MAY 22 — Tourists to George Town, Penang are often shown an example of religious harmony on Jalan Masjid Kapitan Keling, where you can find four religions in one street — the Kapitan Keling Mosque, Goddess of Mercy Temple, St George’s Church and Sri Mahamariamman Temple.
Representing the four major religions in Malaysia — Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, and Hinduism — these houses of worship have co-existed for almost 200 years.
George Town itself was founded in 1786, and has seen the arrival of among others the Siamese, Ceylonese, Burmese, Japanese, Arab, Armenian, and German.
Up until World War II, there was even a Jewish enclave in Penang, something which seems unthinkable today in a borderline anti-Semitic Malaysia.
Therefore, it was baffling how Penang opposition leader Jahara Hamid could claim that Muslims on the island may be confused by a Taoist shrine in a park at the corner of Armenian Street and Acheh Street, now refurbished and dubbed Armenian Park.
Debating in the Penang state assembly, Jahara said that it is inappropriate for a public park to have a place of worship, and the shrine should not be in the open.
But as explained by fellow assemblyman Teh Lai Heng, the Datuk Kong shrine where Taoists usually place offerings for blessings has been in this original spot for allegedly 70 years before the refurbishment.
Perhaps, unlike Jahara’s claim, there is no issue at all of Penang Malays being confused by the Datuk Kong, as it is said that even the Malays pay respects to the deity — although in secret.
Therein lies the mystique of Datuk Kong, the earth deity some say has united the ethnic Chinese, Indians and Malays across Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia for decades.
There are several sources explaining the origin of Datuk Kong, but one thing is the same: he is a Malay.
The name Datuk Kong — also called Na Tuk Kong or Datuk Keramat — is a combination of titles of respect in both Malay and Chinese, and a reflection of the Taoist ancestral worship and the pre-Islam Malay practice of guardian spirit worship.
A Datuk Kong idol is usually depicted wearing the Malay headgear songkok, with items from the Malay culture decorating the shrine — sarong, baju Melayu, rattan cane, Jawi script, ornaments for the Aidilfitri celebration, or even the quintessential Malay symbol favoured by Umno diehards, the keris.
Some idols are even depicted as Malay rulers, complete with their own royal courts.
Offerings to Datuk Kong are also typically rooted in Malay culture: a betel nut leaf set, Javanese tobacco, and some even offer chickens — thoroughly slaughtered in the halal fashion as mandated by Islam. Pork, forbidden for Muslim consumption, is also not allowed at some of his shrines.
In a report, Chong Weiyi, the secretary-general of the Singapore Taoist Federation Youth Group, was quoted saying that the Datuk Kong shrines were a way for the Chinese and the Malays to respect each other.
To be fair, Jahara does have her point. It is certainly inappropriate for a religious symbol to be featured and endorsed in a public park run by the state. Or at least, it should not be a sole prominent feature for such a place.
And yet, it is unlikely that we will see Jahara protest against a prominent Muslim symbol, or even a mosque that features in a public park any time soon.
If anything, Jahara’s complaint only goes to strengthen the hardline Islamist position that while other non-Islam religions can be practised, they do not deserve a spot in public space. Just like complaints against Christmas celebrations in shopping malls, and the Christian cross in a residential area. All the while, Islam continues to be given free rein elsewhere.
With the DAP government still receiving immense support from Penang voters, it is likely that Barisan Nasional (BN) is resorting to the religion card to gain support from rural and Malay voters that it believes to be marginalised.
Compare Jahara’s remark to another by her fellow BN assemblyman, Shariful Azhar Othman, who urged the “no pork” sign to be banned — again citing Muslim confusion.
According to the him, only “halal” and “non-halal” signs should be used in eateries.
This sort of pontificating is not new, nor unique. In February, a Domestic Trade, Consumerism and Co-operatives Ministry enforcement officer told Malay daily Berita Harian that restaurants which display “no pork” signs can be fined for purportedly attempting to confuse Muslims.
Urban consensus seems to suggest that such claims are insulting to Muslims, as “no pork” means exactly what it is: that a restaurant serves no pork, and is in no way claiming that its restaurant is certified halal.
Claims otherwise completely ignore the fact that there exists a Malay population who can weigh halal status by themselves, and need not base their judgment based on paid certificates produced by the religious authorities. Some forget that there are also Malays who just plain do not give a hoot about halalness.
The reality on the ground, however, is contrary. Many Muslims continue to religiously rely on halal status issued by authorities, usually claiming “peace of mind.” It is the exact reason why halal certificates were issued in the first place.
There is no denying that some Muslims are easily confused, but the Islamic authorities have no incentive to eradicate the lot -- for it would only rob the departments of their purpose, further confirming their demise.
And if some Muslims are confused, it is unlikely caused by the guile of non-believers, but by the flimsiness of their faith and the frailty of their minds, dulled by a lifetime of spoon-feeding by the establishment.
