DHARM Navaratnam has raised a couple of valid points in his letter: When there doesn’t seem to be a plan.

The first is: with more people working from home, that would mean more people will go out to get groceries and essential items at the same time.

So, a more effective approach would be to limit the number of people entering premises at any given time rather than reducing operating hours.

This is the case in other jurisdictions and is made law through regulations, which are called subsidiary legislation, made under a principal legislation.

The purpose is to limit the number of people according to the capacity of premises. Thus, the regulation stipulates that the owner of a shopping centre must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the number of people 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 16sqm of the shopping centre, computed by dividing the gross floor area (expressed in square metres) of the shopping centre by 16.

The second is: announcements are made to prepare for an announcement the next day and when the actual announcement is made, the SOP are not ready and will be imparted by the relevant ministry.

Meanwhile, it is important to note there has been too much reliance on the SOP when they are not law.

The law is legislation, whether principal (acts of parliament) or subsidiary (gazetted regulations or rules).

There has been much confusion here. Take the case of the requirement to wear a face mask.

Defence Minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob, in the press conference yesterday, reminded all Malaysians that wearing face masks in public is mandatory, even in combination with a niqab or face shield.

There is no excuse not to wear the face mask, he said. Ismail Sabri explained that this is clearly stipulated under the Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases Act 1988.

However, there is no express provision in the act that requires makes wearing a face mask in public mandatory.

The act provides for the power to make a regulation for “the prevention or mitigation of infectious diseases”.

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 the act – inserted via an emergency ordinance [PU(A) 76/2021] – empowers the director-general of health 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 director-general accordingly issued under the provision commits an offence.”

Again, in other jurisdictions, the wearing of a face mask is expressly provided in the regulations, if not in the 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.

It is time to do things differently with a clear plan of action or, as Dharm puts it, things will get really worrying for all of us. – May 23, 2021.

* Hafiz Hassan reads The Malaysian Insight.

* 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.