High Court in landmark ruling deprives Malaysian's basic human rights
Malaysians don't have control over their own bodies
In a landmark ruling depriving a group of UM teachers and staff seeking a judicial review on Malaysia’s vaccine mandates for civil servants, the high Court has set the precedent that Malaysians who working within the civil service don’t have the right to make health decisions over their own bodies.
High Court judge Dr Shahnaz Sulaiman said the court disagreed with the applicants' contention that mandatory vaccination had violated their rights under the Federal Constitution.
This decision has drastically enhanced the government’s power over Malaysian’s right to have the final say concerning their own bodies. This is a grave retrograde step in human rights and civil liberties in Malaysia.
The High Court’s decision also goes against the Nuremberg Code , where medical experimentation on humans is only justified if the results benefit society, and has individual consent. Section One of the Nuremberg Code states;
The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion, and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.
The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
The vaccine was approved as an experimental drug for emergency use. Recipients of the Covid-19 vaccine were not in a situation to give informed consent, as many of the risks associated with the product were hidden from the public by the MOH.
This High Court decision moves Malaysia closer to becoming a totalitarian state.
High Court dismisses UM staff, teachers bid against Covid-19 vaccination
By Dawn Chan - NST December 14, 2023 @ 11:59am
SHAH ALAM: The High Court here has dismissed applications for leave for judicial review by a group of Universiti Malaya (UM) academic and administrative staff as well as five teachers to challenge the government's Covid-19 vaccination programme.
High Court judge Dr Shahnaz Sulaiman said the court disagreed with the applicants' contention that mandatory vaccination had violated their rights under the Federal Constitution.
She said it was not illegal or irrational for the government to make it a must for public servants, as frontliners, to be vaccinated against Covid-19 and they are bound by rules and regulations.
Both groups had said as public servants, they must be given the freedom to choose to undergo the programme or otherwise.
Shahnaz said the applicants did not submit on how their rights under Article 9 of the constitution are violated, but the court still took things into consideration for the sake being thorough.
Article 9 guarantees the freedom of movement of citizens, to move freely or stay in any part of the country except where any law is passed relating to the security of the country, public order and public health, among others.
Shahnaz said the vaccination was to curb the spread of Covid-19, which was a global pandemic. "In this case, the Covid-19 pandemic was certainly and evidently a global pandemic which required authorities to take measures to ensure public health.
"Hence, this court cannot agree with the applicants' contention that the impugned decisions resulted in the contravention of Article 9."
For the aforementioned reasons, this court is satisfied that there is no illegality or irrationality such that this court should exercise its power to squash the impugned decision.
"This court, therefore, dismisses this application for judicial review with no order as to costs, bearing in mind this is of public interest," she said.
Senior federal counsels Shamsul Bolhassan and Liew Horng Bin represented the government.
The groups filed applications for leave for judicial review in October 2021 for an order to quash the government's directive to implement the programme based on circulars sent to them.
The 19 UM applicants named the UM registrar, the Public Service Department and its then director-general Tan Sri Mohd Khairul Adib Abd Rahman, the Health Ministry and the government as respondents.
The five teachers named the education and health ministers, their ministries, Khairul and the government as respondents.
All 24 applicants contended that the government's vaccination programme against one's consent was unlawful, irrational and unconstitutional and breaches their rights as enshrined in the constitution.
They had asked for an order to be issued to UM or the Education Ministry to put the circular on hold pending the results of the judicial review applications. They also want the government to produce the outcome of clinical trials on all vaccines administered and its side effects.
Subscribe Below:
Absurd anti-vaxxer reasoning by the author of the post. Covid 19 was (and is) a major threat to the world and it was only prudent that the public and its officials get vaccinated.