A COUPLE of weeks ago, a hypermarket was cast into the Chinese New Year limelight early when a T-shirt they were selling, depicting the Chinese zodiac, had two animals censored out of it.

The pig and the dog, both taboo to Muslims, were removed in what looked like an attempt to safeguard religious sensitivities.

Last week, some major shopping centres around KL were reported to have toned down on their dog-themed decorations for the same festival, again, due to the perceived sensitive nature of portrayals of dogs.

Though the dog appears to be the latest addition to the list of things anathema, the pig has been on the list longer – last year, a promotional movie billboard for “Journey to the West” had the half man-half pig character Chu Bajie removed from it, while in 1995, the movie ‘Babe’ was banned for similar reasons. 

Both portrayals were of course, of ‘realistic’ looking pigs.

Digital and puppet characters like Miss Piggy or Peppa somehow, seem to have survived the cut.

If that is the standard, why shouldn’t digital or graphical representation of dogs be considered appropriate? Could this be overzealous compensation on the part of commercial entities who prefer to play it extra safe?

The Dragon may be next to censored due to Christian sensitivities and the Monkey due to Hindu sensitivities.

If a snake or monkey can have their own adorable animated versions for New Year’s advertisements on television, why should dogs be left out?

Indeed, dogs have been popularly depicted in many cartoons and much-loved comics.

Snoopy the lazy pup, Odie the blur energetic bully victim, Brian Griffin the bipedal sarcastic, Goofy and Pluto of Disney, one with pants and one without, Scooby Doo the detective pet, Droopy McPoodle, and so on.

Then there is the tear-jerking cuteness of 101 Dalmations, Lady and Tramp, and All Dogs Go to Heaven.

Dogs are often portrayed positively, and for good reason – dogs are loyal, faithful, venerable, friendly, smart and responsible; traits that earned the creature its place between the Pig and Rooster in the Chinese Zodiac.

In Chinese literature and folk belief, a celestial dog called Fu, is often placed in buildings and on rooftops to ward off evil and bring luck, while Tien Gou, or heavenly dog is said to swallow the moon during an eclipse.  

Dogs, therefore, form a part of Chinese culture, tradition and belief.

The occasion of the Dog Year also opens up unexpected avenues for discussion and dialogue. Animal activists in countries where Chinese New Year is celebrated, for example, have in recent years, used the Dog Year to push for laws that outlaw consumption of dog meat, promote stray dog adoption, discourage purchase of bred animals as a fad only to be abandoned later, and so on.

On the local front, while the efforts of some, like the much publicised ‘I Want to Touch a Dog’ programme by social activist Syed Azmi met with criticism, those were of live dogs, and specific to the topic of religion, unlike depictions of dogs during Chinese New Year, which, if anything, are merely culturally symbolic.

Although Syed Azmi was heavily, and rather unfairly, criticised, he managed to open up conversations and made some people re-think their need to treat dogs badly.

Even the most conservative religious scholars, and his harshest critics, agreed then, that, dogs also form part of God’s creations and should not be treated cruelly or abused for no reason.

These are the sort of conversations we should be having as Malaysians, belonging to diverse religious and coming from nearly all Asian cultural backgrounds. If we were to merely ban everything out of convenience or fear, we risk losing a powerful tool we have that enabled us to achieve a once enviable level of tolerance and understanding – dialogue.

It could start from a beagle in a red suit, walking around a mall, wishing you Gong Xi Fa Cai. – January 16, 2017.

* Emmanuel Joseph firmly believes that Klang is the best place on Earth, and that motivated people can do far more good than any leader with motive.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.