For a country that prides itself as being the cradle of so many Asian cultures, there seem to be a distinct lack of homeliness in Malaysia right now. Anyone with an attentive eye to a nuanced reading of history should be able to see this. We in Malaysia, seem to be well bending on erasing all traces of alterity and difference around us.
What irks so many Malaysians today is the thorny debate over freedom of belief and religion, which has already led to a few loud and angry demonstrations, death threats, hate mail and a blanket ban on discussion on all subject religious. The central issue here has always been the salient status of the secular constitution of Malaysia and the rule of law. It is very confusing in Malaysia. At no point was this ever an issue of mass conversion or an attempt at undermining any particular religion in the country.
Yet,this is how debate has been framed, with some groups claiming that by taking their cases to the higher courts of the land, the few Malaysians who have asked to be allowed to convert to another religion have placed Islam and Islamic law on a secondary status.
Here the issue of comfort and homeliness is brought into play. Those who are opposed to groups like Article 11 have argued that by simply defending the principle of freedom of belief, they are jeopardising the comfort and homeliness of others. Comfort and homeliness here are defined in terms of protecting the status quo ante-which obviously leaves the settled assumptions of the majority intact.
If this is how homeliness and comfort are to be defined in Malaysia now on, then what we are witnessing is really the entrenchment of institutionalised and normalised majoritarianism in no uncertain terms.
Confused? So am I.
What irks so many Malaysians today is the thorny debate over freedom of belief and religion, which has already led to a few loud and angry demonstrations, death threats, hate mail and a blanket ban on discussion on all subject religious. The central issue here has always been the salient status of the secular constitution of Malaysia and the rule of law. It is very confusing in Malaysia. At no point was this ever an issue of mass conversion or an attempt at undermining any particular religion in the country.
Yet,this is how debate has been framed, with some groups claiming that by taking their cases to the higher courts of the land, the few Malaysians who have asked to be allowed to convert to another religion have placed Islam and Islamic law on a secondary status.
Here the issue of comfort and homeliness is brought into play. Those who are opposed to groups like Article 11 have argued that by simply defending the principle of freedom of belief, they are jeopardising the comfort and homeliness of others. Comfort and homeliness here are defined in terms of protecting the status quo ante-which obviously leaves the settled assumptions of the majority intact.
If this is how homeliness and comfort are to be defined in Malaysia now on, then what we are witnessing is really the entrenchment of institutionalised and normalised majoritarianism in no uncertain terms.
Confused? So am I.
