Conversation stoppers

"Action will be taken as it involves public order. They should also respect the religion and not interfere in Muslim affairs," so warned Malaysia's Inspector-General of Police, Musa Hassan last week after a protest was held along Jalan Ampang in the capital Kuala Lumpur.

The marchers were denouncing Malaysia's National Fatwa Council's recent fatwa against women dressing and behaving like "tomboys".

Chanting slogans such as "Stop oppression against women" and "Short hair, who cares?" they handed pamphlets out to passers-by. Their placards read "Tomboy is not a crime" and "Stop controlling clothing and thoughts of the rakyat [people]", reported Malaysian newspaper The Star. [1] 

Noting that the fatwa was probably aimed at lesbians, a spokesman for the marchers said, "Gender expression, identity and orientation are different things altogether," which to me, only seemed to suggest that the group might be quite agreeable to restrictions on homosexual women, so long as they were narrowly tailored, and not sweeping prohibitions on dress.

The Star did not say who were behind the march, but they were probably non-Muslim NGOs (non-government organisations) -- hence the police chief Musa Hassan's warning: "Such protests can trigger dissatisfaction within the Muslim community and this could cause tension."

Promptly, Sisters in Islam voiced their own objections.

In a statement, it questioned the authorities’ definition of "tomboys".

A woman with short hair? Wearing pants? Wearing shirts? No make-up? Many Malaysian women sport short hair, wear pants, shirts and don't wear make-up. It is culturally normal for Malaysian women to be body comfortable with each other -­ many women hold hands, hug their friends or kiss their friends on the cheek," it said.

And how do the authorities define 'manly' behaviour? Not gentle and demure enough? Talking too loud? Who would and how could one define and determine whether a woman is a tomboy or a lesbian?"

SIS said the government, political and religious leaders, including the National Fatwa Council, should give more focus to the effort of upholding justice, equality, civil liberty and democracy in Malaysia, which are intrinsic values in Islam.

The movement said it was concerned with the continuous sexist and discriminatory approach towards Malaysian women, especially Muslim women.

Sexist remarks issued by our parliamentarians, instructions by political leaders for women not to wear high heels and lipstick, giving preference to non-beautiful women to occupy job positions, prohibiting women to sing in public, and now the fatwa on 'tomboys' are all alarming regressive trends."

-- The Malaysian Insider, 21 Nov 2008, Sisters in Islam
hits out at ‘tomboy’ fatwa. Link.

In response to these uppity Muslim women, the spiritual leader of the country's hardline Islamic party, PAS, bared his teeth: "Not only non-Muslims but also Muslims cannot protest against any fatwa."

"All fatwa are based on the Koran and Sunnah (traditions of the Prophet Mohammed) and..... to protest against them is like going against the teachings of Allah. Who are we to go against Allah's commands, are we that great?" said Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat.[2] 

This is what is known as a conversation stopper -– when someone, usually a person with power or influence, cites some authority or principle which he considers incontestable, and if possible, raises the ante for disobedience, in an attempt to silence the other side. This tactic is often employed when the side with power knows it cannot win an argument through debate about the relevant merits of an issue.

* * * * *

 
For decades, the Singapore government's favourite conversation stopper was "If you want to criticise us, stand for election", citing for authority their own electoral victory.

They said this to anyone who had the temerity to take issue with any of their policies, or even just their style. The tissue-thin justification was that through winning the previous election, the People's Action Party (PAP) had obtained the people's endorsement for their "program" -– which in recent elections has amounted to little more than a glossy booklet with a few motherhood statements and lots of pictures. If you don't like the PAP's program, ask the people to vote for you, they'd say.

First of all, this line of reasoning flies against everything that a democratic society is supposed to be. Even between elections, there should be constant engagement between government, civil society and people to debate and refine policies. Anything less, and we're not talking about democracy, but about an elected dictatorship, with carte blanche for five years.

Secondly, there is the question: Is an election, any election, here, a fair test? Don't we all know that the electoral system has been modified beyond measure? Moreover, there is also the question of equal access to media and fair reporting. Plus the risk of million-dollar defamation suits for the slightest slip of the tongue in the heat of an election campaign.

This demand -– "stand for election or shut up" -– is, as someone remarked at a closed door meeting recently, a totally disingenuous tactic.

* * * * *

 
With the advent of Walter Woon as Attorney-General, another conversation-stopper has been revived -– the contempt of court charge. Or was it in response to the sharp criticisms levelled by International Bar Associations' Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) in its report published July this year? 

The 72-page report had examined various instances over the years of questionable court decisions in political cases. It also put under the spotlight the fact that Supreme Court appointments often have no tenure, or are subject to renewal, which thus "casts doubt on the independence of all decisions made by judges."

The Wall Street Journal Asia, in covering this story, got into trouble for it.

Dow Jones, the newspaper's publisher, is currently facing contempt of court charges, together with editors Daniel Hertzberg and Christine Glancey. The Attorney-General's office claims that an editorial published in the newspaper, titled "Judging Singapore's Judiciary" alleged that the judiciary is "not independent" and "is biased and lacks integrity", as did another, titled "Democracy in Singapore". [3] The latter was about on an exchange in court between Singapore’s Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and Chee in a separate defamation case filed by Lee against the opposition leader.

Cited too was a letter to the editor by the opposition Singapore Democratic Party leader Chee Soon Juan, published in the daily on 9 July, touching also on the IBAHRI report.

Dow Jones issued a statement 4 November 2008, asserting their innocence and right to fair comment. "Today in court we defended our right to report and comment on matters of international interest, including matters concerning Singapore," it said.

"We also argued that in this instance, what we published simply does not constitute contempt of court."

Denying complaints that the court action was an infringement of free expression, Woon said the case was "not about the freedom of speech per se" but "about the rule of law and the vital role that the courts and judiciary play in its maintenance." [4] 

We'll come back to this later.

Not only are big media companies being charged with contempt of court, but so are intrepid activists John Tan, Isrizal Mohamed Isa and Muhammad Shafi'ie Syahmi Sariman. They are facing similar charges in a case separate from that of the Wall Street Journal, for wearing white T-shirts emblazoned with a grey kangaroo in judge's robes and holding a gavel. The prosecution alleges that in wearing such a T-shirt, they intended to convey the sense that Singapore courts are "kangaroo courts".

It will be a sad day if Singaporeans, frightened off by this case, no longer dare affix pictures of kangaroos on their websites, or put on Australian souvenir T-shirts with kangaroo prints.

At the time, they were in the Supreme Court building to witness a hearing to assess damages against opposition leaders Chee Soon Juan, Chee Siok Chin and the Singapore Democratic Party, after the trio had been found by a court to have defamed Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

According to Today newspaper, at one point, John Tan uttered the words "This is a kangaroo court" as Lee Kuan Yew walked past him in the building. [5] 

What good do such prosecutions do? Woon argued that it was to protect the rule of law. But is it necessary to shield courts and judges from criticism to achieve this?

Is it totally inconceivable that judges can be biased, that executive interference can occur? Just look at some countries, say, China, India, Malaysia or Turkey. If it can happen there, it can happen here.

And when someone believes it is happening, should it not be said? How do you cure an ill if you're not even allowed to draw attention to it? Do we put our judges in the same class as God, the Prophet and the Koran, infallible, beyond question or demurral?

If we are so concerned about safeguarding the integrity of our justice system, then make sure our courts act with the utmost impartiality and never even give the appearance of susceptibility to undue influence.

Penalising people for saying that our courts do not meet expected standards does not improve justice. It's just a conversation stopper. A silencer. Some might say that resorting to it is an admission that one cannot win the debate on evidence alone, in other words, it just gives people more reason to believe what one is trying to deny. 

Drop the charges before we make an even bigger joke of the system.

© Yawning Bread 

Footnotes

1. The Star, 8 November 2008, Protestors denounce ruling against tomboys 
   Return to where you left off

2. The New Paper, 19 Nov 2008, You can't dress like men and you can't protest about it.
   Return to where you left off

3. Reuters, 4 Nov 2008, Singapore says WSJ wages two-decade attack on judges. 
   Return to where you left off

4. AFP, 4 Nov 2008, Wall Street Journal accused of attacking Singapore judiciary
   Return to where you left off

5. 'Today' newspaper, 15 October 2008, Kangaroo T-shirt trio face contempt of court charges? Link.  
   Return to where you left off

Addenda

1. 26 Nov 2008. Dow Jones, the publisher of the Wall Street Journal was fined S$25,000 by the High Court after being found guilty of contempt of court. The published items "contained insinuations of bias, lack of impartiality and lack of independence" on the part of Singapore's judiciary, wrote Judge Tay Yong Kwang in the ruling. Judge Tay said a higher fine was being levied than in other similar cases both because of the company's immediate conduct and because of previous instances of contempt, in 1985 and 1989.

2. 27 Nov 2008. In the Kangaroo T-shirts case, John Tan Liang Joo, 47, was slapped with a 15-day jail term while 19-year-old Muhammad Shafi'ie Syahmi Sariman and 33-year-old Isrizal Mohamed Isa received a seven-day jail term each.