Malaysia is weighing a significant change to its penal system, with a proposal to abolish mandatory caning now submitted to the country's Law Reform Division. Speaking on Astro Awani, legal reform expert Dr Hazbina described the move as part of a wider set of sentencing and punishment reforms aimed at making the criminal justice system fairer and more grounded in human rights.
The proposal, still at an early stage, would not abolish judicial caning altogether. Instead, it would remove the mandatory element, transferring the decision to the courts and making the punishment discretionary. The approach mirrors an earlier reform in which the mandatory death penalty was abolished while the penalty itself was retained, a step described as part of a longer road toward broader change.
One of the central arguments raised is that Malaysia currently records the highest number of judicial caning in Southeast Asia, according to the research cited in the discussion. Reformers say this puts the country at odds with international standards, particularly its stated goal of ratifying the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which they argue is difficult to reconcile with continued judicial caning.
The reform debate also draws on questions of effectiveness. It was noted that there is no solid or compelling evidence that caning reduces reoffending, especially in drug-related cases, where high recidivism rates persist despite the punishment. The argument advanced is that caning inflicts trauma without demonstrably lowering repeat offending.
According to the discussion, the reforms are being pursued in a step-by-step manner. After addressing mandatory caning, attention could turn to offences such as robbery and certain violent crimes, as well as drug offences, gradually shifting more sentencing power to the discretion of the courts rather than fixed mandatory penalties.
The issue also intersects with medical ethics, as the punishment can require the involvement of medical professionals. Doctors are guided by principles of beneficence and non-maleficence, meaning they must act in a patient's best interest and avoid unnecessary harm, and it was argued that this applies equally to prisoners, raising ethical concerns about medical participation in caning.
For now, the changes remain proposals rather than enacted law, and officials have stressed that the process is a substantial undertaking involving multiple considerations. Reformers frame the effort as an attempt to build a more humane and rights-based system for victims, witnesses and the accused alike, while acknowledging that any final decision will take time.