In communication theory ‘noise’ is defined as anything that causes disturbance to a message being sent out from a messenger to a targeted listener. I want to reflect on this rhetorical question about when the Muslim call to prayer is no longer an ‘azan’ or call to prayer, but instead may be considered ‘noise!’
Some years ago, in the Federal Territories, some legal-minded person conscious of such ‘noise’ made a formal complaint about the loud-speaker at a nearby mosque being too loud and as a direct consequence, the volume was adjusted by the mosque authorities, and therefore the Muslims in the neighborhood became considerate and civic conscious about their community.
Apparently the instructions for the volume reduction may have even come from the PM’s Department, I understand.
Problem solved? No! The media reported that there was a new round of theatrics as a reaction and then began the burning of effigies by narrow-minded bigots; obviously also done without any police permit either. But, somehow, the police seem to always not see such ‘wrong-doing’.
There were even some reports that the protesters were planning to physically harm the ‘whistle blower’; now that such whistle-blowers have legitimacy since Whistle-Blower Act has been made law.
Limits to whistle-blowing?
Under the Whistle-Blower Act, it is only considered legitimate if the whistle-blower goes to an authority and makes a complaint, but such authorities must not be the media but rather criminal law prosecuting authorities in Malaysia; like the police or the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), or the local authorities, I suppose.
How does one, who sees and recognises wrong-doing, then do something that is directly not under the purview of any authority or a public agency whistle-blow? For example, every day and night a motorcycle shop in my neighborhood puts all their bikes on display on the street on parking lots where cars should be parked and monies be collected for the Petaling Jaya City Council (MBPJ) from parking charges.
Do I have to whistle-blow before such obvious and visible inaction is removed? Come on, MBPJ!
Is my complaint vide media through this column not whistle-blowing, if I am also prepared to make a formal complaint to the MBPJ, if they contact me because of this media coverage? Again, what if I see some wrong-doing in my local congregation about the way good governance and the articles of their organisation are not followed, can I also complain? Who do I complain to?
What if I do complain to relevant ‘church authorities’ and they ignore me, and then I complain to other ‘higher church authorities’ and they, too, still ignore my complaint; who then do I turn to? Is this then not a whistle-blower complaint, even if through the media?
Does this not relate to the lack of integrity in the practice of good governance? Is not the right authority then the so-called Integrity Commission? But, do they even have integrity, or do they even have a definition for their concept reservation? Does their mandate include all type of complaints related to the lack of integrity for good governance?
Whistle-blowing our green lung rape
Let me give a real live case-story about all this so that we can review some public policy implications about this real issue and seek a way forward for all of us who have complaints against any form of institutional integrity.
In my neighbourhood there was a 40-year-old beautiful green lung and park with badminton courts which was developed for government servants by their cooperative about half a century ago. My wife used to walk and pray in this particular park. Today she does not walk any more and but instead prays that rape of such parks and green lungs will stop in all of Petaling Jaya.
One fateful day in November 1999, about two weeks before the general election, the earth-movers came and raped our green lung. Fortunately for me, the same day my wife flew to go home to celebrate her American Thanksgiving with family and friends.
I telephoned my assemblyperson and good friend, who was then an MCA person. He came with the then-potential MP for PJ Utara, who later became a parliamentary secretary and deputy minister; but, they came, saw and left. They could do nothing because MCA was afraid of the Umno warlords. My friend told me so.
Public policy issues and my concerns
Now, let us go back to my original issue about the Federal Territories and their loud noise problem. The call to prayer or ‘azan’ is never noise, if crafted well by worship artists of voice, with good intonation and compatible melody. In fact, I once wrote in this very column about the most beautiful call to prayer I have ever heard at Bukit Jambul in Penang while walking around the gold course at a hotel.
But, when then does such a call to prayer become reduced to simply noise in any neighborhood? Let us review the so-called ‘illegal noise level in my neighborhood complaint’, after our 40 year old green lung was ‘raped’; within the framework of our now pervasive close-one-eye culture.
I have already made a whistle-blower complaint ‘about this rape of our green lung’ in Parliament as my ‘first report’ in February 2006 under the Select Committee of Integrity formed by the Abdullah Ahmad Badawi (Pak Lah) government. I have also written to the MB and also wrote a complaint in this very column after the sultan of Selangor opened ‘this illegal mosque’ set upon our now raped green lung.
To the best of my knowledge no action has been taken to correct the illegality of our neighbourhood mosque and the consequential unnecessary noise. Instead more wrong-doing continues.
Nevertheless, I have no problem with the need for such a mosque in our neighborhood for the use of majority adherents. My serious objection is to the illegality of their due process of its establishment. I would even object if it were a church, or a temple. It is simply a matter of the rule of law.
That aside, today there are a couple of levels of this noise problem that we the residents face. Firstly, I already hear four mosques when I walk every morning at about the same time. Maybe my understanding is wrong but I was taught that within Islamic practice there was a principle that the nearest next mosque should not be within hearing distance of the other?
And, how can another surau within a high-rise apartment complex at ground level also have its own call to prayer? Is this legal or legitimate? Who decides? The consequential question is: whether the noise levels are because the loudspeaker amplifies louder than really necessary; almost in every case? Is not the call to prayer meant only as a reminder? It is not an instruction, right?
Secondly, why is there a need for the ‘Quran reading and recital over the loudspeaker before the morning prayer, as it happens with some mosques?” Again, according to my understanding, this form of preparation to worship is a very personal thing and should not become a bother to neighbours being awoken by this ‘noise’ of personal preparation?
Finally, it is never ‘noise’ when the call to prayer remains only that; a simple reminder to the faithful to come and worship God Almighty at the prescribed times. It will never become noise if this becomes the only purpose of the call to prayer without having to deliver it ‘in over-amplified ways’.
The noise issue is always a definitional one; the mosque authorities must become responsible members within a multi-ethnic community setting and recognise their corporate and social responsibility as well. The call to prayer is only that. It cannot be reduced to become either a tool of evangelism or a reminder to force recalcitrant ones to come for prayer.
When such a call to prayer by the bilal oversteps its historical and contextual boundaries and applications, it does tend to upset the community of others. While we expect others to tolerate us; we must take time to appreciate their views and feedback, too. And, who is then is to say whom God views all humans favourably; if we all do not believe that we must serve and love both God and the neighbour.
Part I: Systemic integrity
Part II: Private dimension of public roles
Part III: Three things I have learnt so far
Part IV: Me no comprehend
