‘Allah’ socks uproar shows national unity remains elusive
The owners of KK Mart have not yet been found guilty. Islam is a religion of justice, peace and compassion. What gives politicians the right to already deem the owners of KK Mart guilty?
K.K. Tan, The Malaysian Insider
I AM a non-Muslim, Chinese Malaysian who support the Palestinian cause. Most people in this country tend to see things through their racial or religious lenses, whether they care to admit it or not.
In our parliamentary system of democracy, sole racial or religious representation is both illegal and immoral as there is not a single constituency in our country in which all the voters belong to only one race or religion.
Even if there were one person in the constituency of another race or religion, the elected representative must represent his or her interest based on justice of the case and not based on race or religion and regardless of whether this person voted for him or her.
This is the principle of our parliamentary democracy. Elected representatives who disagree with this principle must vacate their seat now and leave for another country or another planet to practice their racial or religious politics.
The recent “Allah” socks controversy is a sign of what is wrong with our society today and how easy it is for unscrupulous and dishonest politicians to play the race and religion card.
The Chinese owners and sock suppliers of KK Mart have been charged in court with intentionally wounding the feelings of Muslims just for displaying a few pair of socks with the word “Allah” on them.
But the owners of KK Mart have not yet been found guilty.
Islam is a religion of justice, peace and compassion. What gives politicians the right to already deem the owners of KK Mart guilty?
The owners of KK Mart have already public apologised and agreed to review their working processes.
Therefore, is it just to boycott oKK Mart without first establishing the facts of the case and the guilt of the owners?
We have an Umno assemblyman from Malacca, who is responsible for playing us the issue and initiating the boycott of KK Mart but who is also supposed to represent the interests of non-Malays.
Yet he was proclaiming that he must defend his religion at all costs, without first getting the facts of the case and finding out how the offending socks got there in the first place.
It’s easy to blame people of another race in any issue.
It is not about boycotting an outlet or brand, which every consumer has the right to do.
What if the court should find KK Mart innocent later? Who is going to compensate for its losses?
