The stewardess, the child bride and the Saudi centre — Imad Alatas

AUGUST 9 — Predictably, Malaysia has yet again come under the spotlight for its treatment of females, be it an 11-year old girl or a professional working woman. Individual activists and women’s rights groups have rightfully come out in condemnation of the view that the attire of Malaysian stewardesses are somehow titillating for the male Muslims onboard.

Pushing against ‘tight’ uniforms while championing for the right to marry a girl who is barely halfway into her childhood reveal a common theme: sexualisation of women in public spaces. The difference is that proscription is involved in the former case while arguments for legal permissibility are involved in the latter.

PAS lawmakers such as Abdullah Mat Nawi find the cabin crew uniforms too revealing when compared to other airlines who opt for a pair of pants instead of skirts. Transport minister Anthony Loke simply responded that one should “look away if they feel the uniform is revealing”.

How else could he respond? How do you respond to individuals who feel uncomfortable at a particular type of uniform but cannot speak on behalf of all Muslims? Because (dis)comfort is, and always will be, subjective.

While it has been a long while since I travelled with Malaysia airlines, the traditional Kebaya attire of the stewardess invoked a sense of authenticity more than anything else. If Malaysians can poke fun at our 2018 tourism logo, the Kebaya attire must surely be a saving grace, a sign of authentic Malaysia.

Meanwhile, an equal level of outrage seemed to be absent from Malaysians amidst the controversy of a 41-year old Kelantanese man who wanted to wed an 11-year old Thai girl. That is, Malaysians who took offense to the attire of our stewardesses.

Perhaps there was less controversy because such a marriage was seen to be compatible with the tenets of Islam. The troubling fact is that there is more political will against a piece of uniform that does not threaten Malaysia’s social fabric than there is against a marriage that threatens the safety and future of girls such as the 11-year old.

It is no wonder then that a concerned Muslim father, Umran Kadir, wrote an emotive letter to the Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah, complaining about the lack of political will.

No statement expresses his anger more than the following: “It is frustrating that post-May 9 2018 that the Malaysian Government must still be shamed and pressured into doing the right thing”.

In the same letter, he further noted how other Muslim-majority countries such as Indonesia were taking actions to ban child marriages. How this case is dealt with legally is a separate matter. The point is we should be more concerned over the safety of individuals as opposed to the legality of conjugation and ‘moral debauchery’ an individual in airspace may cause.

In the above two cases, the treatment of women reflects a very puritanical interpretation of Islam in that the fate of women are decided by men (and women with institutional clout).

How does the King Salman Center for International Peace (KSCIP) in Kuala Lumpur fit into this narrative? Seems like a far stretch. At the time of this writing, it is not clear why the Malaysian government has ordered the immediate closure of this centre.

Might it be a political response to the defeat of Datuk Seri Najib Razak under whose administration Saudi Arabia was able to expand its foothold in Malaysia? Or, relatedly, might it be because the new government recognised that the puritanical interpretation of Islam espoused by Saudi Arabia would not bode well for Malaysian society?

Whatever the reason, one should realise that an important theme in this puritanical interpretation of Wahhabism is women, or women’s rights rather.

No doubt, the monarchy has lifted the globally condemned ruling that banned women from driving. A flight school in the eastern city of Dammam has even welcomed applications from women aspiring to ply their trade in the aviation industry.

However, Malaysian women enjoy these same privileges, and more. I’m not saying that the KSCIP would have unequivocally further entrenched more backward attitudes towards women, as embedded in the above two cases.

However, despite the positive intentions of the centre in correcting global misperceptions of Islam, it could have gone that way. After all, The Muslim World League, a controversial Salafi group, was a key player in KSCIP.

Now that the Malaysian Institute of Defence and Security will oversee the functions of the KSCIP, perhaps the government can think of how it can oversee the welfare of young girls and the ability of stewardesses to serve her passengers.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.