Berani dalam Benar: Be consistent in leveraging understanding through "new" year celebrations

The Chinese New Year (CNY) saw little impromptu do's and don'ts, unlike the Christmas celebration that took place barely a month ago last year. The latter,  being Abrahamic in origin should see the reverse, if not at least treated similarly as attributed to the CNY. In contrast, it suffered a lot more (unnecessarily at times) despite several common features shared between the two. For example, the  predominately red colour used for garments and decorations. While it is claimed to be a no-no to wear like Santa in red, it seems alright to be in red for CNY. Non-Chinese leaders and guests were spotted to put on some Chinese-like fashions! Similarly, a symbolic tree of sorts attached to both. The Christmas tree is somewhat made more controversial by some, unlike the Mandarin orange tree, or the variants thereof. In fact, there is no issue to  purchase the oranges and consuming them in public. So too the symbolic creatures associated with both - Rudolph, the red-nosed "flying" reindeer versus the Wood Snake in accordance to the Chinese Zodiac, for Christmas and CNY festivals respectively! The Christmas "mascot" is somehow looked upon by some with suspicion!

 

Why the difference in treatment is not only hard to fathom, but has caused much confusion! Leading to discrimination, if not mistrust, unintentionally perhaps. 

 

Even more so, when celebrating 2025 as the "new" year without even asking what is "new" and by what definition? Indeed, it is often assumed as entirely a routine secular change which is not the case at all because it is designated as "the year of the Lord," in this case, Jesus Christ. Or simply known as A.D. - Anno Domini, meaning the same in Latin, representing the years after Christ was born. Although nowadays, the AD is unspecified or at times replaced by CE, namely Common Era, the intent remains,  "common" to whom? The response is the similar: the (Christian) West! 

 

Prior to AD,  was BC - short for Before Christ, which is self-explanatory. Later BCE - Before Common Era, was adopted using the same semantics. In other words, the line of argument as applied to the Christmas controversy is identical, but somehow conveniently ignored! This allows for an official nationwide "new" year celebration with  a high-powered address by the government of the day, ever since. The glaring double standards is not only confined to selected festive occasions, but on daily basis as embraced by the solar annual calender. In short, arguably, the "new" year celebration for 2025 should have been "prohibited" too - officially at least. If a day as in Christmas faces so much "regulations", how can we tolerate something similar for 365 days and beyond, refering it to the  Gregorian calender which was introduced by no less, Pope Gregory XIII in the papal bull Inter gravissimas to replace the one before it. That it is heavily influenced by the Church is plain to see. Christmas therefore has been unfairly singled out, as compared to the Gregorian initiative which is a daily occurrence since Christ was "born". More baffling still is when some Malaysian states reportedly changed one of their weekend holidays from Friday to Sunday, a Christian holy day recently.

 

So what is the real basis for the do's and don'ts issued by the power that be leading to so much contradictions bordering on discrimination!

 

Be that as it may, the Wood Snake unfortunately is caught in a highly unlikely issue, thanks to the so-called "ham sandwic" controversy as highlighted by the students in a local university recently. It is said to involve a named chain-outlet, operating in campus, noted for its role in a recent heated boycott action throughout the country. This time making the situation even worst, even though the cause is less about the do's and don'ts. Instead, it is deemed to be more serious involving the violation of a well stated law related to the "halal" labelling by the relevant authority.

 

So much so, as it stands today the suspect has reportedly been reprimanded. The sandwich supplier is allegedly charged with misusing halal label. This may well be just the tip of the iceberg since the wrong doing and negligence can occur anywhere like in the previous stocking case involving that same named outlet. Only this, seen as a callous repeat of the previous fiasco demanded more rigour explain and action. To regard it as another co-incident is rather naive, if not dishonest! The risk is that it is widening further the trust-deficit that is raising more questions than answers: when will this end?