Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

Keen to know whether sexuality rights actually exist in our country, the writer attended one of the recent Seksualiti Merdeka events to find out more about such rights. 

As part of the Seksualiti Merdeka programme this year, the Bar Council Human Rights Committee (“BCHRC”) organised a friendly debate entitled “Is moral policing justified?” on 15 August 2009.  Based on the Asian Debating Format, teams were divided into the Government, who supported the motion, and the Opposition, who opposed the motion. The Government team consisted of activists Shanon Shah, Honey Tan and Gayathri Venkiteswaran, while the Opposition team comprised  members from the Bar (Fahri Azzat, and BCHRC members Khaizan Sharizad bt. Abd. Razak and Adiba Shareen).  The debate was moderated by Simranjit Kaur Gill.

The debate started off with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition explaining their stand on the motion.  Their arguments were further strengthened by the second speaker in the team.  The team’s “whip” then summarised and concluded the arguments.  

During the debate, the Government consistently exhibited that moral policing was justified, as a result of complaints made by the public.  The Government positioned itself as ever-listening and that moral policing was not about actual “policing”, rather the objective of moral policing was to assist the purported “offender” to rethink his or her (deviant) ways.  It was argued that moral policing “helps” to protect the public from the snowball of personal crimes.  Emphasising its application, the Government summed up that moral policing reflects the wishes of the Malaysian majority.   In conclusion, the Government Whip remarked,  “You (the public) voted us (members of the government) in, didn’t you?” 

In response, the Opposition questioned, “Who are the Government’s majority?”.  The Opposition argued that morality is a subjective issue where stands, stances and interpretations differ. Khaizan, the Leader of the Opposition, queried, “Since Malaysia consists of “different segments of standards . . . who are you (the Government) to say what is deviant?”  Fahri, the second speaker for the Opposition, furthered this argument by saying, “We (the adults) are not children. . . . Morality is ultimately personal.  It externalises our internalities.  When we give our power away (to the government), we take away our accountability. We allow dictatorship.  Policing is elitism.” 

When the floor was opened for a question-and-answer session, a member of the audience remarked that moral policing may not have been born as a result of the wishes of democracy or the Malaysian majority, but rather moral policing could have been born as a result of sociological power.  By the end of the session, the audience was better-informed on the arguments for and against moral policing, and was also left in stitches over the antics and barbed eloquence of the Government and Opposition teams in putting their respective views across.  Indeed, “even 20 voices from the crowd must be taken into account”.

Then truly, do you think moral policing is justified?