PROMOTING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF REHABILITATIVEENVIRONMENTS IN THE ASEAN REGIONTAKAI Ayaka*

I. INTRODUCTION
Workshop 2 of the Fourteenth United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice washeld from 8 to 9 March 2021 in the Committee Room at the Kyoto International Conference Center in Kyoto,
Japan. The United Nations Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of
Offenders (UNAFEI), in collaboration with the Thailand Institute of Justice (TIJ), sponsored Workshop 2 on
“Reducing Reoffending: Identifying Risks and Developing Solutions”, and it consisted of fruitful discussions
that explored strategies and solutions to reduce reoffending and facilitate offenders’ reintegration into society.
Reducing reoffending leads to fewer victims, greater community safety, and less pressure on and lower costs
for the criminal justice system, which is critical to building inclusive, sustainable societies as envisaged in the2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
This report will introduce the status of community-based treatment focusing on the ASEAN region,
sharing the efforts that UNAFEI has been making to promote the implementation of rehabilitativeenvironments – a key issue highlighted by Workshop 2 to prevent reoffending. Whether in prison or in thecommunity, it is impossible for offenders to take steps toward rehabilitation if they are in harmful environments
in which they lack needed support. As the Chair of Workshop 2 recalled in the report, “programmes toreduce reoffending [need] to be multifaceted, involve all relevant stakeholders and ensure the necessary
continuity of care within rehabilitative environments.”1

II. UNAFEI’S RECENT ACTIVITIESUNAFEI is the oldest member of the Institutes of the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal
Justice Programme Network (PNI) with a history of almost 60 years. For most of its history, UNAFEI has
long taken the role of assisting the implementation and development of rehabilitative environments andsystems in the ASEAN region. Some of the highlights of UNAFEI’s recent activities related to offender
treatment in the community are as follows.
A. The ASEAN plus Three Conference
In 2013, 2014 and 2015, the ASEAN plus Three Conference was held as an international forum for
ASEAN countries, China, South Korea and Japan. The forum was initiated by Thailand, and the purpose wasto share experience and gain knowledge on community-based treatment of offenders among the participating
countries. During the conference, it was recognized that the implementation of community-based treatment
varies from country to country, and that several countries face challenges in implementing it. Thereby,
international cooperation on probation and non-custodial measures was discussed and UNAFEI actively
joined the discussion as a PNI member. At the 2014 conference, the ASEAN Roadmap for Probation andNon-custodial Measures was adopted, which reflected the discussions at the conference and provided a planfor future cooperation.
B. The Seminars on Promoting Community-based Treatment in the ASEAN Region
In response to the discussion at the ASEAN plus Three Conference, UNAFEI, in collaboration with theThai Department of Probation, the TIJ, the Rehabilitation Bureau of the Ministry of Justice of Japan, and theJapan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) conducted a series of training seminars on promoting＊

Professor, UNAFEI.
  Report of the Fourteenth United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, A/CONF.234/16 (26 March
2021).

1

45

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 112
community-based treatment for ASEAN countries from 2015 to 2016. These seminars were held as platforms
to discuss and exchange members’ knowledge and practices on key issues of non-custodial treatment, andmore specific needs of each country were identified.
C. The Third Country Training2 for CLMV Countries
From 2017 to 2019, the Thai Department of Probation and UNAFEI in collaboration with JICA, conducteda more country-focused programme targeting the CLMV countries (Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar and VietNam), where community-based approaches had either not been formally established or had not been fully
implemented. This training course took place in Thailand as a third country training programme involving
JICA.
D. UNODC/UNAFEI Joint Projects
Based on the success of these conferences and seminars above, UNAFEI started assisting the Cambodian
government bilaterally for its implementation of community-based treatment of offenders in collaboration
with the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC).
Cambodia has established a basic legislative framework for community-based treatment of offenders in
its criminal code and criminal procedure code, including the authorization of measures such as probation,
conditional release and so on. However the relevant authorities rarely use such legal provisions for thefollowing reasons: 1) lack of clarity and details mechanism as well as the lack of a responsible institution
within the provisions and 2) lack of experience and necessary resources to supervise persons under alternative
sentencing. Therefore, UNAFEI has been making efforts to raise awareness among officials as the first stepof implementation of the new system.
Also, since February 2021, UNAFEI, in partnership with the UNODC, has been assisting the Parole andProbation Administration of the Philippines in building capacity, especially in the assessment and treatment
of offenders using the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) Model as addressed at Workshop 2 of the Kyoto
Congress.

III. STATUS OF REHABILITATIVE ENVIRONMENTS IN THE ASEAN REGION
In many jurisdictions throughout the world, correctional environments, including pre-trial and postconviction detention, are overcrowded, underfunded, understaffed and vulnerable to corruption.3 These
environments expose offenders to harsh conditions that undermine, or entirely prevent, the ability ofcorrectional officers to provide rehabilitative treatment. Upon release from prison, offenders are likely to face
many challenges, including stigma and discrimination, which hinder their rehabilitation and reintegration in
general.4
The United Nations standards and norms in crime prevention and criminal justice have long recognized“social rehabilitation”5 as one of the principle aims of the deprivation of liberty.6 While the UN has not
adopted a formal definition of the term “rehabilitative environment”, it might be simply defined as any
correctional environment, whether institutional or community based, that is in compliance with relevant UN
standards and norms. From a practical perspective, a rehabilitative environment is one in which offenders2

  Third Country Training Program (TCTP) is a scheme in which JICA provides participants from developing countries witha technical training programme in collaboration with a Southern partner (i.e., a third country) for the purpose of transfer or
sharing of development experiences, knowledge and technology.
3
   Background Paper, Workshop 2. Reducing reoffending: identifying risks and developing solutions, A/CONF.234/9, paras.
6-10 (3 February 2020).
4
  Ibid. at para. 11.
5
   United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules), United Nations
General Assembly resolution 70/175, Annex, Rule 93.1(b) (17 Dec. 2015). The Mandela Rules were first adopted by the United
Nations General Assembly as the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners in 1955 and amended in 1977 (seepara. 67(b)).
6
  Human rights in the administration of justice, General Assembly resolution 69/172, recitals (1 Dec. 2014) (“Recalling thatthe social rehabilitation and reintegration of persons deprived of their liberty shall be among the essential aims of thecriminal justice system, ensuring, as far as possible, that offenders are able to lead a law-abiding and self-supporting life upon
their return to society, . . .”).

46

CONTRIBUTORS’ PAPERS
will, at a minimum, receive adequate interventions including supervision and support for the purpose of
rehabilitation and reintegration into society.
As mentioned above, Workshop 2 of the Kyoto Congress consisted of fruitful discussions that explored
strategies and solutions to reduce reoffending and facilitate offenders’ reintegration into society, and it
concluded that ensuring rehabilitative processes and environments throughout all stages and pathways
leading to successful reintegration is crucial. As a result of the discussion at Workshop 2, four issues werehighlighted as the key concept of rehabilitative environments, which should be ensured at every stage of thecriminal justice process, and they are: (i) criminal justice systems should respect proportionality and seek toimpose the least restrictive sanctions possible, and should make active use of non-custodial measures in linewith the UN standards and norms, while avoiding the risk of mass supervision and net-widening; (ii) offenders
must receive effective, evidence-based interventions and support responding to each individual’s specificneeds, both in prison and in the community; (iii) continuity of care and support must be ensured; and (iv)
offender rehabilitation and reintegration practices should be developed and implemented by a multifaceted
approach involving all relevant stakeholders.
What follows is an overview of how these elements are being implemented in the ASEAN region,
presenting each country’s overall status with a brief description or good practices for each element. The
status of implementation of these elements in ASEAN countries described below is based on the reports ofthe seminars in which UNAFEI was involved,7 except where specifically stated otherwise.
A. Active Use of Non-custodial Measures
The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures, known as the Tokyo Rules,
encourage the international community to facilitate the use of non-custodial measures, taking the humanrights, requirements of social justice and the rehabilitation needs of each offender into account.
While it is well-known that simply incarcerating offenders does not contribute to their rehabilitation or to
becoming law-abiding citizens, non-custodial measures are effective at reducing reoffending because they
ensure the connection between the offender and the community, and offenders who have strong connections
to their community and who care about the people around them are less likely to reoffend.
Here are typical examples of non-custodial measures that are considered to contribute to the preventionof recidivism by means of interventions conducted by the competent authority.
1. Probation
Probation, as used in this paper, refers to court-ordered, community-based treatment – a system in which
a person is placed under the supervision of the state and receives some kind of rehabilitative intervention,
often in conjunction with the suspension of the traditional criminal sentence.
Probation is the most used measure among more than half of the ASEAN countries. The ASEAN
countries with probation systems are Brunei Darussalam (Brunei), Indonesia, the Philippines, Singapore,
Thailand and Viet Nam for adult offenders, and Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines,
Singapore, Thailand and Viet Nam for juvenile delinquents, or children in conflict with the law. The statusof probation in these countries is briefly explained below, but in countries other than these, although theintroduction of probation is being considered, it has not yet been implemented.
(a) Brunei
In Brunei, probation is in place for adult offenders and juvenile delinquents, and was established in 2010
under the Offenders (Probation and Community Service) Order of 2006 and the Children and Young Persons
Act (CYPA) of 2010. The Juvenile Court, which operates under the purview of the Subordinate Courts, wasalso established in 2010. Probation and community-based treatment fall under the responsibility of theProbation and Community Service Unit in the Protection and Rehabilitation Division, the Department ofCommunity Development, the Ministry of Culture, Youth and Sports.
7

  The Seminar on Promoting Community-based Treatment in the ASEAN Region: Seminar Report (2015, TIJ); The Second
Seminar on Promoting Community-based Treatment in the ASEAN Region: Seminar Report (2016, TIJ).

47

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 112(b) Indonesia
In Indonesia, probation is implemented for adult offenders and juveniles. The duties and responsibilities
of probation officers are outlined in the 1917 Penal Code and the Juvenile Justice System Act of 2012, andare under the responsibility of the Correctional Division of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights.
(c) Malaysia
In Malaysia, while there is no probation system for adult offenders, probation for children in conflict withthe law has been implemented by the Child Act 2001. The Department of Social Welfare of the Ministry of
Women, Family and Community Development is responsible for the rehabilitation of juveniles, and supervision
is conducted by probation officers who are Social Welfare Officers or Assistant Social Welfare Officers
appointed by the Minister with the support of members of Child Welfare Committees.
(d) Myanmar
In Myanmar, probation for juveniles has been implemented since the Child Law of 1993 and is under the
responsibility of the Department of Social Welfare, while probation for adults is not in place yet.
(e) The Philippines
In the Philippines, a community-based treatment system has been implemented since the Adult Probation
Law of 1976 and is under the responsibility of the Parole and Probation Administration of the Departmentof Justice (PPA). Although the PPA takes care of some juvenile probationers, children in conflict with thelaw are mainly provided with community-based treatment under the responsibility of the Local Social
Welfare Development Officer of the Department of Social Welfare and Development.8(f) Singapore
In Singapore, probation systems for adult offenders and juveniles are in place based on the Probation of
Offenders Act (POA) and The Children and Young Persons Act (CYPA)9 under the responsibility of theProbation and Community Rehabilitation Service of the Ministry of Social and Family Development. Insteadof sentencing a person who has committed an offence to penal or correctional institutions, the Court may
make a Probation Order requiring him to be under the supervision of the Probation Officer or a Volunteer
Probation Officer.10(g) Thailand
In Thailand, probation services have been in place for adult offenders and juveniles, originating with
unofficial juvenile supervision that started in 1952. In 1956, the Penal Code was enacted and was also the firststatutory foundation of the probation services, which made it possible for judges to impose a suspended
sentence with the condition of probation. The Department of Probation, Ministry of Justice is the main
agency for administering both adult probation and juvenile probation.
(h) Viet Nam
In Viet Nam, laws such as the Criminal Code 2015, the Law on Amnesty 2008 and the Law on Criminal
Sentence Enforcement provide a legal framework for community-based treatment of offenders. Adult
offenders who receive suspended sentences are supervised by the Commune Peoples Committees (CPC),
which include government employees responsible for local governance, and juveniles who are subject to“compulsory education” (i.e. required to fulfil educational or work duties) in the commune are also supervised
by family or the CPC.
2. Conditional Release / Parole Supervision
Conditional release and parole supervision refer to a system in which prisoners are released into thecommunity prior to the expiration of their sentence on certain conditions and often under the supervision of
the relevant authorities after release. This scheme is effective for reintegration of offenders into society, for8

  Jeza Mae Sarah C. Sanchez, “Overview of Philippine Juvenile Justice and Welfare”, Resource Material Series No. 101, 104144 (UNAFEI, 2017), available at <https://www.unafei.or.jp/publications/pdf/RS_No101/ No101_17_IP_Philippines.pdf>.
9
  Bernadette Alexander, “Community-based Rehabilitation of Offenders in Singapore”, Resource Material Series No. 96, 77-83(UNAFEI, 2015), available at <https://www.unafei.or.jp/publications/pdf/RS_No96/No96_VE _Alexander_3.pdf>.
10
  <https://www.msf.gov.sg/about-MSF/our-people/Divisions-at-MSF/Social-Development-and-Support/.
Rehabilitation-and-Protection-Group/Pages/Probation-And-Community-Rehabilitation-Service.aspx>.

48

CONTRIBUTORS’ PAPERS
it enables offenders to obtain support and guidance in their real life in the community where offenders are
exposed to many challenges including stigma and discrimination. This scheme has been adopted in Indonesia,
Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand for adult offenders. The status of each ASEAN country
that has introduced the scheme is briefly shown below, but in countries other than these, although theintroduction of the scheme is being considered, it has not yet been implemented as of 2015.
(a) Indonesia
In Indonesia, after serving two-thirds of the sentence, a prisoner who fulfils the requirements and has arecord of good behaviour as evaluated by prison and probation officers is given parole, and probation officers
conduct guidance and supervision in the community after release.
(b) Malaysia
In Malaysia, a parole system was implemented in 2008 based on the parole system in Australia. Parolees
are placed under the care and supervision of parole officers during the period of parole. Family members,
neighbours and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) are also involved and play important roles not onlyin helping parolees but also in showing the public that acceptance of parolees will contribute to public safety.
(c) The Philippines
In the Philippines, pre-parole investigation is conducted by officers at the Parole and Probation
Administration (PPA) to assess and evaluate if the applicant is qualified for parole, and the pre-parole report
is submitted to the Board of Pardons and Parole, which grants parole to qualified prisoners. Supervising
officers at the PPA also perform parole supervision with instructions and assistance for the rehabilitation ofparolees during the period of parole.
(d) Singapore
In Singapore, the Conditional Remission System (CRS) and the Mandatory Aftercare Scheme (MAS) was
introduced in 2014. CRS is the system to release prisoners with conditions by remission order after serving
two-thirds of their sentence for good conduct and behaviour, and among those under conditional remission,certain groups who are at risk of reoffending and also those who need more support for reintegration into
society have additional conditions imposed on them and are provided with MAS, a structured aftercare
regime that provides enhanced community support, counselling and case management with close supervisionin order to deter them from reoffending.
(e)Thailand
In Thailand, there is a parole system under which prisoners are released by the decision of the Parole
Board and subject to supervision by probation officers after release. Prisoners eligible for parole must be
convicted prisoners who have served at least one-third of their sentence and are first-time prisoners.
3. Community Service Orders (CSO)
Community Service Orders refer to activities in the community that are imposed on offenders – often
unpaid work or social contribution activities – and implemented either as an independent sanction by the
court or as a part of probationary conditions.
(a) Brunei
In Brunei, juvenile and adult probationers are subject to community service for a certain number of hours
ordered by the courts, and probation officers are responsible for arranging and managing it.
(b) Malaysia
In Malaysia, a Community Service Order (CSO) is an order of the court requiring juvenile delinquents, or
children in conflict with the law, to perform community service, or unpaid work for a specific number ofhours, and is a community-based sentencing option that permits the court to order the community service
work as a condition of probation. CSOs are supervised and handled by probation officers and Child Welfare
Committees.
(c) The Philippines
In the Philippines, Community Service is a part of the rehabilitation and reintegration programme
provided for probationers, parolees and pardonees in the community and rendered by clients for the benefit
49

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 112
of society. It includes tree planting, beautification drives, cleaning and greening of surroundings, maintenanceof public parks and places, garbage collection, blood donation and similar socio-civic activities.11(d) Singapore
In Singapore, the Community Service Order (CSO) was first implemented in 1996 as a probation condition
for juvenile offenders, and it has been expanded to include adult offenders, both as a condition of probation
and as a stand-alone sentencing option. The probation service has a network of more than 130 community
service agencies which have opened their doors on a goodwill basis to accept offenders and create opportunities
and meaningful experiences for those under the CSO.
(e) Thailand
In Thailand, in 2003, the Penal Code 1956 was amended, enabling judges to impose the Community
Service Order in lieu of fine, supervised by probation officers.
4. Electronic Monitoring
Electronic monitoring (E.M.) is also used as an alternative to imprisonment and is a cost-effective use oftechnology in Singapore and Thailand.
(a) Singapore
In Singapore, E.M. was introduced in 2003 as a condition of probation for selected offenders needing
intensive supervision and usually imposed for a period of 4 to 6 months by the courts. E.M. is used to ensurethat the offenders are home within curfew hours, to promote family bonding, “to refrain from alcohol
consumption, to not own a hand phone with a picture-taking or video capturing capability and to refrain fromvisiting certain areas”.12(b) Thailand
In Thailand, since 2013 the Department of Probation has implemented a pilot project using electronicmonitoring and established it officially by the Minister’s order in 2017. The management of E.M. is now oneof the tasks of Volunteer Probation Officers assigned by the Director General of Department of Probation.13
VPOs monitor parolees wearing E.M. devices and give them advice.14
B. Evidence-based Interventions and Support Responding to Each Individual’s Specific Needs
As noted during Workshop 2, identifying the criminogenic needs of each individual offender is essential
to ensure effective supervision and support for rehabilitation. In this regard, assessment of an individual’s
specific needs is important as an initial step. One example is an activity that is underway in the Philippines
to implement a new measure which ensures evidence-based individual interventions. As part of this, theParole and Probation Administration of the Philippines (PPA) has also developed a new assessment tool,
which helps identify the criminogenic needs of offenders. From February to March 2021, UNAFEI and the
UNODC provided training seminars for practitioners at the probation service in the Philippines in collaboration
with Dr. Raymund Narag of Southern Illinois University and Dr. Clarke Jones of Australian National
University, and more training seminars will be conducted in the future. The trainees acquire new knowledge
for assessing offenders using the R-N-R Model. The “big 8” factors are addressed by Dr. Narag and Dr. Jones
as key factors in developing new tools, and those are:
- Criminal history;- Pro-criminal companions;- Pro-criminal attitudes and cognitions;- Anti-social personality pattern;11

  <https://probation.gov.ph/correction-rehabilitation/>.
  Bernadette Alexander, “Probation as a Community-based Rehabilitation Programme (Singapore)”, Resource Material Series
No. 96, 63, 66 (UNAFEI, 2015), available at <https://www.unafei.or.jp/publications/pdf/ RS_No96/No96_VE _Alexander_3.
pdf>.
13
   Presentation by Vittawan Sunthornkajit, the Director General of the Department of Probation, the Ministry of Justiceof Thailand, at the World Congress on Community Volunteers for Supporting Offender Reintegration, held as an ancillary
meeting of the Kyoto Congress on 7 March 2021.
14
  <http://www.moj.go.jp/content/001348150.pdf>.
1250

CONTRIBUTORS’ PAPERS- Education/employment status;- Family/marital status;- Substance abuse; and- Mental health.
For each of these categories, the PPA is developing a set of questions to ask clients in intake interviews.
The responses will be scored according to risk derived from statistics and will be used to determine themodule and intensity of interventions.
C. Continuity of Care and Support
Continuity of care and support among public-sector organizations, such as prisons, probation (parole)
offices and other governmental agencies in the community, as well as public-private partnerships, are crucial
for offenders’ rehabilitation and reintegration in order to help offenders secure employment, housing andaccess to legal, social and medical services, as well as educational opportunities and vocational training. Thisis an example of a practice taking place in the ASEAN region which corresponds to the key issue ofcontinuity of care and support.
According to the country report at the seminar on promoting community-based treatment in the ASEAN
region held in 2015, Singapore introduced its CARE Network scheme, which brings together key communityand government agencies to promote seamless in-care to aftercare support to ex-offenders. Eight member
agencies are engaged in this network:- Ministry of Home Affairs;- Ministry of Social and Family Development;- Singapore Prison Service;- Singapore Corporation of Rehabilitative Enterprises, which is now called Yellow Ribbon Singapore;- National Council of Social Service;- Industrial & Services Co-Operative Society Ltd.;- Singapore After-Care Association;- Singapore Anti-Narcotics Association.
And now the Yellow Ribbon Fund is also involved in the network.15 These effective linkages with thecommunity help provide a holistic and sustainable support network for ex-offenders and their families.
D. Multi-Stakeholder Approach
The multi-stakeholder approach is also addressed as a key element for building rehabilitative environments.
The multi-stakeholder approach, which involves the public sector at both the national and local levels, theprivate sector, faith-based organizations, academia, volunteers and community members, is encouraged to be
applied to ensure needed support for social reintegration of offenders.
The following are just a few of the stakeholders that were clearly identified in the report of training
seminars previously mentioned.
1. Volunteers
Volunteers play an important and effective role especially in community-based treatment in terms of
involvement of community and to provide necessary support. The Japanese system of volunteer probation
officers, or hogoshi in Japanese, is known as an effective approach which contributes to the rehabilitation of
offenders and reducing reoffending. Volunteer probation officer schemes have been adopted and implemented
in a number of ASEAN countries, such as Malaysia, Singapore, the Philippines, Thailand and Myanmar.
(a) Malaysia
In Malaysia, volunteers are involved in the welfare of children in conflict with the law as members ofChild Welfare Committee originally founded based on the guidance which Juvenile Welfare Committee
provided in 1976, and the present framework is provisioned in the Child Act of 2001.Their tasks are to assist
probation officers in supervising juveniles as well as providing support for child offenders and their families.
15

  <https://www.yellowribbon.gov.sg/>.

51

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 112
The committee members are appointed by the Minister of Women, Family and Community Development.
(b) Singapore
In Singapore, the community Volunteer Probation Service was introduced in 1971 to promote volunteer
participation and community awareness in the rehabilitation of offenders placed on probation. It was renamed
the Volunteer Probation Officer (VPO) Scheme in 2012 to strengthen its representation as a volunteering
scheme.
(c) The Philippines
In the Philippines, the Volunteer Probation Aid programme was introduced in 1977 to highlight andmaximize community involvement and encourage participation of trained VPAs to assist probation andparole officers nationwide in effectively supervising clients. It was renamed the Volunteer Probation Assistantprogramme in 2015 with the amendment of the probation law. VPAs are involved in rehabilitation programmes
implemented by the PPA including the Restorative Justice programme and the Therapeutic Community
programme.
(d) Thailand
In Thailand, the Volunteer Probation Officer (VPO) Scheme was introduced in 1985 under the principlethat the community should be empowered to establish a system and mechanism for protecting their own
community from crime and reoffending along with the criminal justice system. Recently, VPOs are tasked to
conduct the E.M. programme as previously mentioned.
(e) Myanmar
In Myanmar, volunteers are involved in the juvenile probation system, which started in 1993 under theChild Law. According to the law, the Director General of the Social Welfare Department assigns the
responsibilities traditionally granted to probation officers to an employee of the Social Welfare Department
or to a suitable citizen who is not a governmental employee. Those probation officers are responsible forsupervision and management of children in conflict with the law by the order of the juvenile court, giving
advice and counselling to the child’s family and community members.
2. Halfway Houses for Offenders
The term “halfway house for offenders” generally refers to a residential facility, or a shelter for offenders
who have no adequate place to live after their release from a correctional institute, that provides support
such as accommodation and guidance. Halfway houses are run by governmental and private agencies.
Halfway houses are being implemented in several countries in the ASEAN region, such as Indonesia,
Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand.
(a) Indonesia
In Indonesia, there were six halfway houses nationwide as of January 2015, and they were set up as
correctional facilities with minimum security where offenders undergo their remaining sentence. They
accommodate parolees as well as probationers and provide them with necessary training and vocational
guidance to help them adjust to their environment.
(b) Malaysia
In Malaysia, there were fourteen halfway houses nationwide as of July 2015, and they were establishedby the Malaysia Prison Department, and the Parole and State Community Service of the Department is incharge of managing them. They work in collaboration with non-governmental organizations, entrepreneurs,
employers and others to provide residents not only a temporary accommodation but also assistance to get a
job and to find appropriate placement.
(c) The Philippines
The first halfway house in the Philippines, the Halfway House and Livelihood Training Center (HHLTC),
was established in 2019 and serves not just as a temporary home for the probationers and parolees but also
as a venue for various trainings, seminars and recreational activities. The building is composed of a halfway
house and a livelihood training centre, and is managed by the personnel of the PPA.

52

CONTRIBUTORS’ PAPERS(d) Singapore
In Singapore, the Halfway House (HWH) Scheme was started in 1995. It allows selected offenders without
strong family support to spend the last stage of detention in a halfway house. Currently, there are eight
independent faith-based halfway houses participating in the HWH Scheme, and the programme comprises
counselling, work therapy and moral/religious education. Under the scheme, HWHs are mandated to operate
under a structured and more consistent programme to better meet offenders’ reintegration needs. In 2019,the first government-run HWH was established to strengthen aftercare support for selected higher-risk exoffenders placed on the Mandatory Aftercare Scheme in the domains of employment and accommodation. It
operates as a 24-hour residential facility with a capacity of 576 for male and female residents.16(e) Thailand
In Thailand, there were eight officially authorized halfway houses nationwide as of February 2015. The
roles of halfway houses are: firstly, to provide homes to those who do not have appropriate places to live orneed help with reintegration into their family or community; secondly, to support mental recovery or the
rehabilitation process; lastly, to support vocational training and education for better career opportunities of
the residents.
3. Other Community Entities
In addition to agencies that specialize in the treatment of offenders, existing social resources are also
helpful in the rehabilitation of offenders. Some of the practices found in the ASEAN region are as follows.
(a) Lao PDR
In Lao PDR, the Village Group Policing system was established nationwide in 2003 under the supervisionof the District Police Headquarters. The Village Group Policing system involves the community in the
supervision of offenders to maintain order and security within the community. Restorative justice measuresthrough Village Mediation Units have also been in place to deal with petty and non-violent crimes committed
by juveniles and adult offenders as alternatives to incarceration. As a result, crime has been reduced due tothe local communities’ cooperation and mediation with the police.
(b) Viet Nam
In Viet Nam, the criminal law enforcement agency (district police) and the Commune People’s Committee(CPC), or local-level administrative bodies, are responsible for conducting the supervision of those on probationand non-custodial sentences, and the CPC assigns offices, organizations, unions or individuals to directlysupervise and educate them. While there is no specific organization that operates as a formal probation officeand there are no formal probation officers, the involvement of the local government provides a variety ofnecessary support services.
(c) The Philippines
In the Philippines, the Barangay (Village) Justice System is an alternative to a court disposition, and the
Restorative Justice Programme is conducted by the PPA as a part of a rehabilitation programme in which
the PPA invites victims and community members to participate in the process of reintegration of offenders
into the community.
4. Family Members
According to the reports of the seminars, many countries raised family members as a key stakeholder.
This point was also addressed in the Background Paper of Workshop 2.17 Family is generally recognized as
an important factor for successful reintegration, because they provide offenders with social, financial andmental support. Therefore, involving family members, coordinating family relationships, educating family
members and other family-related approaches can also be effective.

16

  Matthew Wee Yik Keong, “Preventing Reoffending in Singapore”, Resource Material Series No. 111, 57-65 (UNAFEI, 2020),
available at <https://unafei.or.jp/publications/pdf/RS_No111/No111_09_VE_Keong.pdf>.
17
   Background Paper, Workshop 2. Reducing reoffending: identifying risks and developing solutions, A/CONF.234/9 (3February 2020).

53

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 112

IV. CONCLUSIONAs described above, many countries in the ASEAN region have made efforts to provide offenders with
opportunities to obtain proper assistance and guidance to achieve successful rehabilitation and reintegration,and to prevent them from reoffending. In particular, the use of probation has been adopted in a number ofcountries, and its use in juvenile justice has been more promoted compared to that of adults. However, there
are still countries where rehabilitative environments have not been fully established, and even in countries
where community-based corrections have been established, there are many countries that face challenges in
improving the capacity of relevant personnel and in developing a holistic system to support the rehabilitationof offenders. Although ASEAN as a whole is moving toward the development of rehabilitative environments,
there is still room for further development in the future.
In order to create these environments which contribute to the prevention of reoffending, “technicalassistance” is an essential element. The importance of technical assistance was also addressed at Workshop
2 of the Kyoto Congress. A panellist from Croatia presented on the process of implementing probation as a
new system in her country, and she noted that technical assistance from other countries and foreignorganizations was very helpful as they established the new system.
UNAFEI is eager to continue to help ASEAN countries build rehabilitative environments, and the UN
model strategies on reducing reoffending, which UNAFEI will help create as an outcome of Workshop 2, will
provide practical guidance for ASEAN countries.
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development seeks to establish a global society that “leave[s] no one
behind”. By empowering each individual in our societies – including offenders in correctional facilities andthose reintegrating themselves into society – we will also be enhancing our communities and our countries.
That means no individual, no group, no community and no country will be left behind. Technical assistanceis a way to walk together hand in hand, to develop and sustain a peaceful and inclusive society.

54