Projek Dialog

Penulisan

Posted on

Mending the Multicultural, Multireligious Malaysian Dream

by Yvonne Tan

EVERY so often some spaces offer a glimpse into the utopian Malaysia that is free of the race and religion strife which has become the backbone of our identity. Take Yasmin Ahmad’s films often described as a ‘dreamed’ Malaysia where such deep divisions have dissipated presenting a cinematic imagination of Malaysian multiculturalism [1]. Sepet was later discussed in parliament on whether the usage of Bahasa Rojak is appropriate and if the depiction of the love story was considered too liberal, which seems as something ludicrous now.

Sometimes we come across anecdotes that might have been recounted with an agenda, or not. Growing up across Methodist and Pentecostal churches, our pastors would always point to our “neighbours” who pray 5 times a day and not just on Sundays. Once a youth pastor told us once that he was bullied, he would run into the mosque and the Imam allowed him to stay there. After repeated times, with not much to do waiting for the bullies to run away, he asked the Imam to share with him some of his teachings where most of his knowledge of the Torah came from. The idea that another religion could make us more fervent in ours was usually repeated as a no-brainer.

On the other hand, every Friday, I would eat at a non-halal food court near a mosque, during Friday prayers. You could listen along to the sermons blasted on the megaphone, and they would regularly preach animatedly about living in harmony and respecting different faiths and races as well. These are some moments where it seems people do attempt to achieve the imagined melting pot community.

Children have also used as a point of envisioning how a world where race and religion have yet to be learned. My Malay “BFF” when I was 12 told me her father said that Chinese people are “babi” because they love eating it and we both chuckled while I told her my father said Malay people are “babi” because they don’t know how to eat it. And of course, who could forget the “Malaysia Baru” phase where many declared that racial politics was finally overcome.

Of course, these may seem like mundane moments but achieving the reality of a truly multireligious and multiracial society should begin in our day-to-day spaces. With the pandemic, we have spent more time at home increasingly alienated from one another, witnessing an ongoing political crisis amidst the pandemic reminded by Muhyiddin Yassin’s announcements of movement control orders on national television, Najib’s 1MDB trials, and a string of controversies surrounding racism that offer a bleak reality of our current state.

Take news like Baling MP’s infamous “Gelap Tak Nampak, Pakailah Bedak” to Kasthuriraani Patto and calling into question Sarawak’s secular identity to “Sarawak Darul Hana”. Not to mention, the New Straits Times’ fiasco surrounding their op-ed “Help minimise threat to society” which speaks in support of the ban of the sale of liquor in convenience stores, featuring an image of a Malaysian Indian at a sundry shop.

It is as in a video by Projek Dialog “Apabila Agama Dipolitikkan”, presented by Uthaya Sankar, discusses how religion is usually used as a political toy when in fact understanding starts simply with normal people. The political arena of religion and also race can give a warped view of a Malaysia that is anything but religiously harmonious.

[yotuwp type=”videos” id=”Fy8_7DKZfqU” ]

As the media becomes a more crucial medium to staying connected with the world in this time, reporting mostly on news centred on political and state affairs, it has presented us with a certain world view. We are all too familiar with the discourse of “post-truth” and “fake news” which has become a convenient catch-all term for anything online that does not support one’s perspective.

Baudrillard commented that media might not necessarily have an intention of deceiving, blurring or hiding the truth in mind, instead “rather than creating communication, it exhausts itself in the act of staging communication. Rather than producing meaning, it exhausts itself in the staging of meaning” (56). Hence, there is a tendency for the media to present reality is far from relevant to our current understanding of our lives.

Leading the “masses respond with ambivalence, to deterrence they respond with disaffection, or with an always enigmatic belief […] but one must guard against thinking that people believe in it.” Echoing Uthaya Sankar’s words from the video, “yang paling penting, tidak perlulah kita asyik bergantung pada ahli politik kerana pembinaan persefahaman dan ilmu haruslah mula dari diri kita sendiri.”

So, whenever you recount real-life experiences that may seem trivial and frivolous, they still offer important glimpses into everyday people undertaking the work to carve out a society that celebrates differences. Although it might be idealistic to see Malaysia as heading in the right direction especially when it comes to a touchy subject like race and religion, such instances can provide respite when swimming against the currents of our legacy of colonialism, racialised capitalism and politics.

Dr Wendy Yee who is a lecturer at University Malaya in a panel discussion hosted by Komuniti Muslim Universal (KMU) titled “The Role of State and Religious Leaders in Protecting Freedom of Religion and Belief” said aptly, “There are a lot of positive narratives out there in our daily lives which we can share and are loud enough to counter these negative narratives”. 

References

[1] McKay, Benjamin (2011), ‘Auteur-ing Malaysia: Yasmin Ahmad and dreamed communities’, in M. A. Ingawanij and B. McKay (eds), Glimpses of Freedom: Independent Cinema in Southeast Asia, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Southeast Asia Program Publications, pp. 106–19.

Posted on

Adakah MB Kedah Melakukan Kenyataan Kebencian

oleh Faisal Tehrani

MINGGU lalu terdapat satu kenyataan politik berbau kebencian telah diucapkan oleh seorang ahli politik iaitu Menteri Besar Kedah, Muhammad Sanusi Md Nor yang juga ADUN Jeneri dari Parti Islam Semalaysia. Kenyataan beliau itu ekoran tindakan Majlis Bandaraya Alor Setar merobohkan Kuil Sri Raja Muniswarar di Taman Bersatu, Kuala Kedah. Kuil ini dikatakan berusia lebih 50 tahun dan ia dirobohkan selepas tapak tersebut – yang dimiliki kerajaan negeri – bakal dibangunkan. Menurut laporan media lagi, selain kuil itu, sebuah dewan silat dan lima kawasan parkir turut ditolak untuk dibina gelanggang futsal.

Muhammad Sanusi Md Nor pada mulanya dilaporkan berkata yang pihaknya kesal lantaran ada pihak menyiram minyak ke dalam api mengenai persoalan ini. Beliau mendakwa urusan ini mudah tetapi dipersulitkan oleh agenda politik dan perkauman.

Menteri Besar seterusnya dengan betul menghujahkan betapa tataletak setiap binaan struktur harus mengikut undang-undang dan pentadbiran di bawah agensi kerajaan. Sanusi menurut laporan media memberitahu; “Ia harus bermula sejak dulu lagi, bukan sekarang walaupun belum terlambat untuk melakukannya. Kekecohan yang diapi-apikan ini adalah risiko yang terpaksa kita hadapi untuk membina masa depan yang lebih tenteram dan harmoni. Jangan sampai kita bergaduh pada masa depan hanya kerana ‘mabuk todi populariti’ dan mahu menunjuk jaguh kaum pada masa sekarang,”.

Kenyataan Sanusi di atas akan selamat dan wajar tanpa ungkapan ‘mabuk todi’, yang merupakan satu rujukan lazim kepada bangsa India di Malaysia. Ekoran dari kenyataan itu Sanusi telah dikecam sebagai seorang rasis dan kenyataan beliau itu dikatakan berbau kebencian.

Adakah kenyataan di atas memang satu kenyataan kebencian? Atau sekadar ‘bau’ kebencian sahaja?
Hal ini menarik untuk diteliti apatah lagi kita memang mempunyai satu parameter untuk menilai keadaan ini. Apakah ukurtara tersebut?

Parameter yang dimaksudkan adalah Pelan Tindakan Rabat (Rabat Plan of Action 2013) yang ditawarkan oleh Pertubuhan Bangsa-bangsa Bersatu. Ia adalah satu panduan untuk mengenalpasti apakah yang wajar dinamai sebagai ‘kebencian dan hasutan’ dan apa pula yang boleh dikategorikan sebagai ‘kebebasan bersuara’. Atau adakah ia sekadar satu ‘bau’ yang tentunya busuk.

Apakah poin yang terkandung dalam Pelan Tindakan Rabat? Saya malah pernah menulis di laman Projek Dialog ini enam tahun lalu.

Pertamanya, ia menyediakan polisi dan juga panduan untuk kerajaan, dan masyarakat sivil dalam mencegah kebencian agama secara kolektif. Ia juga menghuraikan apa yang tidak wajar dianggap sebagai ‘kemerdekaan bersuara’ dan dapat dianggap sebagai kebencian terhadap agama secara kolektif.

Kebencian terhadap agama secara kolektif melibatkan;

i. Konteks
Hanya dengan analisis konteks, sesuatu ucapan itu dapat ditentukan latar sosial dan politiknya dan apakah ia ditujukan kepada satu kumpulan sasaran.

ii. Pengucap
Kedudukan individu pengucap adalah penting untuk dikenalpasti. Secara khususnya apakah individu pengucap itu mewakili mana-mana kumpulan agama yang lain, atau apakah statusnya dalam masyarakat.

iii. Niat
Dalam hal ini, niat dan bukan kelalaian atau ketidaksengajaan diberi fokus. Dalam erti kata lain terdapat elemen hasutan, dan mengajak; yang secara aktif dapat ditentukan berdasarkan adanya hubungan antara objek, subjek ucapan dan juga khalayak.

iv. Kandungan dan bentuk
Analisis kandungan dan bentuk ucapan juga sangat kritikal dalam menentukan apakah ia satu pencabulan hak asasi manusia. Kandungan ucapan itu perlu ditentukan apakah ia berbau provokasi, langsung dan apakah hujah-hujahnya tuntas atau tidak.

v. Keluasan
Keluasan ucapan juga dititik beratkan. Dalam konteks ini apakah ucapan tersebut dilakukan secara publik, juga saiz audiennya apakah kecil atau besar, dan apakah ia berbentuk penerbitan, atau media di internet atau arus perdana, dan apakah audien mempunyai akses kepada ucapan atau siaran terbabit.

vi. Potensi risiko
Hasutan dan fitnah yang menanam kebencian terhadap agama secara kolektif ditentukan berdasarkan potensi risiko yang mungkin terjadi lantaran ucapan atau siaran tersebut. Dalam hal ini ucapan kebencian tersebut selalunya adalah langsung dan memang memaksudkan sesuatu yang buruk terhadap sasaran.

Berdasarkan perkara-perkara yang dinyatakan di atas, kita boleh menilai kenyataan ‘mabuk todi’ Sanusi yang diucapkan itu.

Dalam hal pertama, mengenai konteks;Sanusi mengucapkan sesuatu yang jelas mengenai isu kedudukan kuil yang harus dirobohkan untuk memberi laluan kepada ‘pembangunan’. Samada perobohan ini wajar atau tidak semata-mata untuk membina gelanggang futsal bukan isunya di sini. Konteks kenyataan Sanusi adalah memang ditujukan kepada masyarakat Hindu justeru India. Jelas sasaran ‘mabuk todi’ tersebut telah ditentukan tujuannya.

Poin kedua oleh Pelan Tindakan Rabat adalah pengucap; Sanusi mempunyai status penting dalam masyarakat. Beliau adalah seorang Menteri Besar, dan beliau berasal dari sebuah parti berteras agama iaitu Parti Islam Semalaysia. Sebagai kepala negeri dan wakil yang dipilih oleh kawasan beliau, Sanusi memiliki kedudukan penting, di mana kenyataan beliau boleh dibaca sebagai satu isyarat tertentu. Bersekali dengan poin ini ialah keluasan kenyataan beliau itu. Ini bermaksud, kenyataan Menteri Besar telah tersebar dan bukan diucapkan dalam satu majlis tertutup, katakan mesyuarat misalnya. Ia juga bukan ‘dibocorkan’, ia memang dinyatakan. Ramai yang telah membaca laporan media tersebut dan ia sudah menjadi besar.

Manakala jika kita meneliti aspek niat kita akan mendapati Sanusi boleh sahaja mengeluarkan kenyataan yang cermat dan rapi tanpa pun menyinggung mana-mana agama atau kaum. Tambahan pula perobohan tapak kuil tersebut turut melibatkan fasiliti awam yang lain. Adalah jelas Sanusi dengan sengaja menyebutkan ungkapan ‘mabuk todi’ itu untuk menghubungkan satu hubungan dengan objek.

Akan tetapi adakah ia berniat hasutan? Hal ini hanya dapat ditentukan dengan aspek seterusnya.
Hal yang menjadi penting ialah apakah kenyataan itu berbau kebencian atau hasutan dapat ditekuni berdasarkan kandungan dan bentuk; seperti yang disebutkan sebelumnya bahawa ‘analisis kandungan dan bentuk ucapan juga sangat kritikal dalam menentukan apakah ia satu pencabulan hak asasi manusia. Kandungan ucapan itu perlu ditentukan apakah ia berbau provokasi, langsung dan apakah hujah-hujahnya tuntas atau tidak.’

[yotuwp type=”videos” id=”icP7UnVKnwk” ]

Sekarang kita telah mendapati kenyataan ‘mabuk todi’ itu memang sensasi, disengajakan dan jelas berbau provokasi. Namun demikian, menurut saya, sedikit sukar untuk menentukan apakah ia berupa satu pencabulan hak asasi manusia meskipun terdapat ramai pengamal dan penganut Hindu yang mengecamnya; baik dari parti kerajaan (MIC) mahupun parti pembangkang (DAP).

Ini kerana dalam masa yang sama, hak asasi manusia juga melindungi kebebasan bersuara asalkan ia tidak sampai ‘mencabul hak asasi manusia’. Sanusi berhenti setakat ‘mabuk todi’ dan tidak menghina kepercayaan agama Hindu. Beliau tidak menyinggung mana-mana ajaran Hindu dan mengecam doktrin kepercayaan tua tersebut. Justeru, sukar untuk menghujahkan Sanusi benar-benar mencabul hak asasi manusia di sini. Ini tidak menafikan satu fakta bahawa Sanusi bagaimanapun memang seorang pemimpin yang menjengkelkan dan nista, akan tetapi untuk menyatakan beliau melanggar hak asasi, Menteri Besar tersebut agak terselamat dalam hal ini.

Akan tetapi wajib pula dinyatakan di sini bahawa kenyataan ‘mabuk todi’ tersebut memang memiliki ‘potensi risiko’, ini kerana ia berkaitan sebuah rumah ibadat iaitu kuil yang sudah agak lama usianya dan sudah tentu mempunyai ramai pengujung tetap. Dalam hal ini ‘mabuk todi’ boleh jadi dimanipulasi dan menerbitkan keadaan yang tidak stabil seperti kerusuhan atau rasa tidak senang yang berpanjangan. Tindakan meroboh kuil untuk pembangunan tersebut boleh disalaherti lantas menjadi satu kebencian agama apabila dikaitkan dengan ‘mabuk todi’.

Buat masa ini Sanusi, jika diukur dengan hanya ungkapan itu, masih belum melepasi garisan merah Pelan Tindakan Rabat. Akan tetapi apa yang pasti ialah, Sanusi memang berada di atas garisan itu.
Apakah Menteri Besar Kedah ini akan memohon maaf kepada masyarakat Hindu/India atau terus terlajak mengeluarkan kenyataan, itu wajib dipantau dan dikaji khususnya dengan menggunakan parameter Pelan Tindakan Rabat di atas.

Semua pembaca boleh menjadi pemantau bersama-sama Projek Dialog. Kami di sini mengajurkan dialog, jambatan untuk saling memahami sembari menyeru kedamaian, kecintaan dan kasih sayang.

Rujukan

Faisal Tehrani. 2014. Rang undang-undang kebencian kaum dan agama: Syiah diabaikan lagi?. Projek Dialog. 11 Julai. https://projekdialog.com/malay/rang-undang-undang-kebencian-kaum-dan-agama-syiah-diabaikan-lagi/

Roslinda Hashim. 2020. Roboh kuil ikut undang-undang, bukan isu perkauman: MB Kedah. Sinar Harian. 5 Disember. https://www.sinarharian.com.my/article/113385/EDISI/Roboh-kuil-ikut-undang-undang-bukan-isu-perkauman-MB-Kedah

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. 2012. Rabat Plan of Action on the prohibition of advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. Rabat: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). Halaman 6-7.

Posted on

Announcement: Nominated for Calcutta International Short Film Festival

We’re proud to announce that one of our PFK films, The House Without a Ground (Rumah Nda Bertanah) by Putri Purnama Sugua, which won the title of best director and storyline at our event, is nominated for the Short Fiction Category under the Calcutta International Short Film Festival 2020!
Putri Purnama Sugua is a filmmaker from Sandakan, Sabah. Her thesis film titled, Dream To Fly had won various national and international awards. She is also an alumnus of the Asian Film Academy in 2017. She then was awarded the title of Best Young Filmmaker at the Malaysian Digital Film Awards. Her documentary Aku Mau Sekolah received a grant and the special jury award at the Freedom Film Festival and was screened at a few international film festivals. Putri also happens to be a grant recipient for Pesta Filem KITA 2 with her film, “Rumah Nda Bertanah” and won the title of best director and storyline at the same event. As a whole, she has produced 6 short films, 4 narratives and 2 documentaries.
Congratulations!!!
————————————————
Kami dengan bangga mengumumkan bahawa salah satu filem PFK kami, Rumah Ndak Bertanah karya Putri Purnama Sugua, yang telah memenangi pengarah dan storyline terbaik di PFK kami, telah dinominasikan untuk ‘Fiksyen Pendek Terbaik’ di Festival Filem Pendek Antarabangsa di Calcutta!
Putri Purnama Sugua merupakan pembikin filem dari Sandakan, Sabah. Filem tesisnya berjudul Dream To Fly telah memenangi pelbagai anugerah tempatan dan antarabangsa. Beliau juga merupakan alumni Asian Film Academy 2017. Kemudian beliau dianugerahkan Best Young Filmmaker di Malaysian Digital Film Awards. Dokumentarinya Aku Mau Sekolah telah menerima geran dan juga anugerah khas juri di Freedom Film Festival serta ditayangkan di beberapa festival antarabangsa. Beliau juga menerima geran Pesta Filem KITA 2 untuk filem berjudul “Rumah Nda Bertanah” dan memenangi Pengarah Terbaik dan Cerita Terbaik pada acara sama. Secara keseluruhannya beliau telah menghasilkan 6 filem pendek, 4 naratif dan 2 dokumentari.
Tahniah!!!
Posted on

Bolehkah Menyebarkan Kebencian Menerusi Sastera?

oleh Faisal Tehrani

 

BARU-BARU ini saya terbaca satu hantaran di blog Projek Dialog dengan judul ‘Hate Speech: An Infographic’. Hal ini sangat menarik kerana dalam minggu yang sama juga saya bersama-sama beberapa rakan pengarang meraikan ketibaan PEN Malaysia. Kami telah menganjurkan suatu pesta sastera atas talian tiga siri dengan nama ‘Sembang Baru’.

Selepas acara itu seorang novelis muda telah mengajukan satu soalan iaitu, jika PEN meraikan penuh kebebasan bersuara, bolehkah PEN mengizinkan karya sastera yang menyebarkan misalnya kebencian? Apakah batasnya?

Pertanyaan di atas bukanlah biasa-biasa dan tidak harus juga dianggap enteng, apatah lagi remeh. Dalam sejarah penubuhan PEN International sejak tahun 1921, pertubuhan besar ini pernah berdepan dengan kemelut mengenai kebebasan bersuara yang melibatkan kebencian.

PEN, untuk makluman anda adalah sebuah kelab sejagat yang menghimpunkan pengarang, editor, pemilik kedai buku, penerjemah dan pengamal teater-filem (khusus dramaturgis) yang berpangkalan di London. Sejak kelahirannya, PEN memberikan tumpuan kepada kerja-kerja membela dan melindungi pengarang dari tekanan dan kezaliman pihak berkuasa. PEN juga meraikan apa sahaja bahasa yang dipilih oleh pengarang dalam karyanya – tanpa prejudis – asalkan karya itu tujuannya demi kemanusiaan.

Berdepan dengan soalan apakah PEN pernah menangani isu kebencian menerusi karya sastera, jawapannya ialah; pernah. Dalam hal ini, ada satu masa PEN berdepan ancaman oleh kebangkitan Nazisme di Jerman. Ia menjadi lebih jelas dan ketara dalam Persidangan PEN di Dubrovnik pada tahun 1933. Jauh sebelum itu, Parti Nazi telah membakar ribuan naskah buku yang dianggap sebagai ‘nista’ – dan dalam hal ini ia nista atau tercemar kerana karya-karya ini tidak menyokong atau menentang dasar-dasar mereka.

Ekoran dari itu, ketika Persidangan di Dubrovnik, Presiden PEN ketika itu, H. G. Wells, telah menegaskan kembali resolusi yang dibawa oleh John Galsworthy selaku pengasas dan Presiden PEN yang pertama di mana kebebasan berkarya itu tidak meraikan apa yang mengancam kemanusiaan, dalam hal ini tindak-tanduk Nazi. 

Seorang Nazi, yang hadir dalam delegasi dari Jerman telah menghalang Ernst Toller, seorang penulis teater Yahudi-Jerman yang hidup dalam buangan daripada berucap mengutuk Nazisme (dan tindakan membakar buku). Satu suara yang solid, kuat, formidable dan meyakinkan telah terbit dari persidangan itu. Para pengarang bersetuju untuk menolak usul Jerman mendokong kebebasan bersuara penuh (justeru menerima Nazisme) lantas kembali memihak kepada prinsip-prinsip yang telah mereka mandatkan. Pasukan dari Jerman marah lantas membantah, langsung bertindak untuk keluar dari Persidangan. Mereka malah memilih untuk keluar daripada PEN, sehinggalah selepas Perang Dunia Kedua.

Kejadian di atas menjadi ingatan buat semua pengarang di mana dalam persidangan pertama selepas perang, PEN berkumpul lagi di Stockholm pada tahun 1946. PEN Amerika dan Inggeris membuat satu daya-sepakat untuk mengusulkan dua resolusi penting. 

Yang pertama, PEN diseru agar mendesak ahli-ahli PEN terus ‘menunjangi idea untuk sebuah kemanusiaan yang aman makmur sejagat’; dan kedua, membawa perhatian kepada isu penapisan (sensor). 

Resolusi ini tidak diterima dengan mudah, malah perdebatan di Stockholm berlanjutan sehingga Persidangan PEN di Zurich pada tahun 1947. Hanya ketika itu lah para penulis bersetuju dan bersepakat. Resolusi inilah yang menjadi asas kepada tatacara keempat dalam Piagam PEN.

Pada tahun 2017, dalam Persidangan ke 83 di Ukraine, Artikel 3 Piagam PEN telah digubah semula. Para wakil PEN ketika itu bersetuju bahawa ‘kebencian’ terhadap kaum tertentu, kelas dan semua identiti harus digubal semula kepada ‘semua bentuk kebencian’, dan perkataan ‘saksama’ dibawa masuk untuk mengukuhkan Piagam PEN. Prinsip-prinsip Piagam inilah yang menyatukan semua pusat PEN di seluruh dunia (berada lebih dari 100 buah negara).

Apakah bentuk kebencian yang ditolak dalam karya sastera? 

Ini kerana karya sastera harus diberi kemerdekaan dalam ruang lingkupnya untuk menyatakan kritikan secara jujur dan benar terhadap apa juga elemen budaya manusia termasuklah agama, politik dan sejarah. Seseorang pengarang misalnya mestilah merdeka mempersoalkan amalan agama yang mungkin tidak adil terhadap penganutnya. Seseorang pengarang juga mestilah diizinkan secara penuh menujah kritik dan menanyakan tindak-tanduk politik yang membahayakan. Contohnya seperti polisi diskriminasi yang didorong oleh Parti Nazi sehingga membawa kematian ramai manusia tidak bersalah ekoran perang. Pengarang juga dibenarkan bebas membongkar semula sejarah dalam karya sastera mereka.

Kebencian yang tentu sahaja tidak dapat diterima ialah kebencian yang membawa kepada keganasan di mana ia mendorong orang ramai untuk keluar menghukum kumpulan minoriti (katakan LGBT), atau memprovokasi supaya minoriti dinafikan hak sebagai manusia (katakan kumpulan marjinal agama). 

Karya sastera begini tentu sahaja berbahaya kerana ia mempengaruhi masyarakat untuk melakukan sesuatu yang berlawanan dari hasrat murni kesusasteraan itu sendiri iaitu mengangkat kemanusiaan.

Jika seseorang pengarang, atau sehimpunan penulis berkarya dan menerbitkan buku dengan niat mengangkat ketuanan kaum tertentu dan menafikan hak kaum lain, maka itu adalah satu kebencian yang melampau. Namun demikian jika himpunan pengarang ini contohnya telah mulai menyuntik propaganda keganasan atas nama patriotik, maka keadaan ini bukanlah satu keadaan yang boleh diterima dan PEN akan berganding bahu atas nama ikrarnya untuk melawan ‘kebebasan atas nama kebencian’ ini.

Sesebuah karya haruslah berperanan untuk mengangkat kebaikan dan kebajikan sesama umat manusia, bukan membawanya ke lembah jahanam yang boleh mendorong keganasan dan perang yang memusnahkan.

Pengalaman Perang Dunia Kedua sangat pahit untuk diulangi. 

Menulislah demi kemanusiaan, bukan kebencian.

 

Rujukan

Projek Dialog. 2020. Hate Speech: An Infographic. Projek Dialog.com. 30 Oktober. https://projekdialog.com/blog/hate-speech-an-infographic/

Posted on

Babigate 2020

by Yvonne Tan

We are no stranger to anxieties surrounding halal consumption practices and the danger of contamination making waves in the media with a variety of non-halal spaces available. Back in 2014, there was the Cadbury Dairy Milk chocolate scare where initial tests by Health Ministry (KKM) found traces of pork DNA before JAKIM did another round of tests to dispute this. Long story short, a boycott soon followed suit and the two products where traces of pork were found in was withdrawn. The Year of the Dog and the Pig on the Chinese Zodiac lunar calendar meant the animals were going to be depicted in decorations, advertising and so on for the New Year Celebrations.

If you thought that the problem with “babi” was confined to Malaysia alone, well think again. Who could forget when Dua Lipa’s Instagram caption caused a fiasco among Malaysians for wishing her father happy birthday, calling him “babi” as it meant dad in Albanian. After being mocked for using the word by Malaysians, she edited the caption as to “Happy Birthday Dad”. In a similar instance, a K-pop dancer coincidentally named Babi had received the same treatment. She responded differently releasing an angry statement on Instagram as well to Malaysians stating “I am not interested in your language, so it doesn’t matter what my name means in your language. And I didn’t know your country, but I don’t want to know it anymore.”

Iftitah Solutions (M) Sdn Bhd, owner of the brand Rapidtest released a product in 2019 called Pork Meat Test that claims to be able to detect pig DNA content in food, delivering results with 99% accuracy within 10 minutes. It was eventually written off by JAKIM, stating that this might lead to confusion and that authorities should be left to handle enforcement of halal products.

This time around it involves OLDTOWN White Coffee, where a TikTok user @sazz999ritz accused the restaurant of using pork meat in their Mee Kari. Quickly many defended OLDTOWN stating they were halal-certified by JAKIM to acknowledging that there is a common fear that Chinese people are out to contaminate food consumed by Malay Muslims. Another debate that arose was the expensive price of pork itself as a reason that Chinese people do not have an incentive to switch out a chicken product for pork. Some poked fun upholding this reasoning using the Chinese stereotype that they are “kiam siap”.

Meanwhile headlines from throughout the media ranged into two camps from “Restoran Halal terkenal jual mi kari babi”, “Oldtown White Coffee nafi produk mengandungi daging babi” to “Responsible Netizens Call Out Fake News After OLDTOWN White Coffee Accused Of Serving Pork Instead Of Chicken”. Ministry of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs (KPDNHEP) took the complaint seriously and did an inspection under Perintah 3(1)(a) Perihal Dagangan (Takrif Halal) 2011. They checked their halal certification to the ingredients itself while JAKIM confirmed that their Mee Kari were halal.

While some rushed to support OLDTOWN’s food, this continued to raise some eyebrows across Twitterjaya. Comments included that it was always better to eat at a Malay Muslim establishment without a JAKIM halal certification rather than one own and operated by a Chinese with certification, further signalling a distrust in the audit process in securing halal consumption. As the OLDTOWN controversy died down, another came around.

Namewee, who is no stranger to controversies since his parody of Negarakuku, is once again at the center of public attention for his film conspicuously named Babi. After Namewee celebrated his international nominations at the Open World Toronto Film Festival, Around International Film Festival and Thai Film Festival the Perikatan Nasional Youth lodged a report specifically against the film’s poster. It featured a vandalized wall of a toilet with words like “Cina babi” other racial slurs such as “Melayu B-“ and “Indian K-“, not revealing the full derogatory slur of the other races. Namewee claimed the film was banned in Malaysia and is based on an alleged race-war that started innocently in a Malaysian high school in 2000 and covered up.

By now, it is clearer that these outrages are from the cultural politics of food risk as informed by race and religion. Babi is the abject other not only because it is considered to be haram and against the Malay Muslim identity but that “it lies there, quite close, but it cannot be assimilated” given how esteemed pork is to the Malaysian Chinese identity. It has become the defining factor of what demarcates and distinguishes oneself from the opposite of oneself. This cultural narrative that babi is a threat that one will continuously be confronted by given the presence of an identity that celebrates pork, has thus been passed down.

The disgust and uneasiness associated with babi “is thus not the lack of cleanliness or health that causes abjection but what disturbs identity, system, and order. What does not respect borders, positions, rules. The in-between, the ambiguous, the composite”. [1] When the clear distinction is no longer there, there is outrage as it threatens what is thought to be the core of one’s identity–in this case is Islam–which the nation-state is supposed to be structured on.

In the case of OLDTOWN, it highlights increasingly there is a wider rupture in food trust with  Malaysia Halal Certification under the purview of JAKIM. Thus, this ambiguity calls for people to take things into their own hands such as with Rapidtest, choosing to support specifically Malay Muslim establishments or eating at a restaurant situated far from a Chinese restaurant in fear of pork particles travelling through the air.

People have become cynical to the halal certification process where “officials would request cash payments above the statutory fees in order to guarantee registration. Municipal councils and the fire department, too, would request such payments to issue the necessary documents required by JAKIM for halal product and premises applications.” [2] It has become but the norm with the high rates of rejected applications, lack of quality control officers, the proliferation of fake halal certificates with JAKIM having total purview on the matter.

Calling out corruption practices only leads to backlash such as the now-deleted allegations against JAKIM for purposely delaying the restaurant’s halal certification to for a bribe. Hence, such seemingly “drastic” measures to ensure one’s food is halal may stem from recognising JAKIM’s ineffectiveness and in the process avoiding establishments that have no personal incentive to be halal. The quick response by the government in order to ensure the dish was indeed halal after the video went viral is also a display of the effectiveness of their agencies in ensuring there is no food risk.

During the OLDTOWN controversy, there was some discussion on what is considered “haram” is always more or less exclusive to only to pork and the specific usage of “babi”. Bringing up that there is no equal outrage with corruption which is equally if not more haram. A particular video with an unknown source was circulated during this time where a man speaks about how the idea that dogs and pigs are haram are instilled since birth and wished people saw corruption as something more haram as it affects more than one person.

Not to mention, as noted earlier, recurring controversies surrounding babi are not confined only to whether a food is halal or haram but a need to make this term exclusively forbidden, calling out international figures who have no knowledge of the term in Malaysia. Eventhough “pig” is a derogatory term elsewhere, there is an added quality babi holds that no exceptions can be made for the word to mean something else only reveals how much weight the term holds and also how much of a national preoccupation it is.

In this regard, the word provokes shock and disgust to the point one is unable to look beyond its set-in-stone meaning and understanding of other cultures. Babi is the antithesis of what rojak / kebudayaan rojak is. While babi is a point of contention, representing lack of compatibility between cultures and uneasiness about not observing Islamic law with the cultural disparity, rojak on the other hand “constitutes a useful set of images for reflecting on the politics of commensality, intercultural exchanges, and identity hybridity and belonging”. [3]

 

[1] Kristeva, Julia. Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection. Translated by Leon S. Roudiez. Columbia University Press, 1982. p. 1, 4.

[2] Duruz, Jean, and Gaik Cheng Khoo. Eating together: Food, space, and identity in Malaysia and Singapore. Rowman & Littlefield, 2014p. 2.

[3] https://www.themalaysianinsight.com/s/189692

 

 

Posted on

Hate Speech: An Infographic

Projek Dialog has designed an infographic for the public in collaboration with ARTICLE 19, a Freedom of Expression NGO based in London.

The infographic responds to a growing demand for clear guidelines to identify “hate speech” and to respond to the challenges it poses to human rights.

As such, this infographic addresses the following questions:

  1. What is hate speech?
  2. How do we identify ’hate speech’ that can be restricted, and distinguish it from protected speech?
  3. What positive measures can States and others take to counter ‘hate speech’?

For more information on hate speech, feel free to read the toolkit that has been provided by ARTICLE 19.

 

Posted on

Is the trade union movement lost?

by Yvonne Tan

 

In light of Indonesia’s omnibus bill protests that have been led by worker’s unions and Malaysia’s growing scepticism surrounding the government’s COVID-19 economic recovery plans, what can be said about the current state of Malaysia’s labour movement today? As labour unions played an important role in pro-independence movements, the Enactment for the Registration and Control of Trade Unions in 1940 curbed and weakened the labour movement significantly. What was most important was that unions were no longer allowed to be involved in national matters. With political unionism strictly forbidden, unions were to remain exclusively within the company for employer-employee relations. Today, the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill 2019 governs trade unions, allowing more than one trade union that can represent employees.

 

Unions in Malaysia are categorised according to the private sector, public sector, employers’ unions and unions in statutory bodies and local authorities. Within the private sector, there can be national unions, that tries to cover workers of the same occupation, and in-house/enterprise unions for workers with the same employer [1]. Malaysian Trades Union Congress (MTUC) was established in 1949 to encompass unions from both public and private sector, of various occupations and trades, however, it does not qualify as a union, rather it is registered as a society.

 

Malaysia Airlines System Bhd has one of the biggest unions in Malaysia where the MAS Employees Union Peninsular Malaysia (MASEU) have threatened strikes after mass layoffs in 2014, which were of course not met favourably. They demanded for key management executives of the airline to be removed and were in favour of government intervention. The union has managed to gain significant leverage such as protesting a merger between MAS and AirAsia, which eventually was dropped.

 

The National Union of Flight Attendants Malaysia (NUFAM) has also been recently recognised by the Federal Court after two years, rejecting Malaysia Airline’s leave to appeal in a dispute where in-flight supervisors were not employed in any managerial, executive, confidential or security capacity. NUFAM’s president, Ismail Nasaruddin, was sacked from employment for issuing a press statement highlighting the plight of workers and calling for the CEO’s resignation. However, the Industrial Court ordered Malaysian Airlines to pay about RM210,000 in compensation to the trade union leader for his unfair dismissal.

 

The Petronas Worker’s Union in Sarawak (Kesatuan Kakitangan Petronas Sarawak / KAPENAS) negotiated against the “one size fits all offer” by Petronas, where workers claimed they had to accept a lower salary increase in comparison to other oil-producing states. With yellow t-shirts and black badges, KAPENAS has staged peaceful strikes with placards and slogans such as ‘No to discrimination’, ‘No to bullying’, ‘No to intimidation’ and ‘No to eroding our rights’.

 

Meanwhile, the Sabah Timber Employees Union (STIEU) organised and filed reports with the Labour Department, police, the Department of Trade Union Affairs and also pursued legal action via the Industrial Court for wage theft. Not to mention, the union was prevented from registration in 2019 and members were subjected to harassment such as blacklisting workers and threatening repatriation. Many workers were also pressured to instead join the in-house union that was fully under the control of the timber mill. Nevertheless, STIEU’s collective bargaining managed to garner a wage settlement on 1 October 2020, where workers would receive wages owed to them in full no matter their union status.

 

Despite anti-union tactics employed by companies, there are many instances till today that unionising works even in an environment that is highly unfavourable to organising. Collective bargaining is usually favoured, and if negotiations continue to remain in a deadlock the issue is taken to the Industrial Court. The last major strike—and longest lasting up to 22 days—in Malaysia is usually said to be by the 13,000 employees of the Malayan Railways Limited (Keretapi Tanah Melayu / KTM) on December 1962. They demanded their daily-rated workers to be paid monthly salaries, in which the Transport Minister at that time agreed to do so, however the company was later corporatised in 1992.

 

There is a reason for that as the Industrial Relations bill makes it almost impossible to strike. A trade union can only call for a strike if two-thirds of its members agree through a secret ballot submitted to the Director-General. On the other hand, under Section 25 (A) of the Trade Union Act, 1959 strikes are considered illegal if conducted by workers who are not part of a registered union. If found illegal, workers can be fined up to a thousand ringgit, imprisonment of not more than a year or both. If that was not enough, to top it off the amended Industrial Relations bill enables the Minister to stop a strike or lock-out “in the event the strike or lock-out lasts beyond a certain time or extends beyond a certain scope, thus endangering the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population.”

 

The general optimism surrounding the government’s institutional shift to loosen stringent labour laws that would revitalise the union movement are but now thrown out of the window as it is apparent with the amendment bill in 2019 that that is not the case. To also say that the labour movement is the precondition for a regime shift is but a far cry from reality where union density is rapidly declining even though absolute membership rose from around 220,000 in 1957 and to 530,000 in 1980, and more than 800,000 in 2008 [2].

 

The Malaysian trade union movement continues to be “highly fragmented, diffused and characterised by the large number of small unions in general” [3] consisting of mainly enterprise unions. Even though the trade union movement has been systemically crippled, despite all these restrictions there has been promising instances of achieving respective trade union’s goals and better welfare for the workers through industrial action. As illustrated in the cases mentioned earlier, the government becomes the third party acting between the employers and employees. Nevertheless, the cases also have shown unions in Malaysia have managed relative success despite the long court process. In short, unionising works in Malaysia even with such limitations, and one could only imagine how it would be like without the many restrictions imposed.

 

[1] Ramasamy, Nagiah and Rowley, Chris. Trade unions in Malaysia: Complexity of a state-employer system in Benson, John, and Ying Zhu (eds.) Trade unions in Asia: An economic and sociological analysis. Routledge, 2008, p. 127

[2] Wad, Peter. “Revitalizing the Malaysian trade union movement: The case of the electronics industry.” Journal of Industrial Relations 54, no. 4 (2012): 494-509, p. 497.

[3] Wu, M.A. (1982) The Industrial Relations Law of Malaysia, Longman Malaysia, p. 144.

 

Posted on

What does the abortion debate look like in Malaysia?

by Yvonne Tan

 

When discussing abortion reform in Malaysia, the rhetoric is far from the “Pro-choice” or “Pro-life” dichotomy. The crux of the abortion debate – or the lack of it – is usually said to be religion, the belief there is sanctity in all life that a higher gives life and is the only one that takes it away. The abortion debate instead, like most of Southeast Asia, is usually approached through the consequences of not being able to obtain safe abortion services such as the emergence of underground abortion clinics and baby dumping problem.

Abortion is technically “legal” under civil law to save a woman’s life or to preserve her physical and mental health, although regulated under the Penal Code, Section 312-316, originating from the British Empire’s Indian 1871 Penal Code criminalising abortion. Under Syariah law, abortion is allowed to be carried out for a fetus under 120 days of gestation if the mother’s life is under threat or it the fetus is abnormal. With such restrictions, access to such services remain limited and voluntary abortions remain illegal. Even if the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, they are sometimes not enough grounds to terminate the pregnancy as it does not “threaten” the mother’s life.

Nirmala Thapa was a factory worker from Nepal, 24 years old at that time, became the first woman to be sentenced for abortion on November 12, 2014. Her case had received significant media attention in Malaysia and Nepal causing considerable controversy as she was tried under Section 315 of the Penal Code for an act done with the intent to prevent a child from being born alive or to cause it to die after birth. She was later exonerated from her conviction, the charges against her physician were also dropped. In fact, medical practitioners are rarely criminalised after the 1990s in Malaysia for carrying out termination services.

Nirmala is but part of the many migrant workers whose work permits would be revoked in the event of a pregnancy. An Indonesian domestic worker who could not obtain access to abortion services was sentenced to 8 years in prison for baby dumping in hopes of retaining her job, the judge who ordered her jail said, “Killing your own child will not solve your problems, let this punishment be a lesson to you.” Hence, although abortion may not be as talked about, baby dumping cases often make headlines and there is but little sympathy for infanticide, usually with extremely dismissive netizen reactions and also little to no leeway in court.

It is but a common occurrence where desperate college students wanting to conceal their pregnancies were also unaware of the harsh penalisation that come with infanticide. A 19-year-old was charged for baby dumping with 12 years imprisonment after throwing her baby out of the window. Meanwhile, another 19-year-old had her baby born prematurely and buried its body also received a 12 years imprisonment charge.

Abortion services are available in the private sector that is, of course, clandestine about but comes with high costs. Due to socio-economic reasons, online sale of illegal abortion pills has also skyrocketed as a cheaper option for terminating pregnancies. As the pills are unregulated, there are significant health risks that come with misoprostol and mifepristone, and can also lead to offences under Section 312-316  of Penal Code. A woman in Kudat, Sabah was rushed to the hospital for allegedly taking 20 abortion pills was immediately then investigated under Section 315 of the Penal Code. Meanwhile, a similar case of an Indonesian and Bangladeshi factory worker wherein after consuming the pills had a miscarriage and was rushed to the hospital with the stillborn. The couple had gone viral after burying her stillborn despite it being carried out by the hospital and both were subsequently investigated under Section 312 of the Penal Code. Hence, some have called to legalise the sale of abortion pills that offer supervision for the intake of the pills as a way to prevent online sales but it is seen as an instant fix to unplanned pregnancies and that abortion should solely be handled by a medical practitioner.

Another popular way of indirectly approaching the topic abortion is on contraception taught as educating “consequences” and hence abortion is but a result of such one’s poor choices that one has to bear. Blaming women for lack of knowledge in avoiding pregnancy is but how sex education continues to be taught. As we have come to this point, there is little talk about their partners when criminalized for abortion. Only when baby dumping is concerned, will their partners be equally liable as well under Section 309 of the Penal Code with up to 20 years imprisonment. Safe to say, most mentions of abortions are but reports of the degree of punishment that comes with abortion. This is also supported on national television every so often with be images of a police raid of an underground abortion clinic in an unassuming shop lot with girls sitting around in shame while other times featuring buried fetuses as well, marking it as a crime scene. Regularly displaying the investment of law enforcement provides effective proof that they have committed a crime in seeking an abortion.

Surrounded by ominous music, a peculiar show by Harian Metro where they “went undercover” to find out how easy it was to get an abortion and the price. There was an exchange that was filmed about how the clinics dealt with the illegality of abortion:

A: Jadi saya boleh ambil mayat bayi tu bawa balik?
B: Awak mana boleh bawa balik? Kita tanam. Kalau awak ambil bawa balik awak mesti buat laporan polis.
A: Jadi pihak awak yang akan tanam kan? Habis tu mayat bayi siapa yang aka tanam?
B: Ada orang dari hospital buatkan.

The medical practitioners are framed to be dealing with a dead body or “mayat bayi” that needs to be buried to hide the evidence is seen as inhumane given it is prohibited. With the end of the interview the video cuts to its title “Mudah gugur janin” with a skeleton model and screen with an ultrasound of the baby. Family planning and national development go hand in hand when discussing matters to do with contraception, fertility and abortion thus immediately becoming a sore spot politically. Decriminalising abortion and reducing restrictive legislation remains within NGOs and CSOs but far from the mainstream debate on abortion. Moving away from seeing abortion through the lenses of law enforcement through the media might be a step-in normalising discussions on the matter. However, due to the act of abortion being governed by the Penal Code, we will only be able to get a glimpse into the trauma and distress of dealing with unwanted pregnancies.