Covid-19 as a National Security Issue in Malaysia: A Comparison with the Italian and Australian Perspectives
Based on:
Journal Article (2021)
Our research examined how Covid-19 was made into a national security issue by the government in Malaysia, asking whether it was justified to classify it as such. We then compared the Malaysian regulations with those of Italy and Australia in order to examine how laws could be better prepared for future pandemics.
Brief by:
.jpg)
Research collaborators:
Content
Quite a number of countries, unless they have existing laws that they have been practicing and implementing for quite some time, were quite unprepared for the Covid pandemic. Malaysia practiced already existing old laws based on the Prevention of Control and Infectious Diseases Act implemented in 1998 (Act 342) during the spread of Japanese encephalitis. This act was meant to stop the disease from spreading from pigs to humans. Those were the origins of the source but then Malaysia tried to implement the same law during the Covid-19 pandemic, where the virus is not spreading form animal to human but from human to human.
We have seen that other countries have better laws in place, and not only depend on rules, regulations and risk management. Instead, some countries have existing biosecurity laws that cover a wider range of issues regarding public health.
Additionally, Malaysia depended on the neighbouring countries’ rules and regulations and the compliance of the people to the laws. That is why we think that we should have some sort of uniformity and standardisation among our neighbouring countries in order to be better prepared in the future.
Key findings
We observed that biosecurity laws, such as those that Australia implemented, were better prepared for the Covid-19 pandemic than the Malaysian emergency response that relied on the Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases Act implemented in 1998 during the time of Japanese encephalitis, as these biosecurity laws enable a wider and more systemic response to Covid-19 beyond security measures.
Proposed action
Instead of relying on the emergency laws, the government should implement biosecurity laws which would be better suited to deal with future pandemics, as the coverage is wider than just focusing on public health and security and they are more flexible
The approach to deal with the pandemic should be wider, rather than applying existing laws
Comments
You must log in to ask a question
Acknowledgements
Thank you to ASEAN
These insights were made available thanks to the support of ASEAN, who are committed to the dissemination of knowledge for all.
Special thanks to Esther Feeken for preparation assistance
We would like to extend a special thank you to Esther Feeken, for their invaluable contribution in assisting the preparation of this research summary.
Are you a researcher looking to make a real-world impact? Join Acume and transform your research into a practical summary.
Already have an account? Log in
Discover more
Covid-19 as a National Security Issue in Malaysia: A Comparison with the Italian and Australian Perspectives
Cite this brief: Osman, Noor Dzuhaidah. 'Covid-19 as a National Security Issue in Malaysia: A Comparison with the Italian and Australian Perspectives'. Acume. https://www.acume.org/r/covid-19-as-a-national-security-issue-in-malaysia-a-comparison-with-the-italian-and-australian-perspectives/
Brief created by: Dr Noor Dzuhaidah Osman | Year brief made: 2022
Original research:
- F. M. H., Osman, N. D., & et al., ‘Covid-19 as a National Security Issue in Malaysia: A Comparison with the Italian and Australian Perspectives’ 10(4) (pp. 261–272) https://doi.org/10.36941/ajis-2021-0115. – https://www.richtmann.org/journal/index.php/ajis/article/view/12592
Research brief:
Our research examined how Covid-19 was made into a national security issue by the government in Malaysia, asking whether it was justified to classify it as such. We then compared the Malaysian regulations with those of Italy and Australia in order to examine how laws could be better prepared for future pandemics.
Quite a number of countries, unless they have existing laws that they have been practicing and implementing for quite some time, were quite unprepared for the Covid pandemic. Malaysia practiced already existing old laws based on the Prevention of Control and Infectious Diseases Act implemented in 1998 (Act 342) during the spread of Japanese encephalitis. This act was meant to stop the disease from spreading from pigs to humans. Those were the origins of the source but then Malaysia tried to implement the same law during the Covid-19 pandemic, where the virus is not spreading form animal to human but from human to human.
We have seen that other countries have better laws in place, and not only depend on rules, regulations and risk management. Instead, some countries have existing biosecurity laws that cover a wider range of issues regarding public health.
Additionally, Malaysia depended on the neighbouring countries’ rules and regulations and the compliance of the people to the laws. That is why we think that we should have some sort of uniformity and standardisation among our neighbouring countries in order to be better prepared in the future.
Findings:
We observed that biosecurity laws, such as those that Australia implemented, were better prepared for the Covid-19 pandemic than the Malaysian emergency response that relied on the Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases Act implemented in 1998 during the time of Japanese encephalitis, as these biosecurity laws enable a wider and more systemic response to Covid-19 beyond security measures.
Advice:
Instead of relying on the emergency laws, the government should implement biosecurity laws which would be better suited to deal with future pandemics, as the coverage is wider than just focusing on public health and security and they are more flexible
The approach to deal with the pandemic should be wider, rather than applying existing laws
- We need better standard operation procedures as well as risk management procedures, so that we know what to do rather than waiting for the parliament to decide and then legislating the law.