KUALA Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) will forbid sundry shops, convenience stores, groceries and Chinese medicine shops to sell alcohol to the public with effect from October 1, next year.
Under these measures, alcohol will not be sold in shops that are near schools, hospitals, places of worship and police stations.
Furthermore, shorter operating hours will be imposed on bars, restaurants and pubs serving alcohol to their customers.
Chinese medicine shops selling medications with alcohol content will need to get the special permission of the Health Ministry.
With the new guidelines, there is growing fear that these might represent the slow but sure curbs on the constitutional rights of non-Muslims.
A number of persons, including Amanah’s former deputy minister, have questioned this move as a curb on the rights of non-Muslims.
Even the leaders of veterans associations in the country have taken DBKL to task for being insensitive to the constitutional rights of non-Muslims.
Some associations, like the Consumers' Association of Penang (CAP), have welcomed DBKL's move.
For them, the control on the sale of alcohol is significant to resolve social problems among the poor and to reduce accidents resulting from unregulated alcohol consumption.
The Federal Territory MIC has lauded the move as a way to reduce alcohol consumption among the Indian working class.
The points raised by CAP, MIC and others may be valid in some aspects.
But then, these organisations do not examine the reasons that the new guidelines are being introduced – whether there is political motive, and whether the restriction and control of alcohol consumption can reduce fatalities from car and motorcycle accidents.
Just a few high-profile vehicle accidents resulting in fatalities do not necessarily mean that drink-driving is the major cause of accidents in the country.
One swallow does not make a summer
Federal Territories Minister Tan Sri Annuar Musa defended the guidelines as something universal and that Malaysia is not the only country that has introduced them.
However, to date, he has failed to mention in detail the regulation of the sale of alcohol in other countries.
Annuar makes the same mistake by linking the high rate of motorcycle accidents leading to fatalities with alcohol consumption.
Apparently, it seems he was also influenced by some high-profile cases where fatalities occurred due to drink-driving.
However, consideration of facts surrounding the cause of accidents might reveal a totally different picture.
It has been found that more than 60% of motorcycle fatalities occur in rural areas, mainly resulting from not wearing helmets, riding without a licence and not following road rules.
More than two-thirds of all fatalities are from riding motorcycles.
More than 89% of motorcycle fatalities involve youths.
If DBKL’s new guidelines are based on the need to curb accidents, then the information provided is simply not sufficient.
Just like the appearance of a swallow does not make summer, a few high-profile fatalities resulting from alcohol consumption do not make drink-driving the major cause of road fatalities in the country.
Well, if there is no conclusive evidence of the link between road fatalities and drink-driving, why the eagerness to clamp down on the sale of alcohol in the above premises?
The chairman of the Excise Licensing Board of the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, Datuk Lau Beng Wei, said that the new measures are aimed at regulating sales and not curbing them.
But isn’t the restriction on the sales in sundry, convenience, grocery and Chinese medicine shops an outright ban? Is Lau an apologist for DBKL?
Before the new guidelines were passed, what was the nature of consultation? It appears that it was a one-sided affair.
The consultation was mainly with government agencies and a few members of civil society organisations that uncritically went along with DBKL's views.
Chinese and Indian business and commercial groups were not invited to the so-called stakeholder engagements.
There are already existing rules that forbid the selling of alcohol to students and minors in these premises.
But the authorities have failed to enforce the law. So, what prevents effective enforcement?
Maybe Annuar should reflect on this matter before going further to place curbs on non-Malay traders.
Maybe we should ask the question to Annuar himself as to why he is not an effective minister in the Federal Territories.
Failure in law enforcement cannot be used to punish the owners of small premises.
Ulterior political motives
Why is there a class bias in the new guidelines by allowing well-capitalised establishments to have a non-restrictive atmosphere when it comes to the sale and consumption of alcohol?
So, it is plainly obvious that drink-driving might have caused some accidents in the past, but it is definitely not the major cause of fatalities.
There is no conceivable need for the new guidelines to be imposed, other than some ulterior political motive on the part of this new illegal backdoor government.
If I am not mistaken, Annuar has come under pressure from religious leaders in PAS to adopt pro-Islamic measures.
In this country, unfortunately, pro-Islamic measures must be seen in relation to stifling the rights of non-Muslims.
These rights cannot be stifled by coming out with a pro-Islamic narrative; this might have high political costs or implications.
In this respect, ways and means have to be found, what more in a territory with considerable presence of non-Muslims, to experiment the latest initiative.
This is where unreliable statistics were manipulated to justify the latest guidelines.
Unfortunately, given the lack of foresight of some non-Muslim organisations, like MIC, the government’s argument about the “alcohol threat” was taken seriously. What a shame on MIC for forsaking the rights of non-Muslims!
This forgotten party of Malaysian-Indians cannot simply say yes without realising the larger effect of these guidelines on the rights of non-Muslims.
It is without question that the constitutional rights of non-Muslims have been infringed on and made a mockery under the new Malay-only government.
It is obvious that there is a sinister PAS agenda behind these new measures.
Is it surprising that some PAS leaders have not only welcomed the new guidelines but encouraged their adoption in other states?
Well, if a non-Muslim area can accept the new anti-alcohol measures, why can’t states with substantial Malay-Muslim populations not follow upon the example set by the Federal Territories?
Let us not be mistaken: the constitutional rights of non-Muslims are not just about the sale or consumption of alcohol; they are much more than that.
They are about respecting their rights – as enshrined in the constitution – to own property, to sell products and to engage in legitimate business activities.
Alcohol is a small item in sale and consumption. Why use the oppressive arm of the state to deny them this?
It is not that all non-Muslims drink alcohol. There are many of them who do not drink and to some, alcohol is as objectionable as it is to Muslims.
If the earlier measures are not working, it could be due to lack of enforcement or the endemic problem of corruption in some circles.
But why punish petty traders and shopkeepers?
It might be the new guidelines on the sale of alcohol now. But what's to stop DBKL, or an over-zealous minister, from going for further measures to curb the rights of non-Muslims?
PAS leaders must be all smiles. They have succeeded in something that long remained elusive for Umno. – The Vibes, November 3, 2020
Prof P. Ramasamy is deputy chief minister 2 of Penang
