OCTOBER 19 — During the Budget 2025 speech, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim announced the government’s plan to introduce a new law that would enable convicts to serve out their imprisonment sentences at home instead of in prison.

"The government will draft a new Act to allow home detention as an alternative for certain offences.

"Offenders will be required to stay at a designated detention place, such as a residence, care home, or workers’ dormitory, throughout the detention period, subject to conditions set and monitored by Prison Officers,” he said, without elaborating.

It’s kind of odd though that such an announcement was made during a Budget speech.

Be that as it may, it acknowledges that there is no law on house arrest.

In "Sentence according to law and sentences under the law” I wrote that a sentence must be according to law and a sentence of house arrest, or home detention or home confinement is not available under the law.

I followed that with explaining that even though there is no house arrest under the law in Malaysia, a house can be a prison.

If a convict is to be put under house arrest, a designated house can and must be declared a prison first.

Otherwise, as rightly said by the prime minister, the government will have to draft a new Act to allow for house arrest, or home detention.

Like in the UK and New Zealand.

And in Singapore, which makes provisions for a home detention (or house arrest) scheme (HDS). This is a type of Community-based Programmes (CBP) for inmates towards the tail-end of their sentence. CBP promotes the inmates’ reintegration into society with the help of their family members and the community.

Under HDS, suitable inmates will serve their remaining sentences at their residences under specified conditions, which include curfew monitoring, urine testing and counselling. They could either be working, studying, or be involved in community service.

The law is provided for in Part 6 of the Prisons Act 1933. Section 52 of the Act says that subject to eligibility for home detention under Section 53, the Commissioner of Prisons may, for the purpose of facilitating a prisoner’s rehabilitation and reintegration into society, by order release a prisoner who is eligible for home detention for a period not exceeding 12 months or any other period that the Minister may, by notification in the Gazette, prescribe in substitution thereof.

A high-profile inmate who was put to home detention was Peter Lim Sin Pang, the Republic’s former civil defence chief who was convicted of corruption. He was allowed to serve out the remainder of his six-month jail term at home.

Lim was found guilty of corruptly obtaining sex from a 49-year-old sales director who had worked for a vendor of the Singapore Civil Defence Force. This was in exchange for furthering the business interests of the vendor.

Will we see inmates in Malaysia serving out the remainder of their jail term with house arrests?

We should welcome such schemes which have been provided for by the law in other countries. They serve to promote inmates’ reintegration into society with the help of their family members and the community.

But what’s law (on house arrest) got to do with a Budget?

It’s odd, but if it’s all part of institutional reforms, we must welcome it.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.