The government has been urged not to ‘bulldoze’ through the bill proposing amendments to the Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases Act 1988 (Act 342) for stiffer penalties up to RM100,000 for individuals.
Instead, Bukit Gelugor MP Ramkarpal Singh (above) said they should defer the tabling of the bill in order to engage with stakeholders and make revisions to improve the bill.
“The penalties in the said amendments, as they stand, are bound to invite constitutional challenges in court in the near future, possibly on the grounds of them not being proportionate to the wrongs committed by an offender.
"In light of the above, the government should defer the tabling of the bill this Monday and instead, take the views of all stakeholders into account and revise the said bill.
“The government need not fear waiting until March to table the revised bill as an urgent sitting can be held as early as January for the said purpose, as was done in this case when the session was extended to tomorrow,” Ramkarpal said in a statement today.
Debated and decided upon
The bill was supposed to be debated and decided upon in the Dewan Rakyat last Thursday, which was initially scheduled to be the last day of this sitting.
However, the sitting was extended by one day so that the bill can be tabled and decided upon in the Dewan Rakyat on Monday (Dec 20) instead.
Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim said this was to provide more space for “discussion with all sides” and for a select committee to meet over the bill before it is tabled on Monday.
He had previously said the opposition bench cannot support the bill, due to concerns over exorbitant compounds, among others.
Health Minister Khairy Jamaluddin had also urged all MPs to support the bill as the amendments could strengthen the government’s arsenal in the fight against Covid-19.
He had also assured that the guidelines would protect the people from being slapped with unjust compounds for violating the standard operating procedures (SOPs).
Among the proposed amendments is to increase the maximum fine for an individual to RM100,000 or a jail term not exceeding seven years or both.
This was later revised to a RM50,000 maximum fine or a jail term not exceeding three years.
In his statement today, Ramkarpal said the proposed amendments were not carefully thought through.
Bulldoze the law
He claimed that it was an attempt to “bulldoze changes in the law” to empower the authorities to punish those who flout SOPs, which is easily open to abuse.
Aside from that, he also questioned whether the penalties are proportionate to the wrongs committed.
“If one is found to have contravened the SOPs by not wearing a face mask, for example, would he be fined RM20,000?"
Ramkarpal, who is a lawyer by profession, urged for a breakdown of the classification of offences when it comes to SOP breaches, instead of a blanket maximum fine, to ensure the penalties are not disproportionate to the wrongs committed.
“Most laws are designed this way.
“For example, not all killings amount to murder. Some amount to varying degrees of manslaughter depending on the intention, or lack of, of the accused,” he said.
In such cases, the courts are bound to act according to offences committed according to their classes, but there is no such classification of offences in the proposed amendments to Act 342.
“In other words, A can be fined RM20,000 for not wearing a mask while B is fined RM2,000 for the same offence by a different court, despite being a first offender,” he said.
In a separate statement, Beruas MP Ngeh Koo Ham also raised several issues with the proposed amendments, including the exorbitant compounds.
He also pointed out that the SOPs “which changes daily” is not legislation unless it is gazetted.
“Many police officers issued compounds following the SOPs that were announced.
“The SOPs are merely instructions from the Health director-general and are not considered legislation unless it is gazetted.
Confusion about SOPs
“Many officers are confused about the SOPs including the inspector-general of police (IGP) and the former defence minister who is now our prime minister,” Ngeh said.
He also questioned whether the interpretation of ‘authorised officers’ in the proposed amendments covers other civil servants aside from health officers, such as the police, immigration officers and customs officers.
He asked if the authorised officers are also given the powers to investigate and make arrests if the penalty is lighter than a two-year jail sentence.
Lastly, he said the responsibility for medical practitioners to inform the health officers about an infectious disease if they have “reason to believe or suspect” is too broad and burdening to the practitioners. - Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.