Remand suspects have been barred from contacting their family members and friends, causing unnecessary emotional stress over their sudden disappearance. Personal inconveniences are also wielded on suspects with children and pets. Medical requirements may also not be fulfilled.

On the other hand, family members and friends are kept in the dark by the police on details such as the reason and place of arrest, whether he/she would be remanded, in which court he/she would be produced and the date/time.

These are some of the instances cited in the 'Rights of Remand Prisoners Report' dated December 2001 by the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia's (Suhakam) law review reform working group released on Wednesday.

The report, copies of which has been submitted to the Home Ministry, the police, the Federal Court and the Prime Minister's Department for their response, is also available on the Suhakam website .

Very costly affair

The report cited the case of a mother who, while visiting her two young sons on remand, claimed that several other juvenile suspects had given telephone numbers to her asking her help to contact their families on their whereabouts.

"They claimed to have been told by the police to pay RM40 for a phone call."

The police, however, explained that sometimes the juveniles themselves hampered their efforts to contact the parents or guardians by refusing to give contact details or giving the wrong ones.

Police had also failed to inform the probation officer as required under Section 8A of the Juveniles Court Act 1947, stated the report.

Another suspect lost his job when the police 'lied' to him about promising to notify his employer when they did not do so.

Suspects are also denied their right to a counsel until police investigations are completed. The excuse is that such legal advice is an interference.

"Suhakam cannot accept this explanation and feels that detainees have a right to legal advice on all matters related to their detention, including the right to remain silent while in police custody."

It also urged for the immediate review of two Supreme Court decisions; Ooi Ah Phua and Hashim bin Saud v Yahya bin Hashim in 1975 and 1977; which allow the police to determine when suspects can be given legal advice, in contravention of their constitutional rights under Article 5(3).

The report also highlighted the systemic abuse by the police and courts in obtaining a remand order, the proceedings of which are outlined in Sections 28 and 117 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

It raised the question of delay in cases where arrests are made on a Saturday or if a public holiday falls on the following Monday. In such instances, the suspect will only be produced before a magistrate on Monday or Tuesday respectively.

'Chain-smoking order'

The report also questioned the 'ban' on communication between the suspect, the family members and the lawyer which leads to inconveniences in providing legal assistance.

Another flaw in the court system is the fact that remand hearings in Kuala Lumpur are conducted in the magistrates' chambers and not in open court which would ensure transparency and direct communication between the suspect and the magistrate.

At the moment, stated the report, the detainee is locked away far from the magistrate, and thus is prevented from challenging the information provided by the police nor is he/she privy to the discussion between the police and the magistrate.

If the magistrate is taken to the police station, the suspect must be placed in a room for a proper remand hearing to be conducted, and not left in the lock-up.

The report also blamed some magistrates for readily granting the remand application and the duration requested by the police without considering whether prolonged detention was absolutely necessary for further investigation, and without heeding the views of the suspect or the lawyer.

Another abuse revealed in the Suhakam report is the repeated transfers of suspects from one district police station to another to facilitate fresh remand orders in a new magistrates' court whenever the maximum 14 days are exhausted.

"The police's explanation is that the suspect may have committed an offence in other districts and that every remand order was to investigate different crimes."

This is popularly known among the police as the 'chain-smoking order', which lawyers strongly believe contribute to the slow degeneration of a suspect's health which eventually leads to death.

If lawyers or family members are absent at remand hearings, Suhakam said the magistrates should question that and also ask whether the suspect wants legal representation.

The magistrate should, among other things, ask the suspect on his/her physical and mental state to determine abuse, ask for the date of arrest, whether he/she has been repeatedly transferred and most importantly, how long he/she has been detained.

Deplorable conditions

In view of the time and manpower constraints, Suhakam recommended for more magistrates to be appointed for Kuala Lumpur and for suspects to be produced before duty magistrates over the weekend to reduce the large number of remand hearings on Mondays.

"Shortage of magistrates cannot be cited as an excuse to expedite remand proceedings to the extent that individual rights are not guaranteed."

Another point raised by detainees in the report is the Special Branch interrogation they had to undergo on matters not related to the alleged offence, a claim which the police have not denied but classified as 'security intelligence gathering' under Section 3(3) of the Police Act 1967.

The report revealed the lock-up conditions based on visits to several police stations in the city and Selangor, which include congestion, no sheets to sleep on, dirty blankets, inadequate clothing, deprivation of privacy and stinking toilets with no water.

"Due to the overcrowding, several detainees have to sleep in a sitting position. Others have to sleep on the cement floor and sometimes, dirty blankets are given but they are used to sleep on instead of as a cover.

The police's main fear is that detainees will hang themselves with the blankets.

Suhakam also found male detainees clad only in their underwear (at the Tun HS Lee police station), although the commissioners were told that shorts and singlets had been donated for their use. Bespectacled detainees were also barred from wearing them, causing some form of imbalance and confusion.

The report stated that such claims were supported by observations during Suhakam's visits to the Tun HS Lee station where overcrowding was due to the large number of drug addicts while the congestion at the Kapar police station was due to a large number of foreign female detainees.

The report was a result of discussions with human rights groups, the KL Bar Committee, the KL Legal Aid Centre, the police and other unnamed individuals who were detained in connection with the Asia-Pacific Conference on East Timor (Apcet) in 1996 and past reformasi gatherings.