Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction and legislating morality
by Dr. Mazeni Alwi

So February is the Superbowl month, something I found out as I killed time in the airport lounges of Bangkok, Riyadh and Cairo recently in a hectic schedule of back to back lecture invitations. It is one of those facets of american life that, thanks to Janet Jackson, we now have a better understanding of. The superbowl fanfare reported widely in the media brought to mind how, many of us unfamiliar with america’s mass culture, read with uncomprehending bemusement that the american public could be so scandalized by Ms. Jackson’s exposure of one of her breasts on live television at last year’s event. She blamed that on wardrobe malfunction and her male co-entertainer tried hard to sound flustered with embarrassment.

It got us wondering that America, the most modern society on earth and the beacon of democracy and freedom, where near nudity in mainstream entertainment is thought to be part of all that notion of liberty, and pornography is a legitimate billion-dollar industry, why such fuss over the exposure of one breast and an accidental one at that? Supposing that americans did not buy Ms. Jackson’s excuse, is she as ignorant as many of us to have overestimated the american public’s liberalism (read libertinism) and mature self control? And it was not America’s sudden prudish moment of moral puritanism as the media blitz on the court trial of her more famous brother demonstrates. So, us naïve ignorants now know that even in America there are still lines that should not be crossed in matters of morality and decency, even when there are no victims.

That brings me to the question of wether or not legislating morality is anti-progress and uncivilized backwardness, which formed the backdrop to the recent debate that followed the JAWI enforcement officers highhanded treatment of muslim youths detained at a discotheque on the eve of Eidul Adha. The question was all the more vexing as I was travelling from Thailand to Saudi Arabia, two different moral planets for all we care. What is clear is that the unprofessional behaviour of some JAWI officers during that raid is categorically unacceptable and they should do something about it, and we will rest the matter there. Much less clear is wether legislating morality on the basis of religious teaching is acceptable in an age when we are supposed to have outgrown the need for moral crutches that religion affords. What is equally unclear is wether it is acceptable to the general muslim sentiment, in a country where Islam has a special place in its constitution, that on the eve of the climax of one of the religion’s major worship, some of us are in a state of behavior that thumbed its nose at its moral teachings? (I have to stress that non muslims are at liberty to indulge in all the good and pleasurable things in life anytime, anywhere as long as it is within the law).

Is it acceptable, within the framework of liberal political values that once one chooses to be a muslim, one has to give up certain public non political freedoms to conform to the religion’s basic moral teachings as it might offend the sensitivities of his/her fellow muslims and insults Islam’s status that the constitution affords? Putting in another way, is the right of muslims to consume alcohol in public as fundamental as the right to a fair, open trial and access to legal counsel? Can a muslim who is denied entry to the Genting casino file a complaint that he is discriminated against and deprived of his right to pursue “happiness”? Is such a right within the grand idea of liberty that Jefferson had in mind when he drafted that immortal document?

In this post modern age, defending religious morality is the most uncool thing. In a rapidly secularizing society, as in some parts of Kuala Lumpur where some of us feel we need a passport to enter, arguing for legislating morality and decency can be a sisyphean task, especially when terms from the human rights language are “liberally” borrowed and misapplied. People who are supposedly to be modern and rational will, in knee-jerk fashion, heap abuses like “uncivilized”, “going back to the middle ages”, proponents of “talibanaysia” on proponents of religion-based morality. In other words, we can never be civil or rational beings. But that’s okay, I can tolerate name-calling.

But let us not confuse liberalism with libertinism. Liberalism, which is about fundamental freedoms, has become universal and enshrined in every constitution even though they may not be respected. Nobody would argue of its unchanging universality of time and place, that no person should be deprived of his/her liberty without a fair trial, everyone is entitled to freedom of conscience and thought, and dignity is a basic right. No less than any liberal, someone with a religious outlook desires as much a transparent, representative government that ensures the protection of minorities and distributive justice, such that hunger, poverty and ignorance would no longer be the lot of the common man. Such an outlook is not the monopoly of those with a secular liberal view. In this regard we have great disagreement with the Taliban of recent history and we would resist Talibanaysia just as vehemently.

But libertinism is a totally different creature. Its definition is time and place bound, and to a very great extent defined in context of a society’s cultural and religious norms. What is socially acceptable in Patpong and Pattaya is libertinism in Riyadh. In the Malaysian context, people who adhere to traditional values, both muslims or non muslims, would conceive this differently as from those who choose to adopt the consumerist hedonism of the post-christian, post-modern western mass culture mistaken as liberalism. It happens that in 2005, much of Malaysia is not yet Bintang Walk or Bangsar. The general muslim-malay Malaysians are still quite traditional in sentiment and outlook. We may have to wait until 2020 when Malaysia would have achieved its progressive, developed nation status. Perhaps then, only a minority of malays/muslims would be offended by our youths partying away in the hedonistic milieu of a discotheque on the eve of the Wukuf of Hajj, and no one would really complain the melding of liberalism with libertinism.

What was also confused in the unpleasant, sometimes insensitive debate was labeling these social strictures under the purview of institutions like JAWI as strictly Islamic. Unlike in Saudi Arabia, this is not quite correct as many of these laws are not directly drawn from the Islamic moral code. For instance, the personal dress code for women and men (aurat) required in Islam is something else but the lines drawn by the Sharia code in matters of public decency is much less stringent in the Malaysian situation. It is accepted that the proper practice of Islamic teachings rests on education and self realization rather than legislation. But this does not negate the necessity for some sort of legislation on morality and decency as any functioning society would.

The argument by one prominent newspaper columnist that morality should be left to parents, and everyone should be mature enough to rein in their desires and behave within the accepted parameters of public morality demonstrates a naively shallow understanding of human nature. That the majority of people can exert self control and remain within the accepted norms of civilized behaviour does not negate the need for legislating morality, wether derived from religion or secular ethics, the least of its purpose is to protect minors. There is a big grey area between fun and victimless moral “offences” and those that may ruin many young lives. Having sexual relations with a biologically mature and fully consenting Form 5 girl may seem perfectly reasonable to modern sensibilities, and no real rational reason why not, but why is it morally reprehensible as much to a secular ethicist as to a person with a deep religious outlook, that nobody disagrees that it is a major criminal offence? Many western countries even have legislations that prosecute their citizens who sexually exploit children while on holiday jaunts in Thailand and Philippines whereas we don’t. As long as man remains man, there is no running away from legislating morality.

The question is not wether we should or should not draw a line in matters of morality and decency, but where to draw and how. Secular ethics, but more often the cultural norms, tradition and religious values of each society guide and inform this process, and this is reflected in legislation. But where does secular ethics have its roots, if not in the christianity of the age of faith? In some conservative american states we were told, until very recently, sodomy and oral sex between married couples are theoretically punishable offences, something that ostensibly has its basis in christian teachings. In Saudi Arabia, Islam’s many aspects of the personal moral code e.g. in matters of dress, alcohol consumption and the mixing of sexes find their way “as is” into legislation. In contrast, the Malaysian Shariah code does not adopt “as is” Islam’s personal moral code but merely reflect its teachings on modesty and decency. Just to illustrate the point, not wearing the tudung for women is not an offence in the Sharia code. Nevertheless the scholars of Islam agree that it is an obligation but conforming to it is a personal responsibility and not the state’s. What is adopted as legislation is also bound to evolve with varying degrees secularization in societies touched by modernity. Occasionally, it may swing to more prudish moral legislation with periods popular religious revivalism.

It needs to be appreciated that this is one area of legislation where the WTO and the IMF have no interest to intervene, where a society’s laws on morality and decency can truly reflect its traditional culture and religion. Paradoxically, when we wish to exercise that last shred of sovereignty, we are derided as proponents of “Talibanaysia” and as uncivilized barbarians by the very people who condemn at every opportunity of US hegemony and the destruction of local cultures by late capitalism’s consumerist materialism.

Finally there are two aspects of being muslims in Malaysia, one is identity and the other doctrinal. Unfortunately the debate and controversy regarding the Sharia legislation on morality and decency only looked at Islam as identity. From this perspective, of course it makes perfect sense to argue that a muslim is deprived of his right to pursue happiness when he is denied entry into the Genting casino and therefore it is only right that he lodges a complaint of being discriminated against on the basis of identity. But much more than identity, the profession of the Islamic faith is a matter of personal conviction in its doctrine, chiefly accepting the oneness of God (tauhid) and the prophethood of Muhammad as the last messenger in a line of prophets that included Abraham, Moses and Jesus. Outwardly, acceptance of this doctrine, apart from the obligatory formal rituals (rukun or the pillars of Islam), entails following some personal moral code that is seen as restrictive and outmoded in today’s consumerist culture of instant gratification. Restrictive and outdated this may be to outsiders, to muslims, living a moral life in submission to God’s will is supposed to lead to inner peace and salvation, which is akin to T.S. Eliot’s beautiful christian phrasing of “Our peace in His will” or Dante’s famous saying “In His will is our peace”. The meaning of the word “Islam” in arabic is both “peace” and “submission”.

From this other perspective which is premised upon obligations and responsibility upon profession of faith, a muslim who complains of discrimination on being denied entry into the Genting a casino or to consume alcohol in public, needs to think twice before he/she cries of victimhood.

I am not sure wether the Sharia code which legislates morality and decency, which is applicable only to muslims, will make us more deeply religious. That may not even be its purpose. That relies more on personal effort at understanding the religion and honestly following its teachings, but at least the existence of the Sharia code, which is not without its humanly imperfections, serves the aspiration of muslims in seeing Islam remain in its rightful place as the religion of federation as accorded by the constitution, and the worldwide recognition that Malaysia is among the exemplary muslim nations. For this, we have to accept giving up some of those pleasurable rights that our muslim friends enjoy.

At any rate, the people who cry victimhood are actually having the last laugh. With rapid secularization and relentless adoption of the western lifestyle among urban malays, it is an uphill task trying to enforce such a legislation beyond mere tokenism, especially when the offences are largely victimless. It is much easier to enforce against illegal hawkers and peddlers of illegal VCDs, as both enforcers and offenders come from the same social class. Both are English-inarticulate and have virtually no access to the media. The same is not true for the JAWI enforcement officers who have to deal with the clients of expensive trendy discotheques in KL’s trendiest areas. The power of money and status is limitless.

Dr. Mazeni Alwi