Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail recently said that the government had no plans to build new prisons.
Putrajaya will instead upgrade existing prisons, while those over 100 years old will be redeveloped.
The move was to improve the rehabilitation of inmates and address overcrowding in prisons.
Overcrowded prisons remain one of the most critical challenges in Malaysia’s criminal justice system. Humanely securing and housing such a large prisoner population have placed a major burden on the stakeholders, namely the country’s Prisons Department.
The situation also poses financial implications.
As such, the privatisation of prisons in Malaysia is the best way forward.
The idea of privately developing and operating prisons, however, is not new, and neither is it unique. Private prisons exist in the United States, Britain, Australia, France, and New Zealand.
Generally, they operate where private parties obtain concessions to build, own and operate the facilities – similar to the concept of building expressways or reclaiming land.
The debate over the privatisation of prisons is also not new.
Some may ask what role, if any, should a private enterprise play in a system that punishes and rehabilitates incarcerated offenders.
Some may also say that private prisons should only be considered for those incarcerated for non-violent crimes, especially those committed by white-collar criminals. The proposed concept here is that the offenders must bear the cost of being held behind bars.
From a certain ideological standpoint, the idea of privatising prisons will ensure greater efficiency and better performance than the public sector.
Private resources can also help meet challenges posed by an ageing prison infrastructure.
The other significant advantage of privatising prisons is the impact it has on stimulating and advocating public sector reform. The operators will believe that they can run prisons more efficiently than the government.
This creates a win-win scenario – the government will no longer be financially burdened, while private operators are able to make a profit, which in return, is taxable.
Moreover, the government does not need to fork out funds to construct new prisons.
In ensuring the success of privatising prisons, a public policy on crime and punishment must be developed.
This includes a long-term plan, a management procurement process, a contract that includes performance standards, guidelines for choosing the right contractor, details on executing the contract, and regulations to monitor the contract.
A policy on probation must also be incorporated. In addition, amendments to the Prison Act are required.
For the above to be implemented, a Cabinet-approved special task force comprising various stakeholders must be formed.
It is important that the government reduces overcrowding in prisons by preventing first-time, non-violent offenders from being held there.
The government must prioritise the strategic changes required in prison reform, which includes privatisation of prisons.
There should also be a definitive, sustainable policy and philosophy on crime and punishment in Malaysia.
This is the personal opinion of the writer and does not necessarily represent the views of Twentytwo13.
