Health centre raid: Has govt lost the plot?

YOURSAY | ‘It seems more like an overeager ‘name and shame’ exercise.’

Men health centre patrons mull legal action; cite trauma, privacy breach

Koel: I agree with the health centre patrons 100 percent. Sue the pants off the enforcement and the ministry that justified this ridiculous raid on a gym.

The integrity of our laws and our rights must be tested. If found wanting, we must then push for change.

So, are gyms now vulnerable to raids by authorities?

Many gyms have common shower facilities, so if a person is caught in such a raid in a shower area with his or her towel, will they be humiliated in this same manner?

Meanwhile, the country has real problems with enforcement agencies being implicated in disappearances, extrajudicial killings, child abduction, and the suspicious death of political aide Teoh Beng Hock.

We read the explosive details of the International Federation of Association Football (Fifa) reports that have accused Malaysia of corruption over citizenship for foreign footballers.

We read about bribery and corruption allegations in some of the highest offices in a certain state.

We hear about court orders to the government to pay compensation for what amounts to state-sponsored kidnappings.

We have a family waiting for 16 years for the return of a kidnapped child.

We share the anguish of the Teoh family, who have been made fools of by the succeeding governments and home ministries.

Where are the culprits and crooks of these real allegations of criminality?

And in the midst of all this chaos, is the Home Ministry focused on harassing and bullying a bunch of gym goers? Has this government completely lost the plot?

KK Voter: What sort of “surveillance” was conducted? Bird-watching with telescopes and binoculars?

Did they even send an undercover police officer to pose as a customer and ask for “extra” services?

This seems more like an overeager “name and shame” exercise to me.

Also, speaking from experience, coaching several related businesses, this industry, just like the licensed alcohol-serving industry, health spa sector, and karaoke bars, is notorious for underhanded competition.

For example, paying someone to start a bar fight and then calling the police, or making false reports/tips (as “concerned citizens,” of course).

Did the police even consider that possibility?

Patrons who know they did nothing wrong should sue the Royal Malaysian Police and the home minister (for his statement) to set a precedent that the authorities must respect the law themselves.

Outlier: Is this a Turkish bath, an all-male sauna or what?

Police didn’t make clear the nature of the establishment and just jumped to conclusions that when a group of males congregate, it must be a gay club.

Then, on the other hand, if there are women present, then it becomes a “vice” place.

Really, it’s a no-win situation for private rights, perhaps just to enjoy a traditional Turkish bath, a Japanese or Korean-style bathhouse exclusively for males.

BobbyO: A health gym consists of an exercise area, a health bar that serves drinks and even a sauna.

With these facilities, there will be some clients who will walk in the nude before they enter the sauna or even a steam room.

Looks like a health gym is now classified as not a safe place to go. The authorities now declare that immoral activities take place in them.

Those who have gone through mental anguish due to the raid, lost their jobs or relationships with relatives and friends, and have turned sour, should definitely sue the authorities.

GrizzledWarrior: The health centre is not a “public place”. It is a private business premises.

Visitors to a private premises have:

(a) a reasonable expectation that only staff and other customers will be present;

(b) an expectation that authorities cannot usually wander in without a legal basis (warrant or statutory power);

(c) a higher expectation of privacy than if they were in a public street or park.

Visitors to the health centre enter with permission from the owner of the business and/or proprietor.

If Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail claims there is no privacy right at all for detainees or invitees, this is legally debatable.

The constitutional jurisprudence suggests there is an expectation of some privacy right under Article 5(1) of the Federal Constitution.

But if Saifuddin's point is that “privacy rights” don’t automatically block law-enforcement powers (search, raid, detention, mandatory inspections) - that has more weight.

Even in jurisdictions with strong privacy laws, police or authorities often have statutory or constitutional powers to enter or search premises under certain conditions (crime investigation, arrest, security and so on). In Malaysia, too, statutory powers may permit intrusion when lawfully exercised.

Given how unsettled the law is on “invasion of privacy”, a blanket dismissal of “privacy concerns” especially in a sensitive context like a health centre, seems legally problematic.

At least, from a civil-liberties / human-rights perspective, it warrants scrutiny and likely needs justification (proportionality, necessity, lawful basis).

The men detained in that raid do have arguable grounds to claim that their privacy was breached, particularly if there was a non-consensual recording, exposure, or other intrusive conduct.

The question of whether they will succeed in mounting a legal cause of action grounded in invasion of privacy is a matter best left to our courts to decide.

As things stand, the home minister’s dismissal of privacy concerns appears legally questionable, especially if he implies privacy does not exist or is irrelevant as a matter of law.

Less haste and more precision in execution would be appreciated. A greater appreciation of the legal niceties would certainly help.

Robbie98: The rights of the individuals in the spa were violated, period.

As the magistrate, who refused to give an order to the police to retain them in police custody, stated clearly and correctly, there is no complainant, and no improper or criminal act was recorded.

Moral policing has always been an act of voyeurism and has no value or legal standing in a democratic society.

The lives of the young men whose pictures were exhibited by social and news media have been tarnished, their families put to shame, their jobs jeopardised, to show the righteousness of some self-appointed chief of Malaysian moral society.

GrayWhale9636: The police conducted a raid for suspected vice activities and " immoral behaviour".

I think such raids are common, and probably the majority of people do not really question them.

Those centres and their customers who are shown to be involved must be charged and punished by existing laws.

But herein lies the question from a layperson like me.

Why were these people not formally charged?

And how and why were their details, especially place of work, leaked ( revealed?) to the public?

Frankly speaking, I have rarely bothered to read such news past the headlines, but I must admit I have never come across such an exposé on their specific occupation before in previous news of such raids.

This is probably the main reason this issue has gained so much traction in the news. - Mkini