Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (Madpet) calls for the abolition of whipping, a form of corporal punishment that is inherently cruel, inhumane and degrading and often amounts to torture.
In Malaysia, it has even caused death.
Physical trauma
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 specialised wooden or padded frame, with their hands and legs securely shackled.
Comparatively, Sharia caning is a 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 faints after several strokes. 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 cane (whipping).
An investigation by the Malaysian human rights commission Suhakam 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.
- Sign up for Aliran's free daily email updates or weekly newsletters or both
- Make a one-off donation to Persatuan Aliran Kesedaran Negara (ALIRAN), Maybank a/c 507246118995 or CIMB a/c 8004240948
- Make a regular pledge or periodic auto-donation to Aliran
- Become an Aliran member
Towards abolition of whipping
We appreciate that Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s Pakatan Harapan government is still actively considering the abolition of whipping in Malaysia.
On mandatory caning, Kulasegaran, the deputy law and institutional reform minister, said the issue was 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.
It must be noted that, since the Immigration Act was amended in August 2002 to include whipping as a sentence for those found to be in Malaysia without proper documents, the majority of those being whipped are undocumented foreigners. This may also sadly have included refugees, asylum seekers and human trafficking victims.
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 about 5,000 to 10,000 are still being whipped in Malaysia annually. Media reports prove that whipping has failed to deter illegal presence in Malaysia.
The Immigration Department recently disclosed that in 2026 alone, a total of 57,161 undocumented migrants were detained in various enforcement operations nationwide between 1 January and 13 September.
Does this mean that whipping has failed as a deterrent? It also means that about 50,000 new foreigners are at risk of being whipped.
Wrongfully convicted?
One case of a person being wrongfully convicted and whipped was Sabri Umar, an Indonesian migrant worker with valid documentation. He was convicted and whipped despite a pending appeal. Malaysian law explicitly prohibits whipping if there is a pending appeal.
Here the error was also made by the Immigration Department, which provided wrong documents, claiming it had no record of entry, although Sabri had been a documented migrant worker for many years, as also reflected in his passport.
In Sabri’s case, thankfully, High Court judge Justice Lim Hock Leng, on becoming aware of this injustice, called up his case for revision and acquitted Sabri Umar in 2022.
Sabri’s gross miscarriage of justice came to light because his trade union and civil society groups raised it, and the media covered it. How many other foreign workers would have ended up being whipped wrongly in similar situations?
Human trafficking victims?
Foreigners who are victims of human trafficking cannot be charged for the crime of illegally being in Malaysia.
Did the prosecution 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:
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 have been wrongly charged and sentenced to whipping.
Repeal section 6(4)
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 details are most important in determining whether he or she is a victim of human trafficking, or even a refugee/asylum seeker.
This Section 6(4) is a bad law that must be repealed if Malaysia wants, by law, to ensure that no victim of human trafficking is ever charged with the offence of being illegally in Malaysia, which would cause them to suffer whipping.
Malaysian law says that a victim of human trafficking cannot be criminally liable for illegally being in Malaysia where his or her presence in Malaysia is “the direct consequence of an act of trafficking in persons”.
It is rightly for the prosecution or the courts to determine whether any accused is a victim of human trafficking and thus cannot be criminally liable under section 25 of Atipsom.
It is unjust and wrong to push the burden onto foreigners who generally are not literate in the local languages or in Malaysian law. It is unacceptable and invites injustice.
It is most important for the prosecution or the courts to determine how the foreigner came to be in Malaysia. Was it due to deception, etc?
If the foreigner was once a registered migrant worker, suspicion should naturally arise over why he or she is still in Malaysia, since our law places the burden on employers to send them back to their country of origin.
If the worker is still here because he or she has been cheated of the wages promised, then reasonably he or 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, are clearly victims of human trafficking. The same applies to workers whom employers still have not paid the wages and money due.
Refugees and asylum seekers
On 1 January 2026, Malaysia started its own asylum seeker and refugee assessment and recognition programme through the refugee registration document programme. But it is moving too slowly, as the number of refugees and asylum seekers, based on the UN refugee agency and others, may be over 300,000.
“Until June 2026, 128 Myanmar nationals of Rohingya ethnicity, comprising 127 adult men and one adult woman, were transferred to PPKPPS (a special detention centre for refugees and asylum seekers) Bidor, Perak,” Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail said.
“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.”
Based on the principle of non-refoulement (not forcing people back to a country where they face danger), refugees and asylum seekers cannot be deported back to their country of origin. These refugees and 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, as a conviction also may result in a sentence of whipping.
Therefore, whipping must be abolished now, and, pending abolition, the Malaysian government must impose a moratorium on whipping.
Even documented migrants can be wrongfully whipped because of the fault or negligence of the authorities, the prosecution and the courts, as happened in Sabri Umar’s case.
Gross injustice can also be suffered by victims of human trafficking because of the failure of the prosecution or the courts to consider whether section 25 of Atipsom will be violated. Likewise, refugees and asylum seekers may also end up being wrongly whipped.
In Malaysia this year alone, 57,161 undocumented migrants were detained in various enforcement operations nationwide between 1 January and 13 September. This means most of these 57,000 are at 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 calls for the immediate abolition of whipping and, pending abolition, a moratorium on whipping to avoid the innocent, including victims of human trafficking and refugees or asylum seekers, from being wrongly and unjustly whipped.
Madpet calls for the repeal of section 6(4) of the Immigration Act, which now removes the onus or duty of the prosecution or the courts to determine whether the foreign national is a victim of human trafficking or not, or whether he or she is a refugee or asylum seeker who also should not be criminally liable for illegally being in Malaysia.
Madpet also reiterates its call for Malaysia to ratify the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. – Madpet
Charles Hector issued this statement on behalf of Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (Madpet).
The views expressed in Aliran's media statements and the NGO statements we have endorsed reflect Aliran's official stand. Views and opinions expressed in other pieces published here do not necessarily reflect Aliran's official position.
- Tegakkan maruah serta kualiti kehidupan rakyat
- Galakkan pembangunan saksama, lestari serta tangani krisis alam sekitar
- Raikan kerencaman dan keterangkuman
- Selamatkan demokrasi dan angkatkan keluhuran undang-undang
- Lawan rasuah dan kronisme
