAIC: SUARAM mengambil maklum Memorandum Kabinet yang telah dikemukan oleh Suruhanjaya Integriti Agensi Penguatkuasaan (EAIC) kepada Jabatan Perdana Menteri pada Disember 2025. Kami menuntut agar kerajaan memberikan garis masa yang jelas bagi semakan dan pendedahan awam terhadap 13 langkah pencegahan yang dicadangkan. Lebih penting lagi, Kementerian mesti melibatkan organisasi masyarakat sivil (CSO) yang bekerja dalam isu kematian dalam tahanan serta hak dan kebaijkan tahanan untuk membincangkan syor-syor tersebut sebelum dimuktamadkan, diikuti dengan penerbitan pelan tindakan pelaksanaan yang ketat dan terikat masa merentasi semua agensi penguatkuasa.   Dalam solidariti, Azura Nasron Pengarah Eksekutif SUARAM

Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) condemns the detention of a 16-year-old under the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 in Jitra, Kedah. The use of SOSMA in this instance is indefensible. As the individual in question is a minor, any arrest or detention must strictly comply with the Child Act (CA) 2001, as stipulated in Section 83. The police also contravened Section 84 of the CA, which mandates that a child be brought before a Court for Children within 24 hours of arrest. We urge the police to consider the circumstances of the arrest, whereby the 16-year-old adolescent was travelling in the same vehicle as her father. By choosing to bypass the domestic safeguards in favour of SOSMA’s 28-day pre-charge detention, the authorities have blatantly violated Malaysia’s international obligation under Article 37(b) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which prohibits the arbitrary and unlawful deprivation of liberty and mandates that the arrest of a child be used only as a measure of last resort. Furthermore, by not complying with the CA, the police have effectively denied the minor her right to welfare access under Section 83(3) and legal counsel of her choice under Section 83(2)(c). Depriving her of these rights, compounded by the lack of judicial oversight during the prolonged 28-day pre-charge detention period under SOSMA, has removed the critical protective oversight necessary for a minor in custody. This has directly contributed to the deterioration of her health in custody as reported in Free Malaysia Today—marked by vomiting and skin allergies—without the immediate intervention of a parent, probation officer, or magistrate. The arrest of the adolescent on the mere basis of association exemplifies the ‘arrest first, investigate later’ practice by the police. This case reinforces the urgent need for amendments to SOSMA that restore judicial oversight to safeguard against arbitrary deprivation of liberty and uphold the fundamental right to a fair trial. In light of this egregious violations of child rights, SUARAM demands: The immediate release of the 16-year-old from SOSMA detention and her immediate transfer to a Social Welfare Department (JKM) shelter or the care of her mother. Immediate and unrestricted access to medical treatment by an independent medical professional to address the minor’s health condition. An unequivocal commitment from the Ministry of Home Affairs to ensure that no child is to be arrested or detained under SOSMA, with a directive for strict compliance with the Child Act 2001. The tabling of SOSMA amendments without delay in the current Parliamentary sitting. These amendments must include the repeal of Section 4(5)—which provides for the 28-day pre-charge detention period—or, at the very minimum, the restoration of judicial oversight. In solidarity, Azura Nasron (Executive Director at SUARAM)

31 December 2025 We, the undersigned organisations and individuals, strongly condemn the Section 323 charge (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt) of one of the protesters and human rights defenders (HRD), Isa Hazmi Zulkifli. Hazmi was one of the two previously arrested on 2 October 2025 following the spontaneous, peaceful protest held outside the US Embassy in response to Israel’s interception of the Global Sumud Flotilla and the detention of hundreds of activists, including 23 Malaysians on the same day.  The Section 323 charge is disproportionate, having disregarded the police’s role in precipitating the conditions of the scuffle. As plainclothes conduct escalated tensions—in particular, a plainclothes police officer feigning being pushed while blocking the currently-charged protester from rejoining others, followed by police use of force when protest participants attempted to de-escalate—the allegation of Hazmi “voluntarily causing hurt” does not hold water.  Pursuing this charge also deflects due scrutiny from the police’s failure in respecting and protecting the participants’ constitutional right to peacefully assemble. The police bear a heightened positive duty to facilitate assemblies, given their “legal monopoly on the use of physical force to uphold the law and maintain public order and safety”, as rightfully noted in the Handbook on Monitoring Freedom of Peaceful Assembly .  Police are expected to prevent conflicts, defuse tensions, and reduce risk of violence during assemblies through dialogue, mediation and other de-escalating measures  based on the principles of communication, negotiation, community engagement, restraint and minimal use of force. Instead, officers displaced protesters onto the main road - a disproportionate restriction on the exercise of right to peacefully assemble - as well as used unnecessary and disproportionate force to restrain participants and arrest the two HRDs. Such conduct is the opposite of a protective and facilitative approach to public assemblies.   Additionally, the police had released a video, where an officer can be seen ‘advising’ the HRDs 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. Both the content of the video and its release undermine the HRDs’ presumption of innocence and their right to privacy, security and dignity, safeguarded under Article 5  of the Federal Constitution.  The police response in this incident unraveled many structural gaps within the Peaceful Assembly Act (PAA) and inconsistencies with international human rights standards related to policing of public assemblies.  We demand that the Section 323 charge against Hazmi be immediately dropped.  We urge the Ministry of Home Affairs (MOHA) to amend Section 8 of the Peaceful Assembly Act to specify the police’s roles in facilitating peaceful assembly in line with the Model Protocol for Law Enforcement Officials to Promote and Protect Human Rights in the Context of Peaceful Protests  (A/HRC/55/60) and the General Comment No. 37 (2020) on the right of peaceful assembly  (Article 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) to prevent human rights violations during assemblies and to promote police accountability all around.  Police officers involved in protests should be clearly and visibly identifiable through display of name badges, identification number, and rank insignia. Any deployment of plain-clothed officers in assemblies must be strictly necessary in the circumstances. These officers must also never incite violence and first identify themselves to those involved before any use of force. Furthermore, any use of force must meet the requirements of legality, necessity and proportionality, precaution, non-discrimination and accountability, and be in strict compliance with the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials. In line with the Model Protocol, the police should refrain from introducing undercover operations in the context of protests due to its deep chilling effect and risks of human rights violations. Any undercover operations, when justified, must be authorised and kept under continual review by a judicial authority and such authority should be provided with all relevant information to enable robust scrutiny of the legality, necessity and proportionality of any such operation.  We further call on the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) and the Independent Police Conduct Commission (IPCC) to conduct a human rights impact assessment of the Malaysian police practices during public assemblies, the Peaceful Assembly Act (PAA) and its adherence with international human rights standards.  Endorsed Organisations: Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) Justice for Sisters JEJAKA Pusat Komas KL Queer Space SIUMAN Collective Suara Mahasiswa UMS Liga Rakyat Demokratik Federasi Pemuda Kebangsaan (FEDERASI) Ikatan Anak Muda Tawau (IKAT) Malaysian Protest For Palestine (MP4P) HAYAT Women’s Aid Organisation (WAO)  North South Initiative (NSI) Centre for Independent Journalism Angkatan Kesatuan Siswa Sosialis (AKSI) Gabungan Pilihan Raya Bersih dan Adil (BERSIH) Lawyers for Liberty (LFL) Diversity Inclusivity Equity Malaysia (DIEM) Pemuda Sosialis Amnesty International Malaysia (AIM) Endorsed Individuals: JY Tan Audrey Chan Dr. Subatra Jayaraj Fedya Hasbeemasputra Abu Bakar AL Amirah Najwa Binti HJ Mokhtar Zainab Binti Muhammad  Jane Kassim Mohammad Asraf Sharafi Mohammad Azhar

We, the undersigned civil society organisations and individuals, are gravely concerned with the shooting in Durian Tunggal, Melaka. We call for an independent and transparent investigation into the matter, and ensure any misconduct or criminal actions are dealt with swiftly in consultation with the victims’ families. On 24 November 2025, the police reported a police shooting in Durian Tunggal, Alor Gajah, Melaka. The police alleged that three assailants attacked them. The three assailants were allegedly on their way to rob an unspecified place when they were intercepted by the police. [1] On 2 December 2025, the family members and the lawyers for the three individuals released information, including a recorded phone call, that cast significant doubt on the police's account of the shooting. In the recorded phone call, there were indications that the three attempted an escape, but were compliant once they were stopped. [2] On 5 December 2025, the Prime Minister was reported to have instructed the Inspector-General of Police to investigate the matter. [3] On 10 December 2025, the recording and other related evidence were handed to Bukit Aman for further investigation. [4] On 13 December 2025, the Melaka police chief disclosed details about the family members of one of the deceased. His statement indicates that the individual was not a spouse but merely a partner of the deceased and allegedly had past criminal records. [5] The discharge of firearms by the police and other enforcement agencies is a serious matter. The use of weapons should be the last resort for any officers on duty, as the use would likely result in grievous bodily harm, if not death. The severity of this matter was acknowledged by the government, with the Attorney General Chambers (AGC) issuing the Use of Firearms Guidelines (While on Duty) 2017. [6] In the Durian Tunggal case, the evidence presented by the lawyers and family members indicates an abuse of power and possibly an extrajudicial killing or a summary execution by the police officer on duty. The alleged actions of the three police officers, if proven true, would amount to murder. The seriousness of this shooting should have led the Melaka police to suspend their internal investigation and hand over the investigation to Bukit Aman. In these circumstances, it is highly unethical and malicious for a police chief responsible for this shooting to attempt to mislead and misdirect public attention away from the possible illegality behind the shooting. The family members' background and history have no bearing on the shooting or the conduct of the police officers on duty. The lawyer for the person has since disputed the claims. [7]  If so, the statement by the Melaka police chief is likely illegal and defamatory. Civil society and other groups have consistently advocated for the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) to address misconduct and criminal acts by police officers. The government has since introduced the Independent Police Conduct Commission (IPCC) without the broad powers for investigation and prosecution proposed for IPCMC. This case will test the IPCC's competence and effectiveness in handling police misconduct. PDRM’s public image has already declined due to its past conduct and needs substantial internal and external reform to recover. The Durian Tunggal shooting should serve as a warning for PDRM to review its internal practices and how it manages conflicts with the public, especially when police officers have allegedly committed crimes or are under criminal investigation. Apart from this shooting, PDRM misconduct in 2025, not in any particular order, includes: Arrest and remand of activists and residents of Kampung Papan exercising their rights against forced evictions; Arrest, criminal intimidation, sexual harassment, and illegal exposure of private information of patrons of a health centre following a raid; Failure by the investigating officer to request a post-mortem examination for  13-year-old Zara Qairina Mahathir’s death; A remark by Kelantan police chief Yusoff Mamat suggesting that girls involved in statutory rape cases should be charged alongside the adult male perpetrator; Police manhandling of two protesters at the spontaneous pro-Palestine protest outside the US Embassy on 2 October, alongside violations of privacy, dignity, and due process of these two protesters via the release of a video depicting an investigating officer lecturing them; Police manhandling of protesters outside Parliament during the memo submission, followed by the investigation and arrest of Parti Sosialis Malaysia deputy chairperson S Arutchelvan, Special Branch interrogation of four student activists, respectively, on the anti-graft protest and the #JusticeForZara solidarity rally, immediately after statements were already taken from them, and Delays by Bukit Aman’s Criminal Investigation Unit for Deaths in Custody in investigating the death of M Manisegaran in police custody in February 2025, with his widow’s statement only taken this week, among others. To this end, we, the undersigned civil society organisations and individuals, call for: An impartial criminal investigation into the conduct of the three police officers involved in the Durian Tunggal shooting; An independent and transparent investigation into the conduct of PDRM in the matter by a competent authority, possibly, a task force comprising IPCC, the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM), the Bar Council, and other appropriate bodies or agencies; and The Melaka Police Chief is to refrain from any public commentary or statements regarding the matter pending further investigation by Bukit Aman and other agencies; failing which, appropriate disciplinary action is to be taken against him. [1]  Bernama, “Tiga penjenayah ditembak mati selepas cederakan anggota polis,” Astro Awani (24 Nov 2025), https://www.astroawani.com/berita-malaysia/tiga-penjenayah-ditembak-mati-selepas-cederakan-anggota-polis-548959 .        [2]  Kalbana Perimbanayagam, “Families of Suspects Shot Dead Refute Police’s Version of What Happened,” New Straits Times (3 Dec 2025), https://www.nst.com.my/news/nation/2025/12/1329096/families-suspects-shot-dead-refute-polices-version-what-happened . [3]  Bernama, “PM Anwar Mahu Kes Tembak dan Kematian dalam Tahanan Disiasat Telus,” Astro Awani (5 Dec 2025), https://www.astroawani.com/berita-malaysia/pm-anwar-mahu-kes-tembak-dan-kematian-dalam-tahanan-disiasat-telus-550559 . [4]  Nor Azizah Mokhtar, “Bukit Aman Terima Analisa Rakaman Audio Didakwa Berkaitan Insiden Tembakan di Melaka,” Buletin TV3 (10 Dec 2025), https://www.buletintv3.my/jenayah/bukit-aman-terima-analisa-rakaman-audio-didakwa-berkaitan-insiden-tembakan-di-melaka/ . [5]  Farhana Yaacob, “Kes Durian Tunggal: Wanita dakwa suami ditembak polis rupanya hanya kekasih, ada 10 rekod jenayah,” Berita Harian (13 Dec 2025), https://www.bharian.com.my/berita/kes/2025/12/1484531/kes-durian-tunggal-wanita-dakwa-suami-ditembak-polis-rupanya-hanya . [6]  Bernama, “MACC, Customs Officers Can Use Firearms on Duty, Says Apandi,” Malay Mail (22 Jul 2017), https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2017/07/22/macc-customs-officers-can-use-firearms-on-duty-says-apandi/1426317 . [7]  Dania Kamal Aryf and Alyaa Alhadjri, “Police Shooting: Lawyer Wants Malacca Top Cop to Be Put on Leave,” Malaysiakini (15 Dec 2025), https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/763429 .   Endorsed by: HAYAT Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) MANDIRI Greater Equitable Measures (GEM) Stateless.MY Teoh Beng Hock Association for Democratic Advancement Ruang Lawan Malaysia People Like Us Hang Out! (PLUHO) Liga Mahasiswa Malaysia Persatuan Promosi Hak Asasi Manusia (PROHAM) North South Initiative Centre for Independent Journalism The Centre to Combat Corruption and Cronyism Parti Sosialis Malaysia Persatuan Kesedaran Komuniti Selangor (EMPOWER) Agora Society Malaysia SIUMAN Collective Jentayu Ivy Josiah, Former Police Commissioner Society of Entrepreneurial Educational Development SIS Forum (Malaysia) Justice for Sisters (JFS)

2025 developments and trends examined in this overview suggest constrained and uneven progress in human rights and governance. Whilst the government swiftly responded to the hunger strike and memorandum submission by family members of detainees under the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (SOSMA) with commitments to amending the procedural law, these remain at the level of review. Notably, the key areas identified for reform – Section 13 on bail and Section 30 on detention pending exhaustion of legal processes – mirror amendment pledges made in 2018 and 2023, with no updates on progress. The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia’s (SUHAKAM) 28-day public inquiry on torture and death in custody at Taiping Prison offered an unprecedented window into prison practices that enable such violations. However, it also reveals institutional defensiveness in addressing these abuses transparently and accountably, with the Prisons Department limiting public access to CCTV recordings and failing to demonstrate swift and credible disciplinary action against the officers involved. Civic space remains restricted despite significant judicial gains. Whilst the Federal Court decision striking down Section 9(5) of the Peaceful Assembly Act affirms the state’s positive duty to facilitate peaceful assemblies, this duty continues to fall short in practice, in light of incidents of police manhandling at protests and arrests over symbolic acts of civil disobedience and political expression. The Court of Appeal’s ruling in Heidy Quah invalidating “annoy” and “offensive” in Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act was swiftly met with a government move to appeal. Meanwhile, even as the government points to the Malaysian Media Council as evidence of its commitment to media self-regulation, enforcement bodies have continued to pursue punitive action against the press: investigative outlets face criminal probes and defamation suits, while promptly corrected editorial errors by at least four newspapers have drawn criminal and regulatory investigations, including heavy fines. On institutional oversight and governance, implementation of reforms is uneven. Amendments to the Whistleblower Protection Act and the reintroduction of the Parliamentary Service Act signal responsiveness to long-standing demands, yet they sit alongside a procurement law that centralises wide discretionary powers in the Finance Minister. Meanwhile, patronage politics remain integral in Malaysian politics, diluting the government’s rhetorical commitment to combating corruption. From the judiciary’s side, controversies around tenure extensions and delays in judicial appointments underscore interference from within and without, threatening judiciary independence. Religion, and sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression remain key terrains of control. State Islamic institutions deepen efforts to expand Syariah-based authority and moral policing, targeting alternative spiritual practices and reinforcing an enforcement culture that prioritises doctrinal conformity over individual rights. LGBTQ+ persons face increased arrests and censorship of content, with police, religious bodies and organised campaigns using the language of public morality, health and child protection to justify interventions. Climate and environmental policy, meanwhile, advances without a coherent rights-based foundation. Climate frameworks lack enforcement mechanisms, while carbon-offset schemes and energy-transition projects move ahead with limited guarantees of free, prior and informed consent, and inadequate protection for Indigenous and local communities. At the same time, environmental human rights defenders remain exposed to Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) and intimidation in the absence of anti-SLAPP protections, despite recognition of the need for these mechanisms in policies such as the National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights. In solidarity, Azura Nasron Executive Director at SUARAM

*The Malay translation of this statement is available below, following the English version. Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) condemns the police investigation of political artist and activist Fahmi Reza under Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act over his “Kelas Demokrasi” video. The criminalisation of non-partisan civic education—here, on the functions of the state executive and legislature and how Sabahans can participate meaningfully in the political process—underscores what civil society has warned all along: even after amendment, Section 233 remains overbroad and vague, inviting arbitrary enforcement. This investigation sends a chilling message to educators and their audiences, effectively denying the right to seek, receive and impart information needed to understand our political system. When political literacy is policed, meaningful political participation erodes: people are less able to scrutinise authority, demand transparency, and engage in policy debate. It also, ironically, jars with Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s remarks in Ethiopia just four days ago that youth must be “equal participants” in politics, that Gen-Z energy for “good governance” should be harnessed, and that digital-native engagement should drive “participatory democracy,” “transparency,” and “accountability.” Investigating Kelas Demokrasi under Section 233 cuts against those commitments and deepens the very “declining trust in institutions” and “digital misinformation” the government says it wants to remedy. We call on the police to immediately drop the Section 233 probe against Fahmi. In the context of the Sabah state elections, authorities must not chill civic discourse: voters especially youth—need unimpeded access to non-partisan civic education to make informed choices. In solidarity, Azura Nasron Executive Director at SUARAM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUARAM: PENDIDIKAN SIVIK BUKAN JENAYAH - HENTIKAN SIASATAN SEKSYEN 233  Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) mengecam tindakan siasatan pihak polis terhadap pereka grafik dan aktivis, Fahmi Reza di bawah Seksyen 233 Akta Komunikasi dan Multimedia berikutan video ‘Kelas Demokrasi’. Menjenayahkan pendidikan sivik yang bukan partisan - melihat kepada fungsi eksekutif dan perundangan di peringkat negeri serta bagaimana keterlibatan warga Sabah dapat mengambil bahagian dalam proses politik yang bermakna - mengukuhkan apa yang telah lama ditegaskan oleh masyarakat sivil bahawa meskipun peruntukan tersebut dipinda, Seksyen 233 tetap terlalu luas dan kabur, lalu membuka ruang kepada penguatkuasaan sewenang-wenangnya.  Siasatan ini menghantar mesej yang menggerunkan kepada para pendidik dan khalayak mereka, sekali gus menafikan hak untuk mencari, menerima dan menyampaikan maklumat yang diperlukan untuk memahami sistem politik kita. Apabila literasi politik dikawal, penyertaan politik yang bermakna akan terhakis: rakyat menjadi kurang berupaya untuk meneliti pihak berkuasa, menuntut ketelusan, dan terlibat dalam perbahasan dasar.  Ironinya, tindakan ini juga bercanggah dengan kenyataan Perdana Menteri Anwar Ibrahim di Ethiopia empat hari lalu bahawa anak muda mesti menjadi “peserta yang setara” dalam politik, bahawa tenaga Gen-Z untuk “tadbir urus yang baik” harus dimanfaatkan serta penglibatan generasi digital-native  harus menggerakkan “demokrasi penyertaan”, “ketelusan” dan “akauntabiliti.” Menyiasat Kelas Demokrasi di bawah Seksyen 233 bercanggah dengan komitmen tersebut dan hanya memperdalam “penurunan kepercayaan terhadap institusi” dan “maklumat salah digital” yang kononnya ingin ditangani oleh kerajaan. Kami menggesa pihak polis untuk serta-merta menggugurkan siasatan Seksyen 233 terhadap Fahmi. Dalam konteks pilihan raya negeri Sabah, pihak berkuasa tidak boleh mengekang wacana sivik: pengundi—terutamanya anak muda—memerlukan akses tanpa halangan kepada pendidikan sivik bukan partisan untuk membuat keputusan yang bermaklumat. Dalam solidariti, Azura Nasron  Pengarah Eksekutif SUARAM

*The Malay translation of this statement is available below, following the English version. We, the undersigned organisations, condemn the arrests of activists S. Arutchelvan and Mythreyar, as well as resident Logeswaran at around 4.00pm on 12 November 2025 under Section 186 of the Penal Code. These arrests were unwarranted. Together with Kampung Papan residents, they clearly informed the police that the Selangor Menteri Besar had authorised that occupied houses are not to be demolished. This directive was issued via the 23 October press statement titled “Kerajaan Negeri Cakna Isu Penempatan Peneroka Jalan Papan”, which affirmed: “Kerajaan Negeri menegaskan bahawa kerja-kerja perobohan hendaklah dihadkan kepada rumah dan premis perniagaan yang kosong serta tidak mempunyai penghuni sahaja selaras dengan arahan dan semangat penyelesaian secara berhemah yang telah dipersetujui bersama melalui perundingan semua pihak berkepentingan yang dipengerusikan YAB Dato Menteri Besar sendiri pada Selasa, 21hb Oktober yang lepas”. Yet today, homes still occupied by residents were forcefully cleared —belongings removed and residents physically pushed out—directly contravening the Menteri Besar’s statement and the state’s directives. The three individuals arrested were acting on the Selangor State Government’s directive that occupied houses should not be demolished until an amicable solution is achieved. Instead, officers of IPD Klang Selatan, including the OCPD, defied the Menteri Besar’s directive by assisting the developer, Melati Ehsan, to forcibly evict occupants. The arrests are therefore unnecessary and unlawful, as the three acted in accordance with the advice and directive of the Menteri Besar and the state government. We demand the immediate and unconditional release of S. Arutchelvan, Mythreyar and Logeswaran. We further call on the Selangor state government to intervene and ensure that the demolition is halted, with no further forced evictions undertaken until all residents receive adequate alternative housing. Endorsed by: 1.      Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) 2.      Teoh Beng Hock Association for Democratic Advancement (TBH-ADA) 3.      Ruang Kongsi 4.      Karunjattai 5.      Kesatuan Pekerja Pekerja Swasta Perkhidmatan Sokongan Di Hospital-Hospital Kerajaan dan Jabatan-Jabatan Kerajaan Semenanjung Malaysia 6.      Pertubuhan Persaudaraan Pesawah Malaysia (PeSAWAH) 7.      Forum Kedaulatan Makanan Malaysia (FKMM) 8.      Parti Sosialis Malaysia 9.      Gabungan MARHAEN 10. Pemuda Sosialis 11. Third World Network 12. Center for Orang Asli Concerns (COAC) 13. Alliance of River Three 14. Agora Society Malaysia 15. Saya Anak Bangsa Malaysia (SABM) 16. Aliran 17. Freedom Film Network 18. Pusat Pelajar Marhaen (PPM) 19. Pertubuhan SiraguGal 20. GEGAR 21. Jaringan Pekerja Kontrak Kerajaan (JPKK) 22. Persatuan Kesedaran Komuniti Selangor (EMPOWER) 23. Angkatan Kesatuan Siswa Sosialis (AKSI) 24. Jaringan Kampung Orang Asli Semenanjung Malaysia (JKOASM) 25. Jaringan Orang ASLI Negeri Sembilan (JOAN) 26. Persatuan Sahabat Wanita Selangor 27. Association of Women Lawyers (AWL) 28. People Like Us Support Ourselves (PLUsos) 29. Women's Aid Organisation (WAO) 30. Parti Rakyat Malaysia (PRM) 31. Hindu Youth’s Organisation Port Klang 32. Ikatan Demokratik Malaysia (MUDA) 33. Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia (ABIM) 34. Cahaya Society 35. Filsufi. & Co 36. Center to Combat Corruption and Cronyism (C4) 37. Citizens Against Enforced Disappearances (CAGED) 38. Justice For Sisters 39. SIS Forum Malaysia 40. ARTICLE 19 41. KLSCAH Youth 42. BERSIH 43. Liga Mahasiswa Malaysia 44. Liga Mahasiswa Universiti Malaya 45. Gerakan Perempuan Melawan 46. Liga Rakyat Demokratik 47. Federasi Pemuda Kebangsaan 48. MANDIRI 49. MAJU 50. Pro-Siswa Kolej Komuniti 51. Projek Ruang Lawan Malaysia 52. HAYAT 53. Amnesty International Malaysia 54. TENAGANITA 55. North South Initiative (NSI) 56. Community Action Network (CAN) 57. Klima Action Malaysia (KAMY) 58. Persatuan Martabat Untuk Semua Petaling Jaya (Martabat PJ) 59. Pusat KOMAS   Individuals: 1.      Dr Aaron Denison Deivasagayam 2.      Mayna Ramesh Patel 3.      Thilaga Sulathireh 4.      Beverly Joeman --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Penahanan Tidak Sah dan Pengusiran Paksa yang Melanggar Arahan Menteri Besar Selangor Kami, organisasi yang bertandatangan di bawah, mengecam penangkapan aktivis S.Arutchelvan dan Mythreyar, serta penduduk bernama Logeswaran sekitar jam 4.00 petang pada 11 November 2025 di bawah Seksyen 186 Kanun Keseksaan. Penangkapan ini tidak berasas. Mereka bertiga bersama-sama penduduk Kampung Papan dengan jelas telah memaklumkan kepada pihak polis bahawa Menteri Besar Selangor telah mengarahkan agar rumah yang masih didiami tidak dirobohkan. Arahan ini telah dikeluarkan melalui Kenyataan Media bertarikh 23 Oktober dengan tajuk: ‘Kerajaan Negeri Cakna Isu Penempatan Peneroka Jalan Papan’ yang menegaskan: “ Kerajaan Negeri menegaskan bahawa kerja-kerja perobohan hendaklah dihadkan kepada rumah dan premis perniagaan yang kosong serta tidak mempunyai penghuni sahaja selaras dengan arahan dan semangat penyelesaian secara berhemah yang telah dipersetujui bersama melalui perundingan semua pihak berkepentingan yang dipengerusikan YAB Dato Menteri Besar sendiri pada Selasa, 21hb Oktober yang lepas ”.  Namun hari ini, rumah-rumah yang dihuni penduduk telah dirobohkan secara paksa– barangan dikeluarkan dan penduduk ditolak keluar secara fizikal. Hal ini jelas sekali bertentangan dengan kenyataan Menteri Besar dan arahan kerajaan negeri. Tiga individu ditahan bertindak mengikut arahan Kerajaan Negeri Selangor bahawa rumah yang dihuni sepatutnya tidak dimusnahkan sehingga satu penyelesaian berhemah dicapai. Sebaliknya, pegawai-pegawai dari IPD Klang Selatan termasuk OCPD melanggar arahan Menteri Besar dengan membantu pemaju, Melati Ehsan untuk melaksanakan pengusiran paksa terhadap penduduk. Penangkapan tersebut adalah tidak diperlu dan tidak sah kerana ketiga-tiga mereka hanya bertindak selaras dengan nasihat dan arahan daripada Menteri Besar dan kerajaan negeri. Kami menuntut S.Arutchelvan, Mythrayer dan Logeswaran dibebaskan serta-merta tanpa syarat. Kami juga menggesa kerajaan negeri Selangor untuk campur tangan dan memastikan kerja-kerja perobohan dihentikan sehingga tiada lagi pengusiran paksa dilakukan sehingga semua penduduk menerima perumahan alternatif yang mencukupi. Penduduk Kg Papan menuntut rumah alternatif. Gambar dari: Sosialis.net

The ambush arrest of student activist Sudirman Arshad under the Sedition Act and Section 509 of the Penal Code —despite a prior arrangement to present himself for questioning on 1 November—is not only an abuse of power but a breach of due process that undermines the rule of law. He was released at approximately 5.15pm. While police denied that the “arrest” occurred, the material fact is that Sudirman’s liberty was arrested for sedition questioning without basic safeguards being upheld, including access to legal counsel. The police’s sustained disregard for the rule of law is evident. In just four months, six student activists—including Sudirman—have been arrested in circumstances marked by due-process breaches or disproportionate tactics. These include closed-door attempts by Special Branch to extract unlawful “intelligence statements” after 112 statements were taken, when the activists had voluntarily attended under CPC Section 111 for other investigations; and arrests at homes or workplaces without demonstrated necessity. These arrests, alongside Sudirman’s, discredit the government’s reformist claims to a facilitative approach to peaceful assemblies. In five of the six cases, speech offences—most notably the Sedition Act—have been deployed to police peaceful assemblies by the back door, criminalising assembly-related expression while disregarding due process. The posture risks chilling the people’s exercise of the right to peaceful assembly—the constitutional harm the Federal Court underscored when it struck down Section 9(5) of the Peaceful Assembly Act (PAA)—and it is incompatible with the government’s stated post-ruling commitment to review the PAA and move toward facilitative policing. Whilst we note Sudirman’s release, we demand that that the Sedition Act and Section 509 investigation be dropped immediately. The police must also cease using the Sedition Act and relevant Penal Code provisions to police assembly-related expression. In solidarity, Azura Nasron Executive Director at SUARAM

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 subjec t”.     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  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. 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.  Social media platforms to  ensure that their practices adhere to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) as well as their own community standards.  Establish transparent processes for assessing and removing state-generated content that violates privacy, security and dignity of the individuals. Endorsed by: Justice for Sisters  MANDIRI Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ) SIS Forum (Malaysia) Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) Sisters United JEJAKA KL Queer Space Association of Women Lawyers (AWL) Amnesty International Malaysia (AIM) Persatuan Kesedaran Komuniti Selangor (EMPOWER) Gegar

We, the undersigned organisations, strongly condemn the arrest of two protesters during a spontaneous, peaceful protest held outside the US Embassy at noon today in response to Israel’s interception of the Global Sumud Flotilla and the detention of hundreds of activists, including 23 Malaysians. As a spontaneous assembly responding to unfolding events, the protest was entitled to adaptive facilitation—not punitive policing. Police had a positive obligation to facilitate the assembly; instead, their conduct was marked by unlawful and disproportionate force and clear breaches of due-process guarantees. These arrests—reportedly for obstruction of civil servants from performing their duties (Section 186 of the Penal Code)—are unjustifiable when the police themselves actively obstructed the protesters’ constitutional right to peacefully assemble. Instead of enabling safe use of the pedestrian walkway outside the U.S. Embassy, officers blocked access and displaced protesters onto the roadway, manufacturing the very disruption later cited. Contrary to media reports, police are seen provoking the scuffle: a plainclothes Special Branch officer feigns being pushed by one of the arrestees while blocking him from rejoining fellow protesters. The second protester—seen attempting to de-escalate—was arrested nonetheless. The force used by the police was unwarranted—arising from conditions the police themselves created. Both protesters were dragged and restrained by multiple police officers, held by both arms and around the neck, before being handcuffed. Other protesters who were attempting to defuse the situation were also manhandled without warning—shoved, pushed and forcibly restrained—needlessly endangering participants’ physical safety. Both active provocation and use of excessive force mark a clear deterioration from the already restrictive approach seen at recent assemblies outside Parliament. For four hours after the arrests, the authorities did not disclose where the two protesters were held. At the point of arrest, they were not informed where they would be taken and have been denied access to legal counsel, in breach of basic rights for arrested persons. It also remains unclear whether they have been given access to medical examination and treatment for the injuries sustained. We demand for the immediate and unconditional release of both protesters. We also call on the Home Ministry to review police protocols and ensure that all officers adopt a facilitative, rights-based approach to managing assemblies. Amidst ongoing amendments to the Peaceful Assembly Act, the Madani government must ensure that assembly policing practices reflect—not undermine its stated commitment to reform. Endorsed Organisations: Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) Amnesty International Malaysia Justice for Sisters GEGAR Malaysian Protest 4 Palestine (MP4P) Angkatan Kesatuan Siswa Sosialis (AKSI) JEJAKA Students Against Genocide Malaysia (SAGM) Women’s Aid Organisation (WAO) Reproductive Rights Advocacy Alliance Malaysia (RRAAM) SIUMAN Collective Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM) Artivist