Bukan Salah Siapa? Deaths in Custody and Malaysia’s Systemic Failure to Protect the Right to Life

Human Rights Research Center
10 minutes ago
9 min read

August 6, 2025

[Image source: https://suhakam.org.my/portfolio/treatment-of-detainees/]

Deaths in Malaysian Custody

Behind the cold walls of Malaysia’s detention cells, too many enter alive and leave as statistics. Their unique stories and identities are shelved away, and memories of their lives are hidden behind numbers. These heartbreaking incidents are not isolated lapses but part of a recurring pattern where silence often follows screams, and then a death certificate with detainees being subjected to horrific methods of abuse. Disappointingly, official inquests often cite natural causes, suicide, and even drug overdose as the cause of death; a clear attempt at masking the more sinister forces that had ultimately led to the detainees’ untimely deaths. The many detainees held in these prisons are vulnerable to abuse and mistreatment since they come from disproportionately poor, migrant, or ethnic minority backgrounds. It is a common misconception that abuse only occurs in police detention facilities, when in fact similar and often underreported violations also take place in immigration detention centers.

At present, statistics from the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC) show that 430 deaths in custody were recorded between the years of 2011 and 2021, although this number is expected to be even higher in light of cover-ups by authorities and the lack of adequate mechanisms in place to facilitate the reporting of abuses. Pursuant to section 334 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which mandates the “inquiry into the cause of death of a person in custody of police or in any asylum,” when an individual dies in police custody or in a psychiatric hospital or prison, the officer is obliged under law to immediately “give intimation of such death” to the nearest magistrate and if he thinks advantageous, to immediately hold an inquiry into the cause of death. Although this provision sets into place the relevant measures that should be taken in the event of abuse in police custody, it is rarely, if ever, enforced, with only 2 out of 242 deaths between the years of 2000 and 2014 attributed to police, and only 6 out of 80 deaths between 2000 and 2004 deemed worthy of an inquest.

This raises an important question: Are the lives of those who die in captivity any less than the lives of those who don’t, and does humanity fade along with the harsh environment of prison? Recognizing the broader geography of custodial violence is essential to understanding the full scope of Malaysia’s failure to uphold the right to life. This article aims to examine how the layers of institutional neglect, legal complacency, and public apathy have allowed custodial deaths to become a quiet norm in Malaysia’s justice system.

State Neglect and Systemic Failure

Malaysia’s failure to prevent deaths is not a matter of isolated negligence; it is a reflection of a deeply flawed system that flaunts its disregard for detainee welfare. A lack of a unified, comprehensive, and transparent framework for monitoring detention facilities and the weak protections offered by guidelines such as the Lock-up Rules 1953 and the Inspector General of Police Standing Orders (IGSO) has led to a largely discretionary enforcement system. Many detention facilities remain overcrowded, under-resourced, and unsupervised, creating environments where abuse, neglect, and medical inattention are rife.

These failures are compounded by a lack of institutional transparency as access to vital data that can ensure a thorough investigation is limited, sporadic, and oftentimes outdated. The absence of real-time public reporting allows deaths occurring in police custody to slip by without prompt scrutiny, and families are frequently left in the dark about the circumstances of their loved ones’ passing. The grief that comes with losing a loved one is insurmountable, and not knowing about the horrific level of abuse and torture that they had gone through before passing away only deepens the wound. In some instances, authorities have failed to even notify the deceased’s next of kin in a timely manner, and in a country where a large majority of its citizens profess different religions that have different methods of parting with their loved ones, it is most disappointing.

Many religions often have rules that the deceased should be laid to rest either via cremation or burial immediately within a 24-hour time frame in order to ensure that their spirit passes on peacefully into the afterlife; a process that is made increasingly difficult when authorities refuse to release their bodies to the families. Even in death, their bodies are not granted peace—only silence—as their souls are etched into a cycle of suffering that man refuses to end. Even the provision of basic healthcare inside detention centers is treated as a privilege rather than a right, with detainees suffering from chronic illnesses and routinely being denied proper access to medical care. Delays in treatment, lack of medical staff, and the withholding of essential medication passed on by family members have all been documented by various organizations both locally and globally.

In an article that examined the 15-year trend of deaths occurring in custody at Tuanku Ja’afar Hospital Seremban, a total of 172 death-in-custody cases were extracted from hospital death registration records. Of these, only 70 cases (approximately 40.70% of the overall cases) underwent post-mortem examination, while the remaining 102 cases relied solely on clinically certified causes of death (without past-mortem). This statistic is extremely worrying as it showcases how more than 50% of death-in-custody cases slip under the radar and suggests that a significant number of such cases either go uninvestigated, are inadequately documented, or do not lead to meaningful action or consequences. This not only undermines public trust in enforcement and correctional institutions but also raises serious concerns about transparency, justice for victims and their families, and the overall integrity of custodial practices.

According to international human rights standards, as outlined under the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules), Rule 24 states that prisoners should be afforded the same standards of healthcare that are available to other members of the community without being discriminated against on the basis of their legal status. The decision to withhold essential treatment, which could lead to prisoners’ untimely deaths, is clearly in blatant violation of global human rights standards. For instance, the 2017 death of S. Balamurugan, where he was found dead in a police lock-up after being denied medical treatment, despite a magistrate having ordered his immediate release and hospitalization. Similarly, in the case of N. Dharmendran in 2013, he was found to have died from blunt force trauma while in custody, and his repeated pleas for medical assistance were ignored. These are unfortunately not isolated incidents; they mirror a systemic pattern where healthcare behind bars is treated as a privilege, not a right.

Image 1: S. Balamurugan’s brother, Balraj Suppiah, and Balraj’s wife, Ganeshwari Moorthy, continue the fight for justice after S. Balamurugan’s untimely death in custody [Image Source: SBS News]

To withhold care that could mean the difference between life and death is not merely bureaucratic failure; it is a willful abandonment of humanity. The state, acting as custodian, becomes executioner by omission. In such a system, the bars that imprison the body also suffocate the right to dignity, health, and, ultimately, life itself.

Legal Gaps in Protection and Accountability

Malaysia’s current legal architecture does have safeguards in place, but the question that continues to hang in the air is whether those safeguards are adequate enough. While provisions, such as Article 5 of the Malaysian Federal Constitution, guarantee the right to life and protection from arbitrary detention, these rights are often rendered toothless by vague statutory language and a lack of rigorous enforcement. Crucially, there is no standalone legislation in Malaysia that codifies the important treatment standards for persons in custody in line with international best practices.

Meanwhile, there is no mandatory requirement for independent post-mortem investigations into deaths in custody. Inquests are not consistently held, and even in the rare event that they are, findings rarely result in prosecution or institutional reform. Although the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC) is tasked with monitoring misconduct, it has limited powers of enforcement and investigation. Its recommendations are frequently ignored, and it does not possess the power of prosecutorial authority. Since its establishment in 2011, the EAIC has been criticized by international organizations, such as Human Rights Watch, as being ineffective in curbing misconduct by enforcement agencies. In the 2013 case of N. Dharmendran, the EAIC found evidence of police brutality leading to death. Despite these findings, the EAIC’s recommendations were not promptly or fully implemented. This highlights how the lack of enforcement powers and prosecutorial authority significantly undermines the EAIC’s effectiveness.

Accountability is further eroded by the absence of a unified custodial database that can streamline all of the deaths that have occurred in custody in one coherent system so that appropriate legal action can be undertaken. Without a statutory obligation for full disclosure or transparent inquiry, families are denied both justice and closure. In essence, the legal system is structured more to shield the state from liability than to protect the needs of the most vulnerable communities. Until legislative reforms institutionalize clear standards, binding oversight, and enforceable consequences, custodial deaths will remain a recurring tragedy, further undermining Malaysia’s compliance with the fundamental principle of the rule of law.

Recommendations Towards Structural Reform

Addressing the crisis of custodial deaths in Malaysia requires more than surface-level interventions; it demands a bold reimagining of the legal and institutional frameworks that govern detention. First and foremost, Malaysia should enact a comprehensive Custodial Rights and Welfare Act that consolidates fragmented provisions and aligns with international treaties that enshrine the fundamental right to protection while in state custody. For instance, the new comprehensive framework should derive its essence from the Bangkok Rules, known as “The United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders,” which is the set of guidelines adopted by the UN in 2010.

This particular set of guidelines should be adopted because it directly addresses the specific needs and vulnerabilities of women in the criminal justice system, which are issues that are often neglected in standard, gender-neutral policies. Integrating the Bangkok Rules would fill several critical gaps in the current system by promoting gender-sensitive approaches to incarceration and sentencing, encouraging the use of non-custodial measures (especially for women with dependent children), ensuring appropriate healthcare services tailored to women’s needs (including reproductive and mental healthcare), and protecting women from abuse and violence within the harsh detention environment. Incorporating the Bangkok Rules would also help to support rehabilitation and reintegration programs that consider the social and economic challenges uniquely faced by women offenders.

Additionally, in light of the fact that a large portion of the abuse is inflicted by law enforcement officers and detention staff, it is imperative that they undergo rigorous, mandatory training in human rights, trauma-informed care, and the importance of safeguarding detainee welfare. These programs must be embedded into institutional culture, with human rights performance linked to career progression.

Finally, civil society must be empowered to play a larger role. Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and legal aid providers should be granted access to detention facilities to conduct independent monitoring and provide detainees with the support that they are often denied, whether that be linguistic support in offering them translation services or contact with their families.

In conclusion, a poignant quote by Lois McMaster Bujold aptly sums up the high stakes that come with deaths in custody: “The dead cannot cry out for justice; it is a duty of the living to do so for them” (Diplomatic Immunity, pp. 60). It is clear that true justice requires more than fairness—it demands visible accountability.

Glossary

Blunt force trauma: A severe injury caused by being hit with an object that is hard, but not sharp, and so does not cut the skin, or by hitting a hard surface, for example by falling
Custody: The state of being kept in prison, especially while waiting to go to court for trial
Detainee: A person who has been officially ordered to stay in a prison or similar place, especially for political reasons
Discretionary enforcement: Enforcement that only occurs occasionally at the whim of state officials, a form of prejudiced behavior
Institutional reform: Changes and improvements made to existing institutions including political, social, and economic structures with the goal of enhancing their efficiency, accountability, and effectiveness
Intimation: An indirect, usually subtle suggestion, indication or hint
Inquest: An official process to discover the cause of someone’s death
Magistrate: A person who acts as a judge in a law court that deals with less serious crimes
Next of kin: Your closest relation or relations
Post-mortem: Happening or taken after a person or animal dies
Prosecutorial: Relating to the process of prosecuting someone for (officially accusing them of) a crime
Provision: A statement within an agreement or a law that a particular thing must happen or be glossarydone, especially before another can happen or be done
Rehabilitation: The process of returning to a healthy or good way of life, or the process of helping someone to do this after they have been in prison, been very ill, etc.
Reintegration: The action or process of integrating someone back into society
Sporadic: Occurring occasionally, singly, or in irregular or random instances
Statutory: Decided or controlled by law
Trauma-informed care: A framework for relating to and helping people who have experienced negative consequences after exposure to dangerous experiences

Sources

HRRC accepts NO funding from governments for our research or campaigns. At every step of the way, our impact is made possible because of people like YOU. Make your contribution now!

Bukan Salah Siapa? Deaths in Custody and Malaysia’s Systemic Failure to Protect the Right to Life

Recent Posts