Blog

  • SCDF And SPF Used Real Foreign Workers In Riot Simulation Exercise

    SCDF And SPF Used Real Foreign Workers In Riot Simulation Exercise

    Just when you thought the human rights transgression in Singapore cannot get worse, it surprises you with what else it can do.

    Apparently, the government wanted to test the Singapore Police Force and the Singapore Civil Defence Force on how they would respond if a riot occurs at the foreign worker dormitories.

    “What if some quarrels erupt, leading to fights or worse?,” National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan asked on his Facebook.

    “To test our response capability, the Police, the SCDF, the dorms operators and our grassroots organisations organised a simulation exercise recently.

    “It was a useful way to network up the various agencies, and spread preventive messages.

    “Prevention is always better than cure,” Mr Khaw said.

    Sounds like a disease?

    No, actually Mr Khaw is talking about actual human beings here – yes, the foreign workers who build the flats that his ministry manages.

    And to conduct the test, actual foreign workers were asked to “riot” so that the police and civil defence could then quell the riot.

    It is uncertain why Indian workers were used or why it seems that a drill needs to be conducted specifically with foreign workers.

    Mr Khaw also said that, “given the concentration of foreign workers in one locality”, “These are possible scenarios (that they can riot).”

    As if it is not bad enough that the foreign workers in these dormitories earn the lowest wages in Singapore – as low as $300 to $500 every month, they are made to take part in exercises that discriminates against them.

    On 8 December last year, a riot took place in Little India, after a private bus knocked down and killed a foreign worker from India. The government blamed the riot on the rioters having drunk alcohol.

    Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had said, “We should not generalise a group because of some individuals. I don’t think that is fair or justifiable because their (foreign workers) crime rates are, in fact, lower than Singaporeans in general.”

    Sure, and this is why we need to conduct an exercise on riot management at a foreign worker dormitory.

     

    Source: www.therealsingapore.com

  • American Hijab: Donning The Hijab As a Socio-Political Statement Rather Than A symbol of Religiosity

    American Hijab: Donning The Hijab As a Socio-Political Statement Rather Than A symbol of Religiosity

    I remember donning the hijab for the first time three years ago. I say it was the first time, but really it was one of many times that I had slipped it on, standing in front of the mirror and adjusting the folds of fabric around my face. Yet this time was different. Rather than take it off after prayer or a visit to the local masjid (mosque), I was hoping to wear it regularly.

    It was sometime in winter during my freshman year of college at Northwestern, and I had spent my first three months of college searching for my place among thousands of students. Like any freshmen, I had several identifying factors that felt true, things that I felt could not go unmentioned as I sought out the people who would become my closest friends. These included everything from my taste in books and music to my leftist political stance, but also my religion.

    As a Muslim growing up in a post 9/11 world, I was accustomed to misconceptions about my religion, my race, and my identity. I was acutely aware of the way I navigated the world as a brown body, and how experiences of hate and injustice only magnified themselves when my mother (wearing hijab) or my sister (darker with characteristic African hair) accompanied me places. My body, in spite of its brown shade, was still in the liminal world of racial ambiguity, a place where I could pass into whiteness when it seemed convenient. There were few markers of my race and my religion. In spite of this, however, I had often felt that my religion was not something to be shed or stifled and hidden for the sake of others, for the sake of their comfort. I did not shy away from my heritage, my deeply Egyptian roots, the pride I felt for Africa and Arabia and Islam. They were the places that made me a blank-American, someone different.

    That day in winter, as a lonely and homesick freshman, I remembered that being different was far from wanting or choosing to be different. That, in fact, I was not in control of my narrative so long as I still sought the acceptance of those who might never want to understand me. My desire to wear hijab increased in that moment. Hijab became a symbol of my rejection of white-passing (or at the very least racial ambiguity), a privilege I was distinctly aware I had, and that I knew was not afforded to many of my fellow non-white Americans.

    While hijab has historically had a reputation of being a number of things to “the West,” rebellion has rarely been one of them. Certainly among many Muslims and in many Muslim nations it is often considered a sign of piety, or at the very least culture and respect. Yet rebellion, or perhaps a better word is resistance, is one of the many reasons many Muslims wear hijab.

    In fact, in the 1970s and ’80s, after a period of secularism, many Muslim majority countries were undergoing an Islamic revival, where the society (not the political regimes) responded to its conditions by adopting religion again. It was a reversal of the Westernisation approach, undermining the belief of my grandparents’ generation that the West was strengthening Muslim nations. My mother describes choosing the hijab in college during the ’80s, a little after this revival. Her parents, the previous generation, rejected her decision; theirs was an era where few women wore hijab, where much of the traditional clothing was left behind in favor of western attire, where alcohol was widely accepted rather than forbidden.

    Many American Muslims wear hijab much like the women of the Islamic revival, as a response to the changing times and a rejection of Western influence. While it seems counter-intuitive to wear hijab in a world that increasingly has a negative perception of Muslims, particularly when the consensus among many American Muslims is that one can be religious with our without it, there is a significant presence of American Muslim women wearing the hijab as a strong sense of identity. As one of these women, I know and have insight to a representation of hijab that is rarely portrayed — a representation that I call the American hijab, the antithesis and retaliation to whiteness and the American media, and a nod of solidarity to other people of color.

    In this sense, hijab, rather than strictly being a religious decision, is also a sociopolitical choice and representation. In spite of, or rather in response to, the negative portrayal of Muslims by those (Muslims and non-Muslims) who seek to define our narrative as one of barbaric killing and atrocity, women choose hijab — a piece of cloth that declares their identity as Muslims while simultaneously expressing their individual identity as smart, driven, successful, and independent. A simple yet powerful message. A way in which Muslim women can reclaim their narrative.

    In choosing to wear the hijab, American Muslim women reconstruct the narrative of Islam in America. More importantly, they define American Islam and celebrate its rich cultural treasures: Islamic songs by Cat Stevens after his conversion, legendary icons like Malcolm X, Muhammad Ali and Kareem Abdul Jabbar, a deep sense of community that transcends immigrant heritage to become a new national heritage of its own, a style of hijab and clothing developed to bring together Islamic tradition from across the globe.

    This American Islam has blossomed in many forms: the Mipsters (Muslim hipsters), Muppies (Muslim Urban Professionals), IMAN (Inner-city Muslim Action Network), and many more coalitions of young Muslim Americans who bring together their cross-cultural heritage — their America and their Islam — and share it with the world on a daily basis, through creative productions, concerts, health clinics and activist movements. While each coalition and organization has its own goals, they share a young, vibrant population of men and women alike with a common religious ideology, but also a sociopolitical identity.

    In the same vein, American Muslim women have created communities for hijabi fashion. With blogs, magazines, a strong social media presence, conferences, and more, these women are the epitome of the American hijab as an intricate sociopolitical identity. Instagram is littered with photos of stylish, smart women redefining the traditional garment, following the lead of women like international popstar Yuna. In their defiance of social convention, American Muslim women wearing hijab have paved the way for others and developed a sense of social consciousness and social justice among themselves.

    While this story of resistance may seem new, it is not unique to Muslim women. It is a story that rings true for many individuals of color, whether it manifests itself as choosing to don an afro or to participate in the traditions of our non-American ancestors. It is the story of rejecting social pressure, of rejecting the influence of western media and the western world, and of choosing to openly and clearly declare our difference in a society that readily rejects us as part of its narrative.

    The choice is embracing that difference and declaring it before anyone else can. This often means representing entire worlds, but it also means liberation from the pressures that society imposes with respect to beauty, identity, race, and culture. At the end of the day when I have fears about continuing to represent my faith without trepidation, I remember that I wear my hijab for the empowerment it grants me in declaring where I stand in a world that — more often than not — is in opposition to all that I am.

    I remind myself of the power and privilege of having the choice to decide whether I am explicitly seen or unseen for my difference, and for the ability to pass. While hijab is important to me as both a religious and sociopolitical statement, it is not my skin. At the end of the day, it is a piece of fabric that can be shed. Yet it is my way of acknowledging the unique responsibility and burden that people of color share with respect to teaching others about their identities. To my brothers and sisters of color out there: solidarity

    The story first appeared on xoJane.com

    Source: http://time.com

  • Misunderstanding Led To One-Armed Runner Adam Kamis Dropping Out from Subaru Challenge

    Misunderstanding Led To One-Armed Runner Adam Kamis Dropping Out from Subaru Challenge

    SINGAPORE: One-armed athlete Adam Kamis has dropped out of the MediaCorp Subaru Challenge and all because of a misunderstanding. He was one of about 10 people who had gone past the 72-hour mark in the annual endurance challenge.

    Adam had moved his hand to scratch his nose as he thought the challenge was “temporarily halted” after the marshal told him: “You just need to hold this position temporarily”.

    “My nose was itchy and I only have one arm, so basically I literally lifted up my left arm and I scratched my nose. They told me: ‘You can’t do that – the challenge is ongoing’,” Adam told Channel NewsAsia.

    “I just accepted it, it’s just a human mistake. It’s a bittersweet experience for me – I am able to do something beyond my own expectations, but because of how I left the whole challenge, it’s a bit sad,” he added. His official timing was 72 hours and 44 minutes in the competition before dropping out.

    He added that he was “happy and grateful” to show others that “disabled doesn’t mean unable”.

    A contestant from Thailand dropped out about the same time as Adam. Nine people – including the last female participant, Analiza Mokhtar – are in the running to win a 2-litre Subaru Forester worth S$85,000, excluding COE. This is Ms Mokhtar’s eighth time taking part in the challenge.

     

    Source: www.channelnewsasia.com

  • Xenophobic Singaporeans and What We Can Do About It

    Xenophobic Singaporeans and What We Can Do About It

    Xenophobia is on the rise in Singapore. After a wealthy Chinese expatriate crashed his Ferrari into a taxi and killed the driver and passenger in May 2012, and Indian migrant workers rioted in response to the death of a fellow employee in 2013, racist comments have become increasingly prevalent on online social-networking platforms. 80% of participants in an online 2012 Yahoo! poll agreed that “Singaporeans are turning xenophobic.” But something strange is also going on: even though xenophobia seems to have increased, 6 out of 10 Singaporeans still agree or strongly agree that the country is free from both racial and religious tension.

    Is there a contradiction here? What’s happened, and where are we going?

    Paul Chu examines this question in his dissertation, titled “Migration and the Politics of Multiculturalism in Singapore“.

    What’s Going On?

    The Chinese-Malay-Indian-Other model has framed our understanding of race since the colonial era, when the Jackson Plan of 1822 first segregated Singaporeans by ethnicity. But the huge wave of immigration has stretched the model, and it isn’t flexible enough to cope.

    1. The CMIO model is struggling to cope with recent challenges

    The Singapore state is what academics call “corporatist”. This means that a strong elite sets social norms and has firm political authority to achieve harmony. The CMIO model was the chosen norm. It has maintained racial harmony in three ways:

    1.De-politicizing ethnicity
    2.influencing people to turn ethnic-based loyalty into a civic-based one
    3.promoting the principle of equality across all ethnic groups

    While the model has worked for a long time, it is facing a challenge unlike any it has seen before because of the unprecedented levels of migration since 2005. The graph below shows this rapid increase in the migrant population:

    2. Singaporean society does not understand race like the CMIO model

    One major reason why CMIO racial categorization cannot cope with migrants is that it conflates race, ethnicity and culture. Society, on the other hand, seems to distinguish between the three ideas.

    For example, a 2013 IPS-OnePeople.sg survey of over 4000 Singaporeans showed that while 93.8% of non-Chinese respondents were comfortable with a Singaporean-Chinese boss, this figure dropped by nearly 20 percentage points if he was Mainland-Chinese. We see this also with other races. In the curry feud in 2011, a Singaporean-Chinese woman defended a Singaporean-Indian family, and was “incensed with a People’s Republic of China family telling my fellowmen not to cook curry”, suggesting a redefinition of “us” and “them” that was along cultural rather than racial lines.

    3. Relying on the government to solve the problem is part of the problem

    The corporatist model that underlies CMIO also creates a larger problem: it has made citizens rely too much on the government to determine racial identity. When citizens are resentful about immigrants, they look to the state to solve the problem. But given that Singaporeans are increasingly skeptical about central authority, they also reject the state’s solutions. Ultimately, this leads to greater dissatisfaction with both the state and immigrants, thereby completing a vicious downward spiral as shown below:

    Spiral

    What can we do?

    1. Recognize that race is not the only identity marker.

    Integration will not happen just because migrants share the same race as Singaporeans. Racial categories such as “Chinese” or “Indian” are complicated by class and nationality. While the government has officially dialed down overt race-based categorizations, the narrative of the CMIO model still influences society’s understanding of race. Instead, we should encourage a broad understanding of our national identity as Singaporeans, yet also recognize our migrant roots so that even new migrants can integrate.

    2. Be more transparent.

    We as Singaporeans need to take charge of integrating foreigners. Increasing transparency around discussions about migration and ethnicity will make it easier for us to do so. For example, if citizens were able to access public information about the non-residents living around them, or knew more about the procedures behind PR and citizen selection, we would be more likely to own the problem than to see this as an issue that the government must solve.

    3. Realize that citizenship is not just about economics.

    The state needs to show that they appreciate the emotive aspect of citizenship, instead of justifying migration entirely on economic grounds and demanding compliance. The citizenship naturalization process should be more rigorous to ensure better integration.

    4. Strive for encounters, not just physical co-existence.

    Different cultures and races should not just exist side by side, each in their own bubble. That is a holdover from the colonial idea of segregation and with it the CMIO model. Instead, the goal should be to have different cultures and races interact constructively with one another.

     

    This article snapshot was prepared by the editorial team. It was based on a final year dissertation at the University of Cambridge written by Paul Chu, who received First Class Honours for his work and presented the paper at the IRiS-University of Birmingham International Conference 2014 on Superdiversity. For more insights and nuance, please see the full paper.

     

    Source: http://singaporepolicyjournal.com

  • “Halal” Butcher in Switzerland Sold Pork to Muslims for 3 Years

    “Halal” Butcher in Switzerland Sold Pork to Muslims for 3 Years

    A “halal” butcher has been taken to court after selling pork to Muslim customers for over three years.

    According to Morocco World News, the Swiss butcher reportedly sold 3.1 tons of pork to his Muslim customers, telling them it was halal and trying to pass it off as calf meat.

    Upon inspection of his facility, it was discovered that what he was selling as calf meat looked nothing like it should.

    “If customers had known it was pork, they would not have bought it because Islam forbids the consumption of this type of meat,” the prosecutor handling the case said.

    Now, the man is facing six months of jail time and is being fined 18,000 Swiss francs, which equates to roughly £11,880.

    He was charged with “fraud and misrepresentation.”

    As Morocco News noted, the butcher was engaging in two-fold deception in selling pork as if it were veal.

    Firstly, Muslims were buying and consuming pork, which is against their religion.

    Secondly, he was making higher profits since pork is cheaper than calf meat.

     

    Source: www.5pillarz.com

deneme bonusu