Malaysiakini : “Multiculturalism should not mean that we tolerate another culture’s intolerance.” – Ayaan Hirsi Ali

COMMENT | So, I have been reading all this aggrieved commentary on the Timah controversy and the thing that boggles the mind is the question of this piece. 

Here you have an award-winning whiskey and one would assume that what is on the minds of its owners is how to build the brand.

Is PISS/PUS going to protest this Aussie brand? The answer would be Fook Off!!!

Now Winepak Corporation Sdn Bhd has agreed to consider revamping the brand, by changing the name and image of the whiskey. Apparently, a consensus was achieved for the good of the country in a meeting that could only be described as Orwellian. 

Okay, so how exactly is Winepak going to explain this to its international audience, including investors? I am assuming Winepak wants an international consumer base.

Does it go something like this?

“Well we had a harmonious meeting, with Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Minister Alexander Nanta Linggi, officers from the Islamic Development Department Malaysia (Jakim), Communications and Multimedia Minister Annuar Musa, Minister in the Prime Minister's Department (Religious Affairs) Senator Idris Ahmad and National Unity Minister Halimah Mohamed Sadique, and we all agreed that a name change and image change was the best thing for Malaysia.

“We acknowledged that Timah was offending the sensibilities of Muslims and decided that the best thing for the good of the country was if we changed the name and image to something which did not offend the sensitivities of Muslims in Malaysia."

I mean that is essentially what happened, right? Winepak is to change its name and image because it does not want to offend the sensitivities of some Muslims in Malaysia. 

Of course, nobody seems interested in the fact that by doing this, all it means that the image of Malaysia, as an example of a diverse cultural paradise with great food and drink, is further shown to be the delusion it is.

Perhaps in their literature explaining the name change, Winepak could also include the list of words non-Muslims are not allowed to use in this country (this varies by state, by the way). This way, the potential base for Timah would understand the reason for the name and image change.

Potential Timah imbibers would be given some context for what it means to be multicultural and diverse in Malaysia. Strangely, such context does not appear in all those tourism ads that flood the international markets. I wonder, why?

Folks have been getting their knickers in a twist about what PKR lawmaker Rusnah Aluai (Pakatan Harapan-Tangga Batu) said about how drinking Timah whiskey is like drinking a Malay woman. For someone like me, this is an extremely difficult line to type. But I digress.

Remember those cops who were caught partying in a special room in Bangi will be facing disciplinary action but no criminal charges? Remember, among the inventory discovered included a bottle of liquor. 

Why is this important? Maybe it rankles that supposed products that cause public distress are used so frequently by those who claim to be upholding race and religion.

Look, no point demonising Rusnah who has since apologised. Or was that clarified or maybe she was just plain misunderstood? Harapan is supposed to be a big tent coalition. She has a right to her opinion and courting the base she wants even in the most unintentionally funny way.

What I am amazed about is that no big guns in Harapan have come out to defend Winepak, an economic entity and something which showcases local creativity in the international market. 

Instead of Harapan being a big tent and which supposedly wants to operate as a marketplace of ideas, what we have is folks like Rusnah getting a blow horn and nobody else countering such ideas. 

Equal policy is complete horse manure

The fact that anti-non-Muslim narratives are furthered just goes to show you how toxic Harapan has become when it comes to issues like this. At least with the Malay uber alles crowd, it is out in the open.

Amanah vice-president Mahfuz Omar said having an award-winning whiskey was also not something the country should be proud of or promote. In other words, he said that an award-winning product made by non-Muslims is not something that Malaysia as a whole should be proud of.

Two points here. The first, apparently to someone in Harapan: Malaysia only means a certain kind of Muslim because those Muslims and non-Muslims who do not object to this nonsense are not included in his definition of Malaysia.

The second point, Mahfuz actually advocates is that the state should intervene in an economic entity which jeopardises the livelihoods of people involved in the product because it causes, in his own words “….some Muslims are disturbed by it and therefore a different name should be used”.

Honestly, how difficult would it be if the supposedly “progressive” Amanah – which is how the party is portrayed in the kool-aid – merely said, “Even though we are Muslims who abstain from alcohol, we are proud that a beverage from our diverse country has won an award. It demonstrates how all faiths and people can live together and earn a living together.”

Who knows a quote like this would probably have gained some international transaction and perhaps even lived up to the tagline "Malaysia Truly Asia".

But no. Amanah and certain political operatives had to go down the “Keluarga Malaysia” route and demonstrate how empty, venal and craven such an idea is. Of course, all this just goes to show you that the separate but equal policy is complete horse manure.

And you see how attempting to out an Islamic party like PAS backfires. Now Environment and Water Minister Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man gets to announce, at a PAS ceramah no less, that the cabinet has decided to prohibit any goods that cause distress among the rakyat and for good measure adds:

“This will be a policy. This is the result of what we (PAS) did, what we protested against. Today what we see is that they used this issue to attack PAS but in the end, it backfired on them."

PAS, of course, is led by a political operative who thinks that non-Muslims should be Pak Turut. What is Amanah’s excuse?

If Winepak does go through with changing its name and image, it would have demonstrated that it was enabling intolerance and caving in to some Muslims (Mahfuz's words), which would destroy the brand of a locally made product. 

This would actually tarnish the image of multiculturalism and diversity in this country, not to mention Islam because it would just further anti-Islam narratives.

If Winepak changes the name and image, the company and those who object to the name and image would be tarnishing the image of the country.