I read your article on the Star Tuesday March 1, 2011 Page N36 and would like to point out a few obvious mistakes.
Firstly, the allegation on paragraph 11 that: "Other religions do not really prohibit liquor. Due to this, the non-Muslims perceive religious enforcement by Muslim authorities as actions that affect their right to do business" is misleading. Such statement showed shallow understanding of other religions. It is up to the individual to practice the teachings of their religion. You cannot blame a religion if a disciple failed to follow the teaching. After all, self regulation is far more effective than enforcement. One should first understand the central moral values of other religions, access its central teaching before lamenting such a comment. What Dr Wan Azhar Wan Ahmad mentioned was indeed biased; focus mainly on Islam preaching while downplaying the preaching of other religions.
Major religions—most notably Islam, Jainism, the Bahá'í Faith, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the Church of Christ, Scientist, the United Pentecostal Church International, Theravada, most Mahayana schools of Buddhism, some Protestant denominations of Christianity, some sects of Taoism (Five Precepts (Taoism) and Ten Precepts (Taoism)), and some sects of Hinduism — forbid, discourage, or restrict the drinking of alcoholic beverages for various reasons.
Some of these teachings were in fact dated earlier than Islam. One notable example is extract from fifth of the Five Precepts from the Pali Canon. It was first committed to writing in Sri Lanka in 29 BCE, way ahead of Nabi Muhammad's revelations in 610 CE : Surā-meraya-majja-pamādaṭṭhānā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi. - "I undertake to refrain from fermented drink that causes heedlessness." [source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholic_beverage#Alcohol_and_religion]
Liquor prohibition is not enacted exclusively for religious purposes. In fact, in early 20th century, legislators of many countries have considered its adverse effect and tried to bring it under control. There was an attempt in the US from 1920 to 1933 (the Prohibition era) to eliminate the drinking of alcoholic beverages by means of a national prohibition of their manufacture and sale. During this time, the 18th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States made the manufacture, sale, and transportation of alcoholic beverages illegal throughout the United States.
Unfortunately, prohibition has also led to the unintended consequence of causing widespread disrespect for the law, as many people procured alcoholic beverages from illegal sources. A lucrative business was created for illegal producers and sellers of alcohol, which led to the development of organized crime. As a result, Prohibition became extremely unpopular, which ultimately led to the repeal of the 18th Amendment in 1933. Nordic countries like Finland, and Norway had also tried to implement liquor prohibition in the early 20th century but failed.
In Muslim countries, so far only Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Sudan, and Libya prohibit the production, sale, and consumption of alcoholic beverages. Many other Muslim countries like Indonesia only implement restriction and not total prohibition.
It is also interesting to note that in India, states like Gujarat and Mizoram have outright prohibition of liquors. From this, we can conclude that prohibition is based on the severity of the alcoholism problems in the respective area.
Secondly, Dr Wan Azhar seemed to be carried away when he mentioned in paragraph 16: "Despite this, it was amazing to learn that only 45% of the world's population doe not take liquor". According to WHO global report on alcohol, about 2 billion people across the world consume alcoholic drinks out of a population of 6.7 billion. That is only around 28% not 55% as what you have claimed.
In paragraph 17: "And surprisingly, maybe not, Malaysians were among the world's heaviest drinkers". There is an exaggeration. If you are not certain, please refrain from making a false accusation. According to the report by WHO, the heaviest drinking countries are mostly European ( total alcohol consumption per person in litres):
1) Republic of Moldova 18.22
2) Czech Republic 16.45
3) Hungary 16.27
4) Russia 15.76
5) Ukraine 15.6
6) Estonia 15.57
7) Andorra 15.48
8) Romania 15.3
9) Slovenia 15.19
10) Belarus 15.13
11) UK 13.37
Malaysia (0.82) is ranked lower than Singapore (1.55).
Thirdly, the call by IKIM to enact a national law to reduce harmful use of alcohol is most welcomed, but on the side line, "to describe liquor in all its forms as a material equally destructive as drugs" is an overkill. The effect of alcohol taken in small quantity is definitely not the same like narcotics. We need not be so paranoid on the small amounts of alcohol present in our food. Some alcohols are made from herbs and have therapeutic effect if consumed in limited quantity - e.g. D.O.M, Yomeishu etc. Light to moderate drinking can have a beneficial impact on heart disease and stroke, according to the WHO. Rice wines are well-known essence in cooking in both Eastern and Western cooking. Were there anyone suffering after consuming the food or beverage with small amounts of alcohol? The answer is obvious.
Steve Teoh Chee Hooi
