KUALA LUMPUR, July 3 — Leading drug policy experts, including Prof Dr Adeeba Kamarulzaman, have strongly criticised the Drug Dependants (Treatment and Rehabilitation) (Amendment) Bill 2024 for contradicting decriminalisation principles and lacking scientific grounding.
Dr Adeeba, lawyer Sangeet Deo, public health policy specialist Palani Narayanan, and other experts from the Drug Policy Program said their main concern is that the bill – initially touted as decriminalisation of personal drug use – heavily emphasises punishment, including prison sentences and fines for drug users and, in some cases, their parents.
“This is not in keeping with decriminalisation principles,” read their joint statement shared with CodeBlue today.
Dr Adeeba is Malaysia’s first commissioner of the Global Commission on Drug Policy.
The drug policy experts argue that the Drug Dependants (Treatment and Rehabilitation) amendment bill conflicts with the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1952 (DDA). The DDA still imposes fines of up to RM100,000 and jail sentences of up to five years for drug use and possession, creating a contradictory national policy.
The drug dependants bill, they say, also disregards scientific evidence on addiction and overlooks practical challenges faced by parents, drug users, and professionals. A critical flaw highlighted by the experts is the excessive power granted to rehabilitation officers who may lack adequate training.
“Drug use and dependence is a multifaceted issue that requires the close collaboration with medical and health officers. This bill seems to alienate the role of the Ministry of Health (MOH) and its officers.
“Too much power given to a rehabilitation officer who is not sufficiently trained to deal with dependency. Dangerous accumulation of power in one individual, potentially leading to abuse and corruption,” the experts said.
Palani Narayanan, director of Drug Policy Program Malaysia under the Malaysian AIDS Foundation, stressed that true “decriminalisation” means shifting people who use drugs away from the criminal justice system and into health systems.
“In the spirit of moving towards decriminalisation, it means that people are moved away from criminal justice systems into health systems. Upon reading this, what is clear is that the spirit of punishment is prevalent all across the bill,” Palani told CodeBlue when contacted today.
“We say at the beginning that yes, they will be sent to treatment, but as soon as they langgar syarat (violate conditions) once, they will be punished by their treatment being extended for six months. Even worse, if they langgar syarat twice, they can be sent back to prison. Or even worse than that, they can receive three strokes of the cane.
“This is not decriminalisation,” Palani said.
“Decriminalisation is when we understand the person is a patient, the person has an illness, and we provide treatment and support for that illness. We need to understand that this illness is a relapsing illness.
“Many people who struggle with drug dependency and addiction go through relapse, sometimes five times, sometimes ten times, before they find the best treatment for them that works and then they recover. If we are constantly going to punish people every time they fail, nobody is going to come forward to receive treatment,” he added.
Palani urged for a more progressive approach, calling on the government to heed expert advice and adopt a holistic strategy. “This is not a progressive bill for us.This is not taking us forward into the next century, into the next decade, this is actually pretty much the same with what we have at the moment.”
He raised concerns with the bill diminishing the role of the Ministry of Health (MOH) and medical officers, and pointed out the limitations of simple urine tests in assessing addiction.
“If we truly view drug use as a health issue, why sideline the MOH and medical officers? Why shift so much responsibility to rehabilitation officers?
“Urine test is not a test to determine addiction. Urine tests only tell you that the person has ingested drugs in the last few days or a couple of weeks.
“That person could have gone to a party and accidentally eaten a hash cookie or a marijuana cookie and that would be in their system for three weeks. If they are stopped somewhere at a club or somewhere and a urine test is done on them, they will have marijuana in their body.
“And if we are going to go with that, and assess them as drug users, or drug dependents, worse still, then their whole life is going to get affected,” Palani said.
“We urge the government to listen to all parties concerned. We hope MPs will boldly acknowledge that experts are right: we need a comprehensive approach that considers the safety, security, and potential unintended consequences of any proposed amendments.”
The Drug Dependants (Treatment and Rehabilitation) amendment bill – tabled for its first reading in the Dewan Rakyat by Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail yesterday – will likely be tabled for second reading tomorrow.
Palani called for the bill to be referred to a parliamentary special select committee.
Problematic Provisions In Drug Dependants Amendment Bill
Experts from the Drug Policy Program highlighted several concerning provisions in the Drug Dependants (Treatment and Rehabilitation) (Amendment) Bill 2024, which include heavy emphasis on punishment such as prison sentences and fines for drug users and their parents, as well as the excessive powers granted to rehabilitation officers.
Amendment of Section 2
Section 2 of the principal Act is amended – (a) in subsection (1) – (iv) in the definition of “officer”, by inserting after the words “Rehabilitation Officer” the words “, any officer of the Agency appointed under section 5 of the National Anti-Drugs Agency Act 2004”;
Comment: Rehabilitation officer is an AADK officer – No reference is made to qualifications of such officers and suitability to undertake new role.
Amendments of Sections 3 and 5
Section 3 of the principal Act is amended – (a) in the shoulder note, by substituting for the words “drug dependant” the words “drug or substance dependant and drug or substance misuser”; and (b) in subsection (1), by substituting for the words “drug dependant” the words “drug or substance dependant or drug or substance misuser”.
Section 5 of the principal Act is amended in the shoulder note, by substituting for the words “drug dependant” the words “drug or substance dependant and drug or substance misuser”.
Comment: The retention of both these sections continue to allow a person who is a drug dependent or user, to be taken into custody – thereby treating him as a criminal, and not a patient. This defeats the purpose of treating drug dependency and use as health issues.
Note – There has been no amendment or proposed repeal of the existing Section 4. Therefore, a person may be released on bail pending the completion of tests. In the event he is unable to post bail, he will be remanded. This is a major factor currently contributing to prison overcrowding.
The Magistrate also retains the power to detain him for a further period. This is also a major factor currently contributing to prison overcrowding.
Substitution of Section 6
The principal Act is amended by substituting for section 6 the following section:
“Order of Magistrate which may be made on drug or substance dependant
6. (1) Where a person who has undergone the tests referred to in section 3 or 4 and, in consequence of such tests, is certified by a government medical officer or a registered medical practitioner to be a drug or substance dependant, the officer shall produce the person, or cause the person to appear before a Magistrate.
Comment: All medical officers who have certified a person as a drug/substance dependent shall produce the person before a Magistrate. Therefore, drug dependency, which is a health issue, remains an offence that requires mandatory production in Court.
6. (2) Where a drug or substance dependant is produced or appears before a Magistrate, the Magistrate shall, on the recommendation of a Rehabilitation Officer and after giving such person an opportunity to make representations –
(a) order such person to undergo treatment and rehabilitation at a Rehabilitation Centre specified in the order for a period of two years and thereafter to undergo treatment and rehabilitation in a community under the supervision of a Rehabilitation Officer at a place specified in the order for a period of two years;
or (b) order such person to undergo treatment and rehabilitation in a community under the supervision of a Rehabilitation Officer at a place specified in the order for a period of two years.
Comment: The Magistrate shall act on the recommendation of a Rehabilitation Officer – not a Medical Officer. As this is a health issue, recommendation about treatment or rehabilitation should be made by a Medical Officer
A Magistrate should only determine the period for treatment and rehabilitation at a Rehabilitation Centre pursuant to the advice of a Medical Officer/ addiction specialist/ relevant expert, and not the Rehabilitation Officer.
6. (5) Where a person is produced or appears before a Magistrate under subsection (4), the Magistrate may, after considering the report by a Rehabilitation Officer and after giving such person an opportunity to make representations, order the person to undergo treatment and rehabilitation at a Rehabilitation Centre for a period not exceeding six months.
Comment: A Magistrate should only determine the period for treatment and rehabilitation at a Rehabilitation Centre pursuant to the advice of a Medical Officer/ addiction specialist/ relevant expert, and not the Rehabilitation officer.
6. (6) Any person undergoing treatment and rehabilitation in a community under paragraph (2)(a) or (b) who fails to comply with any of the conditions imposed under subsection (3) commits an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine or be ordered to perform community service not less than 120 hours in aggregate within the period of not exceeding six months or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years and if sentenced with imprisonment, may be liable for whipping not exceeding three strokes.
Comment: Addiction is a known relapsing disorder, immediate responses to non-compliance with fine/ community service/ imprisonment/whipping will not be effective and is likely to add to prison overcrowding.
Amendment of Section 9
Section 9 of the principal Act is amended— (c) by inserting after subsection (2) the following subsections:
“(3) Where the Rehabilitation Officer decides that a minor is to undergo treatment and rehabilitation at the Rehabilitation Centre, Service Centre or private rehabilitation centre, or undergo treatment and rehabilitation in a community, the parent or guardian of the minor shall attend the treatment and rehabilitation programme together with the minor if the parent or guardian of the minor is required by the Rehabilitation Officer to do so.
(4) Subject to subsection (3), the Rehabilitation Officer may impose such conditions to a parent or guardian of a minor who is a drug or substance dependant or drug or substance misuser as the Rehabilitation Officer thinks fit.
(5) Any parent or guardian of a minor who is a drug or substance dependant or drug or substance misuser who fails to comply with any of the conditions imposed under subsection (4), commits an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding five thousand ringgit.”
Comment: These amendments place further burden on parents of minors needing treatment and rehabilitation by now requiring the parent or guardian to attend such programmes together with the said minor.
A Rehabilitation Officer is not qualified to impose conditions on parents or guardians.
No explanation has been provided in relation to the conditions proposed.
The imposition of a fine not exceeding RM5,000 for not complying with such conditions will be a heavy burden on parents.
The penalty for non-payment of fine is unclear. Will the parent be subject to imprisonment?
New Sections 27A, 27B and 27C
The principal Act is amended by inserting after section 27 the following sections:
Appointment of Rehabilitation Officer
27A. The Minister shall appoint such number of Rehabilitation Officers as required for all matters relating to the apprehension, treatment and rehabilitation of drug or substance dependant or drug or substance misuser from time to time for the purposes of this Act.
Comment: The necessary qualifications of such Rehabilitation Officers to be appointed for matters relating to the apprehension, treatment, and rehabilitation has not been specified.
Appointment of volunteer
27B. (1) The Director General may appoint such number of volunteers as may be necessary to assist an officer to execute functions for the treatment and rehabilitation under this Act.
Comment: The necessary qualifications of such Rehabilitation Officers to be appointed for matters relating to the apprehension, treatment, and rehabilitation has not been specified.
Rehabilitation Officer Profession Council
27C. (1) The Minister shall establish a Rehabilitation Officer Profession Council and appoint such number of persons with experience, knowledge and expertise on matters relating to the affairs of the Rehabilitation Officers, the treatment and rehabilitation of drug or substance dependants and drug or substance misusers and other matters as may be prescribed, to be members of the Rehabilitation Officer Profession Council.
(2) The Minister may determine the payment of allowances for members of the Rehabilitation Officer Profession Council.”.
Comment: What is the purpose of this Rehabilitation Officer Profession Council – purpose/ role? Are health care professionals/ addictions specialists involved?
