The New Straits Times (April 16, 2006) ran an interview on public space morality with two national personalities – Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) chairperson Abu Talib Othman, and the outspoken Jerai MP Badrudin Amiruldin who has made a mark for \’noise\’ more than substance in Parliament. But his off-the-cuff views may reflect much of the thinking and being of the heartland of Malay rural Peninsular Malaysia.

I would love to hear the views of other Malaysians, especially those from the Sabah and Sarawak on this matter. A former Deputy IGP from Sarawak once told me privately, \”you peninsular people are very racial whereas in Sarawak we are not so\”.

In an earlier article , I have clearly argued that ours will not be a clash of civilisations but rather a clash of public space values. In fact, I have specifically argued this in the case of the couple caught holding hands in a Kuala Lumpur park – they have taken the matter to court to prove their innocence.

It is constitutional principles that must be used to rule and define public space morality, not a \’public theology\’ of one group of citizens or those of another groups of citizens. Public space morality should be defined by all Malaysians and cannot become the domain of one ethnic group; however large their majority.

When public theology becomes that of one group; we run the risk of redefining the original social contract as embodied in the Federal Constitution. When this happens without the spirit of the Alliance and the original compromise model, we also run the risk of \”pendulum decision-making on important and national matters using only emotion-driven views of an out-spoken minority\”.

The crooked, then scenic, and \’no-bridge\’ is a classic case in point of such pendulum decision-making. It in fact allows the Singaporeans to fully understand why they are No 2 in e-government and Malaysia is only a poor no 26. Good government and governance are only possible based on rationality and calculated risk-taking and proper negotiations with friends and neighbours.

When friends and neighbours are ignored or disregarded without respect, we have the unfortunate result of the \”mobilisation of the ire of religious groups; as a powerful imperative to act\”, irrationally or otherwise. It was Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi at a recent Ikim seminar who argued for \”respect, reciprocity and equality\” in calling for a Christian West and Islam dialogue to begin.

To me, the dialogue has already started in Malaysia, as a microcosm of all things worldly; whether culture, religion, morality or ethnicity. The challenge for Malaysia is whether our espoused theory and our theory-in-use will remain consistent; Islam Hadhari or otherwise.

Two arguments

Let me therefore review the two sets of worldview argued by the two personalities mentioned earlier on more or less the same set of questions.

The Jerai MP has a fairly complete worldview argument to support his \”espoused theory of Malaysian cultural and social values\” which he defines as \”morality\”. He defines his four layers of beliefs, values, attitudes and desired behavior which describe and reveal his worldview assumptions.

He believes that \”we want to build a courteous and well mannered community and the human capital of a Muslim nation\”. On the basis of this belief system he fully supports the cabinet directive for Housing and Local Government Minister Ong Ka Ting to draft guidelines on indecent behaviour.

Then Badrudin defines his \”proffered values\” on this matter: \”We do not want to be like the West which has no values. We don\’t want to follow the Westerners who are road bullies, selfish and don\’t love others.\”

Thirdly, he clarifies his attitudes towards what is considered indecent behavior in public: \”But we are a civilised nation with Eastern values. I wouldn\’t want to see my child hugging another person in public. Some may say this is old-fashioned and not sporting, but where does it end?\”

He concludes his thesis with the preferred behaviour modification model: \”It is better for the government to come up with rules to control behavior of youth who don\’t project our values and practices.\”

That, to my mind, is a complete thesis and full-fledged worldview articulated on this topic.

Now to move to the other personality who is fully representative of the mainstream administration. He was a leading public servant who helped define laws, administrative rules and moderate behaviour over the last 40 years.

Abu Talib, the former Attorney-General, has some strong constitution-based values and views as well.

Commenting on the views expressed by the Chief Justice, he argues that it was only a passing comment: \”He has yet to make a specific ruling. Such a matter should be decided on facts of the case. This is an issue of great public interest and such a thing has not been decided before.

\”If there is a law, then the question of guidelines doesn\’t arise. Administrative law cannot override the law or the courts in deciding whether or not it is an offence.\”

Abu Talib had started the dialogue with the statement that \”it is my view that it is not appropriate to pass a law to control someone\’s behaviour\”. He was replying the question as to whether there should be laws on indecent behaviour.

There you go, two \’public theologies\’ about public space morality. One has constitutional foundations based on the original social contract of civil law jurisdiction of Malaysia as per Article 3 of the Constitution which states that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the country.

\"\"

The other is based more on the Umno-propagated Islam Hadhari of the Pak Lah vintage to counter the PAS Islamic State agenda. Badrudin is simply a grassroots Umno MP who is articulating \”his understanding and appreciation of Islam Hadhari which is now \”official public theology\” via the Ninth Malaysia Plan (9MP).

It is fully enunciated on page 9 of the introduction to the 9MP under the theme of the National Mission, even before Chapter 1 which outlines the full plan.

I believe that this introduction is the Pak Lah genre of organisational and management philosophy so articulated. Fortunately, the Rukunegara is still stated as a preamble to the whole document.

Whose \’public theology\’ then should be used for public space morality? This is the important core issue and question that the Article 11 Coalition and Bar Council representations are arguing as they go on a nationwide road show. The next will be in Malacca on April 21.