ON HUMAN RIGHTS, JUSTICE AND PEACE ISSUES, LABOUR RIGHTS, MIGRANT RIGHTS, FOR THE ABOLITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY, TOWARDS AN END OF TORTURE, POLICE ABUSES, DISCRIMINATION...
POLITICAL FUNDING law - what happened? Now, 2 Human Rights Defender and Organization being investigated for receipt of foreign funds? BUT the much needed POLITICAL FUNDING law that governs MONIES that can be received by Political Parties and politicians, especially those who can influence government decisions/actions - which would include Members of Parliament, SENATORS, ADUNS, politically appointed SENATORS, politically appointed members of LOCAL Government/Councils, etc are YET to be enacted.
UMNO has a lot of BUILDINGS and property - where did the monies come from? Political party funds from membership fees may not be enough...so where did that monies come from.
Is it CORRUPTION - a donation from Corporations to 'thank you' for government projects awarded? Or maybe for government projects that they will get in the future from the government?
With these 'political funding' CORPORATION can also LOBBY and ensure the Government does not improve worker and Trade Union laws to improve worker rights? Is it to lobby that Malaysia does not change the law that legalize overtime of 104 hours per month?
FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS 'funding' to keep political parties in power, or to get political parties in POWER - or for political parties in power to adopt a particular position - PRO-US or Pro-China or Pro-Russia or Pro-Arab Saudi > Should this be allowed to continue, or should this be made ILLEGAL - that is One of the things that Political Funding Law will DECIDE.
This issue came up when then PM Najib Razak alleged that the RM2 Billion Plus he received came from ARAB SAUDI Royalty to support UMNO (later the High Court confirmed this was not TRUE and the money came from the 1MDB scandal/affair.
In the latest revelation on the RM2.6 billion saga, an Umno division leader said today that the funds found in Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s private accounts were donated by an “Arab king and prince”. According to Kepong Umno division chief Datuk Rizuan Abdul Hamid, the money was meant to be a political donation to be used during Election 2013. He said it was because of Najib’s anti-Jewish stance that the Arab royal family decided to make the large contribution. “Because of that, the Arab king, Arab prince generously made the political donation for use during the 13th general election,” he said during the Kepong Umno division meeting today. - Malay Mail, 23/8/2015
The POLITICAL FUNDING ACT hopefully will decide on this ISSUE > is it OK for Malaysian Political Parties and Politicians to receive SUCH Funding from foreign countries and/or entities linked to such foreign governments?
What kind of FUNDING is OK - what about funding for RELIEF after some national disaster - flood, TSUNAMI, for anti-drug trafficking programs, for anti-human trafficking and promotion of awareness about human rights, environmental rights, etc.. WHICH CAN OF FUNDING IS ALLOWED and which kind of FUNDING is NOT ALLOWED?
THERE are pro-Zionist Israel Lobby Groups that actively fund/support Congressmen, Parliamentarians in US, UK and Europe > and thus it can affect GOVERNMENTS and politicians when it comes to the position they take on the Israel Zionist Regime and its actions > will they end up in DEFENCE of the Israel Regime, and be 'BLIND' to the injustices they commit against others like the Palestinians, Iranians, Lebanese, etc??
Some 180 of Britain’s 650 MPs in the last parliament accepted funding from pro-Israel lobby groups or individuals during their political career, Declassified can reveal. That includes 130 Conservative MPs, 41 Labour MPs and three Liberal Democrats. Three members of the DUP, two independents and Reform’s only MP complete the list. The total value of the donations from pro-Israel groups, individuals, and Israeli state institutions amounts to over one million pounds. Between them, the politicians made over 240 paid-for trips to Israel, at a cost of over half a million pounds. - Declassified UK, 6/6/2024
Today, the influence of the groups loosely known as the Israel lobby has only become more powerful. Truman’s bind – caught between his sense of the national interest and the domestic political price of defying a powerful lobby – was something that, in the decades to come, president after president would experience. To fast forward: Donald Trump’s decision to go to war on Iran earlier this year came after a sustained campaign by Israel to convince the US to join the disastrous operation. It also came in defiance of several of his top advisers, as well as the 45% of Republicans who hold an unfavorable view of Israel. - Guardian, 2/8/2026
SO, Political Funding of this sort is DANGEROUS - it can allow such foreign LOBBY Groups like the pro-Israel lobby > to affect decisions/policies of head of GOVERNMENTS and even the majority of people who should be Malaysian peoples' representatives. Because of these 'funding' and not to ANGER such FUNDERS - their decision on behalf of the people and a sovereign nation maybe compromised.
IN UK today, an 'attack' on Jews or even a pro-Palestine stance results on an accusation of 'ANTI-Antisemitism' - but an attack on other minorities may not illicit a response from politicians (and political parties) as being anti-Muslim or anti some other minorities > is it because on the FUNDING already received from the pro Israel Zionist lobby? Why this discriminatory position of the once Western Government that upheld justice and human rights?
We talked about Israel - Palestine > but such lobbies can also affect a lot of other Government decisions and positions too? It can bring about 'special preference' for investments flowing in from certain countries (In Malaysia, questions have been asked as to WHY certain Chinese companies have allegedly been allowed to operate 'differently' - using just Chinese workers - is there no QUOTA requirement that requires all companies operating in Malaysia to have a certain percentage of Malaysian workers?)
POLITICAL FUNDING from foreign entities has some 'COMPLICATIONS' - What funding from foreign governments, foreign entities or 'lobby groups' should be PROHIBITED..and what should not?
Should FUNDING for FREE and Fair Elections, and promotion of DEMOCRACY be allowed?
Should funding for promotion of Human Rights, Women Rights, Worker Rights ...be allowed?
POLITICAL Funding Law Should also cover funds received by MPs and Senators
As a matter of PRINCIPLE, to protect the INDEPENDENCE of Parliamentarians> ALL Funds for Members of Parliament must come from PARLIAMENT - certainly NOT from the Executive(Federal or State Government. This is FUNDAMENTAL as the role of Parliament is also to be an effective 'check and balance' of the Executive(PM, Cabinet and government) - hence if the Federal Government gives monies/benefits to MPs > that would certainly COMPROMISE their independence. Will I highlight wrongdoings, abuses, etc - when the Federal Government can retaliate by removing financial allocations, etc..?
Well, in Malaysia today - the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT still gives direct FUNDING and benefits to SOME not ALL MPs - in terms of funds for Constitutional Development which was and could be as high as RM5 million per year. Now, it was given to JUST MPs from government parties, and recently also MPs that support Anwar Ibrahim's government? Opposition MPs do not get it - a clear DISCRIMINATION against the people (if you elect an Opposition MP > the your constitution NO access to these funds)...
IF the MPs getting these Federal Government allocation and extra benefits do something that 'angers' the PM or the government - your access can be CUT. What happened recently to several MPs of PKR demonstrates this
Subang MP Wong Chen today claimed his parliamentary office had been denied access to the MyKhas Portal, a government-managed system used to process constituency allocations and Projek Mesra Rakyat (PMR) applications. - Malay Mail, 22/5/2026
So, such FEDERAL government allocations and special benefits must END > the Independence of MPs must be protected to ensure they do their duties as a 'check and balance' to the Executive branch of government. They MUST be free to express their views on government actions/policies - free to even HIGHLIGHT wrongs and abuses.
If there are any FUNDS or benefits that are for MPs/Senators, it MUST only flow from Parliament...or pursuant to CLEAR Law,
Some MPs are picked by the Prime Minister to be in the Cabinet or the Executive arm of government. Other MPs, not in CABINET, has the same ROLE as Opposition MPs to be the needed 'check and balance' - and NOTHING must compromise them from this ROLE by the Executive arm of government.
SO, these MPs (not in Cabinet) should also NOT receive any GIFTS from the Executive(PM and Cabinet) - they should not accept APPOINTMENTS to be in government agencies/entities, Government owned or linked companies,... because once they do so > they are beholden and thankful to the PM/Cabinet/Executive arm of Government - and they may not be able to carry out their duties of Parliamentarians. Most of these appointments means MORE Money and more POWER.
MPs in Malaysia - needs PARLIAMENT to allocate needed funds for MPs to maintain offices, have staff(including needed staff to help them analyze Bills, etc) > Now, MPs have to use their own allowances/salary - this is NONSENSE. Parliament should allocate MONEY to MPs for all these to improve the quality and performance of MPs
POLITICAL FUNDING law should also monitor the 'income' and spending of MPs. Should the Auditor General be required to do Annual Audits of every MPs.
YES, Malaysia needs a POLITICAL FUNDING law fast - to ensure we have also better MPs and a better Parliament.
TODAY - Is Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim still PRIME MINISTER still support him to remain as PRIME MINISTERS. Or has MP's Freedom to Express their position been compromised by THREATS, risk of losing Federal Government allocations/benefits. LOSS of position in some GLC or government entity, or worry that they may be targeted with criminal investigations ...I wonder HOW free our MPs really are to freely express whether they still support ANWAR IBRAHIM or NOT ... whether they support or not is NOT the issue > this issue is their FREEDOM to say YES or NO...
POLITICAL FUNDING BILL - Why are the public kept in the dark > it will be a MALAYSIAN LAW by the people of Malaysia. Why only consulting the 172 political parties or just some...have these political parties been sent the DRAFT BILL - if yes, publish the DRAFT so you can get the Malaysian people's feedback on the proposed law > this should be the NEW Practice involving ALL people in the Consultation about any NEW laws..
Azalina: Malaysians want political funding law before GE16; political parties’ buy-in needed to avoid delay
Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Institutional Reform) Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said said the views of political parties would have to be obtained before the proposed political financing law is brought to Parliament, as it would be politicians in Parliament who would vote on whether to introduce such a law. — Picture by Choo Choy May
Stay updated on the latest news and insights. Subscribe to our newsletter here
Summary
In a recent address, Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said, the Minister in the Prime Minister's Department, emphasized the public's strong demand for a political financing law in Malaysia before the 16th general election, based on findings from public engagement sessions conducted by the Legal Affairs Division.
Despite acknowledging the complexity and procedural requirements of enacting such a law, Azalina stressed the importance of political parties' involvement and feedback, as their buy-in is crucial for successful implementation.
While 90.3% of stakeholders support the legislation's introduction before the next election, the timeline remains uncertain, hinging on ongoing studies and consultations.
By Ida Lim
First Published: Tuesday, 08 Sep 2026 3:14 PM MYT
Last Modified: Tuesday, 08 Sep 2026 7:45 PM MYT
KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 8 — Malaysians have voiced their desire for Malaysia to have a political financing law to regulate political parties’ funding before the 16th general election, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Institutional Reform) Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said said today.
Azalina’s remarks were based on findings from the Prime Minister’s Department’s Legal Affairs Division (BHEUU) public engagement sessions.
“I was informed by the BHEUU deputy director general (policy) many voices of the public wants, if possible, that this Act can be in force before the 16th general election,” she said at the Political Financing Convention 2026 held at the Asian International Arbitration Centre (AIAC) building.
Azalina said the views of political parties would have to be obtained before the proposed political financing law is brought to Parliament, as it would be politicians in Parliament who would vote on whether to introduce such a law.
“So they are the users and they will vote on the law. So you must have them to have more say. If not, the delay of the Act may happen if there is no buy-in from political parties,” she said.
Earlier in the speech, Azalina said BHEUU had taken over studies on the proposed political financing law since May 2023, and that the Cabinet had on September 8, 2023 agreed in principle to the enactment of the law and decided on further studies on the policy scope.
“And certainly the people have the right to hope for changes and to demand the government fulfill the commitment as soon as possible.
“But on behalf of the government, I admit that the agenda of institutional legal reform, when we talk about political financing, is not a process that is that simple and capable of being implemented so quickly,” she said, emphasising the need for political parties to be stakeholders and to give their views since the proposed law would apply to them.
“Political will is not just measured by how quickly a reform is presented, but it also has to be evaluated based on the courage to start it, the readiness to accept views and criticism, and the strength of determination to carry it out,” she added.
Earlier in the speech, Azalina said BHEUU had taken over studies on the proposed political financing law since May 2023, and that the Cabinet had on September 8, 2023 agreed in principle to the enactment of the law and decided on further studies on the policy scope.
Azalina noted that BHEUU had carried out engagement work on the proposed law reform over the past two years.
Later at a press conference, Azalina replied to a question on why the political financing law had yet to be introduced in Malaysia, saying this was due to studies being carried out over the past two years: “The delay is not a political delay, but delay in terms of process and procedure done by BHEUU.”
Asked if it was possible for the proposed political financing law to be introduced before GE16, Azalina said the question of when GE16 would be held should be directed to the prime minister.
As for the timeline for how soon the law could be introduced, Azalina said, “I wish it’s as soon as possible”, but that it would depend on the work being done to prepare the Bill.
At the press conference, Azalina outlined various technical aspects of the proposed political financing law that have to be considered before it is brought to the Cabinet, and also proposed that BHEUU collect the written official opinions of all registered political parties in Malaysia on whether they agree to such a law.
Findings show 90.3 per cent want political financing law before GE16
Earlier at the convention, BHEUU deputy director-general (policy and development) Datuk Punitha Silivarajoo presented the findings from BHEUU’s engagement involving 1,544 participants nationwide in 12 engagement sessions from June to November 2025.
Punitha said 100 per cent of the 1,544 participants agreed that Malaysia needs to have a political financing law, and that 90.3 per cent of the 1,544 wanted this law to be tabled and passed in Parliament before the next general election.
Out of the 1,544 participants, 67 per cent were political parties and grassroots leaders, 17 per cent were government agencies and academics, 11 per cent were non-governmental organisations (NGOs), civil society organisations (CSOs) and youths, and five per cent were from the business sector.
A total of 32 political parties and 69 NGOs and CSOs were consulted in the engagement sessions with 1,544 participants.
Separately, BHEUU also commissioned the International Islamic University Malaysia to conduct a study on public perception on the proposal for a political financing law, with the research team also including researchers from Universiti Malaya, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, the Bar Council, Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs, and the Center to Combat Corruption and Cronyism (C4).
The public perception study involved 3,422 survey respondents, 11 focus group discussions involving 103 participants, and in-depth interviews with 14 individuals with the necessary expertise and influence in the political landscape; with the final report totalling 708 pages completed in February this year. - Malay Mail, 8/9/2026
Funding politics while protecting democracy
POLITICAL parties need money to organise, communicate with voters, campaign, and operate. The problem is not political donations themselves. The danger begins when political money is hidden, excessive, or used to buy influence.
As Malaysia considers legislation to regulate political financing, the key question is not simply whether donations should be allowed, but what system can provide legitimate funding while protecting the public interest.
The government is working with think tank Ideas (Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs) and the All-Party Parliamentary Group Malaysia (a cross-party platform for MPs, academics, and NGOs to work together) on a proposed public funding model. However, international experience shows that public funding alone cannot ensure political integrity, as reflected in the low Corruption Perceptions Index scores of Uzbekistan and Tunisia.
Malaysia does not need to reinvent the wheel. Countries such as Canada, Denmark, Germany, and Sweden offer different approaches combining public funding, private donations, disclosure, spending controls, and oversight.
Canada provides a useful example of a mixed system. Contributions are regulated, foreign- and publicly-owned enterprises are prohibited from contributing, campaign spending is subject to limits, and financial information is publicly disclosed. Elections Canada reviews and audits financial returns, while enforcement is handled under the Canada Elections Act. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) 2026 assessment found Canada met 90% of its political- finance regulatory criteria and 86% in practice.
Germany also combines public funding with private contributions. State funding is linked partly to electoral support and parties’ own legitimate income. Large donations must be disclosed and published, providing greater public scrutiny.
Denmark and Sweden demonstrate that public funding does not necessarily mean banning private donations. However, both also show that transparency rules must be continuously strengthened. The OECD has identified gaps involving anonymous, foreign, and other forms of contributions in both countries.
Malaysia has already done considerable work on this issue. The National Consultative Committee on Political Finan-cing, chaired by then minister Paul Low, produced 32 recommendations in 2016, yet almost a decade later, nothing has come of them.
The lesson is clear: Malaysia should consider a hybrid model built on five principles.
First, reasonable public funding could be provided to parties meeting transparent requirements, based on objective criteria such as votes or parliamentary representation.
Second, regulated private donations should remain possible, but prohibited sources and reasonable limits must be clearly defined.
Third, full transparency is essential. For significant donations, the donor, amount, and recipient should be disclosed, with timely public reporting.
Fourth, independent oversight is critical. The regulator should have powers to audit, investigate, and impose meaningful penalties.
Fifth, continuous reporting should apply throughout the political cycle, not just during elections.
The fundamental issue is trust. Citizens should be able to ask four simple questions: Who gave the money? How much? Where did it go? And was any favour expected in return?
Political parties need money to function. But democracy needs rules to ensure that money serves politics and not that politics serves money.
And Malaysia needs the strong and sincere political will to act, not just the will to reform.
DATUK SERI DR AKHBAR SATAR
President
Malaysian Integrity and Governance Society - Star, 29/9/2026
RM2.6b a political donation from 'Arab king, prince', Umno leader reveals
Ridhuan said the money was meant to be a political donation to be used during Election 2013. — Picture by Saw Siow Feng
By MAYURI MEI LIN
First Published: Sunday, 23 Aug 2015 1:49 PM MYT
KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 23 — In the latest revelation on the RM2.6 billion saga, an Umno division leader said today that the funds found in Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s private accounts were donated by an “Arab king and prince”.
According to Kepong Umno division chief Datuk Rizuan Abdul Hamid, the money was meant to be a political donation to be used during Election 2013.
He said it was because of Najib’s anti-Jewish stance that the Arab royal family decided to make the large contribution.
“Because of that, the Arab king, Arab prince generously made the political donation for use during the 13th general election,” he said during the Kepong Umno division meeting today.
It was previously speculated that the RM2.6 billion had originated from 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), a brainchild of the prime minister’s that is currently under probe for alleged financial irregularities.
But the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) recently refuted this, saying the funds had come from donors from the Middle East. The commission did not, however, reveal the identity or identities of the donors.
Yesterday, Umno vice-president Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi said he met with representatives of the Middle Eastern donor who told him the funds were given as a sign of thanks for Malaysia’s efforts against terrorism.
Zahid also said the donor wanted to keep Umno and Barisan Nasional (BN) in power.
Rizuan let slip again later that the donations originated from Arab royalty when berating Kedah Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Mukhriz Mahathir for allegedly questioning Najib’s receiving the RM2.6 billion donation.
“He questioned Datuk Seri Najib over the RM2.6 billion donation that was given by a prince from Saudi Arabia,” he said.
In a report on June 2, US-based daily Wall Street Journal (WSJ), citing documents from Malaysian investigators currently scrutinising the troubled 1Malaysia
Development Berhad’s (1MDB) financials, claimed that a money trail showed that US$700 million (RM2.6 billion) were moved among government agencies, banks and companies before it ended up in Najib’s accounts.
Najib has repeatedly denied taking funds from 1MDB or any other public entity for “personal gain” and his lawyers have since asked the WSJ to state if it is accusing the prime minister of misappropriating funds.
It was previously alleged that the funds were used for Barisan Nasional’s (BN) Election 2013 campaigns but detractors have pointed out that this would be illegal as RM2.6 billion far surpasses the legal limit allowed by Malaysia’s election laws.
It was also speculated that the RM2.6 billion had originated from 1MDB, a brainchild of the prime minister’s that is currently under probe for alleged financial irregularities.
But the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) recently refuted this, saying the funds had come from donors from the Middle East. The commission did not, however, reveal the identity or identities of the donors. - Malay Mail, 23/8/2015
We know that WHIPPING caused the death of Zaidi Abd Hamid
We know that WHIPPING now is imposed mostly on FOREIGNERS - and to date, there is NO law that ensures Public Prosecutor and/or Courts to VERIFY that those who should NEVER be criminally liable for being in Malaysia without proper documents, a crime if convicted results in the punishment of WHIPPING - How many victims of HUMAN TRAFFICKING have been whipped against Malaysian LAW(Sec. 25 ATIPSOM), and certainly REFUGEES/ASYLUM SEEKERS should NEVER be GUILTY of the crime of 'illegally being in Malaysia'. Even documented migrant workers have been WRONGLY WHIPPED - the case of Sabri
After the Pokok Sena death from whipping, 'The government is conducting a comprehensive study on the abolition of mandatory whipping in Malaysia, in line with efforts to reform the criminal justice system towards a more humane and progressive approach. - Malay Mail, 27/8/2025. It has been MORE that 13 MONTHS - still studying > This is a FAILURE on the part of the MADANI government, and NO MORATORIUM on whipping meaning that maybe about 5,000 human beings may be still whipped every month - despite knowing that WHIPPING can cause DEATH.
'...whipping is prescribed in 57 provisions under the Penal Code, with 26 of these carrying mandatory whipping sentences, while several other laws, such as the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and the Immigration Act 1959/63, also stipulate mandatory whipping...'
Today, the most being WHIPPED are for the violation of the Immigration ACT - the offence of illegally being in Malaysia. The PRSOSECUTION and COURT no specific duty to even ensure that they are NOT Victims of Human Trafficking, or even REFUGEES/Asylum Seekers > Do we need MORE deaths and serious injury that cause disabilities before WHIPPING is abolished. Malaysia did well in abolishing mandatory DEATH PENALTY - now abolish WHIPPING
57,161 undocumented
migrants arrested in 2006 are at RISK of conviction and being WHIPPED – Urgently
ABOLISH Whipping, and impose a MORATORIUM pending abolition
How many foreigners
have been wrongly whipped including victims of human trafficking and refugee/asylum
seekers that legally cannot be whipped for the crime of illegally being in
Malaysia?
We call for the abolition of whipping, corporal punishment, which
is an inherently cruel, inhumane, and degrading punishment that often amounts
to torture, and which in Malaysia has even caused death.
Judicial Whipping causes physical trauma and
even death
Judicial whipping, commonly known
as caning in Malaysia, is carried out using a heavy rattan cane on a prisoner's
bare buttocks under strict legal and medical supervision. The offender is
stripped and made to lean forward against a specialized wooden or padded frame,
with their hands and legs securely shackled. Comparatively, Syariah caning is lighter,
symbolic, or non-scarring form of corporal punishment focused on religious
deterrence and public repentance rather than severe physical trauma. The
offender is typically clothed.
In many cases, the person being whipped
faint after several strokes, and it can also result in death as happened in the
case of Zaidi Abd Hamid who passed away on 7 October 2025 in Pokok Sena prison
at the age of 49 after receiving a sentence of 12 strokes of the rotan
(whipping). An investigation by SUHAKAM (the Human Rights Commission of
Malaysia) has confirmed that before he died, Zaidi’s whipping wounds became
infected, and he did not receive proper medical care. It is sad that Zaidi whose
death penalty was recently commuted ultimately died after receiving his
alternative sentence of whipping.
Appreciate that
Malaysia is still on track towards abolition of Whipping
We appreciate the fact that this
Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s Pakatan Harapan is still actively considering
the abolition of whipping in Malaysia.
‘On mandatory caning, Kulasegaran
[Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Institutional
Reform) M. Kulasegaran] said the issue was also still under consultation
following a recent meeting he chaired on a study into its impact and
effectiveness in Malaysia. He said discussions with the Attorney General’s
Chambers and other relevant parties were ongoing…’(Star,
17/9/2026)
It must be noted, that since the
Immigration Act was amended in August 2002, to include whipping as a sentence
for persons found to be in Malaysia without proper documents, the majority of
persons being whipped are undocumented foreigners, which could also sadly may have
included refugees, asylum seekers and also victims of human trafficking.
For the offence of illegally
being in Malaysia, Section 6(3) of the Immigration Act 1959/63 states ‘Any
person who contravenes subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and shall,
on conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding ten thousand ringgit or to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to both, and shall also be liable
to whipping of not more than six strokes.
“According to Prisons Department
records, 47,914 foreigners were found to have violated the Immigration Act
from 2002 to 2008. Of these, 34,923 were caned or whipped.” There are no
current records provided by the Government, but it is estimated that at least about
5,000 to 10,000 are still being whipped in Malaysia annually. Media reports prove
that the whipping has failed to DETER illegal presence in Malaysia.
The Immigration Department
recently disclosed that just in 2026 ‘A total of 57,161 undocumented
migrants were detained in various enforcement operations nationwide between Jan
1 and Sept 13...’ (NST,
25/9/2026). Would this mean that WHIPPING failed as a deterrent? It also
mean that this about 50,000 new foreigners are at risk of being Whipped.
The
RISK of the innocent being wrongfully convicted
One case of a person being wrongfully
convicted and whipped was Sabri Umar, an Indonesian migrant worker with valid
documentation, who was convicted and whipped despite there being a pending
appeal, where Malaysian law explicitly prohibits whipping if there is a pending
appeal.
Here the error was also made by
the Immigration Department when they provided wrong documents, claiming that
they had no record of entry when Sabri was a documented migrant worker of many
years, which was reflected also in his passport. In Sabri’s case, thankfully High
Court Judge Justice Lim Hock Leng, on becoming aware of this injustice did
called up his case for Revision and acquitted Sabri Umar. (Star,
23/7/2022) (Malaysiakini
20/7/2022)
Sabri’s gross miscarriage of
justice came to light because his Trade Union and civil society groups raised
it, and media covered it. How many other foreign workers would have ended being
whipped wrongly in similar situations?
Victims of Human
Trafficking cannot be charged for being illegally in Malaysia
Foreigners who are victims of
human trafficking cannot be charged for a crime of illegally being in Malaysia,
and did the Prosecutions or the Courts even take this into consideration? Did
they confirm that the accused is not a victim of human trafficking OR do they
simply not bother – and convict and sentence them to be whipped?
Section 25 of the
Anti-Trafficking In Persons And Anti-Smuggling Of Migrants Act 2007(ATIPSOM),
which deals with Immunity from Criminal Prosecution, states that ‘A
trafficked person shall not be liable to criminal prosecution in respect of-(a) his illegal entry into the
receiving country or transit country; (b) his period of unlawful residence
in the receiving country or transit country; or(c) his procurement or possession of any fraudulent travel or
identity document which he obtained, or with which he was supplied, for the
purpose of entering the receiving country or transit country, where such acts
are the direct consequence of an act of trafficking in persons that is alleged
to have been committed or was committed.
We wonder how many victims of
human trafficking would have wrongly been charged and was sentenced to
whipping.
Section 6(4) Immigration
Act must be REPEALED
Now, Section 6(4) of the Immigration
Act states ‘The burden of proof that a person entered Malaysia without
contravening subsection (1) shall lie upon that person, and in any
prosecution for an offence under subsection (1), it shall not be necessary to
specify in the charge the date, time, place or manner of the entry of such
person into Malaysia, or by means of travel used for such entry, and such
prosecution may be held at any place in Malaysia.’ BUT all these are most
important to determine whether he/she is a victim of human trafficking, or even
a refugee/asylum seeker.
This Section 6(4) is a BAD law that
must necessarily be repealed – if Malaysia by LAW wants to ensure that no
victim of human trafficking is ever charged for the offence being illegally
in Malaysia which would have caused them to suffer WHIPPING.
Malaysian law says that a victim of
human trafficking cannot be criminally liable for illegally being in Malaysia or
that his/her presence in Malaysia is ‘the direct consequence of an act of
trafficking in persons’.
It must be the prosecution and/or
the Courts rightly to determine whether any accused is a victim of human
trafficking and thus cannot be criminally liable by reason of Section 25 ATIPSOM.
It is UNJUST and wrong to push the
burden on foreigners who generally are not literate in the local languages or
Malaysian law is unacceptable and invites INJUSTICE.
It is most important for
prosecution and/or courts to determine how the foreigner came to be in Malaysia
– was it by reason of deception, etc. If the foreigner was once a registered migrant
worker, suspicion should naturally arise as to why he/she is still in Malaysia
as our law places the burden on employers to send them back to country of origin.
If the said worker is still here because he/she has been cheated of wages
promised, then reasonably he/she is also a victim of human trafficking, as "trafficking
in persons" means all actions of recruiting, conveying, transferring,
acquiring, maintaining, harbouring, providing or receiving, a person, for the
purpose of exploitation,..’ – thus workers brought to Malaysia on a promise
of work and certain wages, who then end up with different jobs and wages
clearly are victims of human trafficking. Same too with workers who employers
still have not paid them wages and monies due.
REFUGEES and Asylum
Seekers
In January 2026, Malaysia started
its own started its own asylum seeker and refugee assessment and recognition
program on 1/1/2026 with the Refugee Registration Document (DPP) programme but
it is moving too slow as the number of refugees/asylum seekers based on UNHCR and
others may be over 300,0000.
“Until June 2026, 128 Myanmar
nationals of Rohingya ethnicity, comprising 127 adult men and one adult woman,
were transferred to PPKPPS (Special Detention Centre for Refugees and Asylum
Seekers) Bidor, Perak… “Following the status determination process, 78
individuals comprising 77 men and one woman have been approved as refugees
under the Refugee Registration Document (DPP) programme. The release process
will only be carried out after all related procedures have been completed,” he
(Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail) said. (Malay Mail, 9/7/2026)
Based on the principle on
non-refoulement, refugees’/asylum seekers cannot be deported back to their
country of origin. These refugees’/asylum seekers also cannot be held in
detention for being illegally in Malaysia. REASONABLY, they cannot also be
convicted for the crime of illegally being in Malaysia, that a conviction
also may result in the sentence of whipping.
THEREFORE, that is why WHIPPING
must be abolished now, and pending abolition the Malaysian government must
impose a MORATORIUM on Whipping.
As even documented migrants can
suffer being wrongfully WHIPPED because of fault/negligence of authorities, the
prosecution and Courts as it happened in Sabri Umar’s case.
Gross injustice can also be
suffered by victims of human trafficking because of failure on the part of
prosecution and/or courts, to consider whether section Section 25 of ATIPSOM will
be violated. Likewise, refugees/asylum seekers may also end up wrongly whipped.
Noting, in Malaysia in this year only
(2026), ‘a total of 57,161 undocumented migrants were detained in various
enforcement operations nationwide between Jan 1 and Sept 13..’, this means most
of these 57,000 are in SERIOUS risk of being convicted and WHIPPED. This alone makes
the ABOLITION of Whipping a PRIORITY that needs urgent action by the Malaysian
government.
As such, MADPET (Malaysians
Against Death Penalty calls for the immediate abolition of WHIPPING, and
pending abolition a MORATORIUM on whipping to also avoid the innocent,
including victims of human trafficking and refugees /asylum seekers from being wrongly
and unjustly whipped;
MADPET calls for the repeal of Section
6(4) of the Immigration Act that now removes the onus or duty
of the Prosecution and/or the Court to determine whether the foreign national
is a victim of human trafficking or not, OR whether he/she is a refugee/asylum
seeker also should not be criminally liable for illegally being in Malaysia; and
MADPET also reiterates its call for
Malaysiato ratify the UN Convention against Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Charles Hector
For and on behalf of MADPET(Malaysians Against Death Penalty and
Torture)
57,161 illegal immigrants detained in nationwide operations since January
Immigration Department says 1,685 local employers were also detained for employing undocumented migrants between Jan 1 and Sept 13. FILE PIC/IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT
KUALA LUMPUR: A total of 57,161 undocumented migrants were detained in various enforcement operations nationwide between Jan 1 and Sept 13.
The Immigration Department, in a statement, said 1,685 local employers were also detained for employing undocumented migrants during the period.
"From Jan 1 to Sept 13, the department conducted 9,559 operations and inspected 128,536 individuals.
"The department will also continue to conduct enforcement operations to ensure the country's security, sovereignty and interests are safeguarded," it said.
Immigration said that in the five days last week alone, it conducted 175 operations involving checks on 1,340 individuals.
Of those inspected, 880 foreigners and 36 Malaysians were detained for various immigration offences. - NST, 25/9/2026
The media report about Malaysian Government in process of studies in view of ABOLITION of Whipping in the following report - relevant portions marked in 'BLUE"
Proposed Senior Citizens Bill may be tabled early 2027, says Kulasegaran
IPOH: The proposed Senior Citizens Bill is still being discussed with stakeholders and could be tabled early next year, says Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Institutional Reform) M. Kulasegaran (pic).
The Ipoh Barat MP said the proposal, which comes under the Women, Family and Community Development Ministry, was being pursued in collaboration with his ministry.
“The matter is still under consultation. I’m hoping to table the matter this year, but it probably looks like early next year,” he told reporters at the Program Sumbangan Prihatin Hari Malaysia on Thursday (Sept 17).
Kulasegaran said any legislation introduced must first undergo proper consultation.
“We need to discuss it with NGOs, other departments and various stakeholders. We also need to study the Act before any action can be taken.
“This process has already started and is ongoing. Although it is a bit tight to table it in October, November or December, I’m hoping that it will come in the end,” he said.
He said the need for such legislation had been raised by elderly parents.
Kulasegaran said the proposed Bill would address situations where elderly parents who are no longer working are not provided with financial or other support by their adult children, including professionals such as lawyers, doctors, politicians and engineers.
He said such legislation was not unusual, with similar laws already in place in several countries.
“This is not an unusual proposal. In several countries, including India and Singapore, we have studied what kind of legislation could be adopted in Malaysia,” he said.
On mandatory caning, Kulasegaran said the issue was also still under consultation following a recent meeting he chaired on a study into its impact and effectiveness in Malaysia.
He said discussions with the Attorney General’s Chambers and other relevant parties were ongoing.
“There are three meetings with various stakeholders, including NGOs and ministries.
“We are looking at the suggestions given. The question being asked by society is whether whipping is effective. That is what we need to study before making a decision,” he said.
Kulasegaran said discussions on the issue began about four to five months ago and he hoped the study could be concluded by the end of the year.
Asked whether the study could lead to the abolition of mandatory caning, he said no decision had been made as differing views had been put forward.
“Some are suggesting abolishing it, while some are suggesting keeping it.
“We need to obtain views from the judiciary, agencies and lawyers, as well as those who have been caned and undergone the process, including former prisoners whom we have spoken to. These are all key considerations,” he said.
Asked whether abolishing mandatory caning could lead to an increase in crime, Kulasegaran said there were arguments on both sides.
He added that the government was also examining issues involving mental capacity, particularly cases where a person suddenly becomes mentally incapacitated and their next of kin must go to court to obtain authority to manage their affairs. - Star. 17/9/2026
Azalina: Mandatory whipping under review after deaths in Taiping, Pokok Sena prisons
Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Institutional Reform) Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said speaks at the Second Meeting of the Fourth Session of the 15th Parliament at the Parliament building, Kuala Lumpur Aug 25, 2025. — Bernama pic
First Published: Wednesday, 27 Aug 2025 9:33 AM MYT
KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 27 — The government is conducting a comprehensive study on the abolition of mandatory whipping in Malaysia, in line with efforts to reform the criminal justice system towards a more humane and progressive approach.
Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Institutional Reform) Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said said yesterday that the review is being coordinated by the Legal Affairs Division of the Prime Minister’s Department and involves multiple agencies.
“A Special Meeting on the Study of the Abolition of Mandatory Whipping, chaired by the Deputy Minister (Law and Institutional Reform), was held on 23 June 2025,” she said in a parliamentary written reply.
She said the meeting was attended by representatives from the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Malaysian Prison Department, the Ministry of Health, the Office of the Chief Registrar of the Federal Court, the Royal Malaysia Police, the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM), and the Bar Council.
Azalina added that the study is being led by a sub-committee under the Legal Affairs Division, which will submit its findings and recommendations to the Criminal Law Reform Committee for further review.
The report will then be presented to the Deputy Minister (Law and Institutional Reform) and subsequently to the minister before being tabled for Cabinet consideration.
Azalina was responding to Sungai Siput MP Kesavan Subramaniam, who had asked whether the government planned to introduce reforms to whipping laws, particularly in light of a death that occurred in Taiping Prison last year after an inmate was caned.
Azalina said preliminary findings show that whipping is prescribed in 57 provisions under the Penal Code, with 26 of these carrying mandatory whipping sentences, while several other laws, such as the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and the Immigration Act 1959/63, also stipulate mandatory whipping.
In Malaysia, the procedure for whipping involves trained prison officers using a rattan cane on the offender’s buttocks, with a medical officer present to ensure the convict’s health is not seriously affected.
However, she noted rising concerns about the long-term physical and psychological harm of whipping, including limited access to medical treatment after punishment.
She added that the government has taken note of a case reported by Suhakam in which a prisoner at Pokok Sena Prison died after undergoing whipping in 2024. - Malay Mail, 27/8/2025
Press Statement No. 27-2024_SUHAKAM Calls for the Abolition of Corporal Punishment
KUALA LUMPUR (22 OCTOBER 2024) – The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) expresses its deepest concern over the recent death of an inmate at Pokok Sena Prison, reportedly after corporal punishment by whipping. We extend our heartfelt condolences to the family of the deceased and reaffirm our unwavering commitment to the protection of human rights.
SUHAKAM unequivocally opposes all forms of corporal punishment, including whipping, as they violate fundamental human rights and human dignity. The severe physical and psychological harm caused by corporal punishment is a direct contradiction to international human rights standards as prescribed by article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which provide that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment. Further, article 1 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) defines torture to include “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted.” Corporal punishment clearly falls under this definition and should be regarded as inhumane and degrading.
The CAT, adopted in 1984 by the General Assembly Resolution of 1984 and now ratified or acceded to by 173 states, represents a global commitment to abolish torture and inhumane treatment. Unfortunately, Malaysia remains amongst the minority nations that have yet to be a party to CAT, despite the moral obligation to uphold the dignity and rights of all individuals in the penal system. Even within ASEAN, countries such as Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam have already acceded to the CAT, setting an example for the region. SUHAKAM urges Malaysia to join these nations in taking a firm stance against torture, including corporal punishment by acceding to CAT.
In light of the recent tragedy at Pokok Sena Prison, we call on the government to immediately abolish all forms of corporal punishment, including those codified in the Penal Code, the Criminal Procedure Code, the Prisons Act, and related legislation. Furthermore, corporal punishment in schools, which normalizes violence against children, must also be outlawed to safeguard the mental and physical well-being of future generations.
This incident underscores the urgency of comprehensive reform. We call on authorities to conduct a full, independent, and transparent investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death, ensuring that those responsible are held accountable. However, addressing this incident in isolation is insufficient. Malaysia must reform its criminal justice system and abandon harmful, outdated practices like corporal punishment in favour of rehabilitative approaches that respect human dignity.
SUHAKAM advocates for a justice system based on deterrence, rehabilitation and the inherent dignity of every person. Measures that emphasize justice, accountability and public safety, without resorting to violence, are essential to creating a just society. These measures must be aligned with Malaysia’s international human rights obligations and a commitment to justice, fairness, and humanity.
SUHAKAM will continue to monitor this case closely and engage with the relevant authorities to push for reforms that align with international standards. Abolishing corporal punishment is not merely a legal obligation but a moral necessity to uphold justice, human rights, and the dignity of all.
-END-
The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) Date: 22 October 2024
Indonesian migrant worker in Sabah wrongfully whipped before appeal heard
By
Cheah Chor Sooi
SOME 45 groups and organisations led by the Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (MADPET) have cried foul over the whipping of Indonesian migrant worker Sabri Umar at the Tawau Prison on June 23 despite his High Court appeal has yet to be heard following his conviction/sentence by the Sessions Court.
The group of 45 comprised five Indonesian-based organisations, namely the Federasi SERBUK Indonesia; Federasi Serikat Buruh Kehutanan Perkayuan dan Pertanian Serikat Buruh Sejahtera Indonesia (HUKATAN); Federation of Indonesia Workers’ Awakening (FKUI), Koalisi Buruh Migran Berdaulat Indonesia and Migrant Care Indonesia.
Sabri, a union member of the Sabah Timber Industry Employees Union (STIEU), has claimed that he was wrongfully terminated by his employer on April 4 this year prior to being arrested by the police the next day and detained until he was charged and convicted on April 19.
However, he did manage to file a wrongful dismissal claim in the Industrial Relations Department on the same day (April 19) to seek reinstatement whereby this process is on-going.
“The employer who knew that Sabri was not an undocumented worker failed to bring to the attention of the police, prosecutors and court this material fact which reasonably would have meant Sabri would not be charged, let alone be convicted for being illegally in Malaysia under Section 6(1)( c) Immigration Act,” the joint media statement by the group of 45 pointed out.
“Fu Yee Corp Sdn Bhd (the employer) should be doing the needed to end the current serious miscarriage of justice.”
According to the joint statement, a perusal of court documents revealed that the Immigration documents tendered to the court was “false” as it stated that there was no records of entry and exit for Sabri.
“It failed to disclose the truth that Sabri was indeed a documented migrant worker for the past (about) seven years, and that he was under the employment of one Fu Yee Corp in Tawau, Sabah,” noted the joint statement.
“His work permit also had been renewed by the Immigration Department in 2022 and should reasonably be valid for a year.”
Moreover, the joint statement said the prosecution had also failed in its duty to properly investigate the case before charging Sabri. An investigation would have revealed that Sabri was a documented worker who cannot be charged under Section 6(1)( c) of the Immigration Act.
“It must be pointed out that Sabri was arrested at his workplace on April 5. There also seem to be no charges against the employer Fu Yee Corp for harbouring or employing an undocumented worker,” argued the joint statement.
“Sabri’s case has come to light but there is concern about whether others have been whipped before their appeal is heard and disposed of. Whipping is a corporal punishment that inflicts serious physical and psychological injury where victims are known to pass out even before the full sentence is carried out.”
In stating that the Malaysian Bar is unequivocally and unreservedly against all forms of corporal punishment, including caning or whipping, the group of 45 called for:
Malaysia to immediately apologise and do the needful to ensure justice be done for the wrongful or illegal whipping of Sabri before his criminal appeal/s is heard and to act against those responsible;
The immediate abolition of whipping, a form of corporal punishment in Malaysia; and
Malaysia to immediately ratify the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. – July 19, 2022
COMMENT | The Madani government must be applauded as Malaysia finally started its own asylum seeker and refugee assessment and recognition programme on Jan 1 with the Refugee Registration Document (RRD) programme.
However, it is shocking that “Until June 2026, 128 Myanmar nationals of Rohingya ethnicity, comprising 127 adult men and one adult woman, were transferred to PPKPPS (Special Detention Centre for Refugees and Asylum Seekers) Bidor, Perak.
“Following the status determination process, 78 individuals comprising 77 men and one woman have been approved as refugees under the RRD programme.
“The release process will only be carried out after all related procedures have been completed,” he (Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail) said. (Malay Mail, July 9)
The registration process must be expedited.
Legislation needed
Malaysia is home to more than 215,000 asylum seekers and refugees (not including those still being processed for recognition). (Malay Mail, June 23)
Until the Immigration Act is amended or new laws enacted, the present Act treats foreigners as undocumented migrants unless they possess valid work permits, passes, or visas recognised by law that allow them to be in Malaysia temporarily.
If they are undocumented, they are at risk of arrest, detention, and being charged in court for illegally being in Malaysia, which makes them liable to a fine not exceeding RM10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or to both, and shall also be liable to whipping of not more than six strokes. (Section 6(3) Immigration Act 1959/63)
Sadly, to date, the possession of RRD passes or cards has yet to be incorporated in law - thus, there is the risk that asylum seekers and refugees, even with RRD passes/cards, would still be considered lawbreakers present illegally in Malaysia.
“According to Prisons Department records, 47,914 foreigners were found to have violated the Immigration Act from 2002 to 2008. Of these, 34,923 were caned or whipped.”
No recent data found, and one wonders how many genuine asylum seekers and refugees were also whipped in Malaysia – and may continue to be imprisoned and whipped unless laws are speedily amended/enacted to recognise asylum seekers and refugees as persons with rights to temporarily be in Malaysia.
The Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (Madpet) urges Malaysia to speedily amend the Immigration Act to recognise the RRD as a valid pass or proof of legal presence in Malaysia, for we certainly do not want any more asylum seekers and refugees to still be arrested, detained, or charged for illegally being in Malaysia.
Considering the process of registration may take time, Madpet also asks that those asylum seekers who are going to apply or have submitted their application for registration also be accorded protection too.
Noting that in six months, Malaysia has only managed to process and give RRDs to just 78 individuals, Madpet urges that the process be expedited in the interest of justice, noting there may be more than 200,000 asylum seekers and refugees in Malaysia.
Madpet calls upon Malaysia to enact a Refugee and Asylum Seeker law that will also provide legal recognition for the RRD programme.
Comply with non-refoulement principle
Saifuddin said the programme will ultimately lead to only three possible outcomes: repatriation, third-country resettlement, or deportation for legal offenders.
There are only three possible outcomes in managing refugees and asylum seekers.
“First, repatriation, which means sending them home once their country is safe and permits their return. Even if they are registered under the RRD, it does not mean they will remain here indefinitely.
“Second, resettlement in a third country. International agencies such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) must continue fulfilling that role. The UNHCR exists to register refugees and secure third-country placements.
“Third, deportation for those who violate laws and regulations. If they commit crimes and all due legal processes, convictions, and appeals have been exhausted, they will be deported. (NST, May 18)
Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail
Madpet applauds Malaysia’s commitment to not send asylum seekers and refugees home until their country is safe and permits their return is consistent with the principle of non-refoulement.
The principle of non-refoulement forms an essential protection under international human rights, refugee, humanitarian, and customary law.
It prohibits states from transferring or removing individuals from their jurisdiction or effective control when there are substantial grounds for believing that the person would be at risk of irreparable harm upon return, including persecution, torture, ill-treatment, or other serious human rights violations.
Need income to survive
In the past, the UN, through the UNHCR, undertook to bear the cost of accommodation and upkeep of these asylum seekers and refugees until they are settled in a third country, but now that burden falls on the nation state accepting refugees, or directly on the asylum seekers and refugees themselves who are expected to find their own food or shelter.
Housing and feeding some 200,000-plus refugees and asylum seekers in special detention centres may be impossible at the moment, so it is best to consider employment for refugees so they can earn and fend for themselves while not living in places of detention.
Thus, it was good to note that Malaysia is considering this - “He (Saifuddin) added that the programme also explored the possibility of matching approved refugees and asylum seekers with employers facing labour shortages in sectors such as manufacturing, plantations, agriculture, and construction.” (NST, May 18
Madpet proposes that Malaysia prioritise using asylum seekers and refugees to overcome labour needs first before resorting to bringing in migrant workers from other countries. There are 2,132,578 active and legally employed migrant workers as of Oct 15, 2025. (NST, Nov 3, 2025)
School for refugee children
As of early 2026, there are approximately 215,600 registered refugees and asylum-seekers in Malaysia according to UNHCR, though women and children still account for more than half of the total population.
Roughly 28,600 children fall into the primary or secondary school-going age brackets. There may be even more, being those who have yet to be registered by UNHCR.
Madpet calls on Malaysia to allow all these asylum seeker and refugee children to continue their studies in Malaysian public schools or other schools as the government deems appropriate. A child’s future is at risk if he/she cannot receive or continue their education.
A refugee has been defined as someone who has fled their country of nationality and is unable or unwilling to return due to a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group – but for Malaysians, they are just human beings who need our temporary assistance.
Their children should never lose out on the basic right to study in schools, more so since Malaysia has ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).
The speedy assessment and determination of asylum seeker or refugee status is crucial to prevent Malaysia from unknowingly further persecuting these persons, who have sought our temporary help.
Hence, the importance of providing legal protection for asylum seekers and refugees through laws – temporary policies not recognised in law will not do.
CHARLES HECTOR is an activist with the Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (Madpet). - Malaysiakini, 11/7/2026
Non-Liability and Non-Punishment for Crimes Committed by Victims of Human Trafficking — A Defence to Criminal Charges and a Mitigating Factor? (by Charles Hector)2 Oct 2025 7:34 pm
When being a victim of human trafficking must be an absolute defense for crimes committed by victims of human trafficking. The principle of Non-Liability and Non-Punishment for Crimes Committed by Victims of Human Trafficking has been accepted by many jurisdictions, including by ASEAN and even by Malaysia.
‘…Victims of trafficking are subjected to exploitation in various ways. Sometimes, as a result of their victimization, they engage in illegal conduct. Common examples include involvement in the sex trade, involvement in drug production or trafficking, petty crime, possession or the use of fraudulent documents or entering another country in a manner that does not comply with its immigration laws, and even phone/online scam. In many cases, victims are forced or otherwise compelled by traffickers to commit these crimes or other illegal conduct…’ - ICAT The Inter-Agency Coordination Group against Trafficking in Persons. 1
In 2002, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights issued the Recommended Principles and Guidelines on Human Rights and Human Trafficking that, amongst others, provides that: ‘Trafficked persons shall not be detained, charged or prosecuted for the illegality of their entry into or residence in countries of transit and destination, or for their involvement in unlawful activities to the extent that such involvement is a direct consequence of their situation as trafficked person.’
ASEAN Convention Against Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, which was adopted in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia on 21/11/2015 clearly states in Article 14(7) that ‘Each Party shall, subject to its domestic laws, rules, regulations and policies, and in appropriate cases, consider not holding victims of trafficking in persons criminally or administratively liable, for unlawful acts committed by them, if such acts are directly related to the acts of trafficking.’
Likewise, in the Philippines’ Anti‑Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003(Republic Act No. 9208), Section 17. Legal Protection to Trafficked Persons, states that ‘Trafficked persons shall be recognized as victims of the act or acts of trafficking and as such, shall not be penalized for unlawful acts committed as a direct result of, or as an incident or in relation to, being trafficked based on the acts of trafficking enumerated in this Act or in obedience to the order made by the trafficker in relation thereto. In this regard, the consent of a trafficked person to the intended exploitation set forth in this Act shall be irrelevant.’
In Malaysia too, there is similar protection, though unreasonably limited and lacking, which is found in Section 25 of the Anti-Trafficking In Persons And Anti-Smuggling Of Migrants Act 2007
Section 25 - Immunity from criminal prosecution
A trafficked person shall not be liable to criminal prosecution in respect of-
(a) his illegal entry into the receiving country or transit country;
(b) his period of unlawful residence in the receiving country or transit country; or
(c) his procurement or possession of any fraudulent travel or identity document which he obtained, or with which he was supplied, for the purpose of entering the receiving country or transit country,
where such acts are the direct consequence of an act of trafficking in persons that is alleged to have been committed or was committed.
Sadly, Malaysia only focused on immigration crimes, but failed to yet provide immunity of trafficked victims who are compelled to commit other crimes like sex crimes, online crimes like theft, scamming or violation of data protection law, drug trafficking and/or other criminal acts. This will hopefully be remedied soonest by Parliament or the Courts.
Non-Liability and Non-Punishment for Crimes Committed by Victims of Human Trafficking should rightly include any or all crimes committed by a victim, whilst being a victim of human trafficking, or by reason of being compelled by the trafficker or the situation the victim is in. It should cover sex offences like prostitution, drug trafficking offences including production and also delivery, online or phone scam offences where the victim is compelled to carry out by traffickers, illegal employment offences, theft and maybe even killing.
This absolute Defense must be available for all victims of human trafficking, who reasonably will not have committed such crimes, if not for being a victim of human traffickers, or being compelled by the said traffickers.
The duty of the State should only be confined to rescuing and protecting victims, and prosecuting human traffickers – and not prosecuting victims of human trafficking.
Application of this law - Non-Liability and Non-Punishment for Crimes Committed by Victims of Human Trafficking
In Malaysia, it seems that the Courts have yet to consider how and when this total defense or Non-Liability and Non-Punishment for Crimes Committed by Victims of Human Trafficking can and should be applied.
Of course, law enforcement and prosecution can on their own decide in non-prosecuting such victims, but more importantly, we should look at how this defense can be raised in court and when, and for this we will consider decisions in the courts in UK and other jurisdictions.
Section 45 of UK’s Modern Slavery Act 2015, deals with Defence for slavery or trafficking victims who commit an offence
(1)A person is not guilty of an offence if—(a)the person is aged 18 or over when the person does the act which constitutes the offence, (b)the person does that act because the person is compelled to do it, (c)the compulsion is attributable to slavery or to relevant exploitation, and (d)a reasonable person in the same situation as the person and having the person's relevant characteristics would have no realistic alternative to doing that act.
(2)A person may be compelled to do something by another person or by the person's circumstances…’
Thus, the question then is who has the burden of proof for an accused who wants to rely on the Section 45 defense, and there have several cases that dealt with the issue, and at present the binding authority seems to be the Criminal Appeal case of MK v R and Persida Gega (a.k.a. Anna Maione) v R [2018] EWCA Crim 667, where Judge Lucas’s decision can be summarized as follows2:-
‘The effect of the rulings may be summarized in this way:
(i) The defendant bears an evidential burden to raise the issue whether she was a victim of trafficking or slavery;
(ii) Having successfully done so, it is for the prosecution to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that she was not;
(iii) If the prosecution succeeds in that, the section 45 defence will not avail the defendant;
(iv) However, if the prosecution fails in this respect, the legal or persuasive burden of proof in respect of the other elements of the defense falls on the defendant. Therefore, if the defendant is over 18 years old, she must prove on the balance of probabilities:
(a) That she was compelled to commit the offence;
(b) That the compulsion was as a direct consequence of her being or having been a victim of slavery or relevant exploitation; and
(c) That a reasonable person in the same situation as her and having her relevant characteristics would have no realistic alternative to doing the act which constitutes the offence.
In law, the evidential burden (or burden of adducing evidence) refers to the obligation of the victim to only present sufficient evidence to raise a particular issue for consideration by the court. It's the burden of bringing an issue into play, not necessarily proving it to the required standard on a balance of probabilities or beyond reasonable doubt. Essentially, it's the burden of just demonstrating there's a reasonable possibility that a fact exists or does not exist. The evidential burden is distinct from the legal burden (or burden of proof), which is the obligation to prove a fact to the required standard
The evidential burden is met when a party presents enough evidence to make it plausible that a particular fact is true. This doesn't mean the party has to prove the fact, just that it's worthy of consideration by the judge.
In summary, the burden is first with the accused (or victim) but it merely an evidential burden to prove he/she is a victim of human trafficking, and thereafter the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he/she is a victim of human trafficking. If the prosecution succeeds, then it the end of the defence of victim of human trafficking.
However, based on the UK law (which may not be the same in other jurisdictions including Malaysia), if the prosecution fails to prove that the accused is NOT a victim of human trafficking, the burden again shifts to the accused (now proven a victim of human trafficking) to prove the other elements needed to rely on that defence, being (a)That she was compelled to commit the offence;(b) That the compulsion was as a direct consequence of her being or having been a victim of slavery or relevant exploitation; and (c) That a reasonable person in the same situation as her and having her relevant characteristics would have no realistic alternative to doing the act which constitutes the offence.’, and here the burden of proof on the accused is a balance of probabilities.
In comparison, in Malaysia based on the wordings used in Section 25 of the Anti-Trafficking In Persons And Anti-Smuggling Of Migrants Act 2007, all that needs to be proven is just that one is a victim of human trafficking and that ‘…such acts are the direct consequence of an act of trafficking in persons…’.
To date, there seems to be no reported cases on section 25. It could be that the State has yet to prosecute a victim of human trafficking, or this defense has yet to be raised by accused victims of human trafficking or their lawyers.
Reasonably, Section 25 of the Anti-Trafficking In Persons And Anti-Smuggling Of Migrants Act 2007 need to be amended to cover all crimes committed by victims of human trafficking, and not to do so would mean that Malaysia is failing to protect such victims, and may be guilty of further violations of rights of these victims of human trafficking.
When should this Defense be raised?
It must be noted that the principle is Non-Liability and Non-Punishment for Crimes Committed by Victims of Human Trafficking, and as such law enforcement and/or prosecution should not even investigate or charge such victims in criminal courts. The prosecutors should on their own first determine whether they are victims of human trafficking first.
But, if these victims end up being charged in Court, then reasonably, it should be best raised at the very beginning before the prosecution begins its case to prove a prima facie case or beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did commit the alleged crime. However, in the interest of justice, there should also be NO bar to raising this defense later, even during the defense case or even during the appeal stage. Lawyers, being human, may fail to raise this defense at the trial at the court of first instance, so it is best and just to allow this defence to be raised even at the appellate stage as we do not want a miscarriage of justice.
In cases, where the accused is of ‘…unsound mind and incapable of making his defense…’, then the criminal trial will not commence or proceed until this fundamental issue is resolved.
Likewise, when a person is a victim of human trafficking, he/she should have never even been charged, let alone allow the trial to be proceeded based on the principle of Non-Liability and Non-Punishment for Crimes Committed by Victims of Human Trafficking, a principle that Malaysia has clearly adopted. Should not the issue of whether he/she is a victim of human trafficking be resolved first?
The case of Mary Jane Veloso
In this case, according to her lawyer Edre U. Olalia, the fact that she was a victim of human trafficking seems to have been a major consideration, when Indonesia decided to stop her execution at the 11th hour, and decided to repatriate her back to Philippines.3
In this case, Mary Jane Veloso was first recruited in Philippines to work as a domestic worker in Malaysia. But in Malaysia, the recruiter informed her that her job was no longer available but she was reassured that she will look for a job for her. After a few days, she was told to pack her things as she will be sent to Indonesia to work. She was given an empty suitcase to put her clothes in and was given money. Upon arrival at Yogyakarta, airport personnel detected suspicious items in her suitcase through the x-ray machine…they found neatly packed in the inner part of the suitcase given to her US$500,000 worth of heroin weighing 2.6 kilograms. She was convicted for drug trafficking and sentenced to death.
Human Trafficking – What is it and who are the Victims?
A narrow understanding by many is that the victims are ‘forcibly abducted/transported with no opportunity to escape’ and brought in from another country to be forced to provide sex and sexual favours to customers, but that is not complete and too narrow.
In the Malaysian Anti-Trafficking In Persons And Anti-Smuggling Of Migrants Act 2007, "trafficking in persons" means all actions of recruiting, conveying, transferring, acquiring, maintaining, harbouring, providing or receiving, a person, for the purpose of exploitation, by the following means: (a) threat or use of force or other forms of coercion; (b) abduction; (c) fraud; (d) deception; (e) abuse of power;(f) abuse of the position of vulnerability of a person to an act of trafficking in persons; or (g) the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to obtain the consent of a person having control over the trafficked person;. "Exploitation" includes all forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude, any illegal activity or the removal of human organs;.4
In short, the definitions in the Act must be considered in trying to use the principle of Non-Liability and Non-Punishment for Crimes Committed by Victims of Human Trafficking. Besides being a defence in criminal trials, the possibility of using this in mitigation of sentences also ought to be considered.
What is need in Malaysia is also an expansion of the list of crimes for which this defence can be used in law. Malaysia do not want to be blamed in further exploiting victims of human trafficking by ignoring the reality of human trafficking.
1 ICAT The Inter-Agency Coordination Group against Trafficking in Persons, Issue Brief Non-Punishment Of Victims Of Trafficking, Issue 08/2020
Najib’s ‘house arrest’
-
Aliran has released a statement on the latest developments: The news has
made headlines both at home and abroad, and for good reason. For many, this
decisi...
Beyond the Bandung nostalgia
-
Sixty years on, the spirit of 1955 needs updating for today's world.
The post Beyond the Bandung nostalgia appeared first on Aliran.
APA PADA NAMA
-
1. Sejarah Malaysia dikait rapat dengan UMNO, Parti Kebangsaan Melayu
Bersatu. Parti UMNO pula dikenali dengan pemimpinnya. 2. Demikian di
peringkat permul...
China and HK may be barred from Asia Team meet
-
PETALING JAYA: The status of next week’s Asia Team Champion-ships in
Manila, the Philippines, is in quandary as two badminton nations – China
and Hong Kong...
PRU14 - Keputusan TEMERLOH - Parlimen dan DUN
-
Keputusan di Temerloh, harus kita analisa
1- Parlimen dimenangi Pakatan Harapan, yang juga menang DUN Mentakab,
tetapi BN menang DUN Lancang dan DUN Kuala ...
Thank you, Malaysians
-
Before the lights go out on The Malaysian Insider at midnight, we say
"Thank You" to our readers. TMI started on February 25, 2008. Today, after
eight year...
I believe in the freedom of expression - and everyone is free to use, reproduce, quote, copy and circulate, etc... materials published here. Please credit the source: http://charleshector.blogspot.com/.
For those of you who do have Blogs/Websites, it would be good if you could add a link to CHARLES HECTOR Blog. Please do promote the BLOG.
Anonymous comments or those containing profanities and obscenities (or irrelevant matters) will be rejected. Note that all comments made in post are personal opinions.
Number of Visits
Over 4 million visits. On an average, we have about 700-750 visits per day.Thank you all for your support and encouragement..
Posts
