From M Santhananaban
Conditions for prisoners do not seem to have received adequate attention and appropriate importance in Malaysia.
Prison conditions have not received detailed scrutiny, but judging from the remarks of a sitting prime minister and the desperate attempts of a former prime minister to secure an early release, incarceration in a prison is deemed difficult, distressful and dismal.
While imprisonment is not meant to be a comfortable, country-club experience, it should still be humane and decent, with some restrictions on personal freedom and mobility.
Information on prison conditions remains scarce and sketchy. From what little is known, imprisonment appears to be some kind of enforced confinement with basic, peevishly primitive and plebeian post-World War 2 conditions.
It would seem that after a series of trials in a posh air-conditioned courtroom, a convicted individual who has exhausted all appeals is taken in a secure vehicle to serve the sentence in a fortified, walled and sparsely equipped prohibited area.
Beyond the stigma of a prison sentence, he or she must wear prison-issued garments, endure basic bedding and sleeping arrangements, share toilet and washing facilities, and adhere to strict regulations on diet, exercise and outdoor time.
There is no indication of when these prison conditions were last reviewed or improved.
It is also unclear whether conditions have worsened or improved since the current prime minister began his second prison term on March 7, 2014, and when the former prime minister began his sentence on Aug 23, 2022 – eight years later, after Malaysia had already reached its Vision 2020 milestone.
While imprisonment carries a punitive attribute, there are also elements of remorse, reflection and rehabilitation involved. Sentencing a person to prison, including a former prime minister, is a difficult and demanding duty for any judge.
Parliament enacted these laws with a mandatory prison sentence, often at the behest of the executive, led by the prime minister. Judges have no discretion to modify or reduce the sentence because the laws are written that way for particular offences.
We have to move beyond the seeming “one-sentence-fits-all” phase. It is about time that the whole concept of prison sentences and conditions is reviewed to distinguish between violent or heinous crimes and non-contact crime, such as drug addiction and trafficking, petty theft and white-collar crime.
Forcing white-collar criminals to endure the same harsh conditions as violent offenders in confined, partitioned spaces is manifestly inappropriate.
There has to be a realisation that crimes must be classified according to their specific nature. Incarceration conditions must also vary, according to the seriousness of intent, nature and specificity of a crime.
Further provisions must be made for white-collar criminals to serve the latter part of their prison sentence in a strictly regulated and monitored home environment.
Those eligible for such arrangements should prepay an appropriate levy to cover the costs of prison personnel, monitoring and other necessary provisions.
At some point, the concept of a maximum-security prison, exclusively for hardcore violent and drug trafficking criminals, must also be considered.
As our nation progresses, we must ensure that prisoners are adequately cared for, protected from untoward danger and adequately fed and accommodated humanely.
There has to be impartiality, evenhandedness and equality in the treatment and handling of different classes of prisoners.
No prisoner must be made to feel like a hapless victim of a deficient and out-of-date prison system.
To modernise and keep our prison authorities abreast of the latest developments, prison officers must be sent abroad to observe incarceration conditions in advanced economies such as Australia, Hong Kong, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore and South Korea.
M Santhananaban is a former diplomat and an FMT reader.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.