Moderation: Moving From Fluffy to Precise
When our language is fluffy, it can be difficult to take effective action, because we don’t exactly define what the problem is.
Kua Kia Soong, SUARAM Adviser
The rise of the far-right and the religious bigots in Malaysia has in turn given rise to a movement of “moderates”. As human beings, we have an instinctive grasp of the ancient wisdom of moderation as the way (the Tao) to a healthy body and way of life. In the body politic, however, espousing “moderation” becomes imprecise since it is an example of fluffy language that is also used by the powers-that-be to deal with those who uphold the truth, justice and human rights. Let me be more precise with what I mean by that.
In 1987, I was detained under the ISA and according to the allegations by the government, I had “threatened national security” by my writings and public speeches, calling for support for mother tongue education and analyzing the roots of racial polarisation. Thus, in the view of the government, I was not a “moderate”. During the detention, I was subjected to accusation of being an “extremist” and not “moderate” by the Special Branch interrogators who are but operatives of the state. Reading the White Paper on Operation Lalang, all those detained had failed to be “moderate” in their actions and thus deserved to be put away for the “public good” or “national harmony”.
Recently, we have had religious bigots and racists calling for Bibles containing the word “Allah” to be burned. The authorities considered them to be “moderates” because they were “merely trying to defend Islam”. Such an interpretation of “moderation” seems to go on ad nauseum in contemporary Malaysian society.
Our society is fast becoming an Orwellian “animal farm” in which labels such as “moderates”, “extremists”, “national security”, “national harmony” and other fluffy terms have become relative (Doublespeak) and imprecise, depending on how they are defined by the state and the judiciary.
Defining the problem precisely
We are all genuinely concerned and distressed about the rise of the far-right and religious bigotry. The Movement of Moderates initiated by civil society echoes this concern. Nevertheless, we need to overcome the language pitfalls in trying to achieve a better society. When our language is fluffy, it can be difficult to take effective action, because we don’t exactly define what the problem is. We have to be precise about who “the perpetrators of a crime” are; we need to know “who specifically said what” and “what specifically they said or did.”
It is very clear that we are trying to deal with a problem widely recognised by the world community, at least since the Second World War; namely, racism, racial discrimination, related prejudice and intolerance. Let us examine how other countries deal with this problem.
The UK has the Equality Act 2010, the purpose of which is to align the Race Relations Act with European Human Rights legislation and to extend protection to other groups not previously covered, namely, to cover age, disability, gender, religion, belief and sexual orientation.
Thus, in my critique of the “Harmony Act” that has been proposed to replace the Sedition Act, I have stressed that we should call an Equality Act an Equality Act and not by any other fluffy name. If equality is still taboo in Malaysia in the 21st century, we are indeed living in an animal farm!
Incitement to racial hatred & hate crimes
Under an Equality Act, “incitement to racial hatred” would be considered a criminal offence. Under the UK Equality Act, actions are also considered to be direct discrimination when “someone is treated less favourably than another person because of a protected characteristic”. The British Criminal Justice & Public Order Act 1994 made publication of materials that incited racial hatred an arrestable offence. These include:
• Deliberately provoking hatred against a racial group;
• Distributing racist material to the public;
• Making inflammatory public speeches;
• Creating racist websites on the internet;
• Inciting inflammatory rumours about an individual or ethnic group, in order to spread racial discontent.
The UK Public Order Act 1986 defines racial hatred as “hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to colour, race, nationality or ethnic origins”. Section 21 of the Act makes “incitement to racial hatred” an offence to publish or distribute material which is threatening or abusive or insulting if intended to stir up racial hatred…”
“Hate crimes” are criminal acts committed as intimidation, threats, property damage, assault, murder or such other criminal offence. They are a type of crime in which the perpetrator is sending a message to the victim about their right to belong to that society. Hate crimes violate the principle of equality between people and deny their right to achieve full human dignity and to realize their full potential.
Religious bigotry and Islamic populism
The increasing cases of religious bigotry and injustice toward non-Muslims in the country are actually instances of the misapplication of the Federal Constitution which provided for freedom of religion as at Independence in 1957. Subsequent amendments to the federal constitution and state enactments have led to the Judiciary defering its powers to the inferior Syariah courts in disputes between a Muslim and non-Muslim regarding conversion from Islam and other areas.
To reinstate the status quo as at Independence in 1957 (our “social contract”?), there needs to be in place a Law Commission that would be empowered to ensure freedom of religion in this country and restate the jurisdiction of the civil courts and the syariah courts. In upholding the principle of freedom of religion in the federal constitution, the post-1957 state enactments which clearly violate this freedom – as in the case of the Bible seizing episodes – have to be rescinded. Such a reform is essential to recognize the 1957 “social contract” as supreme and to thus prevent any further bible seizing adventures. This and not the magnanimity of the Menteri Besar or the monarch is crucial in establishing our right to freedom of religion under the federal constitution.
An Equality & Human Rights Commission
A further structural reform that has to be instituted is an Equality & Human Rights Commission such as exists in the UK. Now, in Malaysia, we already have a National Human Rights Commission (SUHAKAM). Our Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) should therefore extend its jurisdiction to incorporate an Equality Commission for after all, equality is an intrinsic part of our human rights. Its work would be to encourage greater integration and better ethnic relations and to use legal powers to help eradicate racial discrimination and harassment. Thus, its ambit would cover racist stereotyping in text books and the press; racial discrimination in the public sphere, employment, education, social services, advertisements.
Such an independent commission would be empowered to issue codes of practice and be invested with powers to conduct formal investigations and to serve notices to furnish information or documents in order to enforce the law. It would then be up to the Malaysian courts to decide on the legality or illegality of such institutions in Malaysian society since 1971, for example, the Bumiputera-only policy at UiTM and other public institutions; the quota system and its implementation; the discounts for Bumiputeras in various economic transactions and other blatant acts of racial discrimination.
These are examples of the routinization of racial discrimination in Malaysia that has become part of the “normality” accepted by many so-called “moderates”. Again, this only exposes the relativity and vagueness of the concept of “moderation” that currently abounds in the media and begs the question –“moderate in relation to what?”
Time to rein in the racists
Clearly, far right racial supremacists who rail about the dominance of their “race” would be reined in by an effective Equality & Human Rights Commission and dealt with under an Equality Act.
Finally, I call upon concerned Malaysians to institute structural reforms for healthy ethnic relations and the equality to which we as citizens are entitled to. These include calling upon the Malaysian government to immediately initiate moves to ratify the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights (ICCPR).
We need to address the main issues of racism; racial discrimination and related intolerance in our society and to propose appropriate Bills and institutions to resolve these problems. Failure to do so results in fluffily clad initiatives and Bills which can be used by despots as double-edged swords to deal only with human rights defenders rather than the perpetrators of hate and division.
