In a moment when a former prime minister has been spared the rest of his imprisonment by royal grace, the question of how his confinement will be governed has come to rest on a quieter principle: that power exercised over a citizen's body and home should be written down in law, where all can read it. Hafiz Hassan, writing in Malay Mail on October 19, reminds the public that Malaysia has no domestic precedent for house arrest of this kind, and that the Prisons Department, now drafting the terms of Datuk Seri Najib Razak's home detention, should give those terms the permanence and visibility of
Najib's House Arrest Conditions Should Be Gazetted as Subsidiary Legislation, Not Left as SOP
SOP is not law.
Mark
Why does it matter whether these conditions are an SOP or subsidiary legislation?
Mimi
The author's point is simple: an SOP is not law. Regulations under the Prison Act 1995 would be published in the Gazette, so anyone could read exactly what is required.
Mark
And the conditions themselves come from Singapore?
Mimi
Partly. He says they are some of the conditions in Singapore's home detention order under Section 54(1) of its Prisons Act 1993. They cover counselling, drug testing, staying indoors, inspections and electronic monitoring.
Luke
Careful, though. That list is what the author says may be attached. Has the Prisons Department confirmed it will use these?
Mimi
No. The report only says the department is in the final phase of drafting. The list is the author's suggestion, not an official text.
Mark
What did the Home Minister add?
Mimi
He said the work follows a letter from the Pardons Board secretariat, and admitted the country has never had house arrest before.
Luke
So we know the department has authority to set conditions, but not in what legal form. That is the gap the author is worried about.
Mimi
Right. And it is an opinion piece, so the argument is his, not a finding.
Mark
What should readers watch for?
Mimi
Whether formal regulations are gazetted.
Le Pouls
- The Prisons Department is in the final phase of drafting home detention conditions for Najib Razak, a sudden and unprecedented step for Malaysia.
- The proposed rules reach deep into private life, covering indoor confinement, urine and hair testing, electronic tagging and entry into the residence by authorities.
- Opinion writer Hafiz Hassan warns that internal standard operating procedures carry no force of law and should not be the instrument governing these terms.
- The push is for the conditions to be gazetted as subsidiary legislation under the Prisons Act, a route that would make them public, enforceable and open to challenge.
- The outcome hangs on whether the finalised conditions appear as formal gazetted regulations or remain an internal document.
In a moment when a former prime minister has been spared the rest of his imprisonment by royal grace, the question of how his confinement will be governed has come to rest on a quieter principle: that power exercised over a citizen's body and home should be written down in law, where all can read it. Hafiz Hassan, writing in Malay Mail on October 19, reminds the public that Malaysia has no domestic precedent for house arrest of this kind, and that the Prisons Department, now drafting the terms of Datuk Seri Najib Razak's home detention, should give those terms the permanence and visibility of the Gazette. The stakes are less about one man than about whether the rules of an unfamiliar form of punishment will be known, binding and open to scrutiny.
On October 19, a letter under the byline of Hafiz Hassan appeared in Malay Mail with a narrow but sharp argument. Whatever rules govern former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak's house arrest, he wrote, they should be made into law and published in the Gazette, not kept as internal procedure.
The letter followed a report that the Prisons Department was finishing its drafting of regulations for home detention. The work rests on a conditional royal pardon that lets Najib serve the rest of his sentence at home rather than in prison. Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail said the department was proceeding on the authority of a letter from the Pardons Board secretariat, and conceded that the country had never before had house arrest of this kind.
The author returned to a list of conditions he had first shared when the pardon was announced, modelled partly on Singapore's home detention order. They would require counselling and tests at the times authorities choose, indoor confinement at the residence, drug and alcohol prohibitions, and entry into the home for inspection. They would also require wearing an electronic monitoring device and allowing equipment to be installed and maintained at the residence.
His objection is brief: standard operating procedures are not law. He asks that the conditions be made subsidiary legislation under the Prisons Act, so that they are published in the Gazette. The department has not said which form it intends to use, and that choice will show whether these rules become public law or stay behind closed doors.
On October 19, a letter to the public under the byline of Hafiz Hassan appeared in Malay Mail, making a narrow but pointed legal argument: whatever rules govern former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak's house arrest, they should be written as law and published in the Gazette, not left as internal procedure.
The occasion is a report that the Malaysian Prisons Department is in the final phase of drafting regulations and conditions for home detention. That drafting follows the conditional royal pardon that allows Najib to serve the remainder of his prison sentence at home rather than in a prison. The news of the pardon broke exactly a month before the piece was published.
Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail said the work is proceeding on the strength of a letter from the Pardons Board secretariat, which allows the Prisons Department to set the conditions for implementing house arrest. He also conceded, in words the author calls right, that the country has never had house arrest before, but suddenly there is.
Because there is no domestic precedent, the author revisits a list of conditions he first shared when the pardon was announced. They resemble those in Singapore's home detention order, found in Section 54(1) of that country's Prisons Act 1993. Under them, the detainee would attend counselling, therapy, tests and assessments that prison authorities require, at times and places they choose. He would provide urine or hair samples on request, and stay indoors at his residence, or another specified place, whenever the authorities direct.
Authorities and authorised persons would be entitled to enter his residence to check compliance or to support rehabilitation. He would be barred from consuming or possessing controlled drugs, psychoactive substances or alcohol, and from using any intoxicating substance.
Electronic monitoring forms a further block. He would wear a device issued by the prison authorities on a body part they specify, and allow them to install, maintain, repair or retrieve equipment at his residence. He would also follow all requirements for the devices to function, meet every reporting obligation, and not tamper with or obstruct monitoring. A final catch-all would require him to comply with any other conditions the Commissioner-General of Prisons sets in the order.
The author's caution is brief. Standard operating procedures, he writes, are not law. He asks instead that the conditions be made subsidiary, or secondary, legislation under the Prison Act 1995 (Act 537), and therefore be published in the Gazette.
The piece is opinion, and it does not say what form the Prisons Department intends to use. The thing to watch is whether the conditions, when finalised, appear as formal gazetted regulations or as an internal document.
Citations marquantes
The country has never had house arrest before, but suddenly there is.— Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail
SOP is not law.— Hafiz Hassan, Malay Mail opinion piece
Envie de l'histoire complète ?
Lire l'original sur Malay Mail ↗
Politics & Governance