Foo Yueh Jiin vs Fong Po Kuan in IIU (Part One)
For almost four days in a week, I saw the dark-hair girl sitting in the gallery until the Dewan Rakyat adjourned. She caught my attention because she was patiently and attentively listening to the proceeding of the House. Most of the civil servants who attend Parliament are Malay. She is a Chinese.A week later, I saw her sitting in the seat of the Assistant Secretary in the well of the Chamber with another lady officer during the meeting and reading out the agenda of the House. At a glimpse, I was unsure if it was her. Both of them have a black scarf covering their hair. Later, I saw them outside the Chamber without the scarf. I confirmed that they are not Muslims.
I know I cannot allow a precedent be set in the House ie, the compulsory imposition on non Muslim lady officers the condition to put on a scarf or tudung covering their hair. I realised I could not allow the repeat of my experience in IIU to happen in the august House. I sought Kit Siang’s guidance and thereafter stood up to raise a point of order.
When I saw both the non muslim lady officers wearing the scarf, immediately my mind brought me back to the days when I was in International Islamic University (IIU). I was there from 1993 till 1997.
I did not know that IIU also offered law course until a classmate told me so. I applied for the form s but I did not put in my application because I was told I need to put on tudung and learn Arabic language, which are conditions to getting the degree. If you fail your Arabic paper, you would need to stay behind to pass it before you could graduate from the University. I sat for all 6 levels and passed.
One night, I was travelling in a bus from KL back to Ipoh and sat beside a chinese girl who was studying in University Malaya. She told me that she had seen many foreign students walking around the compound of IIU and it provided a good environment to further one’s studies. She also went further and promoted IIU to me. Medium of teaching in English and lecturers from overseas.
Afte hearing what she had said about IIU, I was attracted to joining the university. I told myself, if the earlier batch of non muslims could graduate from the said university in the Islamic environment, I could do so too.
However, I would not be able to send in my application because I was back in Ipoh and the forms were in PJ. By the time I was back in PJ, it would be the closing date.
However, when I got back to PJ, I wasted no time and sent in my application at the PJ state new-town post office and enclosed an explanation letter for the late submission.
I did not tell my family about my application to IIU until I was short- listed for the interview. Initially, my dad did not allow me to attend the interview because he had fear that I would be influenced by the religion of Islam.
Technically, we are Buddhist.
I had to convince my dad that I may not be successful of getting a place there. As such, no harm of going for the interview. Also, I wanted to study law so much. I did not score flying colors to qualify for a place for law course in UM or UKM. I told myself, IIU is a perfect place and a good alternative for me to pursue my ambition. It is like an environment of overseas university based in Malaysia. I can meet and study with students from different parts of the world in IIU. I do not need to go overseas to get that experience of university life. Further, my dad could not afford to send me out of the country.
Occasionally, Brikena from Albania and myself would talk over the phone and share our latest happening in our life. She is married and staying in Malaysia.
Now, I recall, Soosan, from China. We have not been calling each other for some time. Like Brikena, she is staying in Malaysia now.
The Interview
One of the interviewers was a Punjabi lecturer for English language and she told me that if I am offered a place in the university, I would need to put on a scarf like hers and wear like her. She was wearing a Punjabi dress and covering her head with the usual transparent long black scarf. If you are in my situation, you will definitely say “Yes”. I am here for education, to pursue my ambition.
I got my first “proper attire” to attend my first lecture in IIU from Jaya Supermarket at Section 14, PJ. I told myself nothing would go wrong if I buy a set of Punjabi suit and a long black scarf. (to be continued…)
A non-Muslim MP from IIU
I think i know where she is going with this (the hint is in the 2nd para): I know I cannot allow a precedent be set in the House ie, the compulsory imposition on non Muslim lady officers the condition…
Trackback by Volume of Interactions — November 4, 2005 @ 7:01 am
The Biblical origin for covering female hair before Christianity (as practised in Catholic Mass) and Islam (to prevent tempting menfolk into sin in thoughts and deeds)is that women is under the authority of men (father/husband) as Eve was made from a rib of Adam for his companionship (not above / under but beside him but under his leadership). Eve was disobedient and fell for the lie of the Serpent first, not Adam. Hence the baggage of the weaker sex. Pokuan should look pretty in a tudung too.
Comment by Namo — November 5, 2005 @ 10:29 am
If I may ask, though - why do some Muslims tell me the tudung is mandatory, and others tell me it is not? It’s really confusing. On the one hand, you have all these Muslims telling me the tudung is a must. And on the other hand, you see Dr. Siti Hasmah and Endon Mahmood going around publicly flouting this rule. Are they kafir? Or is the rule somehow wrong?
Comment by johnleemk — November 5, 2005 @ 4:33 pm
Once the two consorts of the Sultan of Brunei were without tudungs. Then later were with tudungs. One was dismissed. I assume that with Wahabbism on the attack, the Koranic account of covering all of one’s aurat or body so as not be a source of temptation come home stronger. The two 15th ladies after the consorts of our sultans could have deemed themselves not a source of temptation as they were senior citizens.
Comment by Namo — November 6, 2005 @ 11:37 am
But from my understanding, all women must cover their aurat, isn’t it? At least, that’s what the “mandatory tudung” camp has been telling me. So why are non-attractive women exempt? Who decides what is attractive and what is not?
Comment by johnleemk — November 6, 2005 @ 7:24 pm
What is the big issue about tudung? Your past in IIUM is not a bad experience after all. You got your education in there and you were wearing tudung. Tudung in some places does not have to do anything with religion, in the case of IIUM where majority wear tudung it is good to wear it as a non muslim to avoid being different and people stearing at you. At least it is an uniform that comforts you and protects you from hungry looks and protects males from being reminded of their animal instinct. Same goes for other places, it is a policy to wear tudung then wear it. Dont create more enemies than you need. Me as a man I have to accept the company’s policy to wear tie at all times, and coat if my shirt has short sleves. Should I complain because I am not supposed to wear that atire? Dont use your logic all the times try to be practical and create less friction among people. Sometimes you have to learn patience and respect of policies. You can change those when you are in decision making chair - untill then hold your tongue.
Comment by Abdullah — November 6, 2005 @ 11:14 pm
Abdullah:
Let’s try talking to a Black in pre-1960s America with your post:
What is the big issue about sitting in the back of the bus? That’s not a bad experience after all. You get to go where you need to, and you only had to sit at the back. Sitting there in some places does not have to do anything with race, in the case of America where the majority ask you to sit in the back it is good to do so as a Black to avoid being different and people staring at you. At least it protects you from the Whites’ anger. Same goes for other places, it is policy not to drink from the same cooler as Whites, then do it. Don’t create more enemies than you need. Me as a man I have to accept the company’s policy to wear tie at all times, and coat if my shirt has short sleves. Should I complain because I am not supposed to wear that atire? Don’t use your logic all the times try to be practical and create less friction among people. Sometimes you have to learn patience and respect of policies. You can change those when you are in decision making chair - untill then hold your tongue.
Comment by johnleemk — November 8, 2005 @ 3:06 pm
Why one must blame women for tempting men into sin? In reverse what about men tempting women into sin? I have heard and personally feel some men are sexy too. Example many commented John F. Kennedy JR and Bill clinton are very sexy and seductive. They can cause women into SIn too. To be fair, men should be tudung too!!
Comment by omo — November 8, 2005 @ 7:55 pm
In the Qur’an, Allah Almighty first mentions lowering the gaze for men before lowering the gaze and wearing hijab for women. The Qur’an teaches us what means:
*{Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: and Allah is well acquainted with all that they do}* (An-Nur 24:30).
The moment a man looks at a woman with any brazen or unashamed thought in mind, he should lower his gaze. The next verse of Surat An-Nur is the one commanding believing women to wear the hijab.
Islam expects women to maintain their status by following Allah’s rules designed for their advantage. Hijab is one such rule.
source
Comment by rayhana — November 9, 2005 @ 8:50 am
Abdullah,
She IS in a “decision making chair” now.
Comment by KP — November 9, 2005 @ 6:09 pm
johnleemk :
in any place people live by rules , IIU have rules, don’t like the place , find others place.It’s not about religion or race .
Comment by Azlan — November 10, 2005 @ 12:02 am
Azlan:
You have missed the point. In pre-1960s US, the rules stated Blacks could not drink from the same water coolers as Whites, and had to sit in the back of the bus. Are you arguing Rosa Parks was wrong to break the rules in that case? Mindless devotion to the letter of the law often ends up destroying the spirit of the law.
Comment by johnleemk — November 10, 2005 @ 11:40 am
Sep 2004.
The french passed a law banning the wearing of headscarves as well as other religious symbols to public schools.
The local muslims and their leaders protested loudly and vigourously, even taking to the streets.
Should they be reminded that in any place people lives by rules - don’t like the place, find other places.
Is it not about religon and race, or is it?
Comment by AC — November 10, 2005 @ 12:00 pm
John, you’ve gotta be kidding. This hijab thing and Rosa Park?
Comment by Pnin — November 10, 2005 @ 11:40 pm
Pnin:
Why not? The analogy is valid if you ignore the differing magnitudes of discrimination. So many Muslims and Malays have told me whenever it comes to things like the NEP, religion, whatever - “don’t make more enemies than you should - follow the rules. We are in the majority, we make the rules, so follow along.” If you understand what they are saying and apply it to something more or less comparable, such as the Civil Rights movement in 1960s America, then the argument falls apart. Imagine telling a Black in pre-1960s America: “Don’t make more enemies than you should. We Whites are in the majority here, so we make the rules and you must follow. Kapeesh?”
Comment by johnleemk — November 11, 2005 @ 5:31 pm
Fong Po Kuan,
I support you to voice out rules you find that make you feel uncomfortable following it, especially unwritten rules. Even rules can be change if you find it against your constitutional rights. The only things that you can’t change is your mother and father!
The problem with religion is that people follow it blindly. Some people even tell you to follow the rule or else get out. This sound like some school bullies. Don’t be threaten by bullies. Stand for your rights. You got the same right as the majority.
Congratulation once again for standing tall. You are the representative for the people and by the people.
Comment by superlotto — November 12, 2005 @ 6:26 am
As much as i find this ruling ridiculous, I think rules are meant to be rules. The headscarves issue well ended in the muslim students having to quit school because the school board disapproves of wearing a headscarf. So similarly, if you cannot abide by their policies, you do not accept it. I think MP Fong understands this very well as a lawyer. I would like to put it just like in a contract law. Offer, acceptance and consideration. You offered, they accept and they have some consideration (you have to wear a tudung). If rules are meant to be broken, then I shall be cutting queues, speeding, going to work anytime I like or maybe go to work naked. Abdullah has a point there but I totally disagree that wearing a tudung will lessen attention by the hungry wolves. Tudung or no tudung, they on this point are very fair. Wolves they are.
Comment by Tk.aun — November 13, 2005 @ 1:44 am
It is very sad to see Asians fighting among themselves (in Malaya/Siam) over an - imported issue - Islam.
I wish all of you goodluck.
Comment by Ah Kian — November 13, 2005 @ 4:15 pm
In the name of religion, it has been fighting all over the world except in South America where islam is a non-issue. Man has been imposing his views onto others and create traditions
Comment by omo — November 13, 2005 @ 7:49 pm
After all these years and our so call modernization and progress,we are still back at square one. The Tudung issue should not be seen as an issue in the university if it understands it application. For the moslem womenfolk and ladies, it is very fine provided you don’t follow blindly just as in the pre Vatican Council of the 1960s. Catholic ladies/women who attend mass cover their heads with tudung to cover their headsto show reveernce to God esp. when they have to receive the Body of Christ. Nowaday, all kinds of things happen. Women who attend mass no longer do those things./ Signs of out modern time. Sleeveless T-shirt and low cut etc. In the mosque women who do these would be barred, I am sure and rightly too as people who attend Friday prayers must be seen to be sincere.
But university is a school for knowledge and it is not a place in my mind to cultivate your culture.
let’s look at western schools and universities - student are dressed in ways they think fit but their prupose to the institute is simply to learn and obtain knowledge and share their knowldge - no restriction. I have spend 9 years in all in foreign universities and had come away thinking if there is more freedom in our Malaysian universities, students would be more placed to express their views and the study environment would be more suited to meet tomorrow challenge. With restriction - blah!!!
We manufacture graduates and garduates (many of them) end up being unemployed.Unfortunately reality sinks in here, the govt has to address certain group and what better than to support Islamophia to gain votes in Malaysian esp. in West Malaysia’s rural constitutencies.
Take the tudung requirement out of the university and say once and for all, be liberal. If you are a man fearing God and the Almighty, you will always be one no matter how how you are dressed. A wicked men is nothing more ‘like a wolf in sheep clothing’ even if he/she goes to mosque, church ot temple. He/She is just following the crowd. there is no sincereity there.
To some, who made comment on the tie, I too was asked to waer a tie to project the corporate image in the civil service. I asked my boss, “tell me does waering a tie amongts all the top management people increase porductivity?”. What is really the point of trying to project yyour image if there is little worth in you. First thing first, improve your productivity in the workplace. It’s the action that counts, not the form.
Comment by Lawrence — September 24, 2006 @ 9:56 am
Po Kuan, could you explain what you mean by
“Technically, we are Buddhist.”
Comment by lchxian — February 22, 2008 @ 7:14 pm