Thursday, December 07, 2006

"Virtue" of Kelantan

OK, from Indonesian 'virgin' to Kelantanese 'virtue'.

The State of Kelantan intends to protect the 'virtue' of women, so said the State's Menteri Besar, Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat of the fundamentalist Islamic Party, PAS.

PAS which governs Kelantan has introduced fines for women working in shops and restaurants who wear clothes such as mini-skirts, see-through blouses and tight trousers (eg. jeans) which it labelled as 'sexy' outfits. Nik Aziz said: "A woman who wears an indecent outfit does not respect herself, so how can she expect men to respect her."

Wearing jeans sexy? OK, but then PAS has only targeted women, which is hardly surprising considering its record. Why not fine men in jeans too?

An Aussie woman once told me she felt 'hot' when she saw French Rugby players (in Australia), especially when those French men were off the field dressed in jeans. So I tried a "Bonjour Mademoiselle" on her but all I got back was a smile, a "cut it out, KT" and a smart pat (in fact a grope) on my bottom, which mind you, was not clad in jeans.

Remember Melissa Darylene Chow? She recently suffered the injury of having a Penang Council security staff trained his CCTV on her thighs (looking for DNA samples?) and worse, the subsequent insult of being verbally assaulted by the Council president who blamed her for overexposing her thighs. Mind you, if she was in Kelantan, she would be poorer by RM500. regardless of whether she's Muslim or not ..... which of course raises constitutional issues of whether a non-Muslim Malaysian may be penalised on Islamic rules and regulatory criteria?

Well, all I can advice Melissa is, please don’t let NST send you to KB. But spare a thought for those Muslim women in KB shops who had been fined RM50 each time they forget to wear their tudung (Islamic-Arab head covering for women).

Hanisa Ismail, a Kelantan lady who works as a shoe shop assistant revealed her own experience.

She said: “I wear it because it is required by the local authorities. I only wear it at work. At home or out socialising, I do not wear it. Wearing of scarves and tudung must come from the heart and a person must not be forced.”

Tan Swee Nan, a manager of a franchise outlet, said that the KB council has been bullying female workers on the dress code. She added that some of her Muslim co-workers were fined RM50 just for not wearing a tudung. She averred: “I know of female workers who run and hide when they see council enforcement officers on their rounds because they forgot to wear their tudung. There must be a practical approach.”

But under the KB Municipal dress regulations, Muslim women must wear dresses which cover their ankles and a tudung which covers the hair and forehead. Hmmm, what about poverty, unemployment, justice for the poor, flood control, illiteracy, etc?

Non-Muslims aren't spared either, providing us with a glimpse of PAS' intention under an Islamic State rule it proposes. The non-Muslim women (men excused) must wear outfits which do not expose the navel, or reveal cleavage (c'mon lah, Pak Haji!) or emphasise the buttocks (emphasised? Aren't buttocks ... er ... buttocks?)

They are banned from wearing body-hugging outfits, blouses which show the navel, see-through blouses, mini skirts and tight pants. F**k it then, I am not going to KB too if I can’t see cleavages, body-hugging outfits and mini skirts. I could bloody well die a 'virgin', and for a Chinese Malaysian to die a virgin means KTemoc is without 'virtue' and a damn disgrace to my Chinese ancestors.

But more importantly, PAS has presented non-Muslim Malaysians with a dilemma - whether to vote for PAS with its 'sword of Islam' ideology or UMNO with its 'keris of ketuanan Melayu' doctrine?


  1. that leaves us just between the devil and the deep blue sea :(

  2. "This is because cash is something precious, just like a woman’s virtue."

    there we have it - in Kota Baru, a woman's virtue is worth only RM500 per kg. (or is it measured by body parts, like RM400 if u expose your butt, but RM500 if u expose your breasts, or does it depend on the SIZE n SEXINESS of your body parts, the sexier & more lust-arousing the higher the fine??)

    does PAS realise that they have just successfully CHEAPENED women???

    According to Nik Aziz, "there was no denying that men would be aroused by a scantily- dressed woman, as this was human nature."

    another quote of wisdom from the tok guru.

    is it human nature to regard women as FLESH/MEAT - or is it ANIMAL NATURE?!?!

    do PAS people realise what kind of damage they r doing to Islam's good name?!?!

    if women didn't feel CHEAP enough by the RM500 price tag, this ought to do it now.

  3. Dear Wise juslo

    I see,
    so you want the fine to be adjusted to a much higher price,
    lets say " unlimited " to suit the women real values ?

    God, I cant believe that you live by such logic.

    Shame on you.

    Btw, while you are at it, no, we are not ANIMALS by nature. ANIMALS have no greed, they only take what they need.

    We are HUMAN and GREED is our middle name. To us human, women are more than just flesh and meat, they are mere materials ! A gruesome fact that most of us choose to ignore ...

    Next time when you treat yourself with those porn vid, just imagine your own MOM in it.

    Only then, you'll understand the real meaning of that RM500 ...

    Btw ktemoc
    while it is good to bark around sometimes over these over-exagerrated issues by the media
    ( note that, you quote all those "claims" from a bias media, The Star which is obviously MCA's )
    Just go to Kelantan and try living among the people for some time.
    I know that you are not Kelantanese and probably never been there yourself.
    From there
    perhaps you'll realise that the world is NOT that SMALL afterall !

  4. dear Anonymous,

    "so you want the fine to be adjusted to a much higher price,
    lets say " unlimited " to suit the women real values?"

    yeah, u bet!! y do it halfway?? if u r doing god's work or being god's viceroy on earth, y don't u go ALL THE WAY??

    STONE THEM SLUTS TO DEATH, if u ask me. GO ON.

    look, the effect of this law is bascially saying that if i can afford to pay 'up to rm500', i can dress sexily/'indecently', correct?? so there u go - the license to b sexy is worth 'up to rm500' in kota baru.

    don't blame me for the 'logic', mate - it's the Parti Ajaran Syaitan's idea to fine UP TO RM500. how do u think they should decide whether it's RM500 or RM50 then, u tell me, the wiser one.

    sorry, i don't get your point about "women are more than just flesh and meat, they are mere materials," care to explain who's your target???

    - guess i'm not that 'wise' (as u said) after all, aye??

    ps - if men in kuala lumpur can control their lust n wouldn't even touch a 'dressed-to-provoke' foxy sexy lady, but men in kota baru can't control themselves n have to ask the WOMEN to prevent themselves from being raped/violated BY MEN - WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT MEN IN KOTA BARU??? don't u think this law actually INSULTS the level of decency of all kota baru men??? i thought the Qur'an says "to the believing men, lower YOUR gaze"????!!!!

    the part about 'mom in porn vid' - very decent n mature. but if u r the kind of person who is a defender of this kind of 'blame-the-victim' laws, n yet say absolutely NOTHING about the obligation of the MEN to control themselves, then i'm not surprised.

    suggest u go study the Qur'an properly.

  5. Please la, folks, its not men vs women. I am a man, and im concerned abt my sister, daughter, wife and mum. Men are basically evolving animals. Some would listen to the Quran, or whathever religion, and lower their gazes, and many others can exercise self control, and good for them, and good for all of us and our sisters, daughters etc. But what abt the not so evolved animal males ? Shd women keep provoking them, causing them to lose control once in a while, and take it out on the next "available" woman ? Who could very well be my well covered sister ? Stop lecturing the potential perverts. Stop provoking them. Thats a safer approach. This is not blaming anyone. Its prevention. For the sake of all women, particularly my sister, daughter, wife & mother etc

  6. worried brother,

    i share your concerns.

    1, "But what abt the not so evolved animal males? ...Stop lecturing the potential perverts. Stop provoking them. Thats a safer approach."

    so, i'm sure u have PROOF that by wearing tudung n dressing 'non-sexily', u can PREVENT sexual violence on women. YES??

    look at the news about school GIRLS n all the tudung-wearing/not-so-sexy women getting raped. it's becoming a cliche already. on the other hand, some women got raped NOT because they r sexy or provocative. u don't need me to tell u that.

    animals ARE ANIMALS. they won't stop even if u wear burqa. let's not be naive. the way to prevent sexual violence is like preventing ANY OTHER CRIME, by staying out of harms way n away from doggy places, etc. cover up is IRRELEVANT.

    unless, if a tudung-wearing/not-so-sexy women can SUE 'cover-up advocates' for huge compensations if they STILL got raped???

    2, actually, i'm NOT anti-tudung/decent dress. let's b clear about that.

    in fact, i would agree with u that women SHOULD cover up. but not at all because it helps to prevent rape, but because deep down, i'm a conservative, traditional guy too. i don't like women walking around showing off.

    fyi, i've - to the best use of my 'authority' - 'encouraged' my subordinates to wear 'decently'. i've even told them explicitly that my workplace is NOT a nightclub, so let's not give our visitors 'the wrong idea'. so now, they all dress 'prudently', n some only change their attire or put on heavier makeup AFTER work.

    but once in a while, when some of them feel like looking gorgeous, (special days like their birthdays or their friends'/boyfriends' birthdays i guess; i never aksed, just overheard sometimes,) i don't show my displeasure or anything. just let it b - they have the right to do what they want, i can only advise, but not control. but on those days, i would 'lower my gaze'. no, i'm not a muslim, but confucius says, 'don't see those that r impolite' (fei li wu shi).

    my point is, women KNOW how to take care of themselves. u don't have to control or order them. n if they want to look pretty once in a while or all the time, so b it - god gave them their beauty, it's up to them to answer god how they use it. even though i might not like seeing it myself. (fyi, i'm not gay, okay...)

    so, coming back, i'm NOT against the idea of wearing decently, but i'm AGAINST the idea of COMPULSION/FORCING anybody - men or women - to do or not do ANYTHING, whether it's dress or apostasy.

    in fact, i would say that that's y most non-muslims react towards oppressive/controlling rules made in the name of 'Islam'. some muslims made us seem like we r anti the ACT/VALUE sought to b upheld by the particular law/rule, but fundamentally, we don't care what any religion wants to teach its followers so long as nobody is FORCED to obey it.

    that's y, u don't see a lot of non-christians (except the 'dakwah muslims' i guess) criticising Christianity. not because they prefer Christianity to Islam, but simply because Christianity HERE (don't throw me the crusade, spanish inquisition examples, please) doesn't force its followers to do this or that by using the law. but Islam (as used by some conservative muslims) DOES that.

    so, i would actually SUPPORT the ADVISING of women to wear decently (like nik aziz's back-tracking over non-muslim women) but not when the rule is FORCED down upon the women, just like when sexual intercourse is forced down upon them.

    respect their AUTONOMY, n don't INSULT their intelligence n maturity. that's all.

  7. Juslo, I am too concerned abt my sis & wife etc to wait for proof. Thats a safer approach. I also feel that the "covered" women who are targeted are surrogate targets. The ones flaunting their cleavages & thighs are the ones who are provoking, and the perverts target the easy women, whther they are covered or not.
    I for one would advise all women, and force the women who i care most abt to cover up.

  8. worried brother,

    let's not be simplistic about this matter.

    1, "I am too concerned abt my sis & wife etc to wait for proof. Thats a safer approach."

    thanks for your concession. but my point of asking for 'proof' is basically to show that this is just based on HUNCH.

    n HUNCH alone is NO basis for IMPOSING/FORCING. even the qur'an never said women should b FORCED/COMPELLED to cover up the aurat, who gives YOU, or PAS, the MORAL/DIVINE authority to FORCE/COMPELL based on a mere HUNCH?!?!

    advise, by all means, BUT NO COMPULSION. THAT'S the crux of my objection - which u have not addressed at all.

    2, "I also feel that the "covered" women who are targeted are surrogate targets. The ones flaunting their cleavages & thighs are the ones who are provoking, and the perverts target the easy women, whther they are covered or not."

    i hope u realise that u just agreed with me that covering up is IRRELEVANT to preventing rape, because all these rapists r looking for 'surrogate targets', 'the easy women, whther they are covered or not'.

    3, but i guess u r trying to use that logic to say that 'because of that, we must stop ALL 'provocative' women from 'flaunting their cleavages & thighs'. my question is, where do we stop?

    - what if the ANIMAL perverts can get turned on even by the sight of a female alone, EVEN THOUGH she might b young, old, fat, ugly or wearing a burqa?? i guess we'll have to ask all women to stay at home then, to 'prevent provocation'.

    - what if ANIMAL perverts can get turned on even by the IDEA of/act of thinking about female alone, that whenever he thought about woman, he'll automatically thought about VAGINA?!?! what now - ban all 'mention' of the word/idea of woman??

    it'll never end!!! because what we have here is a FUNDAMENTALLY MISGUIDED approach to solve this problem - which does not focus on the SOURCE of the problem (the ANIMAL'S MIND/THOUGHT), but targetting the VICTIM instead.

    in other words, u r trying to control A's MIND by controlling B's behaviours, forgetting that no matter what u try (even if u impose totalitarian mind-control), the human MIND is the ONLY part of the human body which is NOT subject to any control. PAS should fucking realise that, the earlier the better for them.

    your logic here is like arguing, 'stop using cars to prevent accidents, it's SAFER that way'. or 'ban arts/drawing in schools to avoid students from ever thinking about the possibility of drawing naked women on paper. it's SAFER that way'.

    or better still, 'let's ban all civilization to prevent civilization from being destroyed. it's SAFER that way!!!' i think that's PAS's driving mission all along anyway.


    4, at the end of the day, given how RIDICULOUS n MISGUIDED the whole logic of targetting one object to control the other's mind, let's ADMIT it - this is not really about 'rape' n 'decency' etc.

    FUNDAMENTALLY, IT'S ABOUT MALE CHAUVINISM. conservative muslim men want to find a way to control their women, because they cannot tahan seeing their PROPERTIES from being EXHIBITED in public. so, they find a grand 'safety excuse' as a front to help protect their MALE EGO, even though it cheapens women n have to call them MEAT in the process.

    it's as simple as that. stop giving us all the bullshit n just admit it.

  9. worried brother n the WISER Anonymous above,

    6, all rapists would GAZE at their female targets before they decide whom to rape, right?

    so, it actually makes more sense, n is SAFER for women, to FINE all MEN who GAZE at women, don't u think?!?! that'll also comply with the verse in the Qur'an which asks men to 'lower your gaze' at the same time.

    wouldn't THAT b the ultimate solution?? or is your MALE EGO too strong to blame YOURSELF for the problems???

    grow up, PAS men.

  10. Greetings juslo,

    I am writing to you in response to the commentary you wrote on my blog post ( ) related to the MPKB dress code issue.

    Let me start off my saying that, contrary to your belief, I am not affiliated with PAS, UMNO, UMYES or any political party. I am not even a registered voter for that matter. And if you feel like it, you can even confirm with SPR on this.

    The reason I am telling you this is because it is imperative to note that the views expressed on my blog are mine and mine only, and they are not influenced by my affiliation with any organization, political or otherwise.

    1, very good writing, n your language n expressions r a pleasure to read. u r in a totally different class from morons like MENJ (a fellow blogger).

    I have to admit that I was a bit ambivalent when reading the above statements. On one hand, you compliment me on my writing, while on another you call someone else a moron. Just because somebody does not agree with your ideas does not mean that he is an idiot. Saying that would only grant other people who disagree with you the right to also call you a moron, and I am sure you would not like that.

    2, i've posted some comments about this issue here:
    i'll repeat them here, because i would like to see your thoughts.

    Thanks for sharing your views.

    3, all the 'factors' n 'statistics' u've listed r interesting. since they r only based on deduction, n only serves to give conservative muslim ('comus' in short) men the EXCUSE not to target the men instead, i won't engage u on them point-by-point for now.

    I am sorry if I have missed something, but which part of the statistics are based on deduction? All of them were obtained from reliable and credible sources, and I made sure to cross-reference each with at least another unaffiliated publication to determine its accuracy. I would really appreciate it if you could enlighten me by telling me how you would have done it differently.

    Also I find it rather unfortunate that you are missing the point of my article by claiming that it is just an excuse not to target men instead. I admit that the article is not perfect, but if you read it carefully with an open and rational mind, you will find that there is no such assertion and that I am not blaming everything on women or trying to control them.

    suffice to say that i disagree with u that 'The facts pretty much speak for themselves' simply because they r not FACTS, just your deductions inspired by your own wishful thinking/agenda.

    Again, where are the deductions? Can you provide more reliable facts and figures that indicate otherwise, or are you going to keep on claiming that they are mere deductions without providing any counter claim or compelling argument? Calling something a "deduction" more than once does not make it so.

    my point in general is that b that as it may, it's MISGUIDED to target dressing, because u r not really dealing with THE SOURCE of the problem.

    I agree with you that we must first tackle the root of the problem, and I believe that education plays a really pivotal role in shaping a civil society. But I also happen to believe that dress code nevertheless plays an important part. In the following words, I will attempt to highlight why this is the case.

    Islam is not merely a religion, it is an all-encompassing way of life. It prescribes a comprehensive framework that covers all aspects of life such as education, upbringing, human relations, economy, law and enforcement. Therefore Islam, as a way of life, has to be practiced in a holistic way in order to achieve the intended goals, not suited and customized to one's personal needs and desires. You can think of it as a complex biological system in which different parts of the system work together in a harmonious, consistent and efficient manner. If one part of the system fails, others may be able to sustain its life only to a certain point in time, after which the whole system will start to disintegrate and gradually perish.

    Likewise you can instill noble moral values and virtues in your children, tell them to differentiate between right and wrong, and shower them with love and affection, and all these efforts may be of little use if the rest of the environment is not conducive enough for their development. Therefore it is important not to play down external factors that are undoubtedly significant in shaping an individual's character. These external factors may include things like peer influence, the media and even dress code. Moreover, this is particularly important during the early adolescent stage where youngsters are only beginning to discover and explore their sexuality, the result of which will have a lasting effect on what type of individuals they will turn out to be when they grow up.

    4, just because something could cause a crime, doesn't mean we should ban them. u should only ban something if the benefits of the banning outweighs the costs.

    I cannot agree more, and I do share the same sentiment. However, I fail to see how your idea that dress code does not matter applies in this case. If anything, putting on sexy clothes bring more harm than good, as the cited studies have shown. Moreover, covering up and dressing modestly are all part of my religion, and as a follower it is my duty to adhere to it. In fact, Islam is not the only religion that promotes this, most other religions also do. And as many research studies have shown, including those that I have cited in the article (and there are many others if only you bothered to do your homework beforehand), people in different societies, liberal or otherwise, generally have a negative perception of persons who are sexily clothed in public.

    I would really appreciate it if you could refer to the related studies conducted by Thornhill and Palmer, the American Medical Association and the Psychology of Women Quarterly, among others. This is to ensure that you do not continue to humiliate yourself by giving baseless comments, none of which is based on empirical evidence of any sort.

    while many women got raped, THOUSANDS got KILLED by cars, cholestrol, fat - but why r we not banning those harmful things?? y pick on women's dress?!

    The real question is, why not pick on women's dress? Again, I have to reiterate how unfortunate it is that you failed to grasp the whole idea presented in my article. The whole point is that we are not doing justice by claiming that women who are provocatively-clothed are completely and utterly guilt-free when they fall victim to sexual crimes. That is not to say that I am trying to find an excuse to divert the attention to the victims themselves, rather it is to highlight the significance that dress code has in solving the issue.

    Furthermore, why do we have to look at the RM500 as an intolerable punishment? If anything, it is minuscule compared to what the rapists have to face if they are convicted, which spells jail time and whipping in Malaysia's case. If you would try to open up your mind for a moment, and look at it from a different perspective, it will dawn on you the fact that the fine is meant as a deterrent, not a punishment.

    Let me also state that Islam prescribes really harsh punishments to perpetrators of sexual crimes, which can amount to stoning to death in the extreme cases. But it is again absolutely unfortunate that when an Islamic government tries to implement such a strict law, it is met with fierce resistance not only among its citizens but also from the so-called human rights activists all over the world.

    So what are these Islamists to do? It would seem that whatever they choose to do, people who are habitually opposed to their ideals will remain what they are; fierce oppositions bent on the ultimate destruction of Islam. When the Islamists attempt to punish the rapists with the harshest punishment possible, they are labelled as barbaric and inhumane. And when they try to impose a small fine meant as a deterrent on women who are dressed indecently, they are nevertheless labelled as outdated, shallow and despicable.

    in other words, u r trying to control A's MIND by controlling B's behaviours, forgetting that no matter what u try (even if u impose totalitarian mind-control), the human MIND is the ONLY part of the human body which is NOT subject to any control. PAS should fucking realise that, the earlier the better for them. so do YOU.

    This is a fallacy coming from a shallow mind clouded by prejudice and refusing to look at the bigger picture. The whole idea is to have an all-encompassing framework upon which a civilization is based. It is not solely about the dress code, it is also about imposing harsh punishments on rapists, educating the people about the proper rules of conduct and providing a conducive environment for children and adults alike. Education alone will not be effective without the necessary enforcement that accompanies it, for there will always be delinquents and non-conformists who will attempt to flout the laws no matter how educated they are.

    And for the record, using profanity does not make one's opinion more intelligent and agreeable. Rather, it only serves to demonstrates one's lack of self-restraint and inability to express himself in a civilized manner. Not to mention how the use of profanity clouds one's judgement and drives him away from the reality and further into an emotional roller coaster.

    just for your info, only your kind of people think that the bad guy should not b solely blamed. other civilizations believe that that guy MUST.

    Is that really so? Do you speak on behalf of all civilizations in the universe, ex-Malaysia? If so, I truly and humbly apologize for my misgiving.

    I am not going to do anything more, other than stressing how crucial and important it is to do some homework first before making a statement.

    also, u live in a funny world. in your world, all men r BEASTS, who 'are like horny dogs, waiting for a bitch on heat to wander into their orbit'!!

    I have to admit that, while I do not speak for every Muslim, this is truly a fantasy world far detached from the minds of all devout Muslims through out the world. Have you ever considered the fact that such a world actually exists within the realm of your subconscious mind instead? Just a food for thought.

    your rant about not allowing women to control their bodies as they wish n mocking of gender equality only tells me that u r a male chauvinist, control-freak. (by the way, MOST women r NOT SLUTS, n they won't just jump on the chance of committing zina whenever they r not 'controlled'. but for u n your folks, maybe 'women are vixens who flirt and flaunt themselves until men are forced to commit violent acts upon them'.)

    Well let us put your understanding of male chauvinism to test. In the article, I am merely highlighting, without singling out any gender, how both men and women have a role to play in the struggle against sexual crimes. I also touch upon the issue of the overzealousness portrayed by many women's rights activists in their pursuit of gender equality. While the perpetrators' blame is a given and the punishment meted out harsh, I argue that we should not neglect the possibility that indecently-clothed women may also contribute to the rise of sexual crimes, albeit in a small but meaningful way.

    So now you are saying, using deductive reasoning, that:

    A: I am a man who argues that both men and women have different roles to play, and they are both equally vital to the development of a society.
    B: All male male chauvinists believe that men are undeniably and utterly superior to women.
    Conclusion: I am a male chauvinist.

    All sane and rational denizens of the world can bear witness to how flawed and completely twisted this piece of logic is.

    FUNDAMENTALLY, IT'S ABOUT MALE CHAUVINISM. comus men want to find a way to control their women, because they cannot tahan seeing their PROPERTIES from being EXHIBITED in public. so, they find a grand 'safety excuse' as a front to help protect their MALE EGO, even though it cheapens women n have to call them MEAT in the process.

    it's as simple as that. stop giving us all the bullshit n just admit it.

    Again the flawed reasoning about male chauvinism.

    I cannot help but wonder which is more nonsensical, or in your own word, "bullshit":

    1. Arguments based on flawed logic unsupported by empirical evidence of any sort, or
    2. A thesis based on plenty of empirical evidence accompanied by compelling arguments.

    Take your pick.

    by the way, all rapists would GAZE at their female targets before they decide whom to rape, right?

    so, it actually makes more sense, n is SAFER for women, to FINE all MEN who GAZE at women, don't u think?!?! that'll also comply with the verse in the Qur'an which asks men to 'lower your gaze' at the same time.

    Well actually I share the same sentiment with you on this matter. In fact, I think it is an excellent idea! Oh, do remember to bring this up to your Member of Parliament (MP) for the next parliament session. I wish the government all the best in implementing and reinforcing it.

    grow up, PAS men.

    1. About yours truly being a "PAS man", please refer to Exhibit-A.
    2. I cannot help but wonder who is the one in a desperate need of growing up:
    (a) One who resorts to profanity, uses capital letters and multiple exclamation marks every other sentence, calls someone who does not agree with his ideals a moron and uses flawed logic to present his argument, or
    (b) One who argues in a rational and civilized manner by providing plenty of empirical evidence to support his arguments, while not neglecting to abstain from profanity and calling other people names.


  11. dear Safwan,

    i'll continue the debate at your page. thanks for the comments.