Case Study 3: The Death Penalty in Malaysia

  • Muzammil QuraishiEmail author
Part of the Palgrave Advances in Criminology and Criminal Justice in Asia book series (PACCJA)


The third case study explores the retention and use of the death penalty in Malaysia. Along with other neighbouring nations, Malaysia has retained the death penalty despite an abolitionist trend in other Commonwealth nations. The retention of the death penalty has often been linked to a particularly punitive stance on narcotics in the region but also cannot be separated from the foundations of anti-sedition, public disorder and Islamisation in the region. The chapter explores the wide range of offences which warrant a discretionary or mandatory death penalty in Malaysia. A common populist defence in retentionist nations centres upon perceived public support for retention but the academic analysis by international criminologists, such as Roger Hood, illustrate a more nuanced public interpretation. The chapter explores some key death row cases in Malaysia whilst pointing out how the practices of short-notices of execution fall foul of international procedures, even of those in retentionist states. The very recent moratorium on executions signals a potential shift in this area following decades of international scrutiny.


  1. Abdel Haleem, M. A. S. (2016). The Qur’an: A New Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Amnesty International. (2017a). Urgent Action: Execution Date Set for Malaysian Brothers. UA 53/17. Index. ASA. 28/5768/2017, Malaysia. 23 Feb. Amnesty International.Google Scholar
  3. Amnesty International. (2017b). Urgent Action: Family to Pay Last Visit After Told Execution Is ‘Soon’. UA 113/17. Index. ASA. 28/6321/2017, Malaysia. 22 May. Amnesty International.Google Scholar
  4. Cornell Center on the Death Penalty Worldwide. (2019). The Death Penalty Data Base. Cornell University Law School. Retrieved June 10, 2019, from
  5. Dhillon, G., Mohammed, N., & Miin, N. G. (2012). Capital Punishment in Malaysia and Globally: ‘A Tool for Justice or a Weapon Against Humanity’. Legal Network Series 1 LNS(A), xx.Google Scholar
  6. Haneef, S. S. S. (2010). Discourse on Hudud in Malaysia: Addressing the Missing Dimension. Journal of Islamic Law & Culture, 12(2), 131–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hood, R. (2013). The Death Penalty in Malaysia: Public Opinion on the Mandatory Death Penalty for Drug Trafficking, Murder and Firearms Offences. The Death Penalty Project, London. Centre for Criminology, University of Oxford & The Bar Council of Malaysia.Google Scholar
  8. Leechaianan, Y., & Longmire, D. R. (2013). The Use of the Death Penalty for Drug Trafficking in the United States, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand: A Comparative Legal Analysis. Laws, 2, 115–149. Scholar
  9. Lines, R. (2007). The Death Penalty for Drugs Offences: A Violation of International Human Rights Law. London: International Harm Reduction Association.Google Scholar
  10. National Anti-Drugs Agency. (2009). Malaysian Country Report. NADA.Google Scholar
  11. Novak, A. (2014). The Future of the Mandatory Death Penalty in Malaysia and Singapore: Asian Values and Abolition in Comparative Perspective, with Implications for Indonesia. Indonesian Journal of International and Comparative Law, 1(1), 303–313.Google Scholar
  12. Pascoe, D. (2014). Clemency in Southeast Asian Death Penalty Cases. Centre for Indonesian Law, Islam and Society & Asian Law Centre. CILS Policy Paper 4. ALC Briefing Paper 1. Melbourne Law School. University of Melbourne. Retrieved November 12, 2019, from
  13. Schabas, W. A. (2000). Islam and the Death Penalty. William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 9(1), 223–236.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Health and SocietyUniversity of SalfordSalfordUK

Personalised recommendations