The subject of morality is contentious and complex. Long has there been debate on whether public behavior should be dictated by a few religious and moral vigilantes.
Some hold that Malaysia needs public morality in this era of permissiveness and promiscuity and that laws are needed to maintain it for the sake of social order. “The value of religious belief will not and should not be accepted as part of public morality unless they are shared by the pluralistic community at large, by consensus,” said a lawyer cum columnist Salbiah Ahamd in her article in The Sun (2005-8-9).
The question is how can such consensus be achieved in a pluralistic society? Where does one draw the line between public and private? Most importantly, who determines the range of acceptable behavior for all Malaysians of diverse cultural and religious backgrounds?
While Christians in general perceive prayer as private affair and personal conviction, it is not so for the 68 year old Kelantanese who was fined under the Kelantan Islamic Council and Malay Customs Enactment 1986 (Amt.1994) for not attending Friday prayers (NST, 2006-3-30). Although holding hands in public may not be allowed in Islam, it is fairly common among the Malaysians of other faiths.
In response to the arrest of 100 young Muslims at Zouk nightclub in Kuala Lumpur by the Federal Territory (FT) Religious Department in January 2005, the Cabinet affirmed its position that ‘morality issue is best left to the family” and crime prevention to the police. It felt that the country had no need of moral policing to keep tabs on people’s behaviour.
However, Datuk Dr Abdullah Mohamed Zin, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department in charge of Islamic affairs, was reported to have defended the Religious Department’s action. According to FT Syariah Criminal Offences Act, anyone "who, contrary to Islamic law, acts or behaves in an indecent manner in any public place shall be guilty of an offense."
Six years ago, club performer Azlina Abbas was detained by the Selangor Islamic Department (JAIS) for "insulting Islam by being in premises where alcohol is served." The charge was later dropped. In 1997, three young Malay girls were arrested, charged and fined by the same department for indecent dressing and taking part in a beauty contest.
Islamic laws govern every aspect of the lives of the Malaysians of Islamic faith. Fundamentalism and intolerance runs very deep in Malay-Muslim society… Muslims have few choices… our life is regulated and regimented,” said a political analyst (Asia Times Online, 2005-2-9). Yet the laws are not confined within the boundaries of this community.
Despite the saying that morality laws apply only to those of Islamic faith, the overzealousness has spilled over to the communities of other faiths. In Ipoh, a student and his girlfriend were booked for ‘indecent behavior’ as they held hands and talked in Ipoh Padang (NST, 2003-4-13).
Another student was issued a summons for talking with a classmate at the stairway of a library in Ipoh (2003-5-6). Those who live in the metropolitan Kuala Lumpur are not spared. A couple was charged under the FT Parks Bylaws 1981 for holding hands and kissing in KLCC park in August 2003.
Many consider moral policing a religious duty. Some have argued that the Federal Constitution recognizes Islam as the official religion and that Malaysia has been declared an “Islamic state,” the state therefore has a responsibility to enforce Islamic laws on its citizens. Others question the constitutionality and propriety of denying people of their privacy, freedom of speech and expression. Many lawyers of various religious backgrounds are of the opinion that enforcing morality laws violates individual fundamental liberties.
Datuk Dr Sharifah Hapsah Syed Hasan Shahbudin, president of the National Council of Women Organisation, believed that the moral control through laws could not solve social problems (Star Online, 2005-3-9). Her view was later echoed by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad who said that “the most effective way to prevent people from committing crimes and wrongdoings is to instil in them good and noble values instead of coming up with more laws” (2005-4-18).
Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz, minister in the PM Dept., was quoted as saying, “We do not want Malaysia to turn into Taliban rule,” and that “individual rights regardless of religion or creed” must be respected in the multi-racial society (2005-3-25).
The Cabinet had also issued a directive disbanding the Melaka’s controversial snoop squad, 4B Youth’s Mat Skodeng. Another religious snoop squad was formed in the administrative capital Putrajaya in January and was later disbanded under the similar circumstance (NST, 2006-1-9).
Regardless, legislating bylaws to curb indecency is the touchy issue of the day.
On 3rd April, the Federal Court affirmed the power of the local government to create bylaws to act against “citizens who behave in a disorderly manner in public” (The Sun). In his remark, the Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim seemed to suggest that kissing and hugging in public was a disorderly manner although it was permissible in countries like England. Many wondered whether his comment carried the connotation of religious interpretation of morality and personal conviction.
In response to the ruling, the Bar Council, All Women’s Action Society and Human Rights Commission of Malaysia have called the authorities to define indecency (Star Online, 2006-4-6).
While the intention may be for upholding good morality, it is subjective in nature, for there are different kinds of morality due to diverse belief systems. Legislating morality based on religious principles would be simply deciding that one action is wrong (non-Islamic or non-biblical, etc.) and one is right (Islamic or biblical, etc.). Whichever principle is applied, the enforcers would be seen as imposing that morality based on certain religious precepts on another who may be of a different faith.
Having said that, laws relating to criminal offenses are all moral in nature for they represent a system of morality. Laws against murder, rape and thefts are both moral and religious issues that are found in all cultures. That is why we have this enactment called the Penal Code, a consolidation of law that is related to criminal offenses.
NECF Malaysia stresses its stand in upholding morality, for it ensures justice and harmony between individuals and a good society. Nevertheless, we also believe that personal and religious-based morality should not be imposed on others in the pluralistic Malaysia.
Recognizing that the concept of policing is to do with crimes, we call for policing criminality rather than policing morality and are confident that the Penal Code itself is sufficient to maintain public order and morality.
Posted May 16, 2006 |
