Media Statement by Yeo Bee Yin, State
Assemblywoman of Damansara Utama on Sunday, 19 January 2014 in Petaling Jaya.
Women in ‘tudung’ as a way of professing her
Muslim faith should be free from any forms of discrimination in Malaysia, as
guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. Nevertheless, UMNO’s
different response to discrimination against women in ‘tudung’ in SRJK (C) Nan
Ya to that of the multinational retailers in Kuala Lumpur City Centre (KLCC) clearly
showed that it practices “One Malaysia Two Standards”.
First of all, we are glad to know that the
school management board of SRJK(C) Nan Ya has made public apology to the Muslim
teacher who was told to take off her ‘tudung’. It is highly commendable that
the teacher accepted the apology in such thoughtfulness as she was quoted
saying, "I
accepted the apology with an open heart and I do hope that the issue will not
be further sensationalized as it is clearly a sensitive issue."
We hope that such a regrettable incident will
not happen again anywhere in Malaysia, especially in the school, where children
are supposed to learn to be respectful to each other. We stand on the
principles outlined in Article 8(2) of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia,
which states “there
shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of religion,
race, descent, gender or place of birth in any law or in the appointment to any
office or employment” and Article 11(1) which states “everyone has the right to
profess and practice his or her own religion”.
Therefore, women in tudung as a way of professing her Muslim faith
should be free from any forms of discrimination in Malaysia, as guaranteed by
the Federal Constitution.
Nevertheless,
we are marveled at UMNO’s huge difference in responding to this discrimination
case versus another one that happened in September last year in KLCC.
Last
September, a Facebook status by a Muslim lady by the name of Mira Kamil went
viral as she shared her experience of blatant discrimination against Muslim
women in ‘tudung’ in several international retail stores in KLCC. Her story was
later verified by Harian Metro, recorded in a YouTube video, as one of their
reporters went undercover to try to seek job in the stores and was refused
based on the same reason.
We spoke
up against the multinational retailers and urged them to base their recruitment
on merit and
competency and not by their choice of clothing. We stood on the principles that
a Muslim woman should in no way be discriminated because she wears a ‘tudung’.
However, UMNO kept unusually quiet then.
In the case of SRJK (C) Nan Ya, we stood on
the same principle and urged the director of the school management board to
apologize to the teacher. As for UMNO, they have taken a completely different
stance. Even after the school’s apology and the concerned teacher accepted it
and wished the issue not to be further sensationalized, UMNO is still pursuing
the matter relentlessly.
But if UMNO is really the defender of
Islam, why did they keep quiet in the face of multinational companies last
September and only dare to make noise when it’s ordinary Malaysians? Why one
Malaysia two standards? This shows that UMNO is using race and religion to milk
political mileage at the expense of national harmony.
Lastly, we would like to remind UMNO that increased
racial polarization in Malaysia cannot be solved by offensive approaches but by
mutual respect and healthy dialogues. Since we are policy makers albeit from
different political divides, we should base our argument on facts and laws and
not on emotions and provocations. Malaysia will be a much better place if UMNO
can learn to grow up and rise above race and religion in their arguments on
national issues.
Yeo Bee Yin
