DECEMBER 3 — The recent controversy over the issue of “segregated” canteens found in six Malacca schools does make one wonder if Malaysians need to take a chill pill for racial rhetoric.
Almost anything can trigger off knee-jerk accusations of racism, discrimination and so on.
So the facts are that these schools ─ five missionary schools and one Chinese vernacular school ─ have two canteens. One of them serves non-halal food and another serves halal food. That’s it.
What purposes do the dual canteens serve? What’s the history of this “separation”? We don’t know, but many people have, on the sole fact that the school has two canteens, proceeded to employ the label “segregation” with all the evils the word brings about (see Note 1).
This mirrors the outcry by some people (albeit fewer) over the proposal to provide a free breakfast scheme for children within the B40 category.
Some folks immediately used “segregation” as a way of shooting it down.
In both cases ─ the canteen and breakfast scheme ─ the fallacy is the same i.e. apply a very dark label to a situation or proposal and thus declare it bad.
Apparently, it doesn’t matter to some folks that segregation in, say, the pre-civil rights era of the United States involved white and black communities being separated in multiple domains (e.g. toilets, restaurants, bus seats, club memberships, drinking fountains, etc.); in Melaka there is nothing of this sort.
It doesn’t matter that segregation in some ancient caste systems involves an explicit belief in the uncleanliness and essential inferiority of one community vis-à-vis another; in Melaka there is nothing of this sort.
Finally, it seems lost upon some folks that the chief victims of World War II who were segregated were made to stay in practically uninhabitable conditions prior to the murders; in Melaka, there is nothing of this sort.
In other words, shouldn’t the fact that many other key characteristics of racism and discrimination (associated with segregation) are absent in both the Melaka and B40 case make us pause to ask if we’ve read the situation wrongly?
The point, of course, is that mere separation by itself should have no racist/unjust overtones. In supermarkets you have non-halal sections. In airports you have Smoking Rooms. On highways you have the motorcycle lane. Casinos are off-limits to kids. In mall washrooms, you have special facilities for the physically challenged and parents who need to change diapers. In some restaurants, you have Children sections. And on the MRT and LRT you have special seats meant for the elderly, pregnant and so on.
Why don’t we cry “segregation” over these examples? Obviously, it’s because we recognise that these are positive and helpful separations for the sake of the minority who require them (or, conversely, to not inconvenience the majority in servicing the minority).
The majority-minority distinction is important because it alerts us to the number of ways we have of meeting diverse needs without disrespecting any particular faith or community.
In the case of the B40 breakfast scheme, the whole intention is simply to assist those with a lower income; in essence, it’s almost no different from having a lower income-tax bracket for those with lower salaries.
Nothing “racist” or “segregationist” about any of this. To harp on the mere fact that some kids get free breakfast and others don’t completely misses the point.
In the case of the Malacca schools, the halal canteens were set up (many years ago) to cater to the growing number of Muslim students. The Muslim students would obviously constitute the minority group in reference to the majority group of non-Muslim students.
There are at least two ways of handling the fact that the minority group (see Note 2) requires halal food, but not the majority.
Option #1 Minority Rules, Majority Acquiescence i.e. “some cannot eat pork, so all don’t eat pork”; all canteen food halal, so everyone eats the same thing, the majority (non-Malay) follow the minority (Malay).This option is in fact the one which Malaysians are used to.
The Melaka schools, however ─ probably because they began as missionary schools and a vernacular school (both of whom naturally begin without many Muslim students) ─ have chosen the other option.
Option #2 Majority Rules, Minority Provision i.e. “most can eat pork and non-pork, only some cannot eat pork, so an option is provided for the latter” i.e. most of the non-Malay students still eat their non-halal food, but an option is provided for the minority Malays.
The bottom line is that it’s not about “racism” at all, but about opening up a special space for a minority so their needs can be met without taking anything away from the majority.
Again, it’s like Chinese wedding dinners which offer a vegetarian meal (or sometimes even a special table just for vegetarian guests) in an otherwise meat-heavy banquet.
Now, of course, most missionary and vernacular schools have adopted option #1, in that all their canteens serve halal food. That’s fine.
The point is that these few schools in Melaka are merely taking another route and shouldn’t be hastily labelled as “segregated” or racist.
I hope this table (which includes a third option) helps:
The point is none of the above can be properly (or easily) characterised as racism or discrimination; they represent a variety of ways to satisfy divergent needs (in the context of a majority-minority dynamic).
Likewise, the mere fact of there being two canteens should not occasion protest. We need to learn how to perceive some situations as different ways to play the cards one has been dealt with.
* Note 1: In fact, there’s nothing inherently wrong with the word “segregation” itself, which is simply a macro version of the word “separation.” But as with many other words, “segregation” has been over-determined by the historical baggage it carries.
* Note 2: When I say minority, I do not necessarily mean those forming the lower number or quantity; that’s often true, but sometimes it’s simply the group with more stringent restrictions. E.g. if 10 friends want to go out for lunch, and five of them are Malay, the whole group will almost definitely eat at a halal place.
* This is the personal opinion of the columnist.
