Rilek1Corner

Tag: Agama

  • Government’s Stance on Hijab Issue: No Change for more than 10 years

    tudungdialogue25Jan2014

    Splashed across two main papers today, namely Berita Minggu and the Sunday Times, were the government’s position on the hijab issue. Never has a piece of cloth generated so much buzz online and offline with polarized responses in support or otherwise.

    The government, true to its style, in a closed door dialogue with “community leaders”, reiterated its position once again. In gist, it’s akin to saying, we understand the concerns and aspirations of the community, yet for now, we are still unable to accede to that request.

    PM, in his dialogue was reported to have said, “the issue is broader than the hijab itself. . . It is about what sort of society we want to build in Singapore” (ST, 26Jan 2014: 1). My question here is this, what sort of society exactly is he referring to? One that separates totally the secular from the religion? Or one that sees the Singapore community as a homogeneous community?

    What is problematic about the stance that the Singapore government is adopting is, while it claims that it is building a multiracial society “where everyone has full and equal opportunities, the minority community can live its own way of life, practice its faith to the maximum way possible and not be . . . marginalized by the majority” (ibid), it is going against the very exact grain of that statement.

    There has been no thoughtful, insightful and intellectual rationalization of the hijab not being allowed to be worn in certain segments of the workplace. Highlighting that in the past 10 years, we have seen more agencies being flexible and allowing or incorporating the hijab at the workplace is a mere red herring to the bigger issue at hand. In fact, what it does show is that wearing the hijab is not an impediment or posing a problem to the worker or agency itself.

    Short ofcalling this a racist marginalization of a minority community, this reluctance to allow the hijab in various sectors are clearly bogged down by baggage from the past, stereotypes and the government’s obsession with uniformity and homogeneity.To them, having an outward show of religious symbols, would not exemplify Singapore as the model nation where it is secular yet still allowing the various religions to practice it in their own private spheres.

    There is a bigger problem, one that stems mainly from a prejudicial majority view. It is the wanting of minority communities to be assimilated into the culture of the majority. To them, if we can keep our religions to our private domains, why can’t you do the same? Without doubt, this attempt at the sinicization of the minority groups couched as building a multiracial society is clearly at odds with each other.Multiracialism should support diversity, and not creating one homogeneous society with only certain traits plucked and mixed together from the various societies.

    To date, we have not been told or it been clearly explained to us what this push back from other communities may be and frankly, had this been such an issue or point of contention with the other races, they would have made their sentiments known.Their nonchalance or perhaps non response on this issue points to 2 things: 1) either they really don’t know that the Muslims are facing this issue or 2) they really don’t care. Either way, the hijab issue to them, is a relatively minor issue or not something that is of grave concern to the other communities that it was pictured to be.

    The hijab issue must be made clear. Muslims are not asking for ALL women to wear hijab in ALL sectors, rather we are asking that for those ALREADY wearing the hijab, to allow them to continue wearing it. More importantly, the sectors in which Muslims are asking for are in the public nursing sector, the secular schools and certain frontline duties. I mean really, would Singapore suddenly become a Muslim country if the rule changes overnight?

    What is even more disappointing is when the Muslim community’s own leaders, and here I’m specifically pointing to the political leaders, who have time and again tried to placate the masses by telling us that they are doing something behind closed doors and that all these online calls, movements, rallying etc are only hurting their attempts. Look, if the last time this issue was brought up in 2001/2002 and the next time it sparked such a furore was in 2013/2014, what have you guys been doing for a good 10 years? Really, I genuinely wonder. Do you guys go to the PM and say “can we start allowing nurses to wear hijab this year? Ok, no? Ok we’ll try again next year.”

    How many times have this happened? You told us you did something, yet because we voiced our concerns in public, the government is backing down. It’s like saying to us,we almost had it there, but you guys had to spoil it. Now the blame is placed squarely on the shoulders of the community who voice their concerns because many of us see that no ground has been made by the Muslim political leaders. How easy it is to start pointing fingers at the very community who you claim have been supporting you all these while. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

    To those who have criticized the Mufti, and insulted him for his stance, I urge you, be conscious of Allah. Clearly, this only reflects on the immaturity of you guys for doing so. He has clearly stated that this issue now is not an issue of religion because no one disputes that it is compulsory for a Muslim woman to don the hijab. So do not misconstrue his words as if he is saying that the hijab is not an issue of religion. All he is saying is to tackle this issue with wisdom and maturity. One may not personally agree with his stance as it may seem to be regressing and Muslims need to continue to push. However, we must also understand his position, that being part of the government, he is still tied to the policies/regulations that the government has in place. Even if you don’t agree that as the Mufti he should be doing that, at the very least, hold your tongues against insulting a fellow Muslim. I personally wish that PERGAS would be more vocal of this issue as they were in 2001/2002. They are in the best position to give their honest views and continue to fight for the Muslim right to wear the hijab in the various workplace and/or institutions. However, PERGAS have been seen by many as already being co-opted by the government and is now also another mouthpiece to placate the masses. PERGAS needs to re-identify themselves and recalibrate their position so as to perform the duty of checks and balances to MUIS when the need arises.

    Amidst all these, we must understand that this (hijab issue) is a small battle that we are facing. The hijab issue must not, at the same time, detract as from facing issues of education, socio-economic standing, social problems etc that are persistently present all these years. That said however, this does not mean that because we have bigger battles to fight, we ignore the smaller skirmishes. The hijab issue is one that is close to the heart of Muslims. By telling the Muslims that you are not allowing them to don the hijab in certain sectors, you risk further alienating them from the mainstream society. This would only perpetuate further the long held view of the government that Muslims are distinct and separate. Allow the Muslims to don the hijab, and make the others understand why Muslims need to and do so, and perhaps you may then truly create a multiracial society that is all tolerant and understanding.

    Muhammad Haikal
     

  • Smoking in a headscarf

    Not too long ago, a friend of mine posted a photo of a woman wearing a headscarf and holding a cigarette in her hand. There was a minor ruckus on her profile about this picture. Why does this image shake up some of our worlds?

    Because in Singaporean society Muslim women who wear the headscarf have been constructed to be examples of virtuous, moral, proper women. If you wear a headscarf, you’d better behave in these certain ways –

    1. No smoking in public (cigarettes at least, but smoking shisha/hookah/Arab water pipe is mysteriously tolerated),
    2. No kissing in public (even if married!),
    3. No unruly behaviour like shouting or fighting, and
    4. No close contact with men in public.

    Otherwise, you’re going to be pointed out as a bad example of a Muslim woman. Interestingly, holding hands is still kind of acceptable, as is wearing trousers (not the same case in other Muslim communities).

    In our context, the headscarf is a visible sign of morality. You can’t tell if someone believes in God, or prays, or fasts, but you can see a headscarf. The wearer is assumed to be a morally-upright person who has to follow certain rules of (Islamic) behaviour, and therefore also assumed to be discipline-able by any member of the public.

    No one has any qualms about telling off a woman with a headscarf if she’s seen to be ‘violating’ any of the above rules. Many older and young women and men, have no qualms about policing young women who are not ‘properly’ dressed.

    However, women without a headscarf can do any of the above things without nary a public comment because her morality is invisible (Or you can argue that her ‘immorality’ is visible, haha.). Being under constant surveillance can be annoying at best, and exhausting at worst. Is it really a surprise then that some women choose to appear in some situations with a headscarf, and some without?

    Sadly, there are no equivalent markers for men in our Muslim community. In some other societies, perhaps a beard plays the same trick, albeit to a lesser extent (and a beard doesn’t entail an entire dress code). Baju kurung? No one wears that anymore except to the mosque or during Ramadan or Eid. Long sleeves and long pants? Come on man, Singapore is too hot and humid. But why do young men wearing (tight) T-shirts get picked on far less?

    Because of the invisible morality of young Muslim men, they can get away with a lot of things. For example, wearing a T-shirt that says “Playboy” on it. The contrast is even starker when you know that they are probably good, practising Muslim men, who have ‘proper’ social relations with young Muslim women.

    Heck, the best contrast is to see them in the company of ‘properly-dressed’ young Muslim women at Islamic events. Young men are free to go everywhere in their T-shirts and no one is going to say, Hey dude, your T-shirt is a bit too tight, eh? But you can hear, Eh your hair is sticking out! Or, You should wear a top that covers your butt, or, You look so beautiful in an abaya!

    There will be people who say that if a woman really wore the headscarf for God, all this would not matter. But my focus is not on the reasons for wearing it. My focus here is on the headscarf as a visible signifier of morality and its implications for the daily lives of young women.

    I can’t change the way people think, but I think awareness of why we think the way we think is the first step.

     

    Source: http://bit.ly/1jOTlBF

  • Pandangan alternatif Sheyha Sulong tentang isu Tudung

    Anda setuju dengan pendapat wanita ini?

    http://www.facebook.com/sheyha.sulong.9
    http://www.facebook.com/sheyha.sulong.9
    http://www.facebook.com/sheyha.sulong.9
    http://www.facebook.com/sheyha.sulong.9

    I am a Muslim but I do not have to dorn the tudung to show that I am a Muslim. It is an individual choice. Singapore is not an islamic country therefore demanding to enforce on the tudung is not a good idea; if our Prophet Muhd peace be upon him is around, he would not allow disintegration of the other races regardless of language or religion to take place..all for the sake of peace and harmony and staying united as one people.

    Sheyha Sulong

    *Foto kontribusi Faizal Mohd

  • Sesi Dialog PM Lee, Pemimpin Islam tentang isu Tudung

    Foto: The Straits Times

    Sesi dialog tadi berjalan lancar.  Saya gembira kerana para peserta berkongsi pandangan mereka dengan jujur dan secara terus terang, objektif dan matang.  Kami berbincang dari hati ke hati.

    Saya akur isu tudung ini suatu isu penting dan sensitif bagi masyarakat Islam Singapura.  Tapi sebenarnya isu pokok bukan tentang tudung tetapi lebih luas lagi iaitu apakah bentuk masyarakat yang kita inginkan di Singapura.

    Pendirian pemerintah atas soalan pokok ini terang dan kita telah mengambil pendirian ini sejak merdeka 50 tahun lalu iaitu kita mahu bina di Singapura sebuah masyarakat yang berbilang kaum dan berbilang agama dan yang memberi peluang saksama kepada semua kaum dan semua agama di Singapura.

    Kita juga harap kaum-kaum minoriti akan dapat ruang yang cukup untuk menjalankan kewajipan mereka dan cara hidup mereka untuk mengambil bahagian dalam kejayaan dan kemajuan negara Singapura.

    Seberapa boleh pemerintah akan menolong dan memberi sokongan yang lebih kepada kaum-kaum minoriti kerana kita harap mereka akan maju ke hadapan dengan kaum-kaum lain dan termasuk kaum Melayu/Islam.

    Tapi untuk capai matlamat besar kita ini, kita harus bersikap tolak ansur supaya semua kaum selesa dengan satu sama lain.  Kita tidak boleh berbincang tiap-tiap satu isu secara terpencil kerana kalau kita berbincang secara begitu dan berbincang mengenai hak, wajib dan bagaimana kita mesti dapat sesuatu isu, boleh jadi segala-gala objektif kita yang lebih penting akan dihapuskan.  Itu saya fikir sangat buruk untuk Singapura.

    Jadi kejayaan Singapura tidak diukur berdasarkan satu-satu perkara sahaja tetapi dalam konteks yang lebih besar – sama ada kaum-kaum yang berbeza hidup secara harmoni; sama ada semua rakyat berpeluang untuk maju dan hidup dengan aman dan selamat.  Inilah perspektif yang lebih luas yang saya ambil dalam perbincangan tadi dan saya percaya peserta-peserta faham dan terima pandangan saya.

    Jika kita lihat selama 10 tahun lalu, jelas dalam isu tudung telah ada kemajuan.  Banyak badan berkanun telah membenarkan kakitangan mereka memakai tudung bersama pakaian uniform mereka.
    Dan keadaan yang kita lihat hari ini, saya tidak fikir, akan selalu kekal begini kerana masyarakat kita sedang berubah, dunia sedang berubah, negara sedang maju ke depan. Saya fikir setiap tahun secara beransur-ansur, perlahan-lahan, apa yang kita buat di Singapura dalam masyarakat kita akan juga berubah.  Tetapi perubahan ini mesti berjalan dengan teliti, dengan berhati-hati, mesti berjalan tidak terlalu cepat atau menghapuskan apa yang kita telah capai iaitu suatu masyarakat di mana semua kaum dapat hidup dengan harmoni dan dapat menjadi orang Islam yang dapat menunaikan wajib Islam dan pada masa yang sama seorang warga Singapura yang menunaikan kewajiban sebagai warga Singapura.

    Jadi pemerintah inginkan yang terbaik untuk masyarakat Singapura dan untuk masyarakat Melayu/Islam. Dalam isu ini ada pandangan-pandangan yang berlainan tetapi hasrat kita tidak berbeza.  Kita harap yang terbaik untuk kaum Melayu/Islam dan kita harap kita boleh bekerjasama dengan kaum Melayu/Islam untuk mewujudkan hasrat kita.

    Tadi dalam dialog ada yang kata kita patut bertanding antara satu sama lain supaya dapat menjelaskan isu ini.  Saya kata tidak.  Kita patut menari bersama, supaya kita boleh bekerjasama, supaya kita boleh capai apa yang kita sama-sama harapkan.

  • Constructive Dialogue and Constructing Legitimacy

    The government’s continued policy to ban the hijab should not come as a surprise.

    Yaacob Ibrahim said in his note that he wants us to continue constructive dialogue with him. According to Yaacob, he and the Malay MPs will then raise it with PM and the Cabinet.

    Constructive dialogue is a nebulous term. The best definition is an event where two or more parties speak and listen to each other to help everyone improve. A dialogue requires speaking and listening. The parties should have relatively equal power.

    But that is not how it works with the Singapore government.

    There are several key components to constructive dialogue Singapore style:

    1. Citizens provide feedback to the government.

    2. This feedback should be held in proper respect and decorum.

    3. Government representative listens to the feedback.

    4. Representative explain their position.

    5. Representative assures citizens their views will be taken under advicement.

    This is not a dialogue. It is a claim for legitimacy.

    But let us assume there is a constructive element to dialogue. Is being constructive evenly applied? Or is there greater expectation on one party than another?

    If the engagement is based on citizen disagreement with government policies, then the constructive nature applies to how the citizen engages the government.How does the engagement take place? What are their relative powers?

    The power differential is large. The government is the sole decision maker. Because it is held under the banner of being constructive, the manner, not just the message is important.

    Criticism would be considered negative. Instead, feedback should be given with proper deference.But what is also important is not the actual meeting. Both parties know how the other would react. Take yesterday’s meeting between the government and Muslim leaders for example. What was the meeting about?

    The optimists had hoped the government would make concessions. They attended the meeting with the belief that a decision had been made and the government would shift their policy. In this scenario, they expected the government to accede to their request prior to the meeting. The meeting itself was not to construct a new position. It was to listen to an announcement. That cannot be seen as being constructive.

    The pessimists (who were proven right this time), had expected the government to announce the policy would remain as is. Once again, there is nothing constructive. The only constructive argument made is that feedback is given so that the government may modify the policy in future. But this is not a new issue.

    There had been numerous discussions over 41 years. Where is the constructive agenda in the process?The pessimist’ assessment is however flawed on one significant point. They believed that the government met with Muslim leaders to inform them of the rejection prior to announcing it to the public.

    It is supposed to break the news a little easier. The argument follows that since the government took time to meet and announce it to them, it shows that the government takes the issue seriously.

    But that is not why they were invited to meet. Because what followed was more important than what was said during the meeting.

    When the government announced their rejection, they referred to the meeting to claim the decision’s legitimacy. Various media reports referred to the government’s meeting with Muslim leaders. They further indicated that the leaders understood the government’s decision.

    Halimah Yacob posted her FB page saying:

    “We had a very good discussion with representatives of PERGAS and the Malay Muslim organizations at Mendaki just now on the hijab issue. The leaders appreciated that the Malay Muslim MPs were doing our best on this issue…”

    The meeting was not simply to inform Muslim leaders of the decision. It was to grant moral authority to the rejection of the hijab. The government claimed that Muslim leaders understood the ban. That should mollify the community. If our leaders accept and appreciate the decision, then so should we.

    Constructive dialogue then was not a mere exercise to find a better process. It has always been a process to grant legitimacy to unpopular decisions.

    Zulfikar M Shariff