PUBLIC Asset Declaration - a PUBLIC Monitoring mechanism to DETER corruption/abuse of powers/wrongful enrichment - 1st when come into power, and then when they are out of power - MINIMUM 2 needed.

PUBLIC ASSET DECLARATION for MPs, Ministers, ADUNs, Senators and also SENIOR Law Enforcement Officers...First, UNDERSTAND the Reason for this > NO USE if just one asset declaration. The reason for this is TO DETER corruption and wrongful enrichment of self/family/friends whilst in POWER as a Minister/MP/ADUN/Senator - a MECHANISM for the PUBLIC(not MACC or PM) to MONITOR....

OBJECTIVE - To DETER corruption/abuse of power/WRONGFUL enrichment - so we need ONE when they come into power, and definitely ONE when they leave power/position - thus people can see if their INCREASE of wealth have NOT been by reason of corruption/abuse of power/WRONGFUL enrichment... If only ONE, it is USELESS. It must be a DECLARATION to the Public (not to just PM or MACC or...) > PUBLIC Monitors...

To date, the PUBLIC ASSET DECLARATION, by PAST governments where there was ONLY ONE is a JOKE. It fails to fulfill its OBJECTIVE - i.e public monitoring, which needs ONE(when they come into power/position), and TWO(when they go out of office/position) and people can see if there is any 'WRONGFUL ENRICHMENT' of not just self, but also family members too... 

After Anwar Ibrahim became Prime Minister - there has been NONE? Earlier the reason given was that they were improving the FORMAT ...and till today, still NO PUBLIC ASSET DECLARATION - we now do not know how much Anwar, the Ministers, MPs, ADUNs, Senators HAD when they were elected/appointed > so how do we compare with what they have NOW? We know their salaries/allowances > so we can figure out whether there is so much MORE that cannot have been acquired by their LEGAL INCOME - hence, was there Abuse of Power, Taking of BRIBES or other wrongful enrichment??? 

NOW, do we need a NEW LAW governing PUBLIC ASSET declarations of MP/ADUN/Senator/Ministers  > Preferably YES - and lying in this asset declaration would be a SERIOUS Crime...

- There should also be a MECHANISM for the Public to expose LIES in these politicians declaration - maybe EXPOSE assets not declared,... which should later be investigated by a relevant body, best under PARLIAMENT - and not the government.

NO USE FOR ASSET DECLARATIONS to PM, MACC,... that is 'SECRET' not available for PUBLIC to see...

Why NOT MACC? Well, the Chief is picked by the PM, who also has the power to remove at anytime - this compromises its INDEPENDENCE. Would all MALAYSIANS believe if MACC (when under AZAM BAKI) says all is OK - no signs of wrongful enrichment? I am afraid, most people have LOST TRUST on MACC and a lot of law enforcement in Malaysia..

If MACC is used, it is also an ABUSE OF POWER by the Prime Minister and Government - WHY? Because MACC can and should only demand ASSET DECLARATIONS in certain situations - i.e. when there is reasonable ground to believe.. that suspect has 'that any property is held or acquired by any person as a result of or in connection with an offence under this Act,...'.

The wordings are CRYSTAL CLEAR - Asset Declaration ONLY on reasonable ground to believe ...that any property is held or acquired by any person as a result of or in connection with an offence under this Act ' - so, there must be 'reasonable ground to believe' that an OFFENCE had been committed.

Thus, MACC asking for ASSET DECLARATIONS from candidates of political parties going to contest elections(so political party can CLAIM the candidate is a GOOD person who is CLEAN and did not commit any CRIME) or to ask for ASSET DECLARATIONS from MPs/ADUNs/Senators/Ministers/ etc simply is WRONG and a possible ABUSE OF POWER. If MACC asks for ASSET Declarations - then the presumption must be that MACC has reasonable ground to believe that said person committed a CRIME. After Anti-Corruption agency gives the 'GREEN LIGHT' - how many Ministers have later been charged?

Thus, MACC or any Malaysian Law Enforcement, cannot ask or PROCESS ASSET DECLARATIONS - simply, possibly to convince the public that the Cabinet Members, MPs are CLEAN - no crimes committed.  

Section 36  MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION ACT 2009 - Powers to obtain information 

(1) Notwithstanding any written law or rule of law to the contrary, an officer of the Commission of the rank of Commissioner and above, if he has reasonable ground to believe, based on the investigation carried out by an officer of the Commission, that any property is held or acquired by any person as a result of or in connection with an offence under this Act, may by written notice-

(a) require that person to furnish a statement in writing on oath or affirmation-

(i) identifying every property, whether movable or immovable, whether wit..

Thus, the Prime Minister or the GOVERNMENT cannot use MACC or any law enforcement to evaluate PUBLIC ASSET DECLARATIONS - if the government want to give MACC to look into asset declarations to determine whether it is TRUE or LIES > then the Law need to be amended....

Anwar Ibrahim agrees that past ASSET DECLARATIONS are just a POLITICAL GIMMICK... 

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim said the ministers’ asset declarations must be made in a responsible and transparent manner rather than just a political gimmick. Anwar who is also Finance Minister said he was in discussions with various agencies including the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) to make the asset declaration processes more transparent.

“Declaration of assets was a farce in the past as far as I’m concerned. You can find people having hundreds of millions of ringgit and still declaring RM11 million or RM12 million. So I think what we need to do is to make sure parameters are clear.” He said this when asked whether his Cabinet ministers had declared their assets to him and when it could be made public during the press conference after the 2023 Budget Dialogue Council themed ‘Developing a Madani Nation’ here today. - Ministry of Finance Website, 17/1/2023

Even before we had a LAW - the idea behind PUBLIC ASSET DECLARATION was GOOD. It showed TRANSPARENCY of Government and Parliament - but it should be at the very least done TWICE (better more regularly), once when they come into POWER/position, and the 2nd when they leave the position/power > so PUBLIC can see if there are LIES, and more important UNJUST or wrongful ENRICHMENT of self, family members, friends...

Even without a LAW - lies can still be a CRIME.

A LAW is definitely better-

LIES in Asset Declaration can be a CRIME carrying a DETERRENT Sentence. Even those who LIED, could be immediately disqualified as MP/Senators/ADUNs/Ministers

WHO Monitors is IMPORTANT? Best, that it be PARLIAMENT or State Legislative Assembly

There MUST be a mechanism for PUBLIC to be able to EXPOSE lies

There must be also someone to INVESTIGATE allegations of LIES...

What ASSETS should be declared - Evey thing - Monies Received, Shares/Stock, PENSIONS, Additional Income received by appointment to government agencies, GLCs or companies [This practice of appointing ADUNs and MPs into GLCs/Government Agencies MUST stop - as it compromises duties of Backbenchers and Opposition to be an effective check and balance of the Government of the DAY, and such appointment may also be an 'ABUSE OF POWER' ], all Bank Accounts in Malaysia and overseas, all monies held in 'borrowed accounts' or by other persons on behalf of said Minister/MP

Johor DAP has clarified that the party had offered to appoint incumbent Skudai assemblyman Marina Ibrahim to helm a statutory body and not a government-linked company (GLC) as seen in a letter that went viral.  

There must also be a DECLARATION that no 'insider information' was given to 3rd parties, which could then buy(or sell) land or shares/stocks because they now have information of government plans before it was made known to the public...

It must also include family members, and other close associates...

NOW, BERSAMA is also promising PUBLIC ASSET DECLARATION - and they must clarify - is it going to be the same as the past, which is USELESS if the intention to to COMBAT wrongful enrichment and corruption > which requires at least 2 - or better still ANNUAL Public Asset Declarations... 

  

 

MS - Taiping Prison Do NOT Delay Charging in Criminal Courts > Do not use 'delay tactics' like Special Task Force to investigate SUHAKAM???

 

Media Statement – 10/6/2026

Taiping Prison – No Task Force or Cabinet Committees, NFAs or Other Delays, Just Prosecute fast Prison Officers that TORTURED and assaulted about 100 detainees causing serious injury and 1 death

Justice DELAYED is Justice Denied

Malaysia, sadly, has a bad track record of successfully investigating, prosecuting and convicting public officers, including law enforcement officers, that have committed crimes of torture, and even causing death, many a time in government premises and/or in the presence of other public officers.

SUHAKAM (Malaysian Human Rights Commission) public inquiry findings dated 25/5/2026 into Taiping Prison incident of 17/1/2024 dated also exposed LIES and false reports by public officers which were exposed by credible CCTV evidence during the Inquiry, cases of destruction of evidence, and also the failings of the police investigations. The incident left ONE dead, and about 100 over detainees injured, some grievously, whilst being hand-cuffed.

Bad Record of Prosecution and Conviction of Public Officers

How many public officers in Malaysia have been charged, and successfully convicted for crimes of extrajudicial killings or ‘murder’ or torture in Malaysia?

The ‘…Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail said today a total of 327 criminals were shot dead by police in 193 cases between 2015 and 2025... Malaysian citizens accounted for the highest number of criminals shot dead at 172 people, followed by 68 Indonesians, 24 Vietnamese, 23 Filipinos, seven Myanmar nationals, three Africans, two Bangladeshis and one Thai….’ (FMT, 10/2/2026) How many police officers have to date been charged in court for these extrajudicial killing or murder, and mind you, it is the Court that determines Guilt, or considers any possible police’s defence and acquits them or NOT?

Likewise, it terms of the many deaths in custody over the years. ‘…A total of 42 deaths in custody were recorded in 2025, says Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail. He said the figure comprised eight cases in prison and 34 under police care including 22 deaths while under police detention and 12 in police lock-ups…’(Star, 5/2/2026). It may be true, that some of the deaths could have been by reason of natural causes, but it has also been shown that many of these deaths are by reason of torture, beatings or other acts/omissions of public officers. Again, the question is about the number of public officers have been charged, and successfully convicted? The Civil Courts have on several occasions have found these officers liable – thus why no successful criminal convictions is a relevant question.

WORRY About Government Delays and Failure to Charge in Court Public Officer Crime Perpetrators

MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) is appalled that Home Minister is now vaguely talking about conducting ‘further investigations into the findings and conclusions of…’ the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) rather that clearly stating that Government will act towards ensuring that all those criminally liable will be charged forthwith for the crimes committed. (Malay Mail, 8/6/2026). The Minister’s statement would have been clearer if he assured us that all criminally liable will be promptly investigated, charged in Court, tried and convicted if found guilty by Court. However, the Minister’s statement is vague.

MADPET worries that the Government may yet again NOT speedily act and charge ALL crime perpetrators, but may DELAY and focus rather on investigations to counter the findings of SUHAKAM, as it has done before with regard to SUHAKAM’s finding on enforced disappearance. And, the end result, may yet again be that none of these public officers are charged, tried and convicted - JUSTICE will not be done.

In this case, SUHAKAM found that the torture, beating and violence was INITIATED by the Prison officers against 100 plus detainees (who were not criminals convicted serving their sentence, but detainees who could not afford BAIL, or denied Bail by law who are still waiting for their trials to begin/continue and end).(SUHAKAM Findings Report; SUHAKAM Media Statement 25/5/2026). When the torture commenced, the detainees were already hand-cuffed in the back, but were still subjected to beatings, assaults using wooden and metal batons, and even had their eyes sprayed with pepper spray.

It is disappointing when the Home Minister still now says that he is ‘very proud’ of the Prisons Department. ‘As for the reputation of the Prisons Department throughout my three years here, I am very proud of this department,” he said….’ (Malay Mail, 8/6/2026).

This makes one wonder whether the perceived government’s attitude and/or conduct of ‘protection’ of public officers may be TRUE.

Is it because the Minister and/or State wants to still project the impression that the Government and its public officers are perfect and will do no crimes? Now, if public officers are found guilty of committing crimes whilst on duty – blame will naturally also fall on the responsible Minister and Government, who failed in their duty and responsibility to ensure a CLEAN government with good public officers.

This is a MYTH, for there will always be ‘bad apples’ – and what the government must do is NOT cover-up their crimes, but take a strong stance that they be investigated, charged, tried and convicted, and if found guilty, a good government will also get rid of any ‘bad apples’. That is what the public expects of any good government.

No DELAY – just Charge ALL who Broke the Law FAST

MADPET is deeply concerned that the Home Minister and/or Government may yet again form some ‘Task Force’ to ‘investigate’ SUHAKAM’s findings, and thus delay taking action against the criminal perpetrators.

As previously stated, It happened before, for example with regards SUHAKAM’s finding of enforced disappearance of Raymon Koh and Amri Che Mat dated 3/4/2019, where SUHAKAM found that the police caused their disappearances. No one has since been charged to date for this enforced disappearance case.

What the government did then, was to form a Special Task Force(STF) to look into SUHAKAM’s findings, and then the Task Forced Report was classified secret and Malaysians are still waiting for access to these reports. Did the STF agree with SUHAKAM or not? If it agreed with SUHAKAM, why no action to identify the criminal perpetrators and charge them yet? Were they acting on their own or following someone’s orders?

In civil suits commenced by the families of said Raymond Koh and Amri, they had to apply for an order to get access to this STF report, and High Court did finally order access but with conditions. In Amri’s case, the court ordered the government – ‘…The High Court here today ordered the limited release of a special task force report that is classified as an official secret on the disappearance of activist Amri Che Mat within 30 days… Norhayati is prohibited from sharing the report with any member of the public, except for her lawyers…’(Malay Mail, 9/5/2023). She, subsequently won the case in November 2025.

No action, be it investigations and/or the charging of those criminally liable has happened yet.

In short, does this support the ‘suggestion’ of COVER-UP, possibly to ‘protect’ public officers and, maybe also the POLICE/State/the Minister responsible or the government? Other factors could also be the reason why no one was charged for crimes committed may be the failure of prosecution to obtain sufficient evidence to charge someone in Court, and, if so, the public must be informed.

MADPET hopes that in the Taiping prison case, such considerations that delay JUSTICE do not prevent the criminally liable from being charged, and properly prosecuted and possibly convicted.

Note that the Federal Constitution in Article 8(1) says that ‘(1) All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.’ – meaning that no one in Malaysia is above the law, and that includes public officers and Ministers too.

The question of ‘DOUBLE JEOPARDY’ – an excuse?

It is interesting that the Prison authority allegedly suggested that charging others or taking disciplinary actions would be ‘double jeopardy’ since maybe because 1 prison warden already charged in Court is odd and absurd.

Interestingly, another argument had also arose in the past, that if the said public officers had already been subjected to disciplinary action, it would be ‘double jeopardy’ if they are the charged for similar crimes in court.

It is an ABSURD proposition. A public officer can be charged if he commits a crime in court, and also be subjected to disciplinary action by the employer at the same time.

Under Malaysian law, you can still be charged in a criminal court even if disciplinary action (such as a warning or termination) has already been taken against you by your employer (in this case the Government).

The legal protection against double jeopardy (Article 7(2) of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia) only applies to being tried and punished twice for the exact same criminal offense by a court. This means you cannot be charged for the same offence in COURT twice.

Thus, even if disciplinary action already taken against a public officer, that public officer can still be charged for the CRIME he committed, even if the charge in front of the Disciplinary Board is the same or similar.

"The justification given by Prisons Department commissioner-general Datuk Abdul Aziz Abdul Razak that taking disciplinary action would result in double jeopardy is legally incorrect," Hishamudin said, adding that double jeopardy refers to double court proceedings on the same issue. "Failure to take any action against the prison personnel involved would create the impression that they enjoy special privileges and are immune from the law." (NST, 25/5/2026)

Charge ALL - Not just one or a few to satisfy public outrage.

It is noted that only 1 Prison warden charged with culpable homicide following inmate's death at Taiping prison (NST, 19/12/2025) but it is ODD since SUHAKAM’s finding points to violence inflicted by about 60 prison officers on about 100 detainees who were handcuffed in the back, where the deceased was one of the said detainees.

Thus, MADPET believes that rightfully all the said accomplices, who did inflict violence on the said deceased, Gan Chin Eng (aged 62), that resulted in his death, should also be charged in court, and for MURDER, not culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Other possible accomplices could be the doctor/medical officer, whose ‘delay’ and/or negligence could have caused the death, for if not Gan may not have died at all.

The charging of just ‘ONE’ seems also to be an attempt to pacify Malaysian’s anger, and ‘protect’ other criminals. It is the court, after a full trial, that will decide who is guilty of the crime, and who is guilty of lesser crimes or NOT. All persons involved must be charged.

Forget NOT Crimes of LIES, False Reports and Destruction of EVIDENCE

Note, from SUHAKAM’s findings, crimes committed and persons criminally liable includes; -

a)     ALL the Prison officers present on the day, who intentionally inflicted TORTURE, caused hurt and/or grievious hurt on the over 100 plus detainees and even DEATH of one – thus they should be investigated for the criminal offence of causing hurt (sec. 321 Penal Code), causing grievous hurt (sec. 322), Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means (sec. 324) and even MURDER (Section 302). Their responsible superiors may also be criminally liable.;

b)     The said Prison Officers also lied in reports made, and also during the SUHAKAM Inquiry – and their lies were ‘exposed’ by credible CCTV evidence – this are also CRIMES in Malaysia.; and  

c)     The said (or some) of the Prison Officers caused the destruction of relevant evidence – CCTV and VDO/Photographs in the handphones of the said officers This are also serious crimes, more so when it is done by public officers. [Sec. 201 Penal Code - Causing disappearance of evidence of an offence committed, or giving false information touching it, to screen the offender(up to 7-10 years imprisonment), Section 191 Giving false evidence, Section 192 Fabricating false evidence, and other offences.]No public officer can escape criminal liability on the grounds that he/she did so because of ORDERs from Superiors or even Ministers. Any public officer has the RIGHT to refuse to follow orders to do any act or omission, which is a crime and a violation of human rights. This principle is reflected also in Section 20(1) Police Act, which states, that ‘Every police officer shall perform such duties and exercise such powers as are by law imposed or conferred upon a police officer, and shall obey all lawful directions in respect of the execution of his office which he may from time to time receive from his superior officers in the Force.’ There is ONLY the duty to obey lawful directions – not an order to commit a crime or to violate human rights.

Prison Officers – Kindness and not allowed to strike prisoners unless..

It may also be relevant to look at the expected conduct of Prison Officers, Regulation 55(Duty of prison officers) in the PRISON REGULATIONS 2000, state ‘It is the duty of all prison officers to treat all prisoners with kindness and humanity, to listen patiently to and report their complaints or grievances, at the same time to be firm in maintaining order and discipline and enforcing the provisions of the Act, these Regulations and Commissioner General’s Standing Orders.’

On the Use of Force, Regulation 56 states, ‘(1) No officer shall strike a prisoner unless compelled to do so in self-defence or in defence of another person or prisoner or when ordered to inflict corporal punishment. (2) A prisoner struck by a prison officer in self-defence or in defence of another person or prisoner shall be examined as soon as possible by the Medical Officer and an immediate report of the incident shall be made to the Officer-in-Charge.’

Thus, the CRIMES committed by Prison Officers in the Taiping Prison incident, are most serious, and are also in breach of the law governing prisons. JUSTICE must be served

Thus, MADPET calls

a)     The Home Minister and/or Government to forthwith CLARIFY and confirm, that the Government’s stance is that all those who committed crimes will be speedily investigated, charged in court, accorded a fair trial, and if convicted be sentenced justly;

b)     That they not just be charged for the crimes of TORTURE, causing hurt/serious hurt and/or murder only, BUT also be charged for crimes of making False Reports, Lying at the SUHAKAM Inquiry, and also the crime of destruction of evidence;

c)     That all who gave ORDERs for officers to commit crimes and violate human rights of the detainees be charged for their crimes;

d)     That the Court, after convictions, ORDER that the Convicted pay compensation to all victims as provided for Section 426 Criminal Procedure Code;

e)     Noting SUHAKAM’s observation about the police investigations (para 61(h), page 19 of the Report), and the failures of the Attorney General’s Chambers (para 61(i), page 20), calls for a NEW independent police investigation team, and a new Deputy Public Prosecutor to deal with the criminal investigations, with a view of successfully convicting all criminals;

f)      Malaysia and the Government of Malaysia to ensure justice be done, and ensure all public officers that violate the law and human rights of detainees/suspects/persons be speedily dismissed as Malaysians want CLEAN and HONEST public officers, and ‘bad apples’ must be cast out speedily.

END ‘protection’ of Public Officers and politicians that commit CRIMES – ensure that All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law’ – and this includes ALL victims of those who violate laws and/or violate human rights.

Charles Hector

For and on behalf of MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) 

 

### Note after the Statement was issued, SUHAKAM also was reported in the media (see below) > it would be good if SUHAKAM provides regular updates on its website... It said it would convene an engagement session with relevant agencies to obtain updates and monitor follow-up actions arising from the inquiry.

 

Suhakam urges cops to swiftly complete Taiping prison riot probe

Yesterday

FMT Reporters

Commission welcomes minister's assurance the government is prepared to facilitate further investigations based on its inquiry findings and recommendations.

More than 100 inmates at Taiping prison were assaulted by about 60 wardens during a relocation exercise in January 2025, resulting in the death of one detainee. (Facebook pic)

PETALING JAYA:

The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) has called on the police to wrap up their investigations into the Taiping prison riot thoroughly and without delay, taking into account the findings from its public inquiry.

Suhakam welcomed home minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail’s assurance the government is prepared to facilitate further investigations based on its inquiry findings and recommendations.

In a statement, it said Saifuddin’s assurance that “what is wrong is wrong”, and that no wrongdoing would be protected, reflected an important commitment to accountability and the rule of law.

Suhakam said its public inquiry had uncovered serious human rights violations involving detainees, and raised concerns over the conduct of prison personnel, institutional accountability, and safeguards in places of detention.

“In this regard, Suhakam hopes that the police will complete their investigations thoroughly, independently and expeditiously, taking into account the findings and evidence presented during the public inquiry.

“Where sufficient evidence exists, appropriate criminal prosecution should be taken against all individuals found to have committed offences, regardless of rank or position,” it said.

Suhakam also welcomed the prisons department’s commitment to cooperate fully with the authorities and review the inquiry’s findings and recommendations.

It said it would convene an engagement session with relevant agencies to obtain updates and monitor follow-up actions arising from the inquiry.

More than 100 Taiping prison inmates were assaulted by about 60 wardens during a transfer exercise from Hall B to Block E on Jan 17 last year.

One detainee, Gan Chin Eng, died in the incident.

One warden has been charged with culpable homicide over Gan’s death, but Suhakam called for criminal charges to be filed against other wardens involved in the incident following its public inquiry. - FMT, 10/6/2026

 

‘What is wrong is wrong’: Home minister says police ready to pursue Kamunting prison probe based on Suhakam findings

The home minister said the government will not protect any party found responsible in connection with the Taiping prison incident, as authorities review Suhakam’s findings. — Picture by Raymond Manuel

Monday, 08 Jun 2026 3:36 PM MYT

PUTRAJAYA, June 8 — The government is prepared to undertake further investigations into the findings and conclusions of the public inquiry panel convened by the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia over last year’s incident involving the alleged ill-treatment of a newly admitted inmate at Kamunting Prison in Taiping, Perak.

Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail said the Royal Malaysia Police is expected to carry out or complete investigations into the incident based on Suhakam’s report, which he recently presented to the Cabinet.

“If a case has gone through an investigation process, regardless of which body conducted it, with convincing evidence and witnesses interviewed, and a report is subsequently produced.

“If it requires follow-up investigations by the police, for example, our principle is clear: what is right is right, what is wrong is wrong, and wrongdoing will not be defended.

“This is our very clear message. I believe Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Mohd Khalid Ismail will resume or complete any necessary investigations while taking Suhakam’s findings into account,” he said during the Home Ministry’s monthly assembly here today.

Saifuddin Nasution stressed that the government would not shield any party involved in the incident.

“Telling the truth may be bitter, but its long-term impact is far better. This is also a question of integrity within our organisation. As for the reputation of the Prisons Department throughout my three years here, I am very proud of this department,” he said.

On May 27, media reports said the Malaysian Prisons Department would fully cooperate with relevant authorities in reviewing the report and conclusions of Suhakam’s public inquiry panel into the alleged mistreatment of a new prisoner at Taiping Prison last year.

The department said it viewed seriously every finding, recommendation and issue raised in the report, including allegations relating to prison management and prison personnel in connection with the incident.

In its final findings on the inquiry into the riot at Taiping Prison on January 17, 2025, which resulted in the death of an elderly detainee, Suhakam’s Public Inquiry Panel recommended that the facility be converted into a museum, saying it was no longer suitable for use as a prison. — Bernama - Malay Mail. 8/6/2026

Suhakam urges action against Taiping Prison officers involved in violent incident

By Zaf Seraj

May 25, 2026 @ 2:44pm

Findings by Suhakam’s inquiry panel on the Jan 17, 2025 incident were delivered by chairman Datuk Seri Mohd Hishamuddin Md Yunus. - NSTP/FATHIL ASRI.

KUALA LUMPUR: The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) has demanded immediate disciplinary action against Taiping Prison officers involved in last year's violent incident, strongly rejecting claims that doing so would trigger "double jeopardy".

Findings by Suhakam's inquiry panel on the Jan 17, 2025 incident were delivered by chairman Datuk Seri Mohd Hishamuddin Md Yunus.

He said disciplinary action was warranted given the clear surveillance footage evidence demonstrating the misconduct.

"The Public Inquiry Panel found that the Prisons Department failed to take any disciplinary action against the Taiping Prison officers involved, even though the Board of Inquiry found that standard operating procedures had been violated by personnel at Taiping Prison.

"The justification given by Prisons Department commissioner-general Datuk Abdul Aziz Abdul Razak that taking disciplinary action would result in double jeopardy is legally incorrect," Hishamudin said, adding that double jeopardy refers to double court proceedings on the same issue.

"Failure to take any action against the prison personnel involved would create the impression that they enjoy special privileges and are immune from the law."

Also on the Suhakam panel are Datuk Mariati Robert and Dr Farah Nini Dusuki.

The panel stressed that criminal charges against a single individual did not excuse the department from administratively penalising other staff involved in the wider violence.

"This disciplinary action is warranted given the clear CCTV footage evidence demonstrating the misconduct of the said prison personnel, as well as the absence of a specific investigation by the police and subsequent court charges over the acts of violence, despite more than a year having passed since the incident occurred," Hishamuddin said.

On Dec 19, 2025, prison warden Ryndee O'Nel Victor, 25, was charged with causing the death of inmate Gan Chin Eng, 62.

He claimed trial under Section 304(b) of the Penal Code for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Suhakam identified several deep-rooted systemic issues that served as the underlying causes of the tragedy.

They include severe prison overcrowding, a lack of clear planning in transferring detainees from the Kamunting Correctional Centre to Taiping Prison, general administrative weaknesses, a shortage of prison staff and excessively long remand detention periods.

Alongside the conduct of the personnel, the inquiry also addressed the dilapidated and hazardous state of the facility.

The panel noted that Taiping Prison's heritage building status imposed complex bureaucracy, exorbitant maintenance costs and structural restrictions that prevented sanitation upgrades, leading to severe physical deterioration and the continued use of the outdated bucket toilet system.

"Taiping Prison is no longer fit to be used as a prison," Hishamudin said. "Detainees at Taiping Prison need to be transferred to a new prison."

Besides internal prison issues, the panel also pointed to severe delays and flaws within the state's law enforcement and legal machinery.

The panel said the police failed to conduct a dedicated criminal investigation into the guards' violence, while excessive bureaucracy within the Attorney-General's Chambers caused unreasonable delays in filing court charges.

These issues denied the victims due process, violated the constitutional principle of equality before the law under Article 8 and fostered a public perception that public servants enjoy immunity from prosecution. - NST, 25/5/2026

Prisons Dept cites 'double jeopardy' for delay in action on fatal Taiping abuse

By Mohamad Al As

September 22, 2025 @ 3:59pm

Prisons commissioner-general Datuk Abdul Aziz Abdul Razak - BERNAMA FILE PIC

KUALA LUMPUR: The Prisons Department has admitted that no disciplinary action has been taken against officers implicated in the alleged abuse of more than 100 inmates at Taiping Prison on Jan 17, which led to the death of Gan Chin Eng.

Prisons commissioner-general Datuk Abdul Aziz Abdul Razak said the department was waiting for police investigations to conclude before acting, citing what he described as a policy of avoiding "double jeopardy".

He said this during a public inquiry on the matter held by the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) today, led by chairman Datuk Seri Mohd Hishamudin Md Yunus and commissioner Dr Farah Nini Dusuki.

Hishamudin: "So has the Prisons Department taken disciplinary action?"

Abdul Aziz: "Not yet. We are waiting for the police decision."

Hishamudin: "So that means no action has been taken?"

Abdul Aziz: "(With) disciplinary action, we cannot have double jeopardy.

"If not convicted of crime and referred to the Prisons Department, I will take action.

"The report (on the incident) is already there. Just waiting for action."

Hishamudin: "So no action at all taken?"

Abdul Aziz: "We don't want such incidents to happen again, so we removed (the officers involved) from Taiping Prison.

"But no disciplinary action yet."

Suhakam's chairman challenged the argument, stressing that criminal prosecution and disciplinary action are legally distinct with different standards of proof: beyond a reasonable doubt for criminal prosecution, and on a balance of probabilities for disciplinary action.

"So the issue of double jeopardy does not arise," Hishamudin said.

Abdul Aziz, who was the 50th and final witness heard by the inquiry, conceded that procedures and human rights were violated, but said he was unsure if the incident amounted to a criminal offence.

The inquiry viewed CCTV footage showing stomping, kicking and striking of inmates, as well as evidence of head injuries.

It also heard that Taiping Prison deputy director Shahrul Izzat Hamid, who was present, failed to halt the incident.

When asked if this was sufficient to assess whether officers had violated the Penal Code, Abdul Aziz maintained that he could not identify individual perpetrators from the footage.

While he admitted Shahrul failed to take control, Abdul Aziz said he could not take disciplinary action against him and may only refer the case to the Public Services Department (PSD).

He also acknowledged that Gan could have been saved if he had received immediate medical attention after the incident, but added that the abuse could have been avoided if inmates had followed officer instructions.

On July 9, as reported by an online portal, the inquiry was told that the incident occurred after inmates refused to move to another block due to poor toilet facilities.

The inquiry has fixed Nov 29 for parties to file written submissions and Dec 15 to hear oral submissions.- NST, 22/9/2025

Police shot dead 327 criminals in 193 cases over past decade, Dewan told

3 months ago

FMT Reporters

Home minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail says such shootings largely occurred in situations requiring the takedown of dangerous criminals or in self-defence.

Home minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail said 78 Indians, 43 Malays, 40 Chinese and 11 Bumiputeras were among the Malaysians shot dead by police over the past decade.

PETALING JAYA:

Home minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail said today a total of 327 criminals were shot dead by police in 193 cases between 2015 and 2025.

In a written parliamentary reply, the minister said police generally took such actions in situations requiring the takedown of dangerous criminals.

He said police also shot suspects in self-defence when they attacked officers with dangerous weapons, to protect public safety and avoid injury or loss of life when suspects refused to surrender, as well as in other situations that “required quick action based on immediate threat analysis by officers on the ground”.

Saifuddin was replying to Lim Lip Eng (PH-Kepong), who asked for a breakdown of fatal police shootings since 2015 by nationality, race and state, as well as the number of police officers subjected to legal action.

He said by nationality, Malaysian citizens accounted for the highest number of criminals shot dead at 172 people, followed by 68 Indonesians, 24 Vietnamese, 23 Filipinos, seven Myanmar nationals, three Africans, two Bangladeshis and one Thai.

“A total of 27 people were recorded as having no identification,” he said.

According to a breakdown by race among Malaysians, 78 Indians were shot dead, followed by 43 Malays, 40 Chinese and 11 Bumiputeras.

Selangor recorded the highest number of police shooting cases at 47, followed by 33 in Sabah, 21 in Penang, 19 in Johor and 16 in Perak.

Other states recorded fewer incidents: 13 in Kedah, 10 in Kuala Lumpur, nine in Kelantan, eight in Sarawak, seven in Negeri Sembilan, four in Melaka, three in Terengganu, two in Pahang and one in Perlis. - FMT, 10/2/2026

42 custodial deaths recorded last year, says Saifuddin

By KHOO GEK SAN and ARFA YUNUS

Thursday, 05 Feb 2026 |

KUALA LUMPUR: A total of 42 deaths in custody were recorded in 2025, says Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail.

He said the figure comprised eight cases in prison and 34 under police care including 22 deaths while under police detention and 12 in police lock-ups.

Investigations found the cases were mainly due to health factors such as heart attacks, strokes and complications from chronic illnesses, he added.

“To ensure transparency, every death in custody is thoroughly investigated by the Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM), including post-mortems, internal inquiries and, where misconduct is suspected, referral to the Independent Police Conduct Commission (IPCC),” he said in a written reply on Thursday (Feb 5).

He was responding to Hassan Abdul Karim (PH–Pasir Gudang), who had asked about the recent number of deaths involving suspects in police lock-ups and inmates in prison, and the measures taken to prevent such incidents.

Saifuddin said the ministry has tightened standard operating procedures for lock-ups and prisons, improved health screening and monitoring of detainees and inmates, boosted integrity and detainee-handling training for enforcement personnel, and expanded the use of CCTV with regular compliance audits.

He stressed that the ministry is committed to safeguarding the safety and welfare of detainees and will not compromise on any misconduct. - Star, 5/2/2026