Iqbal Hafiedz

You are the prime minister of Malaysia and the threat of the HIV epidemic is looming over the nation. Studies suggest that drug addiction is the main reason for its spread. The government’s response to this dilemma was the possibility of implementing a needle exchange program. The one-time use feature helps the prevention of needle sharing amongst addicts. It also drastically reduces the occurrences of transmitting the virus to their spouses and subsequently their offspring. From the eye of the government, a needle exchange program would bring the addicts and the government in close contact and this process will include more trust by addicts towards governments which will then be viewed as genuinely wanting to help.

With this building trust, the government can easily offer rehabilitation services at a more accessible level. Most addicts want to get out of the predicament they are in but are victimized by the addictiveness of the drugs. This kind of perceptive change in society could also help bring the addict to access help.

Society must change as the government initiates the kind of perception we have on drug addict from criminals to victims of circumstances, a group that needs all the help, support and understanding they can get. Because drugs threatens not only the possibility of everyone of us getting hooked (as the demands of today’s fast moving environment that demands more and more everyday) but also it is a threat to the possibility of our children, teenagers and even adult siblings becoming a victim of this deadly addiction, we are all responsible to help those in need to access help.

The logic behind this ideal is the simple concept that built civil society; we would most definitely require the same kind of maturity, understanding and compassion from the rest of society if it were to happen to one of our loved ones.

However, the ability for the government to implement this program may be more difficult than one thinks. First the government will have to decriminalize drugs. This means the government can no longer arrest anyone who is say, tested positive or failed a drug test. This will also mean that possession of minimal amounts of highly fatal and dangerous drugs like heroin could be no more than a slap on the wrist to the offender.

The reason for this is because how can you treat them like victims but recognize them as criminals at the same time. The greater fear that may arise from the stance the government takes is the kind of image the government is portraying to the traffickers. In the areas of the golden triangle and in a region where drugs is “a source not really a destination”, it could mean that there could be an increase of drug use without the necessary guarantee that addicts will take up needle exchange especially when dealing with less educated, rural areas where the problem is most prevalent. Malaysia as a chair to the Organization of Islamic Nations (OIC) and a strong voice behind the Islamic community may risk losing their image as tolerant but with strict principles and this has led to the nation that for so long has been adored by other Islamic Nations especially within the Middle East. This is in view that Malaysia attracts the most number of Middle East tourists that visits Malaysia sometimes for months to escape the heat of the hot season. The analysis at this point may be viewed as too expansive as linking the needle exchange program to the tourism industry is ridiculous.

Not quite. When a government of a nation starts a drastic change into a more pluralistic ideal, then society will react accordingly as the social programs for changing the perception of drug addicts from bad to good will also prompt splinter groups that will win lots of appeal and most definitely labeled, in view of the efforts of the government type non-governmental organizations, will mushroom. The social impact changing fundamental philosophical and principles that has predicated our lives will most definitely create social change engines in pockets of society that will start looking for a reduction in the role of religion and principles of morals but of pragmatism and practicality. The legalization of prostitution and abortion will follow as a consequence of the social movement along the same directions.

All this developments may mean that Malaysia will be a more secular country and one that is more credible as a democracy but the context that we a surrounded with is not ready to embrace such a drastic change. This is because when changes are drastic and moves with great urgency (as the HIV problem must be an imminent problem before we would boldly implement this controversial policy), people tend to get defensive and pockets of society will segregate forming alliances with those who believe in protecting their identity either as Muslims or an idealist of the philosophical foundations of our forefathers.

There are two pockets created in this instance with the change in government stance at a fundamental level and these two pockets forms the two extremes of an ideological battle. This sounds like a perfect environment for social conditions in Malaysia to get worst. The racial harmony initiatives by the government is already starting to annoy most people on the ground especially the non-Bumiputras as they feel patronized by the government who wants unity without the tangible reforms of wealth distribution that forms the source of the underlying racial problems in Malaysia.

The long-term effects of such fundamental changes to a developing and volatile region could be dangerous. As Prime Minister, you also head the largest party in Malaysia, UMNO which is accountable to Malays who by constitutional definition should be Muslims too. Could this policy be political suicide for a prime minister that is only four years in office? The gaining of political foothold relative to say Tun Dr. Mahathir’s 20 or so years in office is what we can say for Badawi at this point at best at its infancy and challenging such a fundamental social believe system is a risky gamble.

The political and social problems that arise from a situation of a mere policy are one that Malaysia can’t afford at this moment. Increased enforcement like speeding up the coordination of RELA and PEMADAM members with the police to curb crimes related to drug addiction as well as conducting of raids and strengthening intelligence are all better alternatives for the Malaysian government. Singapore’s zero-tolerance policy has been successful because it’s been run correctly. Maybe introducing sex-education into schools can help presiding generations to be safer in their sexual activities (a tool by most successful nations in terms of HIV prevention but not implemented in Malaysia). Because we haven’t exhausted all alternatives to a solution to the problem, we may be so to say barking at the wrong tree by implementing this policy.

Malaysia as a respected Islamic state, one that is benefiting a whole lot from maintaining such an image should seek to maintain it by exploring programs that doesn’t involve fundamental principle changes could be effective as it has in other countries. Not only there’s still no guarantee that drug addicts in Malaysia will learn to love and trust the government, but we risk potential increase in drug use because traffickers may seek refuge in this country but also a potential social conflict that is based on ideology and fundamental principles of identity, the situation seems perfect for conflict. One which not only will make the problem of HIV worst, as conflicts means less constructive efforts are reached but its an attempt at solving a problem that has too many undesirable side effects.

What would you do?