RACISM and religious intolerance have been fed into the bloodstream of Malaysians for so long that all of us are so poisoned in our thinking that even those acting with the best of intentions find it difficult to see the wood for the trees; between law enforcement and law making, between legislative policies and social or religious concerns.

The recent comments by Selangor state executive councillor Hassan Ali of his exco colleague Ronnie Liu on the seizure of beer from a convenience store is a case in point. Hassan said that PAS Selangor supported banning the sale of alcoholic drinks in convenience stores in areas with a majority of Muslims. He also said PAS would come out with its draft bylaws governing the sale of alcoholic drinks in the state.

The statements show the urgent need for Malaysians to stop looking at every issue from the perspective of race and religion. There is a need for a renaissance of our views, our values and our mindset.   

There are laws on the manufacture, distribution and sale of beer and liquor. Alcohol abuse, like smoking, is a valid social concern. Undoubtedly they are religious concerns because all religions teach us to respect our bodies and take care of our health. However, not all laws and not all concerns are due to race or religion.

There is no law prohibiting the sale of beer in convenience stores. There are laws governing the sale of alcohol and liquor but the sale of beer is not included as the alcoholic content of beer is lower than the prescribed limit.

The enforcement unit of the Shah Alam City Council is not empowered to make regulations. It has the power to only enforce laws and regulations.

There are Syariah laws prohibiting Muslims from consuming alcohol. However, the enforcement officers of local councils do not have the jurisdiction to enforce Syariah law and certainly not against non-Muslims. Therefore, the enforcement officers were wrong to confiscate the beer.   

Hassan in saying that PAS supported the banning of alcoholic drinks in convenience stores in Muslim majority areas ought to have also mentioned that he was elected to represent not only Muslims but also all Malaysians. There are many other quarters that are concerned about the ill-effects of drinking beer and he should have sought their views and articulated their concerns.

There is a difference between concerns and laws. For concerns to be turned into law, the laws should be amended before enforcement agencies act. Whether alcohol should be banned should be debated by all Malaysians, by those who drink and those who do not. In doing so, we should not reinvent the wheel because Selangor is not the first and will certainly not be the last to deal with alcohol. We can learn from history of other societies and countries.    

It is unfortunate that Hassan looked at the problem solely through a pair of Muslim’s spectacles.

The problem is wider than that and the evils of alcohol abuse affect all races, followers of all the various faiths, and even the atheists and agnostics. 
 

William JK Leong is the member of Parliament for Selayang. Comments: letters@thesundaily.com.

Why prohibition failed

THE first half of the 20th century saw periods of prohibition of alcoholic beverages in several countries:

» 1900-48 in Prince Edward Island and for shorter periods in Canada;

» 1914-25 in Russia and Soviet Union;

» 1915-22 in Iceland (though beer was still prohibited until 1989);

» 1916-27 in Norway (fortified wine and beer also prohibited from 1923);

» 1919 in Hungary;

» 1919-32 in Finland; and

» 1920-33 in the United States.

In the US the manufacture, sale and transport of liquor was made illegal on Jan 16, 1920 pursuant to the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution and clarified by the Volstead Act that stated beer, wine or other intoxicating malt or vinous liquor meant any beverage that was more than 0.5% alcohol. The Act stated that owning any item designed to manufacture alcohol was illegal and it set fines and jail sentences for violation. Prohibition was meant to reduce consumption to curb crime and corruption, solve social problems, poverty and improve the economy.

The Prohibition was ineffective. It caused an explosive growth in crime and increased the amount of alcohol consumption. Drinking went underground and illegal "speak-easies" mushroomed all over the country. Bootleggers smuggled liquor from overseas, stole it from government warehouses and produced their own. The illegal liquor business fell into the control of organised crime. Al Capone was perhaps the most infamous Bootlegger during the period known as the Roaring 1920s.

Instead of reducing crime, Prohibition saw the crime rate skyrocketing with a nearly 78% increase. It saw serious crimes such as homicides, assault and battery increase by 13%. There were gruesome shoot-outs as gangs fought for control over the profitable illegal business. The number of federal convicts increased 561%. Consumption of liquor instead of reduction increased. Seldom had a law been more flagrantly violated. Not only did Americans continue to manufacture, barter and possess alcohol, they drank more of it.

Prohibition was a dismal failure and it was repealed on Dec 5, 1933 by the 21st Amendment to the US Constitution repealing the 18th Amendment. It was the first and only time in US history that an Amendment has been repealed.

These countries that have experimented with Prohibition have come to realise that not all social concerns and society’s ills can be solved by making them illegal. With alcohol abuse, it is through education and voluntary temperance that these societies learnt to be more effective measures to counter alcohol abuse than by making the consumption of alcohol illegal.