One thing is clear from the reply by the prime minister’s office to Yuneswaran Ramaraj’s oral question in Parliament on custodial deaths – its understanding of transparency and accountability in addressing and eliminating custodial deaths needs a significant overhaul.
Making accurate data on all custodial deaths accessible at all times and reopening investigations into past cases of custodial death and violence in custody perpetrated by law enforcement should be no-brainers compared to other systemic custodial death prevention efforts. Implement them now without delay.
Inconsistencies worryingly still emerge between figures disclosed by different policymakers.
Just recently, Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail stated that there were 24 deaths in police custody between January 2022 and May 2024.
This statistic makes no sense when the government disclosed the same number last year for police custodial deaths for the year of 2022. It also does not account for the 22 deaths, disclosed by the prime minister’s office in its parliamentary reply, for the year of 2023.
- Sign up for Aliran's free daily email updates or weekly newsletters or both
- Make a one-off donation to Persatuan Aliran Kesedaran Negara, CIMB a/c 8004240948
- Make a pledge or schedule an auto donation to Aliran every month or every quarter
- Become an Aliran member
Furthermore, glaring discrepancies between media-reported prison and immigration custodial deaths and official figures persist. Suaram’s documentation and monitoring efforts yielded only one media-reported prison custodial death, and none for immigration in 2023 – which is significantly under-reported considering the case numbers disclosed by the government.
Having streamlined and openly accessible data that reflects the prevalence of actual deaths in custody sends a strong message to the public and families of victims of the state’s stance of zero tolerance against the phenomenon. It also allows for more constructive inter-agency and multi-sectoral crosstalk to effectively address the relevant root causes.
Whilst we commend the government’s disclosure of the prevalence of convictions for murder and manslaughter in custodial deaths, greater transparency is needed in terms of the proportion of law enforcement and the nature of neglect in cases of manslaughter.
The government’s non-committal stance to the question of reopening investigations of past custodial deaths allegedly caused by law enforcement is also highly concerning.
Access to justice is usually obstructed for families of the deceased. Getting an inquest done is already a persistent challenge, what more having a satisfactory one that also investigates the manner of death including the presence (or omission) of unlawful acts that caused or contributed to the condition of the deceased.
Civil suits, unfortunately, constitute the primary recourse for many families who seek justice such as in the cases of S Balamurugan or Karuna Nithi, dragging across at least five to 10 years before any closure is reached. These families should not be deprived of their fundamental right to equality before the law enshrined in Article 8 of the Federal Constitution.
This non-committal stance is also chillingly apparent in cases of survivors who were tortured in custody by law enforcement.
The case of 16-year-old Ang Kian Kok in 2017, who was also an eyewitness to Balamurugan’s death in police custody, and 18-year-old Mitheswaran Kumar in 2021 are crucial examples. Despite intervention by the national human rights commission, Suhakam, the government has not conducted independent and impartial investigations into their ordeals. Neither has it punished the perpetrators involved nor provided reparations to these boys.
A new commission to reopen investigations into past cases is not necessary at this stage, when there are existing oversight mechanisms in place.
- On deaths and torture in the custody of enforcement bodies other than the police, we have the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC). The EAIC has demonstrated commendable investigation expertise back when police custodial deaths were still under its jurisdiction, as seen by the comprehensive investigations into the deaths of S Balamurugan and Soh Kai Chiok
- For police custodial deaths, however, renewed investigations must go hand in hand with amendments to the Independent Police Conduct Commission (IPCC) Act to broaden the commission’s scope of investigative powers. Unlike the EAIC, the IPCC’s investigative powers are limited, which would hamper the effectiveness of investigations conducted. Gaps that need to be addressed include the IPCC being unable to conduct search and seizures without warrant, nor to unconditionally compel individuals to attend hearings and disclose sensitive information that are relevant to the investigation
Notably, in May 2024, the government committed to setting up a special taskforce to fully implement the EAIC’s recommendations to prevent custodial deaths, with the recommendations based on the EAIC’s study covering the police and other enforcement agencies.
Findings from renewed investigations by the EAIC and the IPCC of deaths and torture in custody can be used to improve the recommendations implemented by this special taskforce.
It is also crucial that IPCC and the police be engaged as key stakeholders in the implementation process, as police custodial deaths are consistently among the top three in prevalence.
One cannot expect to effectively and holistically address custodial deaths by addressing longstanding factors on a selective basis.
As we resound our calls for improved data transparency and renewed investigations in past cases of custodial deaths and torture in custody, we also strongly urge the government to initiate medium and long-term legislative and policy efforts to eradicate custodial deaths. These efforts should include amending the IPCC Act to grant the commission adequate investigative and disciplinary powers, amending relevant laws such as the Penal Code to concretise zero tolerance for torture, and ratifying the UN. – Suaram
Sevan Doraisamy is executive director of Suaram.
AGENDA RAKYAT - Lima perkara utama
- Tegakkan maruah serta kualiti kehidupan rakyat
- Galakkan pembangunan saksama, lestari serta tangani krisis alam sekitar
- Raikan kerencaman dan keterangkuman
- Selamatkan demokrasi dan angkatkan keluhuran undang-undang
- Lawan rasuah dan kronisme
