SEPTEMBER 9 — Caning has undoubtedly been a contentious issue in the Malay world, inviting nothing short of controversy.
The common premise of this controversy is that it is inhumane. The issue has more octane when discussions of sexuality legally seen as deviant are involved.
In Aceh last year, two gay men were lashed a whopping 83 times after they were found having sex. In Terengganu, Malaysia, the attempt of two women to have sex in a car resulted in them being publicly caned. The caning served as a stern warning that such behavior was anathema to a Malaysian society anchored in Islam.
The act of homosexuality rather than the act being carried out in a vehicle was what was reprimanded, prompting Germany’s international broadcaster Deutsche Welle to lament the homophobia in Malaysia.
Perak’s Mufti, Tan Sri Harussani Zakaria, urged people to look at the caning from a legal point of view rather than to politicise it. It is easy to dismiss the caning as routine legal procedure. However, the caning marks perhaps a culmination of how much ‘wayward’ groups are marginalised.
In August, a transgender woman was brutally beaten in the state of Negri Sembilan by a gang of men. Recently, the Mufti of Perlis Datuk Dr. Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin suggested that transgenders check the functions of their genitalia to determine which toilets they should use.
He then added that “if nothing comes out at all or if it does not come out from either male or female genitals, then please go to the hospital. If the doctors say you are disabled, then you can use the disabled toilet.”
The caning is a commentary on homosexuality that it is an illness that affects the Malaysian organ. It is one thing to view homosexuality as unnatural and it is another to condemn it to the extent that you have to be publicly shamed.
The politics involved in caning is very real. Sure, the cane did not physically hurt as it was not raised too high but the emotional scars are definitely there.
One may argue that the two women who were caned did not appeal against their sentence. Regardless of the reason for not appealing, the caning sends a message that it is fine to criminalise something innate, such as sexuality, rather than social behaviour that is learned, such as physical abuse in any form.
There has to be a change in how homosexuality in Malaysia is approached. Methods ranging from quizzes identifying gays to public caning are not effective. It only helps to create and maintain an intolerant society.
Notably, civil society groups in Malaysia endeavour to both create awareness and champion for the right for individuals to simply embody an alternative sexuality. Regarding the two women who were caned, if any crime was committed, it was that of indecency. Even indecency does not merit public caning.
Nevertheless, if a heterosexual couple was caught copulating in a car, what would the legal reaction be? Ideally, both incidents should be dealt with according to a single standard, and that standard should not be public caning.
Maybe public caning should be reserved for acts that actually compromise the safety and security of individuals in society.
Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said that the caning of the two women gave a bad impression of Islam. Let us not forget that it also gives a bad impression of the country. Willingly or not, Malaysia must set an example for how it treats minorities, particularly in a country where conservative strands of Islam are prevalent within both the government and the citizenry.
In setting this example, do we want to tell the world that one’s sexuality is more deserving of public disapproval than the crimes of sexual abuse, robbery or murder? Whether judicial caning at all should be administered for crimes can be fodder for another debate, but if ever a cane did not serve a purpose, it would be for being homosexual.
*This is the personal opinion of the writer and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
