CRITIQUE ON PAPER "DRUGS AND THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY"

Dadah sintetik - dadah rekreasi

Pelbagai jenis dadah



CRITIQUE ON PAPER "DRUGS AND THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY"*

The first critique of this paper is the definition of the title -“The Problem of Drugs and Its Threat to National Security”. We feel that the presenter did not make a clear difference in terms of the drugs problem, whether it is the drug trafficking or drug abuses. As a result, we see the authors have intertwined two subjects that need a total different perspective in their argument. The failure to make a clear distinction between these two subjects has resulted in the analysis of the subject less systematic and conclusive.

Drug trafficking is a transcend border organized crime that produces, transports, imports, manufactures illicit drugs, using any transport for illicit traffic, as well as money laundering from illicit drugs trading posts a threat to national security especially in the territorial integrity. The eradication efforts need bilateral and multilateral cooperation. Whereas drug abuse is the illicit and non-medical use of drug that causes the health problem, shattered families, and weakened the nation by increasing health costs, corruption, lawlessness and crime (Drug Trafficking Act 1984 for England & Wales).

From the theoretical approach, we don’t see the presenter conceptualize the issue of drug as a national security issue concerned. We would like to suggest that the presenter using the concept of “securitization” by Barry Buzan to build up the argument of drug abuse as a national security. According to Buzan, “’Securitization…means to present an issue as urgent and existential, as so important that it should not be exposed to the normal haggling of politics but should be dealt with decisively by top leaders prior to other issues.” (Buzan 1998:29) However, Buzan also pointed out that “security should be seen as negative, as a failure to deal with issues as normal politics”, which reflected that the failure of Malaysian government in tackling with drug trafficking and drug abuses had prompted these issues to become a threat to national security (Ibid). In terms of drug trafficking, we would also like to suggest that the presenter to focus on the national interests of state to defend the national boundaries (Kamarulnizam & Mahmud 1998:157), because drug trafficking is closely related to weapon smuggling and violence in Malaysia’s waters.

We have problem with the presenter’s problem statement. They highlighted the illicit drug trading and drug abuse as one of the major security issues that confronting the government since 1983 and wanted to argue whether “the problems of drug” have threatened the national security. Again, we argue that the level of threats to national security posed by these two problems have a stark difference. As the drug trafficking threat to territorial integrity is more immediate and short term; whereas drug abuses threat is more toward human security in long term.

We disagree with presenter that the drug issue does not post a threat to sovereignty and territorial integrity (Page 9). If the presenter focuses on internal perspective only, the analysis would not be comprehensive. Malaysia is not a drug production country, but drug trafficking and drug abuses are rampant in Malaysia. One of the important reasons is the territorial of Malaysia have been more permeable to trafficking activity. For instance, the cocaine, ecstasy pills legally produced in India had been smuggled into the country via waters and airports by the migrant workers of India that came to Malaysia. (Utusan Malaysia 6 Mac 2006:4). The border in Southern Thailand, Brunei and Kalimantan are sensitive borders that become the focus of illegal immigrant and drug trafficking. Malaysia is a maritime country with a long coastal line with most of the neighbouring countries. The sea area of Malaysia include Malacca Strait, Singapore Strait, Gulf of Thailand, Lombok and Makasar is a strategic area in terms of economics and security in the international commerce system (Ibid:160) Malaysia also become the transit point for heroin and cocaine from Golden Triangle of Burma, Thailand and Laos, as well as Latin America to transfer the drugs to its intended market in U.S., Europe, Australia, China, Taiwan and worldwide. The questions we would like to ask is why the problem of drug trafficking has become so serious? What are the weaknesses of the state in dealing with it, lacking of human resources, facilities or corruption that has become endemic in our policing system?

We observe that the presenter has been overwhelmingly depend on historical events such Vietnam War, Opium War and the Chinese and Indian migrant workers before Independence to argue the case, and failed to link up the current situation that posts the drug issue as a threat to the state. In page 8, the presenter said 34% of U.S. troops in Vietnam were drug addicts had caused their subsequent defeat. However, when comes to deal with the connection of drug abuses in military service of Malaysia, presenter’s argument is merely on assumption that starts with “if they involve” and its possible impact, but fail to give empirical data, evidences or any specific case to prove that drug abuses has indeed threaten the military forces.

At the same time, we also find it quite disturbing that the presenter has tended to blame the “outsiders” for the seriousness of the drug problem in the country. Are we trying to escape from the fact we failed in dealing with the issue by pointing finger to outsiders or foreign influences? We felt that the data used by the presenter are very much out-dated, in which numerous examples cited by the presenter are based on the 1970’s (page 5, 6,7) including the repeating mention of U.S. troops in 1970’s, drug addicts in 1970, to name a few.

We also find out that the presenter has misinterpreted the figures of the attached table. For instance, in page 7, they stated that in 1990, the drug addicts have increased to 152,783 people from 711 in 1970. However, the fact is, 152,783 is the accumulative numbers of new drug addicts that detected by the authorities for the past 20 years started from 1970; it should not be taken as a conclusive number of drug addicts in 1990, given the fact some of them might have been demise, some might been quit the habit throughout the past 20 years. Though in last year, 43,093 people have been arrested under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 in last year (Mingguan Malaysia 5 Mac 2006: 17), at the same time, the new addicts also increase to 15,389 ( New Straits Times, March 21, 2005). In fact, we would like to suggest to the presenter to utilize the figures provided by the tables to consolidate their argument. For instance, 72% of the drug addicts found between Jan to Sept 2005 are coming from the age group of 16 to age 39, which is the young generation that will determine the future of the country. The continuous increase of new drug addicts of about 7,000 to 10,000 annually since 1976 to 1990, and even cross over 15,000 in last year has again heightened the critical level of the issue. From 1988 to 2005, a total of 289,763 drug addicts have been detected in Malaysia( New Straits Times, 21 March 2005), the number is astonish as this figure represent more than 1 percent of our total population. The figure itself speaks the urgency of the drug issue that posts as a threat to the human security.

Another conclusion that can be drawn from the table is--- why the numbers of drugs addicts are more concentrated in urban areas such as Penang, Johor, Kuala Lumpur and Sabah. Is urbanization, rapid economic development or location has a significant causal to the seriousness of the issue? However, we do not see any explanation is given to this problem in the paper. According to Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak, the government has to find other ways to combat the drug scourge as placing addicts in rehabilitation centers has not been that successful in curing their addiction, and the harm reduction programme was introduced (New Straits Times, 21 March, 2005). May be it is time that the society should change their mind---the effort to eradicate drug abuses should not and could not be the total responsibility of government. The state-centric approach throughout these years has proven to be ineffective given the numbers of drugs addicts stays all time high. Multilateral mechanisms includes family, schools, private sector, mass media, as well as non-governmental organizations and civil society are so much crucial in tempering the widespread demand and supply of drugs.

We would like to suggest that the presenter also study why is the war on drugs going so badly? The evidence that drug totally disappeared in a lock up in Kajang and until now no one has been held for the responsibility shows that the political will to fight drugs is in question. The fact is we continue to rely on stepped –up versions of a state-centric approach to confront what is an inherently global problem that thrives in the dark corners of the international systems where traditional sovereign control are weak or nonexistent. Drug are produced and trafficked by non-state actors who find borders essentially meaningless. Is that because “the states are so mindful of the sensibilities of their fellow sovereignty when the traffickers need not” that curtail the effort of eradicating drugs trafficking? Drug trafficking has provided money to corrupt officials at every level of government, thereby undermine the legitimacy of political and judicial institutions, (Flynn 2003:169). Besides, Malaysia and the other littoral states of Malacca Strait have been reluctant to cooperate among themselves to make their maritime boundaries effectively permeable for action by other states’ law enforcement forces, could be seen as one of the weaknesses of state actions. Lack of the mutual trust was the reason cited for the law enforcement vessels not allowed to enter foreign territorial seas, thus creates havens for the criminals (Roach 2005: 103; New York Times: 2005).

In conclusion, the whole paper still very much lacking in terms of empirical data to support the argument that drug trafficking and drug abuses pose a threat to national security. The argument could have been supported with the theoretical framework of securitization and human security in exploring the drug issues as a security issue threatening the state, with more findings and academic research.

Bibliografi

Buzan, B. Waever, O. & Wilde, J.D. 1998. Security: A New Framework for Analysis. London: Lynne Rienner Publisher.

Drug Trafficking Act 1984 for England & Wales. (Online) http://www.ukcia.org/pollaw/library ( 4 March 2006)

Kamarulnizam Abdullah & Mahmud Embong. 1998. Kepentingan Strategik di dalam Keselamatan Negara Malaysia .Jurnal Sejarah 6 : 151- 176.

New Straits Times. 2006. 21 March. (Online) http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/ (22 March 2006)

Roach, J.A. 2005. Enhancing Maritime Security in the Straits of Malacca and Singapore. Journal of International Affairs 59(1):97

Stephen E.Flynn, 2003. ”The Global Drug Trade Versus the Nation-State,” in ”Maryann Cusimano Love. Beyond Sovereignty: Issues for a Global Agenda.(ed). Belmont:Wadsworth. 167-193.

Snitwongse, K. & Bunbongkarn, S. 2003. New Security Issues and The Impact on ASEAN. 2^nd ASEAN Reader. 289- 296.

Snow, D.M. 2004. National Security for a New Era: Globalization and Geopolitics. New York: Pearson Longman.

Sindiket dadah makin berbahaya. 2006. Mingguan Malaysia, 5 Mac: 17.

Dadah dibungkus semula di Malaysia sebelum diedar. 2006. Utusan Malaysia, 6 Mac: 4.

* This piece of paper has been prepared to critique the major paper titled "Drugs and Treat to National Security"which has been writing with another student.

*This critique has been prepared together with Mrs. Ng Boon Hooi.