PETALING JAYA: Empowering civilians to police smoking violations opens the door to harassment, privacy breaches and misplaced priorities, warned legal experts.
They were commenting on a statement by Johor Health and Environment Committee chairman Ling Tian Soon, who encouraged the public to report such cases by photographing or recording offenders in no-smoking areas.
“The public can submit the images or videos to the district health office for enforcement action.”
Previously, smoking bans were enforced through official channels under the Control of Smoking Products for Public Health Act 2024, with a focus on education and gradual implementation before penalties were imposed. Violators were typically issued fines or warnings after on-site inspections.
Human rights advocate Charles Hector Fernandez said the new approach raises ethical and legal questions.
“Intentionally making false reports is a crime while public reporting systems can be abused.”
He argued that recording and sharing images or videos without consent, even for enforcement purposes, violates personal privacy.
“The reason for recording is irrelevant as privacy is a fundamental right. Even if smoking causes air pollution, it pales in comparison with vehicle exhaust fumes. The priority should be to fix public transport and reduce overall air pollution.”
Charles cautioned that encouraging civilians to record and report others normalises mass surveillance and promotes a culture of policing among citizens.
“It’s better to set up a nationwide CCTV system that will prevent crime and provide strong evidence for convictions.
He referred to the recent shooting incident at KL International Airport and said a comprehensive surveillance system could have helped prevent it.
He added studies show that smoking rates are higher among the working class, but eateries frequented by lower income groups are more likely to be monitored.
“Are we criminalising the poor while wealthier individuals enjoy cigars in private spaces? If you drive an expensive car or have an emblem of ‘position’, you are less likely to be stopped for a licence, road tax and other traffic checks, which proves discrimination against the lower income group exists.”
He said while the restrictions are meant to protect public health, they must be balanced with ethical enforcement.
“We support anti-smoking laws, but enforcement shouldn’t come at the cost of privacy and fairness.”
Charles suggested having designated smoking areas instead of a complete ban that disrupts social habits.
“For the lower income, having a cup of coffee and a cigarette after work is ‘socialising’. The ban has affected businesses too.”
He urged authorities to address concerns about surveillance, enforcement bias and ethical policing to ensure public health measures do not come at the expense of fundamental rights.
Lawyer Kokila Vaani Vadiveloo said there are legal risks to public reporting, particularly concerning privacy breaches and defamation.
She said while Malaysia’s Personal Data Protection Act 2010 primarily applies to businesses, Article 5(1) of the Federal Constitution protects personal privacy.
“Recording without consent, especially in private settings, could lead to legal consequences,” she said adding that false reports could result in defamation claims under the Defamation Act 1957 or having criminal defamation charges framed under Section 499 of the Penal Code.
She also said while Section 182 of the Penal Code penalises false reporting, the lack of strict verification could allow recordings to be misused to settle personal grievances.
