Saifuddin said house arrest will however not be applicable for those remanded for serious crimes, including those that provide for life imprisonment or the death penalty.
“Serious crimes that carry prison sentences of 10 years and above, or those involving domestic abuse, the Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2007 and Chapter Six of the Penal Code (for offences against the state) are also not eligible.
“We are targeting (for the bill to apply to) remand orders not involving the mentioned offences,” he said when wrapping up the debate on the 2025 Supply Bill at the home ministry’s level in the Dewan Rakyat today.
Saifuddin said the government also wanted to let the courts decide whether a suspect should be placed under house arrest, adding that house arrest orders could be given due to health reasons.
In his 2025 budget speech, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim said the government would draft a new Act allowing house arrest as an alternative punishment for certain offences.
Under this proposed law, offenders will be required to remain in designated locations, such as their homes or care centres, for the duration of their sentences.
Government spokesman Fahmi Fadzil had maintained that the bill had nothing to do with former prime minister Najib Razak, who is serving a reduced six-year sentence in the SRC International case at Kajang prison.
Saifuddin today said the bill would be harmonised with the existing Prisons Act 1995 on the home minister’s discretionary powers to declare premises as prisons.
He said this in response to a question from Ramkarpal Singh (PH-Bukit Gelugor) on whether the Act would be amended or abolished in line with the introduction of the house arrest bill.
“The Attorney-General’s Chambers’ (AGC) suggestion is that instead of amending the existing Act, it is better to create a new bill. We will certainly harmonise it with the provisions in the existing Act,” he said.
Saifuddin said the AGC’s suggestion is also due to the legal interpretations of the electronic monitoring devices worn by those undergoing house arrest.
He said legally, such devices should fall under the definition of “instruments of restraint”, a term the AGC says refers specifically to handcuffs.
“But the home ministry recommends that the interpretation of such instruments be expanded and not confined to handcuffs.
“The (minister’s discretion) to declare a certain place as a prison is one matter, but the placement of (suspects) under house arrest wearing such devices does not align with the current definition of ‘instruments of restraint’.
“That is why we have created the bill according to the AGC’s advice,” he said.
According to the Prisons Regulations 2000, “instruments of restraint” refer to handcuffs, chains, irons and straitjackets. - FMT
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.