The Flag, Patriotism, and the Perils of Selective Outrage

charismamovement
Sep 21
4 min read

Over the past few months, Malaysia has seen a spate of incidents involving the Jalur Gemilang. Some stemmed from misprints in newspapers, others from incorrect hoisting outside government buildings and private businesses. These occurrences reveal neither orchestrated intent, communal provocation, nor a coordinated attack on the nation’s dignity. They are, in almost every case, innocent mistakes that often arise during the lead-up to 31 August, when flags are abundantly displayed in national pride. Such errors warrant nothing more than a polite correction. No individual acting rationally would choose such conspicuous and self-defeating means of protest.

Yet, the response in certain quarters has been disproportionate. Earlier this month, a hardware shop in Penang became the centre of a controversy after mistakenly flying the flag upside down. The owner corrected the mistake and issued a public apology, but on 14 August a crowd of some 200 people assembled outside the shop. Participants marched for 1.4 kilometres while chanting slogans and waving placards bearing messages such as “Rise to defend the nation’s dignity” and “Reject treachery”. The event was framed as a defence of sovereignty, but in practice it amounted to public shaming. The shop had already rectified its error, but the ongoing mobilisation inflicted reputational harm rather than serving any corrective purpose. The shop owner was nevertheless arrested, while the organisers defended their actions as patriotic.

This raises a fundamental question: when does protest cross the line into harassment? Malaysia’s newly amended Penal Code provides an answer. Sections 507B to 507G criminalise conduct including threatening or abusive language, intimidation, sustained psychological provocation, and misuse of personal information. Under the law, harassment is defined as persistent and unreasonable conduct that causes fear, alarm, or distress. Judged against this threshold, the demonstration in Penang fits several criteria. It was targeted, sustained, and coercive despite the prior apology. It caused emotional and reputational harm. The legal test is clear: such actions should be treated as harassment and investigated accordingly.

Equally troubling is the selectivity of outrage. Similar flag mishaps have taken place in police stations and media outlets without triggering protests of comparable scale. The fact that mobilisation occurred in Penang, against a small business owner, suggests that outrage is not purely patriotic but selectively deployed, often against more vulnerable targets. In a plural society, such selectivity risks taking on ethnic undertones. While demonstrators may claim nationalist intent, the optics are different when the object of the protest is an ethnic minority. This is not to accuse the protesters of racism, but it highlights how structural bias emerges when outrage is unchecked.

Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim has since cautioned Malaysians against using the Jalur Gemilang as a pretext for stoking ethnic divisions. While acknowledging that the flag must be respected as a symbol of sovereignty, he warned that provocations around it can easily become vehicles for division. His remarks came as the leader of the rally in Penang was charged under section 505(b) of the Penal Code for remarks allegedly calculated to incite alarm. He pleaded not guilty.

The wider impact of these incidents had a chilling effect on ordinary Malaysians. It is saddening that even something as simple as flying the Jalur Gemilang, a gesture meant to express unity, can now feel fraught with risk. When small mistakes are amplified into accusations of disloyalty, patriotism is no longer about shared pride but about guarding against suspicion. Socio-political commentator Professor Dr Mohamad Tajuddin Mohamad Rasdi confessed that he was fearful of displaying the flag this year, lest an accident invite harassment. His apprehension is telling: if respected academics are second-guessing whether to celebrate Merdeka openly, how much more must ordinary citizens hesitate? The flag should inspire confidence, not anxiety. To allow fear to take root is to concede that performative outrage has eclipsed genuine national pride.

The Jalur Gemilang undoubtedly deserves respect, as it represents Malaysia’s constitutional order and collective identity. But respect for the flag must not come at the expense of respect for the people it symbolises. True patriotism begins with humility. The recognition that loving one’s country does not require perfect symbols or unquestioning displays, but a daily commitment to fairness, responsibility, and care for fellow citizens. It is shown not through loud denunciations but through small, consistent acts that strengthen the social fabric: treating neighbours with dignity, respecting differences, and contributing honestly to the common good. Unlike performative outrage, which thrives on vilifying others, genuine patriotism uplifts. It asks us to defend the dignity of our people as fiercely as we defend the dignity of our flag. Cultivating such patriotism requires leadership that models restraint, communities that reward empathy rather than hostility, and institutions that uphold the law impartially. Only then will national pride be a source of unity rather than fear.

As Malaysia approaches Merdeka, it is worth remembering that the dignity of the nation lies not only in its symbols, but in the way its people treat one another. Errors with the flag may be regrettable, but the greater danger lies in allowing them to be weaponised against the very unity that the Jalur Gemilang was meant to inspire.

By,

Shermin Leow,

Static Journalist,

Charisma Movement 2025

Written on 26 August 2025