The latest explosion over ham and cheese sandwiches suggests that our national focus is on forbidden foods, rather than the forbidden fortunes of corruption.
Never mind that it’s “chicken ham” rather than the porky type, some politicians keep on stoking the flames.
Also, don’t worry about core issues like fixing education, improving governance, or mastering future technologies. Just argue over what label a sandwich has.
Of course, rules about halal food are important and should be enforced. And yes, this is a “sensitive matter” for Muslims.
But can we imagine “defenders” of race and religion declaring that anybody with dirty money was “insulting” Islam? Or “attacking” Malay dignity?
When the issue first erupted, the Chief Warrior jumped to the conclusion that this meant pork ham.

The good doctor apparently didn’t know - or chose not to know - that “ham” can be made from other meats, like turkey and chicken. It’s just like some eateries serving “beef bacon”.
Mocking religion?
Then we saw a combined team of a government ministry and Islamic Development Department (Jakim) raiding the factory that produced the controversial sandwiches.
So what did they find? Was there an “evil” scheme to pass off pork ham as halal? Or as the Chief Warrior claimed, to “mempersendakan agama kita” (make a mockery of our religion)?
Not at all. Instead, what was uncovered were what may be called “technical” offences – that the company was relying on the halal certificate from a different business it had bought over. And that they neglected to renew it after it expired on Oct 15, 2023.
So were the sandwiches halal or not? The Malaysian Muslim Restaurant Owners Association (Presma) has noted that many Muslim-owned eateries are not halal certified by Jakim anyway, but their food is still halal.

So there was no nefarious project to secretly feed forbidden food to Muslims. To use a football analogy, there were yellow card fouls, but not red card ones.
But the more pertinent question is: will we see whole teams of enforcement officers mobilised to raid the offices of Sabah politicians who were shown to receive kickbacks in several whistleblower videos?
Isn’t corruption an equally or more sensitive matter than a sandwich having a proper halal logo?
No, instead we have some politicians clamouring that our most infamous corrupt criminal should return to his luxurious mansion under so-called “house arrest”.
Worse than pork
Yet, “makan najis rasuah” (engaging in bribery) is a far worse sin than “makan dating babi” (eating pork) according to Prof Omar Yaakob of the Muslim NGO Ikram Malaysia.
He pointed out that such crooked ways were clearly “dilaknat” (condemned as an abomination) by the Prophet. While eating pork is a personal sin, corruption destroys society and national development.
Note that Ikram is not some fringe group. It received the Anugerah Khas Kasih Madani (NGO category) award in 2023 at Putrajaya from Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim himself.
Frankly, I’m a bit surprised to learn that Islam views the sin of corruption as far more harmful than eating pork. Because, forgive me, as a non-Muslim, the impression from some leaders is that getting bribes is yeah, “technically” wrong, but morally “kinda OK”.
For example, when Islamist party PAS was caught on video giving out cash during a general election, its leader, Holy Hadi Awang, greenwashed it by saying it was not bribery but “charity”.

Isn’t that a “mockery of religion”?
Similarly, the person tarnished by the 1MDB mega scandal has claimed it was not stolen money but “donations”. Perhaps to give it a thin veneer of religious righteousness, the donor was not some porky Chinese fellow, now hiding overseas, but supposedly an “Arab”.
Some local minds may assume that all Arabs are impeccable holy men - thus our chief crook can be “clean by association”. Indeed, lo and behold, he has now been rebranded as the “folk hero” called Bossku.
Why do his adoring followers bow before him to kiss his hand? Could it be because they regard him as a feudal lord who may bestow a few crumbs of handouts?
Perhaps the social tolerance of corruption is based on this - everybody wants to take “gifts”. Everyone is “on the take” so to speak - from small “petrol money” to mega contracts. Ultimately, it is we the people who endorse this culture.
Double standards?
Forgive me, but the Malaysian emphasis seems to be more about what food is put into mouths, rather than the unholy loot put into pockets. One is a super “sensitive” issue while the other makes us morally numb.
A shining example was when both Umno and PAS planned a rally on Jan 6 to support the Donation Magician at court.

Umno pulled out at the last minute but PAS went ahead.
PAS secretary-general Takiyuddin Hassan justified the rally by saying it was about supporting the former prime minister’s “efforts to get justice”.
Justice? Surely Takiyuddin, as a lawyer, should know that not one but nine judges upheld the guilty verdict for our Great Leader.
He could argue that what was sought was royal mercy, but “justice” was stretching things too thin. Corruption is still corruption, even if the punishment has been reduced by royal decree. And a convict is still a convict, even if he lepaks in comfort under “tahanan mahligai” or “mansion arrest”.
It seems strange that the rules obsess over possible contamination by a few molecules of pork while social corrosion by millions of ringgit is ignored, even celebrated.
For example, in large hotels, separate lifts are required to transport this religiously “radioactive” substance, in order to get halal certification.
Of course, let me repeat that rules on halal food should be respected. But what about laws on haram money?
Islamic bank
In the case of our Beloved Boss, the stolen RM42 million was deposited not just into an ordinary bank but an Islamic bank, ie AmIslamic. Does this “mempersendakan” (make a mockery) of the religion?
Should the “defenders” of the faith get upset that dirty money had entered a bank linked to their religion? Isn’t this a “sensitive matter”?
In contrast, one can imagine the explosion of protests if say a stall selling pork was set up next to a mosque. Even a stall further away grilling bak kwa (dried meat slices) would cause a ruckus - if the slightest bit of unholy smoke were to pollute the air around a mosque.
And so, to welcome in January 2025, we have a Tale of Two Morals. An uproar over chicken ham and a rally to celebrate a corrupt convict.
Why is forbidden meat so “sensitive” while forbidden fortunes are not? - Mkini
ANDREW SIA is a veteran journalist who likes teh tarik khau kurang manis. You are welcome to give him ideas to brew at tehtarik@gmail.com.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.