Taiping Prison - Alleged assault that led to one inmate's death. What was most disturbing is that these victims are NOT convicted prisoners serving their sentence, but are REMAND presumed innocent inmates yet to be tried and convicted of the crimes they are being accused of.
There are 2 kinds of inmates in prisons -
(1) Those found GUILTY, convicted and sentenced to prison.., AND
(2) Those whose trial are yet to start or finish - not yet convicted, and as such are PRESUMED INNOCENT. They are people that cannot afford BAIL, their bail application was denied by Court, and worse Parliament by law denied them Bail(so, Courts have no choice in the matter) - called REMAND Prisoners
Should REMAND Prisoners be Treated Differently from Convicted Prisoners Serving Prison Sentences?
YES, they must.
Now, these REMAND presumed innocent prisoners are generally not detained with convicted prisoners... this is GOOD.
But, other than this - are they treated just like prisoners serving sentences? Are they placed in lock-ups or prison cells and permitted out of their cells on certain times only? Are they also subjected to restricted visits just like prisoners serving their sentences? Are their mails also subject to 'censorship'? Are they also denied access to smartphones, internet, etc.. Are they also getting assaulted or TORTURED by prison officers?
IF YES, THEN THIS A PROBLEM - remembering that they are merely REMAND presumed innocent detainees - they are NOT guilty persons serving out their prison sentences...
In my opinion, they should be accorded good living conditions (maybe even single occupancy units), and free to use smartphones, internet, watch TV and all other things a normal citizen enjoys > They are in DETENTION because they simply cannot afford BAIL, and/or is Denied Bail by Parliament enacted bad laws, or for some special reasons. They should not be allowed to leave the Detention Premises - but allowed to live humanely as others.
The problem is the BAIL amounts - courts may not be considering their socioeconomic situation or POVERTY, and maybe imposing TOO HIGH a BAIL. Even a Bail of RM5,000 may be unaffordable to a B40 person earning minimum wage of RM1,700.
The Sessions Court today slapped Umno president Ahmad Zahid Hamidi with 45 charges related to criminal breach of trust, money laundering and corrupt practices, with both the prosecution and his lawyers agreeing to a sum of RM2 million as bail.- FMT, 19/10/2018
Former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak was granted bail of RM3.5 million, after he claimed trial to 25 charges of corruption and money laundering involving some RM2.3 billion linked to 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB).He was released on bail with two sureties, with payment to commence tomorrow by an initial sum of RM1 million, followed by RM500,000 on each business day from Monday (Sept 24) until Friday (Sept 28). - Edge, 20/9/2018
The primary purpose of bail is to ensure that an accused person appears in court for trial or other legal proceedings, while also allowing them to be released from custody before their trial. It's a mechanism to balance the need to hold individuals accountable for alleged crimes with the presumption of innocence and the right to liberty before conviction.
Denial of bail is because there is a RISK that the accused may run away...
This is 2025 - and things have changed a lot. There is something called electronic monitoring
Denial of bail - RISK or possibility that the accused if released may tamper with evidence/witnesses... To deny bail for this reason requires some PROOF - mere possibility insufficient
Evidence of Risk: A mere allegation is insufficient to deny bail. There must be some material or information on record that substantiates the apprehension of tampering.
Should the government introduce a scheme that will assist the POOR so these accused presumed innocent can afford to be free on BAIL and to also be able to have a FAIR TRIAL..like the Justice Fund in Thailand.
In Thailand, with the passing of the Justice Fund Act, B.E. 2558 (2015), there is now legal assistance provided by government made available to low-income people so that they could have proper legal defence in court and could be released immediately on bail whilst awaiting their trial to end. Between October 1, 2021 and March 31, 2022, this fund has approved THB190 million to help low-income people related to lawsuits against them … helped 1,425 people fight legal cases in court …also provided money to help 473 people offer financial guarantee for release on bail …’(Nation, 15/4/2022)
The trial of these remand prisoners should be PRIORITIZED and should speedily start and end maybe in 3 months.
We have heard how powerful people like Najib and Zahid Hamidi was DISCHARGED because their trial was delayed in starting, or delayed(in the case of Zahid) because prosecution need more time to investigate - so, the same should apply to these REMAND prisoners > If the trial does not start within 3 months, then they should be immediately DISCHARGED - they can always be charged again when the prosecution and courts are ready to start the trial. Likewise, when the prosecution or court delays a speedy trial by 3 months, then they should be discharged - always can be charged again when prosecution/court ready to proceed.
This way, we also solve the prison overcrowding problem - and it does JUSTICE. Remember a REMAND prisoner may eventually be found NOT GUILTY (Remember Yusoff Rawther who languished in detention for
An injustice for Yusoff Rawther, who has been held in remand for nine months because the law denies bail, walked out a free man not found guilty today after the High Court acquitted him of drug trafficking and the possession of two imitation pistols. Investigate Yusoff Rawther’s claim of being a Victim of Entrapment, and how do Malaysia compensate him for 9 months of pre-conviction detention only to be finally found NOT GUILTY?
Then, there has that INFAMOUS GISBH cases - many are languishing as remand prisoners - it going to be a year - when will the trials begin.
Many INNOCENT, victims of prolonged remand detention, sometimes do later plead guilty - just to get certainty of the sentence, and when they will be finally FREE. This is the consequence of denial of BAIL, and the denial of a SPEEDY TRIAL... A GROSS MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE.
We are talking now that CRIMINAL Najib Razak may end up with house arrest serving his remaining prison sentence > Thus better to talk about 'house arrest' for those about 25,000 Remand Prisoners who have yet not been convicted yet...
I would have expected that our Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, who served time in PRISON serving his prison sentence, would be more concerned about this GROSS Injustice that happened in Prison - more so, to REMAND Prisoners - not yet found GUILTY by God.
How these prison officers treated them are SHOCKING - and, sadly no action has been taken by the Home Minister or the PM to reprimand the government employees - who hopefully not be protected by Anwar's administration...
SUHAKAM Public Inquiry into Alleged Human Rights Violations at Taiping Prison
SUARAM is actively documenting and monitoring the ongoing public inquiry into human rights violations at Taiping Prison on 17 January 2025. Convened by the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM), the inquiry aims to identify these violations and examine how and why they occurred, as well as determine the parties responsible and recommend measures to prevent their recurrence. As part of this process, SUARAM is also supporting the families of affected detainees in their pursuit of truth, justice, and institutional accountability.
Chronology of the Incidents
On 17 January 2025, more than 100 detainees at Taiping Prison were brutally assaulted by over 60 armed and masked prison officers in Dewan B. The following recounts the barbaric assault.
Pre-Assault
The violence was preceded by a peaceful sit-in by detainees appealing not to be transferred to Block E. The detainees were well aware that the particular block was a decrepit part of Taiping Prison. Some of them had lived there before and shared first-hand accounts of poor sanitation, dilapidated infrastructure, delayed requests for medications, and restrictions on recreation and bathing.
-
“rosak”
-
“banyak nyamuk”, “ada lipas dan tikus”
-
“ubat akan lambat datang”
-
“banjir” ketika hujan lebat
Having established the above, what the detainees were peacefully protesting for were simply basic rights,
live in cells that are well-maintained (structurally sound and basic
sanitary), not overcrowded (three instead of five detainees/cell), equal
access to ‘keistimewaan’ (referring to the recreational and religious activities), and to shower without water rations.
Subsequently, there were at least three ‘negotiations’ between the
prison officers and detainee-appointed representatives. In the first two
‘negotiations’ especially, officers responded vaguely and offered no
decision, asking the detainees to wait as they consult with their
higher-ups. However, indications and attempts to persuade the
detainee-appointed representatives were claimed to be made as suggestive
words such as ‘cepat-cepat jalan la, jangan kasi masalah’, ‘nanti sampai Block E, akan dapat aktiviti’
by an alleged UKP officer, which in hindsight, can be interpreted as a
sign to quickly vacate the hall. Yet, as no resolution was given, the
detainees sat in Dewan B in continued protest.
Shortly after, an officer had entered the hall and asked them to vacate
it as it would be utilised for PPI (Program Pembangunan Insan), and
claimed he would give everyone just a minute to move to Block E. At that
time, the detainees were sitting on the floor (many without their
shirts on), with some already getting on their feet and ready to leave
the hall when detainees heard the banging of shields (including against
the pillars of the block; ‘pukul besi tiang blok’) and loud
proclamations by prison officers outside the hall. At most 30 seconds
later, masked officers with shields entered the hall, surrounded the
detainees in the hall on all sides, including along the sides and at the
back of the hall, taking position and preparing themselves to inflict a
well-orchestrated assault onto the detainees later that afternoon
he detainees were ordered into a surrender position—tunduk, with their hands behind their heads. Despite having complied with the order, the detainees were still assaulted. Officers beat them using cota, rotan and kayu, kicked them, and dragged them out of the hall to the front of Block B. Detainees were handcuffed there and beaten, kicked, and walked over by officers while in the surrender position. They were also pepper sprayed.
The assault was not impulsive – it was long-awaited. Whilst being beaten up, one detainee recalled overhearing an officer say, “Kami tunggu lama untuk lesen ini.” While under assault, detainees were forced to apologise to the officers. Profanities such as “tahanan mahkamah tinggi semua anjing” and “babi” were hurled at them.
“Tuan X pukul kita macam haiwan.”
(Sir X hit us like animal)
The detainees were then forced to duck walk while handcuffed to Block C or Block E. An officer asked a detainee where his head injury was—and then deliberately sprayed pepper spray directly over the open wound. One detainee was beaten to the extent that he was left without pants. He only received clothing after arriving at Block E.
One detainee was dragged across rough tarmac until his buttocks were severely bruised and abraded. Days later, he still could not stand during muster due to the extent of his injuries.
Lead-Up to the Assault
The violence was preceded by a peaceful sit-in by detainees appealing not to be transferred to Block E. That particular block was widely known by the detainees to be a decrepit part of Taiping Prison. Some of them had lived there before and shared first-hand accounts of poor sanitation, dilapidated infrastructure and restrictions on recreation and bathing.
-
“rosak”
-
“banyak nyamuk”, “ada lipas dan tikus”
-
“banjir” ketika hujan lebat
There were at least three ‘negotiations’ between the prison officers and detainee-appointed representatives. In the first two ‘negotiations’ especially, officers responded vaguely and offered no decision, asking the detainees to wait as they consult with their higher-ups. As tensions escalated and no resolution was given, the detainees sat in Dewan B in continued protest. Instead of a negotiated solution, they were instead met with coordinated violence later that afternoon.
After the Violence
Despite visible and often severe injuries, many detainees received inadequate medical attention immediately after the violence took place. Some received painkillers and gauze to dress their own wounds, without direct care from a medical assistant or doctor. Access to the prison clinic varied, with some detainees only receiving attention a day or several days later. Out of the 12 detainees who testified, at least two were sent to hospital on the same day for treatment. For other detainees, hospital treatment was delayed by one to two weeks.
Because of the intense pain caused by pepper spray exposure, detainees were unable to shower for two full days.
For two weeks, detainees did not have access to the clothing that they brought with them during the transfer, nor were they allowed visits and calls from their families. Families who attempted to visit within that period were informed that the detainees were under ‘quarantine’ following the prison transfer - a justification used to conceal the violence and obstruct outside scrutiny. - SUARAM
SUHAKAM Public Inquiry at Kamunting Correctional Centre (KEMTA)
The public inquiry by SUHAKAM has been ongoing since 9 June 2025 at the Kamunting Correctional Centre (KEMTA). Phase 1 was conducted from 9 to 12 June 2025, followed by Phase 2 from 23 to 26 June 2025.
Suhakam inquiry reveals delay in medical help may have cost Taiping Prison inmate’s life
“I don’t have the qualifications to assess if someone is sick or faking it.”
Those were the words of Taiping Prison sergeant Azwan Mohammed when shown the closed-circuit television (CCTV) footage of fallen inmate Gan Chin Eng, 62, during a public inquiry by the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam).
Azwan, 38, served at Taiping Prison from March 2, 2008, to June 30, 2025, before being transferred to the Machang Moral Correctional Facility in Kelantan on July 1. He was testifying before the inquiry panel investigating alleged human rights violations at Taiping Prison involving over 100 inmates on Jan 17, 2025.
Gan died hours after the alleged assault from abdominal injuries caused by blunt trauma, as first reported by Twentytwo13.
The inquiry is chaired by Suhakam chairman Datuk Seri Mohd Hishamudin Md Yunus and commissioner Dr Farah Nini Dusuki.
Lawyer T. Shashi Devan, who is representing 99 detainees involved in the alleged assault, questioned Azwan on his apparent lack of empathy towards Gan.
Shashi: As you can see from the
footage, Uncle Gan is not well. Is it so difficult for you to inform
medical personnel that there is an ill inmate?
Azwan:
There were many injured besides Gan. If I were to call for help and say
there were many injured inmates, they (medical personnel) probably
wouldn’t come.
Mohd Hishamudin then asked Azwan why he didn’t intervene, as it was obvious Gan was in serious pain.
Azwan: I’m not medically trained.
Shashi:
Do you agree that if you had followed proper procedures and informed
the medical staff about Uncle Gan’s condition, he could have been saved?
Azwan: Maybe.
Shashi: Can I say that your failure to do your duty contributed to his death?
Azwan: I didn’t know he was going to die. If I had known, I would have acted sooner.
Farah Nini: None of us know when we are going to die. But shouldn’t you at least have tried to help him?
Azwan:
As I have said, I was trying to settle my duties one by one. The main
one was to get the inmates into the cells, so we could then help the
others.
Shashi: If I were to sum up your testimony,
you’re saying the task of moving prisoners into their cells is more
important than their health, as you don’t seem affected or concerned by
what happens to them.
Azwan: I was doing my job, step by step until it was done.
Shashi: I suggest your task was prioritised over the health of the inmates.
Azwan: I was only doing my job, one step at a time.
Azwan was one of three witnesses who testified on the 15th day of the inquiry.
No time stamp, many unanswered questions
Members of the media and public, who have not been allowed to view the CCTV footage since the inquiry began on June 9, learnt that there was no time stamp on the footage. This was revealed after Shashi asked Azwan how quickly he had acted to send Gan for treatment after ensuring the inmates were secured in their cells.
At the end of proceedings, Shashi asked the panel:
i. If it had filed police reports against Taiping Prison officers for allegedly perjuring themselves, as their statements recorded during Suhakam’s investigations in February and March, and during the inquiry greatly differed and did not match the CCTV evidence.
ii. If the Prison Department had responded to Suhakam’s request to review Taiping Prison’s internal phone records.
iii. If a copy of the Standing Orders could be obtained, as witnesses repeatedly referred to them to justify their use of batons and pepper spray.
Suhakam’s assisting inquiry officer, Simon Karunagaram, said no decision had been made on filing a police report. He added that the Prison Department had responded to their query and that the prison’s deputy director would bring the internal phone when he testifies.
Prison Department representative Amirah Abdul Razak said she would provide Shashi and the panel with a copy of the Standing Orders but reminded them it could not be shared as it falls under the Official Secrets Act.
Earlier, warden Fazdrul Rosaiman Dalves said he found it odd to be instructed to wear full body armour before assisting in the transfer of inmates from Hall B to Block E in January.
Fazdrul, 32, was one of four officers in full body armour at the facility on Jan 17. He admitted seeing at least two other officers in full body armour using excessive force during the operation, but said he could not identify them as his helmet visor was fogged up and he had difficulty breathing due to the body armour’s weight and constriction.
Another witness, Corporal Zairulazy Mohd Napiah, 41, admitted he used pepper spray on the inmates on Jan 17, despite having no formal training.
He claimed he did not target anyone specifically, but sprayed it randomly to weaken the inmates.
Zairulazy initially denied using any physical force, but when confronted with video evidence, admitted to the abuse.
The inquiry at Suhakam’s headquarters in Kuala Lumpur continues tomorrow. - Yahoo News
Posts
