KUALA LUMPUR (July 28): The Dewan Rakyat on Monday approved the Offenders Compulsory Attendance (Amendment) Bill 2025, which expands eligibility for Compulsory Attendance Orders (CAOs) to offenders sentenced to imprisonment of up to 10 years — up from the current three-year limit.

A CAO is an alternative sentence that allows certain offenders to serve their punishment outside prison by performing compulsory community-based work.

According to Section 2 of the Offenders Compulsory Attendance Act 1954, “compulsory work” refers to any labour, task, or course of instruction assigned by an officer at a compulsory attendance centre.

The bill was passed via a majority voice vote after being debated by 14 members of Parliament (MPs).

One of the key amendments involves Section 5 of Act 461, specifically subsection 5(1), which empowers the courts to impose CAOs as an alternative to imprisonment for offences carrying jail terms not exceeding ten years.

A new subsection 5(1A) has been introduced to guide the courts in assessing relevant factors before granting such orders. Another addition, subsection 5(1B), allows the courts to impose conditions for compliance, including requiring offenders to furnish a bond, with or without sureties.

Section 8 was also amended to insert new subsections (1A) and (1B), granting courts stronger powers to act against offenders who violate CAOs — such as issuing summonses or arrest warrants, and authorising detention until the offender appears in court or is granted bail.

During the debate session, MPs from both sides of the aisle expressed support for the bill, but voiced concerns that the relaxed sentencing mechanism could be abused by influential individuals to escape harsher punishment.

Wan Ahmad Fayhsal Wan Ahmad Kamal (PN-Machang) warned that the amendment could be perceived by the public as an “escape clause” for the powerful to avoid jail time.

He urged the government to explicitly state in the law that serious crimes — such as corruption, money laundering, sexual offences, violent crimes and national security breaches — should not qualify for CAOs.

Meanwhile, Hassan Abdul Karim (PH-Pasir Gudang) questioned whether a convict originally sentenced to more than 10 years, but later granted a reduced sentence by the Pardons Board, would become eligible for a CAO.

“What is the intention of Parliament in passing this law? Was the relaxation of eligibility criteria meant to make offenders eligible for the proposed ‘house arrest’ law?” he asked.

Deputy Home Minister Datuk Seri Dr Shamsul Anuar Nasarah, in wrapping up the debate, dismissed claims that the amendment was related to the house arrest law.

Instead, he said the proposed changes reflect the government’s broader efforts to expand community-based rehabilitation and reduce reliance on custodial sentencing.

As of July 22, there were 83,827 inmates in Malaysian prisons, while only 5,759 were participating in community rehabilitation programmes (PDK), Shamsul said. He added that prison facilities nationwide have a maximum capacity of 76,311 inmates.

“The overcrowding situation can lead to negative outcomes such as the spread of disease, riots, and higher costs for the government. This amendment is one of the steps taken by the Home Ministry to address prison overcrowding,” the deputy minister said.

Shamsul added that compulsory work under the CAO may include tasks such as cleaning places of worship or charitable homes, attending educational courses, participating in rehabilitation programmes, or offering community services based on the offender’s skills.

For more Parliament stories, click here.