A CULTURE of sexism still prevails in Malaysia, with incidences of sexual harassment often underreported. And even if they are, victim-blaming and shaming remain common. This is not unexpected, given that even our textbooks help foster such attitudes. 

A very rare instance of a #MeToo moment occurred recently with reports of alleged sexual harassment at a radio station known for its “liberal” reputation. When the incident came to light, social media was filled with voices calling out the hypocrisy of the liberals. 

Some of the anger can be understood. After all, it is the liberals who carry the #MeToo flag proudly while seeking to push the boundaries of the gender equality discourse against prevailing sexist attitudes in the country. The fact that talking heads were found to have forsaken their own sense of righteous conduct was undeniably a let down.

Nevertheless, this outburst of schadenfreude was also occurring during an unfolding liberal-conservative cultural war in Malaysia – a tussle not unlike that in the United States – exacerbated by political upheaval. In the case of the US, an outsider of Washington politics was elected president. In our case, a regime change for the first time since our independence.

Many identifying with the conservative side have now taken to social media to shame and harass known liberal figures, including those not accused of any sexual wrongdoing. The motive appears to be revenge, following perceived insults by the liberal fraternity when parties from the religious establishment were found to be perpetrators of sexual assault or impropriety. In this mutual expression of schadenfreude, guilt by association becomes the order of the day. 

Yet, such contests of righteousness come at a heavy price. If the core of the debate becomes merely about “which side is the more morally righteous”, then the outcome will either be increased silence over instances of sexual misconduct – as neither side can proclaim total innocence – or it will turn into a polarised battlefield where both side tries their best to elevate themselves over the downfall of the other. 

At the expense of either outcome is the reality of why cases of sexual harassment and assault continue to occur (and the fact that it often occurs against women).

After the radio station incident, many have stepped up on social media to speak out against the culture of sexism in the media industry. From what I observed, it does not appear that such a toxic culture at the workplace has a liberal/conservative distinction. It manifests in both.

What encourages the perpetuation of such acts is a culture of impunity, rather than broad cultural categories such as “liberal” or “conservative”, which are just two sides of a wider socio-political debate. Honestly, I don’t think most people have trouble recognising that making sexual advances without consent is wrong. People will do what they have been doing as long as they can get away with it. This makes tackling the culture of impunity more pertinent than ever.

And this is where engaging in the politics of schadenfreude is the least helpful. The discourse could easily devolve into acts of trying to protect or slaughter the sacred cows of one side or the other, be it religion or the “liberal” lifestyle – each is but a gross simplification of the actual problem. 

Rising above the politics of schadenfreude would mean dismantling the very barriers that strengthen the impunity of the offenders. If a perpetrator hides behind the veil of religion, then we will have to take to task institutions that promulgate interpretations of faith that enable such impunity. If a perpetrator hides behind a party culture to perpetrate acts of sexual impropriety, then that culture will have to be called out and stigmatised. If a perpetrator escapes reporting or action through his/her influence or networks, then we will have to expose such cabals of power while creating alternative avenues for victims to seek justice. 

There should not be any “no-go” zones if we are to critically address the issue of sexual harassment at supposedly safe spaces, be it schools, offices or religious institutions. But we must get our priorities right. This is not a battle that seeks to indict in toto a particular value system or lifestyle. This is really a case of asking why the Harvey Weinsteins or Father Timones of our society are the serial offenders they are. 

If it is tragic enough that we cannot prevent such instances from happening, then, at the very least, we should make sure that perpetrators will never get away with it. That is why challenging the culture of impunity remains the key. Schadenfreude is just about our own ego or some misguided sense of solidarity that compels us to protect our own. It does the victim nothing. – February 3, 2019.

* A Forensic Science-Asian Studies hybrid, Nicholas Chan is interested in how authority is shaped, exercised, and more importantly, resisted in Southeast Asia.

* 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.