Security guards or moral police?

Security guards or moral police?



From Norman Fernandez

Last Monday, my wife walked over to Wisma Persekutuan in Johor Bahru, which is across my office, as she often does for lunch at the public cafeteria there.

But this time, a security guard at the gate refused her entry after claiming the dress she was wearing was “tidak senonoh” (not appropriate) and “menjolokkan mata” (flashy).

My wife returned to the office and informed me of this, whereupon we went over to seek clarification from the guard.

The guard again repeated what he had said to my wife – “pakaian dia tidak senonoh dan menjolok mata”.

Not only that, according to him, non-Malay women must wear clothes that reached the ankle or, at the very least, wear pants. Imagine that! His own “house rules”.

Now, what exactly was my wife wearing? A loose-fitting, full-sleeved dress, which reached at least 18cm below the knee.

The guard must have assessed that the attire was a security risk that could cause public disorder.

Strangely, this dress is all right and acceptable when entering other government complexes and departments.

But to this particular guard at Wisma Persekutuan, the dress was “offensive and objectionable”.

Here is the question – what dress and attire is permissible and what is not permissible?

Notices at the entrances of government complexes and government offices state that permissible attire are “pakaian dibawah lutut” (clothes below the knee).

There is definitely nothing about the attire of non-Malay women having to reach the ankle, or them having to wear pants.

Since when has there been a directive that a loose-fitting, long-sleeved dress, that is 18cm below the knee, considered “tidak sopan” and “menjolok mata”?

Or was that dress, my wife’s fair skin and her slightly exposed legs, enough to cause raging titillations in the guard?

Incidents of high-handed guards preventing entry because of “objectionable attire” frequently make the news. My wife is just another addition to the statistics, and unfairly so.

It is time the chief secretary to the government, or the mayor, clarifies what exactly is considered “pakaian tidak sopan” and “menjolok mata”.

At present, it would seem that guards can, at their whims and fancies, arbitrarily determine which dress or attire is permissible and which is not.

In 2015, then minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Azalina Othman Said said there was no specific dress code for the public to observe when dealing with government agencies.

“Members of the public can wear clothes appropriate to Eastern culture and values when dealing with government offices,” she said in a written parliamentary reply.

She was responding to a query from then Putatan MP Marcus Makin Mojigoh on whether the government has a set dress code for members of the public when dealing with government agencies.

In fact, the minister went on to say that the government would “still extend its services to those who dress inappropriately”.

As such, it would seem that many guards are going beyond their duties by arbitrarily interpreting what is, and not, acceptable attire.

This is tantamount to moral policing and, at worst, an imposition of their own cultural and religious dictates on others, especially on non-Malays.

A guard’s function is what his job description says – “security”. Not to stand at the gate like a zealot with a prurient mind, imposing his own moral and religious dictates on others.

If a guard today can object to attire that is already below the knee and insist that the attire should reach the ankle, come tomorrow, he would insist that women should also cover their heads.

The government should immediately address this issue. Perhaps the lawmakers, as the people’s representatives, should also raise this issue in Parliament.

It is time to rein in the security guards.