DRUG ABUSE AND ITS PREVENTION IN MALAYSIA

Vong Poh Fah*
I. INTRODUCTION
Drug abuse is indubitably widespread and endemic to the South East Asian region. The principal reason
for this undesirable phenomenon can be attributed to the easy availability of narcotics in this region. For as
long as most of us can remember, South East Asia has been, and still is, well known for its bountiful
production of traditional narcotics such as opium and cannabis. Despite being outlawed internationally, thecultivation of poppies and cannabis is viewed in some South East Asian countries, notably by theindigenous, as a legitimate cash crop. The cultivation of these egregious produce become augmented when
law enforcement in the area affected is constrained and hampered, or sometimes stifled, by political turmoil,
armed conflicts, insurgencies, difficult geographical terrain, the want of resources of the country concernedor the lack of a political will on the part of the governing authority to stamp out the drug menace. Not
surprisingly, this has led to South East Asia becoming a major producer and supplier of the world’s demandfor opiate based drugs and cannabis. Additionally, the lack of a stringent legislative proscription and poor
enforcement in some of these jurisdictions has also contributed substantially to the flourishing drug trade in
the region.
II. THE DRUG ABUSE SITUATION IN MALAYSIA
Malaysia is not a narcotic producing country and there is no known or reported cultivation of poppies orcannabis in Malaysia. This is not a fortuitous circumstance. We attribute it to the stringent legislative
proscription and strict enforcement regime adopted by the Malaysian Government in her war against illicit
drugs. However, in spite of her harsh stand against drug related offences, the pervasiveness of drug abuse in
the country is, in our view, still rampant and alarming. The principal cause of this is due to our geographicalproximity to the major narcotic producing region. From the seizures of drugs made by the police andcustoms authorities, it is found that most, if not all, of the opiate based drugs and cannabis recovered were
smuggled into the country from the Golden Triangle, Thailand and Cambodia. One thing for sure, however
much we may wish to put a stop to the smuggling activities, it is not possible to eradicate totally thesmuggling menace. In our case having a long and porous border hinders our cause substantially. The
availability of narcotics through such smuggling activities inevitably gives rise to two most reprehensible
activities in the subject of illicit drugs: drug trafficking and drug abuse. Historically, Malaysia has, by reasonof her reasonably good communication and infrastructure systems, been a favourite transit point for drugs
destined for other more affluent parts of the world, notably Europe and Australia. Though we believe that the
drug syndicates’ preference of Malaysia as a transit country may have changed over the years from that of apreferred status to one that is less preferred due to her harsh trafficking laws, cross border trafficking ofdrugs is still rampant. This is because apart from the use of Malaysia as a transit point, there is also a readymarket here for these illicit drugs. We in fact face a larger problem from those who abuse drugs than those
who traffic in them. Undeniably where there is trafficking of drugs there will also be abuse of drugs. The
twain constantly co-exists and can never be put asunder, otherwise without a demand there would be noreason for drugs to be trafficked. In Malaysia, a great amount of human resources is wasted annually throughdrug addiction with an equally great amount of money spent annually by the government in rehabilitatingthese addicts. Additionally, the drug menace has also contributed significantly to an unhealthy rise in crime
rates. There is invariably a link between violent and acquisitive crimes, and the proliferation of narcotics.
Certainly, if the drug menace is left unchecked, the stability of the economy and internal security of thecountry would be open to risk of being compromised.

* Deputy Public Prosecutor,
Attorney-General’s Chambers,
Government of Malaysia

108

124TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS
III. THE DRUG ABUSE PROFILE
Broadly speaking, the types of illicit drugs commonly abused in Malaysia can be classified into two
categories; that is to say, plant-based drugs and synthetic drugs. Examples of plant-based drugs are opium(both raw and prepared), heroin, morphine, monoacetylmorphines, codeine and cannabis. The types ofsynthetic drugs commonly abused here are syabu (methamphetamine), ecstasy (Methylenedioxyamphetamine, 3, 4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine and N-ethyl), ketamine and psychotropic pills.
Historically, drug abuse in Malaya1 started with opium smoking in the late nineteenth century. A habitthat was brought here by migrant workers from China, which for some unknown reasons, our colonial masterdid not deem fit to outlaw in the beginning. Over time, and as the country became developed and more
affluent, other derivatives of opium, such as morphine and heroin, began to emerge. For many years in thetwentieth century the profile of drugs abused in Malaysia was very much confined to opium, morphine,
heroin and cannabis. Today, opiate-based drugs remain the preferred drug among abusers in Malaysia. Mostof these opiate-based drugs seized in Malaysia are found to have originated from the “Golden Triangle”
while cannabis is usually smuggled from countries such as Thailand, Cambodia and lately, Indonesia.
Most countries in the world today do not insulate themselves from world trade. Malaysia, for one, does
not practice a closed-door policy. Globalization, a hackneyed phrase these days, has its undesired side
effects. As a result of globalization, the drug trend in Malaysia is inexorably influenced by the changes in the
global drug abuse scenario. As the world advanced rapidly in the realm of science and technology over thelast quarter of the twentieth century, she too has witnessed the flip side of that advancement. It has brought
about the emergence of a new breed of narcotics, i.e. the synthetic drugs - the kind that needs no cultivation.
This in turn brings more bad news. It means a faster production rate and a cheaper production cost in thatvast tracts of land that were previously necessary for cultivation of traditional narcotic is now not required.
Apart from generating variety in the drug market it also brought down the price of drugs, making it more
affordable for the man in the street. Experience shows that those who abuse drugs do not necessarily confine
themselves to one particular type of drug.
Over the last few years, we, in Malaysia, have detected a steady rise in the abuse of synthetic drugs. Thismay be a harbinger of a changing trend in the drug abuse profile in the days to come. There are compelling
reasons as to why these designer drugs are fast gaining popularity. First, in contrast with opiate-based drugs,
they are easier and more convenient to be consumed. It does not require drug-consuming paraphernalia suchas syringes or smoking utensils. Use of such paraphernalia has its downside. Addicts can either be easily
detected or the unhygienic conditions in its use constantly expose them to great risk of deadly infectious
diseases such as HIV or HCV. If they do not succumb to their own drug addiction, these diseases are, mostcertainly, there to see them off. Second, synthetic drugs are usually odourless and can easily be concealed
and transported thus rendering detection extremely difficult. Third, consumption of these drugs generally
does not lead to the manifestation of any addiction syndrome. Synthetic drug abusers are, hence, less easy todetect. Fourth, pervasive misconception that synthetic drugs are less deleterious than heroin or cocaine andthere is no tendency to become addicted to them. Fifth, synthetic drugs are currently fashionable among theyounger generation. Drugs like ecstasy and methamphetamine are frequently abused in entertainment places
such as discos, a popular night spot among the young and affluent.
Information obtained from Malaysian drug enforcement agencies reveals that most of themethamphetamine sold in Malaysia is smuggled from countries such as China, Thailand and the Philippines.
Ecstasy comes mainly from Holland. A major portion of the psychotropic pills found here is known to haveoriginated from Japan.
The following is a summary of the types and quantities of drugs seized by the Malaysian police over thelast few years.

1

As Malaysia was then known prior to her independence.

109

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 64
Type of Drug
Raw Opium
Prepared Opium
Heroin Base
Heroin No.3
Cannabis
CocaineMethamphetamine (Syabu)
Ecstasy*
Psychotropic Pills*
Cough Medicine (Codeine)**Ketamine
Erimine*

1998
31.54
0.21
3.62
279.076
1,513.12

1999
17.9
0.016
52.19
148.52
1,617.15

2000
0.17
106.091,612.58

6.43
7,191
1,633,877
24,337,95

5.35
46,970147,652
18,1333.33

208.11
48,996102,147
17,982.48

2001
60.67
8.77
66.56
210.491,570.53
0.017
51.29
224,684
155,764
5,864.04
7.34
16,265

2002
0.54
34.08
417.581,910.51
4.23
28.03
169,296
122,217
8,548.26
12.92
170,702* represents number of tablets seized** represents number of litres seized
Except where otherwise indicated, the above figures shown are in kilograms.
The number of persons arrested for drug related offences over the last two years is as follows:
Type of Drug
Opium
HeroinCannabis
CocaineMethamphetamine (Syabu)
Ecstasy

2001
35
4,721
2,929
2
585
267

2002
28
11,070
3,563
3
1,522
769

From 1988 to 2002, 235,495 drug addicts were identified by the relevant drug prevention agencies. This,
however, may not represent the actual number of addicts that exists in the country. The number of new
addicts recorded in 2002 was 17,080 compared with a figure of 15,831 in 2001. Of the 17,080, 53.55% were
new addicts while the remaining 46.45% were recidivists. The following are statistics for the type of drugs
abused and the corresponding number of addicts in 2002:
Type of Drug
HeroinMorphine
Cannabis
Opium
Methamphetamine
Psychotropic pills
Ecstasy
Amphetamine
CodeineInhalants

110

Number of Addicts
12,266
9,076
6,867
20
2,083
334
388
535
307
17

124TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS
IV. NATIONAL POLICIES AND STRATEGIES
Like most other countries, Malaysia has for a long time been plagued with the drug abuse and trafficking
problem. The Malaysian Government recognizes the importance and urgency in dealing with the drug
problem in the most effective way possible. Pursuant to a Cabinet decision dated 10th September 1983, theNational Narcotic Committee was established by the National Security Council to combat the drug abuse
and trafficking problems. Several other governmental committees and agencies were also formed shortly
thereafter to tackle the drug problem both at the federal and state level. Among these agencies, the Narcotic
Task Force acted as the principal drug prevention agency. This agency was charged with the responsibilityof:• overseeing the implementation of national policies on drug prevention;• coordinating, monitoring and evaluation of drug prevention programmes and activities;• coordinating the allocation of drug prevention programmes to the various sub-agencies;• monitoring the drug situation from time to time by creating an information database and feedback
system;• overseeing the development and enhancement of international cooperation in relation to drug abuse
prevention; and• acting as a secretariat to the National Narcotic Committee.
In 1996, the National Drug Agency (NDA) was established under the Ministry of Home Affairs to takeover the functions of the Narcotic Task Force and the Department in charge of treatment and rehabilitation of
drug offenders. The amalgamation of these two agencies was aimed at enabling the principal national drug
enforcement agency to be more effective and comprehensive in its approach in the combat against drug
abuse. The primary objective of the NDA is to ensure that all efforts undertaken in combating the drug
menace are implemented in a well-planned, coordinated and systematic manner to create a drug free society.
The functions of the NDA are:
• To formulate and determine national policies relating to drug prevention, enforcement, treatment andrehabilitation, and international relations;• To monitor all activities and programmes relating to the prevention and control of drug abuse;• To coordinate all activities of governmental agencies and non-governmental organizations that are
involved in the prevention and control of drug abuse;• To implement drug abuse prevention programmes;• To implement drug treatment and rehabilitation programmes;• To upgrade the system for data collection and to evaluate the effectiveness of all national drug abuse
prevention programmes;• To enhance regional and international cooperation to combat the drug problem; and• To serve as the secretariat to the National Drug Council.
A. Primary Prevention (Education)
The importance of primary prevention can never be over-emphasized. It is one of the primaryconsiderations to be taken into account in any drug abuse prevention strategy. Primary prevention concerns
educating the society on the ill effects of drug abuse and the importance of staying away from it. It flows
from the time proven adage that prevention is better than cure. For any educational programme to beeffective, it must begin at school. It can hardly be open to dispute that good habits are most effectively
inculcated in the younger generations. That, however, does not mean that the older ones are to be forsaken.
The NDA educational programmes fall into 3 broad categories. They are:• the school-based programme;• the community involvement programme; and• the information and publicity programme.
1. The School-Based Programme
The Students’ Resilience and Interpersonal Skills Development Educational (STRIDE) is a drug
education programme that is implemented at primary school level (for children between the ages of 7 and
12). Thus at a very young age students are informed of the existence of the different types of narcotics and111

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 64
the pitfalls of drug addiction. The STRIDE programme is essentially a joint effort of the NDA, the Ministryof Education and the Narcotics Department of the Malaysian police. The objectives of this programme areto:• enhance the knowledge and living skills of primary school students in order to resist peer pressure to
take drugs;• enhance the self-esteem and interpersonal skills of primary school students to say “no” to drugs;• encourage primary school students to participate in drug abuse prevention and healthy activities; and• create a sense of abhorrence for drugs and to ensure that schools in Malaysia are free from drugs.
In 2002 the STRIDE programme was implemented in 416 schools. To ensure a successful
implementation of this programme, teachers and drug prevention personnel were also required to undergo
training in interpersonal skills on drug abuse prevention. In 2002, a total of 16 training sessions for teachers
throughout the country were carried out.
The NDA also conducts surprise random urine screening for students as part of its effort in making early
detection. Students found to have abused drugs will be counselled by the school counsellor. In addition, they
will also be required to attend motivational camps/courses to redeem their self-esteem and to enhance theirinterpersonal skills. In 2002, 773 urine screening exercises were carried out involving a total of 35,000
secondary school students.
2. Community Involvement Programme
The NDA conducts seminars at government departments and at offices of the private sectors as part of its
exercise in implementing the drug abuse prevention programme at workplaces. A total of 65 such seminars
were conducted in 2002.
3. Information and Publicity Programme
In 1990 the mobile drug abuse prevention unit was created. These units traverse the length and breadth ofthe country to meet the general public with the objective of creating awareness among the community about
the drug abuse problem that currently betide the nation and the strategies that are being employed by thegovernment in dealing with the problem. In 2002, 300 exhibitions were held in schools, institutions of higher
learning, government departments and public places throughout the country. Additionally, the National
Narcotic Week was celebrated from the 19th till 25th February 2002. During that week various activities
focusing on the prevention of drug abuse were held with ample coverage given by the media.
B. Treatment and Rehabilitation
Malaysia practises a compulsory treatment and rehabilitation regime for drug dependants. This
compulsory treatment and rehabilitation programme is aimed at aiding drug dependants to overcome their
physical and psychological addiction to drugs and to, thereafter, live a drug free life. We are of the view thatwithout compulsion and governmental support and assistance, the probability of these hopeless souls inbeing able to overcome their drug-taking habits, should they be left to their own devices, would be extremely
remote.
In 1983 the Drug Dependants (Treatment and Rehabilitation) Act was passed by the legislature. This Act
empowers the designated rehabilitation officer and the police to arrest any person suspected of being a drug
dependant for the purpose of subjecting him to a medical examination to ascertain whether he is a drug
dependant or otherwise. If the test result is positive the rehabilitation officer is required to apply to theMagistrate’s Court for an order to detain him at a drug rehabilitation centre for compulsory treatment andrehabilitation. The period of treatment and rehabilitation is 2 years followed by aftercare for another 2 years.
The rehabilitation centres that treat and rehabilitate these drug dependants are established and sponsored by
the government. There are currently 28 such centres situated throughout the country. In addition, the country
also has 56 privately managed drug treatment and rehabilitation centres. In 2002, 13,760 drug dependants
were reported as having undergone treatment and rehabilitation at the government sponsored centres.
C. Legislation
The seriousness with which a country views the drug problem and the extent to which it desires toeradicate them is, I believe, often characterized by the legislation it employs in dealing with the problem.

112

124TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS
Malaysia has always been single minded in her approach in the fight against drug abuse. This is because we
see it as a threat to national security. The serious measures employed in our drug prevention legislation are atestament to that commitment. We are well known for our mandatory death penalty imposed on convicted
drug traffickers. While we may have earned many accolades for our tough stand against the drug menace,
simultaneously, we have also earned much flak, notably from Amnesty International, for imposing the
mandatory death sentence and the use of presumptions of fact in the prosecution of drug offenders. Coming
to a topic that is closer to my heart, I take great pleasure in being able to provide you with a birds-eye-viewof the various legislative measures employed by the Malaysian Government in dealing with this social
calamity.
1. The Dangerous Drugs Act 1952
The leading Malaysian statute enacted to curb the drug menace is the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1952
(DDA). The DDA criminalizes the self-administration (consumption), possession, importing and exporting,manufacturing, and the trafficking of illicit drugs. The severity of punishment provided under the DDA
varies with the nature and gravity of the offence committed. As it is not possible to discuss every offence
prescribed in this Act, I will confine myself to the more common ones.
The most severe punishment, i.e. the death sentence, is imposed on those who traffic in drugs. There arethree ways by which the prosecution may prove the offence of trafficking in drugs. The first is by way of
direct evidence where the accused person was actively engaged in the sale of narcotics. This process usually
involves the use of an agent provocateur (undercover agent) where trap evidence will be obtained. It is,however, not possible to do this all the time as such opportunity does not come by everyday. Furthermore,
the safety of the agent is invariably put to extreme risk in such undercover operations.
The second is by way of the definition of the word ‘trafficking’ in the DDA. ‘Trafficking” is defined here
as including the “manufacturing, importing, exporting, keeping, concealing, buying, selling, giving,receiving, storing, administering, transporting, carrying, sending, delivering, procuring, supplying, ordistributing” of any dangerous drugs. Admittedly, the meaning of trafficking under the DDA is much wider
than that as used in the ordinary context.2 The natural meaning in the context of trafficking involves dealing
between two parties at least. Therefore, acts such as the keeping, concealing, transporting, storing andcarrying of drugs in the above definition would appear to be more consistent with the notion of possession3
rather than that of trafficking. At first blush this might appear unjust in that those who are merely guilty ofdrug possession run the risk of being convicted of drug trafficking and in the process suffer the peril of aharsher punishment. To distinguish between those who traffic drugs from those who merely keep them fortheir own consumption, the Privy Council, in a seminal judgment in the case of Ong Ah Chuan v PP4, laid
down a rule of interpretation that the “keeping, concealing, transporting, storing or carrying of drugs” willamount to an act of trafficking only if it was done for the purpose of being distributed. This interpretation
thus brings the statutory definition of ‘trafficking’ in line with its natural meaning.
The third way of proving trafficking is through the use of presumption of facts, as provided in the DDA.
For example, if a person is found in possession of 15 grams or more in weight of heroin,5 the operation of thestatutory presumption is immediately attracted in that he is presumed to be trafficking in the said drug. This
presumption is premised on the logical assumption based on human experience that when a person is foundin possession of a large quantity of drugs, it is usually not intended for his own personal consumption but for
trafficking. The larger the amount, the stronger the presumption applies. Even if the drug was in actual fact
kept for the purpose of the accused person’s personal consumption, there is no injustice caused to him
because the presumption is a rebuttable presumption. The accused person is at liberty to produce evidence incourt to show that the drug was not meant to be trafficked. He may, for example, introduce evidence to showthat he is an addict and that the contraband was kept merely for his own personal consumption. That would
be sufficient to discharge the application of the presumption. However, if the amount of drug found on him isunduly large, he faces an uphill task in persuading the court that the drug was not meant to be trafficked. In
2

The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines ‘traffic’ as “to trade or deal in something illegal”.
The DDA imposes a less severe penalty for the offence of drug possession than drug trafficking.
4 [1981] 1 MLJ 69.
5 Section 37(da) of the DDA contains a list of drugs and the minimum statutory amount thereof which will trigger the application of
the presumption of trafficking.
3

113

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 64
evaluating the accused person’s evidence, the court must weigh it on a balance of probability. Contrary tocommon belief, the purpose of the presumption is not to presume guilt. It merely shifts the evidential burden
on to the accused person requiring him to show by way of evidence that the drug found in his possession was
not intended to be sold or distributed to a third party.
A lot of criticism had been levelled against us for employing such presumption of fact in the prosecutionof drug trafficking offenders. We are nevertheless undeterred. We see the need to resort to such measures
because, from experience, the dividing line between addicts and traffickers is often tenuous. It is to ensurethat trafficking of drugs at every level of the trafficking chain is effectively curbed. As of today, 127
convicted drug traffickers have been hanged for the period between 1990 and 2002.
Apart from trafficking another important concept that is usually associated with drug proscription laws is‘possession’. The concept of possession is important for two reasons. The first being possession of drugs isby itself a distinct and separate offence. Frequently when a person is found to be in custody of some quantityof drugs, there is a high probability that he is guilty of possession even though he is not guilty of trafficking.
Under the DDA the offence of possession of drugs is often punishable by imprisonment and sometimes
whipping too. The severity of the punishment is dependent on the amount of drug possessed. For example, aperson who is found guilty of having in his possession a small quantity of heroin will, at the very least, beliable to be punished with a fine not exceeding RM100,000 or to imprisonment of a term not exceeding 5
years or both. However, if the amount of heroin possessed is 2 grams or more but less than 5 grams theoffender will be liable to be punished with a sentence of imprisonment for a term not less than 2 years but notexceeding 5 years and, in addition, mandatory whipping of not less than 3 strokes but not exceeding 9
strokes. If the amount of heroin possessed is 5 grams or more, the offender is liable to be punished withimprisonment for a term of not less than 5 years but not exceeding 20 years and, in addition, mandatory
whipping of not less than 10 strokes but not exceeding 24 strokes.
The second reason is; to prove trafficking one must first prove possession, for without possession there
can be no trafficking. The concept of possession has often been a difficult area of law for us. This concept
has two elements, the physical and the mental. The former is rather straightforward and easy to prove. It is
the latter that is problematic. Accused persons who are caught carrying drugs frequently deny knowledge ofthe drugs they were carrying. It is indubitably the prosecution’s duty to prove beyond reasonable doubt thatthe accused person knew of the nature of the drugs carried. This is the rub of the problem. Where proof ofknowledge is concerned, it is always a difficult task to handle because one cannot prove knowledge
conclusively unless direct evidence is available. However, in reality direct evidence is seldom available.
Most of the time one has to rely on inferences. The critical question at the end of the day is whether from thetotal inferences adduced in court it is possible to say that the accused person knew of the nature of the drug
carried. How much is enough? The answer is elusive and this is where the problem lies. The court is often
reluctant to accept the sum total of the available inferences as constituting sufficient proof of the accused
person’s knowledge of the drug. My view of the matter is that sometimes the death penalty seems to hurt us
more than it helps us. Because the process involves the taking of a person’s life, one obviously cannot blame
the courts for being too careful in their approach. This is an area where we are currently facing a big
challenge.
The DDA also renders illegal those who administer drugs to themselves or to a third party. The former
offence is punishable with fines not exceeding RM5,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years
while the latter offence is punishable with fines not exceeding RM10,000 or imprisonment for a term notexceeding 3 years or both.
2. Dangerous Drugs (Forfeiture of Property) Act 1988 (FOPA)
Despite the imposition of the death penalty under the DDA, the rampancy of drug trafficking in Malaysia
did not seem to abate. Recognising that these drug traffickers may have more regard for materialistic gains
than their own life, the government introduced this Act in 1988 in a further attempt to curb the trafficking ofdrugs. The FOPA empowers the Public Prosecutor and senior police officers to trace, freeze and forfeit assetsthat are suspected to be the proceeds of drug trafficking activities or assets that were used in the commissionof drug trafficking offences. Forfeiture proceedings can be commenced even if no one has been prosecutedfor a drug offence provided that there are valid grounds to believe that the assets seized were concerned in a
trafficking offence. However, the FOPA is not as draconian as it may sound. The Act allows ingenuous

114124TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS
owners to challenge the forfeiture in court if the seizure was wrongful. In 2000, RM 3,945,300.89 worth ofassets was forfeited under the FOPA.
3. The Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985
Like the FOPA, this Act was also specifically enacted to combat the drug trafficking menace. It provides
for the arrest and preventive detention of persons whom the authorities have reason to believe are involved inor associated with the trafficking of drugs. The arrestee will not be tried in court but could be detained upon
the issue of a detention order by the Minister of Home Affairs. Detention without trial has always been asensitive subject among human rights activists. To ensure that innocent people are not wrongly detained,
several safeguards are built into this Act. Before the Minister decides to issue the detention order he must
give due consideration to two reports submitted to him under the Act. Once a person is arrested for the
purpose of being detained under this Act, the police must investigate the circumstances that led to his arrest.
The purpose of this investigation is to obtain further information concerning the person’s background andactivities prior to his arrest; such as whether he was truly involved in drug trafficking activities and theextent of his involvement. Upon completion of the investigation, the police officer concerned must prepare areport for the consideration of the Minister. At the same time a legally qualified officer, designated as an
Inquiry Officer under the Act, will conduct a separate and independent inquiry into the allegations against
the arrestee. The Inquiry Officer in conducting his inquiry is mandated to interview the arrestee and anyother person who is able to give relevant information about the arrestee, and to review any relevant
documentary evidence. The purpose of this inquiry is aimed at procuring further information about thearrestee independent of the police investigation and at the same time gives the arrestee a right to be heard, afundamental rule of natural justice. Upon completion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer must submit his
report to the Minister. If a detention order is issued, the detention period cannot exceed a period of 2 years. If
the Minister is of the opinion that detention is not an appropriate remedy, he may issue an order to restrict thearrestee’s residence to a designated area subject to police supervision for a period not exceeding 2 years. The
procedure laid down under the Act must be strictly complied with. Such detention orders can be challenged
in court and if the challenge is successful the order will be invalidated.
4. The Poison Act 1952
The purpose of this Act is twofold. To regulate a category of drugs that does not come under the purview
of the DDA and to regulate the use of these drugs. In this respect, this Act is complementary to the DDA.
These drugs are described as poison because they are generally harmful to the human body and cannot be
consumed freely. The Act does not outlaw the use of these drugs but merely restrict and control their import,
possession, sale and use. These drugs are usually needed for medicinal, agricultural or industrial purposes.
Only persons who are designated under the Act are permitted to store and sell these drugs and every salemust be documented. The frequently abused drugs regulated under this Act are psychotropic pills andcodeine.
5. Drug Dependant (Treatment and Rehabilitation) Act 1983
This Act was enacted for the purpose of introducing compulsory treatment and rehabilitation of drug
dependants. The working of this law has already been discussed in the preceding paragraphs.
V. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
Malaysia plays an active role in fostering regional and international cooperation in the reduction ofdemand and supply of illicit drugs. As of this moment we are signatory to 3 United Nations Conventions,
namely:• Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961;• Convention on Psychotropic Substance, 1971; and• Convention against Illicit Trafficking in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 1988.
We are also signatory to bilateral agreements with countries such as the United Kingdom, Hong Kong,
United States of America, Venezuela and the Russian Federation to facilitate bilateral cooperation on
prevention of drug trafficking. Additionally, the Malaysian police maintain a close working relationship withdrug enforcement agencies of other countries such as:

115

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 64• Australian Federal Police;• US Drugs Enforcement Administration;• Narcotics Bureau, Hong Kong Police;• Royal Canadian Mounted Police;• New Zealand Customs and Police; and• Drugs Sub-Directorate, Interpol.
VI. CONCLUSION
Our current objective is to achieve the status of a drug free society by the year 2015. We hope to achieve
this with a multi-disciplinary approach some of which have been highlighted above.

116