Sunday, August 24, 2025

Dr Navin - his actions may have caused the death? Prison Officers Lying - Should we get RID of such public officers? SUHAKAM Public Inquiry - Allegation that Prison Officers Assaulted Inmates? Why is PM Anwar and Government not so interested?

DO NOT PROTECT PUBLIC OFFICERS THAT CAUSE INJURY/DEATH, AND WHO LIES... 

There is a very important PUBLIC INQUIRY by SUHAKAM (Malaysian Human Rights Commission) that is happening, and so many issues are being HIGHLIGHTED but sadly MEDIA and even politicians are not giving much attention...and this is SO SAD. 

What has been coming out is SHOCKING -

LIES by prison officers, which contradicts what was recorded by CCTV - Do these officers that LIED to SUHAKAM deserve to be terminated, and their pension rights extinguished?

Then, there was this DOCTOR  who may have been negligent - Dr V. Navin Esavik - it seems that he is from some private clinic > this simply is NOT RIGHT - After an 'incident' that resulted in so many injuries, and also ONE DEATH - should not the Prison not have called the GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, who would immediately have dispatched needed Ambulances and first-response/care trained personnel and had much more doctors? 

A lot of issues,  

Anyway, one person have been monitoring this very important inquiry - he is watching from the public gallery, and here are his Blog post in

Rest Stop Thoughts

WHAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING AND THE GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE

Investigations are ongoing into the death of a Taiping Prison inmate last month, allegedly due to assault, Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail said today. - NST, 11/2/2025

# After this, there seems to be not much response from the Home Minister, or the government - Why? When the Home Minister is responsible for Prisons and prison officers? Has anyone been investigated and charged in court - I have not seen any reports. Is this a case of SELECTIVE NON-INVESTIGATION and/or SELECTIVE NON-PROSECUTION? 

The Prison Department has denied the Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) access to interview an inmate as part of an investigation into the death of a prisoner who was allegedly assaulted at Taiping Prison last month, in what has been described as the first such obstruction of the government's human rights body since it was set up during Dr Mahathir Mohamad's era more than two decades ago. - Malaysia Now, 14/2/2025

Thankfully, SUHAKAM acted - and now there is a PUBLIC INQUIRY. A lot of things revealed - but the silence of Home Minister and Prime Minister is DISTURBING... 

It has been one month since 62-year-old Gan Chin Eng (main image) died in Taiping Prison, Perak. Yet, his family are still in the dark about the circumstances surrounding his death. - Yahoo News, 18/2/2025 

Question we must ask - Where was the CORONER? Did he do an inquiry? Why did the Coroner decide not to do an Public INQUEST - to also find the cause of death, i.e. whether anyone was criminally liable for the death? There will definitely already be a report by the Coroner - LET US SEE THIS REPORT - Did the Coroner also 

Would persons criminally liable include Dr Navin, and the prison officers > We must identify the CORONER, and examine his REPORT, after inquiry? According to Malaysian Law, this must have happened fast..

The law, in the Criminal Procedure Code is clear - the Coroner(Magistrate) should have acted more since this is a Death In Custody - Was the Coroner satisfied as to the cause of death without holding a PUBLIC INQUEST? Note, that the Public Prosecutor after receiving the Coroner's Report can ask for an INQUEST, or at any time after the death.  

333  Duty of Magistrate on receipt of report 

(1) If the Magistrate shall be satisfied as to the cause of death without holding an inquiry under this Chapter, he shall report to the Public Prosecutor the cause of death as ascertained to his satisfaction with his reasons for being so satisfied and shall at the same time transmit to the Public Prosecutor all reports and documents in his possession connected with the matter.

(2) In all other cases the Magistrate shall proceed as soon as may be to hold an inquiry under this Chapter.

(3) It shall not be necessary for the Magistrate to hold any inquiry under this Chapter or to make any report under subsection (1) if any criminal proceedings have been instituted against any person in respect of any act connected with the death of the deceased or such hurt as caused the death.

334  Inquiry into cause of death of a person in custody of police or in any asylum

When any person dies while in the custody of the police or in a psychiatric hospital or prison, the officer who had the custody of that person or was in charge of that psychiatric hospital or prison, as the case may be, shall immediately give intimation of such death to the nearest Magistrate, and the Magistrate or some other Magistrate shall, in the case of a death in the custody of the police, and in other cases may, if he thinks expedient, hold an inquiry into the cause of death.

337  Inquiries to be made by Magistrate

A Magistrate holding an inquiry shall inquire when, where, how and after what manner the deceased came by his death and also whether any person is criminally concerned in the cause of the death.

 338  Evidence and finding to be recorded

(1) The Magistrate holding an inquiry under this Chapter shall record the evidence and his finding thereon and shall immediately transmit to the Public Prosecutor the original of such evidence and finding duly authenticated by his signature or a copy of such evidence and finding certified under his hand as correct.

(2) The place in which any inquiry of death under this Chapter is held shall be a place open to the public. But a Magistrate conducting an inquiry of death may, on special grounds of public policy or expediency, in his discretion, exclude the public or any person or persons in particular at any stage of the inquiry from the place in which the inquiry is being held.

 339  Power of Public Prosecutor to require inquiry to be held

(1) The Public Prosecutor may at any time direct a Magistrate to hold an inquiry under this Chapter into the cause of, and the circumstances connected with, any death such as is referred to in sections 329 and 334, and the Magistrate to whom such direction is given shall then proceed to hold an inquiry and shall record his finding as to the cause of death and also as to any of the circumstances connected with it with regard to which the Public Prosecutor may have directed him to make inquiry.

(2) When the proceedings at any inquiry under this Chapter have been closed and it appears to the Public Prosecutor that further investigation is necessary, the Public Prosecutor may direct the Magistrate to reopen the inquiry and to make further investigation, and thereupon the Magistrate shall have full power to reopen the inquiry and make further investigation and thereafter to proceed in the same manner as if the proceedings at the inquiry had not been closed:

Provided that this subsection shall not apply to any inquiry at which a finding of murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder has been returned against any person.

(3) When giving any direction under this section the Public Prosecutor may also direct whether the body shall or shall not be exhumed.

(4) All directions given under this section shall be complied with by the Magistrate to whom they are addressed without unnecessary delay.

The law is CLEAR - so where is the Coroner's Report, and also the reason why he did not hold a PUBLIC INQUEST. Did the Coroner find anyone criminally liable .... surely the prison officers and the Doctor may be held criminally liable for the Death. Should all Coroner's Report be accessible and available to the PUBLIC? I think this is BEST - for the lack of such transparency makes us doubt whether the Coroner investigated or even had an Inquest? 

The Malaysian Government, sadly has a bad track record of acting on the findings of SUHAKAM and even the EAIC, which may also include recommended actions. We demand the government ACT - and not be blamed for protecting 'public servants' or Doctors appointed by the Government.

Anyone who commits a CRIME, especially when the victim suffers injury or DIES, must see the perpetrators CHARGED in Court and tried for their crimes. The use of Disciplinary Procedures, treating CRIMES simply as MISCONDUCT should end.

WORSE, the victims are NOT CONVICTED CRIMINALS - merely inmates waiting for the criminal trial to start and/or end - and ultimately, such persons, may be found NOT GUILTY...

They are INMATES because they could not afford BAIL(i.e. the poor), or because the LAW denied them BAIL...  

Such INMATES are ordinary citizens still presumed INNOCENT - and they should be treated as such >> They even have the RIGHT TO VOTE - but have been denying them that too?

When they were charged, they pleaded NOT guilty, and wanted a FAIR TRIAL - They could not afford BAIL(usually by reason of poverty) or laws like SOSMA denied them Bail, or the Courts denied them BAIL because there was a risk they will run away or TAMPER with evidence   - 

An accused duty is to attend court for his/her trial dates - so all these REMAND prisoners are HOUSED in Prison/Detention facility just for that - to ensure they attend court on the trial dates ...> that is all. So, they should NEVER be treated like convicted prisoners serving out their prison sentence...They should be treated with RESPECT AND DIGNITY - and housed better..and I believe, certainly should be accorded the right to VOTE. 

 

Taiping prison doctor accused of neglect over inmate’s delayed treatment

Evidence at a public inquiry shows that the doctor left to meet the prison director for 30 minutes while the inmate was waiting for an ambulance.

penjara taiping
More than 100 inmates at the Taiping prison were allegedly assaulted by about 60 prison wardens during a relocation exercise. (Facebook pic)
KUALA LUMPUR:
Taiping prison’s in-house doctor, Dr Navin Esavik Vikrama, came under fire for leaving to meet the prison director in the cafeteria for 30 minutes while inmate Gan Chin Eng, who later died, was left waiting at the prison gate for an ambulance to take him to the Taiping Hospital.

Although Navin initially claimed that Gan was sent to the hospital within 15 minutes and denied meeting the prison director, CCTV footage and witness statements presented during the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) public inquiry showed otherwise.

“You lost track of time because you were too busy meeting the prison’s director. Do you not agree that this was negligent?” asked Suhakam commissioner Farah Nini Dusuki.

Navin did not answer her question.

Suhakam chairman Hishamudin Yunus, who co-chaired the panel alongside Farah, suggested that Gan’s condition might have deteriorated rapidly while being transported to the hospital, as the doctor failed to monitor his need for CPR.

Navin said when he took Gan’s vitals, the inmate appeared stable and he was able to breathe and talk despite fluctuating blood oxygen levels. He also said that he simply did not have enough time to get proper apparatus from the prison’s clinic in order to help Gan.

“We tried to send him to the hospital very quickly. It was impossible for us to go back to the clinic and get any equipment to help him. If we had done so, it likely would’ve delayed proper treatment more,” he said.

Limited medical equipment

Gan was ultimately sent to Taiping Hospital via a prison van, as Navin claimed that the ambulance took longer to arrive.

To Farah’s question as to why the van was not equipped for medical emergencies, Navin replied that only limited equipment was available to handle abdominal injury cases.

Gan was injured during a prisoner relocation exercise from the prison’s Hall B to Block E, in which more than 100 inmates were allegedly assaulted by about 60 prison wardens.

Earlier reports from Taiping Hospital revealed that Gan was pronounced dead on arrival, having been “brought unconscious with no signs of life”, with his cause of death being described as abdominal injury due to blunt trauma.

False documentation?

In Navin’s referral letter to doctors at the Taiping Hospital, he stated that Gan had sustained injuries to the left side of his chest after a fall in the toilet – information Navin allegedly obtained from other inmates.

However, two inmates known only as Alex and Adam, who helped support Gan to the main gate, stated in their witness statements that they never told the doctor any such thing.

The letter also provided contradictory information, with the main body of the document stating that Gan sustained injury to the left of his torso, whilst a later portion declared that he had “weakness and tenderness on his right”. Navin claimed it was an honest mistake, as “things were moving too quickly”.

“This is highly important information Dr Navin. You should not be making typos or mistakes in these particular situations,” Farah said in response.

Previously, Navin had admitted that the medical cards for other inmates who had sustained injuries during the Jan 17 incident might have been tampered with, though he insisted he did not do it.

Hishamudin, examining one inmate’s medical card, noted that the date “Jan 17” appeared superimposed over a faint “Jan 22”. He said it suggested that the inmates’ treatment might have been delayed beyond what the records showed.

The inquiry resumes tomorrow. - FMT, 19/8/2025

Taiping Prison doctor rebuked for memory lapses, inconsistencies in testimony at Suhakam inquiry

Dr V. Navin Esavik came prepared for the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) public inquiry into alleged human rights violations at Taiping Prison on Jan 17. He had handwritten notes and could recall the exact time he called Taiping Hospital to report a “mass casualty incident” at 5.46pm, ensuring the hospital was ready.

However, he soon faltered under questioning by Suhakam assisting inquiry officer Sheril Aina Ahmad Salihin, prompting a rebuke from Suhakam chairman Datuk Seri Mohd Hishamudin Md Yunus. After fumbling some dates and showing memory lapses, Mohd Hishamudin told Dr Navin: “You wouldn’t have this problem if you did your work properly.”

Mohd Hishamudin was frustrated by Dr Navin’s inability to confirm whether about 100 inmates transferred from Batu Gajah Correctional Facilities on Jan 10 had undergone health screenings – a mandatory procedure for all transfers and court arrivals.

Sheril Aina: If you follow the procedure, how quickly must health screenings be completed?
Dr Navin: Within 24 hours.
Sheril Aina: Batu Gajah sent around 100 inmates a week before Jan 16. Was a screening done for them?
Dr Navin: I’m unsure how many.
Sheril Aina: There were about 100 inmates.
Dr Navin: I think we did.
Sheril Aina: Your medical assistant, Muhammad Fadhil Mohamad Yusoff, said no screenings were done. Can you explain?
Dr Navin: If they were transferred from the documentation class, they should have undergone screening.
Sheril Aina: So, you’re saying the Jan 10 inmates were not screened?
Dr Navin: I’m not sure. I think they were.

Mohd Hishamudin: Can that happen without your knowledge?
Dr Navin: If I’m not around, the MA will conduct the screening.
Mohd Hishamudin: Your MA said it wasn’t done. How can this happen without your approval?
Dr Navin: I think we did, as we need to know inmates’ conditions. Anything could happen – illness, comorbidities, or heart disease.
Mohd Hishamudin: So you presumed they were screened.
Dr Navin: Yes.
Sheril Aina: Did you check with your MA?
Dr Navin: I don’t remember. I don’t have my logbook with me.

Dr Navin also testified that it was unusual for so many inmates to arrive on the same day.

Mohd Hishamudin was also perplexed as to why Dr Navin used the words “hostile” and “riot” in his Feb 28 referral letter to Taiping Hospital for an inmate named Santosh Raja L. Durairaju.

Mohd Hishamudin: Where did you get that your patient was hostile and started a riot? Who told you?
Dr Navin: From him. He said something to the warden, not so nice. I assumed.
Mohd Hishamudin: So Santosh told you himself? Not the wardens or officers?
Dr Navin: Yes.
Sheril Aina: He admitted being rude to the officer?
Dr Navin: Yes.
Mohd Hishamudin: Hard to believe he said he started a riot.
Dr Navin: He said he started a fight with the warden, later said he argued with officers.
Mohd Hishamudin: Yet you labelled it a riot in your letter over a month later? That’s wrong. CCTV shows inmates did not riot; if anything, wardens did.
Sheril Aina: Was it necessary to include that in the referral?
Dr Navin: I wanted to indicate the inmate was a security threat.
Sheril Aina: Did anyone instruct you to write that?
Dr Navin: No.

Sheril Aina: This medical card for Harjit Singh Tarlock Singh shows Jan 17 corrected from Jan 22. When did you treat him?
Dr Navin: I treated him often for a fungal infection.
Mohd Hishamudin: Jan 17 seems superimposed. Original looks like Jan 22.
Dr Navin: I don’t think I did this.
Sheril Aina: Can you confirm the card was tampered with?
Dr Navin: Perhaps.
Mohd Hishamudin: By someone else?
Dr Navin: Yes.
Sheril Aina: To show treatment on Jan 17?
Dr Navin: Yes. I treated him for soft tissue injuries that day.

More damagingly, Dr Navin was unable to explain the discrepancy in his account of what happened to inmate Gan Chin Eng, who died on January 17.

He initially claimed there was only a five-minute wait for the prison van to transport Gan to Taiping Hospital. However, two inmates who had helped carry Gan reported that the wait lasted more than 30 minutes. CCTV footage later confirmed their account, showing that at least 30 minutes had passed before Gan was taken to the hospital.

Sheril Aina: Do you agree it might have been 30 minutes or more?
Dr Navin: I don’t want to comment.
Mohd Hishamudin: No comment?
Dr Navin: Yes, no comment.

Other lapses included:

• Denying he gave Gan’s health record to Taiping Hospital, despite hospital records indicating receipt from the prison doctor. He later suggested the hospital might have called his clinic.

• Claiming two inmates told him Gan fell in the toilet, but the inmates denied this.

• An inmate, S. Jeyenthiran, said Dr Navin instructed him to say he fell down stairs, not mention beatings when speaking to Taiping Hospital staff; Dr Navin denied this.

• Dr Navin labelled the inmate as involved in a riot.

• Dr Navin stated he joined about 10 prison officials to view the Jan 17 CCTV footage, likely in June, but could not recall the exact date or attendees apart from an officer named Hasbi.

The purpose was to prepare for the Suhakam inquiry starting June 12. Prison officers had viewed the footage at least twice beforehand.

On July 23, Inspector Muhamad Mustakhim Abdul Rahim testified he and four others watched it “to refresh their memories” before testifying.

Dr Navin will continue his testimony at Suhakam headquarters tomorrow. - Twenty Two 13, 19/8/2025

 

 

at 16:46

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)