JUNE 25 ― The three libraries I used to go to when I was younger ― the National Library, the Taman Tun Dr Ismail library and the MBPJ library ― all had dress codes prohibiting sleeveless tops and short skirts or shorts.
I thought the dress code was silly. I'd just walk in anyway, in my T-shirt and shorts or whatever casual outfit I felt like wearing that day, nod as the guard reprimanded me and promise to take heed the next time. Sometimes, they let me in, but sometimes they didn't.
I didn't think of challenging the library back then, which now, on hindsight, I should have. How can the library, a place of learning, impose a dress code? What if an impoverished girl from the slums, wearing a short tattered dress, wants to read books at the public library? How can she be denied the chance to learn just because what she wears isn’t considered “decent”?
Now, several public institutions ― like the Road Transport Department (RTD), the National Archives, and even the Sungai Buloh Hospital ― are barring entry and denying service to women dressed in what the government departments consider “indecent”, like skirt lengths ending just above the knee or shorts.
The women at the RTD, the National Archives and the Selangor state secretariat were handed full-length sarongs to wear over their outfits, while the young woman at Sungai Buloh, who just wanted to visit her father, was forced to borrow a patient’s towel to wrap herself with, which only made her look like she wasn’t wearing anything underneath.
Some point out that the dress codes have always been there and say: “What’s the big deal? Just follow the dress code and wear pants next time.”
It is precisely this indifference, the reluctance to challenge authorities in the past, which has allowed such absurd behaviour from government officials who seek to impose their beliefs on a multi-racial public.
This moral policing is perpetrated not just by men, but by women too, like the female guard at the RTD office who has long provided the sarong to “sexily-dressed” women, most of whom did not complain except Suzana G.L. Tan who vented about it on Facebook.
Government institutions, least of all a hospital or library, have no right to impose a dress code and to deny service to the public for violating it. As a taxpayer, I want my money to be used to improve services, not to engage in moral policing.
Private institutions, like an orchestra or a fine dining restaurant, have the right to impose dress codes as we can choose not to patronise them. Places of worship, too, can regulate dressing since holy sites should be respected.
But government authorities have confused “inappropriate” with “indecent” dressing. Instead, they try to impose their mainstream beliefs about covering the “aurat” on everyone, including non-Muslims, regardless of whether their dressing is appropriate or not.
It is inappropriate to wear jeans or slippers to Parliament, for example. Having a dress code that mandates suit and tie or formal wear there is fine. But the authorities there (and other government agencies) still appear to be strangely fixated on women’s bare shoulders or the knee, even though one may be in formal office wear.
It’s also inappropriate to wear shorts at work. When I covered the Cooler Lumpur Festival, I chose to wear a blouse and a figure-hugging knee-length skirt as it looked formal. If I’d gone to the hipster festival for fun instead, I would have just worn a pair of shorts.
The Malaysian Philharmonic Orchestra too has a smart casual dress code. You can wear a strapless dress. Ultra conservative Muslims may consider it “indecent”, but it’s perfectly appropriate there.
The government is violating our civil liberties by imposing a dress code at public institutions and denying us entry if we dress “indecently.”
These sarong/ towel incidents are not a “small” thing. If we don’t speak up now, they will continue to push further and impose even more restrictions, especially on women. Already, Pahang religious authorities are threatening Muslim women with jail for wearing “too tight” or “too short” dresses.
Now, the knee is considered indecent. Next, they’ll say the ankle is indecent. Or even our hair, regardless whether we’re Muslims or not, because we live in an “Islamic” country. Finally, they may even say that women, as a whole, arouse lust no matter how much they cover up and should just stay home.
The authorities do not seek to control us just by regulating what we speak or write; it starts from the most basic thing ― controlling what we wear.
Not everyone can write or speak well, but everyone can express their individuality through their clothes. Forcing everyone to dress in long, austere robes removes people’s individuality and affects their ability to challenge the status quo. How can you stand out and speak if people can’t even distinguish you from a crowd of literally formless bodies?
States do not become oppressive overnight. Germany did not suddenly decide to send Jews to concentration camps. Oppression occurs one step at a time.
Finally, how the heck is “indecent” dressing defined? How many inches of thigh or calf can a woman reveal before her skirt length is considered “indecent”? How much cleavage can she show? How many inches of a heel is considered “decent” before it becomes “slutty”?
Why are such ridiculous barometers imposed only on women?
This is why “decent” and “modest” labels for dressing should be abolished. They are completely arbitrary and only serve to bolster reasons for violating our right to freedom of expression.
*This is the personal opinion of the columnist.
