‘Pride’ and Online Prejudice: Not All Aboard Malaysia’s Keretapi Sarong (Sarong Train)

In Malaysia’s increasingly polarised landscape, public events may run the risk of sparking flashpoints in wider national discourse, where ideological contestations emerge. This was the case with this year’s Keretapi Sarong, a grassroots-driven event in Malaysia which invites participants to ride trains together, dressed in sarongs of diverse patterns and colours, symbolising the country’s rich diversity and shared cultural heritage. It also serves as a platform for minority communities to share their culture with others.

However, what would be understood by most as an expression of cultural pride may now be perceived by others as a Pride parade or more specifically, as the legitimisation or even tacit celebration of queer rights and gender expression. The latter perception formed the basis of a backlash against this year’s Keretapi Sarong, rendering a well-meaning celebration of Malaysian heritage into a battleground of competing values and identities.

Now in its ninth year, Keretapi Sarong is held in conjunction with Malaysia Day, which commemorates the formation of Malaysia on 16 September 1963. This year’s event on 13 September saw 20,000 participants gather across 11 train stations in the Klang Valley. In recognition of its effort to preserve and celebrate Malaysia’s cultural heritage, the event received the Best ASEAN Cultural Preservation Effort award earlier this year.

First held in 2012 and organised by arts collective Random Alphabets, Keretapi Sarong was inspired by the ‘No Pants Subway Ride’ in New York City, USA. Event founder Zain Al-Haddad has said that it was meant to “get people together to have fun”. Intended to promote unity among Malaysians through cultural attire, song and dance, it has grown over the years as a low-cost, people-powered event. Not only does Keretapi Sarong celebrate cultural heritage, but it also encourages the use of public transport. Non-profit group LOCCO took over the organisation of the event in 2017.

When LOCCO announced when this year’s event would be held, they explicitly stated that participants should dress according to their gender, emphasising that it would be free of “LGBT ideology”, perhaps anticipating detractors. In response, a particular post on X (formerly Twitter) by user @haysrr – which received five million views – criticised the organisers for being “transphobic” and curbing “self-expression”. 

Presumably an ally, the user faced intense backlash for her post, with most netizens proudly expressing anti-LGBTQ sentiments, with some even proclaiming that “transphobia is our culture”. Other commentators emphasised that the event is not a Pride Parade and that such cultural events should not be hijacked by unrelated ideologies, and made derogatory comments about LGBTQ people. Following the event on 13 September, which passed without incident, online discussions continued about how it was a “Pride event in disguise”.

The aftermath perhaps also reflects growing hypersensitivity in Malaysia’s public discourse…

While criticising the organisers of Keretapi Sarong for requesting gender normative dress codes may be valid given the potential for marginalising queer people or the LGBTQ cause, it is crucial to situate this within Malaysia’s broader socio-religious and legal context. Cross-dressing or more broadly, non-gender conforming behaviour (including appearance) and actions are highly sensitive topics in Malaysia.

In 1982, for instance, the National Fatwa Council issued a fatwa (edict by an ulama) banning sex reassignment surgery. Since then, individual states have followed up with fatwas and shariah laws on gender identity which criminalise cross-dressing. While the Court of Appeal in Negeri Sembilan ruled such laws as unconstitutional in 2014, the ruling was overturned in 2015. Today, shariah laws in all 13 states stipulate that cross-dressing is illegal and un-Islamic.

Given this context, especially with growing Muslim conservatism in the country and a Muslim-majority demographic, Keretapi Sarong’s organisers might have wanted to pre-empt any backlash from religious authorities or conservative segments of Malaysian society through their caution to participants. Afterall, controversy about cross-dressing had already erupted in February when some male social media influencers turned up at a national music awards event dressed in women’s clothing. Nonetheless, it is difficult to please everyone: while Keretapi Sarong organisers’ request for participants to dress according to their respective genders might have been cautious and aimed at preserving harmony, it still appeared to some as transphobic and exclusionary, or as pandering to conservative voices.

The online engagement aftermath illustrates the delicate balance that even allies are forced to strike – between advocacy for marginalised (in this case, the LGBTQ) communities and respecting the original intent of public and non-political events such as Keretapi Sarong. Recall that the X user @haysrr, who criticised the event, was not only met with transphobic comments but also labelled “straightphobic” (meaning hostile towards heterosexual and cisgender people).

The aftermath perhaps also reflects growing hypersensitivity in Malaysia’s public discourse, where the slightest criticism — regardless where one’s position is on the political or ideological spectrum — can lead to a disproportionate response, or worse, a ‘culture war’ where calls for inclusivity may be viewed as pushing a certain agenda, while expressions supporting tradition or conservatism are criticised for being exclusionary.

Thus, the challenge would be for Malaysians to find effective ways to respect the original intention of an event, while ensuring that marginalised communities are respected and given room for expression. Government authorities, organisers, and civil society actors all play a crucial role in adopting a more inclusive approach. This can include developing clearer guidelines for public events; the organisers being willing to have dialogue and come to a middle ground with detractors, where feasible; and cultivating a national culture of respectful disagreement without alienating anyone.

2025/309