Non-Halal, Halal trolley plan draws flak

PETALING JAYA - A proposal that trolley use in supermarkets be divided between halal and non-halal products has drawn flak from multi-racial groups.

It is just not practical, said Malaysian Muslim Solidarity (Isma) president Abdullah Zaik Abdul Rahman.

“Islam is not about making things difficult,” he said.

Abdullah said a different mechanism should be devised instead, as it was not practical to monitor each and every trolley in public spaces.

He said it would be better if porcine-based products were sold separately.

“And customers also had an option to shop elsewhere if operators failed to check on the risk of porcine contamination,” he said.

Abdullah said this in response to Domestic Trade, Co-operatives and Consumerism Minister Hamzah Zaidudin’s recent statement that the Government was mulling over the possibility of drafting new laws to compel supermarkets to supply different sets of trolleys for consumers to ensure halal products were not contaminated with non-halal items.

Prof Dr Adeeba Kamarulzaman of G25 Group of Eminent Malays said the halal and non-halal issue had been taken to a point of “absurdity”.

“It sadly reflects the somewhat shallow understanding of Islam by many in the country,” said Adeeba, stressing that it was her personal view.

MIC Youth chief C. Sivarraajh said having separate trolleys was against the concept of moderation advocated by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.

“Having two trolleys in supermarkets is not practising moderation at all. It is taking things too far,” Sivarraajh said in a statement.

He said if such demands were granted, it would set the stage for exclusivity, trigger disunity and block the path towards moderation.

“For a long time, Muslims and non-Muslims had co-existed without such rules. Now, these rules that separate us is given credence.”

MCA Religious Harmony Bureau chairman Datuk Seri Ti Lian Ker said separating trolleys would only promote further segregation.

Ti said a proper study should have been carried before such insensitive ideas were made public, sparking unnecessary debates.

“Politicians or any Tom, Dick, and Harry should not express such explosive ideas for personal glory,” he said.

“Leaders, policy makers and the executive should focus their energy and resources on pressing issues such as polarisation, over-sensitivity and extremism, rather than splitting hairs debating on subjects that could further deepen racial and religious divide,” he said.