Bahagian 2: Sokongan Terhadap Hukuman Mati di Kalangan Rakyat Malaysia – Bila dan Untuk Apa?

Muat turun Laporan Penuh ‘Apakah Pendirian Sebenar Rakyat Malaysia Tentang Hukuman Mati?’

Dalam bahagian pertama laporan kami mengenai persepsi terhadap hukuman mati di Malaysia, kami telah kongsikan beberapa sorotan menarik, antaranya, bahawa majoriti kecil (60% daripada kesemua responden) merasakan hukuman mati masih diperlukan di dalam sesebuah masyarakat. Walau bagaimanapun, sejumlah yang agak besar juga iaitu kira-kira satu pertiga daripada responden berada di atas pagar tentang isu ini.

Sokongan untuk hukuman mati sebenarnya lebih bersyarat dan tersirat berbanding dengan dapatan tinjuauan ‘ya/tidak’ yang mudah. Melalui laporan ini, kami kongsikan dapatan kajian kami yang lebih menghalusi persepsi terhadap hukuman mati – termasuk hukuman mati mandatori – dengan mengambil kira pelbagai faktor termasuklah jenis kesalahan, keseriusan jenayah dan juga niat tertuduh. Kami juga telah menguji pandangan responden atas hukuman yang dianggap adil untuk contoh jenayah yang diadaptasi dari kes-kes sebenar.

Hukuman mati bagi jenayah kejam, dengan niat dan berbentuk ‘peribadi’

Sokongan bagi hukuman mati jauh lebih tinggi untuk jenayah kejam terhadap individu seperti kes pembunuhan dan rogol (73% daripada kesemua responden) berbanding dengan terrorisme atau genosid (47% daripada kesemua responden), meskipun jumlah yang terbunuh dalam situasi kedua mungkin lebih tinggi daripada situasi pertama. Hal ini sekali lagi menunjukkan peranan perasaan kasihan untuk mangsa individu serta keluarga mereka dalam sokongan terhadap hukuman mati.

Secara amnya, sokongan responden terhadap hukuman mati melonjak dengan peningkatan tahap keseriusan dan niat penjenayah. Kesalahan yang mempunyai sokongan tertinggi bagi hukuman mati adalah ‘pembunuhan dengan niat’. 85% daripada responden memilih hukuman mati sebagai hukuman maksimum dan yang paling setimpal untuk jenayah ini, dengan hampir separuh daripada kesemua responden memilih hukuman mati mandatori – satu kadar yang signifikan.

Nota. Pilih ikon ‘gear’ di bahagian bawah kanan carta untuk melihat responden berdasarkan demografik mereka, atau tekan pada setiap bulatan untuk maklumat lanjut.

<iframe src='https://flo.uri.sh/story/781929/embed' title='Interactive or visual content' frameborder='0' scrolling='no' style='width:100%;height:600px;' sandbox='allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-scripts allow-downloads allow-popups allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation'></iframe><div style='width:100%!;margin-top:4px!important;text-align:right!important;'><a class='flourish-credit' href='https://public.flourish.studio/story/781929/?utm_source=embed&utm_campaign=story/781929' target='_top' style='text-decoration:none!important'><img alt='Made with Flourish' src='https://public.flourish.studio/resources/made_with_flourish.svg' style='width:105px!important;height:16px!important;border:none!important;margin:0!important;'> </a></div>

Jelas bahawa niat penjenayah adalah penting kepada responden. Berbanding dengan jenayah dengan niat, hanya 42% daripada responden memilih hukuman mati bagi kes-kes yang mengakibatkan kecederaan teruk atau kematian tanpa niat atau secara tidak sengaja, manakala hanya 4% daripada responden memilih hukuman mati mandatori bagi kesalahan tersebut.

<iframe src='https://flo.uri.sh/story/781946/embed' title='Interactive or visual content' frameborder='0' scrolling='no' style='width:100%;height:600px;' sandbox='allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-scripts allow-downloads allow-popups allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation'></iframe><div style='width:100%!;margin-top:4px!important;text-align:right!important;'><a class='flourish-credit' href='https://public.flourish.studio/story/781946/?utm_source=embed&utm_campaign=story/781946' target='_top' style='text-decoration:none!important'><img alt='Made with Flourish' src='https://public.flourish.studio/resources/made_with_flourish.svg' style='width:105px!important;height:16px!important;border:none!important;margin:0!important;'> </a></div>

Apabila fakta kes dikemukakan, pendirian responden terhadap hukuman mati bertukar menjadi lebih sederhana dari pendirian awal mereka, walaupun ia melibatkan kes pembunuhan yang dirancang. Dengan menggunakan fakta dari kes sebenar (yang disusun semula bagi membuang butiran nama atau identiti pihak-pihak terlibat), kami menguji sentimen responden tentang hukuman yang setimpal untuk senario di mana mangsa penderaan rumahtangga didapati bersalah membunuh penderanya. Hanya 27% daripada responden memilih hukuman mati untuk situasi ini : perbezaan yang ketara berbanding 85% responden yang memilih hukuman mati bagi pembunuhan dengan niat. Kewujudan faktor-faktor mitigasi atau pengurangan seperti ini amat penting untuk mengubah pendirian responden ke atas hukuman mati.

<iframe src='https://flo.uri.sh/story/781951/embed' title='Interactive or visual content' frameborder='0' scrolling='no' style='width:100%;height:600px;' sandbox='allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-scripts allow-downloads allow-popups allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation'></iframe><div style='width:100%!;margin-top:4px!important;text-align:right!important;'><a class='flourish-credit' href='https://public.flourish.studio/story/781951/?utm_source=embed&utm_campaign=story/781951' target='_top' style='text-decoration:none!important'><img alt='Made with Flourish' src='https://public.flourish.studio/resources/made_with_flourish.svg' style='width:105px!important;height:16px!important;border:none!important;margin:0!important;'> </a></div>

Bandingkan dengan kes pemuda berperwatakan lembut (kes T. Nhaveen, disusun semula bagi membuang butiran identiti) yang meninggal dunia akibat diserang oleh rakan sebayanya; contoh ini ternyata mengundang kecaman yang lebih tinggi dari para responden kerana kekurangan faktor mitigasi atau pengurangan. 66% daripada responden memilih hukuman mati. Namun begitu, kurang daripada seperempat responden memilih hukuman mati mandatori walaupun sifat kes tersebut begitu kejam.

<iframe src='https://flo.uri.sh/story/781987/embed' title='Interactive or visual content' frameborder='0' scrolling='no' style='width:100%;height:600px;' sandbox='allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-scripts allow-downloads allow-popups allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation'></iframe><div style='width:100%!;margin-top:4px!important;text-align:right!important;'><a class='flourish-credit' href='https://public.flourish.studio/story/781987/?utm_source=embed&utm_campaign=story/781987' target='_top' style='text-decoration:none!important'><img alt='Made with Flourish' src='https://public.flourish.studio/resources/made_with_flourish.svg' style='width:105px!important;height:16px!important;border:none!important;margin:0!important;'> </a></div>

Bagi kesalahan berkaitan dadah, sokongan terhadap hukuman mati kebanyakannya untuk kepala sindiket

Persepsi mengenai hukuman mati dan hukuman setimpal dapat dikatakan paling relevan untuk kesalahan berkaitan dadah. 73% daripada banduan yang menunggu hukuman mati pada hari ini adalah untuk kesalahan mengedar dadah.

Namun, bagi pengedar dadah secara kecil-kecilan atau mereka yang membeli untuk penggunaan peribadi, sokongan responden untuk menjatuhkan hukuman mati terhadap mereka agak rendah. Hanya 35% daripada responden memilih hukuman mati sebagai hukuman setimpal untuk pengedar kecil-kecilan, dan hanya 21% memilih hukuman mati untuk mereka yang membeli untuk penggunaan peribadi.

<iframe src='https://flo.uri.sh/story/782637/embed' title='Interactive or visual content' frameborder='0' scrolling='no' style='width:100%;height:600px;' sandbox='allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-scripts allow-downloads allow-popups allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation'></iframe><div style='width:100%!;margin-top:4px!important;text-align:right!important;'><a class='flourish-credit' href='https://public.flourish.studio/story/782637/?utm_source=embed&utm_campaign=story/782637' target='_top' style='text-decoration:none!important'><img alt='Made with Flourish' src='https://public.flourish.studio/resources/made_with_flourish.svg' style='width:105px!important;height:16px!important;border:none!important;margin:0!important;'> </a></div>
<iframe src='https://flo.uri.sh/story/782641/embed' title='Interactive or visual content' frameborder='0' scrolling='no' style='width:100%;height:600px;' sandbox='allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-scripts allow-downloads allow-popups allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation'></iframe><div style='width:100%!;margin-top:4px!important;text-align:right!important;'><a class='flourish-credit' href='https://public.flourish.studio/story/782641/?utm_source=embed&utm_campaign=story/782641' target='_top' style='text-decoration:none!important'><img alt='Made with Flourish' src='https://public.flourish.studio/resources/made_with_flourish.svg' style='width:105px!important;height:16px!important;border:none!important;margin:0!important;'> </a></div>

Seperti jenayah yang menyebabkan kecederaan teruk dan kematian, niat dan keseriusan juga mendorong sokongan untuk hukuman bagi kesalahan berkaitan dadah. 63% daripada responden memilih hukuman mati bagi kesalahan pemerdagangan dadah berskala besar dengan 28% daripada kesemua responden memilih hukuman mati mandatori.

Terdapat belas ihsan yang lebih terhadap mereka yang ditangkap menjadi keldai atau penyeludup dadah. Hanya 15% daripada responden menyokong hukuman mati terhadap mereka yang membawa dadah tanpa pengetahuan. Sokongan terhadap hukuman mati meningkat kepada 38% bagi penyeludup dadah yang bertindak secara sengaja, sama seperti tahap sokongan yang ditunjukkan bagi jenayah pemerdagangan dadah berskala kecil yang dinyatakan di atas.

<iframe src='https://flo.uri.sh/story/782643/embed' title='Interactive or visual content' frameborder='0' scrolling='no' style='width:100%;height:600px;' sandbox='allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-scripts allow-downloads allow-popups allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation'></iframe><div style='width:100%!;margin-top:4px!important;text-align:right!important;'><a class='flourish-credit' href='https://public.flourish.studio/story/782643/?utm_source=embed&utm_campaign=story/782643' target='_top' style='text-decoration:none!important'><img alt='Made with Flourish' src='https://public.flourish.studio/resources/made_with_flourish.svg' style='width:105px!important;height:16px!important;border:none!important;margin:0!important;'> </a></div>
<iframe src='https://flo.uri.sh/story/782647/embed' title='Interactive or visual content' frameborder='0' scrolling='no' style='width:100%;height:600px;' sandbox='allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-scripts allow-downloads allow-popups allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation'></iframe><div style='width:100%!;margin-top:4px!important;text-align:right!important;'><a class='flourish-credit' href='https://public.flourish.studio/story/782647/?utm_source=embed&utm_campaign=story/782647' target='_top' style='text-decoration:none!important'><img alt='Made with Flourish' src='https://public.flourish.studio/resources/made_with_flourish.svg' style='width:105px!important;height:16px!important;border:none!important;margin:0!important;'> </a></div>

Jelas, apabila dikemukakan dengan faktor-faktor mitigasi yang diambil dari contoh kes sebenar, pendirian responden terhadap hukuman mati dan kesalahan kecil berkaitan dadah sebelum ini bertukar menjadi lebih sederhana. Sebagai contoh, hanya 14% daripada responden memilih hukuman mati bagi seorang remaja yang ditangkap dengan 600 gram kanabis*.

<iframe src='https://flo.uri.sh/story/782650/embed' title='Interactive or visual content' frameborder='0' scrolling='no' style='width:100%;height:600px;' sandbox='allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-scripts allow-downloads allow-popups allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation'></iframe><div style='width:100%!;margin-top:4px!important;text-align:right!important;'><a class='flourish-credit' href='https://public.flourish.studio/story/782650/?utm_source=embed&utm_campaign=story/782650' target='_top' style='text-decoration:none!important'><img alt='Made with Flourish' src='https://public.flourish.studio/resources/made_with_flourish.svg' style='width:105px!important;height:16px!important;border:none!important;margin:0!important;'> </a></div>

*Kes sebenar yang mana seorang pemuda berusia 18 tahun daripada isi rumah yang berpendapatan rendah dijatuhkan hukuman mati kerana mengedar dadah.

Beberapa perbezaan yang ketara antara demografik

Jantina. Wanita lebih cenderung berbanding lelaki untuk menyokong hukuman mati bagi penjualan dadah berskala kecil dan pengangkutan dadah secara sengaja.

Umur. Mereka yang berusia 45 tahun ke atas adalah lebih bersikap menghukum terhadap pesalah dadah berbanding mereka yang berusia bawah 45 tahun. Semakin berusia seseorang responden, semakin cenderung mereka untuk mengenakan hukuman mati kepada pesalah dadah.

Tahap Pendidikan. Pemegang ijazah sarjana muda lebih cenderung untuk memilih hukuman mati bagi pengedar dadah berskala kecil berbanding mereka yang berpendidikan menengah.

Sokongan bagi hukuman mati sebenarnya lebih rendah dan lebih bersyarat dari dijangka

Seperti yang dilihat dalam Bahagian 1 laporan kajian kami, rakyat Malaysia secara umumnya bersifat konservatif dalam pandangan mengenai jenayah dan hukuman. Majoriti (60%) masih percaya bahawa hukuman mati diperlukan dalam sebuah masyarakat berbanding hanya 4% daripada responden yang percaya bahawa hukuman mati tidak patut dilaksanakan langsung. Sebilangan besar daripada responden memegang kepada prinsip pembalasan (71%) dan juga pada kepercayaan pencegahan (85%).

Namun begitu, pendirian rakyat Malaysia terhadap hukuman mati, terutamanya hukuman mati mandatori, semakin menurun apabila berhadapan dengan kesalahan yang berbeza keseriusan dan niat. Sokongan untuk hukuman mati menurun lagi apabila diberi konteks atau faktor mitigasi di sebalik sesuatu jenayah.

Sebagai gambaran menyeluruh mutakhir: sebanyak 60% daripada responden percaya bahawa hukuman mati diperlukan dalam masyarakat, tetapi hanya 1% daripada para responden memilih hukuman mati mandatori sebagai hukuman yang setimpal untuk semua senario jenayah yang kami kemukakan. Kurang daripada 10% dari kalangan responden memilih hukuman mati mandatori dalam senario jenayah berkaitan dadah.

Garis panduan untuk kadar penjatuhan hukuman di Malaysia jelas tidak selari dengan pertimbangan orang ramai, terutamanya bagi kesalahan berkaitan dadah. Dengan kemunculan marijuana perubatan, isu hukuman setimpal dan keadilan hanya akan menjadi lebih meruncing.

Pada awal tahun 2020, sebuah Jawatankuasa Khas yang diketuai oleh Tan Sri Richard Malanjum untuk mengkaji semula hukuman alternatif bagi hukuman mati mandatori telah mengemukakan cadangan mereka kepada kerajaan Pakatan Harapan ketika itu. Mantan Menteri Undang-undang Datuk Liew Vui Keong juga telah berjanji untuk mengemukakan cadangan kepada Jemaah Kabinet untuk perbincangan sebelum membawa hal tersebut ke Parlimen.

Kami berharap agar kerja-kerja Jawatankuasa Khas tersebut diteruskan di bawah kerajaan semasa dan kami menuntut arah dasar yang jelas serta ingin menyaksikan kemajuan yang lebih nyata dalam menutup jurang antara peruntukan dalam undang-undang dan pertimbangan kolektif mengenai apa yang dimaksudkan sebagai hukuman yang adil. Berdasarkan kes seperti Dr. Ganja dan beratus lagi yang kini menunggu hukuman mati, jelaslah bahawa banyak lagi kerja-kerja perundangan yang perlu diteruskan walaupun dalam kesibukan mengurus ‘norma baharu’ dunia Covid-19. The Centre juga menyokong agar kajian pendapat orang ramai yang lebih terperinci lagi dijalankan, bukan sahaja bagi merakam pendapat umum dengan lebih menyeluruh tetapi juga untuk memberi sokongan kepada penggubal dasar dan undang-undang untuk membuat pembaharuan dasar dan undang-undang yang lebih baik.

Emel pandangan atau cadangan anda ke editorial@centre.my.

Bahagian 1: Sejauh Manakah Rakyat Malaysia Menyokong Hukuman Mati?

Muat turun Laporan Penuh ‘Apakah Pendirian Sebenar Rakyat Malaysia Tentang Hukuman Mati?’

Pada tahun 2018, kerajaan Pakatan Harapan pada ketika itu telah mengumumkan penghapusan hukuman mati untuk semua kesalahan yang menetapkan hukuman tersebut. Langkah ini, yang dilihat sebagai progresif oleh sebahagian masyarakat Malaysia, juga ada menerima reaksi negatif dari orang ramai. Mengeruhkan keadaan pada masa itu juga adalah beberapa kenyataan dasar yang bertentangan dan mengelirukan.

Sejak pengumuman tersebut, Malaysia telah mengalami pertukaran kerajaan dan masih lagi mengalami cabaran pandemik global Covid-19. Sepertimana isu-isu lain, persoalan tentang hukuman mati seolah-olah lenyap dari muka penggubalan dasar dan kelihatan seperti tiada resolusi.

Berdasarkan pandangan-pandangan yang ditonjolkan dalam pelbagai sidang akhbar, memorandum dan petisyen di ruang-ruang awam, pendirian rakyat Malaysia berkenaan isu hukuman mati boleh diandaikan sebagai ‘konservatif’. Pungutan-pungutan suara yang pernah diadakan sebelum ini juga menyokong andaian tersebut. Sebagai contoh, satu undian awam dikelolakan akhbar telah melaporkan bahawa sejumlah besar, iaitu 82% daripada responden, menentang pemansuhan hukuman mati.  

Walau bagaimanapun, adakah kefahaman rakyat Malaysia berkenaan hukuman mati benar-benar jelas, dan adakah pendirian mereka benar-benar tegas mengenai hukuman mati? Dan sejauh manakah kita dapat mengukur sentimen orang ramai tentang isu yang rumit dan penuh emosi ini berdasarkan undian setuju/tidak bersetuju yang mudah?

Kami di The Centre ingin mengetahui dengan lebih lanjut pendirian masyarakat berkenaan isu pengadilan ataupun hukuman yang setimpal. Oleh itu, kami telah cuba mencari jawapan kepada persoalan-persoalan tersebut melalui satu kajian yang lebih mutakhir.

Primer kami merumuskan isu berkenaan dengan hukuman mati di Malaysia. 

Tentang Kajian Kami

Bersama rakan kerja tinjauan lapangan kami iaitu Hometrics, The Centre telah menjalankan satu tinjauan secara meluas antara 29 November 2019 dan 6 Disember 2019 untuk mengumpul pendapat orang ramai terhadap hukuman mati. Kami telah mengkaji kepastian pandangan mereka dengan meneliti reaksi mereka terhadap jenis-jenis kesalahan yang membawa kepada hukuman mati, kewujudan faktor-faktor yang menggalak atau mengurangkan sokongan kepada hukuman mati, dan juga hukuman yang wajar bagi beberapa senario yang berasaskan kes-kes sebenar.

Tahukah anda:
Sebilangan besar kes hukuman mati di Malaysia adalah kerana kesalahan berkaitan dadah.

Soalan-soalan di dalam borang tinjauan diadaptasi daripada tiga kajian sedia ada berkenaan hukuman mati iaitu tinjauan pendapat umum yang meluas di Malaysia oleh Profesor Roger Hood pada tahun 2013,  kajian di Singapura yang dilaksanakan oleh penyelidik di National University of Singapore (NUS) pada 2018, serta skala sikap terhadap hukuman mati yang dijalankan oleh Kevin O’Neil dan  pasukan penyelidik beliau dari Amerika Syarikat.

Tinjauan dalam pilihan Bahasa Malaysia, Bahasa Inggeris dan Mandarin ini telah dijalankan melalui 500 wawancara tatap muka di Semenanjung Malaysia dengan pecahan jantina, umur, kumpulan etnik yang mirip pecahan senegara. Pecahan demografi responden adalah seperti berikut:

Catatan: Oleh kerana kekangan tertentu, tinjauan tatap muka ini hanya dijalankan di Semenanjung Malaysia sahaja.

Majoriti berpendapat hukuman mati harus wujud, tetapi ramai juga di atas pagar

Para responden disoal jika mereka berpendapat bahawa hukuman mati merupakan suatu keperluan dalam sesebuah masyarakat. Majoriti yang kecil, 60%, bersetuju atau sangat bersetuju dengan pernyataan ini. Walau bagaimanapun, 31% daripada para responden, satu jumlah yang agak signifikan, mengaku berada di tengah-tengah iaitu bukan setuju tetapi juga bukan tidak setuju. Hasil ini menunjukkan bahawa persepsi rakyat Malaysia tentang hukuman mati tidaklah seperti gambaran yang diperolehi melalui undian dalam talian. Apabila tinjauan dilakukan berdasarkan pecahan demografi Malaysia, didapati bahawa ramai juga rakyat Malaysia sebenarnya tidak pasti mengenai isu hukuman mati.

Nota Capaian: Pilih ikon ‘gear’ di bahagian bawah kanan  carta untuk melihat para responden berdasarkan demografik mereka atau tekan pada setiap bulatan untuk melihat maklumat lebih lanjut.

<iframe src='https://flo.uri.sh/story/781635/embed' title='Interactive or visual content' frameborder='0' scrolling='no' style='width:100%;height:600px;' sandbox='allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-scripts allow-downloads allow-popups allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation'></iframe><div style='width:100%!;margin-top:4px!important;text-align:right!important;'><a class='flourish-credit' href='https://public.flourish.studio/story/781635/?utm_source=embed&utm_campaign=story/781635' target='_top' style='text-decoration:none!important'><img alt='Made with Flourish' src='https://public.flourish.studio/resources/made_with_flourish.svg' style='width:105px!important;height:16px!important;border:none!important;margin:0!important;'> </a></div>

Bagi mengesahkan pendirian umum mereka terhadap keperluan hukuman mati, para responden juga diminta untuk menyatakan jika pendirian atau pendapat mereka terhadap hukuman mati adalah kukuh. 59% daripada para responden bersetuju atau sangat bersetuju bahawa mereka mempunyai pandangan yang kukuh atau tegas terhadap hukuman mati. Namun, selebihnya, iaitu 41% tidak berapa pasti— satu lagi perincian penting. 

<iframe src='https://flo.uri.sh/story/781658/embed' title='Interactive or visual content' frameborder='0' scrolling='no' style='width:100%;height:600px;' sandbox='allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-scripts allow-downloads allow-popups allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation'></iframe><div style='width:100%!;margin-top:4px!important;text-align:right!important;'><a class='flourish-credit' href='https://public.flourish.studio/story/781658/?utm_source=embed&utm_campaign=story/781658' target='_top' style='text-decoration:none!important'><img alt='Made with Flourish' src='https://public.flourish.studio/resources/made_with_flourish.svg' style='width:105px!important;height:16px!important;border:none!important;margin:0!important;'> </a></div>

Sokongan untuk hukuman mati didorong prinsip ‘pencegahan’ dan ‘pembalasan’

Kajian-kajian di peringkat global yang dijalankan atas persepsi masyarakat tentang hukuman mati telah mengenal pasti empat faktor utama atau kepercayaan yang mendorong sokongan atau tentangan terhadap hukuman mati: pembalasan, pencegahan, pragmatisme dan pemulihan.

Sokongan rakyat Malaysia terhadap hukuman mati umumnya didorong oleh kepercayaan mereka dalam prinsip pencegahan. Majoriti yang amat ketara, iaitu sebanyak 85% daripada para responden, percaya bahawa hukuman mati mampu menyebabkan seseorang untuk berfikir dua kali daripada melakukan sesuatu jenayah. Kepercayaan pada prinsip pencegahan ini adalah agak kuat dalam sesetengah masyarakat, namun tiada bukti yang kukuh sehingga kini yang menunjukkan bahawa hukuman mati mempunyai kesan pencegahan.

<iframe src='https://flo.uri.sh/story/781688/embed' title='Interactive or visual content' frameborder='0' scrolling='no' style='width:100%;height:600px;' sandbox='allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-scripts allow-downloads allow-popups allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation'></iframe><div style='width:100%!;margin-top:4px!important;text-align:right!important;'><a class='flourish-credit' href='https://public.flourish.studio/story/781688/?utm_source=embed&utm_campaign=story/781688' target='_top' style='text-decoration:none!important'><img alt='Made with Flourish' src='https://public.flourish.studio/resources/made_with_flourish.svg' style='width:105px!important;height:16px!important;border:none!important;margin:0!important;'> </a></div>

Kepercayaan kepada prinsip pembalasan juga tinggi – 71% daripada responden menyatakan mereka akan merasa puas hati jika pesalah jenayah-jenayah tertentu menebus dosa dengan nyawa mereka. Menariknya, pegangan kepada prinsip pembalasan ini lebih kepada keinginan responden untuk mendapatkan keadilan bagi keluarga mangsa (73% responden) berbanding keadilan bagi pihak masyarakat (60% responden).

<iframe src='https://flo.uri.sh/story/781690/embed' title='Interactive or visual content' frameborder='0' scrolling='no' style='width:100%;height:600px;' sandbox='allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-scripts allow-downloads allow-popups allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation'></iframe><div style='width:100%!;margin-top:4px!important;text-align:right!important;'><a class='flourish-credit' href='https://public.flourish.studio/story/781690/?utm_source=embed&utm_campaign=story/781690' target='_top' style='text-decoration:none!important'><img alt='Made with Flourish' src='https://public.flourish.studio/resources/made_with_flourish.svg' style='width:105px!important;height:16px!important;border:none!important;margin:0!important;'> </a></div>
<iframe src='https://flo.uri.sh/story/781696/embed' title='Interactive or visual content' frameborder='0' scrolling='no' style='width:100%;height:600px;' sandbox='allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-scripts allow-downloads allow-popups allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation'></iframe><div style='width:100%!;margin-top:4px!important;text-align:right!important;'><a class='flourish-credit' href='https://public.flourish.studio/story/781690/?utm_source=embed&utm_campaign=story/781690' target='_top' style='text-decoration:none!important'><img alt='Made with Flourish' src='https://public.flourish.studio/resources/made_with_flourish.svg' style='width:105px!important;height:16px!important;border:none!important;margin:0!important;'> </a></div>
<iframe src='https://flo.uri.sh/story/781711/embed' title='Interactive or visual content' frameborder='0' scrolling='no' style='width:100%;height:600px;' sandbox='allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-scripts allow-downloads allow-popups allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation'></iframe><div style='width:100%!;margin-top:4px!important;text-align:right!important;'><a class='flourish-credit' href='https://public.flourish.studio/story/781711/?utm_source=embed&utm_campaign=story/781711' target='_top' style='text-decoration:none!important'><img alt='Made with Flourish' src='https://public.flourish.studio/resources/made_with_flourish.svg' style='width:105px!important;height:16px!important;border:none!important;margin:0!important;'> </a></div>

Secara perbandingan, kepercayaan terhadap prinsip pragmatisme dan pemulihan sebagai faktor di sebalik pendirian responden terhadap hukuman mati tidaklah begitu kuat. Dari segi pragmatisme, responden berbelah bahagi. Hanya 50% daripada responden bersetuju bahawa menjatuhkan hukuman mati lebih berkesan dari segi kos berbanding menjatuhkan hukuman penjara seumur hidup. Satu pencarian yang menarik dari tinjauan ini: pemegang ijazah lebih bersetuju bahawa hukuman mati adalah lebih berkesan dari segi kos berbanding dengan responden yang tidak memegang ijazah.

<iframe src='https://flo.uri.sh/story/781713/embed' title='Interactive or visual content' frameborder='0' scrolling='no' style='width:100%;height:600px;' sandbox='allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-scripts allow-downloads allow-popups allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation'></iframe><div style='width:100%!;margin-top:4px!important;text-align:right!important;'><a class='flourish-credit' href='https://public.flourish.studio/story/781713/?utm_source=embed&utm_campaign=story/781713' target='_top' style='text-decoration:none!important'><img alt='Made with Flourish' src='https://public.flourish.studio/resources/made_with_flourish.svg' style='width:105px!important;height:16px!important;border:none!important;margin:0!important;'> </a></div>

Responden berbelah bahagi mengenai pemberian peluang kedua

Walaupun 60% daripada responden menyokong hukuman mati secara umumnya, terdapat majoriti yang lebih tinggi, iaitu sebanyak 83%, yang bersetuju dengan idea pemenjaraan seumur hidup sebagai hukuman.

<iframe src='https://flo.uri.sh/story/781774/embed' title='Interactive or visual content' frameborder='0' scrolling='no' style='width:100%;height:600px;' sandbox='allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-scripts allow-downloads allow-popups allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation'></iframe><div style='width:100%!;margin-top:4px!important;text-align:right!important;'><a class='flourish-credit' href='https://public.flourish.studio/story/781774/?utm_source=embed&utm_campaign=story/781774' target='_top' style='text-decoration:none!important'><img alt='Made with Flourish' src='https://public.flourish.studio/resources/made_with_flourish.svg' style='width:105px!important;height:16px!important;border:none!important;margin:0!important;'> </a></div>

Namun begitu, pada masa yang sama, hanya 39% daripada responden bersetuju untuk memberi peluang kedua kepada penjenayah yang telah dijatuhkan hukuman penjara seumur hidup. Hanya 41%, iaitu kurang daripada setengah daripada para responden, bersetuju dengan pengurangan tempoh hukuman atau pengampunan. Hasil ini memberi gambaran bahawa jumlah yang agak signifikan bersikap agak tegas terhadap mereka yang telah didapati bersalah.

<iframe src='https://flo.uri.sh/story/781777/embed' title='Interactive or visual content' frameborder='0' scrolling='no' style='width:100%;height:600px;' sandbox='allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-scripts allow-downloads allow-popups allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation'></iframe><div style='width:100%!;margin-top:4px!important;text-align:right!important;'><a class='flourish-credit' href='https://public.flourish.studio/story/781777/?utm_source=embed&utm_campaign=story/781777' target='_top' style='text-decoration:none!important'><img alt='Made with Flourish' src='https://public.flourish.studio/resources/made_with_flourish.svg' style='width:105px!important;height:16px!important;border:none!important;margin:0!important;'> </a></div>

Beberapa perbezaan demografik yang menarik

Kumpulan etnik. Responden Cina adalah 16% lebih cenderung untuk menyokong hukuman mati berbanding responden Melayu/Bumiputera, manakala responden India adalah 18% lebih cenderung untuk menyokong hukuman mati berbanding responden Melayu/Bumiputera.

Tahap pendidikan. Responden berpendidikan tinggi adalah 45% lebih cenderung untuk menyokong hukuman mati berbanding responden berpendidikan menengah. 

Tahap pendapatan. Responden yang mempunyai pendapatan isi rumah RM8,000 dan ke atas adalah 23% kurang cenderung untuk menyokong hukuman mati berbanding responden yang mempunyai pendapatan isi rumah bawah RM3,000.

Kekalkan tapi jangan laksanakan?

Hanya 4% daripada responden kepada tinjauan kami percaya bahawa hukuman mati patut tidak dilaksanakan langsung berbanding 60% daripada responden yang percaya bahawa hukuman mati masih diperlukan dalam sesebuah masyarakat. Adakah hal ini berpunca daripada kepentingan simbolik hukuman mati dalam rang undang-undang kita? Dalam editorial kami yang lalu, kami telah membuat hipotesis bahawa kewujudan hukuman mati adalah penting dari segi simbolik untuk kebanyakan rakyat Malaysia tetapi soal pelaksanaannya adalah lebih rumit.

Kami dapati bahawa hipotesis di atas sedikit sebanyak disokong oleh hasil tinjauan kami. Pendapat rakyat Malaysia atas pelaksanaan hukuman mati – termasuk hukuman mati mandatori – sangat bergantung kepada jenis kesalahan serta kehadiran faktor-faktor lain. Baca selanjutnya di Bahagian 2 laporan kami.

Emel pandangan atau cadangan anda ke editorial@centre.my

Malaysia’s Fake News Ordinance: Rigid Rules For A Nuanced Problem

On 12th March, Malaysia’s federal government gazetted the Emergency (Essential Powers) (No. 2) Ordinance 2021. The ordinance makes it an offence for any person to spread fake news relating to the Covid-19 pandemic and the proclamation of the Emergency. According to Communications and Multimedia Minister Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah, the ordinance is necessary, as fake news may cause panic or concern among the public, especially during the roll-out of the National Covid-19 Immunisation Programme. De facto Law Minister Datuk Seri Takiyuddin Hassan has also pledged that the ordinance is only for the short term, as it will cease by six months after the Emergency is lifted.

However, there has been no shortage of criticism towards the government over the ordinance, especially given that it prescribes a hefty fine of up to RM500,000 as well as a maximum jail sentence of 6 years for offences such as “creating” and “publishing” fake news. Civil society organizations and lawyers, among others, have voiced concerns over its potential impact on civil liberties in the country. It has also been pointed out that the ordinance mirrors the repealed Anti-Fake News Act, which had also sparked public uproar in 2018. 

To date, Malaysia is among the 17 countries around the world which have introduced legislation to criminalise fake news. Germany, Singapore, and Russia, for example, introduced such laws within the past three years which, like Malaysia, have attracted sharp criticism regarding potential restriction on free speech. There is also concern that such laws would encourage misuse and abuse of power.

At the heart of the criticism is the concern over the vague definition of what constitutes fake news, the proportionality of punishment, as well as the neutrality in enforcing such laws. These issues are similar to the problems in managing hate speech, which we at The Centre researched in-depth last year.

‘Fake news’ should be defined through levels of ‘seriousness’

The ordinance defines fake news as “any news, information, data, or report which is wholly or partly false relating to Covid-19 or the proclamation of Emergency, whether in the form of features, visuals, or audio recordings, or any other form capable of suggesting words or ideas.” 

This definition, however, does not capture the nuances of information disorder in the public domain. Some content is not actually fake; it could be genuine information which is either used out of context or weaponised with malicious intent. 

Information disorder is mainly understood under three main categories that vary by intention to harm: misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation.

Types Of Information Disorder
Misinformation: Dissemination of false information without intention to harm
Disinformation: Dissemination of false information with intention to harm
Malinformation: Dissemination of genuine information meant to cause harm

What distinguishes such content from one another is the intention to deceive, and criminal penalties should only be reserved for ‘serious’ types of fake news — where there is the highest intention to harm through disinformation and malinformation. The definition of fake news needs to have a classification aspect that captures its impact or seriousness so that the risk of overreaction and under-reaction can be minimised. We highlighted a similar issue in our research on hate speech last year; to manage hate speech or other types of information disorder effectively, defining and classifying speech by their ‘seriousness’ are prerequisites to outlining proportionate responses to them.

Should all ‘fake news’ be treated the same?

The ordinance stipulates hefty fines and lengthy jail terms for those found guilty of creating or sharing ‘fake news’. This is in addition to other related legislation in Malaysia, such as Section 505 of the Penal Code and Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act, which already carry similar punishments.

While criminal penalties are necessary in dealing with ‘serious’ levels of disinformation, they are unsuitable for managing ‘less serious’ forms of information disorder. Under the current ordinance, a misinformed person who shared certain false information with others out of genuine concern (e.g. rumoured Covid-19 spread at a location) might be faced with the same penalties as someone who shared false information with intent to discredit Covid-19 vaccines.

‘Less serious’ forms of information disorder should be addressed by more preemptive and rehabilitative measures such as public education and the issuance of pre-sharing warnings by media platforms, among others. In our research, we also stressed on the necessity of a whole-of-society response including civil society-led programs (such as an NGO-led fact checker) as well as a national arbiter in the form of an independent commission or tribunal.

Managing ‘fake news’ with a more cohesive approach

It is undeniable that in times of vaccine misinformation and Covid-19 skepticism,  unchecked information disorder may potentially bring serious repercussions to public safety and order. Nonetheless, the ordinance sends a message that Malaysia overly relies on punitive measures. 

Fines and jail time should only be used for the highest intention to deceive through ‘fake news’. A whole-of-society approach is needed to tackle information disorder effectively and proportionately. The various types of Covid-19 related information disorder can and should be addressed if we are to balance freedom of expression with the responsibilities of living with a global pandemic.

*This piece also appeared as an op-ed on Malay Mail and The Rakyat Post.

A Year Of Living Under COVID-19

Since the pandemic began last year, the lives of many Malaysians have been upended. For thousands, COVID-19 wreaked direct havoc via bodily infection. For millions of others, the pandemic took a toll on their overall mental and physical health.

Last year, we set out to investigate how the pandemic and the first MCO affected the mental health of Malaysians. We found that over half of our respondents experienced negative mental health. How has the situation changed now, almost a year later? We replicated last year’s study and expanded the scope to include questions on physical health and financial well-being.

In this Part 1 of the research series, we present findings on how the year-long pandemic has affected the overall mental and physical well-being of Malaysians. Part 2 will present findings on the impact of living conditions and work-from-home arrangements while Part 3 will present findings on financial well-being.

About The Study

The study was conducted via an online survey distributed using a snowball sampling method between 4 February to 14 February 2021. The survey was available in Malay, English and Mandarin. 

Given that a snowball sampling method was used, responses to this study do not represent a nationally stratified sample. Hence, we advise readers to interpret the results with this limitation in mind. Similar to our previous study last year, the DASS-21 questionnaire was used to measure mental well-being, specifically the presence and severity of depression, anxiety, and stress.

Developed by researchers at the University of New South Wales in Australia, the DASS-21 questionnaire (a shortened version of the original 42-question list) measures mental well-being based on individuals’ self-assessment of their mental state:

Depression is ascertained via self-reported levels of general dissatisfaction, hopelessness, and lack of interest. Anxiety is ascertained via self-reported levels of reactions to physical situations and the general experience of anxiety. Stress is ascertained via self-reported levels of difficulty in relaxing, agitation, impatience, and over-reactiveness.

*DASS-21 questionnaire table used in our study: https://forms.gle/cTryAn9sx6gvh63U8

The DASS-21 questionnaire does not diagnose depression, anxiety, or stress as a medical condition. While the DASS-21 evaluations can be used by non-psychologists for research such as this study, clinical decisions based on the scores can only be made by experienced clinicians alongside extensive clinical examination.

The scores from the DASS-21 questionnaire can be classified into levels of severity ranging from normal, mild, moderate, severe, to extremely severe (see Figure 1 below).

Figure 1: DASS-21 Scale

Source: PsyToolkit

936 responses were collected during the study period of which 2 were rejected due to duplication, leaving a sample of 934 responses.

52% of the respondents were female, representing a good gender balance. 50% of respondents were under 35 years of age. Ethnically, 76% were Malay/Bumiputera. Geographically, 74% of respondents came from Central states, which skews this study’s findings more towards urban dwellers. 

Figure 2: Respondent Demographics

Overall Mental Well-Being

IMPORTANT NOTE: The responses of the DASS-21 questionnaire measures the intensity of general feelings of depression, anxiety, or stress as reported by respondents. This study is not medically diagnostic. Any clinical diagnosis of mental health or mental illness needs to be done by a qualified professional.

We begin by looking at overall mental well-being levels as reported by respondents via the DASS-21 questionnaire. As shown in Figure 3, depression and anxiety levels are clearly higher overall than stress levels.

58% of respondents reported experiencing levels of depression with 26% reporting severe and extremely severe levels of depression. 56% of respondents reported experiencing levels of anxiety with 31% reporting severe and extremely severe anxiety – the highest among severely felt emotions. Stress appears to have the lowest scores comparatively. 42% of respondents reported experiencing levels of stress with 19% reporting severe and extremely severe stress.

Figure 3: Overall Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scores

A side-by-side comparison with our study last year shows that respondents’ scores representing depression, anxiety and stress are higher this year (Figure 4 below). 58% of respondents reported levels of depression in this year’s study compared to 48% of respondents last year. 56% of respondents reported levels of anxiety this year compared to 45% of respondents last year, while 42% of respondents reported levels of stress this year against 34% of respondents last year. ‘Severe’ and ‘extremely severe’ levels of depression, anxiety and stress as reported by respondents this year also show a marked increase compared to last year.

Figure 4: DASS-21 Score Comparison, 2021 vs. 2020

https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/5417254/

The above comparison does need to be read with caution as the sample composition between last year and this year is slightly different, as is typical with the snowball sampling method*. While this is not strictly a longitudinal study, the comparison between both years’ well-being scores does indicate a high likelihood of worsened mental well-being overall among the general population within the last year.

Note: Total number of respondents of last year’s study is 1,084 vs. 934 respondents this year. This year’s study sample had a smaller female base at 52% vs. 66% last year and a smaller Malay/Bumiputera demographic (76% compared to last year’s 81%).

In addition to the DASS-21 questionnaire, we also asked respondents how they themselves perceived their mental well-being compared to last year. A significant proportion, 43%, reported no change in their mental well-being but an almost similar proportion, 42%, felt that their mental state had worsened. Only 15% stated that their mental well-being had improved over the past year.

Figure 5: Respondent Self-Perception of Mental Well-being Compared to Last Year

Respondents’ own impressions of how their mental health has changed over the past year correlate very closely to their DASS-21 scores. As shown in Figure 6 below, the incidence and severity of self-reported levels of depression, anxiety and stress are much higher for respondents who felt worse in their mental well-being compared to those who felt better or no change in their mental state within the last year.

Figure 6: Overall Mental Well-being and Relationship with DASS-21 Scores

An interesting point to note is the level of depression, anxiety and stress experienced by those who felt ‘better’ or ‘no change’ in their mental well-being compared to last year. 39% of these respondents feel some level of depression, 39-47% feel some level of anxiety and 22-23% feel some level of stress. This indicates that feeling comparatively ‘better’ mentally does not necessarily mean escaping varying levels of depression, anxiety or stress. A longitudinal study would be necessary to determine whether these are effects from the global pandemic or a base level of mental well-being for Malaysians overall.

Demographic Differences

Significant demographic differences in mental health effects were clearly seen. One significant difference is gender; more women than men reported experiencing levels of negative mental health. The second major demographic difference is age. Those from younger age groups i.e. ages 18-34 reported worse mental well-being compared to those in older age groups.

Gender

Figure 7 shows the gender differences in reported levels of depression, anxiety and stress. Women reported experiencing significantly worse mental well-being than men across the board. 

Figure 7: Differences in Mental Well-being According to Gender

More women, 64%, reported experiencing levels of depression compared to 52% of men. In terms of severity, 32% of women reported severe or extremely severe depression compared to 20% of men.

Similarly for anxiety, 61% of women respondents reported experiencing levels of anxiety compared to 50% of their male counterparts. In terms of severity, 37% of women self-reported severe and extremely severe anxiety, compared to 24% of men.

For stress, 50% of women self-reported levels of stress compared to 34% of men. In terms of severity, 22% of women reported experiencing severe and extremely severe stress compared to 15% of men.

There were also gender differences in respondents’ self-assessment of their mental state this year vs. last year. As shown in Figure 8 below, 45% of women reported experiencing worse mental well-being compared to 39% of men. However, slightly more women, 17%, reported better mental well-being compared to men, at 13%.

Figure 8: Differences in Respondent Self-Perception of Mental Well-being Compared to Last Year, by Gender

Age

Younger age groups self-reported significantly higher levels of negative emotions compared to older age groups. As seen in Figure 9a, a whopping 70% to 72% respondents under the age of 35 reported signs of depression compared to 28% to 49% of those in age groups 35 years and above. In terms of severity, age groups under 35 years old reported two to three times more severe or extremely severe depression compared to those aged 35 years and above. The generational difference is quite stark; a worrying 40% of respondents in the 18-24 age group reported severe and extremely severe levels of depression compared to a much lower 9% amongst respondents aged 55 and above.

Figure 9a: Differences in Reported Depression Levels by Age Group

Figure 9b shows similar differences for anxiety, where 66% to 70% of respondents under 35 self-reported levels of anxiety compared to 34% to 48% of those in older age groups. In terms of severity, again, respondents under 35 reported an alarming 40% to 49% of severe or extremely severe anxiety, two to four times higher than those aged 35 and above. 

Figure 9b: Differences in Reported Anxiety Levels by Age Group

The pattern continues with regard to stress, with 56 to 61% of those under 35 self-reporting levels of stress, approximately two to three times the stress levels of older age groups. In terms of severity, again, respondents under 35 reported 25% to 31% of severe or extremely severe stress, compared to 8% to 13% amongst those aged 35 and above.

Figure 9c: Differences in Reported Stress Levels by Age Group

The age difference is also clearly seen in respondents’ self-assessment of their mental state this year vs. last year. 51% to 55% of respondents below 35 reported worse mental well-being compared to 22% to 37% of those aged 35 and above. Older age groups particularly those aged 45 years and above appear to be coping comparatively well, with 73% to 78% reporting no change or better mental well-being over the last year.

Figure 10: Differences in Respondent Self-Perception of Mental Well-being Compared to Last Year, by Age

Contributing Factors

We asked study respondents to name 3 major factors affecting their current mental state. Across all respondents, irrespective of how their mental well-being changed in the last year, one factor was selected much more than others: thoughts about the future (see Figure 11 below). In fact, uncertainty about the future appears to affect those who reported worse mental well-being more than those who reported no change or better mental well-being. 

Unsurprisingly, financial situation is another top 3 factor for respondents of all levels of well-being. Perhaps more interestingly, the country’s economic and political direction was selected as a top 3 factor by those who reported no change or worse mental well-being. Malaysia’s economic and political instability could be manifested in the country’s mental health levels, though further study would be needed in order to draw a clearer conclusion.

Figure 11: Top 3 Contributing Factors of Mental Well-being

Physical Health Changes During the COVID-19 Pandemic

In tandem with mental well-being, we also looked at how the physical well-being of Malaysians changed over the past year. 49% of the respondents stated that there has been no change, while 32% reported their physical well-being worsening over the past year. Only 19% reported their physical state improving.

Out of the 32% who self-reported their physical well-being worsening over the year, the most frequent choice selected as a top 3 contributing factor was the amount of unhealthy food and beverages consumed (65%). Other top 3 factors selected, in decreasing order, are the amount of cigarettes smoked (55%), the amount of sleep (54%), the frequency of physical exercise (52%) and the quality of sleep (51%).

Figure 12: Respondent Self-Perception of Physical Well-being Compared to Last Year

Figure 13 illustrates a positive relationship between respondents’ mental and physical well-being. Respondents who reported better mental well-being also reported better physical well-being (61%) and vice versa – many respondents who reported worsened mental well-being also reported worsened physical well-being (59%).

Figure 13: Relationship Pattern between Respondents’ Physical and Mental Well-being

To better understand the different ways in which the physical health of Malaysians has changed, we also asked respondents to state changes in key lifestyle behaviours. Sleep and frequency of physical activity appear to have worsened the most.

Figure 14: Changes in Health and Lifestyle Behaviours

Note: ‘Amount of cigarettes smoked’ were indicated only by respondents who reported as smokers. Self-reported smokers comprise only 13% of the total sample.

Lifestyle behaviours correlate closely with respondents’ DASS-21 scores. Taking quality of sleep as one example (Figure 15 below), we can see that depression, anxiety and stress scores are significantly higher in both occurrence and severity for respondents that report worse levels of sleep quality compared to respondents who report no change or better sleep quality. Similar patterns in DASS-21 scores are seen across all the lifestyle behaviours outlined above.

Figure 15: Relationship between Quality of Sleep and Mental Well-being

Policy Considerations

This study reveals the troubling though not unexpected finding that overall well-being has suffered over the last year of living with a global pandemic. Though not a strictly representative sample, our study does point to a high possibility that mental and physical states have worsened overall over the past year, with a concerning proportion of people reporting severe and extremely severe levels of depression, anxiety or stress. This impact is not equally felt: women and age groups under 35 in particular are disproportionately affected and need special support.

Uncertainty about the future appeared to be the top contributing factor to mental well-being, and although this may progressively improve for some in the course of this year, certain demographics may be facing much more uncertainty than others, such as those graduating from secondary school or university, or those whose jobs are being replaced by pandemic-driven digitalisation.

The connection between mental health and physical health is also clear, one that needs much more policy recognition and attention. The consistent patterns seen between DASS-21 scores with lifestyle behaviours is particularly noteworthy: negative trends in sleep, physical activity and food quality have a tremendous impact on respondents’ mental states (and perhaps also vice versa).

Currently, most of the conversation concerning the pandemic revolves around the just-launched vaccination program and restarting the economy. However, how do we respond and support those who have been, and may likely continue to be, badly affected both mentally and physically by the wider repercussions of the pandemic?

More targeted access to mental health support and facilities is important, especially for groups identified to be more vulnerable than others, i.e. younger age groups, and women. Grassroots movements to increase awareness and encourage help-seeking behaviours among these vulnerable groups should be encouraged and where needed, funded.

Outreach programmes should also encourage preventative health behaviours by making clear the link between mental and physical well-being. This could extend to educating communities on the importance of sleep, nutrition, and exercise, and ways to improve them. While all these initiatives take place, it is important to continue bridging available mental well-being support resources to those who feel overwhelmed by uncertainty about their futures.



In Part 2 of our study, we focus on the impact of living conditions and work-from-home arrangements during the pandemic, while Part 3 will present our findings on how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the financial and employment situations of many.

If you are experiencing emotional or mental health difficulties, get support and help on these hotlines: Mercy Malaysia and the Ministry of Health Crisis Preparedness and Response Centre’s psychosocial support hotline at 03-29359935. Ministry of Women and Family Development’s Talian Kasih hotline at 15999 or WhatsApp 019-2615999.

Covid-19 Clusters in Overcrowded Prisons and The Role of Malaysia’s Drug Laws

Out of the six Malaysian prisons hit by Covid-19 outbreaks by October last year, four were found to be operating at overcapacity. As of 3 November 2020, Malaysia’s prisons were reported to house over 40% more than their intended capacity of 46,420 individuals. The situation is particularly severe for some institutions such as the Alor Setar Prison, which was reported to be operating at twice its capacity. 

Covid-19 has laid bare the costly consequences of many long-standing issues, including the state of Malaysia’s prisons. The spread of Covid-19 within prisons, aptly described by Permatang Pauh MP Nurul Izzah as “ticking timebombs”, underscores the issue of overpopulation in prisons as well as the unsanitary and dilapidated conditions of these institutions.

*We previously wrote about the impact of overcrowded living spaces for migrant workers in Malaysia here.

In response to the prison-related Covid-19 clusters, on 15 December 2020 the Home Ministry announced that 10,000 inmates have been sent to rehabilitation centres while 11,000 undocumented migrants will be deported this year. Parliament has also taken notice. Late last year, a Joint Select Committee on the Reform of Prisons and Detention Centres, a joint effort between the Dewan Rakyat and the Dewan Negara, was formed specifically to tackle prison overcrowding. 

Prison overcrowding is undoubtedly a complex and multifaceted issue. The Parliamentary Joint Select Committee and the Home Ministry may be considering a range of solutions, including additional investment in infrastructure. However, before Malaysia considers adding to the current stock of prisons, we strongly propose that policymakers address one crucial and very relevant factor: the over-incarceration of minor drug offenders.

Filling up prisons with low-level drug offenders?

Public health experts have been sounding the alarm on the risks posed by COVID-19 and prison overcrowding. Sandra Chu, Director of Research and Advocacy at the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, noted that simple possession charges resulting in jail time would put such offenders in an even more dangerous situation during a pandemic. Dainius Pūras, a UN Special Rapporteur, went as far as to call for a moratorium on the enforcement of laws criminalising drug use and possession to reduce the risks involved.

In the case of Malaysia, the sheer numbers serve to support these concerns. The population of drug offenders in Malaysian prisons has long been significant – unsurprising given Malaysia’s very strict drug laws. An estimated two thirds of inmates in Malaysia’s prisons are convicted for drug-related offences.

Today, imprisoned drug offenders include everyone from traffickers, to individuals convicted for possession, to those who happened to test positive for drugs in a urine test. It does not take much to be sent to prison for drugs. Speaking to CodeBlue, consultant psychiatrist Dr Sivakumar Thurairajasingam said that public medical officers would immediately consider a suspected drug user to be ‘dependent’ on drugs if a test result comes back positive, even if it was the suspect’s first time trying narcotics. As for drug possession, small amounts of non-hardcore drugs such as marijuana could also land a person in prison.

Penalties for minor drug offences in Malaysia

Drug possession: Under the Dangerous Drugs Act, a person found with under 5 grams of poppy seeds or marijuana could face up to 5 years in jail or a maximum fine of RM20,000, or both.

Drug use: Two laws currently govern offences involving drug use, the Dangerous Drugs Act and the Drug Dependants (Treatment and Rehabilitation) Act. Under the Dangerous Drugs Act, drug users face a maximum fine of RM5,000 and a jail sentence of up to two years, while under the Drug Dependants (Treatment and Rehabilitation) Act, drug users are put through mandatory rehabilitation as well as supervision for a total of four years.

According to Section 38(B) of the Dangerous Drugs Act, a drug user would first have to serve the sentence under Section 15 of the same act, before undergoing supervision under the Drug Dependants (Treatment and Rehabilitation) Act.

The outbreak of Covid-19 in prisons appears to have forced corrective action on drug offender over-incarceration, by necessity. The Prison Department has outlined mitigation measures including transferring 2,800 minor drug offenders to temporary facilities, and requesting for others to be placed on the perimeter of prisons for them to be rehabilitated.

These are clearly temporary measures, and addressing prison overcrowding beyond Covid-19 will take more than ad hoc inmate transfers to makeshift facilities. A more sensible and long-term solution is needed for minor offenders, particularly minor drug offenders. It bears repeating that an estimated two-thirds of Malaysia’s current prison population is made up of drug offenders. If we assume conservatively that only half of that number is made up of minor drug offenders (the number is likely higher; as of 2017 56% of inmates were reportedly in jail for minor drug offences), removing that proportion would have significantly eased overcrowding in the four Covid-19 hit prisons as illustrated below:

Sources: Parliamentary reply by the Home Minister on 17 June 2019; statement by the Director General of the Prisons Department on 6 October 2020. Simple calculation by The Centre. Prison population figures as of June 2019.

Slow march to rehabilitation

The rationale and effectiveness of Malaysia’s drug laws have been increasingly questioned, particularly for minor drug offences. Even before Covid-19 there have been calls to review Malaysia’s drug laws and to take on a more cure-based approach to drug addiction. Prominent figures, including infectious disease specialist Prof Dato’ Dr Adeeba Kamarulzaman, Spiritually Enhanced Drug Addiction Rehabilitation (SEDAR) Program head Dr Rusdi bin Abdul Rashid, and Director of USM’s Centre for Drug Research Prof Dr Vicknasingam Kasinather have long been vocal advocates of medically treating and rehabilitating drug users in Malaysia.

Real policy and legislative reform work on the other hand has been taking some time. In 2017, then Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Azalina Othman first mooted a sentencing review for different levels and seriousness of drug possession and trafficking. In 2019, a special committee comprising the Health Ministry, the Youth and Sports Ministry as well as the National Anti-Drugs Agency (AADK) was set up and had reportedly agreed to work towards removing criminal penalties against minor drug offenders.

More recently, the Perikatan Nasional government is said to have deliberated a new law to replace the Drug Dependants (Treatment and Rehabilitation) Act later this year. The new law plans to place drug users in rehabilitation and treatment programs instead of prison. Nevertheless, drug use still falls under the purview of the Dangerous Drugs Act and until relevant provisions under this Act are amended, it remains to be seen whether the announced new law will be cohesive and effective.

In addition and very importantly, there is still the remaining issue of minor drug possession offences. Until this is addressed, disproportionate sentencing and overcrowded prisons may still be a likely state of affairs.

Drug Decriminalisation is the removal of criminal charges and penalties such as prison sentences for possessing and/or using small quantities of narcotics.

The concept has strong proponents as well as critics. Activists such as the Malaysian Drug Policy Reform Alliance advocate it, citing local studies that showed the comparative cost and effectiveness of prison vs. drug rehabilitation. Others such as the former IGP Tan Sri Dato’ Musa Hassan and criminal lawyer Datuk Rosal Azimin Ahmad have argued that the move would encourage drug use and further burden law enforcers.

Will COVID-19 change our approach?

The pandemic has served as a deadly reminder of issues long overdue. Drug law reform is necessary, not only because of prison overcrowding, but also for a simpler reason: effectiveness. Progressive drug policies have proven to lower the burden on criminal justice systems and decrease drug use, among other benefits. Portugal provides a clear example: after decriminalising drugs in 2001, the country reported significant reductions in overdoses, HIV infection, and drug-related crimes. Similar benefits are also seen in Switzerland; nearly three decades after decriminalising drugs, the country recorded an 80% drop in new heroin users.

A number of jurisdictions have begun moving towards more progressive drug policies. The US state of Oregon decriminalised all drugs late last year. Australia introduced a draft bill last December to decriminalise personal possession of drugs. Advocates have welcomed the bill, saying that drug users will gain better access to healthcare while alleviating the strain on Australia’s criminal justice system. 

As Malaysia battles Covid-19, a concrete plan to amend our punitive drug laws is more crucial than ever. A rehabilitative system would not only alleviate the vast population of drug offenders in prison right now, but also bring about a more effective approach to dealing with drug dependency.

Lesen P-Hailing: Adakah Malaysia Memerlukannya?

Jumlah kemalangan jalan raya dan salah laku lalu lintas yang melibatkaan penunggang penghantaran telah menarik perhatian agensi kerajaan dan juga orang ramai. Hal ini juga didorong oleh peningkatan perkhidmatan penghantaran pada masa Perintah Kawalan Pergerakan (“Movement Control Order” atau “MCO”) ini.

Hasilnya, pada bulan Ogos 2020, Kementerian Pengangkutan Malaysia telah mengumumkan rancangan untuk memperkenalkan lesen parcel-hailing ataupun p-hailing dengan tujuan untuk memastikan keselamatan jalan raya serta menyediakan suasana yang memudahkan perjalanan industri p-hailing.

Memandangkan kekerapan berlakunya kemalangan motosikal di Malaysia, persoalan yang ingin kami utarakan adalah: bagaimanakah pengenalan lesen baharu ini dapat menurunkan kadar kemalangan dan meningkatkan keselamatan jalan raya? Selain daripada pertimbangan berkaitan keselamatan jalan raya, apakah pertimbangan lain yang relevan? Akhir sekali, bagaimanakah lesen ini akan memberi kesan kepada mata pencarian penunggang p-hailing yang bilangannya semakin meningkat sejak kebelakangan ini?

Isu keselamatan jalan raya

Menurut Timbalan Menteri Pengangkutan Malaysia, 64% daripada kematian akibat kemalangan jalan raya pada tahun 2019 melibatkan penunggang motosikal. Kajian terbaharu oleh Institut Penyelidikan Keselamatan Jalan Raya Malaysia (MIROS) yang dilaksanakan pada 11 jalan utama di Kuala Lumpur mendapati bahawa penunggang p-hailing menyumbang kepada 64% (statistik serupa adalah secara kebetulan) daripada jumlah salah laku peraturan lalu lintas yang membabitkan penunggang motosikal. Penemuan ini menunjukkan bahawa terdapat kesan yang ketara daripada penunggang p-hailing terhadap keselamatan jalan raya.

Tetapi bagaimanakah lesen p-hailing mampu mengubah tingkah laku penunggang p-hailing di jalan raya? Kementerian Pengangkutan masih belum memberikan butiran lengkap, tetapi Timbalan Menteri Pengangkutan setakat ini telah menyatakan bahawa lesen p-hailing yang bakal diperkenalkan nanti akan memerlukan penunggang p-hailing untuk menjalani pemeriksaan kesihatan dan memiliki perlindungan insurans kemalangan diri. Jika kita menggunakan lesen e-hailing yang diperkenalkan pada tahun 2018 sebagai petunjuk, lesen p-hailing mungkin akan mensyaratkan bahawa penunggang p-hailing adalah warganegara Malaysia atau pemastautin tetap, berumur 21 tahun ke atas, mempunyai kelas lesen memandu motosikal yang sewajarnya dan tidak memiliki rekod jenayah. Penunggang p-hailing mungkin juga harus lulus pemeriksaan perubatan, pemeriksaan kenderaan dan ujian pelesenan.

Selain memastikan kebolehpakaian (“road-worthiness” ) kenderaan yang digunakan, adalah kurang jelas bagaimana ciri-ciri yang dinyatakan di atas akan dapat mengubah tingkah laku penunggang p-hailing dan menangani masalah keselamatan jalan raya. Ujian dan video kesedaran kesemuanya merupakan sesuatu usaha tersebut membawa kesan, maka kesemua penunggang motosikal sepatutnya perlu patuh kepada syarat keselamatan lesen p-hailing , demi untuk memastikan keselamatan jalan raya dan pengurangan kemalangan.

Sebarang peraturan seharusnya menangani punca asal atau faktor yang membentuk tingkah laku penunggang p-hailing. Salah satu sebab mungkin mengapa penunggang p-hailing memandu secara berbahaya adalah kerana struktur insentif pekerjaan gig – penghantaran lebih cepat bermaksud lebih banyak pesanan yang dapat dikendalikan dalam setiap jam bagi menghasilkan pendapatan yang lebih tinggi.

Sekiranya peningkatan keselamatan jalan raya di kalangan penunggang p-hailing merupakan objektif utama, maka adalah lebih berkesan sekiranya agensi kerajaan bersama platform gig bekerjasama untuk mengambil langkah bagi mengesan pemanduan berbahaya, misalnya melalui speedometer dalam aplikasi, serta memasukkan pematuhan peraturan lalu lintas ke dalam dasar ganjaran dan algoritma mereka. Selain itu, langkah keselamatan jalan raya yang lebih umum harus dilaksanakan ke atas kesemua pemandu di jalan raya, seperti meningkatkan bilangan kamera lalu lintas, penguatkuasaan sistem demerit, menyediakan lebih banyak lorong motosikal dan sebagainya.

Rasional di sebalik pelesenan

Lazimnya, lesen pekerjaan merupakan suatu kaedah kawal setia yang digunakan untuk melindungi pengguna daripada penyedia perkhidmatan yang tidak mahir atau tidak bertanggungjawab. Hal ini biasanya diwajibkan untuk pekerjaan yang berpotensi untuk menimbulkan risiko dan kos yang besar kepada pengguna seperti profesional kesihatan, arkitek, peguam dan sebagainya.

Dengan memperkenalkan lesen untuk profesion atau pekerjaan, pihak berkuasa dapat menetapkan syarat kemasukan dan piawaian industri serta melakukan tindakan disiplin dan tatatertib terhadap sebarang salah laku. Dalam hal ini, keputusan untuk mewajibkan lesen pemandu untuk e-hailing dan teksi adalah wajar, kerana mereka mempunyai tanggungjawab untuk menjaga keselamatan setiap penunggang yang menaiki kenderaan mereka.

Namun adakah penunggang p-hailing mempunyai tanggungjawab yang sama sepertimana pemandu e-hailing ataupun teksi? Penghantaran pesanan makanan yang salah sememangnya menjengkelkan, tetapi ia tidak mengancam keselamatan pengguna. Dalam kes kecurian baranga pula, struktur insentif yang sedia ada dijangka akan dapat menangani masalah tersebut dalam masa yang singkat. Persoalannya sekarang, bagaimanakah pelesenan p-hailing terhadap penunggang penghantaran akan dapat melindungi pengguna?

Impak dasar yang tidak dijangka

Lantaran daripada itu, pergunaan lesen p-hailing untuk penunggang penghantaran dapat membawa kepada keadaan kawal selia yang berlebihan. Terdapat juga kemungkinan hal ini akan mengakibatkan kesan yang tidak diingini.

Pertama sekali, jika lesen p-hailing mempunyai syarat usia yang sama dengan lesen e-hailing, perkara ini akan menghalang mereka yang berumur di bawah 21 tahun daripada terbabit dalam bidang penghantaran bungkusan. Sumber kami dari industri menunjukkan bahawa sebilangan besar daripada penunggang penghantaran bungkusan, iaitu sekitar 40% – 60% dari jumlah tenaga kerja keseluruhan, tidak akan layak bekerja jika syarat umur sebegini dilaksanakan. Memandang demografi kumpulan ini – yang mana rata-ratanya tidak mempunyai kelayakan pengajian tinggi, dan berasal dari isi rumah yang berpendapatan rendah – maka ramai di kalangan mereka yang pasti terkesan.

Kedua, apakah kesan lesen p-hailing ini kepada para freelancer yang tidak terikat dengan sebarang platform gig? Sebilangan besar penunggang p-hailing yang bekerja dengan platform gig akan didorong untuk mematuhi peraturan p-hailing kerana platform gig akan memastikan kepatuhan yang sewajarnya. Manakala, penunggang penghantaran yang tidak bekerja dengan platform gig akan terpaksa menanggung beban pematuhan lesen p-hailing secara sendirian, ataupun mungkin sekali, memilih untuk tidak mendapatkan lesen, dan sekaligus beroperasi secara haram.

Tambahan pula, bagi penunggang penghantaran yang tidak bergantung kepada sebarang platform gig, mereka selalunya bekerja dengan syarikat yang kecil dan sederhana. Dengan adanya pelesenan, syarikat-syarikat tersebut mungkin terpaksa untuk menggunakan platform gig untuk keperluaan penghantaran mereka, lantas mengurangkan nisbah keuntungan mereka, mungkin sehingga tahap antara 25% hingga 30%. Bagi syarikat kecil dan sederhana, perbezaan keuntungan sebegini mampu memaksa mereka untuk menggulungkan tikar perniagaan mereka.

Ketiga dan yang terakhir, pengenalan lesen p-hailing juga boleh memberi kesan kepada mereka yang menginginkan pendapatan sampingan melalui pekerjaan gig. Kajian gig, termasuklah penunggang penghantaran, ingin melakukan pekerjaan gig hanya secara sambilan dalam jangkamasa terdekat. Hasil pengalaman dari pelaksanaan lesen e-hailing, kami percaya bahawa pengenalan skim pelesenan p-hailing boleh membantutkan peluang pekerjaan bagi pekerja sambilan akibat daripada halangan tambahan seperti yuran lesen, bahasa yang digunakan dalam pemeriksaan, dan sebagainya.

Kesimpulan

Pertumbuhan pesat mana-mana kelas atau industri pekerjaan harus disertai dengan peraturan dan penguatkuasaan untuk pengurangkan risiko atau kos berkaitan dengan perkhidmatan tersebut kepada pihak awam. Namun begitu, harus diingatkan bahawa sebarang penyelesaian bagi pekerjaan gig tidak semestinya boleh digunakan secara pukul rata. Pengenalan sesuatu kerangka peraturan yang dihasratkan bagi menangani risiko yang dihadapi oleh satu pekerjaan gig, tidak semestinya boleh diguna pakai bagi pekerjaan gig yang lain. Keperluan pelesenan dan peraturan haruslah disesuaikan kepada risiko yang khusus bagi sesuatu pekerjaan dan perkhidmatan gi yang tertentu, bagi mengelakkan kesan yang tidak diingini kepada pekerja, pengguna, dan industri secara umumnya.

Emel pandangan atau cadangan anda ke editorial@centre.my

Lesen P-Hailing: Adakah Malaysia Memerlukannya?

Jumlah kemalangan jalan raya dan salah laku lalu lintas yang melibatkaan penunggang penghantaran telah menarik perhatian agensi kerajaan dan juga orang ramai. Hal ini juga didorong oleh peningkatan perkhidmatan penghantaran pada masa Perintah Kawalan Pergerakan (“Movement Control Order” atau “MCO”) ini.

Hasilnya, pada bulan Ogos 2020, Kementerian Pengangkutan Malaysia telah mengumumkan rancangan untuk memperkenalkan lesen parcel-hailing ataupun p-hailing dengan tujuan untuk memastikan keselamatan jalan raya serta menyediakan suasana yang memudahkan perjalanan industri p-hailing.

Memandangkan kekerapan berlakunya kemalangan motosikal di Malaysia, persoalan yang ingin kami utarakan adalah: bagaimanakah pengenalan lesen baharu ini dapat menurunkan kadar kemalangan dan meningkatkan keselamatan jalan raya? Selain daripada pertimbangan berkaitan keselamatan jalan raya, apakah pertimbangan lain yang relevan? Akhir sekali, bagaimanakah lesen ini akan memberi kesan kepada mata pencarian penunggang p-hailing yang bilangannya semakin meningkat sejak kebelakangan ini?

Isu keselamatan jalan raya

Menurut Timbalan Menteri Pengangkutan Malaysia, 64% daripada kematian akibat kemalangan jalan raya pada tahun 2019 melibatkan penunggang motosikal. Kajian terbaharu oleh Institut Penyelidikan Keselamatan Jalan Raya Malaysia (MIROS) yang dilaksanakan pada 11 jalan utama di Kuala Lumpur mendapati bahawa penunggang p-hailing menyumbang kepada 64% (statistik serupa adalah secara kebetulan) daripada jumlah salah laku peraturan lalu lintas yang membabitkan penunggang motosikal. Penemuan ini menunjukkan bahawa terdapat kesan yang ketara daripada penunggang p-hailing terhadap keselamatan jalan raya.

Tetapi bagaimanakah lesen p-hailing mampu mengubah tingkah laku penunggang p-hailing di jalan raya? Kementerian Pengangkutan masih belum memberikan butiran lengkap, tetapi Timbalan Menteri Pengangkutan setakat ini telah menyatakan bahawa lesen p-hailing yang bakal diperkenalkan nanti akan memerlukan penunggang p-hailing untuk menjalani pemeriksaan kesihatan dan memiliki perlindungan insurans kemalangan diri. Jika kita menggunakan lesen e-hailing yang diperkenalkan pada tahun 2018 sebagai petunjuk, lesen p-hailing mungkin akan mensyaratkan bahawa penunggang p-hailing adalah warganegara Malaysia atau pemastautin tetap, berumur 21 tahun ke atas, mempunyai kelas lesen memandu motosikal yang sewajarnya dan tidak memiliki rekod jenayah. Penunggang p-hailing mungkin juga harus lulus pemeriksaan perubatan, pemeriksaan kenderaan dan ujian pelesenan.

Selain memastikan kebolehpakaian (“road-worthiness” ) kenderaan yang digunakan, adalah kurang jelas bagaimana ciri-ciri yang dinyatakan di atas akan dapat mengubah tingkah laku penunggang p-hailing dan menangani masalah keselamatan jalan raya. Ujian dan video kesedaran kesemuanya merupakan sesuatu usaha tersebut membawa kesan, maka kesemua penunggang motosikal sepatutnya perlu patuh kepada syarat keselamatan lesen p-hailing , demi untuk memastikan keselamatan jalan raya dan pengurangan kemalangan.

Sebarang peraturan seharusnya menangani punca asal atau faktor yang membentuk tingkah laku penunggang p-hailing. Salah satu sebab mungkin mengapa penunggang p-hailing memandu secara berbahaya adalah kerana struktur insentif pekerjaan gig – penghantaran lebih cepat bermaksud lebih banyak pesanan yang dapat dikendalikan dalam setiap jam bagi menghasilkan pendapatan yang lebih tinggi.

Sekiranya peningkatan keselamatan jalan raya di kalangan penunggang p-hailing merupakan objektif utama, maka adalah lebih berkesan sekiranya agensi kerajaan bersama platform gig bekerjasama untuk mengambil langkah bagi mengesan pemanduan berbahaya, misalnya melalui speedometer dalam aplikasi, serta memasukkan pematuhan peraturan lalu lintas ke dalam dasar ganjaran dan algoritma mereka. Selain itu, langkah keselamatan jalan raya yang lebih umum harus dilaksanakan ke atas kesemua pemandu di jalan raya, seperti meningkatkan bilangan kamera lalu lintas, penguatkuasaan sistem demerit, menyediakan lebih banyak lorong motosikal dan sebagainya.

Rasional di sebalik pelesenan

Lazimnya, lesen pekerjaan merupakan suatu kaedah kawal setia yang digunakan untuk melindungi pengguna daripada penyedia perkhidmatan yang tidak mahir atau tidak bertanggungjawab. Hal ini biasanya diwajibkan untuk pekerjaan yang berpotensi untuk menimbulkan risiko dan kos yang besar kepada pengguna seperti profesional kesihatan, arkitek, peguam dan sebagainya.

Dengan memperkenalkan lesen untuk profesion atau pekerjaan, pihak berkuasa dapat menetapkan syarat kemasukan dan piawaian industri serta melakukan tindakan disiplin dan tatatertib terhadap sebarang salah laku. Dalam hal ini, keputusan untuk mewajibkan lesen pemandu untuk e-hailing dan teksi adalah wajar, kerana mereka mempunyai tanggungjawab untuk menjaga keselamatan setiap penunggang yang menaiki kenderaan mereka.

Namun adakah penunggang p-hailing mempunyai tanggungjawab yang sama sepertimana pemandu e-hailing ataupun teksi? Penghantaran pesanan makanan yang salah sememangnya menjengkelkan, tetapi ia tidak mengancam keselamatan pengguna. Dalam kes kecurian baranga pula, struktur insentif yang sedia ada dijangka akan dapat menangani masalah tersebut dalam masa yang singkat. Persoalannya sekarang, bagaimanakah pelesenan p-hailing terhadap penunggang penghantaran akan dapat melindungi pengguna?

Impak dasar yang tidak dijangka

Lantaran daripada itu, pergunaan lesen p-hailing untuk penunggang penghantaran dapat membawa kepada keadaan kawal selia yang berlebihan. Terdapat juga kemungkinan hal ini akan mengakibatkan kesan yang tidak diingini.

Pertama sekali, jika lesen p-hailing mempunyai syarat usia yang sama dengan lesen e-hailing, perkara ini akan menghalang mereka yang berumur di bawah 21 tahun daripada terbabit dalam bidang penghantaran bungkusan. Sumber kami dari industri menunjukkan bahawa sebilangan besar daripada penunggang penghantaran bungkusan, iaitu sekitar 40% – 60% dari jumlah tenaga kerja keseluruhan, tidak akan layak bekerja jika syarat umur sebegini dilaksanakan. Memandang demografi kumpulan ini – yang mana rata-ratanya tidak mempunyai kelayakan pengajian tinggi, dan berasal dari isi rumah yang berpendapatan rendah – maka ramai di kalangan mereka yang pasti terkesan.

Kedua, apakah kesan lesen p-hailing ini kepada para freelancer yang tidak terikat dengan sebarang platform gig? Sebilangan besar penunggang p-hailing yang bekerja dengan platform gig akan didorong untuk mematuhi peraturan p-hailing kerana platform gig akan memastikan kepatuhan yang sewajarnya. Manakala, penunggang penghantaran yang tidak bekerja dengan platform gig akan terpaksa menanggung beban pematuhan lesen p-hailing secara sendirian, ataupun mungkin sekali, memilih untuk tidak mendapatkan lesen, dan sekaligus beroperasi secara haram.

Tambahan pula, bagi penunggang penghantaran yang tidak bergantung kepada sebarang platform gig, mereka selalunya bekerja dengan syarikat yang kecil dan sederhana. Dengan adanya pelesenan, syarikat-syarikat tersebut mungkin terpaksa untuk menggunakan platform gig untuk keperluaan penghantaran mereka, lantas mengurangkan nisbah keuntungan mereka, mungkin sehingga tahap antara 25% hingga 30%. Bagi syarikat kecil dan sederhana, perbezaan keuntungan sebegini mampu memaksa mereka untuk menggulungkan tikar perniagaan mereka.

Ketiga dan yang terakhir, pengenalan lesen p-hailing juga boleh memberi kesan kepada mereka yang menginginkan pendapatan sampingan melalui pekerjaan gig. Kajian gig, termasuklah penunggang penghantaran, ingin melakukan pekerjaan gig hanya secara sambilan dalam jangkamasa terdekat. Hasil pengalaman dari pelaksanaan lesen e-hailing, kami percaya bahawa pengenalan skim pelesenan p-hailing boleh membantutkan peluang pekerjaan bagi pekerja sambilan akibat daripada halangan tambahan seperti yuran lesen, bahasa yang digunakan dalam pemeriksaan, dan sebagainya.

Kesimpulan

Pertumbuhan pesat mana-mana kelas atau industri pekerjaan harus disertai dengan peraturan dan penguatkuasaan untuk pengurangkan risiko atau kos berkaitan dengan perkhidmatan tersebut kepada pihak awam. Namun begitu, harus diingatkan bahawa sebarang penyelesaian bagi pekerjaan gig tidak semestinya boleh digunakan secara pukul rata. Pengenalan sesuatu kerangka peraturan yang dihasratkan bagi menangani risiko yang dihadapi oleh satu pekerjaan gig, tidak semestinya boleh diguna pakai bagi pekerjaan gig yang lain. Keperluan pelesenan dan peraturan haruslah disesuaikan kepada risiko yang khusus bagi sesuatu pekerjaan dan perkhidmatan gi yang tertentu, bagi mengelakkan kesan yang tidak diingini kepada pekerja, pengguna, dan industri secara umumnya.

Emel pandangan atau cadangan anda ke editorial@centre.my

The Capitol Hill Riot And Its Lessons On Hate Speech

At the time of this writing, Joe Biden will be sworn in as the 46th President of the United States, replacing Donald Trump in the White House after four tumultuous years. But this Inauguration will be like no other. Washington DC is not only on lockdown; the city also has scores of National Guard troops patrolling its streets. Senior officials have pleaded with the public not to attend the ceremony in person in fear of possible security threats.

The immense security surrounding Inauguration Day is a result of the Capitol Hill insurrection just two weeks ago, which claimed five deaths and is widely seen as incited by Trump himself through his social media postings. The outgoing president has since been permanently suspended from the social media platform Twitter to prevent further incitement. Other social media companies have followed suit with varying intensities of action; Facebook has blocked Trump on all its platforms at least until the end of his term, Snapchat has suspended his account indefinitely, while Reddit has banned the ‘r/DonaldTrump’ subreddit group. 

These decisions by the social media giants are arguably too late, coming after years of inaction and under-reaction. It took the recent insurrection in Washington for Twitter, for example, to publish a statement with unprecedented detail of its decision-making process on regulating speech that could incite violence. 

Social media platforms are facing a reckoning, a far cry from the days when Twitter called itself “the free speech wing of the free speech party”. By and large, social media users agree with constraining hateful speech online; Malaysians at least agree that there should be limits and consequences to hate speech as we found in our recent study.

In light of this reckoning, what is needed is a clearly defined framework to manage different levels of hate speech seriousness, before it’s too late. The Capitol Hill insurrection is a case in point: although Trump’s final tweets were the ones that ultimately got him kicked off Twitter, there have been no shortage of similarly inciting tweets from him over the past few years that should have warranted suspension.

Our study in Malaysia, completed late last year, proposed categorising hate speech into increasing levels of seriousness to enable proportionate and effective responses toward different types of hate speech. It is also crucial to localise the scope of what constitutes hate speech, something that needs greater investment by social media platforms and regulators alike.

There is also the question of legislating liability. In 2019, the UK House of Commons debated the idea of conferring legal liability on tech companies for harmful content posted online. This was eventually proposed as legislation late last year. If passed, social media companies would be liable to fines of up to 10% of turnover in the UK if they fail to remove or limit harmful content on their platforms.

Whether management of online speech undergoes a significant change remains to be seen. Tech giants have long grappled with handling hateful speech, misinformation, and demagoguery in other diverse societies, in the US and around the world such as in India and Brazil. Should we continue to muddle along in Malaysia? Examples of hateful speech abounds online (especially against groups of people blamed for spreading Covid-19) in spite of current guidelines on social media companies.

The Capitol Hill riot serves as a potent reminder to governments and social media platforms of their role in stemming hateful content. We may not expect an event as violent and shocking as the Capitol Hill riot to happen here in Malaysia, but the same underlying forces are present within our society. A more transparent and consistent approach from social media platforms as well as regulators against online hate speech is crucial. It should not take a deadly event to precipitate this work.

Bukan Semua Pekerja Gig Sama

Pekerjaan gig menjadi semakin popular dan bertambah penting di Malaysia semenjak wabak COVID-19 melanda negara. Sejak penguatkuasaan Perintah Kawalan Pergerakan (PKP) pertama pada bulan Mac tahun 2020, platform gig seperti Grab dan Foodpanda telah mengalami peningkatan permintaan perkhidmatan penghantaran dan juga permohonan untuk menjadi penghantar. Hal ini menarik perhatian penyelidik dan penggubal dasar serta pihak media yang tertumpu kepada isu kesejahteraan dan kebajikan pekerja gig.

Namun begitu, satu perkara yang ketara dalam penulisan dan perbincangan isu ini ialah dari segi penggunaan istilah. Frasa ‘pekerja gig’ digunakan untuk merujuk kepada berbagai jenis pekerjaan gig, seolah-olah semua pekerja gig adalah sama. Realitinya, banyak perbezaan antara seorang penghantar makanan dan seorang yang bekerja sendiri ala ‘freelancer’. Sekiranya istilah ini tidak diperincikan, ia bakal menimbulkan masalah dalam usaha menggubal dasar yang berkesan.

Mentafsirkan istilah “pekerja gig”

Konsep pekerjaan gig bukannya suatu perkara yang baharu. Sebelum ini, pekerja kontrak biasanya dikenali sebagai kontraktor bebas dan ‘freelancer’ yang mengambil projek ataupun ‘gigs’ di mana mereka tidak terikat dengan kontrak kerja, sama ada secara sambilan atau sepenuh masa. Istilah ‘pekerja gig’ mulai popular di Malaysia pada awal tahun 2010 ketika platform perkongsian perjalanan (ride-sharing) Uber dan Grab memasuki pasaran.

Walau bagaimanapun, istilah ‘pekerja gig’ seperti yang digunakan sekarang meliputi pelbagai jenis pekerjaan dan kemahiran serta keterampilan, dari penghantar makanan hingga pereka grafik bebas. Laporan Prospek Ekonomi 2021 mendefinisikan ‘pekerja gig’ sebagai seseorang yang melakukan pekerjaan sementara melalui kontrak jangka pendek. Jabatan Perangkaan Malaysia (DOSM) pula mengkategorikan kesemua ‘pekerja gig’ sebagai kontraktor bebas atau pekerja sendiri – iaitu skop pekerja yang agak luas.

Pekerja gig memang boleh dibezakan dari segi segi sifat pekerjaan, tahap kemahiran, profil demografi dan sebagainya. Namun begitu, satu aspek pembezaan yang, pada pendapat kami, boleh membantu penggubalan dasar yang lebih jelas, ialah dari segi hubungan kuasa (power relationships) antara pekerja dan platform gig.

Bagi pekerja gig yang boleh dianggap sebagai ‘berkolar putih’ dan bekerja sebagai pereka grafik, penulis iklan, penulis sambilan, pengaturcara dan sebagainya, platform gig seperti Upwork dan TaskRabbit berfungsi sebagai pasaran atau pengantara. Di situ, mereka akan memaparkan perkhidmatan, porfolio dan harga perkhidmatan mereka. Walaupun masih terbatas dengan hukum penawaran dan permintaan yang biasa, secara relatif, pekerja ini boleh memilih dan mengawal jumlah dan bentuk pekerjaan yang mereka terima dan serta harga tawaran. Platform gig tersebut akan mengambil komisen tetapi tidak menentukan atau menawarkan pekerjaan kepada pekerja tersebut secara langsung.

Sebaliknya, mereka yang melakukan pekerjaan gig seperti ‘e-hailing’, penghantar makanan dan sebagainya mempunyai hubungan yang sangat berbeza dengan platform gig mereka. Tawaran tugas atau gig ditentukan menggunakan algoritma proprietari khas berdasarkan radius lokasi pekerja serta faktor-faktor lain. Caj untuk setiap tugas ditentukan oleh platform gig tersebut. Walaupun pekerja ‘bebas’ menerima atau menolak pekerjaan yang ditawarkan, kebanyakkan platform gig akan mengenakan ‘denda’ untuk pekerja gig yang mempunyai kadar penerimaan pekerjaan yang rendah.

Laporan dari Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose di University College London (UCL) ) Julai lalu telah mengutarakan cadangan untuk membezakan pekerja gig berdasarkan tahap kawalan majikan atau platform berbanding dengan kebergantungan pekerja terhadapnya. Pekerja yang tidak bergantung secara khusus pada satu platform gig untuk menetapkan pekerjaan mereka, boleh dikategorikan sebagai ‘kontraktor bebas’ (Rajah 1).

Sebaliknya, pekerja yang bergantung pada platform gig untuk menerima pekerjaan atau mempunyai aspek pekerjaan mereka yang ditetapkan oleh platform gig lebih sesuai dikategorikan sebagai ‘kontraktor bergantung’ (Rajah 1).


Rajah 1: Kerangka Kebergantungan dan Kawalan

Sumber: UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose.

Mereka yang dikategorikan sebagai ‘kontraktor bebas’ atau ‘kontraktor bergantung’ memerlukan jaringan keselamatan sosial dan pelindungan pekerja yang berbeza.

Risiko pengunaan istilah yang terlalu luas dalam penggubalan dasar

Memandangkan wujudnya kepelbagaian dari segi jenis pekerja dan hubungan dengan dalam platform gig, menggunakan istilah ‘pekerja gig’ untuk menggambarkan kesemua pekerja dengan kontrak pendek membawa risiko apabila menggubal dasar. Salah satu contoh ialah penguatkuasaan Assembly Bill No. 5 (AB5) di California pada akhir 2019, yang mengkategorikan semula pekerja gig (termasuk pekerja bebas) sebagai pekerja sepenuh masa.

Pelaksanaan AB5 membawa kesan yang tidak diingini apabila ia telah menyebabkan kebanyakan pekerja kontrak kehilangan pekerjaan mereka. Ramai pekerja bebas ditamatkan kontrak mereka, sama ada kerana tidak boleh menjamin komitmen terhadap struktur tugas baru, atau kerana syarikat di mana mereka menawarkan perhidmatan tidak boleh menanggung kos tambahan seperti kos insurans kesihatan. Definisi pekerjaan dalam AB5 yang terlalu ketat juga mengehadkan kegiatan komuniti seni yang sebenarnya mahukan lebih banyak fleksibiliti dalam menjalankan tugas mereka.

Setahun selepas penguatkuasaan AB5, Uber, Lyft, Doordash dan syarikat platform gig lain mengemukakan California Proposition 22 (Prop 22), iaitu rang undang-undang bukan kerajaan yang bertujuan meminda AB5 dan menentukan semula status pekerjaan pekerja gig/pekerja bebas. Lebih separuh dari mereka yang mengundi (58%) memilih untuk mentakrifkan semula pekerja gig. Mereka yang merupakan pemandu e-hailing dan penghantar makanan ditakrifkan sebagai kontraktor yang layak mendapat jaminan pendapatan minimum sekurang-kurangnya 120% dari gaji minimum sejam setiap negeri serta  bantuan kesihatan.

Perbahasan dan pertukaran perundangan dari AB5 ke Prop 22 perlu dijadikan peringatan kepada penggubal dasar supaya lebih teliti dengan penggunaan terminologi ‘pekerja gig’. Sokongan dan bantuan yang diperlukan oleh ‘kontraktor bebas’ tidak sama dengan pekerja gig yang lebih bergantung kepada platform gig seperti pengendali penghantaran. ‘Kontraktor bebas’ mungkin memerlukan lebih banyak sokongan dari segi penyediaan kontrak perkhidmatan yang sesuai dan perlindungan dari pelanggan yang tidak bertanggungjawab. ‘Kontraktor bergantung’ lebih banyak memerlukan bantuan seperti liputan jaringan keselamatan sosial yang lebih luas, dan perlindungan dari algoritma platform yang mungkin membebankan mereka.

<h2Penggunaan istilah yang lebih baik

Laporan Prospek Ekonomi Malaysia 2021 telah menyatakan ekonomi gig sebagai suatu sektor pertumbuhan baru. (Laporan itu juga memetik kajian kami mengenai pekerja gig, di mana kami dapati ia menjadi sumber pendapatan yang penting tetapi pada masa yang sama, pekerja gig tidak mempunyai perlindungan sosial yang mencukupi*). Bagi meneliti isu ini, kerajaan telah menubuhkan sebuah jawatankuasa yang terdiri daripada perwakilan dari Kementerian Sumber Manusia, Kementerian Belia dan Sukan, dan Kementerian Perdagangan Dalam Negeri dan Hal Ehwal Pengguna untuk mengkaji perundangan untuk melindungi pekerja gig.

*Ketika artikel ini ditulis, pekerja gig hanya layak mendapat perlindungan yang dilanggan secara sukarela, seperti Skim Kecederaan Pekerjaa Sendiri (SEEIS) dan i-Saraan.

Walaupun negara-negara di seluruh dunia, termasuk Malaysia, terus mengkaji undang-undang berkaitan pekerja gig, satu perkara yang jelas ialah mereka tidak semuanya sama. Berdasarkan hubungan pekerja gig dengan platform gig, jenis kerja gig itu sendiri dan serta tahap kemahiran yang sedia ada, mereka terdedah kepada risiko yang berbeza.

Oleh yang demikian, kerajaan perlu menyediakan terminologi yang khusus untuk setiap segmen pekerja agar untuk dasar dan undang-undang yang sesuai dan berkesan dapat dirumuskan – pembezaan yang diutarakan dalam kajian oleh Institut Maklumat dan Analisis Pasaran Buruh (ILMIA)  boleh dijadikan titik permulaan yang baik dan boleh digunapakai apabila menggubal dasar pada masa hadapan. 

Crowd work adalah pekerjaan berdasarkan permintaan berasaskan laman web, di mana tugas tersebut boleh dilakukan melalui komputer dari mana-mana. Sebagai contoh, menulis iklan, kerja terjemahan dan coding.

Gig work adalah pekerjaan berdasarkan lokasi yang bergantung kepada platform, di mana individu terpilih dihubungkan dengan tugas oleh platform atau aplikasi berdasarkan permintaan, dan pekerjaan diselesaikan di luar talian. Sebagai contoh, e-hailing, penghantaran makanan dan perkhidmatan rumah tangga.

Sumber: Gani, H. (2020). The gig economy: Platformisation and fragmentation of work. Institute of Labour Market Information and Analysis (ILMIA).

Di tengah-tengah perbincangan dasar mengenai peraturan pekerja gig adalah masalah mengklasifikasikan pekerja dengan keperluan dan cabaran yang berbeza. Bagaimana penggubal undang-undang menentukan dan memahami sifat segmen pekerja yang berbeza akan menentukan sama ada dasar atau perundangan masa depan benar-benar memenuhi keperluan mereka.

Emel pandangan atau cadangan anda ke editorial@centre.my

The P-Hailing License: A Case Of Over-Regulation?

The number of road accidents and traffic violations involving delivery riders has become a matter of some concern amongst government agencies and the public, fueled by the growth of delivery services in these MCO times.

Perhaps in response, in August 2020 the Ministry of Transport (MOT) announced plans to introduce a parcel-hailing or p-hailing license, with the stated aims of ensuring road safety as well as providing a conducive environment for the p-hailing industry.

Given the prevalence of motorcycle accidents in Malaysia, we ask: how would the introduction of this new license drive down the accident rate and improve road safety? And apart from road safety considerations, what are sufficient conditions to introduce an occupational or service provision license? Finally, how might such licenses affect the burgeoning pool of delivery riders trying to make a living today?

The road safety issue

According to Malaysia’s Deputy Transport Minister, 64% of road accident fatalities in 2019 involved motorcyclists. A more recent and targeted traffic monitoring study of 11 main roads in Kuala Lumpur by MIROS discovered that p-hailing riders comprised about 64% (similar statistics coincidental) of motorcyclist traffic violations. These figures provide evidence, to some extent, of the impact of p-hailing riders on road safety.

But how might a p-hailing license change p-hailing rider behaviour on the roads? The MOT has yet to release full details, but the Deputy Transport Minister has so far disclosed that the impending p-hailing license would require parcel delivery riders to pass a health screening and possess personal accident insurance coverage. If the e-hailing license introduced in 2018 is any indication, the p-hailing license may also require delivery riders to be a Malaysian citizen or permanent resident, be 21 years old and above, have the right class of motorbike driving licence and not have a criminal record. The delivery rider may also have to pass a medical check, vehicle inspection and licensing exam.

Apart from ensuring vehicle road-worthiness, it is unclear how the above conditions, if implemented, would change delivery riders’ road behaviour and address road safety concerns. Exams and awareness videos are all well and good, but there is little to suggest that these are effective means of improving compliance to traffic rules. If that were the case, then all motorcyclists, whether p-hailing riders or no, should be subject to the safety requirements of a p-hailing license in the name of road safety and accident reduction.

Regulations should address the root causes or factors that shape the road behaviours of p-hailing riders. One of the reasons that delivery riders engage in dangerous driving behaviours is the inherent incentive structure of gig work – faster deliveries mean more gigs per hour of work, which means more income. Positive customer ratings as well as the gig platform’s reward algorithm for completed gigs also incentivise the delivery rider to take more chances on the road.

If improving road safety amongst delivery riders is the core objective, it would be better served by corralling major gig platforms into devising measures to detect dangerous driving, such as in-app speedometers, and to integrate traffic rule compliance into their reward policies and algorithms. Apart from these are the more general road safety measures which should apply to all motorists such as increasing traffic cameras, enforcement of the demerits system, more motorcycle lanes, among others.

The license rationale issue

Conventionally, an occupational license is a regulatory tool used to protect consumers from incompetent or unscrupulous service providers. These are typically imposed on occupations that can present significant risk and cost to the consumers such as health professionals, architects, lawyers and so on.

By introducing a license to a profession or occupation, government authorities may set entrance requirements and industry standards as well as undertake disciplinary actions against any occupational malpractice. In this regard, it makes sense to license e-hailing and taxi drivers, all of whom have the consumer’s safety in their hands every time a passenger steps into their vehicle.

However, do p-hailing delivery riders have consumer safety repercussions as per e-hailing drivers? Food order mix-ups are certainly aggravating, but the parcel delivery service for a consumer is hardly life-threatening. Even against cases of outright parcel theft, the incentive structure in-built into gig platforms would quickly weed out such occurrences amongst delivery riders. The question remains then, in what way would a p-hailing license on delivery riders protect the consumers?

Potential unintended consequences

In view of the above arguments, introducing a p-hailing license on delivery riders (as opposed to a service provision license on gig platforms) could be a case of over-regulation. There is also the issue of unintended consequences.

Firstly, if the p-hailing license carries the same age requirement as the e-hailing license, this would prohibit those below 21 years old from performing parcel delivery gigs. Our industry sources indicate that a sizable proportion of gig delivery riders, around 40-60% of the total force, would not make this age cut. Given the typical demographics of this group – no tertiary qualifications, low-income households – that’s a sobering thought.

Secondly, what would a p-hailing license mean for freelancers unattached to any gig platform? The majority of delivery riders who work with gig platforms would most likely comply with p-hailing regulations as most gig platforms would want to ensure and support compliance. Non-platform delivery riders will likely have to shoulder the burden of licensing on their own, or perhaps more likely, choose to become unlicensed and thus ‘illegal’.

Furthermore, these non-platform delivery riders typically serve very small businesses. As a result of licensing, these small businesses may be forced to use gig platforms for their delivery needs, reducing their business margins further, perhaps up to 25-30% of their revenue. For a small business, it could mean the difference between staying open or closing shop.

Thirdly and finally, the introduction of a p-hailing license could also affect those of age who look to delivery gigs as a source of side income. Our gig worker study last year highlighted the significant proportion of gig workers, including delivery riders, who want to perform gigs on a part-time basis for the foreseeable future. Judging from the experience of the e-hailing license, introducing p-hailing licensing could shut the door on part-timers due to the added barriers of entry in the licensing fee, the language of examination, amongst others.

Conclusion

The rapid growth of any occupational class or industry should be accompanied by regulations and enforcement to mitigate any risks or public costs associated with the emerging services. However, there is no one size fits all solution to the booming gig industry, which includes parcel delivery. Imposing a regulatory framework meant to address risks in one type of gig occupation may not necessarily work for another. It is crucial to tailor licensing requirements and other regulations to the specific risks presented by the occupation or service, else it may produce costly unintended outcomes to the worker, the consumer, and the industry.

Email us your views or suggestions at editorial@centre.my