Latest news with #Taiping
Free Malaysia Today
2 days ago
- Free Malaysia Today
Gravedigger charged with sexually assaulting boy in mosque toilet
Syahril Reza Omar pleaded not guilty after the charge was read in the Taiping sessions court. PETALING JAYA : A gravedigger has been charged in the Taiping sessions court with committing physical sexual assault on a nine-year-old boy last year. Syahril Reza Omar, 43, pleaded not guilty after the charge was read before judge Nabisha Ibrahim, Berita Harian reported. Syahril was charged with sexually assaulting the victim by kissing his face and neck in the women's toilet of a mosque in Kamunting at around 12.30pm on July 11. The charge was framed under Section 14(a) of the Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017, which provides for a maximum of 20 years in prison and a whipping, upon conviction. Deputy public prosecutor Shabani Bahari proposed bail of RM30,000 but lawyer Syed Saifullizan Syed Abd Razak from the National Legal Aid Foundation asked for a lower amount, saying his client only received a monthly allowance of RM400 a month as a gravedigger. He also said that Syahril was a single father with three children aged eight to 19 to care for. Nabisha allowed bail of RM8,000, ordered Syahril to report to the cops every month, and fixed Aug 19 for case mention.
Free Malaysia Today
10-07-2025
- Free Malaysia Today
Taiping prison officer admits filing false police report over inmate assault
Suhakam is investigating the alleged assault of over 100 inmates at Taiping prison on Jan 17, which resulted in one death and injury to multiple others. (Facebook pic) KUALA LUMPUR : A senior Taiping prison officer has admitted to filing a false police report on the alleged mass assault of inmates by prison wardens, saying it was to keep the incident from being 'manipulated' by other parties. Deputy superintendent Khairul Esmail Zawawi, 31, one of the prison's top five officers, told Suhakam that he filed the report at the Taiping police headquarters after preparing a draft based on information he had gathered. He admitted that the report – which claimed that the more than 100 inmates were the aggressors – did not reflect what actually happened. 'I agree that the report was not entirely true,' he said after being shown CCTV footage that contradicted his version of events. When asked whether the report was false, he replied: 'Yes.' Khairul also acknowledged that he did not personally witness any inmate attacking prison officers. When pressed further, he said the purpose of the report was 'more of a cover report, to prevent other parties from manipulating the situation'. He was testifying during the third session of Suhakam's inquiry into the Jan 17 incident, which resulted in the death of one inmate and injury to multiple others. Khairul also revealed that the report was made on the order of the prison's deputy director, who also contributed to the contents of the report. When asked if everything stated in the report was false, Khairul said: 'Not everything.' However, he acknowledged that there were discrepancies, including the claim that the inmates had attacked the officers first. He said his report was partly based on information received from other officers, including a sergeant who claimed to have received treatment for injuries at Taiping Hospital. 'I didn't see the attack myself, but maybe there were inmates who were aggressive,' he said. The panel then asked: 'Is it fair to say your police report is fake?' Khairul replied in the affirmative, acknowledging that filing a false police report was against the law. Khairul, who has served as deputy superintendent at Taiping prison since 2022, also gave details of what he witnessed on Jan 17, when the mass transfer of inmates from Hall B to Block E took place. He said he was on duty from 2.45pm to 9pm that day and noticed 40 to 50 officers heading to Hall B carrying batons, shields and other gear. 'I wasn't directly involved in the transfer, but I saw officers escorting inmates in a rough manner,' he said. He said some officers used batons to strike inmates on their legs, which he agreed was unnecessary. When asked whether he had intervened, he said he was positioned about 20 to 30 feet away and could not control the situation despite shouting. He also cited the presence of higher-ranking officers, including the prison's deputy director, as a reason for not taking control of the situation. During the session, CCTV footage was played showing officers allegedly forcing inmates to perform the 'duck walk' – a degrading method of movement in a squatting position. When asked if this was allowed, Khairul replied: 'You can't do that. Yes, that's wrong.' He also confirmed, after initially hesitating, that he was the officer seen kicking an inmate. Suhakam's inquiry is chaired by commission chairman Hishamudin Yunus, with commissioner Farah Nini Dusuki also on the panel. The fourth session is scheduled to be held from July 23 to July 25.
Yahoo
10-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
‘Taiping Prison officers acted inappropriately, a culture of indiscipline, weakness in top management'
The inmate transfer incident at Taiping Prison on Jan 17 was the result of mismanagement, poor planning, an unclear chain of command, and a failure to adhere to standard operating procedures. Karmegan Kamachi Pillay, a Taiping Prison Sergeant who has served at the facility for the past 10 years, said his fellow officers acted inappropriately when confronting prisoners in Hall B, adding that many of his colleagues were indisciplined. Karmegan, 48, was testifying at the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia's (Suhakam) public inquiry into alleged human rights violations linked to the incident. The inquiry panel is chaired by Suhakam chairman Datuk Seri Mohd Hishamudin Md Yunus and Suhakam commissioner Dr Farah Nini Dusuki. Asked by Suhakam's assisting inquiry officer Simon Karunagaram if the officers' actions were warranted, Karmegan replied they were not. 'I was asked to negotiate with the prisoners to get them to move from Hall B to Block E. I asked the prisoners to nominate a spokesperson and spoke to one of them – Arumugam,' said Karmegan. 'He informed me the prisoners were against moving to Block E as they were more comfortable in Hall B. Block E didn't have proper toilets and used the bucket system.' Karmegan said he then told one Inspector Mustakhim that he needed more time to negotiate with the prisoners. Mustakhim left for the main office. He added he was surprised when, after 30-40 minutes, Mustakhim returned with a group of officers – some carrying riot shields. Simon: What happened next? Karmegan: I was still trying to convince Arumugam to get the prisoners to move when Mustakhim entered the hall and shouted at them to sit down and put their hands on their heads. Simon: Did anyone fight back? Karmegan: No. Simon: What happened next? Karmegan: I heard Mustakhim raise his voice and ask, 'Kenapa tak nak dengar? Kenapa tak nak pindah?' (Why are you not listening? Why don't you want to move?) I was outside the hall at the time. Simon: Did Mustakhim give them time? Karmegan: I'm not sure. Karmegan said he then entered the hall and tried to move some of the older prisoners outside. Asked by Hishamudin if he did so because he feared the officers would act aggressively, Karmegan replied: 'No, I felt sorry for them.' Simon: Do you know why Mustakhim started hitting the prisoners? Karmegan: I'm not sure. He didn't tell me what he was doing, and he didn't wait for me to complete negotiations. Simon: When Mustakhim started hitting the prisoners, did they try to stand up? Karmegan: No, they remained seated. Simon: Did any prisoners attack the officers? Karmegan: No, they didn't. Simon: In your opinion, were the officers' actions justified? Karmegan: No. Simon: Did you see anyone else hitting the prisoners? Karmegan: Yes. Karmegan said he didn't know what to do when officers started attacking the prisoners, including hitting those who were already handcuffed and using pepper spray on them. He added that he, too, was affected by the pepper spray and had to unbutton his shirt. Hishamudin: Do you think the management was not strong, and that is why the officers took matters into their own hands? Do you think there is a weakness in prison leadership? Karmegan: Yes. Hishamudin: Do you agree if I say there is a lack of discipline among some officers who think they are above the law and, in prison, they are 'kings'? Karmegan: Yes, some officers behave as such. Hishamudin: How can we avoid a repeat of such an incident? Karmegan: The management needs to send more officers for sensitivity and humanity training. They need to learn empathy and be more compassionate. Earlier, witness Teuku Mohd Hasbi Tarmizi, 38, said the prisoners had demanded access to phones and better toilet facilities if they were to be moved from Hall B to Block E. Teuku Mohd Hasbi, who is Taiping Prison's Deputy Prison Administrator, said negotiations were ongoing when the incident happened. He denied issuing any orders for officers to use body armour. Asked by Suhakam's assisting inquiry officer Aida Suraya Haron if he knew the prisoners didn't want to move, Teuku Mohd Hasbi said yes. Aida Suraya: So there were negotiations? What was the outcome? Teuku Mohd Hasbi: They said they wanted to remain where they were. Aida Suraya: What happened next? Teuku Mohd Hasbi: I reported the matter to (Deputy Director of Taiping Prison) Shahrul Izzat (Hamid). He asked that we postpone the move. He told me to wait for further orders. Aida Suraya: At what time did the new orders arrive? Teuku Mohd Hasbi: After Friday prayers. After 2pm. Aida Suraya: Why didn't you report the matter directly to the director? Teuku Mohd Hasbi: He wasn't around at the time. He added that Inspector Mustakhim later spoke to Shahrul Izzat, and then to the prison's director, SAC Nazri Mohamed. Aida Suraya: What was the outcome of the conversation? Teuku Mohd Hasbi: I don't know. I wasn't privy to it. Aida Suraya: What happened next? Teuku Mohd Hasbi: I was informed the transfer was to go ahead as planned, and that there would be a briefing by Shahrul Izzat. Aida Suraya: What was the briefing about? Teuku Mohd Hasbi: I arrived late, but I heard him say the transfer would proceed as planned and asked us to follow SOP. I was surprised to see officers with riot shields. Aida Suraya: Did you order them to wear body armour? Teuku Mohd Hasbi: No, I didn't. Aida Suraya: Could it have been one of your supervisors? Teuku Mohd Hasbi: I wasn't informed. He then said the Control and Prevention Unit marched to Hall B, but he did not follow and waited at the second gate near the body scanners. Teuku Mohd Hasbi denied seeing doctors and medical assistants treating wounded inmates. He admitted he did not file a police report but said he saw a copy in his office, although he could not remember its contents. He added that some people have better memory than others and admitted his was poor. 'I saw the report in January. It is now July, and I cannot fully recall it. I'm not sure whether it mentioned the death of Gan.' On Jan 25, Twentytwo13 reported that 62-year-old Gan Chin Eng, a detainee, had died from abdominal injuries caused by blunt trauma during the incident. The inquiry is investigating claims that more than 60 officers at the prison had assaulted more than 100 inmates, resulting in one death and many others being injured. The inquiry at Suhakam's headquarters in Kuala Lumpur continues tomorrow. Main image: Datuk Seri Mohd Hishamudin Md Yunus (right) and Dr Farah Nini Dusuki.
Free Malaysia Today
10-07-2025
- Free Malaysia Today
Suhakam slams Taiping prison warden for lying at public inquiry
Suhakam chairman Hishamudin Yunus, who also chairs the inquiry panel, had rebuked the Taiping prison warden Raja Masrul Azan Raja Mansor for attempting to downplay his involvement in the Jan 17 incident. KUALA LUMPUR : The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) today accused a Taiping prison warden of lying during a public inquiry into the alleged abuse of over 100 inmates, questioning his inconsistent statements in light of video evidence. During the third session of the inquiry, prison officer Raja Masrul Azan Raja Mansor, 29, was repeatedly grilled over his role in a controversial operation earlier this year that allegedly led to the death of one inmate and injuries to many others. Suhakam chairman Hishamudin Yunus, who also chairs the inquiry panel, rebuked Raja Masrul for attempting to downplay his involvement in the incident and for claiming uncertainty over what was shown in a CCTV footage. 'You say that you're not sure, but the video clearly shows you hitting the inmates. How do you expect us to believe you?' Hishamudin asked. When Raja Masrul insisted he did not intend to harm anyone, Hishamudin said: 'It's so obvious that you had hit (them). Why do you keep lying? Your baton struck a prisoner who was already on the floor.' The officer earlier admitted that he was equipped with a baton and pepper spray during the incident while several colleagues wore body armour and carried shields. 'I was given a baton and pepper spray. That's what we prison wardens normally carry. After the briefing, we were ordered to go to Hall B. It was chaotic. I saw some inmates not cooperating with the officers,' he said. When asked if force was used because some inmates refused to cooperate, Raja Masrul replied: 'I didn't see anything.' Pressed further, he denied using force himself but later admitted seeing injuries on some inmates after the incident. 'I saw some with injuries on their heads and bodies,' he said. Raja Masrul was then questioned by the panel on the legality of him bringing a mobile phone into the prison, after he admitted taking pictures during the incident. 'I was ordered by my officer-in-charge (OC) to take photos of what was happening. I was just following orders,' he said. Raja Masrul maintained he did not record any video footage, but could not explain why the CCTV appeared to show him holding a phone and chasing an inmate. Asked whether he could see himself hitting a prisoner in the footage, Raja Masrul said: 'I'm not sure. I tried to hit but it didn't land.' Hishamudin: Then why did you raise your baton? Raja Masrul: I don't remember. The panel also questioned his claim that he was merely trying to scare the inmates. 'I didn't hit them. I was just trying to scare them and the baton accidentally struck the inmate,' Raja Masrul said. This prompted Hishamudin to question Raja Masrul's credibility. 'If you're lying about this, how can I believe you only took photos and didn't record videos?' he asked. The prison officer then said he could not remember whether he recorded a video or only took pictures, adding that he had been ordered to record the incident and hand it over. In yesterday's inquiry session, the panel also reprimanded deputy superintendent Teuku Hasbi Tarmizi over his evasive answers when questioned on the details of the incident. Suhakam is holding a public inquiry to investigate claims that some 60 prison wardens assaulted inmates at Taiping prison on Jan 17. The fourth session of the inquiry is scheduled to take place from July 23 to 25.
Yahoo
09-07-2025
- Yahoo
Chief Inspector at Taiping Prison admits attempting to kick inmate without provocation
Chief Inspector at Taiping Prison, Shafril Azmir Mohd Shafie, admitted today that he had tried to kick a prisoner without provocation. He also admitted to failing to document a riot that broke out in Hall B on Jan 17 and said he had lost control of the situation. Shafril, 48, said the incident traumatised him and had left gaps in his memory. He testified at the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia's (Suhakam) public inquiry into alleged human rights violations linked to the incident. Shafril initially denied being aggressive towards any prisoner that day, but changed his statement after being shown closed-circuit television (CCTV) footage. He testified before an inquiry panel chaired by Suhakam chairman Datuk Seri Mohd Hishamudin Md Yunus and Dr Farah Nini Dusuki. When asked by Suhakam's assisting inquiry officer Mohd Faiz Abdul Rahman whether he had acted aggressively, Shafril replied, 'As far as I can remember, no.' But when shown the footage of himself attempting to kick an inmate, he replied, 'Yes, that's me.' Asked if officers – dressed in body armour and armed with riot shields, pepper spray and batons – had been told to expect resistance, Shafril said, 'No, we were just told to be prepared.' He said (Deputy Director of Taiping Prison) Shahrul Izzat Hamid had briefed them only to be on standby. When asked if there had been instructions to act aggressively, Shafril denied it, but admitted that wardens had lost control of the situation. Asked whether he had issued any order to stop the Control and Prevention Unit (UKP) guards from hurting the prisoners, Shafril said he could not remember, adding that even if he had, it was possible the others did not hear him due to the noise. 'I can't remember what I did, and I don't remember 100 per cent what happened on Jan 17,' he said. 'I still can't accept what happened that day. It weighs heavily on me.' The inquiry, now in its second phase, is aimed at determining whether any human rights violations were committed in the incident, identifying those responsible, and recommending measures to prevent a recurrence. During the first phase last month at Pusat Koreksional Kamunting (Kemta), 18 witnesses – including detainees – testified. On Jan 25, Twentytwo13 reported that 62-year-old Gan Chin Eng had died from abdominal injuries caused by blunt trauma during the incident. Earlier today, Taiping Prison's chief registrar Ahmad Shaiful Rafie, 45, told the panel that although health screenings were required, no individual checks were carried out on Jan 16 for the 104 detainees transferred from Batu Gajah Correctional Facility. He said the transfer was due to overcrowding at Batu Gajah. Ahmad Shaiful, who was on duty on Jan 16 and 17, agreed with Hishamudin that it was his responsibility to ensure the screenings were conducted at the point of entry. Hishamudin: There were many detainees (104), and no individual screenings were done. What is the correct procedure? Ahmad Shaiful: The screening is done individually. Hishamudin: So, no individual screenings were carried out on Jan 16? Ahmad Shaiful: I'm not sure. I was told there was a medical officer, but I did not see the officer myself. He was also unsure if any screening took place on Jan 17. He said while it was his responsibility, other departments were also involved. He confirmed that the 104 detainees were placed in Hall B upon arrival. When asked by assisting inquiry officer Simon Karunagaram if there were any incidents in Hall B that day, Ahmad Shaiful said there had been provocation. He said he had gone to Hall B to identify eight detainees to be sent back to Batu Gajah for security reasons. Five of them belonged to the 'Gang 5 Beradik', and the remaining three had previous records. 'When I got there, Inspector Ahmad Rizal (Razali) was already with the detainees. There had been an exchange of words, and I asked him to leave.' Simon: Why did you ask Inspector Rizal to leave? Ahmad Shaiful: So it would be easier for me to extract the eight detainees and return the situation to normal. Simon: Were those eight involved in the exchange? Ahmad Shaiful: I don't think so. Simon: What time did this happen? Ahmad Shaiful: About half an hour after they arrived. Simon: Did they threaten or provoke Rizal? Ahmad Shaiful: I'm not sure, but I heard threats and lewd words. Things like, 'Dalam you punya, luar kita punya. (Inside belongs to you, outside is ours).' Simon: Did Rizal say anything harsh? Ahmad Shaiful: Not that I heard. Hishamudin then referred to the CCTV footage. Hishamudin: You told Rizal to leave, but his body language – raising his hands – suggested he was unhappy. Would you agree that's not proper for an officer? Ahmad Shaiful: Yes, I agree. Hishamudin: Was he spitting? Ahmad Shaiful: Yes, correct, Datuk Seri. Hishamudin: And raising a finger? Ahmad Shaiful: Yes. Hishamudin: Isn't that lewd? Ahmad Shaiful: Yes. He agreed that as a trained officer, Rizal should have managed his emotions better. Regarding Jan 17, Ahmad Shaiful said he entered Hall B after hearing loud noises. He was later informed that another provocation had taken place. 'If there is no wind, the trees will not sway,' he remarked. He agreed with Hishamudin that even if provoked, officers must act within the limits of the Penal Code and not harm detainees. Lawyer T. Shashi Devan, representing 99 detainees including Gan's family, suggested that the Jan 17 incident stemmed from inmates refusing to move from Hall B to Block E. Hishamudin: The detainees did not want to move because Block E was unsuitable. That's what they said previously. Ahmad Shaiful: Yes, I agree. Shashi: Because they were concerned about their human rights? Ahmad Shaiful: I disagree. Shashi told the panel that documents presented last month – including reports from the Perak Public Works Department dated Oct 21, 2022, and the Perak Prison Department – stated that Block E was unsafe for occupation. Ahmad Shaiful confirmed he had briefed the panel about the condition of Block E and said only the lower portion was unsafe. Simon also proposed that the panel allow journalists and members of the public to listen to audio recordings of the CCTV footage referenced in the inquiry. There were no objections from any party, including the Prisons Department and the Bar Council. Such access was not granted during the previous hearing. The inquiry at Suhakam's headquarters in Kuala Lumpur continues tomorrow. Main image: Suhakam chairman Datuk Seri Mohd Hishamudin Md Yunus (right) and Dr Farah Nini Dusuki.
