Judicial caning in Southeast Asia must stop

As a colonial cruelty spreads to lesser offences, Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei show no sign of retiring the cane.

Ryner Lai

6 October 20264 min read

In April 2026, Malaysia’s top court reaffirmed (Opens in new window), in a 2-1 decision, that judicial caning remains a constitutional form of punishment. Judicial caning is a form of corporal punishment (Opens in new window) in which the prisoner’s hands and legs are strapped to a specially designed frame, exposing the buttocks while protective padding is placed around the surrounding area. In this rigidly secured position, a caning officer delivers forceful blows with a cane, inflicting deep lacerations and excruciating pain.

The court majority held that judicial caning could not be singled out as uniquely “cruel, inhumane, or degrading” compared with other harsh but non-corporal punishments. It went on to find that the punishment’s moral efficacy or social desirability lay beyond the court’s remit.

The dissenting view, by contrast, was unusually forceful and expansive. It noted that judicial caning carries a risk of death and argued that Malaysia’s Constitution rests on a principle of proportionality in punishment, one that judicial caning violates given its potential to cause “permanent physical and psychological scars”.

The dissent also pointed to a degree of “subjectivity and disparity in execution” that violates equal treatment under law: an implicit acknowledgment that caning officers may mete out punishment with as much force and malice as their temperament dictates, with virtually no accountability.

Judicial caning is carried out in only three (Opens in new window) directly neighbouring Southeast Asian countries: Malaysia, Singapore, and Brunei. It is a relic (Opens in new window) of British colonialism, predating independence in all three.

But unlike other efforts to undo or erase the tainted aspects of that colonial legacy, all three countries appear determined to preserve this law – one that gives courts the extraordinary means to blur the line between just punishment and torture, defined (Opens in new window) by the UN Convention Against Torture as the infliction of “severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental,” for, among other purposes, “punishing [a person] for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed.”

A society that permits such atrocities still lacks the moral courage to hold a mirror to its own deformed face.

This form of judicial caning is not to be confused with Shariah caning, which is more humane by comparison, as it expressly prohibits the use of excessive force (Opens in new window). Unlike judicial caning, which is carried out in secret, with neither lawyers nor family present, Shariah caning is carried out in the open, with shame – rather than brute suffering – intended to act as the primary deterrent.

Judicial caning is often said to be reserved for the “worst of the worst”. In Brunei, a father was sentenced (Opens in new window) in August 2026 to 15 strokes of a cane alongside 27 years of imprisonment for the 2024 rape of his daughter. In Malaysia, a man whose death sentence for murdering his daughter was commuted (Opens in new window) on appeal was instead given 12 strokes of the cane and 40 years of imprisonment.

However, judicial caning is not just reserved for acts of extreme violence. In Malaysia, a man convicted of drug trafficking had his death sentence commuted (Opens in new window) in June 2026 to 24 strokes of the cane and an effective life sentence.

Palace of Justice building, which houses Malaysia's Court of Appeal and Federal Court, in Putrajaya, Malaysia (Slices of Light/Flickr under CC)

Proponents of judicial caning are seeking to expand its use to include crimes of even lesser severity. Singapore has recently expanded the use of judicial caning to include scam-related offences. In April 2026, a money mule convicted of helping to collect roughly S$8,000 from an elderly scam victim received (Opens in new window) one stroke of the cane and seven months’ imprisonment.

International human rights organisations have long been critical of the practice of judicial caning in Southeast Asia. A landmark 2010 report (Opens in new window) by Amnesty International sounded the alarm on experience in Malaysia, in which caning officers “deploy their full body force” when executing a stroke, often resulting in subcutaneous fat being instantaneously “crushed into pulp” and prisoners frequently losing continence out of fear or pain. In 2018, the International Commission of Jurists called for judicial caning to be rejected, describing (Opens in new window) it as an “archaic, inhumane form of punishment”. In 2023, the Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network urged (Opens in new window) the Malaysian government to “study the removal of whipping as a punishment” following its decision to abolish mandatory death penalty sentences.

Because judicial caning survives in only three small countries in one corner of the world, the global resistance to it has remained remarkably muted. Compared with the campaigns against other forms of torture and the movement to abolish the death penalty, opposition to judicial caning barely rises above a whisper.

Much of the modern world has moved on from arbitrary, cruel forms of punishment, understanding that the punishment meted out to a criminal, however egregious the crime, is, to a considerable degree, a reflection of society itself.

As long as there are still blood-soaked canes being washed and polished, ready for fresh use, a society that permits such atrocities still lacks the moral courage to hold a mirror to its own deformed face.

About the author

Ryner Lai

Ryner Lai is a journalist and former medical doctor covering global health policy, international health advocacy, and their impact on frontline healthcare and public health outcomes.

Topics

Human rights Southeast Asia Malaysia Singapore Brunei