Our easily bristled politicians

Rationality, not rage, is needed before reacting to perceived threats or insults.

IN psychology, being a highly sensitive person (HSP) is recognised as a personality trait or temperamental disposition.

HSPs are likely to display more serious sensitivity to various forms of stimuli; being such persons can be stressful due to anxiety.

But the characteristic can also be seen positively because these individuals tend to show more empathy than others.

The trait was defined by psychologist Dr Elaine Aron, who has published five books on the subject. According to her, between 21% and 20% of people can be categorised as HSP.

In Malaysia, we seem to be having a bigger share of people with a different kind of hypersensitivity, for which the same abbreviation could be used.

We have highly sensitive politicians – this characteristic can be easily recognised by their propensity to melenting, to use a Malay term.

It is most apt as there is no suitable English translation to depict the spirit and undertone of the word. The closest, I suppose, is “to spring” or “to be bristled”.

This happens each time a perceived threat or alleged insult is made to the country’s official religion, majority race or the monarchy.

As observed in past cases, our HSPs prefer to seethe with rage instead of looking rationally at what was said or done.

Of course, the displayed rage is intended to show the support base how steadfast the politician is in defending race, religion and country.

Predictably, a slew of police reports will be made and the police would then spring into action.

Unsurprisingly, the cases would be investigated under Sections 298 and 505(b) of the Penal Code as well as Section 233 of the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) Act 1998.

Let’s look at what these laws say.

Section 298 states: “Whoever, with deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person, utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person, or makes any gesture in the sight of that person, or places any object in the sight of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both.”

Section 505(b), which covers public mischief, states: “Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement, rumour or report –

(b) with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public, or to any section of the public whereby any person may be induced to commit an offence against the State or against the public tranquillity”.

The latest case involves DAP vice-chairman and Seputeh MP Teresa Kok over her reaction to a proposal for all food outlets that do not serve pork or alcohol to get halal certification.

The suggestion by Jakim, or the Islamic Development Department of Malaysia, was announced by Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Religious Affairs) Datuk Dr Mohd Na’im Mokhtar last Thursday.

In a social media post, Kok questioned the necessity for the move, saying it could add to the costs of small businesses, limit consumers’ choices and would be contrary to the country’s cultural diversity.

Kok said halal certification should be voluntary instead of mandatory.

Her statement drew a barrage of criticisms from various groups, including Umno and Bersatu and the Malay Chamber of Commerce with five police reports lodged against her.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim said Kok’s remarks on the matter were unnecessary and had only complicated the issue, adding that it was not reflective of Pakatan Harapan’s position.

However, DAP secretary-general Anthony Loke said the MP was merely voicing the concerns of her constituents, including non-Muslim restaurant operators.

Kok said her response to Jakim’s proposal had caused much misunderstanding, adding that she was accused of not understanding Islam and not supporting halal certification.

Denying this, she said she supports the government’s efforts to promote halal certification in the food and beverage industry and had been promoting Malaysian halal certification to foreign countries since she held the trade industry and investment executive councillor portfolio in Selangor in 2008.

In response to Anwar’s remark that the matter be discussed internally within Pakatan, Kok said she did not have the opportunity for this as the proposal was made through an open forum.

Were her remarks made with “deliberate intention of wounding religious feelings”?

With a lot of HSP indignation and a wide stretch of the imagination, it certainly can be construed as such.

But to be fair, there have been rational responses from other politicians, including the Prime Minister’s political secretary, Azman Abidin, who is of the opinion that Jakim should not make halal certification compulsory for restaurants that do not serve pork or alcohol.

The former restaurant operator said that while he welcomed the proposal, he noted that the process of getting halal certification is challenging.

“It is not easy to apply for halal certification. It requires high fees and stringent requirements.

“This has caused many restaurant operators and food companies, including those owned by Malays, to be disinterested in obtaining halal certification,” he was quoted as saying by a news portal.

Azman also said halal certification and halal food are two different issues.

“As an example, nearly 100% of Malay restaurants serve halal food. But over 90% of them do not have halal certification,” adding that leaders should stop politicising the matter.

On Monday, the PM gave a clear indication of the government’s position on discussions revolving around religion, race and royalty.

Dismissing Bersatu president Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin’s claims that the government was gagging the Opposition from speaking out on these issues, he said: “Go ahead and discuss race and religious matters. And if one is unsatisfied, by all means protest. But what we won’t allow is incitement.”

Our HSPs – from both within the government and the Opposition – should learn to know the difference.

Media consultant M. Veera Pandiyan likes this observation by George Orwell: “Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” The views expressed here are entirely the author’s own.