Absolute drug bans contribute to corruption in M'sia

“Either you change, or you will be changed.”

Bukit Aman Criminal Investigation Department (CID) chief Mohd Shuhaily Mohd Zain’s warning shot to the police force has been well-received by many.

There really isn’t much in his message for any right-minded individual to disagree with - end corruption and collusion with syndicates or face the music. But will this address the underlying cause of the issues?

Humankind and vices are inseparable; some seek to use any means necessary to put an end to such vices in the pursuit of progress, while those without that luxury partake in vices away from the public eye.

This serves to create a thriving ecosystem where some assume that prohibitionist measures are working, while other latent actors continue to operate outside of the law.

For the latter, there will come a point in time when placating law enforcement is a business cost, and creating a relationship of collusion and corruption becomes an investment opportunity.

To us, drug crimes perfectly illustrate this ecosystem. Although the death penalty has been in place for nearly five decades for the offence of drug trafficking, we have yet to enjoy any significant successes - neither in the early years of combating the proliferation of heroin nor in the present day of lowering drug addiction numbers.

The number of drug users continues to soar, while “reported” profits that one can speculate from detained shipments are growing at a good pace.

Tolerating one but not the other

So what do collusion and corruption look like when it comes to drug crimes? The answer lies in the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985, better known as LLPK.

It is a mysterious law which is meant to detain drug lords without trial and detentions per year have gone as high as 1,400.

If the death penalty is all-impactful and effective in its ability to deter drug crimes, why do we have a parallel law, especially one that centres power and discretion around the police force as opposed to an open court? Why do we give drug lords two years of administrative detention instead of the death penalty?

Most of all, why are we allowing a fertile opportunity for collusion and corruption between drug syndicates and the very agencies tasked to combat their existence?

There’s a much better alternative if our aim is to reduce the proliferation of illicit substances without opening the door to potential corruption among law enforcement.

Why don’t we treat these illicit industries as any other business and industries that society frowns upon but tolerates?

For instance, although the public generally disagrees with the tobacco industry’s grip on society, numerous laws and taxation are in place to limit expansion while keeping the industry regulated.

The public also disagrees with businesses that exploit natural resources and harm communities but we seem to be more than able to tolerate them through regulation instead of pushing them underground beyond legal oversight.

We seem to understand that governance works better for managing facilities like Lynas instead of having them operate like many illegal recycling facilities.

A turning point

The recent shift towards harm reduction in managing drug addiction also seems to reflect a move away from absolute prohibition.

Experts and academics in the country have long called for bringing this issue to light through good governance rather than prohibitionist measures such as incarceration - though policymakers have yet to make (or announce) concrete moves towards creating a legislative environment for this to happen.

Jail terms and hefty fines are still on the table for those arrested, investigated, and charged for partaking in drug use - another open door to further collusion and corruption.

With all that being said, as our CID chief puts out a final warning to his officers, do we start crafting policies that make his work easier, or do we continue to advocate for measures that do nothing but deepen the practice of corruption?

In an environment where people might be hellbent on maintaining and protecting their income, how far can and will the CID chief go with this call?