Roles of Human Rights Bodies on Chain Remand Complaints in Malaysia

Abstract The practice of chain remand would cause human rights violations if the application was granted without reasonable cause and reason. This chain remand problem was tried to be addressed in 2007, which was amongst the factors that led to the amendment of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) at that time due to the defilement of human liberty. In Malaysia, there are governmental and non-governmental bodies that are active in ensuring that the human rights of the entire community are protected from being violated. The issue of wrongful detention involving chain remand during an investigation is not a new issue. This issue is constantly highlighted and efforts to address it are often raised by the responsible parties. This study aims to analyse the roles of these bodies in dealing with chain remand complaints in Malaysia using a qualitative research approach by way of in-depth interviews, roundtable discussions, and document analysis. The study discovered that these human rights bodies in Malaysia were able to investigate the complaints, but did not have a role to take any actions. Their role is only to provide recommendations to the complainants to take action. Therefore, this study recommended establishing a legal provision with respect to the power to impose prosecution or disciplinary action on the officers involved in illegal detention without due cause. This study also suggests the function should be given to the prosecution department to take action to curb the problem based on solid evidence.


Abstract:
The practice of chain remand would cause human rights violations if the application was granted without reasonable cause and reason. This chain remand problem was tried to be addressed in 2007, which was amongst the factors that led to the amendment of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) at that time due to the defilement of human liberty. In Malaysia, there are governmental and nongovernmental bodies that are active in ensuring that the human rights of the entire Ifa Sirrhu Samsudin ABOUT THE AUTHOR Ifa Sirrhu Samsudin is presently enrolled as a thirdyear PhD candidate at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (National University of Malaysia). She is currently on study leave, and she is a legal officer at the Attorney General's Chambers of Malaysia. She has experience serving as a Deputy Public Prosecutor and as Senior Federal Counsel. She was offered by government service scholarship to further her studies to the PhD level. During her studies at the master's level, she wrote a mini-thesis entitled The Role of Chemist as an Expert Witnesses in DNA Proofing Throughout Trial in Court. Throughout, her PhD studies starting at the end of 2019 until now she has successfully published three articles (Web of Science) and present her paper at several local and international conferences. Ramalinggam Rajamanickam is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Law, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) or known as The National University of Malaysia. He started his career as an academician at the Faculty of Law, UKM in 2007. He has obtained Bachelor of Laws, Master of Laws, and Doctor of Philosophy in law from the same institution. Among his areas of expertise is the forensic law, law of evidence, criminal justice system, legal translation as well as Malay language. In terms of publication, he has published more than 100 articles, conference papers and popular writings in his field. Rohaida Nordin is an Associate Professor at Faculty of Law, National University of Malaysia. Her areas of specialisations are human rights, criminal justice, peace, and security. She received her PhD in Law from Lancaster University, the United Kingdom, in 2008. Before entering the academic field, she was a judicial officer with the Malaysian judiciary and a corporate legal advisor. Throughout her career as an academic, she published over 60 articles in indexed journals and books that mainly focused on human rights related issues.

PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT
There are many cases where the suspect is detained for more than days required and some for several months, this extended detention also known as chain remand. It can also indicate that chain remand practices can contribute to human rights abuse if there is no limitation explicitly under the laws to control it. The research also focuses to the need to ensure balance between security of the public at large. The purposes of this article will show the roles of human rights bodies in Malaysia who was experience handling chain remand cases. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with a sample of previously human rights officer represent chain remand detainees in Malaysia. This article discovered even these bodies able to investigate the complaints raised but not having a role to act and implementing further action against the parties involved.

Introduction
In the process of managing justice, there are several stages through which the person is alleged to have committed the crime. The investigative process is one of these stages. During the investigative process, normally the suspect will be detained. This detention is also known as pre-charge detention, police custody, pre-trial detention, or remand, as part of the procedure in criminal process before the suspect has been charged or released. Pre-trial detention (depriving suspects and accused people of their liberty before the conclusion of a criminal case) is intended to be an exceptional measure, to be used as necessary and in compliance with the doctrine of presumption of innocence and the right to liberty. Its use is only acceptable as a measure of last resort, in very limited circumstances. Unfortunately, these strict limitations are not always respected (A Measure of Last Resort? The practice of pre-trial detention decision-making in the EU Report, 2012). In addition to the loss of liberty, detained suspects experience serious implications and sometimes irreparable impacts on their livelihood, family, and health. Such a process may be necessary under limited circumstances to conduct effective investigation (Harmon, 2016). But there are instances observed that have undermined respect and protection of rights for example, the use of chain remand practice without justifiable reason.
Chain remand practices in Malaysia are prevalent in syndicate cases that involved multiple places and resulted in the detention of a suspect for an extended length of time (Human Rights Commission of Malaysia,). Several cases illustrated that when a suspect is involved in a chain remand inquiry, he or she can be held for hundreds of days. This situation transpired in the case of Selvakumar a/l Subramaniam v Penguasa, Pusat Pemulihan Akhlak Simpang Renggam, Johor Darul Takzim & Ors (2013) 1 LNS 1068, whereby the detainee was held for a total of 826 days, including preventive detention. In reality, a detainee was held in chain remand for more than 80 days at several police stations across Peninsular Malaysia (Free Malaysia Today, 2016). According to Syahredzan (2019), the chain remand practice involved the police arresting the suspect and then applying for detention for investigation, also known as remand. Once the detention period expires, the police will rearrest the suspect and state that another police report allows them to bypass the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) restrictions (Mei Lin, 2019). The chain remand can also be described as follows: A had been in detention for four days at the Seremban Police Station. At the end of the fourth day, A was released and was subsequently detained at the Kepong Police Station, whereby he was detained for another four days before being released. At the end of the second detention, A was released and remanded again at the Shah Alam Police Station. Subsequently, A was remanded for four days at another location, which was related (Arvind Andrew, 2017).
In Malaysia, remand refers to a warrant issued by a court pursuant to section 117 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) to detain a suspect for further investigation when the investigation cannot be completed within twenty-four hours. Meanwhile, chain remand can be simplified as remand orders made consecutively to enable investigations to be carried out continuously This is as decided in the case of Dasthigeer Mohamed Ismail v. Government of Malaysia & Anor (1999) 6 CLJ 317 judge in these cases stated that section 117 CPC operates in relation to any single report, any single investigation or any single arrest. Therefore, any remand in respect of more than one report, investigation, or arrest under section 117 the period of remand would operate depending on how many reports, investigations, or arrests were made against the suspect. There is no favor of those who commit multiple crimes limiting the police to less time per alleged offence within the fifteen-day remand allowed under section 117 CPC. This shows that the law in Malaysia has no limitations related to the remand period involving multiple crimes committed by the suspect and triggers the unfair application of chain remand.
In New South Wales a police officer can further detain a suspect if the suspect has involvement in other offences based on the law-governed under sections 114 (6) and (7) Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 No 103 (LEPRA). The provision stated that while a suspect is detained, the police officer has reasonable suspicion as to the suspect's involvement in the commission of any other offence, and the police officer may also investigate the suspect's involvement in that other offence during the investigation period for the arrest as in a chain remand situation. Accordingly, this provision indicates that the police may investigate other than the offences that are currently arrested if the police have reasonable cause that the suspect is also involved with other offences. However, the time limit given for the investigative detention is only up to forty-eight hours. After that, the suspect must either be bailed or released from detention as soon as possible. According to case Clark v The Queen (2013) VSCA 98, in the Tasmanian Court of Appeal, the judges wrote reasonable operability must authorize police officers to place themselves in a position to decide whether a charge shall be laid or not. To do so police officers must investigate and assess the currently accessible evidence, thoroughly as the circumstances permit. In other words, the court is of the view that the police should be allowed to investigate if the investigation conducted does not violate proper legal principles. If the police are stopped, certainly, a case under investigation cannot be resolved properly.
As mentioned in New South Wales, chain remand can also be the police detention to investigate other or further offences that maybe committed by the suspect (Amrie Hisamudin,). That is why some of the suspects were not promptly sent through the charging, even though there was adequate evidence to do so. This is because the police sought to scrutinize these suspects while they were yet in custody concerning offences other than for which they were arrested. For example, when a suspect is arrested for crimes such as burglary or robbery, it is usually assumed that the suspect may have been responsible for similar crimes in the past. Since there are usually many such crimes that have not yet been resolved, an investigation is made to determine whether any of these crimes can be attributed to this arrest (Maguire, 1988). Therefore, chain remand can be related to the investigations concerning these other cases or further cases. In order to resolve unsolved crimes in which suspects may be involved suspects will continuously be detained . Such cases usually involve the same modus operandi. As we all know, the fact that a suspect has committed a particular crime often makes them a suspect in more serious crimes or maybe the same types of crimes (Amrie Hisamudin,). For example, people arrested for carrying concealed weapons are often asked about recent kidnappings. Typically, many syndicate cases are closely related to the same suspect. Due to that, there is a need for the police not only to investigate existing arrested cases but also to investigate other cases that may be related. This added that the arrested suspect has a record related to the case that is still under investigation, this further strengthens the investigation of the suspect's involvement with other offences. In the case of R v Bailey, counsel representing the suspect, in this case, argued that the validity of suspect being further remanded to other offences requires that the powers relating to remand be exercised for the proper purpose. It can be described as a power given for one purpose but used for a different purpose, the power will not be able to be used legally according to law.
As a result, some countries, such as the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, and India have their legal provisions concerning investigations involving offences other than those arrested which is in the same situation as chain remand in Malaysia which limits the period of remand when entangles this situation. In the author's view, investigations involving the involvement of suspects for other offences should be carried out. This in turn may be able to resolve cases that are still pending resolve. However, investigations involving these other offences shall be in accordance with applicable law without causing any injustice to the suspect, and the existence of specific laws limiting the application of the remand period involving such situations should be enacted to control the problem. However, for this study, the authors did not focus on chain remand legislation but more on the roles of the human rights bodies involved with chain remand complaints.

Chain remand: striking the balance between liberty of the individual and security of the public
Remand is closely related to the fundamental rights of every individual, as it will limit the liberty of the individual for a certain period which amounts to arbitrary detention. Human rights are sometimes considered as one's self-respect. In the context of universal human beings, human rights mean that all human beings are free and have equal rights, regardless of religion, race, descent, colour, language, and others. On that basis, human rights are often a demand that every individual should be treated equally and fairly. The right to liberty has always been associated with the detention of an individual. This is because when a person has been directly detained, the right to personal liberty has been denied, and thus, affects the daily routine of the detainee, as well as giving unfavorable future implications to the detainee, even if only for the investigation process. This injustice is more pronounced when a remand application is made repeatedly for a longer period. This matter is constantly raised by the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suruhanjaya Hak Asasi Manusia Malaysia) (SUHAKAM) during their annual reports discussions and brought to the authorities' attention to find a solution. However, it is observed that this matter is still unresolved and yearly there will be cases of wrongful detention (Jaymal Zahid,). This violates the rule of law principle, which emphasises that human rights should be maintained so that fair justice can be served, not only to the complainants or victims involved but also to the detainees.
9Internationally, according to resolution 1997/50 of the former Commission on Human Rights, the Working Group is entrusted with the task to investigate all cases involving detention imposed arbitrarily. The mandate of the Working Group relates to the protection of individuals against arbitrary deprivation of liberty in all its forms, and its mandate extends to deprivation of liberty either before, during, or after the trial, as well as to deprivation of liberty in the absence of any kind of trial (administrative detention). The Working Group has the directive to investigate cases of deprivation of liberty imposed arbitrarily or inconsistently with the international standards outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or the international legal instruments accepted by the States concerned (Working Group on Arbitrary Detention Report, 2019). The Working Group investigates alleged cases of arbitrary detention by sending urgent appeals and communications to concerned Governments to clarify and/or bring their attention to these cases. The Working Group also considers individual complaints under its regular communications procedure, leading to the adoption of opinions as to the arbitrariness of the detention. In addition, the Working Group conducts country visits to assess the situation of deprivation of liberty in the country. There are several legal provisions related to prevention of arbitrary detention such as Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the Body of principles for the protection of all persons under any form of detention or imprisonment.
Besides that, the United Nations also has issued guidance about what states should do to ensure national systems reflect the standards. For example, in 2014 the UN Human Rights Committee adopted general comment No. 35 (2014) on liberty and security of person. This provides detail on the obligations of States in relation to the judicial control of detention, in particular, the meaning of the right to be promptly brought before a judge, the entitlement to trial within a reasonable time, and limitations on the use of pre-trial detention. The Committee also guides how to implement the right of persons deprived of their liberty to take proceedings for release from unlawful detention. This was followed in 2015 by the adoption by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention of the final version of the United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the Right of Anyone Deprived of Their Liberty to Bring Proceedings Before a Court, which are intended to provide states with guidance on fulfilling, in compliance with international law, their obligation to avoid the arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) specifies that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention or should be deprived of their liberty except in accordance with the law. It also details the rights of those arrested or detained. These rights are repeated in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) under Article 5. The United Nations standards go into greater detail about other aspects of pre-trial detention, including that pre-trial detention should be considered as a last option. These rights are also detailed in regional human rights instruments including the European Prison Rules and the Guidelines on the Conditions of Arrest, Police Custody, and Pre-Trial Detention in Africa (the Luanda Guidelines), as well as being the subject of commentary by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Both the European Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights have large bodies of case law relating to the use of pre-trial detention and the conditions under which prisoners awaiting trial are held. They also deal with matters not expressly covered by international law, one of which is the need for continued detention The international standard is that custody before trial should not be the norm. In other words, its means that an arrested or detained person must be released while waiting for a charge or trial, although that release may be conditional. This is reinforced by the Tokyo Rules which provide that detention custody is to be used as a means of last resort. In the case Nevmerzhitsky v Ukraine, no 54,825/00 ECHR 5 April 2005, ECtHR stated terms of international law provides that the further police detention required continued reasonable suspicious that the person committed an offences and that after a certain lapse of time, further detention can only be justified by reference to a wellfounded fear that the accused will not turn up in the court, will re-offend or will interfere with the investigation or evidence. Moreover, based on the international standard is that a person is entitled to be tried within a reasonable time and this applies whether or not the accused is in detention custody (Kalmthout, et al., 2009).
In the case of Motilal v State of Bihar (1968) SC 1509 the Indian Supreme Court in holding that the detention of the petitioner was illegal this is because individual liberty is a cherished right, one of the most valuable fundamental rights guaranteed by our Constitution to the citizen of this country. If that right is invaded, excepting strictly in accordance with law, the aggrieved party is entitled to appeal to the judicial power of the State for relief. We are not unaware of the fact that the interest of society is no less important than that of an individual. Our Constitution made provisions for safeguarding the interest of society. Its provisions harmonize the liberty of the individual with social interests. The authorities must act solely based on those provisions. They cannot deal with the liberty of the individual casually, as has been done in this case. Such an approach does not advance the true social interest. Continued indifference to individual liberty is bound to erode the structure of our democratic society. Referring to Article 22 of the Indian Constitution. The rights of individual liberty have been guaranteed by the Constitution. These rights cannot be simply taken away from one individual except by law. This article stated that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Supreme Court in India stated that rights of liberty have been assured under Constitution that need to be observed and follow without any failure. The failure to follow the order will cause unlawful detention and the individual has right to be compensated.
It can be said that both legal and policy frameworks have to balance competing interests and objectives. On the one hand, they must be capable of ensuring that the evidence is preserved and witnesses are protected, and further offences are not committed. On the other, there must be safeguards to protect the suspect's right not to be detained arbitrarily, to be presumed innocent until convicted, and to have a fair trial. Most legal systems give effect to these rights by providing that suspects should not be detained pre-trial unless, and to the extent that, their detention is necessary to meet the stated objectives, and that no other means exist to do so. Some go further and state that pre-trial detention should be treated as a last resort or an exceptional measure, especially for the security of the public at large. Lonneke in her research stated that there were guidelines made under European Instrument law in the Green Paper stating the need to reduce the use of pre-trial detention and emphasize the principle of innocence until proven guilty (Stevens, 2009). Based on Catherine and Helen's pre-trial detention including detention for investigation, detention awaiting trial, and awaiting punishment (2019). There is a question that arises as to whether the criteria reject the principle of innocence when a pre-trial detention application is granted. This is because this pre-trial detention is often associated with the use of force by the authorities against suspect (Euvard & Leclerc; Kevin Kwok Yin Cheng dan Becky Po Yee Leung, 2018).
However, authors believed that these human rights should be balanced with the interests of public safety, as a whole. This not only ensures the safety of the community but also of the country. It is not surprising that this is a fundamental principle in law in every country. As in the case of PP v Chucks Nnamdi (2017) 1 LNS 723, the Court of Appeal Judge stated that there was an error in the decision of the High Court Judge, whereby before handing down the sentence he stated, "There is no denying in sentencing; the Court should consider the public interest factor over the interest of the accused. However, the interests of the accused should also be taken into account, such as his background, character and antecedent." The Court of Appeal did not agree with the judgment given by the High Court, whereby the Court of Appeal ruled that for the public interest to be properly treated and at the highest level, the sentence should be of a preventive and remedial nature. The Court of Appeal stated that these two aspects were clearly not in the judgment of His Excellency, the Judge of the High Court. Indeed, the offense committed by the informant was serious and required the punishment to be meted out to guarantee the public's interest.
In Malaysia, there are human rights bodies that are active in ensuring that the human rights of the entire community are protected from being violated which can be divided into governmental and non-governmental bodies which will be further explained in the subsequent subheading. The issue of wrongful detention involving investigative remand or chain remand during an investigation is not a new issue. Yearly, there are a lot of issues that arise about wrongful detention for investigation (Jaymal Zahid,). The purpose of this study is to show that there are various platforms for parties who feel they have been maltreated by the enforcement to make a complaint. However, the extent of action is subject to the basis and evidence of the complaint. Could the parties involved take action or vice versa? If otherwise, what solutions can be proposed? Therefore, it is important to investigate the roles of human rights bodies in dealing with chain remand complaints because this will offer an insider's view of the complaint that will take place. Through semi-structured interviews with the officers who deal with the chain remand complaints, they were asked about chain remand and their suggestions for improvement on this issue.

Methodology
The qualitative methods were used in this study, whereby data were obtained from library research, roundtable discussions, and interviews. However, most of the data were gained through in-depth semi-structured interviews with nine experienced officers from the governmental and non-governmental bodies (purposive sampling). There are two officers from SUHAKAM, an officer from the Voice of the Malaysian People (Suara Rakyat Malaysia), which is a non-governmental organisation, two officers from the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC) of Malaysia, three lawyers from the National Legal Aid Foundation (NLAF) Malaysia and an officer from the Integrity and Standards Compliance Department (ISCD) of the Royal Malaysia Police. The criteria for recruiting the interviewed officers were that they should have handled at least two or more chain remand cases and this was a part of their job responsibilities. Most of the interviewed officers were engaged in complaints on several issues related to enforcement agencies concerning integrity, non-compliance of law, wrongful conduct, and chain remand. For this reason, it was concluded that the interviewed officers could offer valuable insight on a complaint regarding chain remand. To protect the identities of the informants, all of them will be referred to as O1, O2, O3, etc. The details of the informant's interviews can be seen in Table 1.
The interviews were conducted between early June to November 2020. The interviews were conducted in a place that was convenient and comfortable for the informants. All interviews took place in Malaysia's national language. Each interview took around 2 hours and the interviews were audio recorded with the informants' agreement. All interviews were also digitally recorded, and answers to the semi-structured questions were transcribed verbatim. Data were then coded into categories. Verbal or written consent was obtained from each respondent as per the university's requirements beforehand. The methodologies for collecting data used in this article were previously reviewed and approved by the academic office, and faculty of law of the institution. Besides the interviews, the study also supported the interview data with a roundtable discussion session on the issues of chain remand detainees organised by the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia. The researcher was involved directly in the roundtable discussion sessions, which were held on 26 November 2019 and 28 July 2020.

Discussions
As mentioned earlier, five major organisations played an important role involving chain remand complaints as a result of this study. This section will describe the roles and laws that exist in relation to the organisations' duties and roles, which were divided into two categories, namely the governmental and non-governmental bodies.

The human rights commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM)
The right to freedom is something that is often demanded in society and it is a right that should be enjoyed together regardless of rank, degree, descent, gender, race, skin colour, and others. Malaysia played an active role in the United Nations Commission on Human Rights from 1993 to 1995, when Malaysia was appointed a member of the Commission by the United Nations Economic and Social Council. Malaysia's membership was extended for a second term, from 1996 to 1998, and for a third term from 2001 to 2003. Various reasons have prompted the Malaysian government to finally consider establishing its own national human rights commission. Amongst the factors that drove the establishment of this commission were: (1) The growing international pressure on human rights and the realisation that the issue transcends the borders and sovereignty of a country; (2) Malaysia's active involvement in the United Nations system; (3) Political atmosphere and sensitivity, in addition to the progress achieved by its society.
Based on these factors on 24 April 1999, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Tan Sri Dato' Seri Dr. Syed Hamid Albar announced that the government would table a Bill in Parliament in July 1999 to establish the Malaysian Human Rights Commission (the "Commission"). The Human Rights Commission Act should be viewed positively towards preserving the interests and realising the aspirations of the people. The Act aims to open a wider space for the people to submit any dissatisfaction to be reviewed and studied by the Commission. The Bill is based on the 1992 Paris principles. The 1992 Paris Principles provided international guidelines and criteria for the establishment of an independent human rights commission. Finally, this dream was successfully implemented through the Malaysian Human Rights Commission Act 1999 (MHRCA). The establishment of SUHAKAM and also the establishment of MHRCA is a positive initiative made by the government in an effort to ensure human rights are protected. SUHAKAM is seen as a body that can provide more space to the community, which will usually take a long time and involves high costs. Amongst the functions of SUHAKAM according to section 4 (1) of MHRCA are to foster awareness and provide education relating to human rights, to advise and assist the government in formulating legislation and administrative directives and procedures and to recommend measures to be taken, to recommend to the government with regard to the signing or participation in other international treaties and instruments in the field of human rights, and to investigate complaints in respect of human rights violations.
Furthermore, section 4 (4) of MHRCA provides any fundamental right stated in Part II of the Federal Constitution should be considered, provided it does not conflict with the Federal Constitution. This directly relates to Article 5 of the Federal Constitution with regard to personal liberty. Therefore, it could be concluded that SUHAKAM and MHRCA also play a very important role in chain remand cases, and thus, SUHAKAM's annual report constantly highlighted this problem, which is indicated under section 4 (4) of the MHRCA. Moreover, SUHAKAM held a roundtable discussion on 26 November 2019 at the Renaissance Hotel, Kuala Lumpur, which was attended by representatives from the courts, non-governmental organisations, NLAF, and local and international universities. In the discussion, SUHAKAM sought the views and opinions of all parties in dealing with the chain remand issues that violate human rights (SUHAKAM, 2019). Starting from 2015 up to November 2019, SUHAKAM has received a total of 18 complaints related to allegations of chain remand made by the police against the detained suspects, as reported by Mr. Abdul Rahman Abdullah, the head of the complaints and monitoring group of SUHAKAM (Abdullah, Email Communication, 26 June 2020).
On 28 July 2020, a second roundtable discussion on issues of chain remand was held and the researchers of this study were invited to jointly discuss additional solutions that could be made before presenting to the Minister (Law) for further actions. However, the researchers were of the view that these two roundtable discussion sessions were insufficient, as the Royal Malaysia Police (RMP) was not present to provide important inputs for improvements. In fact, the second discussion also took place without any representatives from the courts and the conclusions of both the roundtable discussions were still not inclusive and it should be equilibrium between all parties.

The Malaysian Human Rights Commission Act 1999 (MHRCA)
The Malaysian Human Rights Commission Act 1999 (MHRCA) is a law passed by the Parliament of Malaysia on 9 September 1999. However, MHRCA only came into force on 20 April 2000. MHRCA empowers SUHAKAM with the powers and functions, as an independent commission to provide education, protection, and safeguarding of human rights in Malaysia. Through this Act, the power is also given to SUHAKAM to make other provisions related to the right to liberty, if necessary. The scope of MHRCA is a universal demand, but the demand should be in line with the circumstances and needs of a country. Malaysia, as a country with a plural society, emphasises the principle of protecting public rights as opposed to individual rights. Furthermore, MHRCA also specifically empowers SUHAKAM to handle cases and complaints involving human rights violations, as enshrined in Part II of the Federal Constitution.
Amongst the roles of SUHAKAM are to raise awareness on human rights, advise the government based on complaints received and provide recommendations, investigate laws that are contrary to human rights, and visit detention places to ensure human rights are guaranteed. Therefore, the aggrieved parties, with respect to any violation of human rights can submit a complaint to SUHAKAM individually or in groups. Subsequently, SUHAKAM can investigate the complaint and upon the authority given to SUHAKAM. The investigative power given to SUHAKAM is not only limited to complaints that have been made, but they can investigate on their own initiatives. This power is virtuous to enable SUHAKAM to play an active role in matters of human rights violations in Malaysia. However, according to section 12 (1), (2), and (3) MHRA, SUHAKAM cannot investigate any matter or complaint that has become a proceeding in any court, for example, habeas corpus application or has been finally decided by the court (O2, Oral Communication, 14 July 2020). Additionally, cases that are being investigated, but later become court cases are also the constraints of investigating powers given to SUHAKAM. In this case, the ongoing investigation should stop immediately.
The authors believed that most of wrongful detention cases involving chain remand will be brought to court to challenge the legality of the detention under a writ of habeas corpus, or any other suit. The restriction under Section 12 causes difficulties to SUHAKAM as habeas corpus applications in court usually involve procedural issues and issues other than procedural will not be questioned by the court. This interrupted investigation made it difficult for the complainant aking the complaint to get the justice they deserved. Besides, this halting investigation is also likely to jeopardize the fairness to be obtained from the complainant. This is because most Habeous Corpus cases require a detention case being the latest detention case. If the case is not the latest the Court will set aside the case and declare the case as academic as decided in the case of Bar Council Malaysia v. Tun Dato' Seri Arifin Zakaria & Ors and Another Reference; Persatuan Peguampeguam Muslim Malaysia (Intervener) [2018] 10 CLJ 129. Therefore, it is perceived that amendments to section 12 should be considered, to enable SUHAKAM to investigate from the grassroots, as an application under habeas corpus will not be able to do so.
Although SUHAKAM was allowed to investigate, referring to section 4 (1) (b) and (2) (b), the last action of SUHAKAM's investigation is only to give recommendations or advice that can be furnished to the enforcement agencies on the complainant. For example, a chain remand case normally involved the RMP, and SUHAKAM will send a recommendation to ISCD if they found cogent proof that the officers while carrying out their duty, she/he abusing their power. Once a recommendation is submitted to ISCD, it is depending on ISCD whether to accept or not the recommendation and SUHAKAM cannot dispute it. For example, although SUHAKAM recommends that disciplinary action be taken, if RMP ignores such recommendation due to other evidence or reasons, then SUHAKAM cannot challenge the decision taken by ISDC. Though, normally the reasons for such decisions should be informed. This demonstrates the transparency of RMP in addressing issues and to improve the police system for the better (O2, Oral Communication, 14 July 2020).

Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission of Malaysia (EAIC)
The Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC)) is a Federal Statutory Body established by an Act of Parliament, under section 3 of the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission Act 2009 (EAICA) [Act 700], which was gazetted on 3 September 2009. Act 700 then came into force on 1 April 2011. The Act replaces the Independent Police Complaints of Misconduct Commission Bill 2005. The establishment of EAIC is in line with the government's target to instill and enhance integrity amongst enforcement officers and enforcement agencies, and thus, strengthening public confidence in them. Since the enactment of this Act, the EAIC has begun to perform the functions as provided in section 4 of Act 700. The main function of EAIC is to receive complaints of misconduct from the public against enforcement officers or enforcement agencies in general and to investigate and hold hearings regarding complaints received. As such, enforcement activities will be constantly monitored and in the event of misconduct, appropriate follow-up action will be recommended.
Section 25 states that EAIC has the power of preliminary investigation to be conducted by the Complaints Committee to determine the types of complained misconduct and whether EAIC should proceed with a full investigation into the matter. Meanwhile, according to subsection 17 (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5), EAIC has the power of investigation to establish a task force to help EAIC perform its functions more effectively and efficiently. Members of the task force have all the powers of investigation, which are contained in the CPC. EAIC can also set up a task force with other authorities, if necessary. There are officers from the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) stationed at EAIC to assist in the investigation. According to section 28, EAIC may initiate an investigation on its own initiative if they are satisfied that the matter is of significant interest to the public. The investigative power of EAIC on its own initiative under this section is very broad, and therefore, it will be carried out in exceptional circumstances only in cases that involve public's interest and have significant interest to the public. In such cases, this power is important to ensure that EAIC plays a proactive role in conducting investigations and not just rely on public complaints. Furthermore, EAIC is also a complaints body in Malaysia that also receives several issues and problems related to remand, including the practice of chain remand. Almost every year, EAIC will receive complaints regarding remand from all states in Malaysia.
Similar to SUHAKAM, EAIC also has its own limitations. Although they are given the authority to investigate, EAIC can only provide recommendations and advice as provided in section 34 of EAICA, as a result of the investigation conducted. The absolute power is still up to the enforcement agency's department to implement it or otherwise. Any recommendation is not to bind the enforcement agency, whereby mandatory action by the enforcement agency could be taken in accordance with the recommendation from the EAIC (O4, Oral Communication, 25 September 2020). Additionally, EAIC also follows section 31 of EAICA, which is a clause that can exempt EAIC from conducting investigations. This clause limits the EAIC investigation when the parties involved use this clause to not submit any documents to assist the EAIC investigation (O3, Oral Communication, 11 September 2020). However, most investigations that been conducted able to get higher cooperation than those who do not want to cooperate.
Additionally, according to O3 and O4, amongst the main constraints experienced by them in conducting a chain remand investigation complaint, was to trace the whereabouts of the suspect after receiving a complaint. This is because at the time the complaint is made, the detainee is usually still in police custody and when it involves chain remand cases, the detainee will move from one location to another location. This presents a challenges for EAIC officers in investigating sooner. Therefore, EAIC investigating officers find it difficult to obtain evidence from the suspect and they basically obtain evidence from the investigating officers, who were involved in the cases along with documents related to the complained chain remand case. Where the absence of the suspect's evidence also affects the investigation carried out, especially with regard to the condition of the suspect who was remanded by the authorities in more than one location. It is not impossible if the issue of chain remand is disputed, as the location of the suspect is already a delinquent. It could be said that this problem is just a communication problem, whereby in this modern era, communication cannot be a problem any longer with the availability of various intermediaries, such as the handphone that can be used to contact the parties on the suspect's whereabouts.

Integrity and Standards Compliance Department (ISCD)
The Integrity and Standards Compliance Department (ISCD) was officially established by the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) on 25 July 2014 and is the ninth department in the RMP. The department is headed by a director with the rank of Senior Deputy Commissioner of Police and assisted by two Deputy Directors, namely the Deputy Director of ISCD (Integrity) and the Deputy Director of ISCD (Standards Compliance) and Counselling (BAKA). Furthermore, the Inspection branch of the departments coordinated in a department dedicated to integrity and compliance with standards based on four cores, namely (1) general governance/policing, (2) religious and counselling division, (3) management operational intelligence compliance complaints and (4) investigations, legislation and case studies.
The main objective of the establishment of ISCD is to reinforce the RMP by strengthening the integrity of officers, as well as ensuring that tasks are performed in accordance with the recognized standards. This is in line with the three priorities of the IGP's mission and vision, namely maintaining public order and the well-being of the people, controlling and curbing crime through effective prevention and investigation, and strengthening the integrity and compliance with RMP standards. Amongst the vision and mission of ISCD is to be a leader in enforcing, strengthening and cultivating the integrity of RMP personnel based on rules and laws, as well as progressively and dynamically in strengthening the integrity and human capital. The ISCD also received recommendations from other agencies regarding the practice of chain remand from SUHAKAM and EAIC for further actions, accordingly. Furthermore, ISCD will conduct internal investigations in accordance with the recommendations submitted, however, the recommendations and views of these agencies do not bind ISCD to follow them when the investigation made by ISCD shows evidence to the contrary (O8, Oral Communication, 13 November 2020).
Furthermore, the results of the study's interview with the Deputy Director of ISCD (Standards Compliance division) regarding the recommendation from SUHAKAM or EAIC on chain remand practices indicated several queries on the recommendation acceptance or feedback, and whether the recommendation is accepted or otherwise. According to the Deputy Director, the recommendations submitted by SUHAKAM and EAIC were usually without any proof of their findings. SUHAKAM and EAIC usually provide brief information and are not attended by solid evidence to enable the recommendation to be accepted. Furthermore, O8 also discussed on rejection issues of the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) Act on the grounds that the law was enacted only for RMP, while there are other enforcement agencies in Malaysia. RMP is the largest enforcement agency in Malaysia, and therefore, indeed there were a lot of complaints according to statistics, which indicated more problems towards RMP. Furthermore, it is definitely an issue of check and balance when the same party decides to take actions or not on its own officers, which is difficult to be feasible. Due to that, at the initial stage, it was suggested that the recommendation should be referred to the public prosecutor or a separate body, other than the RMP itself. This is to prohibit a conflict of interest from occurring. Malaysia is not like the United Kingdom, which has a law that gives action to their police if they violate work ethics as in the Police (Action) Regulations 2020 and the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2020, which was recently implemented. For example, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), which was created in 1984 and came into force in 1986 met with great opposition, especially from the police themselves as PACE restricted several police duties (Maguire, 1988). However, after two years of PACE enforcement, the positive effects were seen, whereby there was a decrease in complaints received against the police in the United Kingdom. This showed a good effect with the introduction of PACE at that time, as well as protecting the police from any complaints and abuse from the detained suspects (Maguire, 1988).
Although RMP rejected the IPCMC, a bill that was slightly lower than IPCMC was agreed to be enacted, namely the Independent Police Conduct Commission (IPCC) 2020. It was observed that although the IPCMC was rejected, the introduction of IPCC showed the tendency of RMP to improve their policing system. This was the best step taken, as the committee members involved separate parties from RMP. With the establishment of IPCC, it will provide a more effective impact in combating inappropriate police misconduct, including issues of remand abuse. The issues of integrity amongst officers and police personnel will be the main concern in the direction of Dato' Sri Acryl Sani Haji Abdullah Sani's leadership as the new IGP (Hafiz Aziz,). This shows that RMP is very concerned about the integrity of its officers and members and is not seen as a trivial matter.

National Legal Aid Foundation (NLAF)
The National Legal Aid Foundation (NLAF) is controlled by a Board of Directors and chaired by the Attorney General. Its members are the President of the Bar Council, Secretary-General of Treasury, Director General of Legal Affairs Division, Director General of Social Welfare Department, Director General of Legal Aid Department, President of the Sabah Law Association, President of the Sarawak Advocates Association, a Dean of the Faculty of Law in public learning institution and two representatives from the non-governmental organisations to be appointed by the Minister. NLAF provides legal assistance and advice in criminal cases to all Malaysian citizens during arrest, remand and bail application. There is a screening test conducted by NLAF before a lawyer takes over the cases. This means the eligible will be represented. NLAF was established with the aim of providing legal assistance to those who cannot afford to appoint a lawyer to object to their case in court. About 80% of the accused are brought to court because criminal cases do not have a lawyer to represent them. NLAF also received cases involving suspects, who were remanded in chains. The practice of chain remand is stated as one of the challenges to NLAF in addressing this problem ().
The NLAF provides advisory services and legal assistance, free of charge, in criminal matters including Shariah crimes to all Malaysian citizens at the stage of arrest, remand, bail application, trial and appeal. A competency test will only be conducted to determine the eligibility of legal aid recipients at the trial stage. However, this assistance does not cover offenses carrying the death penalty, as the High Court will provide the services of its assigned counsel to the accused in such cases. Legal assistance and advisory services in criminal matters will be provided to any Malaysian citizen who requires legal assistance at the stage of arrest, remand/detention and bail application. A competency test will only be conducted to determine the eligibility of the person who will receive legal aid for the trial stage in court. According to the aptitude test used, people who are eligible to receive legal aid at the trial stage in court are those with the following income: (1) Not more than RM25,000 per annum, whereby no fee will be charged; or (2) Exceeding RM25,000 per annum, but not exceeding RM36,000 per annum, whereby certain fees to be set by NLAF, will be charged.
The NLAF was incorporated on 25 January 2011 as a result of a decision made at the Cabinet meeting on 3 March 2010. The proposal for the establishment of NLAF arose during a meeting between the Prime Minister and the Chairman and other members of the Malaysian Bar Council on 7 January 2010. During the meeting, the Prime Minister was informed that an estimated 80% of those tried in court for criminal offenses did not have legal representation. With the establishment of NLAF, those who are unable to pay legal fees will be given legal assistance by NLAF. Lawyers who provide legal services through NLAF will only receive a nominal fee, as the provision of such legal services is their social responsibility. To establish NLAF, a launch fund of RM5 million is required from the government. At a meeting held on 3 March 2010, the Cabinet agreed that NLAF would be established under the Companies Commission of Malaysia. As a result, a series of meetings involving the Attorney General's Chambers (AGC), the Legal Aid Department (LAD), the Legal Affairs Division (LAD) and the Malaysian Bar Council were held to discuss the establishment of NLAF. The proposed establishment was finalised on 11 October 2010 in a meeting chaired by the Attorney General. NLAF also handles cases at the remand application stage. During the roundtable discussion, there were issues raised by NLAF regarding the application for chain remand relating to chain remand detainees, who were misused by the RMP.
The counsel representing the detainee for the chain remand application found that the existing law was sufficient. However, the court had failed to play a role when the remand application was made, whereby the court was still granting remand, while the provisions of section 117 (3) had not been met (O6, Email Communication, 14 April 2020). There is no statistics are available to show how many chain remand cases been reported, however the NLAF lawyers who were interviewed, indicated that each of them have handled at least average up to 20 cases. According to O5, throughout her seven-year services as a legal aid counsel, she could not count how many chain remand cases that she had handled (O5, Oral Communication, 21 July 2021). This did not cover the total number of NLAF lawyers throughout Malaysia, and if all the information were obtained from each NLAF lawyer, this figure could be higher. Furthermore, the NLAF lawyers informed that during the remand process they were not provided with any documents with regard to the application of remand. All information was only through oral application and would be given if allowed by the court on behalf of their lawyers. Supposely, police report and arrest reports were given without being requested, as it is a right to the lawyers because it involves the suspects represented, regardless of NLAF or a private lawyer (O6, Email Communication, 14 April 2020). The NLAF stated that this chain remand dispute should not exist if the police appreciate the reasons to detain someone, which leads to further detention (O7, Email Communication, 22 June 2020). This means that the investigation will be different if the arrest is initially practiced, and therefore, this chain remand is not required (O6, Email Communication, 14 April 2020). Besides that, NLAF lawyers also facing a problem same as EAIC in order to trace the suspect whereabout. According to O5< NLAF difficult to get cooperation from the investigating officers where the location of the suspect been detained.
However, during the roundtable discussion session, there were views given by the former detainees on the capabilities of NLAF lawyers in representing them. The former detainees mentioned that the lawyers did not really try to defend them during the remand application process. In fact, they are seen trying to bargain for a fair period of remand, which is suitable. Supposedly, the conditions to allow remand should be argued and not directly to bargain. When this happens, they do not believe in the NLAF's determination to help them. There are significant differences between NLAF lawyers and paid lawyers in executing their duties.

The voice of the Malaysian people (SUARAM)
The Voice of the Malaysian People or Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) is a company called Suara Inisiatif Sdn Bhd, which is enshrined under the Memorandum and Articles of Association based on the Companies Act 1965. SUARAM is a non-governmental organisation established in 1989 to monitor human rights in Malaysia. The organisation seeks to defend all aspects of human rights, especially the right to freedom from abuse of police power, as well as other law enforcement agencies, freedom of speech and information, freedom of assembly and association, freedom of religion, rights of minorities, refugees, immigrants and trafficked persons and democracy. SUARAM practices belief in the legitimacy of all rights, whether in terms of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. SUARAM specialises in civil and political rights, such as education and training programmes on freedom of speech, peaceful assembly and association, the right to a fair trial, freedom from torture, murder and cruel punishment, public accountability and the building of genuine democracy. SUARAM joins organisations and other group partners working on economic, social and cultural rights in Malaysia, which are able to collectively and comprehensively address all issues related to human rights.
SUARAM is an independent organisation that is not affiliated with any agency. SUARAM is a nongovernmental organisation that tries to help complainants and victims, who have been denied their basic rights. SUARAM's mandate is enshrined in the human rights charter in Malaysia and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Therefore, the main objective of SUARAM is to provide protection and awareness of human rights in Malaysia, regardless of who the government is today. As SUARAM (Suara Inisiatif Sdn Bhd) is registered under the Companies Act of Malaysia, their operations and activities should comply with the laws of the Companies Act. Amongst the contributions by SUARAM is an amendment to CPC, whereby they campaigned to protect the rights of detainees. The CPC was amended in 2007 leading to a shortening of the detention order duration, non-acceptance of the accused's statements and better access to family and lawyers. SUARAM is also seen as active in addressing issues of chain remand practices, whereby they received about 13 complaints from 2011 to 2019 related to the problem of chain remand practices (09, Oral Communication, 19 Sepmtember 2020). At the roundtable discussion session on chain remand detainees, SUARAM informed that these chain remand detainees also involved underage detainees, who were still immature and were exposed to adult detainees, which made these minors become worse than before when they were released (Malaysia Human Rights Report, 2020).
According to SUARAM, complaints involving chain remand cases involve a lot of abuse of police power in resolving outstanding cases and finally they will use preventive law to obtain any detention order against detainees (O9, Oral Communication, 19 September 2020). Complaints concerning chain remand are not only interrelated to the length or amount of detention, but also to the form of torture and the current conditions of detention. The most recent case that was complained to SUARAM involved an 18-year-old suspect, who was detained from February 26 to 11 March 2021. The suspect was later remanded under preventive law, which also included the electric chair shock while in custody (Amrie Hisamudin,). This was because most detainees would be beaten to force them to plead guilty to the offense (O9, Oral Communication, 19 September 2020). For SUARAM, there were detainees who commit offenses as reported, but there were also certain circumstances, whereby the detainees were forced to confess to offenses that they did not commit (O9, Oral Communication, 19 September 2020). At the initial stage when SUARAM receives a complaint, they will ensure that all documents are complete before a follow-up action is taken. Normally, SUARAM will seek assistance from the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM), as they are not authorised to enter the police station to see the detainees. Whenever SUARAM receives complaints from the public, their main priority is to ensure that the detainees are in good condition. Most of the families who complained were worried about the detainee's condition, as they were unaware of the detainee's whereabouts and it was difficult to get cooperation from the investigating officer. This incident has happened before, when families often ask on their child's whereabouts, but no accurate information is given. Subsequently, the families were contacted and informed that the child had died. This was similar to a recent incident involving a detainee who died in Bentong, Pahang, who was previously detained at the Gombak police station (Jaymal Zahid,). Furthermore, after this incident, another case was reported on 3 February 2021 regarding a detainee who died during police detention in Yan, Kedah (Azizul Osman,). This also happened as in the case of Datuk Seri Khalid Abu Bakar & Ors v. N Indra Nallathamby & Anor2014)9 CLJ 15 (Kugan's case), whereby the detainee was also detained for chain remand cases and eventually found dead, while in police custody. The Kugan's case was also a chain remand detainee. Therefore, SUARAM emphasises on the safety and health of detainees, who are arrested and detained. Provided that the detainees are in good condition, SUARAM has no problem for RMP to continue the investigation. SUARAM believes that they do not have the power to ensure that every complaint is resolved because non-governmental organisations, such as SUARAM also receive their own impact when making a complaint against enforcement agency, but the investigation will be carried out on SUARAM. SUARAM also tries to help detainees or families who make complaints involving chain remand by referring them to lawyers, who can assist from a legal point of view. However, as a result of financial problems, not all cases can be represented by a lawyer. Certain lawyers can represent pro bono or unpaid referring to the facts and circumstances of the case. Complaints that are usually received by SUARAM, mostly involved families or detainees from difficult and less fortunate families who are given priority (O9, Oral Communication, 19 September 2020).

Findings
Based on this discussion it could be seen that the roles played by each organisation were different. However, the roles of EAIC and SUHAKAM are quite similar. In fact, these two organisations only act as advisors after the investigation related to the complaint is completed. Although the results of the investigation were referred to the ISCD, the ISCD will also make their own investigation to ensure that the allegations received are true or otherwise. Therefore, ISCD is a department set up by RMP to take actions against their own officers and members, which is considered as a difficult task. This is because an action imposed will definitely have a huge impact on the officers and members involved. Consequently, there is a need for a separate body that has a role to review the results of the investigation conducted by SUHAKAM and EAIC. It could be considered that the appropriate party is from the prosecution division, which is the Attorney General's Chambers (AGC) that specifically evaluates the investigation paper thoroughly before a officers is charged. Moreover, the AGC is also a separate body from RMP and is best suited to ensure that all forms of investigations conducted meet all elements of the offense enshrined in the law.
The existence of SUARAM, as a non-governmental organisation that focuses on these human rights issues is also commendable. This is because SUARAM will not be bound by government policies and directions. However, the establishment of non-governmental organisations, such as SUARAM is not based on political purposes, but is indeed fighting for the rights of the people at large. SUARAM stressed that the main priority they make sure when receiving chain remand complaints is that the detainees should be in good condition. Fundamentally, SUARAM also receives its own implications when trying to defend the rights of complainants. According to the findings, SUARAM tried their best to help those who make complaints, especially those who have financial problems and from poor families. SUARAM's initiative should be supported, as not all families of detainees can afford to appoint their own lawyers, which involves high financial costs. Additionally, the existence of the NLAF is one way to address the problem of families' inability to fund counselling costs. However, NLAF's lawyers should carry out their duties to the best of their ability, even if they are not paid as the appointed lawyers. The establishment of NLAF could also solve the problems faced by SUARAM in order to defend the detainees, who were wrongfully detained without just cause.

Conclusion
From the aforesaid discussion, it clearly showed that the right to personal liberty is a right that has been guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. This right is realised so that the principle of justice is enjoyed by all parties, regardless of who the individual is. This right is not only guaranteed by the Malaysian Federal Constitution, but is also guaranteed by international declarations and treaties. This chapter showed some similarities that existed in the international declarations and treaties. Amongst the similarities include a person is innocent unless proven guilty in any legal system whatsoever. This includes in the remand application process the need for reasonable reasons to make the arrest and detention.
As mentioned above, the balance between the right to individual liberty and public safety is a complex and difficult issue, which is certain that the right to public safety will always be given priority while taking into account all mechanisms to ensure justice is served. The issue of balance between the two is not a new issue but an issue that has never ended from time immemorial. This concept also applies in chain remand, as discussed chain remand is valid in terms of the current law. However, its uncontrolled use invites human rights violations even if it involves national security and society in general. Chain remand should be in line with the law without being abused. What is certain is that there are several bodies or agencies that also play a key role in ensuring that this matter is controlled apart from the legislation. Furthermore, the authors also proposed amendment of section 4 (1) (b) and (2) (b) MHRCA stated SUHAKAM should refer the investigation paper to the prosecution for actions, whether further investigation is required. If there are solid proof, then judicious prosecution actions should be taken. The amendment also should be included in section 34 of the EAICA whereby the EAIC also can refer their investigation paper to the prosecution for further actions. This will make the process impartial and just for all parties involved. If the investigation conducted by SUHAKAMand EAIC identified abuse of power by the authorised officers involved, then court action should be taken. This can also prevent the abuse of power by certain parties in denying justice to the victimised parties. It should be noted that oppression can not only happen to the accused, but in other situations, oppression can also happen to the victim or complainant, who makes a police report or complaint.
Every complaint on improper use of chain remand is investigated not only from nongovernmental organisations, but also from the government bodies. The RMP also established ISCD, which opens space for complaints to be submitted to produce officers and members who have integrity and comply with the standards set by RMP. However, it was found that there are still loopholes and shortcomings that need to be improved to ensure that the justice system in Malaysia is better from time to time. There is a need to appoint a separate party in deciding any decisions whether to impose an action, charge or otherwise, if it is found that there is strong evidence showing the failure of an officer or member of the enforcement is significant. Undoubtedly, too many services and sacrifices are made by the enforcement, especially the RMP, but necessary actions to prevent the violation of the country's laws need to be thru accordingly. The parties should not compromise with maltreated conduct. This firm action will provide lessons to other officers and members, who are involved in executing their duties properly in accordance with the stipulated law.