|
The initial controversial and pertinent questions raised by many parties with regard to the contract awarded by the Road Transport Department to an untried and untested company to conduct drug tests on commercial vehicle drivers late last year is indeed a real cause of contention.
By a mere stroke of a pen, RTD has shifted its onus of responsibility to doctors which in turn has passed the buck to lab assistants. We had thought that the intial scrapping of this ruling last year was most welcomed, but now however the thought of revamping and reintroducing this scheme once again will send jitters down our spine which is like telling us, "look if we can't barge in through the front door, let's sneak in through the back door"! Firstly, allow me to say by way of concession that I am a co founder of a private drug rehab center and currently involved in counseling and rehabilitating drug dependants, alcoholics and people living with HIV and Aids (PLWHA). I find it very disturbing that by outsourcing to a third party, the RTD or the Transport Ministry can prevent addict drivers from being on our roads. Although very much a noble thought, we fail to recognise that by nature drug addicts are much more sly, shrewder and smarter than many of us can imagine. Being addicts, it is not too difficult for them to foil and render any urine test null and void.Can the authorities clarify and define how these urine tests are going to be conducted? Performed by doctors and sent to the labs for tests right? Kindly bear in mind that the present practice by doctors to procure urine allows the subject to be alone in the privacy of a toilet or under strict surveillance. This compared to the police method where privacy is totally disallowed from the viewpoint of fraudulent tests.
Would any drug addict in his right frame of mind, knowing full well the consequences of this urine test, produce his own urine for testing unless prevented by strict surveillance? Such tests can be anticipated and are according to one's convenience. All addicts need to do is to swap their own urine with that of any of their (non-addict) friends’, their spouses', their children's or even their pets' urine!
From there it is just a matter of going to the panel of clinics, in and out of the clinic's toilet and passing the sample to the doctor gleefully saying, ‘There you go, doc’.
Taking into account the above, will the panel doctors have the authority or do they have vested powers like the police or JPJ enforcement officers to compel and retrieve urine under their own watchful eyes or those of their female staff? Frankly speaking, neither my commercial drivers nor myself (incidentally I run a small but enterprising pest control company staffed by reformed addicts too) will ever subject ourselves to such humiliation. It is definitely an outright abuse of our very basic fundamental rights and sacred privacy!
Further, will the doctors concerned dare to take up the role of urine-testing commercial drivers which may end with the latter losing their jobs? If I am a doctor, I certainly wish and pray that none of my clients' urine are tested positive. Imagine, due to my diligent urine tests, their livelihoods are now at stake and mind you, they know where is my clinic and what car I drive! A classic example is that of Fomena, can anyone attest that Fomena was or is a success? Definitely, this particular system had been flawed with misuse whereby, ethical doctors had been subjected to riducle and loss of businesses for the simple fact that no prospective agents will send their maids to these doctors and out of sheer convenience would rather find a less intrusive clinic to address their woes. We submit our urine for tests on a voluntary basis because we want to know what is wrong with our health, but not for an addict! An addict already knows he is one and he does not need to pay for a urine test to prove that he is a true addict and amongst the privileged few in Malaysia!
With due respect to the new Transport Minister, it is an open secret that in any professional basket there are always bound to have bad apples who will succumb to under handed offers and driven by sheer profiteering. Will the registered doctors be empowered by law to compel suspects who could be hard core addicts and submit themselves to stringent urine tests? Don't you think dealing with such suspects require security personnel or a certain amount of authority in the event such procurement of urine becomes violent? Will the law empowers doctors to detain such suspects in such most likely circumstances? In my umpteen years of dealing with drug addicts, none will be submissive or compliant unless by absolute authority. Kindly do consider the plights of the commercial drivers who are already finding difficulty putting bread and butter on their tables to feed their families. Instead and by all means, Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat, JPJ and the police enforcers, go all out and bust these drivers who are under the influence of drugs. Go undercover, go to the streets, go to the bus stations and best of all go south to Singapore and see for ourselves how they bust suspects of drug addiction. All these enforcers are equipped, educated and trained and can even detect through your body language whether you are an addict, a drunkard or a pusher.
From the above perspective, as law-abiding citizens, we acknowledge that the law is good only when there are correct, proper implementation and enforcement. But merely enacting a ruling or rather a lopsided policy for commercial drivers and assuming all will comply is tantamount to asking an addict or a murderer to admit voluntarily he is one. Did not Article 96 of our Federal Constitution vividly stipulates: No tax or rate shall be levied by or for the purposes of the Federation except by or under the authority of federal law. Is Article 96 now redundant or it does not apply to this particular ministry? Most likely its contention in the face of this Article is that "this is not a rule, it's merely a policy, satu dadah dasar baru or in simplistic terms a New Drug policy and all policies are immune from the scrutiny of our Federal Constitution. Furthermore, it is subject to price review, which of course will most likely increase over time as opposed to a tax or rate which comes under the purview of Parliament in the event the rates are raised. Will the government in its zeal then, compel all citizens to a mandatory DNA test with an imposed fee again, in order just to nab a serial rapist on the loose? We the rakyat believes that it is the fundamental duty of an enforcer to nab such offenders and by merely passing the onus to a doctor and ultimately to a lab assistant will be unwarranted, is burdensome, time consuming and costly to the law abiding majority. If such untested rules are enforced, the message to us the rakyat is vivid, it does not pay to be law abiding citizens, since the people are made to pay for the follies and the authorities' incompetence.
Such a ruling no matter how you are going to revamp or revise, does not guarantee that addict drivers will be taken off the roads and highways. Two wrongs does not right a wrong. Where there is no proper implementation, laws become nominal. We already have more than adequate laws to protect our rights and privileges, what good will the law bestow onto us, when crimes are still rampant and unabated. Is it the fault of the rakyat? Will we be penalized soon with another imposed fee soon, because of the police inefficencies in nabbing the criminals? Since there are so many crimes committed by suspected drug addicts or the unemployed, will it not make sense to enforce this ruling across the board whereby those who earn below the poverty line as defined by the government must undergo these tests. Sounds very lucrative to those in power, after all who really cares, is only a small sum and the poor must afford it. We sincerely urge the authorities concerned to abolish this issue flawed from the drawing board and conduct an in-depth study especially on the implementation aspect. If indeed you have to enforce this rule, let the relevant authorites conduct such tests which demand a high level of impartiality and non chargeable as part of the government's basic duty for the prevention of crimes. Do not involve a third party or a panel of doctors who has definite vested interest and in most probability, may retreat to subjective ethics when faced and tried under a commercial decision. After all, drug addiction cuts across all segments of society, is a no respecter of men and is not confine only to commercial drivers who incidentally some of us are tax payers too. If you need to implement this noble action, then it should be to all drivers too, was it not a sibling of a former Transport Minister an addict too and was reported in the media? Do we mean only commercial drug drivers are dangerous on the roads and are we not being prejudiced against them?
Do we need another incident of a major bus crash caused by an addict driver? A likely scenario, I suppose, will be the Transport Minister yelling, ‘A full probe to be carried out’, while the RTD chief says, ‘We'll delist and suspend doctors found to be incompetent’.
The doctors then cry foul saying, ‘It’s not our fault, query the lab assistants, we passed the urine to them!’ The lab assistants then lament, ‘Cross our hearts but all the urine samples sent to us tested negative!’ And we still ask why the system still fails? Your guess is as good as mind.
Controller Of 2 Legged Pests
 |
Subscribe RSS
The Blogs 
Corruption at it's height!