The Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) firefighter who was injured while helping to put out a taxi on fire in Buona Vista is recovering well, according to Home Affairs and Law Minister K Shanmugam in a Facebook post on Sunday (May 7).
“CPL Eka was injured, while putting out the fire of a burning taxi which exploded at Buona Vista,” wrote Mr Shanmugam after a visit to the full-time National Serviceman’s house. “I went to his house and met him and his mother.
“The boy is recovering well. They are the only persons in the household. The father has passed away, and the other children are all overseas.”
Mr Shanmugam added that CPL Eka plans to study mechanical engineering after completing his National Service.
The firefighter sustained first-degree burns to his face and neck while putting out a fire caused by a taxi explosion on Commonwealth Avenue last week.
“I have also alerted his MP, Ms Tin Pei Ling. She will drop in on the family to check, offer assistance that local grassroots can give,” he said. “The men and women of the Home Team put their lives at risk every day to protect Singapore.”
Four men, including the SCDF firefighter, sustained minor injuries and were taken to National University Hospital, SCDF said.
“SELFLESS” MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC RECOVERING
Among them was ITE student Yazid. On Thursday, Member of Parliament for Holland-Bukit Timah GRC Christopher De Souza visited him at his house.
Mr Yazid was burnt by flying debris from the blast while dismounting from his motorbike at the scene to try and help the taxi’s passengers, according to Mr De Souza in a Facebook post.
Yazid burnt his thighs, hands and shoulder when the burning taxi exploded.
“Thank you, Yazid, for your selflessness in the face of such odds,” Mr De Souza wrote. “Instead of being deterred by the thick black smoke from the taxi, Yazid rode his motorbike toward the smoke at Commonwealth Avenue as he instinctively felt he needed to render assistance to passengers.”
Thankfully, Mr Yazid has “healed well” and is recovering at home, he added.
In February, a video of Imam Nalla Mohamed Abdul Jameel reciting a prayer in Arabic that said “God help us against Jews and Christians”, among other things, was circulated online.
He was charged in court and pleaded guilty last week to promoting enmity between different groups on the grounds of religion, and committing an act prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony.
He also apologised to Christian and Jewish religious leaders for his remarks. He was fined $4,000 and has been repatriated back to India.
The issue has come to a closure in a “uniquely Singapore” way. It judiciously combined the application of law via the courts, lots of community engagement efforts by Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs Yaacob Ibrahim’s dialogue, and with religious leaders of different faiths. Mr Shanmugam also met the imam for a cordial breakfast.
Few countries in the world have the opportunity to adopt this balanced approach to resolve a sensitive issue, because it needs the existence of social peace and religious harmony, which Singapore works very hard to preserve.
With this closure, it is useful now to deal with the “elephant in the room”, which is Islam’s doctrinal position on the “religious other”.
This discussion is important to make clear to non-Muslim Singaporeans that enmity towards non-Muslims was never a part of Islamic doctrine.
ISLAM AND NON-MUSLIMS: A HISTORY
Islam’s position on non-Muslims was first shaped by historical conditions. This early position evolved over time so that it remained appropriate to the context of the day as the dynamics in the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims changed.
The Quran spoke warmly of Christians because they were more receptive to the message of monotheism, compared with local idol-worshipping tribes in Mecca, when Islam first came.
Furthermore, it was the Christians of Abyssinia (present-day Ethiopia) who gave refuge to Muslims who fled Mecca to escape persecution.
Similarly, Muslim-Jewish relations in the early Islamic era were positive as they were shaped by an agreement that manifested the congenial dynamics between the two faith communities.
More importantly, early Muslims conceptualised the community of believers to be originally independent of confessional identities.
They regarded Christians and Jews to be members of their community.
It was only later that membership in the community of believers came to be seen as a confessional identity in itself, and this had a lot to do with the prophethood of Muhammad.
Tensions, therefore, occurred in Muslim-Christian as well as Muslim-Jewish relations and due to sharp differences in a number of other doctrinal matters.
Notwithstanding these fundamental differences, the special relationship among the three religions as part of the Abrahamic family of religions was preserved.
The divisive issue of Prophet Muhammad’s prophethood was played down and, instead, the focus was on what bound the three faith communities together.
These are the belief in monotheism, the Last Day and the importance of doing good deeds on this earth.
The attitude of early Muslims was to preserve unity of the community of believers so that they could be assured of Jewish and Christian support to defend their city, Medina, against the common enemy in Mecca, who were not monotheists.
This explained why Muslims did not force Jews and Christians to accept the status of Prophet Muhammad as their prophet, too, but chose instead to focus on teachings that could be accepted by all three faith communities.
But the bigger cause of conflict and division was less religious and more political. It was the violations of parties of the agreement to honour it and fulfil their obligations. These violations were seen as tantamount to treason.
Violators were severely dealt with as traitors and put to death – a punishment that was the norm during wartime.
Despite challenges in keeping alliances and violations of the agreement, Jews and Christians were not regarded by Muslims as enemies.
Who, then, were singled out by early Muslims in their supplication?
THE REAL ENEMY
The supplication by Muslims was for divine help in their war against the disbelievers in Mecca, who were superior both in numbers and strength.
They were the enemies of the early Muslims only because they wanted to kill the Prophet, annihilate Muslims and extinguish Islam from the face of Arabia. It was, therefore, a matter of life and death for the Muslims.
The Prophet’s mission spanned over 23 years, out of which 16 years were spent in a state of heightened tension and war with the disbelievers of Mecca.
Twenty such wars were fought and the Prophet was pained when about 1,000 of his companions were martyred.
The Prophet supplicated to seek God’s help against disbelievers using verses from the Quran that specifically mention them (kafirun and mushrikun).
There is an important qualification, though.
The supplication was not targeted at all disbelievers. It was specifically aimed at disbelievers whose plan was to kill Muslims, drive them out of their homes and destroy Islam.
Disbelieving people who were not engaged in such sinister plans were not the ones Muslims supplicated against.
INCLUSIVE CATEGORISATION
Another pertinent fact is that, besides Christians and Jews who occupy a special relationship with Muslims as People of the Book, there are also a number of other religious communities who enjoy this special status in the eyes of Muslims.
The Quran has categorised Sabians as People of the Book, while there are scholars who also included Zoroastrians.
There are other less known facts.
For example, there was a religious ruling issued in AD710 by Islamic scholars in Kufa, Iraq, to accord Buddhists the same status as monotheists.
This ruling was in response to a query by a young general of the Muslim army, Muhammad Qasim, who upon conquering Sindh province in India was petitioned by the local Buddhist community to allow them to continue to practise Buddhism and preserve their temples. The ruling accorded the Buddhists in question the same status as monotheists (like Jews and Christians) and provided privileges to them, considering them People of the Book, but they were obliged to pay taxes.
Similarly, from an early period, when Muslims arrived in India, Hindus were designated People of the Book, a practical solution that allowed Muslim rulers to permit Hindus to live in peace within the Muslim empire as long as they paid taxes. This also explained why some Muslim mystics consider the Hindu scripture, the Vedas, as a revealed Book and believed that Lords Rama and Krishna could be prophets of God.
As for Taoism, the former grand mufti of Egypt (Sheikh Ali Gomaa) was asked at an inter-faith dinner during his visit to Singapore in June 2014 whether Taoists are People of the Book. He turned to Taoist leaders and asked if their teachings were based on a sacred text, to which an affirmative reply was given. The former Egyptian mufti stated his position that Taoists are People of the Book.
A word of caution is needed here.
It is never claimed that all religions are the same and that religious pluralism is advocated here. All religions are different, although they share the same roots. Religions are like the Banyan tree – they have shared roots, appear to have many trunks (although there is only one trunk) and have many branches that sprawl in different directions as they reach for the sky.
The Prophet of Islam respected all religions; he never denigrated any religion or prayed for the destruction of any religious community. Muslims supplicate for divine help against those, regardless of religion, who wish to harm them in any way.
With Islamic State (IS) losing ground in Iraq and Syria, Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam on Tuesday (April 4) underscored the growing terrorist threat in Singapore’s backyard, and warned that an area less than a four-hour flight away is becoming a sanctuary for returning fighters from the Middle East and where attacks could be launched on South-east Asia. And he stressed that this could become a problem not just for the region but for the rest of the world as well.
“The potential locus of the threat could move to Southern Philippines, which is becoming an area that is difficult to control, despite the best efforts of the government … It can be a place where would-be terrorists, and those who are radicalised from this region, can go to get trained,” said Mr Shanmugam, who was speaking at an international exhibition on homeland security held at Marina Bay Sands.
“Arms seem to move fairly easily into that region, and from there as a base, they can spread out again to attack this region. So, newly radicalised, would-be fighters, battle-hardened, veterans from the Middle East, and people who are released from prisons, who have not yet been rehabilitated, can all gravitate there. At the right time and opportunity, they may well attack.”
In August last year, Mr Ahmad El-Muhammady, an adviser to the Royal Malaysia Police on terrorist detainees, said the area controlled by IS is shrinking, and in order to maintain support among its fighters, the terrorist organisation is growing its presence in “the second ring of conflict, that is their neighbouring countries, or the third ring of conflict, that is South-east Asia”.
Referring to Mr Ahmad’s remarks, Mr Shanmugam reiterated that the people who come back to the region will be “hardened ideologues, hardened fighters and willing to give up their lives”. He added: “This region is not very far from any other region, so it doesn’t take very long to get anywhere else. It’s not a local problem, it’s not a regional problem. It’s a problem for all of us.”
Mr Shanmugam noted that South-east Asia, which has the world’s largest Muslim population, has been of “considerable interest” to IS, which has set up a Malay Archipelago Unit in Syria and Iraq, called Katibah Nusantara. The unit is actively reaching out to the Malay-speaking population in this region, using propaganda videos and newspapers in Bahasa Indonesia and Bahasa Malayu to recruit new members.
Across the Causeway, Malaysia has made several arrests of IS supporters in recent months. IS’ worldview consists of “Malaysia, Indonesia and obviously Singapore, which is in the middle of it, Southern Philippines, as part of a larger caliphate ruled by a caliph, it cannot be by a system of governance, governed by anything other than the rule of God”, Mr Shanmugam said.
“So there cannot be elections, there cannot be a democratic system. If you have instability along these lines, in this region, it leads up to the rest of South-east Asia and all the way to China, and of course South Asia. So it’s a pan-Asian problem, and given the connectivity, no region is really very far from any other region. Then that is an issue for the rest of the world as well, with a strong centre here.”
Mr Shanmugam also spoke on the changing nature of terror attacks. Citing recent incidents in Nice, Berlin and London, he noted that “anything can become a weapon” today. Referring to the case of a young man who was nabbed after he wanted to “take a knife and kill our President and Prime Minister”, Mr Shanmugam noted that Singapore’s laws allow the authorities to “move in very early and we can detain people”. “A terror attack can take place any time, any place, and they can attack and impact on anyone — with a possibility of a loss of lives, within a short period of time, with little or no warning,” he said.
However, he stressed that terrorists will not prevail. “Because I think the nature of human beings is that we look for progress, and I do not believe that any culture, or system, or people or civilisation can be held back … progress is inevitable, a better life is inevitable,” he said.
The Government is “seriously considering” how to address the fake news issue and will announce its position upon completion of a review, said Minister of Law K Shanmugam in Parliament on Monday (Apr 3).
“Under our current law, there are limited remedies to deal with these falsehoods,” he acknowledged. “For example, it is an offence under the Telecommunications Act to transmit messages knowing it is false. But these remedies are ineffective. They were really looking at a time before this new age. The circulation of falsehoods can grow viral today very quickly, and so we need to do more.”
Mr Shanmugam said fake news was a problem in Singapore, albeit not yet at a level seen globally where it has expressly interfered with both domestic political and international affairs.
“We see the phenomenon hasn’t had that much impact yet, but you can predict the same sequence of actors – foreign countries, foreign agencies, people sitting outside of Singapore using it to either destabilise our society or… doing it to make money. Both are problematic,” he stated.
He pointed to the defunct The Real Singapore (TRS) as a website that regularly generated fake news for profit, citing examples such as a 2015 piece which claimed a commotion between Thaipusam participants and police was sparked by complaints from a Filipino family.
One of the co-founders of TRS has since set up the States Times Review website, which continues in a similar vein of publishing fake news from outside Singapore, said Mr Shanmugam.
“Last August, the States Times Review claimed a near-zero turnout for former president SR Nathan’s funeral, and that kindergarten kids were forced to attend, in an attempt to paint him as an unpopular president,” said Mr Shanmugam.
The whole purpose is to purvey falsehoods, mislead the public and render truth completely irrelevant, he said.
Referring to the All Singapore Stuff website as another instance, Mr Shanmugam pointed to a fake story in November last year on how the rooftop of Punggol Waterway Terraces had collapsed.
“The police, civil defence, all had to be mobilised and deployed to investigate the claim. Taxpayers pay the cost for all of this,” he explained. “Another post widely circulated on social media falsely claimed a childcare centre in River Valley made children sleep on the floor, eat rotten fruit… There was public outcry, but can you imagine the impact on the childcare operator?”
“Hoaxes like these can have real world consequences,” Mr Shanmugam said. “If not quickly corrected, they can cause harm to Singaporeans, alarm to public, emergency resources will have to be diverted, and reputations of businesses and people can be completely, unreasonably, unfairly damaged. All because some nasty people seek to profit from this.”
“There is a much more serious dimension to all of this,” he added. “Fake news today, we must assume can be used as an offensive weapon by foreign agencies and foreign governments… to get into the public mind, to destabilise the public, to psychologically weaken them.
“That’s a very serious threat and it will be naive for us to believe that governments or state agencies don’t engage in this. There is enough evidence that they do.”
By Kamaludeen Mohamed Nasir, Associate Professor of Sociology, Nanyang Technological University
It is well-known that Singapore is a multi-religious society. The 2014 report by Pew named our city-state as the most religiously diverse among the 232 countries studied. What is assumed in this discourse is that all religions are the same and subjected to similar state-society relations.
2014 ranking on Religious Diversity Index by Pew Research Center
The fact is, Islam is the most regulated religion in our tiny island and this has been the case for decades. From the appointment of a Minister-in-Charge of Muslim Affairs, to the creation of a statutory board called the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) where the Mufti is located, and to the Administration of Muslim Law Act that has regulatory powers over local mosques and madrasahs (Islamic schools), there is no doubt that Islam is given a unique attention by the state.
A stark under-appreciation of this social reality, especially among the non-Muslims, is apparent to me in the decade or so that I have been teaching in our local universities. I have always asked my students, that if all the Churches were made to say the exact same thing for their Sunday service with a text provided by an office of a statutory board, how would the Christian community react? The students could not even begin to imagine this! Will this then breed mistrust among the Christian community? This is but just one issue besieging the Muslim populace in Singapore.
When I had coffee with a top local social scientist of NUS a couple of weeks back, we agreed that Islam is the most hierarchical and bureaucratized religion in Singapore. Failure to understand how Islam is managed leads to a failure in understanding the reaction of its local adherents.
This distrust of the Muslim religious elites amidst the disciplining of Islam, from prescribed texts for the weekly Friday prayer sermons, to appointed instructors to “upgrade Islam” through the Asatizah Recognition Scheme that makes it mandatory for every religious teacher to be registered (even those teaching Qur’anic reading in the local neighbourhoods), impact heavily on the religious elites. Many scholars have called this age as one characterised by a crisis of religious authority. The situation can be especially dire in our local Muslim community, given the unique structures bearing upon them.
Distrust breeds distrust. It is not that Singaporean Muslims are predisposed towards being rude or as the Minister of Law put it, “kurang ajar”, towards the state-endorsed religious authority. It is the structures that have been put in place that create such an environment.
The recent issue regarding the police report made against an Imam for making alleged “incendiary” supplications against Christians and Jews that are outside the MUIS-endorsed text cannot be disentangled from the issue of the autonomy of the Muslim clerics. I have engaged the local religious elites numerous times over the last few years and have rarely met a group that is more in fear. The culture of fear among the religious class is often talked about and in one of the engagements that I had with a group of religious elites, one of them candidly lamented, “We are directed and scripted.”
It has often been mentioned that attitude reflects leadership. The angry reaction of the Muslim community in light of the Imam issue should be seen against this backdrop. The absence of the voices of the religious elites in the initial stages of the debacle created a void in the community who then went online to make sense of the matter.
Last week, Assoc Prof Khairudin Aljunied was singled out in parliament for encouraging the “vilification” of the whistle-blower, Terence Nunis. The fact is that hundreds of Muslims had begun pitching in their views on various platforms after Nunis’ pronouncements on Facebook. This was substantiated in a belated statement by the Minister-in-Charge of Muslim Affairs, Assoc Prof Yaacob Ibrahim, who mentioned that the video uploaded by Nunis had indeed “sparked a storm” and “generated many emotions both online and offline. Many in our community felt angry, because they believe that the postings could be used to cast aspersions on Islam and the asatizah in our Mosques”.
It is interesting to note that both Assoc Prof Khairudin and the Mufti appropriated a satirical and poetic style respectively, as means of social critique. However, it has been well-documented that the Singaporean brand of criticism is often manifested through humour, satire and poetics as seen in Talkingcock, Mr Brown, Yawning Bread, Jack Neo’s films and the like. Indirect criticism is characteristic of societies living under soft-authoritarian rule.
There are no differences in opinion that if the allegations against the Imam are proven to be true, his incitement has no place in our multi-religious society. But if it is not – and many among the Muslim community have come to this conclusion upon the explanations provided by numerous local religious scholars who have later gone public in discussing the meaning and context of the supplication – then sadly, the Muslim community will see this as yet another example of disciplining and an attempt to emasculate the local religious fraternity despite the state’s paradoxical pleas for Singaporean Muslims to give the local religious scholars their ears.
It remains to be seen in the aftermath of the Imam episode if the state would choose to go down the path of imposing further restrictions to ensure that the MUIS-endorsed texts be read to the letter, curtailing any creative license of preachers and punishing any dissent towards state-appointed authority. The more enlightened way must be to empower the religious scholars in the field and to give them ownership over their areas of expertise to prevent religious discourse from being co-opted, hijacked and subjected to ad hominem attacks.
The coming forward of a good number of religious elites, including its umbrella body, Singapore Islamic Scholars & Religious Teachers Association (PERGAS), with regard to this Imam issue is a good development that needs to be applauded. The social media provides a ready platform for this. These attempts to speak truth to power should also be captured in the mainstream media. PERGAS’ need to again clarify their position after feeling that they were misrepresented in the Malay mainstream media regarding their statement towards Assoc Prof Khairudin is not a good sign. The perception that the Malay mainstream media is not balanced and selective in their reporting has also led many to turn to the cyber-sphere to air their perspectives.
In fostering this development of active citizenship, we need to keep an eye on encouraging diversity and not just promoting those with a certain kind of thinking that the state can easily manage. This is in line with what the PM had recently mentioned in his interview on February 24th in Today newspaper under the title, “Leaders must be able to take criticism, acknowledge mistakes”. Only then can we move forward as a nation.
