The Indonesian government is moving ahead to pass a bill to ban liquor, arguing that alcohol has triggered rampant gang rape cases recently.

In the wake of horrifying reports about rapes and gang rapes, lawmakers in Indonesia have a lot of support to pass a bill to regulate or ban liquor. Home Minister Tjahjo Kumolo has denied earlier reports that he would revoke regional bylaws restricting or banning alcohol. “The ministry thinks that it is important to have bylaws banning alcohol,” Tjahjo was quoted as saying Sunday.

The government has adopted a stance in contradiction to the 2014 regulation on liquor sales signed by then-Trade Minister Rachmat Gobel.

Ahead of the Ramadan fasting month, such a law and bylaws banning liquor would surely be popular policies. In March, Gov. Lukas Enembe said Papua’s ban on alcohol was decided on “to save indigenous Papuans from becoming extinct,” given that so many deaths were blamed on liquor, mainly among the productive age group. Papuan women have also long cried out for liquor bans to ease domestic violence.

However, Minister Tjahjo should refrain from grabbing quick fixes for crimes and problems such as rape and drunk driving. The old debate about alcohol being a main driver of rape, for instance, does not explain why many men who drink do not rape, despite many recent cases blamed on perpetrators said to have consumed alcohol.

Here we have another sign of today’s penchant for rapid solutions, with no thorough study of the issues at hand. Tjahjo should focus instead on his concern over overlapping bylaws, including those that affect the production, sale and distribution of liquor. He explained that many bylaws overlapped one another and several had not followed the procedures and standards of issuing bylaws.

Without enough evidence that banning liquor would not lead to smuggling and the illegal sale of drinks -- and worse, to the increased production of the bootleg booze that has led to several deaths of locals and foreign tourists in recent years -- regulating and restricting the sale of liquor would be much more feasible for the local and national administrations than a total ban.

The deaths of some 40 young people in Yogyakarta alone in the last three months, reportedly after consuming bootleg drink, is only one example of consumers who will persistently seek liquor that they can afford.

Producers have experimented by combining the likes of paint thinner, mosquito repellent, sedatives, ethanol and soft drinks, among others, to come up with lethal concoctions sold as drinks for as little as $1. Students have said cheap liquor, or pitching in for a binge, is one way to overcome boredom.

The advocates would blame big business and administrations like Batam and Bali for impeding bans on alcohol given their dependence on revenues from tourism and alcoholic drinks.

But more effective restrictions to overcome the negative effects of booze could build on local restrictions on its sale. Banning liquor from minimarkets, for instance, would be futile for the supposed aim of protecting the young without checking the IDs of young buyers. Let’s learn from all efforts to restrict tobacco, where even hiking cigarette prices has not significantly toned down the addiction.

(Asia News Network/The Jakarta Post)
Editorial