K. SILADASS

MUSLIMS ONLY LAUNDERETTE

by

K.Siladass

            The existence of “Muslims only launderette’’ in Muar, Johore did cause pain and dismay among Malaysians. In a multi-racial and multi-religious country this should not have happened and that was the common feeling; but, there were apologists who gave plethora of reasons for such a launderette. Even the Menteri Besar of Johore came out indicating that the operator must have been satisfied with his limited income.

Politicians with their eyes on the votes were not prepared to come out against this Muslim only launderette. Those who thought that this was a dangerous trend compared it with the much hated apartheid which was practised in South Africa. That was a systemised racial segregation and discrimination in the bygone era between 1949 and 1991. It was a humiliating system, a system which nurtured indignity and abuse against the Black Africans and protected, preserved White supremacy. The whole world condemned it, and Malaysia was active in that movement condemning such a shameful system against humanity.

When Malaya was under British rule, there was a regulation which stated that dogs and Souths Indian labourers are prohibited from entering restaurants which had liquor licences. It was a racist condition. It was removed after some years of Merdeka. The late Tan Sri Manikavasagam could have been instrumental in its removal.

The pre-Merdeka generation would also remember that there were clubs whose

membership extended only to Europeans but not to the locals. Those were shameful eras which we want to forget. Yet here comes a new form of segregation and open humiliation in the pretext of religion. Therefore, the Muslims only launderette was in fact an irksome reminder of a disgraceful past: yet those who blow the One-Malaysia trumpet failed to see the demeaning aspects of this sort of divisive religious attitude.

Fortunately, His Majesty the Sultan of Johore exercised his authority as the Head of Islamic Affairs in the State to castigate and prohibit such a religious oriented launderette.

It also emerged that in Perlis too one operator had put up signage of “Muslims only launderette” and on the advice of His Highness Raja Muda of Perlis, the operator took down the signage and opened it for all. At this point of time, it was indeed hoped that the Conference of Rulers should come out with a clear message to save the country from sinking deeper into a state of divisive religious intoxication. Once race and religious based institution such as Muslims only is allowed, it will see a train of divisive norms flourishing in every sphere of Malaysian life and that would destroy every hope of Malaysianess in this country.

Soon after the order of the Sultan of Johore the “Muslims only launderette” operator removed the signage and apologized to the Sultan of Johore. Prime Minister Dato Seri Najib Razak came out with a statement that the apology of the operator ought to be accepted. It is strange that Najib waited for the Sultan to make his stand clear before he made the comment. As the Prime Minister who preaches One-Malaysia he should have been the first person to say that this sort of operations will not help the concept of Malaysian unity, and it should be expelled from everyone’s thoughts. [At the time of concluding this article it was reported that Najib has spoken against Muslims only launderette. According to him such exclusivity is wrong.]

Sure enough to the relief of all Malaysians, the Conference of Rulers have made an unequivocal statement that Malaysia “is a country whose citizens are of diverse religions and ethnic backgrounds and that must be respected” and the conference endorsed the condemnation of Muslims only launderette. This was a timely intervention in a matter of national importance where political bigwigs have conveniently failed to address, even if the issue was addressed, it was vague and ambiguous.

In the meantime, a JAKIM officer Zamihan Mat Zin criticised the Sultan of Johore for the latter’s views on Muslims only launderette. His ranting included insulting the Chinese whose pork eating habit, and alleged uncleanliness after clearing the bowels, insinuating that they are not clean people.

Zamihan overlooked the fact that using toilet paper is a common habit followed

by cleaning the affected parts with water. Besides, almost all Europeans use toilet paper rather than water after they had cleared their bowels. In countries where water is scarce there may be other mode of cleaning.

Any person with common sense would have dismissed the preacher’s outburst as puerile necessitating no response. That was not to be.  There were those who thought that the preacher’s explanation was important. To what can their explanation be ascribed?  Would it be too wrong to say that this is due to the constant bashing of other religions and ethnic groups in this country and the indifference of the law enforcement agencies especially the police who turned a blind eye to such grave and flagrant violations, not forgetting the inattention of the ruling party in the government towards such dangerous course.

Now, a former Chief Justice of Malaysia Tun Abdul Hamid Mohammad has come out with the view that there is no law to stop a person from operating Muslims only launderette. There may not be any law but experience would have shown that common sense always played a complementary role to see justice is done, and at the same time preserve harmony.

The Penal Code codified all types of offences that the human mind is capable of conceiving and executing them; therefore, it prescribed appropriate punishments for every offence. There is no doubt that the Penal Code is secular in its form and substance and implementation. It applies to all persons without any racial, religious and citizenship status. I am sure Hamid will realise that it is experience which prompts the enactment of laws. It is only when the society encounters new dangers emanating from new types of crime, the legislature steps in to remedy the situation. While it is true that Muslims only launderette or any business outlet should not practice exclusivity based on religion, the legislature did not envisage this will happen, because it had not happened and everyone thought it will not happen. There was immense mature approach. The short answer to Hamid is this the multi-racial, multi-religious, multi-culture Malaysian society not at anytime hitherto practised exclusivity such as Muslims only laundrette because of their maturity and culture of tolerance and idea of inclusivity. Therefore, the necessity to enact laws to protect any conduct that could breed racial disharmony did not arise. Perhaps the time has come for the licensing authorities eg. the local Governments to look into this aspect and impose conditions/prohibiting such exclusivity with penal consequences when those conditions are violated.

External uncleanliness is not as bad as the mind filled with avarice, stupidity, garrulousness and hatred, and more importantly a mind which is absolutely corrupt. For example, stealing Government money which is public money; allowing nepotism, enriching unjustly, living beyond one’s means, and leading a scandalous life: these are the factors which would help to weigh a person’s cleanliness not as, it is preached by former JAKIM preacher and his apologist those who keep on fuelling the substance of hatred. Today, crimes have increased and they are not common ones. They are not committed by ordinary Abdullahs, Ah Chongs or Wongs, Anandans or Limbangs who are behind the mega crimes but they are committed by those in high position with vast opportunities to perpetuate them.

Attention on these would help society and the country.

Date: 25/10/2017