In France they had massive problems with hijab, skull cap, large crucifix and turban. In Malaysia, it’s serban!
Pardon me if I sounded rude, I don’t think the ratio decidendi of recent ruling of Court of Appeal was really appealing, but rather appalling! Quote Datuk Gopal Sri Ram in his decision “If the courts were to interfere, we might as well manage the schools”. “We have to interpret the constitution sensibly and in the context of a multiracial society”. These statements are highly dubious. Two things could be inferred; One, Government now has the right to determine what kind of religious clothing would be acceptable. No offence, consider the impacts and precedents set in Court of Appeals, which later would bind future High court cases, if suddenly a headmaster decides in his capacity that tudung (veil) is no longer acceptable, then, all students must now take off their tudung. KYSM are known to put this into practice. Girls were told explicitly to take their tudung off shall they accept the offer to study there. Secondly, Government can now decide to what degree you can practice your religion. That’s what I got from reading between the lines. Serban is unacceptable to one school because it resemble extremism in practicing the religion. Or resemble PAS more likely. In the future, decent dress code would correlate with degree of religiousness and categorized as follows:
A) Non practicing
B) Moderate practitioner
C) Not so Pious
D) Pious
E) Overtly Pious
I do acknowledge that it’s much better in Malaysia, because the decision falls under school principal's jurisdiction. Pupils still have option to go to another school that tolerates Serban. Pupils don’t have that kind of option in Singapore or France. It just reminds me of what happens in Rosa Parks Montgomery case and Brown Vs Board of Education in United States. Although it involves extreme case of racial discrimination, in essence, it’s about black students being deprived of going to schools of their choices which is nearer to their residence. Deprivation of choice based on differences. (Ours is dress code, theirs’ were skin color)
In Malaysia, a lot of us were told to accept broad definition of decent attire. To be more accurate, some quarters within the Authority impose their definition of decency. A year a go, there were some complaints on RTD officers (Road Transport Department). They have refused to conduct driving license test of certain people whom they claimed to wear improper attire. What constitute decent attire? Long sleeve with tie? Would jeans and t-shirt be acceptable? Or women have to wear baju kurung/kebaya all the time to look decent? What constitute skimpish dressing? Hijab?
In principle, can government decide for their citizen, what should they wear? I believe the same principle should apply across the board. If government can't tell you which fashion to choose or what color shall fit you, they also should not force their version of decency. It’s not that people go naked in RTD for their driving license test. Malaysians still possess common sense! Are we not?
Then, most probably, what PAS Government did in Kelantan like forcing women to be hijab clad, or even what the Taleban did in Afghanistan is totally justified….Think about it.
A) Non practicing
B) Moderate practitioner
C) Not so Pious
D) Pious
E) Overtly Pious
I do acknowledge that it’s much better in Malaysia, because the decision falls under school principal's jurisdiction. Pupils still have option to go to another school that tolerates Serban. Pupils don’t have that kind of option in Singapore or France. It just reminds me of what happens in Rosa Parks Montgomery case and Brown Vs Board of Education in United States. Although it involves extreme case of racial discrimination, in essence, it’s about black students being deprived of going to schools of their choices which is nearer to their residence. Deprivation of choice based on differences. (Ours is dress code, theirs’ were skin color)
In Malaysia, a lot of us were told to accept broad definition of decent attire. To be more accurate, some quarters within the Authority impose their definition of decency. A year a go, there were some complaints on RTD officers (Road Transport Department). They have refused to conduct driving license test of certain people whom they claimed to wear improper attire. What constitute decent attire? Long sleeve with tie? Would jeans and t-shirt be acceptable? Or women have to wear baju kurung/kebaya all the time to look decent? What constitute skimpish dressing? Hijab?
In principle, can government decide for their citizen, what should they wear? I believe the same principle should apply across the board. If government can't tell you which fashion to choose or what color shall fit you, they also should not force their version of decency. It’s not that people go naked in RTD for their driving license test. Malaysians still possess common sense! Are we not?
Then, most probably, what PAS Government did in Kelantan like forcing women to be hijab clad, or even what the Taleban did in Afghanistan is totally justified….Think about it.
posted by Liberated @ 5:46 PM
2 Comments:
Dude!
This has absolutely nothing to do with religious persecution and the case of france.
It's a simple case of Uniforms. The Malaysian government already provides/allows for uniforms that meets with Islamic standards. They are not obliged to allow for ALL TYPES of Islamic dress standards. Hence,the government has already done enough within the context of the constitution to allow for the religious needs of Muslims.
The father that tried to fight this case was trying to test that limits of what defines a uniform and the judge was right in ensuring that the headmaster gets the final say in schools.
Yes, if you're going to a government funded school, the government has a right to determine what uniform you wear. This is not an issues of religious rights. There is already a uniform that meets Islamic religious obligations. It's an issue of discipline.
Your argument of the Tudung is moot because the Tudung is part of the nationally endorsed school Uniform. Your comparison with KYSM is also incorrect because they are a private entity, not a government one. (I'm assuming you're talking about Yayasan Saad).
Finally, my Guru is lurking thru my blog and replied with strong opinion. Awesome!
Tubs, you remind me of Ex-Premier Goh Chok Tong, when he tried his best to justify tudung ban in Singaporean Public Schools.
Here are my answers to your pertinent issues in your reply.
First of all, with regards to nationally endorsed school uniform. If this kind of ‘standard” supposed to bind every public school under the system, then why is it, headmaster get to exercise their “discretion” in accepting what is acceptable? The kids (In the court case) were told by their school headmaster to transfer to another school which allow serban, if don’t want to face expulsion. In fact there are a lot of schools accept serban as a choice of religious statements (non-religious school). Most science schools (Govt. residential School) encourage students to wear serban. I came from a school that made tudung a compulsory uniform. Serban or Songkok is highly encouraged and I did my SPM in Science School, not a religious school. (Not very sure about MCKK and STAR kids, they’re much liberal in that sense, “Civil Union” and all that, God knows what else)If kippa or skull cap is compulsory to male Jews so that it would remind them that Allah (or YHWH in Hebrew) is always up there, Serban is Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) sunnah in highlighting delineation between Muslims and Non-Muslims which symbolizes humbleness. Songkok, in other hand is allowed as part of school uniform because it is more of traditional statements rather than religious ones. Why such inconsistencies exist? More importantly, why headmasters now given more power than before as in determining what is acceptable and what is unacceptable? My major concern here, hypothetically, given such ratio decidendi, coupled with your vague “nationally endorsed school uniform”, school headmaster could now either reject tudung as acceptable or enforce tudung to school pupils. Isn’t that what has been delivered by that ratio decidendi? It is the consequences that worry me…..
National Endorsed School Uniform is in fact highly questionable and vague because, even private entity like KYSM which adopted Malaysian KBSR and KBSM syllabus and registered under MoEd can refuse to incorporate that code.
You said ;Hence,the government has already done enough within the context of the constitution to allow for the religious needs of Muslims………. There is already a uniform that meets Islamic religious obligations----
You assumed that religious needs of Muslims are being met with the existing system. If you going to argue on meeting religious obligation, then, Muslim girls under puberty age are not oblige to cover their hair, neck and upper part of their abdomen. What exactly the national endorsed school uniform did was systematic discrimination between Muslims male and female. It allows females to wear tudung assuming it is already part of their obligation, and it left Serban to be decided by headmasters’ assumption.
It doesn't mean a person is indiscipline when what he asked for was only to make the option of serban available.
Kind Heart,
Liberated
Post a Comment
<< Home