Even With Malaysia’s Refugee Registration Document (DPP), A Refugee Is Still at Risk of Arrest,...Immigration Act Must Recognize DPP As Document Permitting Legal Stay in Malaysia, And

 

Media Statement – 11/7/2026

Even With Malaysia’s Refugee Registration Document (DPP), A Refugee Is Still at Risk of Arrest, Detention, Whipping and Deportation Until the Law Recognizes It as Proof of Legal Presence in Malaysia

Immigration Act Must Recognize DPP As Document Permitting Legal Stay in Malaysia, And NEW Law on Refugee and Asylum Seeker Must Be Enacted to Legalize DPP Process and Recognition of Asylum Seeker and Refugee

Malaysia’s MADANI government must be applauded as Malaysia finally started its own asylum seeker and refugee assessment and recognition program on 1/1/2026 with the Refugee Registration Document (DPP) programme.

However, it is shocking that “Until June 2026, 128 Myanmar nationals of Rohingya ethnicity, comprising 127 adult men and one adult woman, were transferred to PPKPPS (Special Detention Centre for Refugees and Asylum Seekers) Bidor, Perak… “Following the status determination process, 78 individuals comprising 77 men and one woman have been approved as refugees under the Refugee Registration Document (DPP) programme. The release process will only be carried out after all related procedures have been completed,” he (Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail) said. (Malay Mail, 9/7/2026)

The registration process must be expedited.

Need for Law to accord legal recognition for the Refugee Registration Document (DPP)

Malaysia, is home to more than 215,000 asylum seekers and refugees (not including those still being processed for recognition) (Malay Mail, 23/6/2026), and until the Immigration Act is amended or new laws enacted, noting that the present Malaysia's Immigration Act, treats foreigners as undocumented individuals or illegal immigrants unless they possess valid work permits, passes or visas recognized by law that allows them to be in Malaysia temporarily. If they are undocumented, they are at risk of arrest, detention and charged in court for illegally being in Malaysia, which on conviction, make them liable to a fine not exceeding ten thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to both, and shall also be liable to whipping of not more than six strokes. (Sec.6(3) Immigration Act 1959/63).

Sadly, to date the possession of DPP Passes or Cards has yet to be incorporated in law – thus the risk of asylum seekers and refugees even with DPP passes/cards would still being considered law breakers present illegally in Malaysia.

“According to Prisons Department records, 47,914 foreigners were found to have violated the Immigration Act from 2002 to 2008. Of these, 34,923 were caned or whipped.” No recent data found, and one wonders how many genuine asylum seekers and refugees were also whipped in Malaysia – and may still continue to be imprisoned and whipped unless laws are speedily amended/enacted to recognize asylum seekers and refugees as persons with rights to temporarily be in Malaysia.

MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) urges Malaysia to speedily amend the Immigration Act to recognize the Refugee Registration Document (DPP) as a valid pass or proof of legal presence in Malaysia, for we certainly do not want any more asylum seekers and refugees to still be arrested, detained or charged for illegally being in Malaysia.

Considering the process of registration may take time, MADPET also ask that those asylum seekers who are going to apply or have submitted their application for registration also be accorded protection too.

DPP Registration Process Must Be Expedited

Noting that in 6 months, Malaysia has only managed to process and give DPPs to just 78 individuals, MADPET urges that the process be expedited in the interest of justice, noting there maybe more than 200,000 asylum seekers and refugees in Malaysia.

MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) calls upon Malaysia to enacting a Refugee and Asylum Seeker law, that will also provide legal recognition for the Refugee Registration Document (DPP) programme.

Malaysia Assures No Repatriation – Compliance with The Principle of Non-Refoulement

Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail said the programme will ultimately lead to only three possible outcomes: repatriation, third-country resettlement, or deportation for legal offenders… There are only three possible end outcomes in managing refugees and asylum seekers. "First, repatriation, which means sending them home once their country is safe and permits their return. Even if they are registered under the DPP, it does not mean they will remain here indefinitely. "Second, resettlement in a third country. International agencies such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) must continue fulfilling that role. The UNHCR exists to register refugees and secure third-country placements. "Third, deportation for those who violate laws and regulations. If they commit crimes and all due legal processes, convictions and appeals have been exhausted, they will be deported. (NST, 18/5/2026)

MADPET applauds Malaysian commitment to not send asylum seekers and refugees home until their country is safe and permits their return is consistent with the principle of non-refoulement. The principle of non-refoulement forms an essential protection under international human rights, refugee, humanitarian and customary law. It prohibits States from transferring or removing individuals from their jurisdiction or effective control when there are substantial grounds for believing that the person would be at risk of irreparable harm upon return, including persecution, torture, ill-treatment or other serious human rights violations.

Asylum Seekers and Refugees Need Income to Survive in Malaysia – Employment?

In the past, the UN through the UNHCR undertook to bear the cost of accommodation and upkeep of these asylum seekers and refugees until they are settled in a third country, but now that burden falls of the nation state accepting refugees, or directly on the asylum seekers and refugees themselves who are expected to find their own food or shelter.

Housing and feeding some 200,000 plus refugees and asylum seekers in PPKPPS (Special Detention Centre for Refugees and Asylum Seekers) may be impossible at the moment, so it is best to consider employment for refugees so that they can earn and fend for themselves whilst living not in places of detention.

Thus, it was good to note that Malaysia is considering this – ‘…He[Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail] added that the programme also explored the possibility of matching approved refugees and asylum seekers with employers facing labour shortages in sectors such as manufacturing, plantations, agriculture and construction…’ . (NST, 18/5/2026)

MADPET proposes Malaysia to prioritize use asylum seekers and refugees, already in Malaysia, to overcome labour needs first before resorting to bringing in migrant workers from other countries. 2,132,578 active and legally employed foreign workers as of Oct 15, 2025 (NST, 3/11/2025).  

About 28,000 Refugee Children That Need to Go to School

As of early 2026, there are approximately 215,600 registered refugees and asylum-seekers in Malaysia according to UNHCR, though women and children still account for more than half of the total population. Roughly 28,600 children fall into the primary or secondary school-going age brackets. There may be even more, being those who have yet to be registered by UNHCR.

MADPET calls on Malaysia to allow all these asylum seeker and refugee children should be allowed to continue their studies in Malaysian public schools or other schools as the Government deem appropriate. A child’s future is at RISK if he/she cannot receive or continue their education.

A refugee has been defined as someone who has fled their country of nationality and is unable or unwilling to return due to a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group – but for Malaysians, they are just HUMAN BEINGs that need our temporary assistance, and their CHILDREN should never lose out on the basic right to study in schools, more so since Malaysia has ratified United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).

The speedy assessment and determination of asylum seeker or refugee status is CRUCIAL to prevent Malaysia from unknowingly further persecuting these persons, who has sought our temporary help. Hence, the importance in providing legal protection for asylum seekers and refugees through LAWS – temporary policies not recognized in law simply will not do.

Charles Hector

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

 

Home minister says 78 Rohingya granted refugee status, 25 eligible for work under DPP pilot scheme

Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail speaks during the Minister’s Question Time session at the Dewan Rakyat in Kuala Lumpur on February 26, 2026. — Bernama pic

By Anis Zalani

First Published: Thursday, 09 Jul 2026 10:36 AM MYT

KUALA LUMPUR, July 9 — A total of 78 Myanmar nationals of Rohingya ethnicity have been granted refugee status under Malaysia’s new Refugee Registration Document (DPP) programme, with 25 of them identified as eligible for employment under a pilot work initiative.

Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail confirmed the figures in a written parliamentary reply yesterday, noting that these individuals were part of the programme’s first phase, which initially targeted detainees in Perak’s Immigration Detention Depots.

“Until June 2026, 128 Myanmar nationals of Rohingya ethnicity, comprising 127 adult men and one adult woman, were transferred to PPKPPS (Special Detention Centre for Refugees and Asylum Seekers) Bidor, Perak.

“Following the status determination process, 78 individuals comprising 77 men and one woman have been approved as refugees under the DPP programme. The release process will only be carried out after all related procedures have been completed,” he said.

The minister was responding to an inquiry from Seputeh MP Teresa Kok regarding the DPP programme’s progress, the number of refugees permitted to work, and the role of NGOs in the registration process.

Launched on January 1, the DPP programme establishes a formal mechanism to identify and manage migrants seeking temporary protection in Malaysia. The Home Ministry handles biometric collection, security screenings, and the verification of protection claims.

“The process involves migrants holding UNHCR (the UN Refugee Agency) documents as well as individuals who declare themselves as refugees.

“It is not limited to documentation alone, as each applicant must undergo the necessary screening and verification process before being recognised under the programme,” Saifuddin Nasution added.

Successful applicants receive a DPP card, which serves as the government-recognised identification for a temporary stay in Peninsular Malaysia.

During Phase 1, the ministry recorded 4,010 detainees, including 4,008 Myanmar nationals of Rohingya ethnicity, one Sudanese national, and one Syrian national. This group consists of 2,746 adult men, 632 adult women, 392 boys, and 240 girls. Transfers to PPKPPS Bidor are being managed gradually to accommodate the centre’s 400-person capacity.

Phase 2, which extends to UNHCR cardholders and refugee claimants currently outside detention facilities, is expected to launch in the second half of 2026.

“The registration process for this group will be conducted at refugee status determination centres that will be announced later.

“The ministry is targeting for the registration exercise to be fully completed by December 31, 2029,” he said.

Saifuddin Nasution further noted that the government is exploring employment opportunities for recognised refugees through the DPP Employment Programme. He clarified that the registration exercise remains entirely under the jurisdiction of the Immigration Department of Malaysia, with no involvement from NGOs. - Malay Mail, 9/7/2026

DPP registration will not grant refugees permanent residency in Malaysia, says Saifuddin

By Zahratulhayat Mat Arif

May 18, 2026 @ 1:52pm

Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail. - NSTP FILEPIC

TAPAH: Refugees and asylum seekers registered under the Refugee Registration Document (DPP) programme will not be allowed to permanently settle in Malaysia, even if they are matched with employers.

Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail said the programme will ultimately lead to only three possible outcomes: repatriation, third-country resettlement, or deportation for legal offenders.

"I must emphasise this important point. There are only three possible end outcomes in managing refugees and asylum seekers.

"First, repatriation, which means sending them home once their country is safe and permits their return. Even if they are registered under the DPP, it does not mean they will remain here indefinitely.

"Second, resettlement in a third country. International agencies such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) must continue fulfilling that role. The UNHCR exists to register refugees and secure third-country placements.

"Third, deportation for those who violate laws and regulations. If they commit crimes and all due legal processes, convictions and appeals have been exhausted, they will be deported.

"So the DPP programme still leads to only these three outcomes. It does not mean that once they are registered under the DPP and matched with employers, they can permanently settle here," he said.

He said this during a working visit to the Special Refugee and Asylum Seeker Separation Centre in Bidor today.

Saifuddin said the programme, which officially began on Jan 1 this year, was introduced as part of a structured and humane approach to managing refugees and asylum seekers without compromising national security and sovereignty.

He said the ministry was leading the implementation of the programme involving 20 ministries and agencies to develop a government-managed database on refugees and asylum seekers in the country.

"The purpose of the DPP is for the government itself to maintain records. Previously, only the UNHCR kept records, while the government did not have detailed information on who they were or where they were located.

"Under the DPP, we collect biometrics, voice recordings, facial recognition data and detailed personal information to ensure more effective monitoring and management," he said.

He said phase one of the programme was currently focused on Rohingya migrants from Myanmar being held at immigration depots nationwide.

Authorities had identified 4,010 individuals under the category, comprising 4,008 Myanmar nationals, one Sudanese and one Syrian.

"At present, we have 101 Rohingya detainees here in Bidor, consisting of 100 adult men and one adult woman.

"Of that number, 78 have already been approved for refugee status under the DPP programme after undergoing strict screening and interview processes," he said.

Saifuddin said approved individuals would continue to be monitored by the Immigration Department under existing regulations and standard operating procedures.

He added that the programme also explored the possibility of matching approved refugees and asylum seekers with employers facing labour shortages in sectors such as manufacturing, plantations, agriculture and construction.

However, he added that security considerations remained paramount.

"We cannot compromise on the element of security. The interviews are strict and involve questions related to security and immigration.

"Each individual is thoroughly assessed before any approval is granted," he said, adding that several employers from Penang had already interviewed selected candidates under the pilot project.

He said employers viewed the initiative positively as it significantly reduced recruitment costs compared with conventional foreign worker hiring processes involving agents, visa applications and overseas recruitment expenses.

"At the same time, employers must comply with labour laws, including minimum wage requirements and providing decent accommodation," he said.

On concerns raised by the UNHCR regarding data protection and refugee rights under the DPP programme, Saifuddin said Malaysia will proceed with the initiative based on its own national interests and security requirements.

"They can say whatever they want. But we believe proceeding with the DPP fulfils the objectives we have outlined.

"The UNHCR should continue focusing on registering refugees and finding third countries willing to accept them. If more countries are willing to take them, that would be better for Malaysia," he said. - NST, 18/5/2026

 

 

Communities protest environment and health risk of rare earth/gold minings in Myanmmar to farmers/communities in Thailand - VICTIMS and others MUST speak out but in Malaysia....???

If the people VICTIMs, or potential victims, do not come out and protest injustice and rights violations > then the 'message' that spreads is that the people, especially those most at RISK, is OK with it. We cannot trust politically appointed leadership of villages, kampung barus, Tamans and even the Local Government/Council - is many prioritize 'obedience' to those who made them 'leaders' - rather than the best interest of the people in the area they are responsible to.

PH's MADANI government just extended LYNAS operating license to another 10 years, and did the people most at risk, being those living 10-30 kilometers from the said factory and/or the PDF AGREE to this > or were they in fact never consulted or asked for their approval at all?  

The Thai protest highlights the fact that those that can be affected by gold/rare earth mining can be affected even thousands/hundreds of kilometres away...  

But, in Thailand people are protesting environmental pollution and healthcare risk that is coming from mining activities in Myanmar that is now directly affecting people and communities in Thailand...

Statement of the NGO Coordination Committee on Development (NGO-COD)

Condemning the State's Use of Violence Against Peaceful Demonstrators at the Consulate-General of the People's Republic of China in Chiang Mai and Calling for Accountability

It has come to our attention that, at around midday today (6 July 2026), members of the public gathered at the Consulate-General of the People's Republic of China in Chiang Mai to peacefully express their genuine intention to protect the Kok River and the environment from the impacts of mining operations by transnational corporations. This constituted the legitimate exercise of their fundamental rights and freedoms in a democratic society to defend their community rights and way of life.

However, what occurred today is deeply shameful and entirely unacceptable. Police officers used force to disperse and assault peaceful, unarmed demonstrators, resulting in two people sustaining serious injuries. In particular, one protester suffered a broken arm.

The NGO Coordination Committee on Development (NGO-COD) declares its position and makes the following unequivocal demands to the Royal Thai Government, the Royal Thai Police, and all relevant authorities:

1. We strongly condemn the actions of state officials. We unequivocally condemn the excessive use of force by police officers today. Such actions constitute a serious violation of human rights, contravene international standards on the policing of public assemblies, and undermine the people's constitutional rights and freedoms, including the right to freedom of expression.

2. Those responsible must be held accountable, and prompt remedies must be provided. The Royal Thai Police and the commanding officers responsible for the operation must immediately establish an independent and transparent fact-finding investigation. Officers responsible for the unlawful use of force must be held accountable in accordance with the law, without exception. The authorities must also ensure full compensation and cover all medical expenses incurred by those who were injured.

3. Stop protecting corporate interests and start listening to the people. Today's incident further demonstrates that state institutions are resorting to violence to shield and protect the interests of transnational corporations while ignoring the suffering of affected communities. The Thai Government and the Government of the People's Republic of China must stop turning a blind eye to this crisis and take immediate, genuine action to address the toxic contamination of the Kok River.

The NGO Coordination Committee on Development (NGO-COD), together with People’s movements , reaffirms that state violence will not deter the people's determination to defend their land and rivers. We stand in solidarity with those who have been injured and will continue to strengthen our collective efforts to demand justice and uphold the rights of the people without surrender.

With respect for human rights and human dignity,

NGO Coordination Committee on Development (NGO-COD)

6 July 2026

Please see the Thai statement here:  https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=876550062180501&set=a.693290690506440

Protest Held in Chiang Mai Urging China to Address River Pollution Linked to Mining Operations in Myanmar

July 6, 2026

Local residents in northern Thailand have urged the Chinese government to address pollution affecting the Kok, Sai, Ruak and Mekong rivers, which they say has been caused by toxic waste from mining operations in Myanmar reportedly backed by Chinese investors.

Representatives of the People’s Network for the Protection of the Kok, Sai, Ruak and Mekong Rivers gathered outside the Chinese Consulate General in Chiang Mai on July 6, where they submitted a petition addressed to Chinese President Xi Jinping through a representative of the Chinese government.

The petition alleges that toxic heavy metals released from mining operations in Myanmar have contaminated the rivers, affecting agriculture, fisheries, tourism and the safety of drinking water supplies in northern Thailand.

According to the network, the pollution has affected approximately 110,000 hectares of rice fields, 60 fishing villages, more than 40,000 households in Chiang Rai, and over 120,000 people.

The group called on the Chinese government to investigate and hold accountable Chinese companies and investors operating overseas whose activities are causing environmental damage, and to end support for projects responsible for transboundary pollution.

It also urged authorities to trace the origins of antimony, tungsten, tin, lead, copper and manganese transported from Myanmar through Thailand to China. The network said the investigation should determine whether the minerals originated from mines linked to environmental destruction and disclose the findings publicly.

The petition further called on Chinese officials to meet with affected communities, announce a clear action plan through the Lancang-Mekong Cooperation framework, and establish a joint inspection mission involving relevant authorities to investigate mining sites in Myanmar.

According to the network, the inspection team should include representatives from Thailand as well as affected local communities, assess whether the mining operations comply with international environmental standards, and publicly release its findings.

The headwaters of the Kok and Sai rivers originate in Myanmar’s Shan State. The network said available information indicates that Chinese-speaking business operators are involved in mining activities in the area and that minerals extracted there are transported across the border into China. However, it noted that the ownership and licensing details of individual mining operations have not been independently verified.

The network warned that the river contamination is not solely a domestic issue for Thailand but a transboundary environmental and public health crisis that requires coordinated action by Myanmar, Thailand and China. - New Day Myanmmar, 6/7/2026

Chinese embassy protest in Bangkok links Myanmar mines to polluted Thai rivers

'This is Thailand, not Tiananmen'

Ryan TurnerPublished: July 8, 2026, 4:15 PM

Protesters hold poster demanding a solution to cross-border toxic pollution in the Mekong River resulting from mining operations in Myanmar by Chinese investors | AP Photo/Sakchai Lalit

Civil society groups gathered in protest outside the Chinese embassy in Bangkok today, July 8, to demand accountability from Beijing over cross-border river pollution linked to Chinese-backed mining in Myanmar.

The rally was organised by the NGO Coordinating Committee on Development (NGO-COD) together with civil society networks.

Demonstrators held a symbolic ceremony in which organisers poured water, said to have been collected from affected areas, onto a map of Thailand and Myanmar to represent environmental damage in the Kok, Sai, Ruak, and Mekong river basins.

Some participants wore masks depicting Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Lertsak Kamkongsak, chairperson of NGO-COD, read a statement calling on the Chinese government to address cross-border pollution, citing findings of contaminants detected in local waterways.

The statement called for accountability from operators linked to mining projects in Shan State, Myanmar, and urged that cross-border investment be accompanied by environmental and community responsibility.

Protesters hold a poster demanding a solution to cross-border toxic pollution in the Mekong River resulting from mining operations in Myanmar by Chinese investors | AP Photo/Sakchai Lalit

Police Colonel Sonsak Thongmee of Huai Khwang Police Station, who oversaw the gathering, said officers had acted in accordance with the law and used appropriate crowd management measures, and the rally ended peacefully.

The network reiterated four demands directed at the Chinese government:

• Oversight of Chinese companies and investors operating mines in Myanmar
• Traceability checks on minerals, including antimony, tungsten, tin, lead, copper, and manganese, imported through Thailand
• A visit to the affected communities along the river network
• A joint inspection team, including Thai representatives, to visit the mining sites in Myanmar

After the protest, the Chinese embassy in Bangkok closed for half a day and increased security measures around the compound during the demonstration, officials said.

The protest is the latest development in an ongoing dispute over contamination in the Kok, Sai, Ruak, and Mekong rivers, which campaigners say originates from gold and rare earth mining operations in Myanmar’s Shan State backed by Chinese investment. Thai Ger, 8/7/2026

Thai health officials have previously reported finding arsenic in residents living near the Kok River, and heavy metals have been detected in water and fish samples from the affected rivers.

A similar protest was held outside the Chinese consulate in Chiang Mai on July 6, where demonstrators from the People’s Network to Protect the Kok, Sai, Ruak, and Mekong Rivers said they were confronted by police while attempting to submit a petition.

Two protesters were reportedly injured, including one who underwent surgery for a broken arm, though Chiang Mai police maintained that officers “followed standard procedure” and denied any intention to use force against demonstrators.

This prompted a Bangkok protester to hold up a sign which said: “This is Thailand, not Tiananmen.”

Protesters hold a poster demanding a solution to cross-border toxic pollution in the Mekong River resulting from mining operations in Myanmar by Chinese investors | AP Photo/Sakchai Lalit

 

  

 

The mining challenge

PUBLISHED : 8 Jul 2026 at 01:01

NEWSPAPER SECTION: Oped

WRITER: Editorial

Since 2024, villagers in Chiang Mai and Chiang Rai living along the Kok, Sai, Ruak and Mekong rivers have suffered water pollution caused by runoff from gold and earth mines in Shan State, northern Myanmar.

In August that year, Mae Sai residents in Chiang Rai saw their town buried under foot-deep mud carried downstream by the Sai River from open-pit mines and deforested mountains in eastern Shan State. Toxic residues, including cyanide from mineral extraction, have reportedly flowed from rudimentary mines and been found in these rivers and sediments.

As rare earths become increasingly sought-after, ethnic armed groups in resource-rich Shan State have opened the door to mining investors, mostly from neighbouring China. These mining activities are conducted in mountainous areas without credible environmental oversight from authorities or transparent mining companies. Without proper controls, it would not be surprising if toxic waste from unchecked mining operations were dumped into rivers.

On Monday, affected villagers and civic groups held a peaceful rally near the Chinese Consulate General in Chiang Mai to submit a petition addressed to Chinese President Xi Jinping, asking the Chinese government to oversee Chinese rare-earth investments in the area.

Unfortunately, the peaceful rally turned violent after police appeared to overreact while trying to prevent demonstrators from approaching the consulate. Two demonstrators were injured, reportedly suffering broken arms.

There was no need for police to use force, as the protesters were only seeking help from the Chinese government. The crowd-control police unit must clarify why unnecessary force was used and apologise.

Indeed, the protest near the consulate is also a slap in the face for the Thai government and responsible ministries. Since 2024, the government has promised to raise the issue with relevant countries, including Myanmar and China.

Beijing has proven highly effective in tackling scam operations in Myanmar through cooperation with the Thai government over the past year. Beijing even sent senior law enforcement official Liu Zhongyi to signal the seriousness with which it views the fight against scam networks.

The government under prime minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra responded energetically to China's request by taking drastic measures, including halting fuel supplies and cutting internet and electricity access to Myanmar border towns known as hubs for Chinese-run scam networks.

Beijing can demonstrate similar leadership again. It has leverage over the Myanmar government as well as ethnic armed groups in Shan State that control the territories where gold and rare-earth mines are located. Most importantly, the Chinese government can put pressure on Chinese investors to comply with international environmental standards. This is an opportunity to show that rare-earth supply chains can be clean, ethical and sustainable.

Next week, Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul will visit China. Thais -- especially affected villagers -- expect Mr Anutin to discuss this issue with the Chinese government and seek greater cooperation with Myanmar. Needless to say, Thais also expect the Chinese government to show sincerity and genuine concern for affected communities, befitting the special relationship between China and Thailand. - Bangkok Post, 8/7/2026

Trump Calls and FIFA complies - when a RED CARD for US player only results on NO SUSPENSION of following match, as stated in FIFA'a Rules?

The global football body announced that it had suspended the red card — which had meant an automatic one-match ban — after United States President Donald Trump urged FIFA chief Gianni Infantino to review the case.

What does FIFA rules say about the RED CARD?

Article 66.4 of the code, which makes a one-match ban automatic after a player receives a red card. It also cited Article 10.5 of the FIFA World Cup 2026 Competition Regulations, which states: “If a player or team official is sent off as a result of a direct or indirect red card [second caution], they will automatically be suspended from their team’s subsequent match. In addition, further sanctions may be imposed.”

FIFA World Cup 2026 Circular No 16 also confirms a one-match automatic suspension following a red card.

IGNORING it's own Rules, FIFA justified using some other rule...???? 

### We recall how Malaysia's Home Moinister gave UMNO an EXEMPTION - that meant that even if it does not follow the LAW or the party's OWN RULES, it is OK. That decision allowed Zahid Hamidi to remain President > as no member could challenge him for Presidency after a party resolution was passed..  

SO FIFA's decision that allowed Balogun to play in the next match is UNACCEPTABLE. 

If FIFA had made a general decision, that all players who received a RED Card can also play in their subsequent match - We may be OK with it (But still it should have been made at the beginning and never mid-stream) > but then the NON-COMPLIANCE of Rules decision during in the middle of competition is questionable and should not happen. Would FIFA has decided the same if a President/Leader of some other 'smaller' country had done the same? I doubt it..

Watching FIFA games, I also sensed 'discrimination' in the treatment of the teams playing. When Egypt scored a goal, the goal was disallowed for a foul that happened earlier at the other end of the field. But, when one of the Argentina's goal also was questionable for the similar reason - there was not even a VAR review - if there was a similar foul that happened before the Argentina scored - would that GOAL also be disallowed. Was FIFA and its referees biased in favour of some 'big name' teams.

In Malaysia, we are used to such 'differential treatment' for perpetrators of crime - BUT such things should not happen in SPORTS, and of course in other areas of life. 

In Malaysia, NO news on investigation and prosecution of them Sabah politicians involved in some mining scandal. Was there investigation, is it ongoing, etc? Just no NEWS and it is important become several were charged in court - but NO NEWS about what is happening to the rest???

In Zahid Hamidi's case - the 'sudden discontinuation' > thus robbing the Court from deciding on his GUILT? 

LRT accidents kills and seriously injure so many > and NO CHARGES in Court - just a compound offers, if taken by the alleged criminal, ends investigation and no prosecution > and also protects Directors, Officers and others who COULD have been charged when the Company was charged, - Loke, again a 'COMPOUND offer' rather than CHARGE in COURT? Is the Minister 'pro-Business' rather than prioritising PUBLIC safety when they use PUBLIC Transport? A new 'PROTECTOR of CRIMINALS'? Have the VICTIMS yet to be compensated?

The government has declined to disclose stockholdings of former anti-graft agency chief Tan Sri Azam Baki, denying a backbencher request for the information. The information forms part of investigation documents, personal information and asset declarations protected under existing laws, according to Minister in the Prime Minister's Department (Law and Institutional Reform) Datuk Azalina Othman Said’s written parliamentary reply dated July 7. "Therefore, it is not a public document," she said. - Edge, 8/7/2026

See also earlier post:-  

FIFA - How US discriminated IRAN and others, and FIFA FAILED to act? Remove Gianni Infantino as President of FIFA? Withdraw Trump's FIFA Peace Price? An unnusual off-side rule?

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.

 

 

Taiping Prison – Only 5(or 6) Charged When 60 Tortured 100 Detainees ABSURD And Unacceptable – NO ‘Representative’ Or ‘Selective’ Prosecution...

 

Follow the Charles Hector channel on WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Vb6UokfB4hdNugYmph1B    

 

Media Statement – 6/7/2026

Taiping Prison – Only 5(or 6) Charged When 60 Tortured 100 Detainees ABSURD And Unacceptable – NO ‘Representative’ Or ‘Selective’ Prosecution, All Should Be Charged

No charges yet for Public Officers who destroyed CCTV evidence, made false reports and even ‘LIED’ during SUHAKAM Inquiry

It is deeply concerning that ONLY Five prison officers were charged in the Magistrate's Court with injuring three inmates at Taiping Prison in separate incidents last January. (Malay Mail, 3/7/2026). The SUHAKAM Inquiry revealed that there were about 60 Prison officers that were involved in inflicting violence on about 100 inmates, who were already subdued and handcuffed, when the said officers assaulted, beat them with batons and even sprayed pepper spray on their eyes. Justice will not be served if only a few, and not all, are charged and tried for their crimes.

Thus, MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) urges that ALL prison officers that inflicted torture and violence of these detainees ought to be Charged and Tried in Court, and the Court only, after a fair trial, will decide on guilt, and if convicted be punished according to law.

Note that following orders is NO defense for crimes committed, as no prison officer should commit crimes, and any Public Officer has the right to disobey orders requiring him/her to break the law.

With the charging of the 5, now 6 in total, noting that one was charged earlier for the crime under Section 304(b) of the Penal Code (NST, 15/6/2026). The 5 now have only been charged for crimes under Section 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) or section 324(Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means). Why have all the other prison officers that beat, kicked, used pepper spray and tortured the detainees not been charged? Did they not break the law? Even, if they were ‘bystanders’ who did not personally inflict torture, they would still have committed crimes, more so since they were public officers responsible for the safety of all detainees under their care.

What About The CRIME Of Lies, False Reports And Destruction Of Evidence?

The alleged perpetrators of these crimes are PUBLIC Officers and the fact that evidence was destroyed, that they made FALSE reports and even LIED during also the SUHAKAM Public Inquiry are very SERIOUS offences, for which they must also be charged and tried in Court.

This was also raised by Kepong MP Lim Lip Eng, where he was reported as saying, “The question is, why haven't those suspected of filing false reports, approving false information, falsifying medical records, and attempting to cover up the truth been publicly charged yet?” Oriental Daily News reported him saying. (Vibes, 4/7/2026) ‘…Lim stressed that accountability must extend across the entire chain of command, not only to lower-ranking officers directly involved in the alleged abuse. “Those who commit violence must face the law. Those who file false reports, falsify records, and those who cover up or condone such acts will also not escape responsibility,” he said…’

If public officers, who did destroy evidence and LIED, are not now charged in Court, then it creates a public perception that this MADANI government and the Home Minister is once again protecting the criminally liable, and worse it impacts of the INTEGRITY and character of all Public Officers in Malaysia.

MADPET and most Malaysians want honest and good PUBLIC Officers – and now, there is growing DISTRUST. How can we ever believe a government and/or its public officers, when it seems that destroying or tampering with evidence and LIES are deemed alright when perpetrators for such crimes are not charged and tried in Court?

MADPET urges that all those Public Officers, which may also include superiors and even the Minister, who may have been involved in the crimes of tampering/destroying evidence, making of false reports and LIES be charged. Those who ORDERED, INSTRUCTED or CONDONED such actions must never be allowed to escape criminal liability.

What About Those Who DELAYED Access to Healthcare, Which Could Have Saved a Life?

SUHAKAM’s Inquiry Report revealed that the deceased, Gan Chin Ying, who died on January 17, 2025, was left unattended by the doctor and/or medical personal for about 40 minutes. He was then transported to the Taiping Hospital (just about 2Km away), in a prison van(not an ambulance) and again unattended during transportation by any medical personal. If the said now deceased Gan was speedily send to the nearby government hospital, there is a possibility that he would not have DIED.

Surely, the failure to immediately transport the patient to that very near hospital, and the conduct if the attending medical personal is a CRIME that also led to his death. They could be charged for at the very least for a Section 304A (Causing death by negligence) offence, which carries the sentence of ‘…imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both…’

For Prisons and Detention – NO Outsourcing Healthcare to Private Doctors/Clinics

The recent Taiping Prison incident also raises an important question, as to whether the Government has OUTSOURCED healthcare for detainees in prisons and other government detention facilities to the private sector – private doctors, clinics and hospitals?

MADPET urges that healthcare of detainees in government detention facilities should NEVER be outsourced, and should always be under the Ministry of Health. In fact, all Detention facilities housing more than a 100 should have a permanent government clinic operating 24 hours within the premises with relevant medical staff.

Why did the Taiping Prison authorities NOT immediately call the Taiping Hospital to dispatch ambulances and medical staff when about 100 detainees were injured or seriously injured after that incident of torture and violence? For detention facilities far from government hospitals, there should also be an ambulance on 24 hour stand-by. Lives can be saved with speedy proper medical care.

The use of private doctors also raises another RISK – will they also LIE or file false reports just to protect their ‘contracts’ – which may have also happened here, based on SUHAKAM’s Inquiry Report. Medical Reports/Documents were ‘fabricated’ to protect the perpetrator. According to a medical document that SUHAKAM highlighted, Gan Chin Ying’s injuries was caused allegedly because a fall in the toilet – NOT because of the torture and violence inflicted by prison officers.

Public Officer Doctors, who do not have to protect any ‘contractual relationship’, may be more ethical and honest.

MADPET also is appalled in the DELAY in the charging of the 5 for crimes that occurred in January 2025. When a crime happens in a government facility, and the perpetrators are Public Officers, a speedy investigation and prosecution is best;

MADPET also demands that all Prison Officers to be mandatorily required to wear Body-Cams whilst on duty;

MADPET also demands that all CCTV recordings of places of detention be immediately transmitted to a central documentation center as this will prevent destruction of crucial evidence. On site recordings, as proven yet again, can be tampered/destroyed easily to protect perpetrators of the crime. The crime of tampering/destroying CCTV or Body-Cam recordings must carry a deterrent sentence;

MADPET believes that it is MOST important that SUHAKAM (Malaysian Human Rights Commission) and/or its delegated representative be given the right to be able to immediately access to places where there may be an alleged human rights violation. Now, the law allows for ‘red-tape’ delays by the authorities in charge of such places. This give time for destruction/tampering of evidence;

Thus, Section 4(2)(d) of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999 need to be amended to allow SUHAKAM and its delegated representative to have immediate access without any ‘red tape’ that can delay access and possibly undermine Justice being done;

MADPET also calls for the criminalizing the act of lying or providing false testimony by any witness, who does so, after taking the oath to speak the truth during a SUHAKAM Inquiry. It must be an offence in the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999, that stipulates also a deterrent sentence. Likewise, the refusal of a witness summoned but refuses to attend should be criminalized;

MADPET also calls for the repeal of Section 15(2) of the Human Rights Commission Of Malaysia Act 1999, which says, ‘(2) No person shall, in respect of any evidence written or oral given by that person to or before the Commission, be liable to any action or proceeding, civil or criminal in any court except when the person is charged with giving or fabricating false evidence.’ If one breaks the law, he/she should be liable to be charged for any applicable criminal offence, and also disciplinary action. Likewise, the evidence that emerges in any inquiry, should not be prevented to be used in civil suits commenced by victim (or families of the deceased victims) against said perpetrator in their quest for Justice.;

MADPET also calls for the enactment of laws specifically for offences of Public Officers where Torture, Causing Hurt or Death and law breaking happens during the course of the public service duties; and

MADPET reiterates that Malaysia should enact laws criminalizing TORTURE, enforced disappearance and extra-judicial killings, whereby a failure can lead to a perception that the government is not against such crimes.

JUSTICE MUST NOT ONLY BE DONE, BUT MUST ALSO BE SEEN TO BE DONE

 

 

Charles Hector

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

 

Media reported on statement briefly 

SNAPSHOT | Prison riot: Group questions why only 5 charged; govt exploring land route for durian export

Malaysiakini Team

Published:  Jul 6, 2026 6:22 PM

⋅

Updated: 8:38 PM

6pm

Taiping Prison

• Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (Madpet) has condemned the decision to charge only five prison officers over the Taiping prison riot, as Suhakam found around 60 officers were involved.

  ---

  READ MORE: KINIGUIDE | How inmates who refused inhumane conditions were beaten, framed for riot

  ---

  The group urged authorities to charge all officers involved in the violence, as well as those accused of destroying CCTV evidence, filing false reports and giving false testimony during Suhakam’s inquiry.

  Madpet also questioned why no action has been taken against officers and medical personnel responsible for delaying medical treatment for detainee Gan Chin Ying, who died after the incident... Malaysiakini, 6/7/2026

 

See also earlier posts:

Suhakam slams Taiping prison warden for lying at public inquiry - torture of 100 inmates, one died

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

SUHAKAM Public Inquiry - Death in Taiping Prison, Allegation of assault on prisoners started - but very little Media Coverage?

Treat REMAND Prisoners better/humanely - they are Presumed Innocent, and no treating like prisoners serving sentence. DNAA if prosecution/Court not ready to commence trial.

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?

When Doctor's LIE in letters/documents, should they be DISALLOWED to Practice as Doctors in Malaysia? Should he be also charged for MURDER, obstruction of justice, false documents?

 

Five Taiping Prison officers charged over alleged baton attacks on inmates

The facade of the Taiping Prison is shown in this undated photograph. — Penjara Taiping pic

First Published: Friday, 03 Jul 2026 2:50 PM MYT

TAIPING, July 3 — Five prison officers were charged in the Magistrate's Court here today with injuring three inmates at Taiping Prison in separate incidents last January.

All of the accused — Mohd Hairie Jumri, 40; Saiful Azman Mohamad Ibrahim, 44; Ahmad Rizal Razali, 37; Muhamad Mustakhim Abdul Rahim, 40; and Nor Hafiz Izwan Muhammad Jajam, 31 — pleaded not guilty to the charges.

In the court before Magistrate R. Prabakaran, Mohd Hairie and Saiful Azman are jointly charged with intentionally causing hurt to P. Jason Immanuel, 25, using a baton at Hall B, Taiping Prison, Jalan Taming Sari here, between 3pm and 4pm on Jan 17, 2025.

The charge was brought under Section 324 of the Penal Code, read together with Section 34 of the same Act, which provides for a maximum prison sentence of 10 years, a fine, or whipping, or any two of the punishments, upon conviction.

The two prison officers, an inspector and a sergeant, respectively, were allowed bail of RM4,000 each with two sureties and ordered to report to a nearby police station on the first day of every month pending the disposal of the case.

The court set Sept 7 for mention and the submission of documents.

In the same court, Ahmad Rizal, also a prison inspector, was charged with voluntarily causing hurt to V. Naveen Kumar, 32, at the same location between 3pm and 4.15pm on the same date.

The charge was brought under Section 323 of the Penal Code, which carries a maximum penalty of one year in prison, a fine of up to RM2,000, or both, upon conviction.

He was allowed bail of RM3,000 with two sureties. The court set Sept 7 for the submission of documents.

The accused were represented by lawyer Aqmarul Aqil Ismail, while Deputy Public Prosecutor Farihah Adilah Fazial prosecuted.

In the court before Magistrate Ahmad Hamdi Mustafar, Muhamad Mustakhim and Nor Hafiz Izwan were jointly charged under Section 323 of the Penal Code, read together with Section 34 of the same law, with voluntarily causing hurt to G. Yugarajan, 30, between 3pm and 4pm at the same location and date.

Magistrate Ahmad Hamdi allowed them bail of RM2,000 with one surety each and fixed Sept 8 for mention for the submission of documents.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Nazura Azman prosecuted, while lawyers Amirul Fairuzzeen Jamaluddin and Mohd Aidil Arsad represented Muhamad Mustakhim, and Nor Hafiz Izwan was represented by lawyer Aqmarul Aqil Ismail. — Bernama - Malay Mail, 3/7/2026

KINIGUIDE | How inmates who refused inhumane conditions were beaten, framed for riot

Farah Solhi & Zikri Kamarulzaman

Published:  Jun 25, 2026 7:00 AM

⋅

Updated: 10:36 A

KINIGUIDE | When 107 inmates awaiting High Court proceedings were moved from the Batu Gajah Correctional Centre to Taiping Prison on Jan 16, 2025, little did they know they would be beaten, stomped, and walked on by prison officers.

Though dubbed a prison riot, CCTV evidence reviewed by Suhakam found that prison guards - not the inmates - perpetrated the physical violence.

Malaysiakini unpacks the 261-page Suhakam report and details what exactly happened.

What happened before the ‘riot’?

The inmates were transferred to Taiping Prison due to overcrowding at the Batu Gajah Correctional Centre.

Upon arrival at the prison, a shouting match erupted between some inmates and a prison guard after they were barred from bringing personal items such as clothes for security reasons.

The detainees were placed in Hall B overnight for further security checks and measures.

The plan was to house the detainees in Block E - a place they did not want to go.

What was wrong with Block E?

Simply put, Block E was not fit for human use.

The only toilets were buckets; it was unsafe, dirty, and deemed unlivable, as testified by witnesses during investigations. When it rained, water would enter the cells.

Taiping Prison’s toilet bucket system

The block had been closed since 2021 after the Public Works Department found it unsafe to occupy without major repairs.

On the day the 107 were supposed to be moved, Jan 17, the detainees held four discussions with the prison officers, including the prison’s deputy director, Shahrul Izzat Hami, pleading to remain at Block B or be moved to the remand block instead.

Their request was denied.

How did the ‘riot’ start?

At 4pm on Jan 17, the inmates - who had been chatting, resting, and sleeping - were given one minute to get ready and leave for Block E.

After one minute, a group of about 58 prison guards stormed in - many clad in armour and wielding shields, batons, and pepper spray.

Another 65 were lined up outside Block B.

After the guards swarmed in, the inmates were instructed to sit on the floor cross-legged with their hands on their heads.

Before entry, the guards were instructed by Shahrul to only use force if the inmates acted violently.

Taiping Prison guard body armour, batons, shield, and pepper spray

However, those instructions were not followed.

CCTV footage showed a group of guards shoving an inmate at the back of the hall, while another officer was recorded kicking another inmate who was already lined up. This triggered an uproar from the inmates.

Then one by one, they were dragged out from Hall B and shoved, hit by batons, and kicked in the back as they made their way to Block E. Only a few were spared from violence, according to Suhakam’s notes on the CCTV footage.

Several of those waiting in line on the floor were also hit on the head with batons, while others were pepper-sprayed by guards.

One of the inmates beaten repeatedly was Gan Chin Eng, 61, who would die not long after.

The attacks occurred while Shahrul watched.

Suhakam noted that throughout the transfer and attacks, the CCTV did not record any instance of inmates retaliating or acting violently towards the guards.

Did Gan receive medical treatment?

Gan received severely delayed and negligent medical attention.

After being beaten and kicked by guards, he was seen wheezing and in a weakened state during the transfer to Block E.

Deceased prisoner Gan Chin Eng

Inside Block E, he collapsed on the floor. While fellow inmates tried to help and fan him, at least seven guards nearby ignored his condition.

Only after persistent pleas from detainees did a sergeant order that Gan be carried to the main gate on a stretcher.

At the gate, a medical officer attached to the prison examined him and found he had unstable oxygen levels.

While the doctor claimed Gan was transported to a hospital within five to eight minutes of arriving at the gate, CCTV footage showed the injured inmate was left waiting for over 30-40 minutes.

During this delay, the Suhakam report noted that the doctor left Gan unsupervised to meet Taiping Prison director Nazri Mohamad in the canteen.

Gan was eventually transported in a prison van that lacked medical equipment and was not accompanied by any medical staff.

He was pronounced dead at Taiping Hospital shortly after arrival, following 15-20 minutes of unsuccessful CPR.

In his referral letter to the hospital, the doctor reportedly wrote that Gan’s injuries were due to an “alleged fall in the toilet” based on the testimony of two other inmates.

However, both inmates categorically denied ever making such a claim.

What happened to the rest?

Following the incident, 24 detainees were sent to Block C, the isolation block, while the remainder were moved into the dilapidated Block E.

On the night of the incident, the prison’s two medical officers visited the inmates and cleaned the wounds of those seriously injured. However, they were only given gauze bandages, and no wounds were stitched, even for those with head injuries.

Stitching was only carried out the next day, with one inmate receiving stitches three days after the incident.

Medical examinations days and weeks later found that detainees suffered serious injuries, including fractured ribs and burst eardrums.

Map showing the distance between Taiping Prison and Taiping Hospital

Some of the injured were only sent to a hospital for further treatment after complaining during court proceedings.

Meanwhile, the prison management initially intended to take disciplinary action against the 24 who were isolated, claiming they had started a riot.

In the days following the transfer, the prison management withheld necessities and hygiene supplies, including soap, toothbrushes, mattresses, blankets, and slippers.

Detainees were forced to wear blood-stained clothes for two weeks and were only permitted to bathe using water from a dirty basin that was usually reserved for cleaning toilet buckets. They were not permitted to use a bigger basin that was meant for bathing.

Furthermore, the management blocked family visits and telephone access, which prevented them from informing outsiders about what happened.

However, Nazri claimed that visits and phone access were being prioritised for Chinese inmates because of the Chinese New Year.

How did this get framed as a prison riot?

Suhakam’s public inquiry panel found the framing of the incident as a “riot” was a deliberate narrative created by prison management as an “afterthought” to cover up guard brutality.

The human rights commission also accused Shahrul of instructing one of the guards to lodge a false police report about the incident.

In the report, the guard claimed that the inmates had acted aggressively and attacked guards, forcing them to retaliate.

Suhakam asserted that claims by guards that an inmate had issued a rape threat against one of their wives were a lie that they concocted together.

The commission said that to support this narrative, prison doctors manipulated medical records with notes such as “post provocation riot” and “hostile inmate started riot”.

What action was taken?

Despite the Prisons Department's internal investigation confirming standard operation procedure violations and guard violence, no disciplinary action was taken against the officers involved.

Officials cited a “double jeopardy” policy, claiming administrative action could not proceed while a police investigation was ongoing - a justification the inquiry panel found legally flawed.

Instead, the department executed administrative transfers, moving the director to a state office and six other officers to the Kamunting Correctional Centre.

The police investigation, which initially focused only on Gan’s death under Section 302 of the Penal Code for murder, was criticised for being non-comprehensive regarding the other assaults.

Eventually, one officer was charged under Section 304(b) for culpable homicide related to Gan’s death.

The Home Ministry, in a written Parliament reply on June 23, 2026, said the ministry and the Prisons Department were taking follow-up action on Suhakam’s recommendations.

One action included the gradual abolition of the toilet bucket system.

What did Suhakam recommend?

The inquiry panel issued several urgent recommendations to prevent future tragedies:

• For the police to conduct a separate, transparent investigation into the guard violence and the filing of false reports, leading to immediate prosecutions.

• For Taiping Prison to be decommissioned as a detention facility due to its hazardous condition and status as a heritage site, with a new prison built elsewhere.

• For the toilet bucket system to be immediately abolished and replaced with modern sanitation to uphold prisoner dignity.

• For authorities to address prison overcrowding and reduce the long remand periods that contribute to institutional tension.

• For prison medical staff to be placed under the direct supervision of the Health Ministry to eliminate “dual loyalty” and ensure independent care.

• For Malaysia to ratify the UN Convention Against Torture and enact specific anti-torture laws to criminalise all forms of cruel or degrading treatment.

• For the government to strengthen Suhakam’s statutory powers to allow unrestricted, unannounced access to all places of detention. - Malaysiakini, 25/6/2026

Kepong MP questions delay in alleged abuse charges at Taiping Prison

Lim urges authorities to broaden its investigations saying the prosecution of five guards accused of assaulting detainees should mark the beginning of accountability efforts and not the end of the case

Updated 2 days ago · Published on 04 Jul 2026 10:40AM

Lim Lip Eng calls for full accountability in Taiping Prison assault case - July 4, 2026

KEPONG Member of Parliament Lim Lip Eng has called for a comprehensive investigation into alleged misconduct at Taiping Prison, following charges against five prison guards accused of assaulting detainees, insisting that responsibility should extend beyond frontline personnel.

He said the Malaysian Human Rights Commission’s (SUHAKAM) findings suggested possible excessive use of force by prison staff, including allegations involving baton and pepper spray abuse, as well as the submission of false police reports and falsified medical records.

“The question is, why haven't those suspected of filing false reports, approving false information, falsifying medical records, and attempting to cover up the truth been publicly charged yet?” Oriental Daily News reported him saying.

Lim said the case involving detainee Gan Chin Ying, who died on January 17, 2025, had only seen a manslaughter charge brought nearly 11 months later against a prison guard, while five additional guards were charged only after the Human Rights Commission released its findings on May 25 this year.

He questioned whether the case would have remained unresolved without sustained pressure from the victim’s family, public scrutiny and the commission’s investigation.

“If it weren't for the family's insistence on pursuing the case, the public's continued attention, and the Human Rights Commission's investigation, would this case have been buried long ago, and would the truth have continued to be covered up?” he said.

Lim stressed that accountability must extend across the entire chain of command, not only to lower-ranking officers directly involved in the alleged abuse.

“Those who commit violence must face the law. Those who file false reports, falsify records, and those who cover up or condone such acts will also not escape responsibility,” he said.

He urged the Royal Malaysia Police and the Attorney General’s Chambers to provide a public update on the investigation into alleged false reports and falsified medical records, including identifying those involved and clarifying when prosecution decisions would be made.

“Prisons are not above the law. Detainees lose their freedom, not their human rights, much less the right to be beaten, framed, or silenced at will,” he added. - July 4, 2026, VIBES