Three years after the public outcry in 2021 on the spate of devastating deaths in police custody, we are still confronted with the same age-old stumbling block that hinders substantive progress in deaths and torture in police custody: inconsistent and/or lacking state transparency and accountability.
Statistics on deaths and torture in custody are still not made publicly available and accessible in this day and age. This compels lawmakers and NGOs to play catch-up with the government in sharing this information through parliamentary questions, at the expense of critical scrutiny of other urgent issues of the day. Unless open data is practised, we will continue to grapple with unwarranted data inconsistencies such as that seen between the Home Minister and Prime Minister Office’s responses in Parliament in July this year. The issue of torture in custody may remain an under-prioritised state agenda partly due to limited data visibility. Most importantly, missed opportunities of formulation of better policies with inclusive participation by stakeholders such as academics and NGOs to address deaths and torture in police custody persist – as open data provides more common ground for understanding and constructive discourse on the underlying systemic issues.
True accountability remains elusive for many victims, survivors and families of torture and deaths in custody, from unsatisfactory inquest quality to partial investigations to absence of criminal and disciplinary action against the individual perpetrator officers. Contrasting S Balamurugan and A Ganapathy’s deaths, both of which contained elements of torture in custody, police abuse of power and negligence, not much has improved since 2017. Whilst no inquest was held for Balamurugan, Ganapathy’s inquest concluded close to 3 years after his death in 2021. Only one police inspector was charged for culpable homicide in Balamurugan’s death but still granted bail, with other officers let off scot-free, despite scathing investigation findings by the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC). In Ganapathy’s case, not even a whisper of disciplinary, let alone criminal, action against officers who tortured him, wrongfully extended his remand and neglected his health needs emerged. Families of these detainees could only claw at the uncertainties of half-baked justice through civil action, if they have at all the means to pursue this avenue within three years from the death of their loved ones. Survivors of torture of custody suffer injustice that is no less harsh – in the case of Ang Kian Kok who was then 16 years old and an eyewitness to Balamurugan’s death, not only were there no investigations done against officers who beat him, but also was he subjected to chain remand months after cooperating with EAIC investigations on Balamurugan’s death.
Partial or no accountability in cases of deaths and torture in custody are heinous for a reason. If the enforcement authorities are shielded by the state for abusing and neglecting their mandate in their home ground, how can the public trust these officers and the rule of law even in ensuring their safety and protecting their fundamental rights as a whole?
We need effective oversight mechanisms that can uphold right to justice of victims of deaths and torture in police custody and their families without fear or favour. We need more well-resourced courts and fairer procedures that can facilitate independent and objective medico-legal death investigations. We need enforcement authorities, in this case police force, that are sensitised in human rights and have a uniform attitude of zero tolerance against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
On this note, Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) thus renews its call for systematic reform in how the state addresses and prevents deaths and torture in police custody, encompassing:
Making all death and torture in custody statistics, including police lockups, publicly available and accessible on data.gov.my or the Department of Statistics’ website
Strengthening of the Independent Police Conduct Commission (IPCC), via provision of adequate resources and amendments to its founding legislation, to ensure that it is not only independent from executive interference, but also has effective investigative and disciplinary powers
Passing of the Coroners’ Court Act that will empower Coroners to carry out inquests of deaths, including custodial deaths, effectively and independently
Meticulous and transparently audit the extent of implementation of recommendations received from oversight mechanisms such as the National Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) and EAIC, including through the thematic studies conducted by these commissions
Mandatory roll-out of the human rights training module developed by SUHAKAM within all police training academies nationwide, with sensitisation training conducted for officers currently serving in the police force. Priority should also be given to the application of Mendez Principles of Effective Interviewing to eradicate coercive interrogation methods during investigations
Immediate ratification of the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) to streamline national stance on torture and catalyse efforts to address inadequacies in our laws on definition of torture and its criminalisation as an offence
Comments