Monday, November 13, 2017

Hijab discrimination? How about non-Muslims being FORCED to wear then?

MM Online - Against headscarf ban? Curb all types of workplace discrimination, Rafizi says (extracts):

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 13 — PKR’s Rafizi Ramli explained today that Malaysian Association of Hotels’ (MAH) justification to ban female frontline workers in hotels from wearing headscarves is still lawful, no matter how frustrating it was.

The Pandan MP said the ban happened due to prejudice that can happen anywhere and against adherents of any religion, and proposed instead for a law against discrimination in workplace.


PAS information chief Nasrudin Hassan then complained of the lack of opposition against the headscarves ban for some female workers in the hotel industry, on the heels of heated criticisms against Muslim-only laundrettes in the country.

The Temerloh MP had also accused the relative silence as an alleged form of “Islamophobia”, defined as the fear or prejudice against Islam or Muslims.

Rafizi said he was disappointed by Nasrudin’s reaction to the issue by dragging religious and racial sentiments by claiming that “Muslims have lost their right to worship in their own country”.

“I respect Nasrudin’s choice to use a method he deems appropriate to tackle workplace discrimination, but I hope it will not be given religious or racial dimensions,” he said.

Rafizi said he will instead continue to campaign for such a law, and will distribute a proposal to all MPs for their support in Parliament this week.

Rafizi might have his heart in the right place but I doubt he will succeed. In fact, I would go as far as to say it's virtually impossible.

We have always had discrimination of one sort or another, where the ban of headscarves for hotel staff is only one.

For example, non-Muslim women police officers have to wear hijab as part of their ceremonial uniforms (for parades). But to explain this, I have to go back a wee bit and at the same time blame Mahathir for all this nonsense, wakakaka.

Yes, Mahathir changed the status of secular Malaysia into an Islamic nation for his political purpose, namely, to outflank PAS in the Heartland, and no doubt thought it was a brilliant political move. Maybe it was, but I wonder what he now thinks of his zealots taking that politically-convenient status of his making way beyond what he might have envisaged … or probably had wanted.

For example, I wonder whether he then as PM realised that under his regime's Islamisation policies, non-Muslim personnel in the Armed Forces on parade were forced to participate in Muslim styled prayers, which prior to that were only conducted by the Royal Malay Regiment, and not the RMN, RMAF and non-RMR army units?

If Mahathir didn't realise the consequences of what he had done, then he was a lousy PM, but if he realised and did not put a stop to the unjust proselytisation, then he was complicit in religious discrimination.

Yes, those non-Muslims were compelled to hold their hands in the Muslim form of supplication to Allah swt during prayers in parades, like what non-Muslim school children had suffered during school weekly morning parades under the proselytising policies of a former UMNO Education Minister (wakakaka, guess who), someone who was once very much favoured by Mahathir. And may the bells in the Hindu temples ring to remind us of that.

Distressed parents of those suffering school children complained to the deaf ears of that Education Minister who glibly retorted that such hand gestures were of universal values. If so, then why not a Thai-styled wai or a Catholic self-cross, which not only has even greater universal appeal as a gesture of respect but where the former (wai) would be more in tune with Malay culture?

And just how many of those non-Muslim soldiers, sailors or airmen had complained about being forced to raise their hands in doa fashion, we would never know because communications within the Armed Forces on sensitive or embarrassing issues could be and undoubtedly were contained under security classification, or dismissed away as nothing more than military parade procedures?

Then, under AAB’s regime, when the IGP (Mohd  Bakri Omar) was under extreme pressure to accept the proposed Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) but did not want to, he went against AAB and quickly introduced ultra Islamic practices to distract from his insubordination.

This was when we saw the Royal Malaysian Police copycat-ing the military, requiring its non-Muslim female officers to don tudung headgear during parade, on the argument they would then present a uniformly dressed rank and file.

What bull! Because prior to this pathetic excuse for unnecessary and insensitive Islamisation of uniforms affecting non-Muslims, did military Sikhs in their magnificent turbans on formal parade for the last hundred years ever present anything significantly non-uniformed and out of place to the rest of their non-Sikh colleagues on parade?

There's no doubt Malaysia's official Islamisation programs can, will and indeed have already affected non-Muslims, in many cases against their agreement, will and liking. Tantawi should note this and stop whining.

But what can Rafizi's proposed rule do?

Read also:

(1) Hijab OK with Penang hotels.

(2) Tantawi doesn't even know his own fault.


  1. Hotels are businesses which employed hundreds of millions of workers all over the world.They have to have enough businesses (guests) to generate profits to stay in business.

    Some guests do not like going into and staying in restaurants and hotels with staff wearing headscarfs.They feel uncomfortable with heads or faces covered all over with clothes.And if hotels do not have enough guests to generate enough profits to stay in business,they have to close shop,and all the workers,wearing and not wearing headscarfs will be out of a job.

    There have to be a balance or compromise in everything.If all people prefer to have it their way,many businesses will have to have their premises shuttered forever.

    1. And if these guests are uncomfortable with being served by people of a certain ethnicity then what. Discriminate against staff of that ethnicity?

      I stand by the rights of the workers and their union, not the capitalists.

    2. 1) Any business operations MUST be profit orientated. Otherwise it's NOT a business.

      2) Businesses thus aim to cater to certain needs/wants of its customers in order to survive.

      Hence, the enforcement of certain in-house identities - attires/religions etc, to cater for targetted market via product differentiations.

      3) The customers have choices to choose. If these guests are uncomfortable with being served by people of a certain ethnicity then they SHOULD go to the outlets that cater to their 'taste'.

      This is known as FREE MARKET economy!

      4) The workers in the industry have choice to choose whom they want to work for. They r NOT been forced/coerced into forced labour-hood like in a feudal state!

      However, if u want to stretch the concept to it's limit then bigotry of any forms can be labelled upon this economic concept.

      This has Nothing to do with the struggles between the proletariat vs bourgeoisie.

      There is no pure capitalism.

      Neither is there a pure socialism.

      Both earthly idealisms r strongly intertwined as they CAN'T overcome true human greed's.

      In the current human evolution, capitalism has lost its key foundation of laissez-faire operative based on supply and demand in the general market.

      Similarly, socialism has lost its classless dream through central planned economy.

    3. that's y i said double std, ck reply is a perfect example wakaka

    4. Again, I understand from where u r coming from - the Johore laundromat vi-a-vis the hotel stuff wearing tudung headgear!

      Bleeding heart, baca betulx2 lah.

      Political-correctness can get u 2 sec fame BUT it also proves yr naiveness about greater scheme of things around u le!!