TO date, there are countless people flouting the movement control (MCO) order, resulting in court hearings, imprisonment, and compounds.

A question hovering in my mind: are the MCO rules and regulations not strict enough, consequently they are freely ignored, just like typical Malaysian traffic offenders?

As explained by the legal practitioners, the MCO law is the Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases Act 1988 with police legally entitled to enforce it under the Police Act 1967.

A fine of RM1,000 is imposed for breaching the former act, as advised by the Malaysian Bar to reduce congestion in and the possible spread of Covid-19 in prisons.

There were retired judges who suggested that the fine be increased for these MCO offences. However, I am of the view that it is time for the strategy of law in Malaysia to be improved to a more vibrant approach, especially when relating to science and technology.

For instance, the Biosafety Act 2007. The law-making process nowadays seems to be taking public participation into account, which symbolises and practices the democratic element in Malaysia.

Apart from that, the setting of some protocols or standard operating procedures such as risk assessment and management, for instance in importing and handling of a living modified organism (LMO) should be commended, considering the precautionary principle when relating to uncertainty in science.

I have perused through the Australia biosecurity website, which says the Australian Biosecurity Act 2015 is among the best because it contains the emergency response plan together with an effective international relationship.

In summary, Australian biosecurity law is for the protection of human life, plants, and animals.

As for Malaysia, the biosecurity law specifically deals with animals only to prevent the spread of infectious diseases among animals. This was due to the incident of the Japanese Encephalitis (JE) virus among pigs at Bukit Pelanduk back in 1998-1999.

Biosafety laws at international level name the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety as the main protocol covering environmental biosafety aspects.

Meanwhile, the protocol in labs is also usually to international standards. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety governs the transboundary movement of the living modified organism (LMO) for the benefits of human health and the environment.

The protocol indirectly protects human health from risks of LMO exposure. From which, there is no clear detail on the human health aspects and it is perhaps up to the World Health Organisation (WHO) to detail it later.

Biosecurity at international level is more towards the protection of humans from biological weapons and the effects therefrom.

In Singapore, they have the Biological Agents and Toxins Act 2005 that controls LMO and hazardous material. Singapore has this due to the SARS outbreak in one of its labs in 2003.

As I was thinking that Australia overreached in its biosafety claim, I peek through Covid-19 cases in Australia.

Voila! It was a surprise looking at WHO Covid-19 data in Australasia, the smallest continent in the world with 25 million people. During that time, it had only 28,000 cases with 909 deaths and six new cases. 

The Australian Biosecurity Act 2005 comprises plants, animals, and human health. As part of biosecurity risk management, every province in Australia has its own rule also supervised by protocol to manage the risk from various dangerous viruses to humans.

This is inclusive of biological threats to humans, industry and the environment that incorporate pandemic and future bioterrorism activities as well.

Hence, it is about time for Malaysia to enact its laws to provide a more robust approach considering rapid changes and development in science and technology such as biotechnology with possibilities of bioterrorism either through biochemical substances or viruses.

These types of laws are more towards minimising the risk of science and technology, which is a different approach from the current practice.

The latter seems to be perceived as an ad hoc and temporary measure tied to executive powers, causing many issues to be overlooked, and seems more reactive rather than proactive.

A consistent standard operating procedure or protocol is needed, or biosecurity measures to handle the pandemic nationwide, which could lead Malaysia to a higher level or rather on a par with other developed countries in the future.

The command and control as the main strategy seems ineffective because it could lead to other problems.

Risk assessment and management with practices and protocol at national level are more comprehensive, adaptable, enhance and restore other countries confidence towards Malaysia in handling Covid-19 crises. – February 3, 2021.

* Dr Noor Dzuhaidah Osman is a senior lecturer at Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.