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)
Five Taiping Prison officers charged over alleged baton attacks on inmates
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 | 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
