The Authorities Must Understand The Law

---

 

From Hafiz Hassan
I must take to writing, again. Like Dr Venugopal Balchand, or Venu as he calls himself, mentioned in his letter today, writing is also a therapy for my depressed state of mind.
I am as weary and tired as Venu. Yet as hopeful as him that “the stench of rotting corpses will energise the nation” and that the “power of hunger, unemployment, poverty and ill health may finally open our eyes to the success stories of nations that have tackled this very same virus.”
I must say that I am not as eloquent as Venu. Which is why I need only quote his words: “It is not the fault of the man on the street. They were never told in clear, concise and firm language what they were expected to know and do. No loud voices of authority. No whispers of reassurance or the truth.”
Take the case of the requirement of wearing the face mask. Senior minister for security Ismail Sabri Yaakob, in the press conference yesterday, reminded all Malaysians that the wearing of a face mask in public is mandatory – even if one is already wearing a niqab or face shield.
There is no excuse not to wear the face mask, the minister said. Ismail explained that this is clearly stipulated under the Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases Act 1988 or Act 342 of the need to wear a face mask.
But there is no express provision in Act 342 that requires the mandatory wearing of a face mask in public. Act 342 provides for the power to make regulation for “the prevention or mitigation of infectious diseases”, among others.
Thus, the various movement control order (MCO) regulations. Even so, there is no express provision on face masks. Or social distancing for that matter.
It must be said, though, that Section 21A of Act 342 – inserted into the Act via an emergency ordinance [PU(A) 76/2021] – 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.”
Any person who contravenes any directions of the DG accordingly issued under the provision commits an offence.
In other jurisdictions, the wearing of a face mask is expressly provided in the law, that is, in regulations, called subsidiary legislation, made under a principal legislation.
It is even spelt out what constitutes a face mask, for example: a mask is “a covering made of paper, plastic or textile solely designed to be worn over the nose and mouth as protection against infection or air pollution” and when worn must touch the wearer’s nose, cheeks and chin.
Social distancing is also spelt out as at least 1m or 2m from any other individual in any public place.
As for limiting the capacity of premises, the law sets out that the owner of a shopping centre must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the number of customers and other individuals within the shopping centre at any one time does not exceed the prescribed threshold for the shopping centre.
The threshold is then spelt out, for example: one person per 16 sq m of the shopping centre, computed by dividing the gross floor area (expressed in square metres) of the shopping centre by 16.
If the man on the street and businesses are told in clear, concise and firm language what they are expected to know and do under the law, then no “loud voices of authority” nor “whispers of reassurance” is necessary.
Because the law is the assuring authority.
Again, like Venu, I am going to stop now. I pray the authorities understand my words, as I know they do.
Hafiz Hassan is an FMT reader.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.

---