There has been intense discussions over the topic of banning drinking alcohol in public spaces.
Some say it’s a moral overstep, while others frame it as a religious or racial issue. But this isn’t about policing identities or pitting one race against another. It’s about protecting public health, and ensuring the safety and well-being that every community deserves, regardless of background.
Drinking is legal, social, and for many, part of their culture. However, when it spills into public areas such as sidewalks, bus stops, or parks, it’s no longer just a private matter.
Alcohol in shared spaces brings real consequences–violence, harassment, road accidents, injuries, and property damage. It’s also linked to increased rates of non-communicable diseases, mental health disorders, injuries, and premature deaths.
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), alcohol is responsible for three million deaths annually, and accounts for 5.1 per cent of the global burden of disease. Studies show that a third to half of perpetrators of violence had consumed alcohol beforehand.
Worldwide, emergency departments often see a spike in alcohol-related trauma during weekends and festivals. The harm extends beyond the drinker–families out for leisure, people commuting home, and workers on late shifts often become unintended victims of alcohol-fuelled chaos. Public intoxication also makes individuals more vulnerable to assault, robbery, or exploitation.
Our city streets, parks, and public transportation are shared spaces. They should be safe and inclusive for all. Just like we ban smoking in certain public places for the health of others, restricting alcohol in public isn’t about punishment, but about prevention.
Malaysia wouldn’t be alone in such efforts. While there’s no comprehensive federal law, local authorities can enact bylaws.
For instance, Selangor’s Public Park Bylaw 2005 prohibits drinking in public parks. In Johor Bahru, the City Council (MBJB) and police have intensified operations at Pantai Stulang due to long-standing issues of littering and public urination caused by public drinking, clarifying that drinking there is an offense. This action is based on enforcing existing regulations, not a new legislative ban.
Globally, there are other countries that already have policies to restrict public drinking. They did not do it for religious reasons, but to maintain public order and health.
In Singapore, the Liquor Control Act bans public drinking from 10.30pm to 7.00am, with stricter rules in designated zones. Australian cities like Sydney and Melbourne enforce “Alcohol-Free Zones” and “Alcohol Prohibited Areas” in parks and transport hubs to curb disorder.
In the United Kingdom, local authorities can enforce “Designated Public Place Orders” in areas with documented alcohol-related disorder, allowing police to confiscate alcohol, though consumption itself isn’t always an offence unless it leads to disorderly conduct.
In the United States, open container laws prohibit public drinking in most cities, with fines or arrests for violations.
These policies weren’t introduced to moralise or to police, but have been formulated based on data and a focus on public health. No one is banning alcohol entirely. The point is to regulate where it is consumed, just like we regulate loud noise or smoking in public areas.
In Malaysia, almost every policy gets viewed through the lens of race and religion. And yes, for non-Muslim communities, alcohol consumption is legally permitted and often part of cultural practices.
Recent restrictions have been perceived as an “unreasonable and unjustifiable” infringement on their rights, reflecting concerns about a growing “conservatism” and the gradual imposition of religious norms.
Public health shouldn’t be dragged into identity politics. A public drinking ban isn’t about criminalising drinkers or shaming lifestyles. It’s about protecting people regardless of background.
Just like we campaign for safer roads and cleaner air, we should be advocating for public spaces free from the harms of alcohol misuse. It doesn’t erase your right to enjoy a drink, but it simply asks that we do so in ways that don’t risk the safety or comfort of others.
Let’s stop framing this issue as an attack on identity and start treating it as what it really is: a move to make our communities healthier and more inclusive.
Because at the end of the day, clean streets, safer communities, and healthier lives benefit everyone, regardless of who we are or what we believe.
- This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of CodeBlue.
