FOR many human rights defenders and social activists, death in police custodies – especially in Malaysia – is not the most harrowing part of such human rights violations.

But rather the injustice, mistruths, non-actions and cover-ups of foul plays that emanate from custodial deaths that are the most distressing and infuriating.

According to the overview of Suaram Human Rights Report 2021, which I have helped write, the Home Affairs Ministry has revealed that there were six deaths in police custody.

These are only six deaths that the government has revealed and aside from information about the ethnicity, age and detention location – also the victims’ place of death – there is very little info revealed and no investigation has been conducted to get to the bottom of these incidents.

If a democratic state is obligatory to value every single life under its jurisdiction, then by not granting justice and restoring truth, these six unaccountable deaths do suggest that Malaysia’s handling of custodial deaths is questionable at best and callous at worst.

Death in police custodies only garners attention through advocacy from local human rights organisations and fearless journalists reporting on the issue.

The tragic deaths of A. Ganapathy and Sivabalan Subramaniam last year garnered sufficient media attention not only because both deaths happened in Gombak police station within a span of one month, but also largely due to the courage of the victims’ families to seek justice in a public manner coupled with the support given by human rights lawyers and civil society.

It is safe to say these two deaths would be swept under the carpet if the victims’ families, in the moment of intense grief, chose to remain silent regarding the nature of death of their closest kin.

It is rather disheartening that the modus operandi from the police in handling custodial deaths is one of don’t ask, don’t tell.

Even the reports of the six deaths that were produced by the government are not convincing and do not allay the concern and mistrust of the public.

There is sufficient evidence to support that the reported number for last year has been severely under-reported when compared with deaths that were reported by the media.

For instance, out of the six deaths there is only one Indian listed as custodial death victim. However, the well-publicised deaths of the two victims in Gombak police station were both Indians.

Therefore, the government data clearly contradicts what civil society and media have documented.

A. Ganapathy died due to the leg and shoulder injuries he suffered when he was in custody, while Sivabalan Subramaniam died in less than an hour after being held under police custody.

Both victims’ nature of death while being held in custody deserves an inquest and thorough investigation. Yet there is no appetite for an inquest or investigation, and most distressingly their deaths may have not been properly documented by the government.

Having said that, even Home Minister Hamzah Zainudin, who has a penchant for granting more power to police, acknowledged the need to address the issues of death in police custody.

Aside from installing CCTV cameras at police lock-ups, a move mooted last year, the Criminal Investigation Unit on Deaths in Custody (USJKT) was formed to address the issue last month.

And to the credit of USJKT, it has since revealed two deaths in police custodies that happened on January 13, involving a 63-year-old man, and on January 16, involving a 37-year-old man.

It should be acknowledged merely for the fact that the public would have little knowledge about these deaths in custody before its existence.

In this case, the USJKT has provided some much-needed transparency but it also challenged the veracity of the previous data that had been provided by the government.

Barely a month has elapsed in 2022, and the government has already witnessed two deaths in police lock-up; this would only substantiate the suggestion that the number of deaths in 2021 had been underreported.

Aside from that, the USJKT is also a unit operating directly under police’s very own Bukit Aman Integrity and Standard Compliance Department (JIPS).

However, JIPS has been severely discredited on many occasions and most notably even former IGP Abdul Hamid Bador himself has admitted that JIPS has been protecting police officers under investigations.

Most of all, USJKT could not escape the fact that they are still operating under the police institution.

The police force has been mired in allegations of corruption and abuse of power for too long until the idea of police (USJKT) investigating police themselves would not inspire confidence.

Rather, for all the good intentions that USJKT may harbour, the civil society would only be viewing this as another public charade that does not address the core issues besetting detainees’ treatment under police custody.

From the first deaths in police custody that USJKT has revealed, the unit has also revealed that two police officers and two detainees have been remanded for further investigation.

Beyond that, the case is still very much shrouded in mystery and the victims’ nature of death and the reason the four individuals were held for investigation were not revealed.

To go back to what I have said in the beginning, deaths in police custody is a bane of society that we must eradicate, but there is a likelihood that some deaths in custody are accidental and not due to police’s misconduct.

This is why for the sake of integrity of law-abiding police, transparency is important in dealing with the matter of life and death, especially when an individual’s liberty is temporarily suspended under the custody of police.

What is most saddening and infuriating about such deaths is not the painful loss of life, but rather how their truth was obscured and without transparency there would be no accountability and no justice for the victim, the family and the public. – January 23, 2022.

* Kenneth Cheng has always been interested in the interplay between human rights and government but more importantly he is a father of two cats, Tangyuan and Toufu. When he is not attending to his feline matters, he is most likely reading books about politics and human rights or playing video games. He is a firm believer in the dictum “power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will”.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.