DBKL - don't interfere with non-Muslim culture of drinking

Malaysiakini:

Riding moral horses over liquor

by Andrew Sia

COMMENT | No more liquor sales will be allowed at sundry shops, Chinese medicine shops and mini markets in Kuala Lumpur (KL) from Oct 1, 2021. But if you are a supermarket or hypermarket, no problem, you can carry on with your jolly liquor sales.

This was the new rule announced by KL City Hall (DBKL) recently. Question: why is the backdoor government hampering small business folks while allowing big businesses to continue selling the same product? Do they have more “friends” in big business?

Or is there another “agenda”? DBKL said the new guidelines came into effect after consulting various government agencies. Yes, these included the Health Ministry, Customs, police... and also the religious department. Why is the latter involved if alcohol is allowed for non-Muslims?

Or is this yet another step towards greater Islamisation? To “show” that KL is “more holy” than Selangor? To portray a cleaner, more “religious” image, while dubious ghanimah (political rewards) like GLC posts keep flowing to the side which already has one big leader convicted for corruption? In other words, is this a greenwash using a certain religion?

Amazingly, the new rules also state that shops selling alcohol are not allowed to face police stations. Excuse me, since when have the police become a religious symbol? The last I checked, Malaysia is still a secular country. Or have PAS and friends already changed that?

Clearly, there seems to be some “moralising” going on here. For example, certain backdoor politicians called for a ban on alcohol after three drunk driving accidents in May. However, alcohol-related road deaths are actually below 1% of all accidents - 0.85 percent (54 cases) in 2018 and 0.86 percent (58 cases) in 2017.

Compulsory jail sentences (up to two years) and heavy fines (up to RM30,000) will be slapped on drunk drivers. But what about motorcyclists, who make up a whopping 60 percent of road deaths? We’ve all seen them beating the lights or zig-zagging through traffic. Shouldn’t stiff penalties also be imposed on motorcyclists - for their own safety?

I’m not a big drinker myself but I can understand that some people really enjoy it. As long as they drink responsibly and don’t harm others (eg: drunk driving, fighting, wife-beating), I don't have any right to make moral judgements on what others want to do.

The rule to exclude smaller businesses seems to target cheaper types of liquor. Does that mean that people are allowed to drink only if they can afford to pay for Johnnie Walker and Jack Daniels? I’ve heard of doctors and lawyers who can drink a bottle of Chivas Regal a day - looks like these bunch will be untouched by the new rules.

But the reality is, people who want to drink will somehow find ways to do it, just as those who want to watch porn online can bypass whatever internet blocks put up by the government.

Malaysia also has strict religious laws against fornication (sex without marriage) but does that really stop it? Or do the laws merely create an atmosphere of secrecy and shame among teenagers with raging hormones, so much so that condoms cannot even be discussed? Which then adds to the persistent problem of babies being dumped in garbage bins?

Prohibition

So, the real danger of the new KL rules on liquor is that poorer people will turn to illegal liquor or samsu haram sold discreetly in back streets, which may lead to tragic deaths. In 1920, the US totally banned alcohol, during an era known as Prohibition - but it was a huge failure. Why? For one, some people made “moonshine” (homemade alcohol) in their bathtubs without any safety standards, which led to poisoning and deaths.

More seriously, alcohol was smuggled in massively from other countries by bootleggers -- the most infamous of these was Al Capone (as played by Robert de Niro in the movie The Untouchables), who controlled organised crime around Chicago.

The bootleggers made huge fortunes, which enabled them to pay off law enforcers and even politicians. This situation was unsustainable and Prohibition was eventually rescinded in 1933.

As for cigarettes, in 2015, Malaysia steeply raised the excise tax by 40%. This led to a boom in cheap “rokok haram” or illegal smokes, so much so that by 2020, a whopping 62 of every 100 sticks in Malaysia are smuggled items. That makes us the “world champion” for illegal smokes, even beating Uganda (57 percent) and Ecuador (41 percent).

This dubious honour has caused the government to lose some RM5 billion in tax revenue, money that could have been put to good use for Covid-related aid. Moreover, since illegal ciggies are cheap, the whole goal of discouraging smoking through higher prices is defeated.

Despite tighter enforcement during the Movement Control Order (MCO) in March and April, smugglers still found ways to sell illicit smokes online, which were then sent to customers by e-hailing and food delivery services. Another media report cited how smugglers even placed GPS trackers on law enforcement vehicles to outwit them.

Doesn’t that sound like the organised crime of 1930s Chicago which flourished because of Prohibition? Will we see similar cat and mouse games in KL when it comes to cheap liquor?

It’s no secret that Malaysia has a “boleh kautim” culture where laws can be bent and our black economy (including smuggled cigarettes, drugs, prostitution, illegal gambling, etc) is estimated at RM300 billion. With so much money floating around, there is a greater danger here - to the state itself.

Drug money in Colombia ended up funding so-called “narco-terrorists”. In Sabah, where smuggled smokes are common, how much of the profits have funded cross border criminals? Do we want to add cheap alcohol to this list of contraband in KL?

Isn’t it better to continue allowing sundry shops and mini markets in KL to sell liquor openly so that it can be controlled (via regular checks) to ensure product safety? Rather than for the business to go underground where it can grow in dangerous ways? If the government is really concerned about people drinking too much cheap liquor, then certain minimum prices can be set (as has been done for cigarettes).

Or why not promote toddy instead? It’s a fully natural drink made from coconut flower sap (nira kelapa) which has been fermented. Unlike cheap liquor which has up to 40 percent of alcohol, toddy has only about 5 percent of alcohol (just like beer) -- hardcore drinkers will really need to drink a whole pail to get drunk!

I used to buy toddy myself from a shop (OK, it was more like a shack) in Brickfields, KL. I liked its sweet flavour, which went very well with the bitter taste of Guinness stout. Best of all, it was about the same price as Coca-Cola! But sadly, this shop was closed down in 2010 and the dubious reason given was to “clean up the image of KL”.

That shop was actually run by the government, as a legacy of colonial times. One suspects the true reason was that a “halal” government cannot be associated with “haram” alcohol, although corruption seems to be much more "acceptable".

What a pity, because this was a product proudly Made in Malaysia, unlike all that foreign whisky and brandy! And think about how it can also help boost incomes of rural coconut farmers. Rather than closing down toddy shops, the real solution is to upgrade and rebrand its image as “coconut flower wine”, until it becomes an export-grade product.

All the examples mentioned above on Prohibition, road safety, baby dumping and illegal cigarettes show one thing - that we need to be careful and rational about new rules. But if the authorities only want to ride high moral horses, they should be careful not to fall off them when the rules backfire.


ANDREW SIA is a veteran journalist who likes teh tarik khau kurang manis. You are welcome to give him ideas to brew at tehtarik@gmail.com