MARCH 19 — I agree with the legal fraternity that the police should issue summonses on civilians who failed to obey directives under the Movement Control Order (MCO).
When the outbreak of the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in Singapore began in late February 2003, the Republic’s key legal responses included amending the principal legislation, the Infectious Diseases Act (IDA), which is similar in its legislative purpose with our Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases Act 1988 (PCIDA).
The amendments gave additional powers to the Health Ministry to take action against persons who breached home quarantine orders (HQOs), refused to cooperate with health officers to take SARS control measures, wilfully hid medical information related to SARS control, or failed to comply with any directives or regulations related to SARS control.
Violators would be levied composition fines of up to S$5,000 (RM15,135), instead of being charged in court. Furthermore, the general penalty for committing an offence would be doubled, to a maximum of S$10,000 or 6 months’ imprisonment for a first offence, and S$20,000 or 12 months for a repeat offence.
Compounding of offences is authorised by section 25 PCIDA. The provision states that the Director General of Health or any public officer authorized for this purpose by him in writing may compound any offence by collecting from the offender a sum of money not exceeding RM1,000.
Having said this, in all honesty, the PCIDA as the principal legislation that provides for the prevention and control of infectious diseases in Malaysia is out-dated. The country is ill-equipped from the legal standpoint to deal with existing and re-emerging infectious diseases, as well as safeguard public health against new and emerging infectious diseases.
Unlike the IDA, which was further amended in 2008 as part of continual efforts to improve the measures to prevent and control the spread and importation of infectious diseases in the Republic, the PCIDA has remained the same since its enactment in 1988 except for the amendments to the First Schedule to add to the list of infectious diseases.
Even so, to-date Covid-19 has not been added to the First Schedule despite its official name being announced by the World Health Organisation (WHO) on February 11. This is rather curious because the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coranavirus (MERS-CoV) was listed in 2016.
Covid-19 has been listed not only as an infectious disease but also as a dangerous infectious disease under the IDA.
Under PCIDA, not even quarantine regulations are made even though section 14 makes provision for isolation of infested persons and suspects to be removed to quarantine station/s.
By comparison, regulations on quarantine were the first to be made under the IDA way back in 1977. During the SARS outbreak, the Singapore authorities were pleasantly surprised and thankful that they had what was termed “an old law” to regulate quarantine of “any person who is, or is suspected to be, a case or carrier or contact of an infectious disease”.
The IDA now empowers the Health Minister to declare a public health emergency if he is satisfied that “there is an outbreak or imminent outbreak of an infectious disease that poses a substantial risk of a significant number of human fatalities or incidents of serious disability in Singapore.”
The Minister is also empowered to “declare the whole of or such area in Singapore to be a restricted zone and may in such order prohibit or restrict” movement, like the MCO.
Then any person who violates an order may be arrested without warrant and may be removed by from the place in respect of which the order applies. In short, the offence is made a seizable offence as defined under the Criminal Procedure Code.
Nothing of that sort is in the PCIDA. In terms of prosecution of offences under the PCIDA, section 23 is arguably ultra vires Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution based on the case of Repco Holding Bhd v PP [1997] 3 MLJ 681.
In the United Kingdom, legislation was already put in place when the Covid-19 outbreak reached Europe. Made under a principal Act of Parliament — Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 — the Health Protection (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020 was laid before Parliament on February 10 and immediately came into force.
The Regulation provides measures which “may reasonably be considered as an effective means of preventing the further, significant transmission of Coronavirus”, recognising that “the incidence or transmission of Coronavirus constitutes a serious and imminent threat to public health”.
Coronavirus refers to the Wuhan novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) as it was then known.
The measures include imposition of restrictions necessary for the purposes of removing or reducing the risk of infecting or contaminating others with Coronavirus.
An offence under the Regulation is punishable by a fine not exceeding £1,000.
Simply put, the UK has put in place legal measures even before the Covid-19 outbreak develops into a “serious and imminent threat to public health” and was announced as a pandemic by the WHO on March 11.
As for us, instead of doing the same, we got mired in political crisis.
All is not lost though. Section 11(2) PCIDA seems to be the saving provision. Read together with section 31 PCIDA, the Minister of Health is empowered to make additional measures by way of regulation and this can be done quickly.
Provisions from Singapore’s IDA and UK’s Regulation may be adopted as regulations under section 11(2) if they have been effective in preventing the further transmission of Covid-19.
This is one way, from the legal standpoint, that we “can adjust, adapt and improve along the way as the pandemic evolves.”
As for the offenders of the MCO, compound them. Hit them where it hurts most — in their pockets.
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
