The 

Malaysian Prison Department (Malay: Jabatan Penjara Malaysia), is a department

controlled by the Malaysian Minister of Home Affairs responsible for prisons where offenders
sentenced by the courts are held. These jails also act as detention and recovery institutions.
The department is headquartered in the Malaysia Prison Complex (Kompleks Penjara Kajang)
in Kajang, Selangor in the Klang
History
During the era of British rule and until the arrival of the Japanese in 1942, penal institutions
were the responsibility of the individual states' governments with their respective regulations. In
the Straits Settlements, a Superintendent based in Singapore, acted as the supervisor and
inspected the institutions under his jurisdiction.
The Straits Settlements were the earliest to build their own prisons while the Federated Malay
States did so only after the British set up a responsible department. The Taiping Prison, better
known as the Taiping Gaol, the largest at the time, was built in 1879. Prisons were built with the
main purpose of bringing suffering to the inmates in the hope that this would deter people from
committing crimes.
In 1881, Sikh warders were brought in to assist Malay warders while vocational instructors
from Hong Kong were used in an effort to introduce trades to the prisons. Among the earliest of
these were rock breaking and carpentry. An attempt was made to categorise the inmates in
1882, then in 1889 European warders were appointed at some prisons.
With the formation of the Federated Malay States, Taiping Prison became a detention centre for
long-term prisoners from Perak, Pahang, Negeri Sembilan and Selangor. In 1923, a visiting
justice system[clarification needed] was introduced and prison industries expanded to include printing
work, weaving, sewing, rattan weaving, and metalwork. Rock-breaking work was abolished in
1924 and replaced with the pounding of coconut husks.
During the Japanese occupation (1941–1945), the Imperial Japanese Army also used the
prisons for POWs. All records of the prisons and its inmates for this period were subsequently
destroyed by the Japanese.
After World War II, the Prison Office was established to administer all prisons in Malaya. The
post-war era saw the return of peace, and modern administrative methods were introduced. The
1948 Malayan Emergency resulted in an increase in inmate numbers, which in turn caused
overcrowding in the prisons. This disrupted the development of the prison system and it was
only towards the end of 1949 when peace returned that prison development could be carried out
smoothly.
The Prisons Ordinance 1952 and the Prisons Regulations 1953, based on the "modern
treatment" concept, were introduced to replace old legislation. In 1953, the Criminal Justice Bill
was passed, which abolished use of the cat-o'-nine-tails and replaced the term "penal servitude"
with "prison".
Following Independence Day in 1957, the first Prisons Commissioner was appointed to take
charge of the administration of all prisons in Malaya. In 1963, with the formation of Malaysia,
prisons in Sabah and Sarawak came under the jurisdiction of the Prisons Department.
On 2 November 1995, the Prison Act 1995 was introduced to replace the former Prison Act
which in turn was superseded on 1 September 2000 by the Prison Regulations 2000. The
previous acts and regulations had been in use for a long time, thus changes and reforms were
necessary to meet current needs and demands to streamline prison management and
administration.
In an era of development and modernisation, the Malaysian Prison Department realises that it
should not to be content with its past achievements, but should instead move forward and
innovate in order to assist the prison administration in dealing with modern culture through
criminology, penology and overall social control.[3]
The table below gives an indication of the recent trend in the pre-trial/remand prison population.
The final row shows the latest figures available.

It consists of the number of pre-trial/remand prisoners in the prison population on a single date
in the year (or the annual average) and the percentage of the total prison population that pre-
trial/remand prisoners constituted on that day.  

The final column shows the pre-trial/remand population rate per 100,000 of the national
population. 

                                                    MALAYSIA
Pre-trial/remand
Number in Percentage
population rate
Year pre-trial/remand of total
(per 100,000 of
imprisonment prison population
national population)

2000 7,744 29.8% 33

2005 13,352 37.5% 52
2010 10,472 27.3% 37
2015 13,186 25.8% 43

2021 25,739 41.7% 79

It should be noted that the number of pre-trial/remand prisoners fluctuates from day to day,
month to month and year to year. Consequently the above figures give an indication of the trend
but the picture is inevitably incomplete.
The pre-trial/remand population rate is calculated on the basis of the national population total.
All national population figures are inevitably estimates but the estimates used in the World
Prison Brief are based on official national figures, United Nations figures or figures from other
recognised international authorities. 
Female prison population: trend
The table below gives an indication of the trend in the female prison population. The final row
shows the latest figures available.

It consists of the number of female prisoners in the prison population on a single date in the
year (or the annual average) and the percentage of the total prison population that female
prisoners constituted on that day. 

The final column shows the female prison population rate per 100,000 of the national
population.
                                                   MALAYSIA
Female prison
Number of Percentage
population rate
Year female of total
(per 100,000 of
prisoners prison population
national population)

2000 1,246 4.8% 5.3

2005 2,322 6.5% 8.9
2010 2,544 6.6% 9.0
2015 3,354 6.6% 11.1

2021 3,652 5.9% 11.1

The number of female prisoners fluctuates and so the above figures give an indication of the
trend but the picture is inevitably incomplete.
The female prison population rate is calculated on the basis of the national population total. All
national population figures are inevitably estimates but the estimates used in the World Prison
Brief are based on official national figures, United Nations figures or figures from other
recognised international authorities.
(If the rate were calculated on the basis of the number of females in the national population it
would of course be approximately double the figure in the final column).
KAJANG: The prisons department hopes to place two-thirds of eligible inmates in a
rehabilitation programme within the community by 2030 to reduce overcrowding in prisons.

Its director-general Nordin Muhamad said initiatives implemented since 2008, such as the
parole system, compulsory attendance order, resident reintegration programme, licenced
prisoner release and several other programmes could reduce overcrowding in prisons across
the country.

He said there were a total of 82,539 prison inmates and of that number, 76,336 were in prison,
while 6,203 had been placed in the community rehabilitation programmes.

“Currently, the prisons can only house about 66,000 inmates so there is overcrowding of about
10,000 inmates.

“This initiative is expected to reduce overcrowding, and we estimate that more offenders will be
considered by the courts to undergo community rehabilitation programmes,” he said in briefing
the media about the Offenders Compulsory Attendance (Amendment) Act 2022 at the
department headquarters here.

Nordin said the implementation of the amended Act could provide an opportunity for minor
offenders to serve their sentences outside prison.

The compulsory attendance order is an alternative punishment outside the prison walls for
offenders who commit certain offences. Such offenders will carry out compulsory work in the
interest of the community.

He added that the community rehabilitation programme had proven to be effective as it had
successfully reduced the rate of repeat offenders. He estimated that only one in 400 released
inmates returned to prison.

“We aim to reach 10,000 offenders to undergo compulsory attendance order this year and we
have already reached 79.5%, and are confident that the number can be reached before
November this year,” he said.

He said there were 52 compulsory attendance order centres. He hoped the government would
consider adding 20 more across the country.

Myanmar (formerly Burma)
Insein Prison (Burmese: အင်းစိန်ထောင်) is located in Yangon Division, near Yangon (Rangoon),
the old capital of Myanmar (formerly Burma). From 1988 to 2011 it was run by the military junta
of Myanmar, named the State Law and Order Restoration Council from 1988 to 2003 and
the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) from 2003 to 2011, and was used largely to
repress political dissidents.
The prison is notorious worldwide for its inhumane conditions, corruption, abuse of inmates, and
use of mental and physical torture
1991 prisoner hunger strike[edit]
According to a former prisoner's account, in 1991 several prisoners held a hunger strike,
demanding proper healthcare and the right to read newspapers. However, their demands were
not met, and the prisoners were tortured using the gravel path method.[4]
2008 mass shooting of inmates[edit]
On 3 May 2008, over 100 prisoners were shot by guards at the prison resulting in the deaths of
36 inmates. A further four inmates were later tortured and killed by the prison guards who
believed they had been the ringleaders of the initial protest that culminated in the mass
shooting.[5]
2011 prisoner hunger strike[edit]
On 24 May 2011, the Myanmar government retaliated against a hunger strike by about 30
political prisoners in the prison by forcing the ringleaders into solitary confinement. The hunger
strike began when seven female prisoners protested against a government prisoner amnesty
program that failed to include most political detainees. On 23 May, 22 male prisoners, including
three Buddhist monks, joined the protest, demanding better prison living conditions and
improved family visiting rights. According to Aung Din, the executive director of the Washington-
based U.S. Campaign for Burma, "The latest information we have received is that six of the
‘leaders’ of the strike from the male group have been moved to what is known as the 'dog cell'—
a small cell block where they could be tortured and family visits are not allowed." One of the
prisoners moved was an editor of The Kantaryawaddy Times, Nyi Nyi Htun.[6]
2022 prison explosion[edit]
In 2022, a blast occurred at the prison in which eight persons died, [7] including guards,[8] and 18
visitors were injured.[9] The incident occurred at 9:40 AM Myanmar Standard Time.[10] According
to local witnesses, two parcel bombs detonated in the morning.[11][7][8] but the cause of explosion
is yet unknown[12]

oth Nathan Maung and Hanthar Nyein thought they would die in the interrogation center, the
sources said. But they survived, and were transferred to Myanmar’s main prison, Insein.

Built more than 130 years ago during the British colonial era, Insein Prison became
notorious — and feared — for its overcrowded and inhumane conditions, mental and physical
torture, and terrible sanitation, food and healthcare, particularly under military rule.

Following uprisings in 1988 and 2007, Insein became packed with thousands of political
prisoners including prominent democracy activists and journalists. Ousted civilian leader
Aung San Suu Kyi spent time there in 2003 and 2009.
Bo Kyi, joint secretary and and co-founder of the AAPP, served two sentences in Insein
following the 1988 uprising and said conditions there were “like hell.”

“We were not allowed to read or write. They wanted to destroy our intellect. We did not
receive proper medicine, no treatment for injuries,” he said. During his second stint there in
1996, he said he was beaten every day for two weeks. “Many people died at Insein,” he said.

After leaving Insein, Bo Kyi fled to neighboring Thailand and now advocates for current and
former political prisoners and their families, through the AAPP.

Conditions at Insein improved under Suu Kyi’s government, he said, with inmates able to
access to reading materials and education, and the building of a new family visitor center.
But political prisoners were still incarcerated there, and the prison remained overcrowded,
with inadequate medical treatment, he said. Inmates are not treated “with human dignity,” Bo
Kyi said.

On 17 April, the President of Myanmar agreed to release more than 25,000 prisoners, including
drug users arrested in possession of a limited amount of drugs or who did not report to drug
treatment services as required by law.

UNAIDS is following up with the Ministry of Health and Sports and the nongovernmental
organizations who are involved in the provision of health information and referral for care to
those released, including for people who use drugs and for people living with HIV who are on
Antiretroviral Therapy (ART). The latter are being provided up to 6-months antiretrovirals (ARV)
to reduce the need for them to go to treatment centres in the coming period with stay home or 

Myanmar’s authorities will free around 700 prisoners from Yangon’s Insein jail on Wednesday,
prison chief Zaw Zaw told Reuters, in a release that is expected to include some of the
thousands of people detained for opposing military rule.

Thailand
The Department of Corrections (Thai: กรมราชทัณ ฑ์, RTGS: krom ratchathan) is an agency of
the Thai Ministry of Justice. Its mission is to keep prisoners in custody and rehabilitate them.
[1]
 Its headquarters is in Suanyai Sub-district, Mueang Nonthaburi District, Nonthaburi Province.
[2]
 As of 2020, Police Colonel Suchart Wongananchai is director-general of the department.
[3]
 Its FY2019 budget was 13,430 million baht.[4]
Prison Population During this last decade, the prison population in Thailand has increased
dramatically. Especially after the Royal Thai Government declared the drug prevention and
suppression policy in 1998, the number of drug offences notified to the police has been the
number one crime in Thailand. This has lead to a rapid increase in the number of drug offenders
in prisons throughout the country. In the past, offences against property was the highest crime
in prisons but since 1996 drug offences have become the highest and has increased
dramatically. Given the Department of Corrections (DOC) statistics, the number of inmates
convicted for drug offences in 2003 was as high as 104,999, nearly four times greater than
property crime which ranks in second place. Approximately 70% of drug offenders were drug
producers, sellers and smugglers. It can be said that Thailand is one of the countries that have
a very high ratio of prisoners per population. Remarkably, in some years there was a collective
royal pardon according to the importance of the nation; when some convicted inmates were
released, which slightly decreased the prison population. In 2003, the number of prisoners had
dropped from 250,000 to around 210,000 because of the Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act B.E.
2545 (2002), which came into force in October 2002. According to the Act, offenders committing
drug-related offences, especially drug users, will be sent to undergo medical examinations and
receive proper rehabilitation and treatment in Drug Rehabilitation Centres of the Department of
Probation. Even though such numbers of prisoners is still considered relatively high, the
decreasing number has shown a positive trend in the prison population. This significant change
is a result of the recognition that overcrowding is not merely a problem for the Department of
Corrections, but is a consequence overall of the criminal justice system. Therefore, the
government has taken the problem of solving prison overcrowding as corporate policy thereby
various agencies, both private and public, have cooperated in trying to solve this problem.
Prison Popul
Rehabilitation and Treatment of Offenders Providing vocational training or occupation
programmes for inmates is seen as a great form of rehabilitation. Generally, the Department of
Corrections is the agency in charge of such responsibility. Apart from offering vocational
programmes, the Department of Corrections also provides educational programmes to inmates.
Both vocational or educational programmes aim to assist inmates to enhance their potential,
particularly the opportunity to earn a living upon release. Recently, the Department of
Corrections has developed some new rehabilitative programmes for inmates before returning
them to society. Such new rehabilitative programmes consist of programmes relevant to the
fundamental needs of offenders such as education, vocational training, medical services,
recreation programmes and drug treatment programmes and special programmes relevant to
special needs of offenders such as programmes for property-related offenders, sex-related
offenders, bodily-harm or life-related offenders, aged offenders and recidivism prevention
programmes. In cases of treatment of offenders, although the Penitentiary Act B.E. 2479 (1936)
determines some main approaches for inmates’ treatment and rehabilitation, the Department of
Corrections has constantly developed and created many more approaches pertaining to the
treatment of prisoners in accordance with the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of
Prisoners, especially focusing on the improvement of living conditions in prisons. D.
Probation/Suspended with Conditions Probation or supervision is viewed as a significant non-
custodial measure. According to the Thai Criminal Code, probation is usually imposed on
offenders combined with a suspended sentenced. What is more, it is found in many cases that
an offender who commits petty offences and is sentenced to imprisonment for less than 3 years
is likely to receive probation or a suspended sentence with conditions. This is because
mitigation factors, such as the offender’s age, behaviour and health, are taken into account by
the court. For example, a person aged under 18 years at the time of the crime is more likely to
receive a suspended sentence with conditions as he/she is still young and also has never
committed a crime before. To augment probation, an Act relating to probation or a suspended
sentence with conditions has been enacted under the Thai Criminal Code B.E. 2522 (1979).
Furthermore, the Department of Probation has been set up to be responsible for enforcement of
such sentences on offenders, including inmates who are on parole or are released with
conditions. Then, it may be undeniable that to impose probation or a suspended sentence with
conditions on offenders rather than imprisonment is in support of the United Nations Standard
Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial Measures (Tokyo Rules). E. Implementation of Non-custodial
Measures Public service or public work is one of the conditions under the period of probation.
Recently, due to the amendment of the Thai Criminal Code, offenders may be required to do
public work instead of paying fines to the court. It is noted that to do public work may be a good
option which can certainly benefit offenders. Furthermore, in the near future, another non-
custodial measure called ‘home detention’ will be brought into practice by the Department of
Corrections. When home detention is applied, offenders have to wear an electronic bracelet and
be controlled by electronic monitoring by the central control centre. More importantly, it is
believed that to implement non-custodial measures will lessen the prison population and also
help to promote the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial Measures. F.
Treatment and Rehabilitation of Drug Offenders The Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act B.E.
2545 (2002), considerably contributes to the positive effects on the treatment of drug offenders
in Thailand. Consequently, drug users and drug dealers are no longer locked up in the same
places because of the Act. In particular, in the case of drug users, they are seen as patients
who need to receive appropriate treatment and rehabilitation in specific institutions rather than
be in custody in prisons. Moreover, the Act indicates that in every province, there is a sub-
committee responsible for making a decision upon drug tests of offenders. Then, the sub-
committee has to report the decision and the result of drug tests to a public prosecutor in order
to decide prosecution for drug users. Accordingly, drug users will be sent to receive compulsory
treatment and complete rehabilitative programmes in specific institutions before returning to the
community. The enforcement of the Act is deemed to have led to a decrease in the number of
drug-related cases in the courts. Also, it has resulted in a decrease of drug offenders
incarcerated in Thai prisons. Thus, to put the Act in force may be the best active strategy to
solve drug problems in accordance with the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for
NonCustodial Measures.

"Hanoi Hilton" redirects here. For the 1987 film, see The Hanoi Hilton (film). For the hotel
operated by the Hilton International Corporation, see Hilton Hanoi Opera Hotel.

The Hanoi Hilton in a 1970 aerial surveillance photo

Coordinates:  21°1′31″N 105°50′47″E
Hỏa Lò Prison (Vietnamese: [hwa᷉ː lɔ̂], Nhà tù Hỏa Lò; French: Prison Hỏa Lò) was
a prison in Hanoi originally used by the French colonists in Indochina for political prisoners, and
later by North Vietnam for U.S. prisoners of war during the Vietnam War. During this later
period, it was known to American POWs as the "Hanoi Hilton". The prison was demolished
during the 1990s, although the gatehouse remains as a museum.

The name Hỏa Lò, commonly translated as "fiery furnace" or even "Hell's hole", [1] also means
"stove". The name originated from the street name phố Hỏa Lò, due to the concentration of
stores selling wood stoves and coal-fire stoves along the street in pre-colonial times.
The prison was built in Hanoi by the French, in dates ranging from 1886 to 1889[1] to 1898[2] to
1901,[3] when Vietnam was still part of French Indochina. The French called the prison Maison
Centrale,[1] 'Central House', which is still the designation of prisons for dangerous or long
sentence detainees in France. It was located near Hanoi's French Quarter. [2] It was intended to
hold Vietnamese prisoners, particularly political prisoners agitating for independence who were
often subject to torture and execution.[3] A 1913 renovation expanded its capacity from 460
inmates to 600.[2] It was nevertheless often overcrowded, holding some 730 prisoners on a
given day in 1916, a figure which rose to 895 in 1922 and 1,430 in 1933. [2] By 1954 it held more
than 2000 people;[1] with its inmates held in subhuman conditions,[3] it had become a symbol of
colonialist exploitation and of the bitterness of the Vietnamese towards the French.[1]
The central urban location of the prison also became part of its early character. During the
1910s through 1930s, street peddlers made an occupation of passing outside messages in
through the jail's windows and tossing tobacco and opium over the walls; letters and packets
would be thrown out to the street in the opposite direction. [4] Within the prison itself,
communication and ideas passed. Many of the future leading figures in Communist North
Vietnam spent time in Maison Centrale during the 1930s and 1940s.[5]
Conditions for political prisoners in the "Colonial Bastille" were publicised in 1929 in a widely
circulated account by the Trotskyist Phan Van Hum of the experience he shared with the
charismatic publicist Nguyen An Ninh.[6][7]

Prisons within Prisons: Torture and ill-treatment of prisoners of conscience in Viet

Nam details the ordeals endured by prisoners of conscience in one of the most closed countries
in Asia, including prolonged periods of incommunicado detention and solitary confinement,
enforced disappearances, the denial of medical treatment, and punitive prison transfers. A new
report published by Amnesty International today casts a rare light on the torture and other
harrowing treatment of prisoners of conscience locked up in Viet Nam’s secretive network of
prisons and detention centres.

Prisons within Prisons: Torture and ill-treatment of prisoners of conscience in Viet

Nam details the ordeals endured by prisoners of conscience in one of the most closed countries
in Asia, including prolonged periods of incommunicado detention and solitary confinement,
enforced disappearances, the denial of medical treatment, and punitive prison transfers.

“Viet Nam is a prolific jailer of prisoners of conscience; this report offers a rare glimpse at the
horror that those prisoners face in detention,” said Rafendi Djamin, Amnesty International’s
Director for South East Asia and the Pacific.
“Viet Nam ratified the UN Convention against Torture in 2015. This in itself is not enough. In
order to meet its human rights obligations, the authorities must introduce reforms in line with
international law and ensure accountability for torture and ill treatment.”

The report is based on one year’s research – including more than 150 hours of interviews with
18 former prisoners of conscience, who spent between one month and a decade in
incarceration. 

Five of these men and women described to Amnesty International how they spent lengthy
periods of time in solitary confinement in dark, fetid cells without access to fresh air, clean water
and sanitation. Some were frequently beaten in clear contravention of global and national
prohibitions on torture.

In June, Amnesty International was given a guided tour of a women’s prison facility in Bắc
Giangprovince, a rare occurrence in a country that does not generally permit access to these
facilities.

Enforced disappearances, and other acts of torture and other ill-treatment

For many of the former prisoners, their ordeal began from the moment that they were picked up
by Vietnamese authorities. Four people told Amnesty International they were subjected to
enforced disappearances.

‘Dar’, an ethnic Montagnard, was arrested for organizing peaceful demonstrations over religious
freedom and human rights. For the first three months following his arrest, his family believed
that he had been killed by the authorities, and his body dumped in the jungle. He was tried and
convicted without legal representation and without his family present.

During the first 10 months of Dar’s five-year detention, he was kept in solitary confinement in a
tiny cell, in total darkness and complete silence. For the first two months, he was hauled from
his cell each day to be interrogated and beaten.

The beatings were carried out with sticks, rubber tubes, punches and kicks. The authorities
used electric shocks and lit a piece of paper and ran it along the length of his leg, burning his
skin. They asked him to assume painful stress positions for eight hours at a time.

An inmate whose life imprisonment sentence commuted to termed imprisonment must have
served his imprisonment sentence for at least 14 years or 17 years (depending on severity of
his crime). In order to be granted amnesty by the State President, persons sentenced to
imprisonment for corruption or other related crimes must have completely served their additional
penalties including payment of fines, compensations for damage and legal costs, return of
assets appropriated through the commission of crimes, and performance of other civil
obligations. Only in case they are in particularly difficult financial conditions or civil obligations-
related property are not owned by the State and judgment creditors agree with postponement of
judgment execution or do not request judgment execution, can inmates be exempted from
serving such additional penalties in order to be proposed for amnesty. Once granted amnesty,
they may not do anything affecting social security and order.

The Ministry of Public Security’s Circular 17/2020/TT-BCA dated February 18, 2020, providing
internal regulations of inmate detention facilities, has provided a legal ground for life
imprisonment inmates to exercise their basic rights, and at the same time specified acts
prohibited in prisons and detention facilities. This Circular also provides family visits and
consular contacts, and specifies people who come to work or coordinate with detention facilities
in organizing educational activities therein. Over the recent years, it has helped gradually
reduce activities that disrupt order and oppose law enforcement officers in prisons and detention
facilities. Therefore, the number of absconding practices, collective disturbance or opposition
have also been reduced while almost all inmates violating detention facility rules and regulations
have been detected in time. Life imprisonment inmates are entitled to regular family visits, gifts
and letters, and to make phone calls to their families just like termed imprisonment inmates.
They are also allowed to carry out production activities to improve their livelihood, buy essential
goods on depository book entries at publicly posted prices to additionally meet their daily-life
needs. Every year, prisons and detention facilities hold inmates’ family conferences to
announce results of inmate rehabilitation and discuss measures for coordinated education and
reform of inmates.

Practical implementation of regulations on policies and conditions on, and accessibility

to rehabilitation, for life imprisonment inmates in Vietnam

Advantages

Firstly, the detention of life imprisonment inmates complies with the 2019 Law on Execution of
Criminal Judgments (the Law) regarding procedures for and time of sending convicts sentenced
to life imprisonment to serve their sentences and public notification of facilities admitting them.

The proper implementation of the Law’s relevant provisions has helped basically address the
situation of prolonging periods of detention of convicts sentenced to life imprisonment whose
sentences have become legally effective in detention camps. At the same time, the admission of
life imprisonment inmates has been strictly carried out, ensuring admission of right prisoners
with complete files and observance of regulations on sending of notices to courts that have
issued judgment execution decisions, inmates’ families and diplomatic missions (for foreign
convicts) and notification to civil judgment execution offices of additional penalties being fines or
civil compensations so that such offices, organizations and families can know where the
inmates are to serve their sentences as well as bodies responsible for incarcerating, educating
and rehabilitating them.

Secondly, the classification and incarceration of life imprisonment inmates are specified and
organized routinely to ensure strict discipline and create a safe and healthy educational
environment for life imprisonment inmates’ sentence serving.
The Ministry of Public Security’s Circular 17/2020/TT-BCA dated February 18, 2020, providing
internal regulations of inmate detention facilities, has provided a legal ground for life
imprisonment inmates to exercise their basic rights, and at the same time specified acts
prohibited in prisons and detention facilities. This Circular also provides family visits and
consular contacts, and specifies people who come to work or coordinate with detention facilities
in organizing educational activities therein. Over the recent years, it has helped gradually
reduce activities that disrupt order and oppose law enforcement officers in prisons and detention
facilities. Therefore, the number of absconding practices, collective disturbance or opposition
have also been reduced while almost all inmates violating detention facility rules and regulations
have been detected in time. Life imprisonment inmates are entitled to regular family visits, gifts
and letters, and to make phone calls to their families just like termed imprisonment inmates.
They are also allowed to carry out production activities to improve their livelihood, buy essential
goods on depository book entries at publicly posted prices to additionally meet their daily-life
needs. Every year, prisons and detention facilities hold inmates’ family conferences to
announce results of inmate rehabilitation and discuss measures for coordinated education and
reform of inmates.

Thirdly, policies on entitlements to food portion, clothing, learning, medical treatment, education,

rehabilitation, vocational education and training activities for inmates have also seen numerous
positive changes and been strictly implemented under relevant regulations[1], showing the
Vietnamese State’s humanitarian policy toward, and creating a favorable environment for, life
imprisonment inmates to study, work and reform themselves.

In order to improve the material and spiritual lives of inmates, the Ministry of Public Security has
recently enacted prison and detention facility rules and the regulation on democracy in prisons
and detention facilities, provided for conciliation activities and formation of inmate self-
management boards. It has set out four standards of emulation among inmates serving
imprisonment sentences and regulations on grading of the emulation’s results for imprisoned
inmates. It has also coordinated with the Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Education and Training,
Ministry of Labor, Invalids and Social Affairs, public communication and education agencies, the
Vietnam Women’s Union, Vietnam Youth Federation, Vietnam Lawyers’ Association and other
related agencies and organizations in conducting scientific research in education and
promulgating joint circulars guiding legal and civic education, knowledge dissemination and
provision of vocational training to inmates, and carrying out many activities to popularize laws
and the Party’s and the State’s guidelines and policies among inmates, coordinated education
of female and adult inmates, helping them reintegrate into the community, and organization of
classes for illiterate inmates. In practice, a number of prisons and detention facilities have
opened Vietnamese language classes for foreign inmates to serve the management and
education of them while they are serving their sentences. More attention has been paid to
providing vocational training courses and granting trainee certificates to inmates order to create
opportunities for them to seek employment and stabilize their livelihood once released[2];

Life imprisonment inmates who have many previous convictions and frequently violate the rules
and are therefore classified as “bad” have always received special attention and conditions for
transforming themselves into better persons, thus reducing their negative practices and
violations. For this purpose, prisons and detention facilities have regularly organized
complementary education activities and launched movements of emulation among inmates for
properly serving their prison sentences, as well as artistic, physical training and sports activities
to meet their spiritual, cultural and information needs. As a result, the number of inmates with
poor performance dropped to 5.54 percent in 2018 from 9.51 percent in 2011, and the number
of inmates who have their imprisonment sentences reduced or suspended or are granted
amnesty is on the rise[3].

Disease prevention and control for inmates have been properly organized while all prisons and
detention facilities have built their clean water supply systems. Inmates in bad health conditions
have been treated in infirmaries or hospitals (or clinics in local hospitals)[4].

Fourthly, the imprisonment sentence execution apparatus has been consolidated in the

direction of streamlining the staff size and improving the quality and qualifications of correctional
officers and soldiers. Physical foundations of prisons and detention facilities have been built with
sufficient equipment up to relevant standards so as to meet requirements of the international
integration process. Over recent years, all prisons and detention facilities have been upgraded
to ensure minimum detention conditions in accordance with the Law (for example, the minimum
incarceration area of 2.2 square meters per inmate).

In implementing the Law and Government Decree 01/2018/ND-CP dated August 6, 2018, the
criminal judgment execution organization system has been scientifically organized. At the
ministerial level, the criminal judgment execution management agency of the Ministry of Public
Security was established to assist the Minister of Public Security in performing his tasks and
exercising his powers provided in the Law. At the provincial level and district level, criminal
judgment execution agencies of provincial-level and district-level Public Security
Departments/Offices were established. At the commune level, commune-level People’s
Committees were assigned to perform a number of criminal judgment execution tasks[5].

The inspection and examination of prisons and detention facilities have been carried out
regularly to promptly detect and handle violations and propose competent authorities to amend
and supplement regulations on criminal judgment execution. In addition, attention has been paid
to the settlement of complaints and denunciations of life imprisonment inmates according to the
competence and procedures and within the time limit provided in the Law on Complaints, the
Law on Denunciations, and the Law.

Fifthly, community reintegration for life imprisonment prisoners upon their release has received
due attention from the community.

Many agencies, departments, mass organizations and people have actively participated in the
management and education of inmates who have completed serving their imprisonment
sentences, helping them get lawful employment and have a stable livelihood[6].

In sum, over the recent years, the regulations on policies and conditions on, and accessibility to,
rehabilitation for life imprisonment inmates in Vietnam have seen positive changes and
improvements toward better guaranteeing their lawful rights and interests. Attention has been
paid to education, correction and conversion of these inmates into useful citizens and provision
of assistance for their community reintegration; entitlements and policies for them have been
guaranteed while prisons and detention facilities improved. Correctional officers have been
provided with professional training to ensure regularity and professionalism. These outstanding
results are attributable to assurance of strict observance of law; respect for, protection and
assurance of human rights; and firm maintenance of political stability, social order and safety.

Current Status and Challenges of Offender Treatment in the ASEAN Region

Prisons have been widely used as the traditional form of punishment all over the world. Prison
populations around the world are increasing,Footnote 4 which has led to prison overcrowding.
This is a common problem in many countries (Institute for Criminal Policy Research 2016a).
While Japan, for the time, has overcome the problem of prison overcrowding, most ASEAN
countries still suffer from prison overcrowding and a high prison population rate. On the other
hand, community corrections and non-custodial measures are widely implemented as effective
measures for offender rehabilitation in developed countries. They have long been recognized as
more advantageous than imprisonment in terms of cost-effectiveness, humanitarianism and
effective reintegration of offenders into society. In the ASEAN region, some countries such as
Thailand, the Philippines and Singapore have already utilized community corrections as a part
of measures for offender treatment, although the Philippines and Thailand are still suffering from
high prison population rates and prison overcrowding. However, other countries, namely
Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar and Vietnam (the CLMV countries), are still attempting to
establish community corrections as a part of their criminal justice systems. Although these
countries have legislation on community corrections, they have not yet implemented efficient
community corrections and non-custodial measures, and some may lack a national organization
to implement the system.
Lack of implementation of community corrections implies that states heavily rely on
imprisonment as the principal punishment, which is costly and causes stigma and other
negative impacts on offenders. Meanwhile, community corrections offer a more humanitarian
approach and individual treatment for offenders, especially for those who have not committed
serious crimes. Offenders under community corrections can be rehabilitated while they are in
the community with their families and are able to work to earn their own livings. When
community corrections are applied, states can gain greater benefits from their own people and
spend less than they would confining people in prisons.

Status of Imprisonment and Community Corrections in the ASEAN Region

Since UNAFEI and the Thai government jointly implemented the ASEAN Seminars for the
Promotion of Community-Based Treatment of Offenders in 2015, the member countries have
discussed how to promote and develop community corrections and have identified the issues
that are preventing the implementation of community-based treatment of offenders. The
member countries confirmed at the ASEAN seminars that some countries such as the
Philippines, Singapore and Thailand have established and are implementing community
corrections while the CLMV countries have not yet implemented it effectively. This situation is in
line with the Roadmap for ASEAN Plus Three Probation and Non-Custodial Measures
Cooperation (Table 1), which was agreed during the Second ASEAN Plus Three Conference on
Probation and Non-Custodial Measures held in Thailand in August 2014. The Roadmap aims to
accelerate the promotion of community corrections and to help member countries to reduce the
disparity in the application of community corrections in the region.
UNAFEI’s mission is to provide technical assistance based on studies and research in targeting
countries and regions. UNAFEI faculty members have collected information to enhance the
effectiveness of technical assistance through country presentations at UNAFEI’s international
training courses, seminars, international conferences, and so on. At the same time, they use
open resources such as criminal justice statistics. For example, crime trends, data on prison
overcrowding, prison population rates, etc. are very useful sources for understanding the status
of targeted countries and regions.

When UNAFEI considered offering technical assistance for the promotion of community
corrections in the ASEAN countries, it was important to analyse the status of offender treatment
in the region. Many ASEAN countries are suffering from prison overcrowdingFootnote 5 and high
prison population rates. Table 2 shows those data on the status of incarceration and social
conditions in the ASEAN Plus Three countries.Footnote 6 Regarding prison occupancy, all
countries except Malaysia exceed 100% capacity. Lao PDR and Vietnam do not have sufficient
data on this issue. Many ASEAN countries record relatively high prison population rates.

Imprisonment and Social Condition in the ASEAN Region

In the process of considering the contents of technical assistance for the ASEAN countries,
UNAFEI and participating ASEAN countries shared good practices and statistical information,
and analysed existing criminological and penological studies. For example, the study
considering the relationship between social conditions and incarceration conducted by Tapio
Lappi-Seppälä of the National Research Institute of Legal Policy in FinlandFootnote 7 provides
important perspectives which apply to the ASEAN countries’ consideration of effective offender
treatment systems (Lappi-Seppälä 2008:93–120). According to his study in Europe, there is a
correlation between incarceration and social fairness and between incarceration and social
welfare services. Those correlations are analysed by the relationship between a country’s prison
population rate and its Gini index, which indicates an aspect of social fairness in a country, and
the relationship between the prison population rate and the proportion of the health and medical
expenditure to the total government expenditure. Social fairness is significantly related to the
level of social welfare services in each country. In addition, if such services are substantial, the
risk of crime will be reduced by social welfare policies. For example, it may be better to connect
offenders who are disabled or elderly with welfare services instead of forcing them to go to
prisons for their treatment.
Those views are significantly related to the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development and its Goals. For example, Goal 10 requires reducing inequality within and
among countries while Goal 16 aims to promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable
development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive
institutions at all levels. It is important and helpful for understanding social conditions and
incarceration to consider the relationship between social fairness and offender treatment in
terms of the sustainable development of the region.