ACT 342 - The amendments raised MANY issues of concern - but the problem with Government has been the speedy passing of Acts after they are tabled - There is simply not enough TIME for us to peruse and contribute our thoughts/opinions/concerns, which hopefully our people representatives, OUR MPs and SENATORS will consider before they VOTE.
Sadly, some MPS just do whatever their party WHIP says - Vote YES or Oppose - without themselves even studying the proposed Law, or getting feedback from the Malaysian people > We need to get RID of this kind of MPs...
After the experience of the COVID Pandemic - we know of the problems we faced
ACCESS TO VACCINES - The owners of the Vaccine(or the copyright), who obviously did not have the CAPACITY to produce sufficient vaccines for everyone fast enough - and so many DIED by reason of this DELAY. Should there be a law that empowers the GOVERNMENT to take and use these vaccines for everyone...to be able to speedily manufacture more of the needed vaccines FAST at government or other private facilities to get it out to the people fast without the usual INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY barriers and hurdles?
USE of Private Healthcare Facilities/Staff - Can the government easily utilize these facilities/staff OR are they barred by 'PAY me then OK? or 'NO" - should there be laws that empower the government to be able to access/use such facilities/staff in times of a medical emergency or pandemic?
Sadly, the existence of Private Hospitals/Clinics has affected the number of government/public hospitals build in a area > How many public hospitals and clinics/pusat kesihatan in Klang Valley?
DISCRIMINATION - Malaysians got the Vaccines first, then foreign nationals(documented) - and we missed out many UNDOCUMENTED Migrants and Malaysians in our response during the last Pandemic. Food and other aid too ... FOOLISH - unless EVERYONE is targeted with vaccines/aid - combating any PANDEMIC or INFECTION becomes ineffective...
Have LAWS or Responses been made to deal with the above issue?
Let us what this Anwar Ibrahim's government was focusing on - The Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Amendment) Act 2024
Press Release | The Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Amendment) Act 2024 24 Dec 2024 10:26 am
.jpg)
As
the year 2024 nears its end, we find ourselves at a moment of
reflection. According to the official portal of the Parliament of
Malaysia,1 62 Bills have been passed, as at 19 December 2024.
While this figure may seem indicative of a robust legislative process,
the passing of Bills, in and of itself, is not a full achievement. As
the saying goes, “the proof of the pudding is in the eating”, and so it
is with legislation. True success lies not merely in the enactment of
Bills but in the process of their formulation, the transparency of their
tabling, and the rigour of their enforcement upon becoming law. The
Malaysian Bar has taken particular note of these aspects, especially
concerning the Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Amendment)
Act 2024, passed by the Dewan Rakyat through a voice vote on 14 October
2024.2
The amendment Act raises several troubling issues. Members of Parliament from across the political spectrum, including government backbenchers and opposition lawmakers, expressed bipartisan concerns about its punitive nature. Provisions such as the excessive fines and imprisonment terms under section 31(3) have drawn criticism for their harshness, especially when applied to low-income individuals or corporate bodies. The proposed maximum fine of RM8,000 and imprisonment of up to two years for individuals, and a fine of up to RM50,000 for corporate bodies, are disproportionately burdensome. These measures risk penalising individuals who may unknowingly contravene rapidly changing regulations during a pandemic.
Additionally, the amendment Act introduces section 21A, granting the Director General of Health the power to issue sweeping directives to individuals or groups for controlling infectious diseases. The lack of clear guidelines for such powers raises fears of potential abuse and double standards in enforcement. Concerns about the enforcement of these powers, especially the use of “force” pursuant to section 14A(2) and tracking devices, underscore the need for mechanisms to prevent misuse and ensure accountability.
The new section 14A further compounds these concerns by introducing what is effectively a form of arrest under the guise of public health measures. Section 14A(1) empowers an authorised officer to order any person suspected of being infected to undergo isolation or surveillance for an indeterminate period. This provision raises significant questions about individual liberty, due process, and proportionality. The powers conferred by section 14A could lead to arbitrary detention without adequate safeguards or judicial oversight. The lack of clear procedural guidelines for implementing these measures risks enabling abuses of power, underhandedly impacting vulnerable populations, and undermining public trust in health authorities. Such sweeping powers must be critically examined and curtailed to prevent misuse.
Furthermore, the approach of the Bill contrasts starkly with the necessity of health education in preventing infectious diseases. Punishment alone cannot foster public trust or compliance. This is further compounded by the increase in general penalties under section 24, which now includes fines of up to RM10,000 and imprisonment terms of up to two years for individuals, with even steeper penalties for corporate entities. While the Government has claimed that these penalties are lighter than those enforced during the COVID-19 pandemic, they remain significantly harsher than previous iterations of the law.
Despite these criticisms, the Malaysian Bar was not effectively consulted during the drafting of this Bill. This omission is deeply troubling, as it undermines the democratic process of lawmaking and the principle of informed decision-making. Effective consultation is not a mere formality but a cornerstone of sound legislative practice. The Malaysian High Court case of Kerajaan Negeri Selangor v Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya & Ors [2017] MLJU 1902 provides guidance on what constitutes a meaningful consultation process. At paragraph 96, the Court endorsed the Sedley criteria,3 which require that consultations occur at a formative stage, provide sufficient information for intelligent consideration and response, allow adequate time for deliberation, and ensure that the outcomes of consultations are conscientiously considered, before finalising the proposals.
Had these criteria been adhered to, the Government would have been well-informed of the flaws inherent in this Bill. Meaningful engagement with stakeholders, including the Malaysian Bar and public health experts, would have highlighted the excessive measures, the potential for abuse of power, and the lack of emphasis on public education in disease prevention. Instead of addressing the root causes of infectious disease transmission, the Bill has the potential of creating a society where the arbitrary exercise of authority and the fear of disproportionate punishment overshadow the principles of justice, equity, and public health.
As we close the chapter on 2024, let us not only count the Bills passed, but also measure the processes that birthed them. Only through transparent, inclusive, and accountable lawmaking can we ensure that our legislation truly serves the people it is meant to protect.
Mohamad Ezri b Abdul Wahab
President
Malaysia Bar
24 December 2024
1 The Official Portal of Parliament of Malaysia website, 2024.
2 “Dewan Rakyat Passes Controversial Act 342 Amendment Bill On Infectious Disease Control”, CodeBlue, 14 October 2024.
3 Also known as the Gunning Principles, following the name of the case — R v Brent LBC, ex p Gunning (1985) 84 LGR 168. These principles were endorsed by the United Kingdom Supreme Court in R (Moseley) v Haringey LBC [2014] UKSC 56.
Dewan Rakyat Passes Controversial Act 342 Amendment Bill On Infectious Disease Control
By CodeBlue | 14 October 2024Dewan Rakyat today passed the Act 342 amendment bill 2024, despite bipartisan criticism of harsh punishments, excessive powers for the Health DG, and allowing the use of “force” by enforcement officers for infectious disease prevention and control.
KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 14 — The Dewan Rakyat today passed the Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases Act 1988 (Act 342) amendment bill 2024 in a voice vote, despite bipartisan concerns about the bill’s punitive nature.
In debate on the bill last July and earlier today, both government backbenchers and Opposition MPs criticised various provisions, notably the proposed fines and imprisonment terms perceived to be harsh; the use of “force” and tracking devices to enforce isolation or surveillance of individuals suspected to be infected; and the Health director-general’s powers deemed to be too wide and arbitrary.
Suhaizan Kayat (PH-Pulai), who also chairs the Health parliamentary special select committee (PSSC), said the punishments under the proposed Section 31(3) for breaching regulations under the Act are too burdensome.
The new Section 31(3) in the bill provides a maximum fine of RM8,000, imprisonment up to two years, or both for individuals who contravene regulations under Act 342, as well as a fine not exceeding RM50,000, maximum two years’ jail, or both for offences by a body corporate.
“Things change frequently during a pandemic, like what we faced during Covid. People may not know the latest information but are punished for infractions. For low-income earners, RM8,000 is high and can be burdensome,” Suhaizan said during the debate today.
The Amanah lawmaker from Pakatan Harapan (PH) also questioned the new proposed Section 21A that empowers the Health director-general to issue “any directions in any manner, whether generally or specifically, to any person or class of persons to take such measures for the purpose of preventing and controlling any infectious disease.” Contraventions of the DG’s directions are considered an offence.
“I understand the true intent for this provision, but what are the Ministry of Health’s (MOH) guidelines for a DG to prevent abuse of power and double standards?” Suhaizan asked.
Dr Halimah Ali (PN-Kapar) similarly questioned the MOH’s reliance on punishment to enforce compliance, pointing out that health education on infectious disease prevention and control is pertinent.
“We also don’t want abuse of power by enforcement officers. How will the government ensure that the powers that are given, especially with the use of the term ‘force’, aren’t misused?” asked the PAS MP from Perikatan Nasional.
She also noted that the 2024 bill is the fifth attempted amendment of Act 342.
Syahredzan Johan (PH-Bangi) noted that under the proposed revision to Section 24 of the Act, general penalties for offences under the Act were increased to a maximum fine of RM10,000, up to two years’ imprisonment, or both for individuals. In the case of a body corporate, it is liable to a fine not exceeding RM100,000.
“Even though we see good things in this bill, I hope that the MOH will take into account criticisms from various parties, like the Malaysian Medical Association, on how this bill can disproportionately impact vulnerable groups,” said the DAP MP.
The lawyer also pointed out that although punishments in the 2024 bill are lighter than those enforced at the height of the Covid pandemic under emergency ordinances, they’re heavier than previous revisions to the blue bill in the 14th Parliament.
Deputy Health Minister Lukanisman Awang Sauni, during the winding-up of the debate on the Act 342 amendment bill, said the MOH plans to use body cameras for enforcement officers to prevent abuse of power.
“Isolation orders are made carefully based on risk evaluation, taking into account the current infection rate and vaccination status. Such orders are based on technical inputs and discussions with infectious disease and public health experts, as well as experts from other specialties.”
He also denied the punitive nature of the bill, pointing out that Act 342 has not been revised for more than three decades since 1988.
“If the people don’t take this law seriously, it will cause further transmission of infectious diseases, as well as high hospitalisation and death rates. This will increase the burden of disease that must be borne by the government,” Lukanisman told Parliament.
The revised Section 25 of the Act proposes compounds of offences under the Act or its regulations at a maximum RM5,000 for individuals and RM50,000 for a body corporate.
“The actual compound will take into account the seriousness of the offence committed,” Lukanisman said. “These compound rates are to ensure better compliance; they’re not just punitive measures.”
The deputy minister also claimed that punishments for similar offences related to infectious disease are higher in Singapore and New Zealand. “Malaysia has set more reasonable rates of fines than other countries.”
Back when he was an Opposition MP, Health Minister Dzulkefly Ahmad previously described the proposed 2021 amendment to Act 342 as a “cataclysmic failure”.
The Kuala Selangor MP had said stringent guidelines for enforcement
were still open for interpretation. “Rather than focus on those
guidelines, why not ensure stringent guidelines for basic testing,
quarantine, and close contact classification be focused on first?” - Code Blue, 14/10/2024
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment