ASSIGNMENT EUP 222

LECTURER:

DR. FATEHAH MOHD OMAR

SUBMISSION DATE:

9 DECEMBER 2016

N TITLE OF ARTICLE ARTICLE MEMBER MARKS

O. TYPE ASSIGNED (LEAVE
BLANK)
1 Another palm oil mill cited for Environmen Bong Poh Yee
river pollution. t 130534
2 Harsher Penalties for Open Environmen Lim Yuan Ting
Burning. t 130538
3 Our coral reefs in hot water Environmen Woo Sweet Wan
due to El Nino. t 130567
4 Stop-Work Order After Safety and Chuah Kian Shiang
Collapse of Pedestrian Health 130537
Bridge.
5 Construction firms fined Safety and Tan Siew Mian
RM15,000 each for death of 2 Health 130564
workers.
TABLE OF CONTENT:
1.
Title : Another palm oil mill cited for river pollution

Article Type : Enviroment

Summary :
1. The state Department of Environment (DOE) has issued a warning to another
palm oil mill operating in Mersing.

2. The mill was cited for disregarding the regulations to prevent river pollution.

3. The mill has been given three months to rectify the situation.

4. If it fails to make the necessary improvements in its operations, their companys

licence will be suspended.

5. Some 600,000 consumers in the southern part of Johor were affected when
three main water treatment plants were forced to temporarily shut down due to
high ammonia content in Sungai Johor.
Regulations :
1. Section 25. Restrictions on pollution of inland waters.
(1) No person shall, unless licenced, emit, discharge or deposit any wastes into
any inland waters in contravention of the acceptable conditions specified under
section 21.

(2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (l), a person shall be deemed to
emit, discharge or deposit wastes into inland waters if-
(a) he places any wastes in or on any waters or in a place where it may gain
access to any waters;
(b) he places any waste in a position where it falls, descends, drains, evaporates,
is washed, is blown or percolates or is likely to fall, descend, drain, evaporate or
be washed, be blown or percolated into any waters, or knowingly or through his
negligence, whether directly or indirectly, causes or permits any wastes to be
placed in such a position; or
(C) he causes the temperature of the receiving ,waters to be raised or lowered by
more than the prescribed limits.

Justification : The mill was cited for disregarding this regulations even though it
is licensed, this is because it discharges wastes into the river in an unacceptable
amount that against conditions specified under section 21 and lead to river
pollution.

2. Section 27. Prohibition of discharge of wastes into Malaysian waters.

 (1) No person shall, unless licensed, discharge wastes into [Am. AC~ the
Malaysian waters in contravention of the acceptable conditions specified under
section 21.
(2) Any person who contravenes subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and
shall be liable to a fine not exceeding ten thousand ringgit or to imprisonment not
exceeding two years or to both.

Justification : The mill was cited for disregarding this regulations even though it
is licensed, this is because it discharges wastes into the river in an unacceptable
amount that against conditions specified under section 21.

3. Section 32. Occupiers to maintain and operate equipment.

The occupier of any premises which is licensed under this Act shall maintain any
equipment or control equipment installed on those premises in an efficient
condition and shall operate the equipment or control equipment in a proper and
efficient manner.

Justification : The mill should maintain any control equipment installed such as
filter in an efficient condition so that there will not be flow of ammonia into the
river.

4. Section 33. Power to prohibit or control licensed persons from discharging,

etc. of wastes in certain circumstances.
(l) Where several persons are licensed under this Act to emit, discharge or
deposit wastes into the same segment or element of environment and appears to
the Director General that each of such persons is complying with the conditions
of the license but nevertheless the collective effect of the aggregate of such
wastes is likely to cause a worsening of condition in that segment or element of
the environment such as to affect the health, welfare or safety of human beings,
or to threaten the existence of any animals, birds, wildlife, fish or other aquatic
life, the Director General may, by notice serve on each of the licensees, requiring
each of them to abate such emission, discharge or deposit in the manner and
within the period specified in the notice.

Justification : The mill was cited for disregarding this regulations even though it
is licensed, this is because it discharges wastes into the river, caused pollution
and affect the consumers.

Conclusion / Opinion :
If I were the enforcement officer or DG, I would agree to the regulations imposed to the
incident as the mill authorities should take the responsibility onto this incident so that the
river will be free from pollution. A clean river can ensure the safety and health of people
who consume the water from it and the lives of aquatic organisms. Hence, a mill should
get license for emitting their waste into the water and those with license should follow
the conditions specified under Section 21 to prevent affecting the health, welfare or
safety of human beings, or to threaten the existence of any animals, birds, wildlife, fish
or other aquatic life.

2.
AUGUST 31, 2016

Harsher Penalties for

Open Burning
ENVIRONMENT

Persistent haze from open burning can frequently become a blight on Malaysia's environment and
people's health.
Photo Credit: Flickr

And here it comes trans-boundary haze from Indonesia, that is. Every summer, regular as
clockwork, forest and peat fires set in Indonesia for clearing land waft over the border with
Malaysia to cover much of the country in noxious fumes for days and weeks at a time. The
haze can worsen air quality for long periods, cause and aggravate a variety of respiratory
and other illnesses, and turn into a blight for the environment.
The good news is that this year the haze is expected to be less severe than in previous
years, thanks to measures by Indonesian authorities to clamp down on slash-and-burn
agriculture in response to pressure from neighboring Malaysia and Singapore. Extra rainfall
in some areas, too, has helped keep the fires in check. I hope the current conditions persist
until we enter October at least when the wind directions change, said Natural Resources
and Environment Minister Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar.

We can all wax hopeful about that. The problem, of

course, is that there still is far too much haze for
comfort. Right on cue, at the end of August, the west
coast of the Malaysian peninsula came to be enveloped
in thick smoke blown there from Sumatra by
strong northeasterly winds. Visibility and air quality
both dropped significantly.
Aerial monitoring of forests and peatlands in West
Kalimantan and Sumatra has borne fruit, but
Indonesian authorities have not yet managed to stamp
out the practice of land clearing by fire once and for all. If Indonesia has the right system
and make amends to their current legislation to be
more friendly towards the environment, I am
optimistic the issue of haze and trans-boundary haze
can be resolved, the minister added. Forest clearing with fire can leave
apocalyptic landscapes in its wake
in Indonesia and Malaysia. Photo
Wan Junaidi has called for tougher penalties to
Credit: Greenpeace
Indonesian small landowners who practice open
burning in slash-and-burn clearing of their land, and
rightfully so. Currently, the law allows smallholders with plantations that cover less than two
acres to engage in slash-and-burn. The trouble with that is that open burning on lots of
small plots can add up to one mighty fire. In addition, even small fires can spiral out of
control and ravage adjacent forests.

In Malaysia, a law is in the works that will enable authorities to impose far harsher fines on
people who engage in slash-and-burn agriculture in their backyards, thereby endangering
the local environment and worsening air quality in the area. Once the law has been passed
in parliament, an offender for backyard burning can be slapped with a compound of maybe
RM2,000 while plantation operators conducting slash-and-burn will be slapped with a
heavier compound up to RM500,000, Wan Junaidi added.

Indonesian authorities ought to follow suit. The only way to stop agricultural clearing with
open burning is to make it prohibitively expensive for people who do so through strict
financial penalties.

Title : Harsher Penalties for Open Burning

Article Type : Environmental
Summary :
- Haze is an issue that happens yearly in Malaysia due to the land waft clearing in
Indonesia, over the border with Malaysia. However, haze problem is expected to be less
severe this year, with the effort by Indonesian authorities to clamp down on slash-and-
burn agriculture.
- Minister of Natural Resources and Environment urges the Indonesia government to
chargetougher penalties to Indonesian small landowners who practice open burning in
slash-and-burn clearing of their land.
- In Malaysia, a law is in the works that will enable authorities to impose far harsher fines
on people who engage in slash-and-burn agriculture in their backyards, thereby
endangering the local environment and worsening air quality in the area.

Regulations :
Section 29A : Prohibition on Open Burning
(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, no person shall allow or cause
open burning on any premises.
(2) Any person who contravenes subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and shall, on
conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding five hundred thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for
a term not exceeding five years or to both.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1)
open burning means any fire, combustion or smouldering that occurs in the open air and which
is not directed there through a chimney or stack;
premises includes any land.

Section 29AA : Exclusion from open burning.

(1) The Minister may by order published in the Gazette declare that any fire, combustion or
smouldering for the purpose of any activity specified in that order is not open burning as defined
in and for the purpose of section 29A so long as such activity is carried out in accordance with or
under such conditions as may be specified in the order and not in the place or area specified in
the order.
(2) Notwithstanding that any fire, combustion or smouldering is excluded from the definition of
open burning under subsection (1) or that it is for the purpose of any activity specified in an
order made under subsection (1), no person shall allow or cause such fire, combustion or
smouldering to occur in any area if the Director General notifies, by such means and in such
manner as he thinks expedient,
(a) that the air quality in the area has reached an unhealthy level; and
(b) that the fire, combustion or smouldering for the purpose of any activity other than those
specified in the notification would be hazardous to the environment.

(3) In addition to the circumstances referred to in subsection (2), the Minister may by order
published in the Gazette specify the circumstances in which no person shall cause any fire,
combustion or smouldering for the purpose of any activity specified in the order to occur
notwithstanding that it is excluded from the definition of open burning under subsection (1) or
that it is for the purpose of any activity specified in an order made under subsection (1). Owner
or occupier of premises liable for open burning 29B.
If open burning occurs on any premises
(a) the owner; or
(b) the occupier, of the premises who has control over such premises shall be deemed to have
contravened subsection 29A(1) unless the contrary is proved.

Defence 29C.
In any prosecution under section 29A or 29B, it shall be a defence if the person, owner or
occupier of the premises proves
(a) that the open burning occurred outside his control or without his knowledge or connivance or
consent; or Environmental Quality 31
(b) that he
(i) took all reasonable precautions; or
(ii) exercised all due diligence, to prevent the commission of the offence as he ought to
have taken and exercised having regard to the nature of his responsibility in that capacity and to
all the circumstances.

Conclusion / Opinions :
Yes, I agree with financial penalties on those who are involved in open burning. This punishment
is suitable and moderate to be taken. Punishment in form of financial warns and stops people
from burning in an open area. But this punishment must be strict in action. If the authorities do
not take this serious, people will continue to burn in an open area and this puts them in crime. At
the same time, air pollution in Malaysia will get serious from time to time. It may lead to severe
effects on our environment. I also suggest that harsher punishment can be taken on those who
repeat this action after the first punishment has taken. For example, an increase in amount of
financial penalties and prohibition on renewal license for land owners.
 3.Our coral reefs in hot water
due to El Nino
PETALING JAYA: Malaysia is facing the largest loss of its coral reef population in
history with the waters around the country getting warmer from next month.
Universiti Malaya coral reef ecologist Affendi Yang Amri said climate change coupled
with a strong El Nino could threaten up to 90% of the countrys coral reefs.
Affendi said that sea temperatures could rise 2C above the threshold of the corals,
stressing them.
Usually if waters are at or above 31.5C for two weeks, they will start to bleach, said
Affendi.
He said the rise in temperature causes the breakdown of the symbiosis between the corals
and their zooxanthellae (symbiotic algae).
It is the zooxanthellae which gives the corals their colour and is also the corals main
provider of food.
Affendi added that bleaching occurs when the corals expulse the zooxanthellae, leaving
the animal tissue exposed and making its white skeleton visible.
Corals get 90% of their food from the algae. So when the algae is expulsed, the corals
begin to starve, he said.
He said that when bleached and the water temperature does not drop to 30C or lower for
another three weeks, the corals will start to die.
The year 2010 saw the last big El Nino and many corals in Malaysia bleached and about
30% died, but we are afraid this year could be more severe.
The warm temperature could remain for many months.
It may be even worse than the biggest El Nino ever recorded in 1998 where 80% of the
reefs in Maldives died.
According to Reef Check Malaysia, 40% of the reefs in peninsular Malaysia died in
1998.
Affendi is now hoping that it wont be as bad, and that at most, only 30% of the reefs
would die. But the worst case scenario could see 90% of the reefs destroyed.
He said very little can be done at the moment to reduce the global stress on corals by El
Nino and climate change, but steps can be taken to minimise local stress to give the
corals a better chance of survival.
Local stresses include water pollution, plastic trash, coastal developments, sedimentation,
sewage water, long fishing nets, fish bombing, physical contact from snorkelers and
divers and etc.
Zones with diverse and rare corals need to be prioritised as you want to minimise human
contact in those areas, said Affendi.
Those who take tourists diving or snorkelling must also remind them not to touch or
kick the corals.
When you know that warmer waters are about to hit, there should be no boats passing
through those areas, no divers and snorkelers for a few weeks until the warm period
passes.
But Affendi stressed that everything cannot be closed as that would jeopardise the
livelihood of people like fishermen.
He also added that island resorts needed to step up on their sewage treatment systems as
these were poor or non-existent and most of the sewage ended up in the ocean, damaging
the corals.
~~From The Star Online
Friday, 4 March 2016
Title: Our coral reefs in hot water due to El Nino

Article Type: Environmental

Summary:

Climate change

climate change coupled with a strong El Nino could threaten up to 90% of the countrys
coral reefs
sea temperatures could rise 2C above the threshold of the corals and stressing them
corals will start to bleach if waters are at or above 31.5C for two weeks
Rise in temperature causes the breakdown of the symbiosis between the corals and their
zooxanthellae (symbiotic algae)

bleaching occurs when the corals expulse the zooxanthellae

corals get 90% of their food from the algae, therefore, when the algae is expulsed, the
corals begin to starve
when bleached and the water temperature does not drop to 30C or lower for another
three weeks, the corals will start to die
Zones with diverse and rare corals need to be prioritised

Local stresses include water pollution, plastic trash, coastal developments, sedimentation,
sewage water, long fishing nets, fish bombing, physical contact from snorkelers and
divers
minimise human contact in those areas
not to touch or kick the corals during diving or snorkelling
when warmer waters are about to hit, no boats, divers and snorkelers should be passing
through the areas until the warm period passes
island resorts need to step up on their sewage treatment systems as these most of the
sewage ended up in the ocean which will damage the corals
Regulations:

Environmental Quality Act 1974: Section 29 (1) states that no person shall, unless licensed,
discharge wastes into Malaysian waters in contravention of the acceptable conditions stated in
Section 21.

Justification: People discharge waste into the seas causes the water pollution and brings
negative impact to the growth of coral reefs. This regulation may enhance awareness of
people towards the destruction of coral reefs.
Environmental Quality Act 1974: Section 31(1) states that where any pollutants are being or are
likely to be emitted, discharged or deposited, the culprit must install and operate appropriate
control equipment.

Justification: People who create pollution should be took into custody and always
monitor their actions. Appropriate control equipment must be operated to prevent them
from discharged waste into seas and causes water pollution which will affect the coral
reefs.
Environmental Quality Act 1974: Section 51(1) empowers the Ministry of Science, Technology
and Environment to prescribe standards and criteria for the implementation of environmental
policy, classification of the environment for protection purposes, prohibit discharge of pollutants
into the environment, prohibit the use of equipment that could cause pollution and among others,
regulate boating and swimming in waters to prevent pollution.
 Justification: Swimming and boating at the coral reefs areas should be controlled. Divers
and snorkelers should not apply any cosmetics or sunscreen to prevent brings to the
pollution of water.
Conclusion/Opinion:

If I was the enforcement officer or DG, I would agree to the regulations imposed to the incident.
This strengthening of enforcement capacity not only restricted to only government departments,
but also to local communities. This will add protection to the coral reefs. These regulations may
also become a possible solution to reef destruction. The protection of the few remaining
undisturbed reefs may serve as a temporary remedy to this situation.
 4. Stop-work order after
collapse of pedestrian
bridge

Bernama | November 30, 2016

KUALA LUMPUR: The developer of a mixed development project in Kampung Haji Abdullah Hukum,
Jalan Bangsar, here has been ordered to stop work following the collapse of a pedestrian bridge under
construction this afternoon.

Department of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) director-general Mohtar Musri said the order was
issued to enable investigation into the incident which caused the death of a worker and injured five others.

DOSH has visited the site of the incident and ordered work to stop while an investigation is conducted,
he told Bernama here today.

Mohtar said initial investigations revealed that the pedestrian bridge being built to link KL Eco City to The
Gardens Mall had collapsed.

A probe has to be carried out to determine whether the collapse was caused by negligence or use of
substandard building materials, he added.

He said under Section 15 of the Worker Safety and Health Act 1994, negligence was punishable by a jail
term of up to two years and a fine not exceeding RM30,000.
In the 3.30pm incident, a 21-year-old foreign worker was killed and five others were injured when the
pedestrian bridge collapsed.

TITLE: Stop-work order after collapse of pedestrian bridge

ARTICLE TYPE:Safety and Health.

SUMMARY:
1. The developer of a mixed development project has been ordered to
stop work. Following the collapse of the bridge, the department has
instructed a stop-work order at the construction site to allow
investigations to take place.
Take every accidents that happen seriously especially when it
involved death. A foreign worker was killed and 5 others were injured.

2. A probe is to be carried out.

Determine whether the collapse was caused by negligence or use of
substandard building materials.
The issue of the quality of materials used in the construction and
drawback in design structure have been discussed.
Tough action could be taken against the developer if it was found to
have flouted safety regulations.

REGULATIONS:
1. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH (SAFETY AND HEALTH
COMMITTEE) REGULATIONS 1996, (1) These Regulations shall apply to a
safety and health committee established under section 30 of the Act.
(2) A safety and health committee formed at a place of work before the
commencement of these Regulations shall reorganise itself in accordance
with these Regulations within six months from the date of the
commencement of these Regulations.
Justification: An employer of a place of work shall, in consultation with a
safety and health committee, prepare and promote rules on safety and health
which will ensure the safety and health of persons employed at the place of
work for the guidance of such persons. The selection of materials must be
correctly.A probe has to be carried out to determine whether the collapse was caused by
negligence or use of substandard building materials. The measures taken shall keep
under review so that the place is safe. Ensure the safety and health of
workers and people at the place of work.

2. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH (NOTIFICATION OF ACCIDENT,

DANGEROUS OCCURRENCE, OCCUPATIONAL POISONING AND
OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE) REGULATIONS 2004. In these Regulations, any
reference to an accident, dangerous occurrence, occupational poisoning or
occupational disease arising out of or in connection with work shall include a
reference to an accident or dangerous occurrence or occupational poisoning or
occupational disease attributable to the manner of conducting an undertaking,
the plant or substances used for the purposes of an undertaking and the
condition of the premises so used or any part of them.
 Justification: An incident where any person suffers an injury resulting from
an explosion or discharge of any blasting material or device for which he
receives first-aid or medical treatment at the quarry. A 21-year-old foreign worker
was killed and five others were injured when the pedestrian bridge collapsed. This case all
responsible to developer because developer must take their reasonable cares
toward everyone.

3. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH (SAFETY AND HEALTH OFFICER)

REGULATIONS 1997. These Regulations shall apply to-
(a) a person who acts as a safety and health officer required under the Act or
any regulations made under the Act; and
(b) an employer of the class or description of industries who are required to
employ safety and helath officer under the Act.
Justification: An employer shall direct one supervisor or who has direct
control on person or activity of the place of work to assist the safety and
health officer in any investigation of accident, near-miss accident, dangerous
occurrence, occupational poisoning or occupational disease. The developer
should have a proper plan to the designs and manufactures. The developer
should think about the safety and health of workers and people who use.

CONCLUSION / OPINION:
If I was the enforcement officer or DG, I agree to the regulations imposed to the
incident.

During an incident investigation, an employer must determine which factors

contributed to the incident. No matter the result is what, developer must take their
responsibility toward this case.

A root cause analysis allows an employer to discover the underlying or systemic,

rather than the generalized or immediate, causes of an incident. Correcting only an
immediate cause may eliminate a symptom of a problem, but not the problem itself.

By conducting a root cause analysis and addressing root causes, an employer may
be able to substantially or completely prevent the same or a similar incident from
recurring.

All these accidents are preventable if the person in charge puts into practice good
occupational and safety health measures and the site safety supervisor makes sure
work is done properly.
 5.Construction firms fined
RM15,000 each for death of 2
workers
New Straits Times

17 Nov 2016

KUALA LUMPUR: Construction company Ireka Engineering and Construction

SdnBhd was fined RM15,000 by the Sessions Court here for failing to provide a safe
work system at its construction site, which resulted in the death of an Indonesian
worker.
The company, through its safety officer K. Balakrishnan, pleaded guilty to
committing the offence at Section 95A and 98, Kampung Haji Abdullah Hukum,
JalanBangsar, here at 9.30am on July 27, this year.
The company, as the employer of the victim, Mudekki, was charged under Section 15
(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994, with failing to provide a catch
platform at Staircase 4, Level 33, Block B, which resulted in the fatal accident.
According the facts of the case, the victim was working on a cantilever bracket on
Level 33 of the building when he fell onto a scaffolding on the eighth floor.
Balakrishnan, in seeking a lenient sentence, told judgeHarmiThamriMohamad@
Shaharudin that the company had taken steps to improve safety at its worksite by
conducting frequent checks. It has also appointed four safety supervisors.
Counsel RosmiraEmbong told the court that the company had pleaded guilty to the
charge, thus saving the court its time and cost.
She said the company had assisted with making the arrangements to send
Mudekkis remains to his family and had given the family RM15,000 in compensation.
Department of Occupational Safety and Health prosecuting
officerMohdFaeizieMahat requested a deterrent sentence for the company saying that
this was the second time it had been charged with a similar offence.
He said the first time was at a different site and the company was fined RM40,000.
This is a serious offence, even though the companys representative had pleaded
guilty and it has taken precautionary safety measures, but this was done when the
project was nearing its completion.
 The safe work system should have been implemented earlier.
Meanwhile, another construction company, Asia One Management Development
SdnBhd, was fined RM15,000 for a similar offence.
It was charged with failing to provide a safe working system, which resulted in the
death of R. Nageswara. He fell from the ninth floor of a building while conducting lift
maintenance work.
The accident occurred at Pangsapuri Bukit Awan Sari, JalanAwanJawa, TamanYarl
here on Aug 22.
In mitigation, its representative said Asia One Management Development was a new
company and the lift maintenance work was its first job.
The company was charged under Section 17(1) of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act 1994, which provides a fine of up to RM50,000 or imprisonment of up to two
years, or both, if found guilty.

Title:Construction firms fined RM15,000 each for death of 2 workers

Article Type: Safety and Health

Summary:
Construction companyIreka Engineering and Construction SdnBhd
- was fined RM15,000 by the Sessions Court
- fail to provide a safe work system at its construction site, which resulted in the death of
an Indonesian worker who fell from Level 33 onto a scaffolding on the eighth floor of a
building under construction.
- was charged under Section 15 (1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994
- had taken steps to improve safety at its worksite by conducting frequent checks and
appointing four safety supervisors
- had assisted with making the arrangements to send the workers remains to his family and
had given the family RM15,000 in compensation.

Department of Occupational Safety and Health prosecuting officerMohdFaeizieMahat

- said that this was the second time it had been charged with a similar offence.
- the first time was at a different site and the company was fined RM40,000.
- has takenprecautionary safety measures, but this was donewhen the project was nearing
its completion, supposing the safe work system should have been implemented earlier.

Asia One Management Development SdnBhd

- was fined RM15,000
- was charged with failing to provide a safe working system, which resulted in the death of
a worker who fell from the ninth floor of a building while conducting lift maintenance
work.
- was charged under Section 17(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994, which
provides a fine of up to RM50,000 or imprisonment of up to two years, or both, if found
guilty.
Regulations:
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT 1994
Section 15. General duties of employers and self-employed persons to their employees.
(1) It shall be the duty of every employer and every self-employed person to ensure, so far as
is practicable, the safety, health and welfare at work of all his employees.

Justification: Every employer and self-employed person should ensure the safety, health and
welfare of all their employees. Safety work system should be implemented earlier so that the
safety and health of their employee can be guaranteed. There is no reason for the employees
to take risk to their safety and health at their workplaces.

Section 17. General duties of employers and self-employed persons to persons other than
their employees.
(1) It shall be the duty of every employer and every self-employed person to conduct his
undertaking in such a manner as to ensure, so far as is practicable, that he and other
persons, not being his employees, who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed
to risks to their safety or health.

Justification: Every employer and self-employed person have the responsibility to make sure
that their works does not affect persons other than their employees safety and health. Every
life is very valuable so they should not take it for granted.

Section 19. Penalty for an offence under section 15, 16, 17 or 18.
A person who contravenes the provisions of section 15, 16, 17 or 18 shall be guilty of an offence
and shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty thousand ringgit or to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both.

Justification: Employers and self-employed persons who cannot ensure safety, health and welfare
of all the employees should be penalised. Just like the case above, the two firms are fined
RM15,000 for failing to provide a safe work system at the construction site, which resulted in the
death of their workers. The penalty is reasonable since they cannot ensure their workers life.

Conclusion/Opinion:
If I was the enforcement officer or DG, I would not agree to the regulations imposed to the
incidents. This is because I think that the RM15,000 fine for negligence in providing a safe work
system that caused the death of their workers in the construction sites is inadequate and does not
commensurate with the offences committed. The penalty for these firms should take into account
the seriousness of their offences. Malaysias Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994 provides a
maximum fine of up to RM50,000, or a jail term of up to two years, or both, for negligence
(Sections 15 and 17). I feel that the government should increase the penalty in Occupational
Safety and Health Act 1994 from RM50,000 to a maximum of RM200,000 fine. This is to deter
employers from flouting safety and health laws, and start taking Occupational Safety and Health
Act seriously.