PETALING JAYA: Suara Rakyat Malaysia (Suaram) has questioned the data put forward by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MOHA) on the deaths in police custody.
In an oral reply to a question from Hasan Abdul Karim (Pakatan Harapan - Pasir Gudang) on the Sept 15 in parliament, Home Minister Datuk Seri Hamzah Zainudin(pix)had informed the house that for the year 2021 up to the month of August, there were six deaths in police lockups.
Suaram said from its monitoring, it found at least seven deaths in police custody.
“We are confused as to how the MOHA has recorded the amount of deaths in custody. This is because, based on the given answer, the stated amount does not include a number of deaths that are evidently instances of deaths in custody,” Suaram Executive Director Sevan Doraisamy said in a statement.
“The death of Sivabalan Subramaniam as soon as he was arrested by the police from IPD Gombak and the death of Umar Faruq who passed away in custody of IPD Klang Selatan, are examples of these missing cases.
“Why were the deaths of Sivabalan who clearly died in less than an hour after his arrest as well as that of Umar Faruq who died in IPD Klang Selatan not considered as deaths in custody? Is it due to MOHA viewing solely deaths that occur in police lock-up as deaths in custody? If so, this is clearly in contradiction with the definition of deaths in custody as per multiple parties.”
Sevan pointed out that the National Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam), in its 2016 report, defines deaths in custody as deaths that occur during arrests by the police, deaths in police detention, and deaths wherein detainees die on the way to receiving medical treatment as well as when they die at a medical facility in cases where ward admission is necessary whilst still in police custody.
“Furthermore, the definition supplied by the Independent Police Complaint Commission (IPCC) United Kingdom defines deaths in and following police custody as deaths that occur whilst a person is arrested or brought to a detention facility, including the deaths of an arrested person or those that occur following an arrest,” he said.
“These deaths can occur at police premises, private or medical premises, in a public premise, in a vehicle belonging to the police or anyone else.Thus, this definition includes the deaths of persons from the moment of arrest, during transportation to a detention facility or hospital, and whilst they are still under arrest, regardless of the location.”
Following the definition supplied by the IPCC, the death of A.Ghanapathy following his arrest by IPD Gombak should be categorised as a death in police custody, he pointed out
“This is due to the fact that despite him being admitted to a public medical facility, the injuries sustained by Ghanapathy resulted from his detention, and thus it is a death following police custody,” he said.
Suaram has demanded the Home Ministry should be using such international standards to redefine deaths in custody, unlike the narrow definition as given in the oral reply.
“This is because it is exceedingly clear from the total deaths listed in the oral reply mentioned above, that many deaths in custody recorded by Suaram are not considered to be deaths in custody,” Sevan said.
“This is not just a shallow interpretation but also another tactic to misrepresent the number of deaths in custody as being on the decline despite many deaths in custody not being recorded due to them not occurring solely in police lock-ups.
“We also would like to question MOHA on their reluctance to produce any data and statistics on deaths in custody. At the very least, the ministry should come clean on simple data related to deaths in custody such as detention places, age, gender, ethnicity and nationality.”
