Why did the Emergency Ordinance fail to achieve the expected results?

The Prime Minister of Malaysia proclaimed a state of Emergency Ordinance on the 12th January 2021. The reason for the proclamation was the rise in the number of COVID-19 cases during those periods. The emergency ordinance will continue until 1st August 2021 unless it is revoked earlier. However, since the state of emergency has been implemented for more than 100 days, the epidemic has not improved, and the cases are still rising.

Why did the Emergency Ordinance fail to achieve the expected results?

In this episode of “On The Hot Seat” by Pocketimes, lawyer Muhammad Rafique Rashid Ali a member of the Malaysian Bar Council and Professor Dr Victor Hoe discuss the effectiveness of the emergency ordinance in curtailing the rise of the COVID-19 infection.

Summary of the Interview:

The Emergency Ordinance, implemented in Malaysia as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic, was intended to provide the government with extraordinary powers to manage the crisis effectively. However, despite its ambitious goals, the ordinance failed to achieve the expected results. This article explores the reasons behind this failure, drawing insights from legal experts and public opinion.

Background of the Emergency Ordinance

The Emergency Ordinance was proclaimed by the Malaysian King on January 12, 2021, following a significant surge in COVID-19 cases. The ordinance granted the government extensive powers, including the ability to make laws without parliamentary approval, control over resources, and the authority to impose strict public health measures.

Key Objectives

The primary objectives of the Emergency Ordinance were:

1. Control the Spread of COVID-19: Implement stringent measures to curb the transmission of the virus.
2. Ensure Public Health and Safety: Mobilize resources and enforce health protocols to protect the population.
3. Stabilize the Economy: Provide economic relief and support to mitigate the financial impact of the pandemic.

Reasons for Failure

1. Lack of Clear Communication and Transparency:
   • Public Confusion: The government’s communication strategy was criticized for being unclear and inconsistent. This led to confusion among the public regarding the rules and regulations under the ordinance.
   • Transparency Issues: There was a perceived lack of transparency in the decision-making process, which eroded public trust. The absence of detailed explanations for certain measures and the criteria for their implementation contributed to skepticism and non-compliance.
2. Ineffective Implementation and Enforcement:
   • Inconsistent Enforcement: The enforcement of the ordinance was inconsistent, with reports of selective application and double standards. This inconsistency undermined the effectiveness of the measures and led to public frustration.
   • Resource Constraints: The government faced significant challenges in mobilizing resources and personnel to enforce the ordinance effectively. This included shortages of healthcare workers, law enforcement officers, and essential supplies.
3. Economic and Social Impact:
   • Economic Hardship: The stringent measures imposed under the ordinance had severe economic repercussions, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and daily wage earners. The lack of adequate financial support exacerbated the economic hardship faced by many.
   • Mental Health Issues: The prolonged restrictions and uncertainty took a toll on the mental health of the population. Increased anxiety, depression, and stress were reported, highlighting the need for better mental health support services.
4. Political Factors:
   • Political Instability: The period during which the Emergency Ordinance was in effect was marked by political instability. Frequent changes in leadership and political infighting diverted attention from the pandemic response and hindered effective governance.
   • Public Distrust: The ordinance was perceived by some as a tool for political maneuvering rather than a genuine public health measure. This perception further eroded public trust and compliance.

Lessons Learned

The failure of the Emergency Ordinance to achieve its expected results offers several important lessons:

1. Clear Communication: Effective crisis management requires clear, consistent, and transparent communication. The government must ensure that the public is well-informed and understands the rationale behind measures.
2. Consistent Enforcement: Laws and regulations must be enforced consistently and fairly to maintain public trust and compliance.
3. Support Systems: Adequate economic and mental health support systems are crucial to mitigate the impact of stringent public health measures.
4. Political Stability: Political stability and unity are essential for effective crisis management. Political leaders must prioritize public health over political interests.

Conclusion

The Emergency Ordinance in Malaysia, despite its well-intentioned objectives, failed to achieve the expected results due to a combination of communication failures, inconsistent enforcement, economic and social impacts, and political factors. Moving forward, it is essential for the government to address these issues and adopt a more transparent, consistent, and supportive approach to crisis management.

Share

Rewrite