SUHAKAM Public Inquiry into Alleged Human Rights Violations at Taiping Prison
SUARAM is actively documenting and monitoring the ongoing public inquiry into human rights violations at Taiping Prison on 17 January 2025. Convened by the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM), the inquiry aims to identify these violations and examine how and why they occurred, as well as determine the parties responsible and recommend measures to prevent their recurrence. As part of this process, SUARAM is also supporting the families of affected detainees in their pursuit of truth, justice, and institutional accountability.

Chronology of the Incidents
On 17 January 2025, more than 100 detainees at Taiping Prison were brutally assaulted by over 60 armed and masked prison officers in Dewan B. The following recounts the barbaric assault.
Pre-Assault
​The violence was preceded by a peaceful sit-in by detainees appealing not to be transferred to Block E. The detainees were well aware that the particular block was a decrepit part of Taiping Prison. Some of them had lived there before and shared first-hand accounts of poor sanitation, dilapidated infrastructure, delayed requests for medications, and restrictions on recreation and bathing.
-
“rosak”
-
“banyak nyamuk”, “ada lipas dan tikus”
-
“ubat akan lambat datang”
-
“banjir” ketika hujan lebat
Having established the above, what the detainees were peacefully protesting for were simply basic rights, live in cells that are well-maintained (structurally sound and basic sanitary), not overcrowded (three instead of five detainees/cell), equal access to ‘keistimewaan’ (referring to the recreational and religious activities), and to shower without water rations.
Subsequently, there were at least three ‘negotiations’ between the prison officers and detainee-appointed representatives. In the first two ‘negotiations’ especially, officers responded vaguely and offered no decision, asking the detainees to wait as they consult with their higher-ups. However, indications and attempts to persuade the detainee-appointed representatives were claimed to be made as suggestive words such as ‘cepat-cepat jalan la, jangan kasi masalah’, ‘nanti sampai Block E, akan dapat aktiviti’ by an alleged UKP officer, which in hindsight, can be interpreted as a sign to quickly vacate the hall. Yet, as no resolution was given, the detainees sat in Dewan B in continued protest.
Shortly after, an officer had entered the hall and asked them to vacate it as it would be utilised for PPI (Program Pembangunan Insan), and claimed he would give everyone just a minute to move to Block E. At that time, the detainees were sitting on the floor (many without their shirts on), with some already getting on their feet and ready to leave the hall when detainees heard the banging of shields (including against the pillars of the block; ‘pukul besi tiang blok’) and loud proclamations by prison officers outside the hall. At most 30 seconds later, masked officers with shields entered the hall, surrounded the detainees in the hall on all sides, including along the sides and at the back of the hall, taking position and preparingthemselves to inflict a well-orchestrated assault onto the detainees later that afternoon
he detainees were ordered into a surrender position—tunduk, with their hands behind their heads. Despite having complied with the order, the detainees were still assaulted. Officers beat them using cota, rotan and kayu, kicked them, and dragged them out of the hall to the front of Block B. Detainees were handcuffed there and beaten, kicked, and walked over by officers while in the surrender position. They were also pepper sprayed.
The assault was not impulsive – it was long-awaited. Whilst being beaten up, one detainee recalled overhearing an officer say, “Kami tunggu lama untuk lesen ini.” While under assault, detainees were forced to apologise to the officers. Profanities such as “tahanan mahkamah tinggi semua anjing” and “babi” were hurled at them.
“Tuan X pukul kita macam haiwan.”
(Sir X hit us like animal)
The detainees were then forced to duck walk while handcuffed to Block C or Block E. An officer asked a detainee where his head injury was—and then deliberately sprayed pepper spray directly over the open wound. One detainee was beaten to the extent that he was left without pants. He only received clothing after arriving at Block E.
One detainee was dragged across rough tarmac until his buttocks were severely bruised and abraded. Days later, he still could not stand during muster due to the extent of his injuries.
​
Lead-Up to the Assault
​The violence was preceded by a peaceful sit-in by detainees appealing not to be transferred to Block E. That particular block was widely known by the detainees to be a decrepit part of Taiping Prison. Some of them had lived there before and shared first-hand accounts of poor sanitation, dilapidated infrastructure and restrictions on recreation and bathing.
-
“rosak”
-
“banyak nyamuk”, “ada lipas dan tikus”
-
“banjir” ketika hujan lebat
There were at least three ‘negotiations’ between the prison officers and detainee-appointed representatives. In the first two ‘negotiations’ especially, officers responded vaguely and offered no decision, asking the detainees to wait as they consult with their higher-ups. As tensions escalated and no resolution was given, the detainees sat in Dewan B in continued protest. Instead of a negotiated solution, they were instead met with coordinated violence later that afternoon.
​
After the Violence
Despite visible and often severe injuries, many detainees received inadequate medical attention immediately after the violence took place. Some received painkillers and gauze to dress their own wounds, without direct care from a medical assistant or doctor. Access to the prison clinic varied, with some detainees only receiving attention a day or several days later. Out of the 12 detainees who testified, at least two were sent to hospital on the same day for treatment. For other detainees, hospital treatment was delayed by one to two weeks.
Because of the intense pain caused by pepper spray exposure, detainees were unable to shower for two full days.
For two weeks, detainees did not have access to the clothing that they brought with them during the transfer, nor were they allowed visits and calls from their families. Families who attempted to visit within that period were informed that the detainees were under ‘quarantine’ following the prison transfer - a justification used to conceal the violence and obstruct outside scrutiny.
SUHAKAM Public Inquiry at Kamunting Correctional Centre (KEMTA)
The public inquiry by SUHAKAM has been ongoing since 9 June 2025 at the Kamunting Correctional Centre (KEMTA). Phase 1 was conducted from 9 to 12 June 2025, followed by Phase 2 from 23 to 26 June 2025. During these phases, the witnesses called were the detainees involved in the incident.
This week marks the beginning of Phase 3, where several prison officers are being called to testify.
SUARAM will continue to provide weekly updates on the progress of the inquiry.
This is what we have gathered as of 9 July 2025.
First Witness: Ahmad Saiful bin Rafie
Position: Chief Inspector, Registration Office, Taiping Prison
Ahmad Saiful is the Chief Inspector responsible for the reception process of detainees into Taiping Prison. He testified on the standard intake procedures, which include:
-
Registration of detainees
-
Security checks and scanning
-
Welfare assessment (carried out by officers from the Department of Social Welfare)
-
Health screening
Only after completing all these steps are detainees moved to their designated blocks. However, due to the large number of detainees arriving on 16 January 2025, the security checks and scanning were conducted first.
​
On that day, 104 detainees were transferred from Batu Gajah Correctional Centre to Taiping Prison. As established in earlier sessions of the inquiry, 8 of those detainees were returned to Batu Gajah on the same day. Saiful confirmed that this was due to security concerns, both for the staff and the detainees, citing past incidents involving prohibited items. The full list of detainees was received a day before the transfer.
​
A key area of Saiful's testimony centred on an incident of "provocation", his term, involving Officer Rizal and a group of detainees during the security checks at Dataran Kedamaian. Corroborating earlier detainee accounts, Saiful stated that he asked Rizal to leave the area and instructed detainees to sit and calm down when the situation grew tense. He claimed not to have witnessed or heard Rizal uttering profanities or making obscene gestures, as Rizal was behind him and “the situation was noisy and chaotic.” However, when shown CCTV footage, Saiful acknowledged seeing Rizal spit twice and gesture with his middle fingers toward detainees.
​
When asked to explain what led to the altercation, Saiful said he was told it stemmed from non-compliance by a group of detainees and misunderstandings during physical inspections and checks on their belongings. No formal report was made to prison management since no injuries were reported, but Saiful noted the incident in his pocket diary.
Regarding the assault that occurred on 17 January, Saiful recalled hearing disturbances but stated he was not present at Dewan B, as he was engaged in other work elsewhere in the facility.
​
When asked for his opinion on the cause of the assault, Saiful pointed again to provocation by detainees, using the expression “kalau tiada angin, masakan pokok bergoyang” (“if there’s no wind, the tree won’t shake”). While acknowledging minor shortcomings on the part of prison staff—specifically in emotional control—he placed the onus on detainees to comply. He argued that those with prior incarceration experience should already understand prison rules, and that officers continuously remind them of these rules.
​
Saiful further stated that compliance is non-negotiable, even if detainees objected to being moved to Block E, which had been raised as unfit for habitation. “Placement decisions are made by prison management,” he stressed, “and detainees have no right to choose.”
​
When Yoges (lawyer representing families) suggested that Block E was unfit to house detainees, Saiful initially disagreed. However, Shashi Devan highlighted a contradiction by pointing out that Saiful himself had presented a slide titled “Blok E tidak selamat diduduki” (“Block E is unsafe for habitation”) during the Taiping Prison site visit. Saiful maintained that while Block E may be structurally unsafe, the decision to place detainees there lies entirely with the prison administration, not the detainees.
Second Witness: Shafril Azmir bin Mohd Shafie
Position: Head of the Security and Prevention Unit (UKP), Taiping Prison
Pre-Transfer Discussion (16 January 2025, Morning)
Shafril testified that he had a discussion with Chief Inspector Saiful (first witness) and Taiping Prison Director Nazri regarding the incoming detainee transfer. During questioning by Shashi Devan and Wonderwoman, Shafril initially agreed that Nazri suggested placing the detainees temporarily in Dewan B before moving them to Block E, but he later changed his response to "not sure."
Altercation at Dataran Kedamaian (16 January 2025)
Regarding the confrontation between Officer Rizal and the detainees, Shafril also used the term "provocation." He admitted he did not speak to other officers on-site to understand what happened. By the time he arrived, the situation was already unfolding, with detainees standing and voicing dissatisfaction (e.g., “kenapa macam ini?”). Like Saiful, Shafril claimed he couldn’t hear any profanities from Rizal due to the noise.
Preparation of Riot Gear (16 January 2025, Afternoon)
After Friday prayers, Deputy Director Hasbee instructed Shafril to prepare light strike force equipment. He retrieved items such as body armour sets and riot shields from the UKP office. By 2:30 PM, a large group of officers—drawn from both morning and evening shifts—had gathered. A briefing was delivered by Tuan Shahrul Izzat, directing officers to transfer detainees from Dewan B to Block E. Shafril stated that no explicit order to use force was given.
CCTV Contradictions on Use of Force
Before reviewing the CCTV footage, Shafril claimed he was only inside Dewan B for less than a minute and did not assault any detainee. However, the footage revealed otherwise:
-
He stood next to his subordinate, Mustakim, and did not intervene when Mustakim kicked and stepped on a detainee.
-
When asked why he didn’t stop the assault, Shafril said he doubted his orders would be heard—or followed.
-
He was also seen kicking a detainee and pushing detainees out with his foot.
-
Outside Dewan B, he was seen instructing officers to handcuff detainees, even though they were already in a surrendered position. He justified this as necessary due to the large number of detainees and for safety control.
Record-Keeping and Diary Entries
Shafril did not record the assault in his pocket diary. However, he documented events immediately before and after it: namely, the briefing by Tuan Izzat and the police report filed by Khairul Ismail following the 17 January incident. Before reviewing the CCTV footage, Shafril claimed he was only inside Dewan B for less than a minute and did not assault any detainee. However, the footage revealed otherwise:
-
He stood next to his subordinate, Mustakim, and did not intervene when Mustakim kicked and stepped on a detainee.
-
When asked why he didn’t stop the assault, Shafril said he doubted his orders would be heard—or followed.
-
He was also seen kicking a detainee and pushing detainees out with his foot.
-
Outside Dewan B, he was seen instructing officers to handcuff detainees, even though they were already in a surrendered position. He justified this as necessary due to the large number of detainees and for safety control.
Post-Assault Assignment and Disciplinary Action
Following the incident, Shafril was reassigned to general duties at the detainees’ block and was later transferred to Kuala Kangsar Satellite Prison, where he currently serves. Although an internal disciplinary investigation was reportedly launched, no findings or outcomes have been released to date.
Expression of Remorse
Shafril expressed regret and emotional impact over the incident, stating:
-
“Saya pun tak ingin peristiwa berlaku begini.”
-
“Remind diri sendiri dan anggota yang lain bahawa peristiwa ini pertama dan terakhir; sebaiknya kita kena behave.”
-
“Akan memperbetulkan kehidupan saya.”
He also stated he continues to experience trauma from the incident.
Acknowledgement of SOP and Rule Violations
In response to questions by Shashi Devan, Shafril acknowledged that the assault on 17 January violated standing orders by the Commissioner-General of Prisons, including rules on the use of pepper spray and cota, as well as Prison Regulations 2000 (Rule 56) on use of force.
Use of Mobile Phones
Shashi Devan raised concerns about prison officers’ use of personal phones while on duty—prohibited under SOP. Only official prison phones may be used for specific purposes under instruction from senior officers. This line of questioning is expected to be pursued further in upcoming sessions.
Contradictions Regarding Soap Containers
Wonderwoman pointed out a key contradiction: although Director Nazri claimed in Week 1 that soap containers were prohibited in Taiping Prison, photos from the recent site visit showed that plastic soap containers are in fact available. This challenges the rationale for preventing detainees from bringing soap containers from Batu Gajah Correctional Centre on 16 January.
What can you do?
What happened at Taiping Prison is not an isolated case.
Many incidents within our prisons remain hidden from public view. As concerned members of society, it is time we demand Parliament to pass the Prevention of Torture Bill (RUU Pencegahan Penyeksaan).
Sign the petition to stand in solidarity with the affected families and call for real accountability.
​