JUNE 3 — How many beers does Joe Public need to function throughout MCO 3.0?
The answer is self-evident. None.
Nobody requires a beer in order to access enough nutrition to maintain organ function and mobility. Or to increase immunity to Covid-19 and other potential diseases lying in wait. For sure it is the enemy of diets — it wrecks them. Ask Homer.
Done then, the discussion.
A no brainer, indeed. The decision to shut down alcohol production on Day One of this MCO is well founded.
Except one other thing. Very few things in our lives possess superior arguments to categorise themselves as essentials. Look in your fridge. Open your storeroom door.
It’s easier to argue that rice, dried fish and the Internet alone can keep us breathing till the MCO is lifted. Should that be it, then?
Cook the rice and eat it, save yourself the risk of contact with the Grab rider when collecting your McD delivery. Prevent McD staff from rushing about in a crowded kitchen to serve maximum orders in a 12-hour window. Plus, all that sugar in the Coke, does your body need it? Surely not.
.JPG)
I’d like to see alcohol opponents explain to their children why fast-food and junk food are barred as non-essentials in a MCO. Or why father is incensed by alcohol but morbidly quiet about cigarettes. Between the vices one does more to the organ Covid-19 ruins.
Maybe a burger, fries and carbonated drink combo is not going to be a featured meal in Men’s Health, but that’s what consumers want. When governments determine wholesale how citizens live and what is available to them for their own good, another type of threat grows for the government of the day. The dangerous kind.
The inconvenient truth remains, our lives are filled with wants. Every single need is dwarfed by nine-hundred-and-ninety-nine wants.
They turn into essentials because of how they matter to us. Essential is a function of consumer sentiment. Should fewer clothing lines need to open production because fashion is unnecessary in a lockdown? Give five types of apparels to pick from because choice is not essential? Give KL the look and feel of 1980 Beijing?
Essentials can be an infinite universe.
Men on a mission
The limitations should be policy specific, a Covid-19 response, not morality.
When word passed around that alcohol beverages producing facilities were among the 95,000 companies to continue operations during the lockdown, the right-wing went nuts.
Like zombies in a breakable glass cell.
Expectedly, a slew of self-righteous politicians from all sides competing for brownie points from the conservative base went ballistic.
Their concern was not workplace safety or Covid-19 transmission, theirs was only morals. Their personal beliefs. In general, they had few complaints about other factories whatever their capacities or workplace conditions, regardless of cluster creation.
They feared permission to operate breweries or distilleries was equal to state promotion of alcohol as an essential and a blow to their claim alcohol is a deadly sin. To stomach it without imbibing it was too much for them.
But what rankles most is the government's indifference to the interest of others. The speed in which they placated the religionists.
Government knew on Friday, four days prior, that letting breweries operate invites criticism from conservative. It had time to consult and consider. They faced the same last year when breweries received the green light as an essential industry. Only to quickly retract the permission to appease the right.
Having had the experience a year before, why not execute better?
Conspiracies are rife. It’s not unfair to suggest this initial approval was tactical. To permit breweries only to slam the shutters immediately to exhibit this administration’s piety to faith. If such is the game, then it is cruel and unbecoming. And all, both advocates and objectors, are upset with the government for using us as distractions.
But if the government permitted in good faith, then why withdraw permission at the first sign of protest? Where is the obligation to the breweries and the supply chain the industry supports?
Does the industry merit protection?
And it is not an inconsequential industry.
While direct taxation from alcohol provides the government with RM2 billion annually, its overall economic effects are immense. A large part of Malaysian tourism — 16 per cent of 374 billion GDP in 2019 — is laced with alcohol. Hotels, resorts, clubs.
Separately, the permissibility of our culture, including alcohol consumption, weighs on decisions to base regional hubs and operations in Malaysia. For expatriates to have a pub crawl or pub quiz, and a Sunday lunchtime drink on the terrace.
Juxtapose both, though other portions of the GDP relate too, a sizeable amount of economic activity and jobs rely on this intricate structure with alcohol present.
While our unique set of politics requires restraint when speaking about alcohol in our society, it does not mean the government has to whip and silence the industry whenever convenient.
It does not have to — out of political expediency — mock the meat it feeds upon.
Do not assume just small temporary clamps on production are minor.
This or any Malaysian government will realise as our economy carries on in these tempestuous waters, the economy is what matters most. There’s a post-Covid-19 era to consider, a time when all companies around the world are free to reconsider their economic decisions and locations. Malaysia will pay heed to warnings to position itself as friendlier rather than testing.
Yes and no
The case to close bars and restaurants in a lockdown is practical, crowded bars are open invitations for transmissions. Most abide by temporary conditions in order to transition back to normality.
But bringing legitimate local output to zero only means foreign imports rise. Income generated for foreign economies. Then the additional spectre of smuggled booze and illegal factories. Problems are compounded.
The decision to shut down alcohol production is vindictive and powered by politics, not public health policy. When the government seeks widespread support to stamp out Covid-19, upsetting one segment in order to please another does not build trust.
It is unlikely this administration will reverse this policy decision now but it can at the next transition stage, however and whatever it wants to call it.
The government needs to decide with a view of our collective futures, not just their political survival.
* This is the personal opinion of the columnist.
