Adding stress to a stressful situation

 

The decision to ban goods with brand names that can cause “public distress” is itself distressing.

Last week, PAS deputy president and environment and water minister Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man announced that after the Timah whisky debacle, names or brands that can cause distress to the public or trigger negative racial or religious reaction from society will be banned.

PAS may claim that it is doing this to keep the peace, but others will say it is twisting the rules to suit its own agenda, and its efforts have nothing to do with religion; it is about attracting the Malay vote. Banning so-called distressing items is like inflicting a wound on oneself.

Questions will be asked how PAS will measure the level of distress caused. One person may be distressed by an item, but others may not find it upsetting. Has any PAS leader heard the expression, “One man’s rubbish is another man’s treasure”?

So, who decides on the level of distress caused? Will PAS leaders, PAS Youth or ordinary PAS members decide? Will the public have a say in the matter? Will all MPs be given a chance to debate these distressing items in Parliament? Aren’t there more important matters for PAS to prioritise?

Did PAS give the proposal serious thought? Banning items from sale may lead to some unintended consequences.

In many Malaysian factories, the workforce is mostly Malay. If a ban on a product is initiated, Muslim workers will suffer. What if a rival company paid people to make allegations of distress, to get rid of the competition? A ban will result in reduced sales and lower profits. If a company suffers a cash flow problem, it may close down or be forced to terminate the services of its workers.

PAS leaders and the Cabinet may have scored a small moral victory when a company is shut down, but how will the government deal with the workers who are retrenched or made redundant?

Isn’t Tuan Ibrahim cutting off his nose to spite his face? He may be in charge of the environment but his action to ban items he perceives to be distressful to the public may deter foreign companies from investing hundreds of millions of ringgit in Malaysia.

Foreign investors want things to proceed smoothly. If they see possible disruptions to their manufacturing, and political instability caused by racism and religious extremism, they will scout around for more stable host countries.

Our neighbours, especially Muslim-majority Indonesia, have already attracted a whole range of multinationals. When a foreign investor overlooks us, and invests his money in a neighbouring country, the whole nation loses out. Is the Cabinet prepared to see this happen?

Does anyone remember the Cadbury incident of 2014, when a group of people were distressed to find that the chocolates they had bought for their children contained porcine DNA? This matter became a matter of public interest.

The men and women claimed at a highly comical press conference that their blood and body had been contaminated and they felt like lopping off their limbs. Others demanded compensation of a few million ringgit and a blood transfusion.

It was a perfect showcase of a group of emotional Malay conservatives being able to stop industry but, more importantly, it showed foreign investors how vulnerable they could become.

It is time for the government to take decisive action and act in a rational manner. There must be an end to these issues of religion and race.

When he finally gets to ban items which cause public distress, how will Tuan Ibrahim ensure that the system is not abused? - FMT

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.