Suhakam urges action against Taiping Prison officers involved in violent incident

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

© New Straits Times Press (M) Bhd

المصدر: New Straits Times