Why Changi Prison is a Slave Camp

1.     On Sep 20, 2018, I served my 4^th imprisonment and was released from Changi Prison. On Nov 17, 2018, I sent an email to Minister for Home Affairs K. Shanmugam complaining about prisoner abuse and claimed that Changi Prison was a slave camp. I haven’t received any reply from the Minister so far.  

2.     On Mar 15, 2019, I was remanded in Changi Prison and was released on Aug 13 after serving my 5^th imprisonment. Now I still think it is a slave camp. My 5^th stay shows that Changi Prison is a totalitarian authority because justice has failed there. It rules with absolute power and in a cruel and oppressive way, which makes rehabilitation of prisoners impossible.

3.     While the underlying principle of rehabilitation programs is to remove criminals from crime-ridden environment and to place them in the morally pure environment to improve their moral fibre, there is no justice in Changi Prison so inmates are unable to be transformed into law-abiding citizens before they enter into society. On the contrary, inmates have to “go bad” to adapt to unfavorable prison culture. As a matter of fact, I have learned in prison to make one inmate to listen to another inmate by bullying him.  

The absolute power of prison officers

4.     For three reasons, prison officers have an unfettered power over inmates. First, prison officers generally have an unsatisfactory level of competence and integrity so they tend to abuse their power. Most prison officers don’t have good education and thus don’t have a proper sense of justice. They stay at their job for money only and for some reason, don’t act in accordance with the law. Their primary duty is to ensure that inmates are healthy or at least alive on the date of release. Prison officers’ questionable competence and integrity have caused the widespread abuse of power in Changi Prison.

5.     Secondly, there is a lack of accountability mechanism in the prison. The top management such as Commissioner of prisons, Minister for Home Affairs are not aware the real situation in prison cells. Even if they have been informed of the gross misconduct on the part of prison officers, they will tend to will cover it up. The lack of checks and balances in prison system have failed to counter the widespread abused of power. 

6.     Thirdly, the justice system in prison is not meant to do justice but to punish inmates to maintain prison order. The so-called adjudicators knew little about laws, and they didn’t accept inmates’ arguments concerning abuses of power by prison officers. In addition, inmates were not allowed to appeal to the court or to a visiting justice. Any inmate who challenges the prison system will fall into a vicious cycle and will be punished again and again.

The cruel and oppressive rule

7.     The prison authorities’ cruel and oppressive rule is clearly demonstrated in prison’s response to inmates’ hunger strikes. While it is common sense that a hunger strike is an act of protest with the objective to achieve a specific goal, prison officers generally see an inmate going on a hunger strike as a person of unsound mind. Instead of taking into consideration the official certificates issued by IMH, prison officers prefer to forcibly transfer him to solitary confinement for involuntary psychiatric interview by prison psychiatrists.

8.     An inmate’s hunger strike against the abuse of power by prison officers is bound to fail, because prison officers generally deliberately ignore a striker’s health condition. They even deliberately encouraged the striker to continue his hunger strike in the hope that the striker would end his hunger strike for good. If an inmate goes on a hunger strike too long, say over 3 days, officer will order him to see a prison psychiatrist.

9.     Inmates have also suffered from cruel and inhumane treatment such as misdiagnosis and forced medication. On average, each cell has at least one inmate taking medicines. It is safe to say that more than 12.5% (1/8) of inmates are taking medications including psychiatric medications on a daily basis, and the percentage of long-term prisoners who take medications is much higher. However, the inmates I asked didn’t take psychiatric medications after they were released from the prison. In other words, some inmates took psychiatric medications only in Changi Prison.  

10.  The forced medication doesn’t mean involuntary drugging of inmates. When ordered to see a psychiatrist, an inmate had to attend the psychiatric interview even if he declined to give the psychiatrist his informed consent. After the interview, the inmate would have to accept the diagnosis and to take the medication. About half of the prison psychiatrists who interviewed me didn’t both to ask for my medical history and arrogantly made their diagnoses within a few minutes. When requested to testify in court about their diagnoses, all of them rejected my request. Psychiatrists such as Dr. Rajesh Jacob from Novena Medical Centre and Dr. Lim Chee Min from Changi General Hospital, simply saw inmates as animals and made directions to forcibly transport inmates to IMH.     

11.  It is fact that the prison officers didn’t accept inmates’ complaints about doctors and medical malpractice. The inmate had to take psychiatric medications ‘voluntarily”, since nurses and prison officers would ask him to take the medication every day. On the evening of Apr 17, 2019, one inmate in HU2 of B4 died after he took his medication. It was said that while he was reluctant to take it, nurses persuaded him to do so and assured him that doctors would take care of him the next day. He didn’t come back after he was sent to the hospital.

Prison officers’ competence

12.  When it comes to professional competence, it should note that none of prison officers is legally trained. As a result, they have wrongfully seen the internal rules of the prison but not the statute law such as Prison Act and the Constitution of Singapore as the legal basis for their daily operations. In addition, they have genuinely believed that the internal rules were independent of but not derived from the Prison Act and the Constitution. Prison officers firmly believe that those relevant laws are for lawyers sitting on the armchair, and they don’t even bother to the Prison Act once.

13.  In April, May and June of 2019, I did talk to B4 management including Supt. Faisal Mustaffa, a female 2^nd Superintendent and Supt. Khoo Boo Wah, about their limited understanding of the law. The 2^nd superintendent and Intelligence officer Mr. It firmly rejected my request for a copy of Prison Act to settle the issue about how to handle prisoners’ complaints in accordance with the law on the grounds that Prison Act didn’t cover all aspects of officers’ daily operations.

14.  In response to my offer to report officers’ insufficient legal knowledge to Ministry of Home Affairs for legal assistance, B4 management kept silent. Finally, I had to set out the inherent problems with the prison system at the end of my appeal document that was submitted to the Supreme Court on Jun 24, 2019 for external interference.  

15.  Prison officers generally had no intention of adjusting their established practice in response to inmates’ feedback. They pressed ahead with what they believed to be right such as various courses for inmates, but paid no attention to how much benefits inmates could obtain from them. I once asked Operation commander (OC) Loius Woo of HU4 a question about how to be a model prisoner. He answered he didn’t know and suggested that I asked Supt. Faisal for an answer. I was sure Supt. Faisal was unable to give me an answer.

16.  It was self-evident that there was no way for an inmate to make himself a model prisoner due to a lack of opportunity for him to stand out among the rest inmates. Locked up in cell for 23 hours a day and spent one hour on out-door activities from Monday to Saturday, inmates cannot get any assignment or work from the prison. One inmate can do whatever the other inmates could do, so there is no chance for inmates to prove themselves.

17.  I once suggested that an inmate choose a course he interested and then apply for it by submitting a written application. Although I thought it was a good idea for officers to offer courses to inmates based on the merits of their written applications, OC Louis Woo pushed aside my suggestion. When questioned about the selection criteria, he declined to give a clear answer and I was puzzled why I was selected for a course for O-level holders. Although he did indicate officers’ impression about an inmate, OC Louis Woo failed to realize that a large number of inmates were double-faced. They smartly saluted prison officers every day and routinely deceived their cell inmates for their own benefits.  

Cell politics

18.  Social isolation can have harmful effect on health, and no inmates want to put in solitary confinement. Silent treatment, or cold violence, has been universally adopted by inmates as a tool for exerting power over their cellmate who was out of tune with them. It is a fact that 5 inmates in a cell could avoid all interactions with one inmate as if he wasn’t in the cell. Inmates generally ignore prison regulations and prefer to settle all issues in absence of prison guards. Given the fact that prison officer didn’t do justice, an inmate had to take the side which seemed to bring him maximum benefits.

19.  The first thing each inmate needed to find out in a new cell was who was dominating the cell. Inmates were expected to comply with prison rules; however, they had no choice but to support their friends unconditionally in exchange for his friend’s reciprocal support. It was routine to see building up, maintenance and dissolution of alliance between cellmates after an inmate came in or left a cell. Justice failed in the prison, and an inmate generally took every opportunity such as where he put his mug to indicate his attitude towards his  cellmates and the conflict in the cell.

20.  Consequently, an inmate is more likely to go bad than to reform his bad habit. I had learned how to bully an inmate to make him listen to me after having been bullied several times. Prison bullying is not equivalent to beating up, and it consisted of a series of acts to test, harass and intimidate another inmate. I am confident to call Changi Prison a slave camp, because I the only person (not inmate) in Changi prison who comply with Prison Act in the strictest sense.

Prison officers’ integrity

21.  According to Wikipedia, integrity is the practice of being honest and showing a consistent and uncompromising adherence to strong moral and ethical principles and values. In my opinion, most prison officers lacked integrity and routinely tell lies to shift their responsibility for their own mistakes.

22.  Since my first jail term in 2016, I had repeatedly asked prison officers about the rights and duties of an inmate, but received no reply. Prison officers were not supposed to let inmates know the details of prison regulations because they obediently followed whatever the higher management said. An OC of a housing unit or a Superintendent of an Institution have authority to exert their influence on a lower-level officer’s contract with the prison. A lower -level officer refers to an officer whose rank is below Deputy Superintendent.

23.  It was natural to expect that honest lower-level officers had to fall into acquiescence and to follow instructions from higher management, even if the instructions were against justice.  Inmate Ang Han Boon (S064922018) was my next-door cellmate. From Jul 27, 2019 to his release date of Aug 10, he had harassed me 10 times a day by shouting “ China Dog, Go back to China” in his cell and threated me with “ I will kill you on Aug 13, I will break your legs after I get out of the jail”. In response to my repeated written and verbal complaints, some lower-level officers simply answered they were not in a position to take action against inmate Ang without OC Lim Wei Kiat’s order. Their only action was to play an inmate orientation video on the afternoon of Aug 3 to remind all inmates not to make troubles.   

24.  In early August, I reported to RO Ahmad Naufal right after inmate Ang threatened me in front of all inmates. In response, RO Naufal intentionally refused to take my report. OC Lim Wei Kiat explained that I must provide him with witnesses to support my complaint of discrimination. When requested to subject both me and inmate Ang Han Boon to a cross-examination for truth finding, he repeatedly rejected my request on the ground that I was good at debating so the cross-examination would put inmate Ang in an inferior position. I told and OC Lim Wei Kiat it was prison officers who had a duty to carry out investigations, but he answered that they were talking with provost officers about the investigation.

25.  On Aug 10, or 3 days before my release date, OC Lim Wei Kiat simply told me there was no racial discrimination at all in HU2, but declined to take action against me for making false allegations. It was evident that B4 management had maliciously covered up widespread issue of discrimination and harassment. In Changi Prison, there were a number of petty dictator officers who were dependent on their immediate senior. For example, RO Ahmad Naufal was OC Lim Wei Kia’s person, who was in the pocket of Supt. Faisal. As for Supt. Faisal, he maliciously withheld all complaints from his seniors such Benjamin Chia, the Commander of Cluster B, and Commissioner Desmond Chin.

26.  Most prison officers didn’t have a strong sense of justice and they didn’t bother to have one. On Jul 8, 2018 in HU1 of B4, RO Kim Yong Jun blamed me for not getting along with 5 other inmates in cell 216 but couldn’t find any evidence of my fault. When questioned for the legal basis of his opinion, RO Kim was unable to answer and denied the possibility that 5 inmates acted together to give me a hard time. When asked for a cross-examination of the rest 5 inmates to establish their credibility, RO Kim Yong Jun flatly rejected my request and ignored the fact that one inmate deliberately insulted me by calling me “Chinaman”.  

The corrupt justice system in prison

27.  On Aug 23, 2018, I repeatedly asked Sergeant Ahmed Ashraf Bin Ismail of HU1 for his rank to lodge a complaint about him. He wouldn’t give me an answer and finally handcuffed me. After he activated the duress alarm, all officers in B4 came to HU1 to help him. Although prison officers had a duty to provide an inmate with his rank when questioned, Sergeant Ahmed Ashraf Bin Ismail didn’t get any punishment. On the contrary, Adjudicator Sze Chuck Huang found me guilty and sentenced me to 5 days’ imprisonment in punishment cell from Aug 28 to Sep 1.  

28.  On the afternoon of Aug 28, I was order to serve 5 days’ imprisonment but I refused to go to a punishment cell on the grounds of unfair hearing. OC Lim Wei Kiat directed SPEAR force officers to forcibly transported me from cell 116 to a punishment cell. In response, I refused to leave the punishment cell after serving the imprisonment on Sep 1. In protest of the use of excessive force by SPEAR officers, I voluntarily stayed in the PC for 4 more days from Sep 1 to Sep 4 and requested the B4 management to forcibly take me out of the cell again,

29.  Although prison officers had never experienced a voluntary stay in a punishment cell, they didn’t feel any guilty about the use of excessive force.  OC Calvin Tan of HU1 even persuaded me to get out of the punishment cell so he could put me on another trial for refusing to go to the punishment cell on Aug 28. On the afternoon Sep 5, Adjudicator Sze Chuck Huang sentenced me to 3 days’ PC for refusing to go to punishment cell on Aug 28. It was evident that any inmate who challenge the prison administration would be caught in a vicious circle by prison justice system.

30.  OC Calvin Tan was a total hypocrite. When questioned why he hadn’t persuaded me to get out of cell 116 on the afternoon of Aug 28, he answered he was around at that time. One the one hand, he pretended to see me as a friend and even asked about my background, my salary and the persons I knew. On the other hand, he persuaded me to accept unfair punishment and always disappear when I needed assistance from officers. 

The malicious cover-up

31.  The following is a typical case of abuse of power by Supt. Faisal Mustaffa. On Apr 14, 2018, inmate Eddy in cell 703 of HU4 in Institution B4 deliberately harassed me but Chief Warder Maran followed his senior’s decision and declined to look into this matter. Eddy’s harassment continued but officers wouldn’t intervene. On the morning of Apr 15, I protested against Eddy’s harassment by turning my back to the door during muster check (head counting) in the cell. The protest didn’t break any prison regulations, but I was still placed in a PI cell “pending an investigation”. After taking my statements on the morning Apr 16, provost office Azini Bin Abbass officially informed the B4 management to release me back to cell 703.  

32.  Although the 24-hour lighting in a PI cell could cause serious sleeping problems to an inmate, the newly appointed Supt. Faisal Mustaffa (he was appointed in Mar 2018) insisted that I must stay in the PI cell but declined to justify his decision. In response, I went on a hunger strike from the dinner time of Apr 20 and refused to standby for muster check on the grounds that the detention was unlawful. Supt. Faisal Mustaffa wouldn’t talk to me but released me unconditionally on the afternoon of April 23.

33.  On May 9, Adjudicator Sze Chuck Huang found me guilty for not standing by for muster check when I was imprisonment in the PI cell. I was sentenced to 3 days’ imprisonment in the Punishment Cell. On May 23, I submitted a complaint letter to Commissioner Desmond Chin against Supt. Faisal about the illegal detention in the PI cell. To my surprise, Supt. Faisal completely disregarded the conflict of interest and ordered me to submit the letter through him.

34.  On Jul 1, he told me that Commissioner had turned down my appeal against Adjudicator Sze’s decision made on May 9. As for Commissioner’s response to my complaint of abuse of power against him, Supt. Faisal wouldn’t let me know. This case showed clearly that what counts in Changi Prison was the will of the Superintendent but not Prison Act.

35.  From Sep 5 to Sep 9, 2018, inmates Lee Wen Jun (L200282017), Ng Jun Wei (S024852018), Lee Yung Sheng (S041042018) and Hu Xi Dong (S025312018) in cell 211 of HU1 repeatedly harassed me. Officers including OC Calvin Tan completely ignored my repeated written and verbal complaints. On Sep 9, I had to request to transfer from 211 to PI cell 206 to ensure my safety.  On Sep 19, one day before my release date, intelligence officer Mr. It told me they were looking into this mater.

36.  On Apr 18, 2019, I was transferred to HU1 of B4 to serve my 5^th imprisonment and came across Lee Wen Jun. I found he didn’t get any punishment and was even promoted to work as a cooki, an inmate working outside their cells as an errand boy to help prison officers reduce their workload. When asked for outcome of investigations against Lee Wen Jun and other inmates in cell 211, OC Calvin Tan declined to give me an answer but told me to forget the past and move with my life.

37.  On May 10, the female 2^nd Supt. and Intelligence officer Mr. It explained that provost officers did look into my complaint made in 2018 against Lee Wen Jun but didn’t find an issue in my complaint.  I asked for a cross-examination of Lee Wen Jun and subsequent punishment of making false allegations against me, the 2^nd Supt. and Mr. It didn’t reply.  It was self-evident that B4 had maliciously covered up Lee Wen Jun’s misconduct to shift their responsibility for ensuring inmates’ safety.

Conclusion

38.  Despite the fact that Singapore mainstream newspapers papers have described the Changi Prison as a positive turning point for their lives. My experience in Changi Prison has shown conclusively that Changi Prison is a slave camp.