APRIL 29 — Contract killing is an intentional homicide where a person is paid or induced to kill another.
It is a premeditated and calculated crime that poses a serious threat to public order and safety.
In Malaysia, while contract killings do not occur with the frequency seen in some jurisdictions, several high-profile cases in recent decades have brought public attention to the phenomenon.
These crimes often involve professional assassins, organised syndicates, or individuals coerced by financial desperation, reflecting a disturbing commodification of violence.
From a legal standpoint, Malaysian law provides a comprehensive framework to address and prosecute contract killings.
Under the Penal Code, contract killing falls squarely within the ambit of Section 302, which prescribes the punishment for murder which is death or imprisonment for life (following the abolition of the mandatory death penalty in 2023).
If a person hires another to commit murder, they may also be charged under Section 109 (abetment) or Section 120B (criminal conspiracy), depending on their level of involvement in the planning or execution of the crime.
In more complex cases, additional legal instruments may be invoked.
The Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma) may apply in situations involving organised criminal groups.
Contract killing is an intentional homicide where a person is paid or induced to kill another. ― Reuters pic
This legislation allows for extended detention, surveillance, and special trial procedures.
However, Sosma’s application remains controversial due to concerns regarding its impact on due process rights and potential for abuse.
Several landmark cases in Malaysia illustrate how contract killings are carried out and prosecuted.
One of the most prominent was the assassination of Hussain Ahmad Najadi, the founder of Arab-Malaysian Bank.
He was shot at close range, with seven rounds fired in broad daylight as he was exiting a Chinese temple in Kuala Lumpur on 29 July 2013.
Investigations revealed that the killing was orchestrated by a businessman with a land dispute motive.
The hired killer, Koong Swee Kwan was convicted and sentenced to death.
However, the mastermind fled the country, and his extradition remains unresolved.
This case highlighted the nexus between commercial disputes and violent criminal outsourcing.
Another notable case is the 2015 murder of Deputy Public Prosecutor Kevin Morais, whose body was found in a cement-filled drum.
The case involved six men including military doctors and intermediaries, one of whom admitted to hiring others to carry out the murder.
The prosecution linked the killing to a corruption prosecution in which Morais was involved.
All six individuals were convicted and sentenced to death.
This case underscores the potential for contract killing to serve as a tool for obstructing justice.
Similarly, the 2016 murder of Sarawakian activist and politician Bill Kayong further illustrates the dangers posed by contract killings.
He was assassinated in Miri, Sarawak in 2016 due to his advocacy for indigenous land rights.
Mohamad Fitri Pauzi, a nightclub bouncer was convicted of the murder and sentenced to death in 2018, with his appeals rejected by higher courts in 2020, 2022 and 2024.
Three other individuals — Lie Chang Loon, Chin Wei Chung, and Datuk Stephen Lee Chee Kiang were acquitted due to lack of evidence, while a fifth suspect, Kong Sien Ming, was deported from China in 2021 but later released on police bail without charges.
This case raised serious concerns about inadequate protection mechanisms, witness intimidation, evidentiary standards and international cooperation in extraditing fugitives particularly in the absence of bilateral treaties.
These cases demonstrate that contract killings in Malaysia are typically motivated by various factors.
Common motives include economic incentives such as financial gain, inheritance disputes, or commercial disagreements; organised crime where syndicates recruit individuals with no direct connection to the victim, complicating investigations; and, power and control particularly in cases where the intent is to silence whistleblowers or intimidate political and legal figures.
Given the clandestine nature of these crimes, the separation between mastermind and assassin, and the frequent use of intermediaries, law enforcement efforts are often hindered.
Investigations are further complicated when witnesses are unwilling to come forward or are subject to intimidation or tampering.
Prosecuting contract killings is, therefore, an inherently complex process.
Prosecutors must often rely on circumstantial evidence, forensic analysis, and accomplice testimony.
When the contract killer has no direct relationship with the mastermind, the evidentiary chain can become weak, increasing the likelihood of acquittal if the prosecution fails to establish a definitive link between the hirer and the killer.
This evidentiary gap can prevent the case from meeting the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
To effectively combat contract killing, Malaysia must adopt a multi-pronged strategy.
Several policy and enforcement recommendations can be considered.
First, strengthen witness protection mechanisms by developing a more robust and transparent framework to protect whistleblowers and key witnesses in contract killing cases.
Second, enhance forensic capabilities through improvements in crime scene reconstruction, ballistic analysis, and digital forensics to bolster the strength of evidence presented in court.
Third, regulate private security and firearms by intensifying efforts to curb the illegal arms trade and increase oversight of private investigators who may act as intermediaries in such crimes.
Fourth, increase public awareness through campaigns that educate the public on the severe legal consequences of hiring contract killers and the criminal liability of all involved parties.
In conclusion, contract killing remains one of the most premeditated and heinous forms of homicide in Malaysia.
While a legal framework exists to prosecute such crimes, enforcement continues to be challenged by procedural, evidentiary, and jurisdictional limitations.
By studying key cases and reinforcing legal, investigative, and policy mechanisms, Malaysia can take more decisive steps to deter contract killings and uphold the rule of law.
Ultimately, it is imperative that such crimes are not only punished but also proactively prevented through a combination of legislative reform, judicial integrity, and public vigilance.
*Dr. Haezreena Begum Abdul Hamid is a Criminologist and Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Law, University of Malaya. She can be reached at [email protected].
**This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
