Bugger 7-Eleven

May 22 — Drink up mate, before 7-Eleven gets you! Diabolical as it may sound, the leading convenience store franchise has come out strong in support of using its employees to cut beer supply to Muslims in Selangor.
In what is as apparent effort to win brownie points with Pakatan Rakyat coalition member PAS, Mentri Besar risks raising the ire of the many who loathe to have government overreach.


The company has been around for a long time, but the demise of the traditional provision shop in urban areas has seen the viral proliferation of the stores. They are ubiquitous across the Klang Valley, and night-outs inadvertently brings you to a 7-Eleven at some point.
The company has placed stickers in its stores saying Muslims can’t buy beer, but now they are willingly taking the next step to demand ICs in order to exclude Muslim buyers.
The ethical question here is, what has my countrymen — Muslim or not — drinking beer has got to do with the state.
Underage drinking is frowned upon and I welcome ID checks to prevent it. Drunk driving endangers lives, and strong enforcement is great. Alcoholism destroys a person’s well-being, and therefore education, engagement and social services are necessary.
The choice of social drinking is not the government’s place to regulate.
In a time where sober states like Utah are increasing alcohol sale possibilities as a means to increase state coffers, it is awkward for Malaysia to move the other way.
Granted alcohol tax is federal and not state, so my state does not enjoy the funds from it; but the industry is an economic generator, with the main breweries located in Selangor.

Selangor government

This is the government I put my full support behind, and I would like to appeal to those leading this move to reduce access to beer in Selangor, that there is a silent majority which is does not advocate these measures.
Most Selangor residents — Muslims and not — prefer to let individuals choose their lifestyles. There is enough space for the religious right to make their case to the populace — mosques, schools and media. If the message is does not reach your constituents, maybe they have made up their minds.
Stopping them from purchasing in 7-Elevens is degrading and presumptuous.


The word is so self-explanatory that the inability of the many to perceive it for what it is, confounds me. It just means people are different.
Yet there is a view to reduce it, or even hide it.
Personal choices reflect the personal developments of individuals, and you cannot regulate personality.
It is no coincidence nations that defend personal choices are also the best-liked nations, and lure the brightest and the young — our young and our brightest not excluded.
It is a bit hypocritical of our state government to argue that it is more inclusive than BN when there is less tolerance for personal choice.
I can’t change things just by writing, but I can use my wallet. I’ll not be frequenting any 7-Elevens in the near future, and I’ll ask all those who believe in the right to choose not to go there too. After all, this corporation actually thinks it gets to decide our values. Shame on them.

10 thoughts on “Bugger 7-Eleven

  1. “The choice of social drinking is not the government’s place to regulate”

    There’s no term as “social drinkin” among the Muslim… so the regulation is valid…

    well, its a bit funny, but thanks for ur concern nway.. =D

    1. I don’t think you nor I have the right to decide what should be the personal choices of individuals. You can speak for yourself, but you cannot speak on behalf of other people, muslim or not.
      I like being funny. Thanks 🙂

  2. huem…

    Then, if a wife having affair with other men, should the hubby backing her up by saying, it’s her “personal choice”, ehhh??

    1. I love these what if questions.
      He has the personal choice not to be in that relationship anymore.
      He can’t limit her time outside the house, check on her mobile phone, ok her meetings with friends in order to keep her from ‘having an affair’.
      People must build their own basis for trust with other people and not use moral dictates/laws in order to force an outcome.

  3. HI

    Actually it wasn’t a direct question, but it was an analogy….

    You said “He has the personal choice not to be in that relationship anymore” which means having an affair are not acceptable in marriage even as the wife, have actually done nothing wrong as according to you “no one has the right to decide what should be the personal choices of individuals”, right ??..
    I think the same thing applies on “social drinking” issues among the Muslim…. drinking might be individuals right, but that shouldn’t be the excuse for the Muslim to disobey their religious teachings…
    Same rules apply in marriage institution….

    As on moral dictates/law… I think we should follow Singaporean best on this… They ban “chewing gum” which have much successfully discipline their citizens on cleanness issues… && I don’t see why it can’t be apply here??? What are their justifications to rule such law? I think any laws which may force “positive” outcome, should just be employ.

  4. Emma49,

    The context applied here is not the same. Singapore banned chewing gum because it was considered a menace to society. Gum was stuck on MRT door censors, on public buses, littered everywhere. It was also a huge costs to clean up. This was a menace that affected Singapore society as a whole. It was not a question of morality but simple economics, the cost to society.

    When an act or choice has a negative impact on anyone other than yourself, then it is fair for the state and society to outlaw it. Intoxicating yourself is your choice because it affects you. However if you become violent(whether drunk or not), drive recklessly(whether drunk or not) or negatively affect another person or the public in general, then the state has the responsibility to reprimand you.

    The state has no right to police morality, because morality is a personal choice. Religion can have it’s traditions, conventions and laws prohibiting and/or guiding it’s followers. However if a follower decides to contradict his religion, the institution has no legal right to compel it’s followers against their will. The only option they have is to disavow the person. Religion and state do not mix, it’s fact that has been proved over and over again.

    P.S. States that outlaw alcohol ended up driving it underground, Gujarat has a zero tolerance alcohol policy, ironically it has the highest consumption of alcohol in India per capita. Prostitution is illegal in Saudi Arabia, UAE, Pakistan, Sudan, Iran, Syria. However, prostitution is thriving in these very same places and patronised by all religious groups (the states deny it’s existence). Prohibition whether alcohol, drugs or prostitution does not work. It actually drives consumption, the only means of control is legalization. A good case study is the drug legalization in Portugal and Holland.

  5. Jason,

    well its might be a different context, but its still using the same “principle”… to rule “dictates/morals law to force an outcome”… for whatever reasons it might be…

    What says you on the rights of a “community” to have their cultures & traditions to be protected by states laws?… in this case, for the malays muslim to protects their community members from “morality” acts deemed as against their culture & believes…

  6. Emma,

    What is the point of forcing people against their will in the name of culture or community ? It doesn’t make them holier nor better people. There’s a reason why we have free will.

    If states start legislating, what you can drink or eat, who you can talk to, what you can think about; there just isn’t a point anymore. Live your life and do what you think is right, don’t judge your neighbour.

    If a person wanted to drink beer so badly, but restrained from doing so for fear of being arrested; or plain couldn’t buy it because 7-11 wouldn’t sell it to him; does he get any brownie points ?

    Resisting temptation is when you have a choice in the matter and you CHOOSE to resist, when you don’t have a choice, it’s compulsion. I do no support any form of compulsion (compelling people against their will) when it involves personal choices.

  7. “Live your life and do what you think is right, don’t judge your neighbour.”

    I think thats will be a great motto for an individualistic society inspired to be!! more alike a copy-cat to singapore…

    if you want a better malaysia, do learn to understand your neighbours better especially the Malays Muslim.. dont try to seek an easy escape by simplying things and to refuse to understand the rational behind their acts…

    After 50++ years of sharing a nation, most of us, the malay + chinese + indian still do talk like “strangers” ?? arent it weird?? living together but “not” actually being together?? a FAKE society, maybe??

  8. Emma,

    I’m not sure what it is that you find unacceptable with Singapore. Please do elaborate. Singapore is definitely leaps and bounds ahead of us.

    Understanding different cultures work both ways, it’s not a one way street. Everybody should try to understood each member of his community, diversity doesn’t start and stop with religion alone.

    Can you clarify Emma: In your view is compulsion acceptable (forcing people against their will) ? More specifically: Is it acceptable to force people who want to drink alcohol to adhere to your morality ? This will help me better understand your rationale Emma, I don’t want to use the easy escape route.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.