Dancing around the issue

These couple of days, there has been an issue that’s been making some rather fine ripples around here. No, I’m not talking about the Bersih 3.0 announcement, to which I went. I’ll keep that for next week.

What I’m pointing at is the news that a Singaporean ballet company has been allegedly “banned” from performing this upcoming weekend at KLPac. While I hold no warm feelings towards our southern neighbour, I was, to understate it, very disturbed that a dance troupe could be banned from performing in our country. And I’m not even talking about pole-dancing. Ballet has got to be one of the oldest forms of dance, barring traditional dances from Asia.

Back tracking a little, though, our country doesn’t have the best track record when it comes to allowing foreign artists to perform in  Malaysia. Or rather, the authorities have made it quite clear that they are slowly, but surely, taking on a more conventional, if not medieval, stance when it comes to deciding what the general public can or can’t watch.

So here I thought it was yet another instance of the government making an over-protective decision by barring the ballet performance, said (then) to be due to the “indecent” attire, which happens to be the classical ballet tutu.

But then the Ministry decides to give us a surprise this time around. On the very next day, the minister himself comes out to make a statement saying he “loves ballet”, that the ministry made no such decision, and that the organisers should “go ahead with the performance”.

Before I even go on with more recent events surrounding this issue, I’d like to ask one question. The agency in charge (Puspal) of actually approving or rejecting the permit is, no doubt, under the purview of the ministry. But surely we are not to believe that the ministry should be involved in this decision at all, much less the minister himself! That’s all the reason there is for there to be agencies like Puspal set up in the first place – to make decisions on the part of the ministry, on matters that are not so big as to require the attention of the minister.

But there you have it, the Minister himself coming out to make a declaration that no such ban has been made, and that the organisers should “continue” with the performance, knowing full well that if there is no permit, the organisers cannot have this performance at all!

So now we go into KLPac’s reaction, claiming that they did, indeed, receive a rejection from Puspal. Otherwise, why would they have refunded the ticket holders? And really, why would they have done it, if not for the fact that the performance could not be held? There is just no sense in doing so.

Now, in this instance, Puspal says that they have never received any application about any Singaporean ballet troupe coming to KLPac for a performance. None at all. So what they are implying here, is that KLPac organised the performance, sold tickets, arranged for the dancers to come, and then decided that they were not going to go ahead with it, canceled the performance, refunded the people who paid to come watch the dance, told the Singaporean ballet company that they had been barred, and blamed everything on Puspal.

KLPac then showed them evidence that the application was made, and the rejection was received. If you thought this was the end of it, and that Puspal would quietly slunk into a dark corner, you are dead wrong. They surprise us yet again, saying that the documents KLPac produced as “proof”, might be forged after all!

Now, I don’t know about you, but for me, this has just gone on for too long. No matter what the outcome of this debacle (an extremely embarrassing one at that), it remains that the Singaporean dancers will not be able to make their performance at KLPac this time around.

What should really be addressed here is the fact that no matter how shockingly unbelievable it is that the Malaysian authorities would ban a classical dance troupe from performing in the country, it is at the same time, shockingly believable. There have been too many such incidences when our ministry showed us just how irrational they can be.

They’ve dictated the kinds of clothes performers should wear during their shows so as not to “offend” the sensibilities of our citizens, when we know full well that the only people who will be seeing them in their “indecent” costumes are the people who pay for their tickets, and already know what they’re in for.

They’ve banned entire performances, no matter that the artiste is already in the country, because they reckon that a tattoo will “offend” a particular creed of people.

They’ve banned books, children’s books, for being “offensive”, because they use the “actual names of the male and female sexual organs”, forgetting that it’s a book on sex education, and they are all drawn cartoons.

They’ve shown us time and time again that they can make the most idiotic decisions, and defend those decisions like as if they were made with our interest in mind. So really, is it so odd that almost no one believes them when they now say that they did not reject the application, or that they suspect the documents to be forged?

The ministry, and its agencies, should really ponder on this, and rethink their public relations strategies. They are starting to make us look like a nation of backward, uncultured people who have no interest in the world’s art, except for our own. And really, if they continue with what they are doing, we might just end up the way they envision it.

Unconstitutional to be homosexual?

Since Sexualiti Merdeka was organised and celebrated earlier this month, homosexuality has been a very hot topic. The event was talked about when the police declared Sexualiti Merdeka unlawful, and went on to ban it entirely, and later even questioned the organisers, despite Sexualiti Merdeka having been in existence since 2008, with no glitches.

It was talked about again when Marina Mahathir came out to defend the organisers, guns a-blazing, saying that Sexualiti Merdeka is about educating the public and especially those who are homosexuals about their rights. Mainstream media reporters were given warnings not to call the Sexualiti Merdeka a “free sex” event, or face the possibility of prosecution.

There is no shortage of articles and comments about homosexuality and whether or not it is acceptable. In Malaysia, one’s sexuality is slowly but surely becoming an issue that people talk about. Whether the opinions are for or against, we cannot deny that this issue is finally being talked about openly, which surely can’t be a bad thing altogether.

Some say that homosexual or not, one’s sexual preference should not be made an issue. After all, what your neighbour does in bed should not concern you. Others argue that homosexuality would spell the end of society and the family unit as we know it. We know religion is no stranger to this ageless debate, where people generously pepper their opinions with quotations and interpretations from holy books.

Now, though, instead of taking a religious standpoint, we have a federal minister coming at the issue from the side of law. He says that being homosexual is “unconstitutional”.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom was quoted to have said, “In reality, in the country’s constitution it is not allowed, including sections 377(a), (b), (c) and (d) which prohibit sexual relations between two men.”

I believe, from what I’ve read of the Federal Constitution, that there are no provisions that prohibit homosexuality. In fact, if I remember rightly, there is nothing in the constitution that says anything about one’s sexuality, or how one’s sexual preference should be.

Perhaps he has confused himself with what the Federal Constitution is, and what the Penal Code is, which is where sections 377 (a), (b), (c) and (d), which he quoted, can be found. So if we were to go by his argument, homosexuality can only be unlawful, but definitely not unconstitutional.

However, being homosexual, whether you like it or not, is not confined to just the bedroom, or wherever one might find carnal desire. Being homosexual, just like being bisexual and heterosexual, is how a person lives, and loves. It’s like a girl wanting to make another girl happy, just as a husband should want to make his wife happy. It’s about a guy wanting to share his life with another guy, just as a wife would want to share her life with her husband.

Being homosexual, and admitting it, in a society that is heavily bound in heterosexual chains, can be a toughie. In a country like ours where social “norms” are almost sacrosanct, it gets even tougher. This combined with prejudices that have taken root for so long, changing mindsets is not something that can be done overnight.

However, as I mentioned, we seem to be making a start. At the very least, it’s out in the open. People are talking about this issue. It’s no longer stuck in the closet, hidden as if it doesn’t exist. Although what’s being said in the public arena has so far been of little substance, I’m hopeful that with time, change will come.

But while we continue to strive for freedom and equality for homosexuals in our country, perhaps we’d also like to ponder on the same bits of law that our federal minister quoted. He found it sensible to say that homosexuality is unconstitutional because sections 377 (a), (b), (c) and (d), which in effect, forbids the “introduction of the penis into the anus or the mouth of the other person.”

Only males have penises. What about our ladies?

Police shoot dead yet another individual

Some time end of last year, I posted a short note about how the police force shot dead suspected robbers. The IGP was then quoted to have said that people should support the police, and if we question the shooting, we are supporting the criminals. He was also quoted to have said:

They should surrender if they do not want to die.

We are not a country suffering from war. Our police force should not be shooting to kill.

Today, I read yet another news article about how a ‘suspect’ was shot dead, this time a 15-year-old boy. Article can be found on Malaysiakini HERE. It is said that Aminulrasyid was ‘attempting to ram into the police’. But to quote his mother:

She also questioned why the police could not merely stop the car her son was driving, as “there was no proper reason why the police had to shoot.”

Was there a need to shoot at the driver? Are our police so ill-trained that they do not know how to stop a car without harming the driver?

To put a hypothetical question across: What if the police are chasing down a car which brakes are malfunctioning? Do they also shoot the driver because they think he/she is ‘dangerous’?

How many more lives are we going to lose to such ridiculous circumstances?