I refer to the Malaysiakini letter Drug tests: 'Supremme' way to make a fast buck .

The various controversial and pertinent questions raised by many parties with regard to the contract awarded by the Road Transport Department to Supremme Sdn Bhd to conduct drug tests on commercial vehicle drivers is indeed a real cause of concern. By a mere stroke of a pen, RTD has shifted its responsibility to Supremme, which in turn has passed the buck to lab assistants.

Firstly, allow me to say that I was a former drug addict since my teenage years. I am now reformed and am currently involved in counseling and rehabilitating drug dependants, alcoholics and people living with HIV and Aids (PLWHA).

I find it very interesting that by outsourcing to a third party, the RTD or the Transport Ministry can prevent addict drivers from being on our roads. Although very much a noble thought, we fail to recognise that by nature drug addicts are much more sly, shrewd and smarter than many of us can imagine. Being addicts, it is not too difficult for them to foil and render any urine test null and void.

First of all, can the authorities clarify how these urine tests are going to be conducted? Performed by doctors and sent to the labs for tests right? Kindly bear in mind that the present practice by doctors to procure urine allows the subject to be alone in the privacy of a toilet. This compared to the police method where privacy may not be allowed.

Would any drug addict, knowing full well the consequences of this urine test, produce his own urine for testing unless prevented by strict surveillance? Such tests can be anticipated and are according to one's convenience. All addicts need to do is to swap their own urine with that of any of their (non-addict) friends', their spouses' or even their children's.

From there it is just a matter of going to the panel of clinics, in and out of the clinic's toilet and passing the sample to the doctor gleefully saying, 'There you go, doc'.

Taking into account the above, will the panel doctors have the authority or are they empowered to retrieve urine under their own watchful eyes or those of their male staff? Frankly speaking, neither my commercial drivers nor myself (incidentally I run a small but enterprising pest control company staffed by reformed addicts too) will ever subject ourselves to such humiliation. It is definitely an abuse of our very basic fundamental rights and sacred privacy!

Further, will the doctors concerned dare to take up the role of urine-testing commercial drivers which may end with the latter losing their jobs? If I am a doctor, I certainly wish and pray that none of my clients' urine are tested positive. Imagine, due to my diligent urine tests, their livelihoods are now at stake and mind you, they know where is my clinic and what car I drive!

From the above perspective, as law-abiding citizens, we acknowledge that the law is good only when there is proper implementation and enforcement. But enacting a ruling for commercial drivers and assuming all will comply is tantamount to asking an addict to admit voluntarily he is one.

Such a ruling does not guarantee that addict drivers will be taken off the roads and highways. Where there is no proper implementation, laws become nominal. We sincerely urge the authorities concerned to re-look this matter and conduct an in-depth study especially on the implementation aspect.

Do we need another incident of a major bus crash caused by an addict driver? A likely scenario, I suppose, will be the transport minister yelling, 'A full probe to be carried out', while the RTD chief says, 'We'll delist and suspend doctors found to be incompetent'.

The doctors then cry foul saying, 'It's not our fault, tell it to the lab assistants!' The lab assistants then lament, 'Cross our hearts but all the urine samples sent to us tested negative!'

And we still ask why still the system fails?