HANNAH Yeoh is under investigation. This time, over a Twitter post (it’s always a tweet) on March 9.

The Segambut MP wondered aloud about the status of a national plan to address child marriage launched earlier this year, especially now that an Islamist party is holding the reins of the ministry taking the lead in the matter.

Yeoh’s tweet, taken out of context, does appear to be a slight dog-whistle. It plays to liberal worries about political Islam’s influence over the government. It’s easy for alleged cybertroopers to pick up on this and stoke long-smouldering Malay-Muslim fears.

And yet, there is no doubt that her concerns are valid. Addressing child marriage is not very high on this government’s list of priorities. The matter could have ended there, as a simple case of slander – until former Iksim CEO Mahamad Naser Disa decided to intervene.

Naser accused Yeoh of intruding into the sacred space of Malay rulers as the head of Islam in their respective states. This is an extraordinary claim. And, it takes the matter all the way to the beating heart of Malay identity in contemporary Malaysia.

His argument runs like this: Muslim marriage, adult or otherwise, is a religious matter. This is strictly under the purview of the Malay rulers. The federal government has no power over these protected areas.

This is why the Pakatan Harapan government was unable to move beyond the roadmap stage of a possible nationwide ban on child marriage.

This is also why Naser sees Yeoh’s tweet as an attempt to force the hand of the Malay rulers. It’s a huge no-no, especially coming from 1) a non-Malay and 2) a woman.

Yeoh, backed by Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, in response said she implied no such thing. It is, after all, only proper for an opposition member to ask about the status of a policy they had championed while in power. Moreover, Yeoh is an experienced lawmaker. She understands well and respects the separation of powers.

The debate has turned into arguments about the constitution, political norms and free speech.

“Did she or did she not overstep her boundaries with her tweet?” That’s a valid question for police, lawyers and students of Malaysian politics. But a preoccupation with this only distracts us from two things that we should be paying attention to.

How did child marriage become a hill worth dying on?

The first is the absurd situation that Naser’s statement has put Malay-Muslims in. Something as offensive as the right to marry underage girls is now an issue that Malay-Muslims feel the need to defend.

One could say Naser is not defending child marriage per se, only the Malay rulers’ constitutional role. But context is everything.

In this case, it does not matter what arguments are concocted in defence of these rulers’ constitutional or religious role. The fact is, they all end up defending a fundamentally immoral position: the exploitation of young girls by older men.

Malay-Muslims now find themselves backed into a corner. They’re trapped – argue for the right to marry young girls or risk being accused of standing against the most important of institutions, namely the Malay rulers.

Naser is insidious (and knowing) in his use of this tactic. He has forced Malays into an impossible position, one that further polarises Malaysians already locked in a paralysing culture war.

But in using this tactic, he takes a big risk himself. He has placed the responsibility of ending child marriage on the rulers.

Is he not putting words in their mouths by implying that their constitutional silence is tacit consent? If so, who is overstepping their boundaries now?

Young girls ignored yet again

The second is that we’ve lost sight of what actually matters. Every day, at-risk underage girls see (or are told) that getting married to men three times their age is their only way out.

The PH government’s roadmap is commendable for identifying the socioeconomic reasons for this. Unfortunately, though, the roadmap fails to answer the question “Why is child marriage bad?”. In a way, this satisfies its critics.

It explains why arguments for lowering the age of consent for marriage are so effective to some. They tend to make a clearer, simpler moral case. Child marriage is “needed” to prevent social ills, like zina (premarital sex) and child abandonment.

In contrast, the roadmap provides beautiful, but vague, phrases. For example, children are “the future of this country” and the “promise of a better Malaysia”. These might work in a country with a secular morality, where they tend to be given truths. However, they’re not very effective in a country where most of the rakyat derive their moral knowledge from scripture.

As a result, the adults are busy arguing over second- or third-tier issues. When they aren’t, they’re busy calling the cops on each other over what Yeoh really meant by her tweets.

Meanwhile, vulnerable girls across Malaysia continue to suffer, as they always have, in miserable, silent despair.

Refocusing the debate

The debate on child marriage reveals something very wrong in the way we treat our children.

According to the roadmap, child marriage is bad because it robs us of “a better Malaysia”. Proponents, on the other hand, argue that it’s acceptable because it solves “social problems”.

Both cases make the terrible mistake of treating children as a means to an end. Both fail to recognise that each child is a valuable person, a human being in their own right. A girl’s right to a childhood free from exploitation should be for her, and her alone. Not for the country, not for society.

Child marriage isn’t a social policy. We must agree on this point of conscience. It has always been a moral question. Any attempt to recast it as anything else is pure smokescreen. – June 21, 2020.

* Aiman Caezar reads The Malaysian Insight.

* 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.