Rilek1Corner

Tag: discriminate

  • Quora Users Justify Unfair Discrimination Of Muslims In Armed Forces

    Quora Users Justify Unfair Discrimination Of Muslims In Armed Forces

    Responding to a question, ‘Why are there no Muslims in some sectors of Singapore Army and Navy?’, several Quora users have supported the Singapore Armed Forces’ perceived bias against Malays and Muslims.

    The following are excerpts from some of the most upvoted answers.

    “There are no muslims on the RSN’s ships or submarine. Actually there are no personnel that have strict dietary requirements on board. So if you have nut allergies, gluten allergies or very strict diet, you will not be posted to a ship.

    Why? Imagine the ship is deployed far from home. Say it heads to an Australian port to replenish resources. How easy is to obtain all halal ingredients? Not easy. And if you are very strict, once the kitchen is used for non-halal ingredient, it cannot produce halal food anymore.

    You may say it’s possible. But only during peacetime. If you are in combat, you can’t go pick and choose what food you want.” – Rhys Cheng

    “…while I don’t agree, I do understand the logic behind the practice. National defense is perhaps the most serious matter a government must handle, and there is a tradeoff between security and freedom. I can understand the government not wanting to take chances, especially since it’s very hard to tell who can be trusted and who cannot.” – Daniel Tan

    “Having Malay/Muslims in the sensitive sectors of the SAF will compromise our ability to defend Singapore. Here, many people think that we do not trust our Malays/Muslims, while the others are not given the same level of scrutiny. Many will also think we are implying Malay/Muslims are be prone to radicalisation, which is plain discriminatory. There is at least a grain truth in the assertions, and they are sufficient for SAF to justify the policy. Once again, this is for the sake of defending Singapore.” – Anonymous

    “We need to stop the smuggling of arms and other ingredients of terror attacks from entering our borders. Nor can we afford to allow hostile personnel to reach our shores. Homegrown terrorism is another issue altogether, and it cannot be denied that Muslims, and therefore Malays in Singapore, are the key targets of radicalisation efforts. As such, the same reason Malays (and Muslims today) are excluded from sensitive vocations remains valid.” – Anonymous

    In April last year, Dr Ng Eng Hen, the Defence Minister said that the “Singapore Armed Forces’ (SAF) operational concerns must come first and individual needs sometimes must (be) subsumed under that.”

    Dr Ng was responding to a parliamentary question from an opposition MP, Faisal Manap, who had asked on the lack of halal food onboard ships in the Republic of Singapore Navy (RSN). Mr Faisal suggested that this deprived Muslim men from serving in RSN ships.

    Reacting to the exchange in Parliament , lawyer and former Director of the Association of Muslim Professionals, Mr Nizam Ismail said:

    “It gets tenuous when the justification for what is essentially a discriminatory practice is on the non availability of a halal kitchen.

    Please, there are many ways to resolve this. It’s not rocket science.

    If the issue is still one of distrust of a Malay Singaporean son in defending his country, then say it as it is.

    The fact remains that there is an under-representation of Malay NSmen in several “sensitive” positions of the SAF, RSAF and RSN.

    And an over-representation of Malay NSmen in the SCDF and SPF.

    And a significant portion of Madrasah boys are not called up for NS.

    Or space for halal kitchen.

    This has nothing to do with food.

    It’s tragic that we are still debating this after 50 years of independence.

    If you truly believe in multiculturalism, there must be no space for discrimination.

    If you truly believe in multiculturalism, there must be inclusivity and equal opportunity. For all.

    When will there be a level playing field?”

     

    Source: www.theindependent.sg

  • Will Lee Hsien Loong Attend Pink Dot This Saturday?

    Will Lee Hsien Loong Attend Pink Dot This Saturday?

    Pink Dot, the annual gay celebratory event of “the freedom to love”, will take place this Saturday at Hong Lim Park for the seventh time since its inauguration in 2009.

    Each year, the event is headlined by celebrities and has attracted global brands as sponsors. It has also seen an increasing number of people turning up to give it support. Last year’s event reportedly attracted 25,000 people.

    “Pink is the colour of our ICs,” the group’s Facebook page says. “It is also the colour when you mix red and white – the colours of our national flag. Pink Dot stands for an open, inclusive society within our Red Dot, where sexual orientation represents a feature, not a barrier.”

    An inclusive society is also the aim of the Lee Hsien Loong Government which has repeatedly urged Singaporeans to see one another as one people, and has boasted of its inclusive policies.

    Mr Lee, however, raised recently some ire among those in the gay community for comments he made about same-sex marriage and the gay community.

    In an interview with ASEAN journalists in Singapore earlier in June, he said Singapore society “is still conservative although it is changing gradually” and that it is “not ready” for same-sex marriage, as the Straits Times reported.

    But, Mr Lee said, the gay community have the space to live their lives in Singapore.

    “We do not harass them or discriminate against them,” he explained.

    This seemingly more conciliatory position of the Government first came into the spotlight in 2003, when then-prime minister Goh Chok Tong caused a bit of an uproar among conservative circles when he said the government was employing openly gay people in the civil service.

    Mr Goh famously said then: “In the past, if we know you’re gay, we would not employ you. But we just changed this quietly.”

    “Expecting much indignant resistance from conservative quarters, Goh attempted to placate angry citizens by resorting to essentialist notions of sexuality. He added ‘we are born this way and [gay people] are born that way, but they are like you and me’.”  – [“But They are Like You and Me”: Gay Civil Servants and Citizenship in a Cosmopolitanizing Singapore.”]

    Critics, however, point to the presence and retention of Singapore’s anti-gay law, section 377a of the Penal Code. The law criminalises sex between adult males.

    Mr Lee said that the gay community “should not push the agenda too hard because if they push the agenda too hard, there will be a very strong pushback.”

    “And this is not an issue where there is a possibility that the two sides can discuss and eventually come to a consensus. Now, these are very entrenched views and the more you discuss, the angrier people get,” he said.

    Pink Dot, in response to Mr Lee’s remarks, said that while it acknowledged Mr Lee’s concerns – given Singapore’s unique position as a multi-cultural, multi-racial and multi-religious society, there will be a plurality of viewpoints, some deeply entrenched – it nonetheless feels that “it is not a topic that can be swept under the carpet and allowed to fester.”

    Lee
    Lee

    “We firmly believe that dialogue is our best way forward,” Pink Dot said. “As such, we would like to invite Prime Minister Lee to join us in celebrating the Freedom to Love, this Saturday, June 13, at Hong Lim Park, and meet with the individuals, families, and loving couples who form a vibrant part of Singapore’s social fabric.”

    Mr Lee’s office has not responded to the invitation publicly.

    Pink Dot also noted that racial and religious minorities are protected under the constitution.

    “Whether Singapore will eventually abolish Section 377a and create a society truly based on justice and equality, that values all contributing citizens regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity; a lot will depend on fostering goodwill and encouraging respect among groups and individuals.”

    Will Mr Lee accept Pink Dot’s invitation and turn up at Hong Lim Park on Saturday, in the name of inclusiveness or fostering an inclusive society? Should he?

    Well, if we go by what his government itself has said – that it wants to build an inclusive society – and what is declared in our National Pledge – that we “pledge ourselves as one united people… to build a democratic society based on justice and equality” – then there is no reason for Mr Lee to decline the invitation.

    But of course if Mr Lee accepts the invite, it will be seen by the conservatives as a sign of support, or at least of tacit endorsement of the gay community.

    Indeed, Pink Dot’s invitation could also be seen as putting Mr Lee on the spot, perhaps nudging him to take a stand, instead of the fence-sitting one he currently adopts when it comes to gay issues.

    Whatever it is, it will an interesting Saturday indeed.

     

    Source: www.theonlinecitizen.com

  • Prime Gold International Banned By MOM From Hiring Foreign Workers For Discriminating Against Singaporeans

    Prime Gold International Banned By MOM From Hiring Foreign Workers For Discriminating Against Singaporeans

    A local marine company has been banned from hiring foreign workers for two years after the Manpower Ministry (MOM) found that it discriminated against Singaporeans.

    The MOM had discovered that Prime Gold International had sacked 13 Singaporean workers and replaced them with foreign workers.

    This was after the workers complained to the MOM in June. The ministry said that it investigated the complaints and found the reasons cited by the firm for sacking the workers – poor work performances and inadequate qualifications – were not substantiated.

    It said in a statement on Monday that the company had “denied Singaporeans fair opportunities for employment and career development”, and that the company’s move “affects the livelihood of Singaporeans already in employment”.

    The ministry said that it was the first time it imposed such a ban, but it did not say when the ban started.

     

    Source: www.straitstimes.com