Thorny questions of identity

IN Tinder Swindler, a man assumes the identity of a billionaire’s son, tricks women into falling for him, and then swindles them for large amounts of money to fund his opulent lifestyle, involving more women who become future victims. Inventing Anna shows how a supposed German heiress chases a business proposal while spending lavishly, lying to banks, hotels and also friends.

Both of these Netflix productions, based on true stories, are entertaining and insightful, but also enlightening are the reactions that others have towards these characters. One friend opined that since the former only preyed on innocent women, he was undoubtedly evil; whereas the latter stole from institutions that are themselves corrupt, suggesting some sort of poetic justice.

Indeed, in the show, Inventing Anna refers to the prejudices faced by young women trying to succeed in business, compared to the experience of privileged white men, implying a justification for her fraudulence.

On social media, it would seem that many agree. Different acts of deceit can be seen in different ways, determined by one’s own identity: or more specifically, one’s experience of one’s identity compared against perceptions of others’.

Another conversation suggested that similar experiences are commonplace in Malaysia.

There are imposters everywhere on a quest for legitimacy, in the eyes of themselves and others – “fake it till you make it” – seeking deals, jobs and honorary titles to add credibility to their activities. As for ill-gotten wealth, a strategic charitable donation or, most ironically, contributions towards a religious pilgrimage can close prying eyes.

At the recent Winter Olympics in Beijing, geopolitical rivalry translated into attempts to demand mixed-heritage athletes be loyal to one country only.

The American-born ethnically Chinese gold medallist Eileen Gu was charming yet assertive in explaining her loyalties, but for many others, expressing an opinion leads down the toxic road towards a binary position of love for one country and hatred for another.

Lost in this debate is the fact that representing a country at something doesn’t equal an endorsement of its leaders or policies!

A more permanent issue in many countries centres on the public display of religious symbols.

France’s laïcité is a famous example of this, but today a policy that allows schools to ban hijabs is being challenged in the courts in the Indian state of Karnataka. Yet here in Malaysia, for certain roles within the hospitality industry – airlines in particular – the hijab is not permitted either.

The competing arguments are by now very familiar, revolving around the rights of governments to ensure harmony, of businesses to specify uniforms, or of individuals to display their identity. As different people will always prioritise things differently based on their ideological and religious views, these debates will no doubt continue.

Yet, one would hope that when it comes to children, everyone can agree that their welfare should take absolute priority (and all religions agree on protecting children!). That is why it has been so sad to see yet another case of children being caught in custody battles further fuelled by the conversion of one parent and the children to Islam, where the marriage was originally between two non-Muslims.

In the most recent case involving Loh Siew Hong, the High Court has upheld the full custody of the children to the mother, and in the meantime, legal precedents have been cited.

Renowned legal scholar Datuk Professor Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi has reminded of the 2018 Federal Court decision that the singular “parent” must be read as both parents consenting in the conversion of children, while social scientist Professor Dr Syed Farid Alatas adds that unilateral conversions are “wrong by any universal standard of morality, unethical because children are not in a position where they can make such decisions.”

An alternative solution was enacted in Negri Sembilan in 2015 which required that a spouse wishing to convert to Islam first had to dissolve their civil marriage, preventing ugly child custody rows if Syariah and civil court rulings clash. This had the benefit of upholding the sanctity of Islam, since it might be alleged that the only reason for converting is to gain custody of children. That would make a mockery of the religion.

Some individuals are confident in controlling their identities and using it to manipulate others. But some individuals love to control the identities of other people to claim they are protecting “their” people.

But when it comes to children, there must be a clear line drawn. I pray that the law and its enforcement, but most of all, an enduring Malaysian spirit of compassion, will prevent such cases from recurring.

Tunku Zain Al-‘Abidin is founding president of Ideas.

The views expressed here are the writer’s own.