An ill-conceived proposal

THE Malaysian Crime Prevention Foundation (MCPF) chairman’s proposal to gazette National Anti-Drug Agency (Nada) rehabilitation facilities as “special prisons” is ill-conceived and miscalculated, notwithstanding its stated objective of not only addressing prison overcrowding but also strengthening treatment and rehabilitation efforts, “MCPF: Rehab centres can help ease prison strain” (The Star, Jan 19).

Treatment and rehabilitation serve different purposes in addressing drug addiction. The former emphasises the provision of pharmacotherapy or medication-assisted treatment while the latter is independently structured around diverse psychosocial and spiritual interventions.

Individuals diagnosed with substance use disorders (SUDs) require both treatment and rehabilitation. In fact, these components must occur in tandem.

Nada’s drug prevention programmes are largely rehabilitation-oriented, reflecting the continued predominance of the “cold turkey” or detoxification approach.

Prisons predate Nada drug rehabilitation facilities and have historically played a significant role in tackling illicit drug use in the country. However, they are now frequently criticised for lacking the capacity to effectively treat hardcore narcotics offenders.

The root cause of prison overcrowding and alarming recidivism rate lies in archaic drug laws that impose inhumane penalties instead of prioritising recovery.

There are significant differences between Nada and prison drug rehabilitation programmes. Entry into these facilities is governed by two separate laws – the Dangerous Drugs Act (DDA) 1952 and the Drug Dependants (Treatment and Rehabilitation) Act 1983 (amended in 2024).

The former is commonly applied by the police while Nada relies on the latter to mandate narcotics offenders into compulsory rehabilitation facilities.

Penalties imposed on narcotics offenders also vary significantly between the two statutes.

Most drug offenders incarcerated by the criminal justice system are convicted of minor offences under the DDA. Compared to Nada inmates, prison inmates tend to have more extensive incarceration histories despite having little to no prior engagement with drug rehabilitation or, at most, a single episode of treatment under Nada.

The role of prisons in deterring narcotics offences and promoting addiction recovery should not be downplayed. Prisons have not only contributed to curbing narcotics re-offending but have also played an important role in providing drug rehabilitation to offenders with substance use disorders, the majority of whom are poly-drug users.

This contrasts with Nada inmates who are predominantly stimulant users. It is therefore misleading to suggest that one entity or agency has a remarkable track record, given that prisons manage a far greater volume of narcotics offenders, most of whom face serious health challenges and have lost nearly half of their productive years to incarceration.

Most critically, urgent action is needed to streamline drug treatment and rehabilitation programmes nationwide so that all government entities responsible for addiction care can consistently deliver timely, effective and adequate recovery services that support long-term abstinence.

Policymakers must also reform outdated laws by shifting away from retributive penal approaches towards evidence-based, rehabilitation-focused programmes.

Perhaps, as a trial run, habitual narcotics offenders with extensive incarceration histories should be diverted to Nada-administered facilities rather than prisons. This approach would not only intensify their recovery efforts but also help discard the erroneous belief that addiction is incurable.

Although empirical studies are needed to assess the effectiveness of our existing drug rehabilitation programmes, the push to divert narcotics offenders to Nada facilities should be approached circumspectly because it risks undermining confidence in the prisons’ rehabilitative value and may invite unwarranted criticism.

In short, while a harmonised drug treatment and rehabilitation policy is needed, policymakers must ensure that current drug laws prioritise treatment in every respect.

ASSOC PROF DR DARSHAN SINGH MAHINDER SINGH

Centre for Drug Research

Universiti Sains Malaysia