KUALA LUMPUR: The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia’s (Suhakam) findings into the violence at Taiping Prison in January 2025 paint a damning picture of systemic abuse, institutional neglect and weak accountability within Malaysia’s prison system.
Among the Public Inquiry Panel’s most disturbing findings were:
• Negligence in the provision of medical treatment.
• Falsification of medical records.
• Restrictions on personal hygiene and basic necessities.
• Conflict of interest in the administration of urine tests.
• False police reports by prison officers.
• Destruction of evidence.
• Deficiencies in the internal investigation conducted by the Malaysian Prisons Department.
• Inadequate police investigations.
• Delays by the Attorney-General’s Chambers in court proceedings.
• False testimony before Suhakam’s inquiry panel.
The panel also found that the death of detainee Gan Chin Eng, 62, constituted a serious violation of human rights.
The findings followed a public inquiry that spanned more than three months, with hearings held between June 9 and Sept 22, 2025.
Conducted at the Kamunting Correctional Centre in Taiping, Perak, and Suhakam’s headquarters in Kuala Lumpur, the inquiry heard testimony from 50 witnesses before a panel comprising Suhakam chairman Datuk Seri Hishamudin Yunus, Datuk Mariati Robert and Dr Farah Nini Dusuki.
The inquiry also examined the circumstances surrounding the death of Gan, who allegedly suffered abdominal injuries caused by blunt-force trauma during a prison transfer operation on Jan 17, 2025, as first reported by Twentytwo13 columnist and criminologist Datuk Dr P. Sundramoorthy on Jan 25.
The Public Inquiry Panel found that prison officers inflicted excessive physical violence on remand inmates during a transfer operation from Hall B to Block E. The violence also extended to detainees housed in Block B.
The forms of violence identified by the panel included:
• Excessive beatings using gazetted weapons and security equipment.
• Punching, striking and kicking inmates, individually and in groups.
• Forcefully pushing inmates.
• Stomping on their bodies.
• Roughly dragging inmates.
• Spraying pepper spray on handcuffed inmates seated in rows.
The panel said these human rights violations were established through CCTV footage, consistent testimony and admissions by inmates and prison officers, documented injuries and medical records.
It also rejected claims that only “minimum force” had been used to restore order, concluding that the violence was excessive, inhumane and unjustifiable.
The panel found that prison officers appeared to have lost self-control during the operation, resulting in conduct that was excessive, inhumane and unacceptable.
It also found that prison officers misused weapons and security equipment during the transfer to Block E, including batons, pepper spray, body armour and shields.
According to the panel, the use of such equipment was inconsistent with the Commissioner General of Prisons’ Standing Orders, which permit such equipment to be used only in exigent circumstances to maintain control and ensure safety.
The panel further concluded that body armour and shields appeared to have been used primarily to intimidate inmates and protect officers while acts of violence were carried out.
The panel found that the human rights violations were attributable to several factors, grouped into three categories:
• Immediate causes.
• Underlying causes.
• Contributing causes.
Immediate causes
The Public Inquiry Panel found that management’s decision to place inmates in Block E, despite knowing it was structurally damaged, unsafe and in need of extensive refurbishment, was a primary cause of the human rights violations.
The block was deemed unsuitable for occupation due to the use of a bucket system, flooding and sanitation issues, pest infestations, and non-compliance with safety and fire standards.
The panel concluded that inmates were justified in refusing to be housed there.
It further found that the transfer operation was not conducted in a safe or controlled manner. Negotiations over the transfer were not genuinely aimed at reaching a mutual solution but at compelling inmates to accept placement in Block E. After talks failed, no cooling-off period was provided, and the transfer proceeded hastily.
The operation was carried out without a clear chain of command or effective supervision by senior officers, resulting in prison officers acting arbitrarily and exceeding their authority.
The inquiry also attributed the violations to the negligence and incompetence of senior prison officers, citing failures to control the situation, comply with SOPs, prevent violence and take proactive steps to de-escalate tensions.
The panel found that allegations of a riot were merely an afterthought intended to shift blame onto detainees. It also criticised the weak leadership of the Taiping Prison director, who delegated operational responsibility to subordinates despite being aware of existing security risks.
The presence of numerous prison officers who failed to intervene to stop the violence further highlighted serious shortcomings in operational management and control.
The panel concluded that the incident reflected systemic failures in the management of Taiping Prison.
Underlying causes
Severe prison overcrowding was one of the underlying causes of the human rights violations.
The transfer of detainees between prisons to ease overcrowding was merely a temporary measure and failed to address the root causes of the problem.
As a result, Taiping Prison was required to receive remand detainees from Kamunting Correctional Centre despite lacking sufficient capacity.
The Malaysian Prisons Department headquarters approved the transfer of about 300 detainees from Kamunting Correctional Centre to Taiping Prison because of overcrowding.
However, the panel found that planning for the Jan 16, 2025, transfer was not carried out with sufficient care despite coordination meetings having been held.
Among the shortcomings were failures to consider damage to remand block dormitories and the condition of infrastructure at Taiping Prison, as well as the rushed implementation of the transfer in contravention of instructions contained in the approval letter issued by the Director of Prisons for the State of Perak.
The panel also found that the human rights violations were attributable to administrative shortcomings, including inadequate training for prison officers, an insufficient understanding of legal requirements that led to inconsistent implementation, ineffective leadership arising from the absence of structured training, and weaknesses in monitoring, supervision and checks-and-balances mechanisms.
It further found that Taiping Prison faced staffing shortages due to long-standing vacancies and the rotational transfer of officers to satellite prisons.
This created an imbalance between the number of detainees and officers, increasing workloads and security risks. As a result, detainee treatment was adversely affected as prison officers experienced greater stress, undermining detainee management.
The panel also found that lengthy periods of remand detention caused emotional stress and adversely affected inmates’ mental health while they waited for trial dates and the completion of court proceedings.
At the same time, prison officers were affected by the need to manage detainees held for extended periods and deal with a wide range of demands, resulting in increasingly strained and emotionally charged relationships.
Contributing causes
One contributing factor was Taiping Prison’s status as a heritage building since 2012.
While recognising its historical and architectural significance, the panel found that the heritage designation had complicated maintenance, increased repair costs and restricted infrastructure upgrades, particularly to sanitation systems.
This contributed to the continued use of the bucket system, worsening building deterioration and creating an increasingly unsuitable prison environment.
The panel concluded that Taiping Prison was no longer fit for use as a prison and that detainees should be relocated to a new facility.
It also found that funding constraints prevented repair works recommended by the Public Works Department from being carried out, leading to further deterioration of prison infrastructure and increasing feelings of insecurity among detainees housed in unsafe accommodation blocks.
Human rights violations after the incident
The panel found that further human rights violations occurred after detainees were placed in Blocks C and E following the Jan 17 incident.
Among them was medical negligence, including delays in obtaining hospital care despite serious injuries, failures to make timely referrals, diagnostic errors that initially recorded fractured ribs as merely “soft tissue injuries”, and the misuse of a body-scanning machine as a diagnostic tool.
The panel said these failures may have been intended to conceal the true extent of detainees’ injuries.
It also found evidence of falsified medical records, including altered treatment dates and misleading injury descriptions that focused on allegations of rioting while omitting violence by prison officers.
The panel said this appeared aimed at concealing the incident and reflected a “dual loyalty” conflict between medical ethics and institutional interests.
Detainees were also subjected to inhumane and degrading treatment through restrictions on personal hygiene, clean clothing, mattresses, blankets and communication with family members.
The panel found a conflict of interest in the administration of urine tests, as officers directly involved in the incident conducted the tests and prepared the reports.
It also found that the testing procedures failed to comply with prison guidelines, raising concerns about the validity of the results.
Several police reports lodged against detainees were found to contain false allegations that they had provoked, assaulted or acted aggressively towards prison officers.
The panel concluded that the violence originated from prison officers and said the false reports undermined justice and appeared designed to shield official misconduct.
It also found evidence that photographs and videos had been deleted from official devices.
Taiping Prison and the Malaysian Prisons Department headquarters were further criticised for failing to preserve complete CCTV footage with timestamps, raising concerns about possible manipulation or loss of evidence.
The panel found serious shortcomings in the Malaysian Prisons Department’s internal investigation, noting that despite clear CCTV evidence and SOP breaches, no disciplinary action was taken.
It rejected the department’s reliance on “double jeopardy” as a reason not to act and criticised its failure to correct false police reports.
The Royal Malaysia Police was criticised for failing to conduct a dedicated investigation into allegations of violence by prison officers despite evidence of possible criminal conduct.
According to the panel, this denied detainees justice and created the perception that public officials were effectively immune from legal action.
The Attorney-General’s Chambers was also criticised for significant delays in reviewing investigation papers and initiating charges.
The panel said these delays undermined public confidence in the legal system and fuelled perceptions that public officials received preferential treatment.
Finally, the panel found that prison officer witnesses gave contradictory and false testimony during the inquiry despite CCTV footage showing violence against detainees.
It said attempts to describe the violence using terms such as “subduing” and “use of physical force” obscured what had occurred and warned that such testimony may breach the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999 and potentially constitute criminal offences.
Human rights violations in the death of Gan Chin Eng
The Public Inquiry Panel found that Gan’s death constituted a serious violation of human rights and identified several factors that contributed to it.
The panel found circumstantial evidence that Gan sustained injuries as a result of excessive violence by Taiping Prison officers during the Jan 17, 2025, incident. Although there were no direct eyewitnesses, the established facts and nature of his injuries indicated that the violence contributed to his death.
It also found significant and unjustifiable delays in providing treatment despite clear signs that Gan was in pain and that his condition was deteriorating.
The delays occurred during his transfer to Block E, while he remained there and while awaiting transport to Taiping Hospital despite the hospital being located nearby. The panel said this reflected a careless attitude by prison officers and medical personnel.
Gan was also not provided with appropriate emergency treatment despite being visibly weak and critically ill. Medical personnel left him unattended, forcing fellow detainees to attempt “rescue breathing” despite having no medical training.
The panel concluded that the Medical Officer and Assistant Medical Officer were negligent, breached professional medical ethics and committed acts of medical neglect that directly contributed to Gan’s death.
The inquiry also identified deficiencies in emergency medical facilities, noting that oxygen support was not provided because the oxygen cylinder was stored at the Prison Clinic and could not be easily brought to the main gate.
The panel said this exposed weaknesses in emergency medical preparedness at Taiping Prison and hindered efforts to save Gan’s life.
Public Inquiry Panel’s recommendations
The panel recommended that the Royal Malaysia Police conduct independent and transparent investigations into violence by prison officers and allegedly false police reports, followed by prompt prosecution where warranted.
It also said legal action should be taken against prison officers involved in violence against detainees, citing CCTV footage and witness testimony as direct evidence of criminal conduct that resulted in injuries and deaths.
Other recommendations included:
• Reforming prosecution processes within the Attorney-General’s Chambers through clearer timelines, better coordination with State Prosecution Offices and reduced bureaucracy to ensure faster and more transparent prosecutorial decisions, particularly in cases involving public officials.
• Taking disciplinary action against prison management and officers responsible for failing to control the incident, as well as those involved in violence and breaches of SOPs and the law, to ensure accountability and prevent similar incidents.
• Addressing prison overcrowding by reviewing remand and imprisonment policies, expanding alternatives to detention and improving the criminal justice system to reduce trial delays. The panel also proposed establishing a Justice Ministry to oversee prosecution, the judiciary, sentencing and the Malaysian Prisons Department.
• Upgrading Taiping Prison’s infrastructure, including abolishing the bucket system, improving basic facilities, carrying out regular maintenance and providing sufficient funding pending the construction of a new prison.
• Improving prison management through regular and comprehensive training on SOPs, detainee management, emotional regulation, the responsible use of force and human rights, while eliminating bullying and degrading treatment of detainees.
• Strengthening governance within the Malaysian Prisons Department through improved monitoring mechanisms, the prompt filling of vacant posts and the appointment of competent management personnel to ensure prison operations are conducted efficiently, with integrity and balanced workloads.
• Ensuring detainees’ basic needs are met consistently, including personal and environmental hygiene, adequate accommodation space and access to essential facilities such as communication, recreational activities and religious observance.
• The panel said such facilities should be provided fairly, equitably and without discrimination to ensure detainees’ dignity and human rights are protected.
• Improving healthcare within prison institutions through upgrades to medical facilities at Taiping Prison, stronger oversight by the Health Ministry, the abolition of the practice of “dual loyalty”, regular training for medical personnel and disciplinary action against negligent Medical Officers.
• The panel also recommended that prison Medical Officers be placed entirely under the supervision of the Health Ministry.
• Reviewing the continued use of Taiping Prison as a detention facility in light of its heritage status, infrastructure condition and considerations relating to the safety and welfare of detainees and staff.
• The panel said Taiping Prison, which was built in 1879, should cease operating as a prison and instead be preserved as a museum or heritage site, while a new prison should be built elsewhere.
• Ratifying the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) and enacting specific legislation criminalising all forms of torture, inhuman treatment and degrading treatment.
• Strengthening Suhakam’s role through enhanced statutory powers to ensure its monitoring and investigative functions can be carried out more effectively.
The panel further recommended that Suhakam be granted full authority to conduct monitoring and investigations at any time without restriction, including unrestricted access to all necessary documents and information.
