PETALING JAYA: Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution must give more details on the proposed House Arrest Bill, say NGOs.
Simply stating that it will only involve remand prisoners and not serious offenders is not enough to assuage worries that such a law may be used as a “get-out-of-jail-free” card.
They said the government must make more efforts to reform prison conditions rather than stating that a House Arrest Bill was needed to solve the current overcrowding issue.
Lawyer activist NGO Lawyers for Liberty director Zaid Malek said the government must provide logical and convincing reasons for the new Bill to ensure the public remained confident in the criminal justice system.
“It is difficult to have a helpful discussion on this unless the government clearly explains the reasons for this innovation in penal management.
“Prison overcrowding can be dealt with by the parole system, which already exists and is under-utilised. So why house arrest?” asked Zaid.
(Under the current laws, the parole system allows early release of a prison inmate where the prisoner agrees to abide by behavioural conditions, checking in with their designated parole officers, failing which they may be returned to prison.)
“The failure to provide cogent reasons has led to speculation that the proposed new Bill was connected to Najib’s case.
“All this is detrimental to public confidence in the criminal justice system. Further, the government has done nothing on the crucial issue of prison conditions and reform. The focus should be on this instead of gimmicky solutions or ideas,” said Zaid.
The issue of the House Arrest Bill emerged when Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim announced during Budget 2025 that the government planned to introduce a new law enabling convicts to serve out their sentences at home instead of in prison.“The government will draft a new Act to allow home detention as an alternative for certain offences,” Anwar said then.
This came as the Court of Appeal is due to hear former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s appeal on Dec 5 over the dismissal of his leave application for a judicial review regarding an alleged addendum on house arrest.
Centre to Combat Corruption and Cronyism (C4) chief executive officer Pushpan Murugiah said that while house arrest could be a progressive move in rehabilitating convicted criminals, the limits of the proposal must be clearly spelt out in law.
“At face value, introducing house arrest as an alternative to traditional sentences of imprisonment is a progressive move towards recognising the importance of rehabilitation as a fundamental element of the criminal justice system – aligned with the government’s move to abolish the mandatory death penalty, for instance.
“The government seems to acknowledge that not all crimes should be dealt with in the same manner, and we welcome this shift away from a restricted punitive perspective on dealing with crime.
“Allowing a convicted person to serve a house arrest sentence would provide them with an opportunity to reintegrate into society while also contributing towards the reduction of prison overcrowding.
“However, the limits of this proposal must be clearly set out under the governing legislation, i.e. either a new Act or amendments to existing laws,” Pushpan said.
He added that at present, there were other modes of alternative sentencing, such as good behaviour bonds for youthful and first-time offenders under the Criminal Procedure Code, which are at the discretion of the court.
“Neither are available in cases for those charged with ‘serious offences’.
“These can be used as guidance for the new House Arrest Bill,” he said.
Under the Penal Code, a serious offence is defined as one punishable with 10 years’ imprisonment or more, including murder, criminal breach of trust, money laundering and offences of accepting gratification or bribery.
“C4 strongly believes that the same limit must be placed on the house arrest sentence to ensure that it does not become a ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ card for those who have committed substantial harm – particularly those who hold significant power, popularity or influence within our society.
“Indeed, we do not see why house arrest should be treated any differently than the existing provisions on good behaviour bonds, given that they all function very similarly.
“So long as these clear limits are in place, we welcome this new measure being exercised in the public interest and support this path towards building a kinder and more just society for all,” said Pushpan.
On July 3, Najib’s application to admit the addendum was rejected by the Kuala Lumpur High Court, which found that the four affidavits supporting his claim, including those from Umno president Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi and vice-president Datuk Seri Wan Rosdy Wan Ismail, were hearsay.
Najib has been incarcerated at the Kajang Prison since Aug 23, 2022, after being convicted of embezzling RM42mil in funds belonging to SRC International Sdn Bhd.
That same year, following his conviction, he filed a petition for a royal pardon on Sept 2, which resulted in a reduction of his sentence from 12 years to six years and his fine from RM210mil to RM50mil.
