Tag: Malaysia

Singapore To Offer US$200,00 For Countries Providing Help To Rohingya

The Singapore Government will offer an initial contribution of US$200,000 through ASEAN to support the efforts of countries such as Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia that have been aiding Rohingya refugees, said Foreign Affairs Minister K Shanmugam on Saturday (May 23).

Singapore is concerned about the situation and welcomed efforts by countries, in particular Malaysia and Indonesia, which agreed to provide temporary shelter for the Rohingyas, said Mr Shanmugam.

He said the financial aid is part of an ASEAN-led initiative, adding that Singapore is prepared to consider further assistance, if there are specific requests.

Mr Shanmugam said the Rohingya crisis has raised two key issues – one is how to help those currently on boats and stranded at sea, while the other is the need to deal with the problem at its source.

This would require looking at living conditions created by countries of origin as well as the criminal organisations putting them on boats, subjecting them to terrible conditions. That, he added, is a “more serious problem” because tens and thousands of refugees could potentially suffer.

Mr Shanmugam stressed that the countries where the refugees originated from should take responsibility, and both ASEAN and the international community needs to address this issue.

Singapore’s contribution comes days after the Government said it is unable to accept any refugees or those seeking political asylum because it is a small country with limited land.

Over the past week, countries such as Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia have provided shelter to Rohingya refugees who have landed on their shores. Food and medical aid were also provided.

Up to 2,000 migrants are thought to be stranded in the Bay of Bengal, many at risk of falling victim to people smugglers. Most are Muslim Rohingyas from the western Rakhine state in Myanmar.

United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has said finding and saving the lives of those migrants should be a “top priority”.

Source: www.channelnewsasia.com

May 24, 2015
Farish A. Noor: Give Dignity Back To The Rohingyas

Today the Asean region is confronted with the challenge of coping with Rohingya who have taken to the seas to seek a safer life elsewhere. At the same time, the European Union is forced to deal with the phenomenon of Africans fleeing their continent to seek a better life in Europe.

In both these cases, the refugees concerned have been portrayed as vulnerable, homeless people who present a challenge to other countries that have become the destinations for them.

For reasons that I will elaborate on, I find this depiction of the Other as the “vulnerable victim” problematic; and I would argue that at this critical juncture we need to seriously interrogate the very language that we use to describe and understand such crises.

Let us be honest from the start and call a spade a spade: The crises in North Africa and Myanmar are not natural disasters to begin with.

Even in cases where natural disasters have struck, I have been amazed by the resilience and fortitude shown by ordinary human beings who demonstrate the capacity to cope under extraordinary circumstances.

I recall, while working in Kashmir as part of the post-earthquake relief operation there in 2005, how a young couple in the devastated town of Muzaffarabad managed to hold their wedding ceremony in the midst of carnage and destruction.

Practically every family I met had lost at least one relative, and in one village every woman and child had been killed, leaving the men alone and destitute.

Yet in the midst of this loss and pain, a young couple could still proceed with their wedding – proof of the incredible strength of the human will and humankind’s capacity to rise above disasters.

Upon my return to Europe, I was asked by my colleagues and students about what I saw and what I had learnt in Kashmir, and my reply was simply this: I learnt that human beings, in times of crisis, can rise to the level of the superhuman. The crisis in Kashmir was, however, a natural disaster, on a par with the tsunami of 2004. There was no one to blame for these disasters, as no agency was involved.

A natural or man-made disaster?

WHAT is happening now in South-east Asia and the Mediterranean is not a natural disaster though, but rather the result of political will and contestation that necessarily involve human agency, and thus entails the element of moral-political responsibility as well.

To describe the phenomenon of boat people – be they drifting across the Mediterranean or the Indian Ocean or the South China Sea – as a “disaster” suggests an inevitability to the situation that begs the question: Surely, thousands of people would not rush out to sea, braving hazardous conditions that imperil their lives, for the sheer sake of it?

But this is where a disconnect seems to have appeared: The developed countries in the West bemoan the fact that refugees from Africa are running to them, but have not asked why these people are running in the first place.

For the deteriorating security conditions in countries like Libya today are not the result of some natural disaster but rather the outcome of political intervention gone wrong, leading to crises that are political in nature.

The answer to the problem seems simple enough: If you do not want to have economic or political refugees rushing in your direction, perhaps it would be wise not to stir economic or political problems abroad in the first place.

Likewise, the phenomenon of Rohingya taking to the seas today is not the result of an earthquake or a tsunami, but rather the outcome of a political crisis that has been brewing for years now.

To describe the Rohingya as “homeless” obfuscates the fact that they have a home, or rather had a home, and that they have been forced to leave as a result of a domestic political crisis that likewise involves actors and agents who are local.

As long as we refer to such people as “homeless”, we will perpetuate the notion that the Rohingya are a stateless community with no homeland of their own, and thus deny them their history, culture and identity as well.

Not an Asean problem

COMPOUNDING matters is the tendency to label this as an “Asean problem”, as if all of South-east Asia was implicated in the humanitarian crisis that led to this situation, when the honest approach would be to identify the actors and agents who have been responsible for this state in the first place.

Some reports have bemoaned the fact that the Asean region has been slow to act, or suggested that Asean has proven itself powerless in the face of crisis. Yet again this blurs the distinction between those who are primarily responsible for the flight of the Rohingya and those who are now faced with the challenge of coping with this human exodus.

The former are those who caused the crisis in the first place, and they include the right-wing ethno-nationalists and sectarian groups in Myanmar who have demonised the Rohingya, and in our analysis of the current situation we need to be clear on where the responsibility for this crisis lies, and who ought to take primary responsibility.

The other countries of Asean may have been slow in their response to the flight of the Rohingya, but none of the other countries of Asean is directly responsible for their flight.

The real test for Asean at the moment is thus two-fold: On the one hand, there is the growing need to find some means to deal with a crisis that can be compared with the flight of the Vietnamese boat people in the past, which requires Asean to get its act together and emphasise, yet again, the spirit of Asean cooperation on the basis of a common Asean history and shared destiny.

Asean needs to speak up

BUT Asean also has to be aware that its policy of non-intervention in the affairs of member-states has been problematic for some, and during times of crisis such as these the norm of non-intervention has been used to discredit Asean as a whole and paint a disparaging picture of the grouping as little more than a talk shop.

In the way that Asean states today have become more assertive when dealing with non-conventional security issues such as cross-border pollution, and more willing to speak up when one country’s environmental problems become the problems of other countries, so should Asean states recognise that political crisis in one state may well become a shared crisis for the region as a whole. This can happen, however, only when we accept that some crises – such as the flight of the Rohingya – are not disasters that happen “naturally”.

The Rohingya issue is also an occasion for the communities of Asean to reflect upon themselves and how they view the world around them. On a positive note, it should be recognised that in many countries across Asean at the moment, there has been an outpouring of concern and sympathy, which affirms a commitment to a sense of common humanity that we all share, regardless of differences in culture or nationality. We are not, after all, heartless and indifferent to the plight of others.

But we should also be wary of over-emphasising the victimhood of the Rohingya, or casting them permanently in the role of the unfortunate and vulnerable, for such discourses of victimhood – when overplayed – can also hobble the Other and reduce others to the status of the perpetual victim.

The Rohingya crisis is a man-made problem, with human actors and agents responsible. Concerted effort by nations and national actors is needed to resolve the crisis at that level.

But the victims happen to be human too, and we should never forget that. Consider the fact that many of these refugees – be they the ones from Africa or from Myanmar – have spent weeks, perhaps even months, at sea; and have been forced to survive on sea water or even urine.

What is that, if not a testimony to their strength and their enduring will to survive at all costs?

Do not brand them homeless illegal immigrants. Do not dismiss them as boat people, as though their desperate bid for a better life in a vessel defines their identity and their existence.

The very least that we need to do for these people is to recognise them for what they are: human beings with a cultural identity and history, endowed with dignity and who deserve a modicum of respect rather than condescension.

Source: www.straitstimes.com

May 24, 2015
Zara Faris: Why Are Malaysia’s Secular Liberal Groups So Afraid Of Debate?

A week ago I was in Malaysia, having been invited to deliver a series of lectures on Islam, women’s rights, and a critique of liberalism and feminism. The organisers, Wanita ISMA (an Islamic NGO), had hoped to supplement my tour by organising a panel discussion between me, ISMA, and two members of a small (but disproportionately vocal) secular liberal group deceptively calling themselves “Sisters in Islam” (SIS).

SIS attempts to campaign for secular liberalism and feminism under the guise that these ideas are ‘compatible with Islam’, and claim to be open for debate, discussion and dialogue about ‘Islam’. However, to my knowledge, SIS have never actually invited people who hold different opinions (i.e. mainstream Islamic opinions, like ISMA) to discuss and debate with them on their platforms. Rather, SIS have been content purely to float their views – unopposed – from the safe distance of the internet and the media platforms they are given.

Furthermore, ISMA informed me that previous attempts to hold a debate or discussion with SIS have ended up invariably with SIS pulling out at the last minute. As I have always thought that the best way to test the integrity of ideas is to subject them to scrutiny and debate, I nevertheless asked ISMA to setup a dedicated discussion event while I was in Malaysia, where ISMA and MDI could engage with SIS, on the topic, “Is the shari’ah male-biased, and do we need a feminist interpretation?”.

Preparations for the Debate

As SIS have been known to pull out of events in the past, ISMA wanted to do everything possible to prevent this from happening again: SIS were offered to bring a portion of the event attendees from their own supporters, and after SIS accepted a panel of three speakers (one from MDI, ISMA and SIS), I urged ISMA that it would be fairer to invite two speakers representing SIS (lest they claim after the event that the panel was unbalanced). To prevent SIS from claiming in the lead up to the event, that the event had become too sensationalised in the public, it was also decided hold the discussion as a “closed” event (i.e. not open to the public).

SIS accepted the invitation with these conditions, saying that they would be sending Ratna Osman (Executive Director, SIS) andMohammad Afiq Noor (Assistant Manager for Legal Advocacy and Public Education, SIS). ISMA then went to work making costly and time-consuming arrangements for a suitable venue and video recording (to be uploaded afterwards for all to see and share in the discussion).

Whilst I was in Malaysia, I asked ISMA if perhaps a panel of four people may be too cumbersome, and that it may be a better idea to facilitate even deeper investigation of the question at hand, by having a 1-on-1 event (between Ratna Osman (SIS) and myself (MDI)). The more speakers that there are on a panel, the more shallow a discussion ends up being; a 1-on-1 would allow each side more time to develop and discuss their views and ensure a deeper discussion of the issues at hand.

ISMA emailed SIS to ask if they were happy to make this change. However, Ratna Osman (SIS) explained that she was not interested in engaging with a “foreign” speaker, and DECLINED to debate if it was not possible to keep to the agreed format.

“Unfortunately the latest email from you that we got today of another change, does not have any ISMA speaker, but a foreign speaker from Muslim Debate Initiative, Ms Zara Huda. As much as we look forward to engage in a dialogue with Ms Zara Huda, I was under the impression that you initiated the forum so that SIS and ISMA would know more of each other’s work and views on Shariah.

If it’s not possible for us to have direct engagement with a speaker from ISMA on 8th May as planned, then lets choose another date for us to meet up.”

– Ratna Osman (email dated 6 May 2015)

ISMA, in a sincere wish for the event to go ahead, reverted to the original plan – a 2 on 2, to directly accommodate SIS’ demand to include ISMA. It is strange that SIS seemed to be so keen to discuss with ISMA when, prior to my arrival in Malaysia, they had never, to my knowledge, invited ISMA to any of their public events – nor ever followed through with any forums/debates that ISMA had agreed to attend.

On a personal note, I also find it strange that SIS were so reluctant to debate me, a “foreigner” when they are totally happy to believe in and advocate foreign ideas – as well being founded by foreigners (i.e. the American arch-secular feminist Amina Wadud, no less)!

Now that the racist demand of not wanting to deal with a “foreigner” had been resolved, and ISMA kept the originally agreed format, one would expect SIS to have no good reason to turn this opportunity down – wrong! Lo and behold, SIS, on the day of the event sent an email CANCELLING, causing ISMA not only financial loss, but sincere disappointment in watching SIS yet again turn away from discussing and subjecting their views to open debate, scrutiny and discussion.

“Professionalism”

Understandably, in response to the cancelling of the event, ISMA made a Press Release exposing SIS’ failure to turn up. Bizarrely, SIS responded that they pulled out due to ISMA’s supposed lack of “professionalism”.

When they were confronted on Twitter as to why they ran away from debating me, they petulantly and rather childishly responded:

That’s strange, because they definitely seemed to know who I was in the lead up to the debate referring to me (three days before the above tweets) as ‘a foreign speaker from Muslim Debate Initiative, Ms Zara Huda’ and even whining in the same email to be included in a conference I had been invited to speak at:

“We also learned that Ms Zara Huda will be speaking at IMEC2015 International Muslimah Empowerment Conference on 9th May. It would have been good if a speaker from SIS was also included in such a dynamic Conference”

– Ratna Osman (email dated 6 May 2015)

Indeed, “professionalism” does go a long way – for example, not dismissing candidates from discussion because they are “foreign”, keeping one’s word and promises, or even refraining from pettiness and childishness from one of the intended SIS panellists no less, Assistant Manager for Legal Advocacy and Public Education, Mohammad Afiq Noor, who ably demonstrates his ‘professionalism’ by piling on derogatory, and sexist remarks about this “foreign” speaker, referring to me as a “Clothing brand”, and a “fool” for whom the best response is silence (which they still failed to do! [unless they were perhaps advising me not to respond to them?]).

If this is the “professionalism” and calibre of intellect one can expect from SIS, it is no surprise that they are reluctant to have their arguments challenged in a live event, away from the safety of their computer screens. One can only wonder if they were reluctant to debate someone who usually debates, in the West, the non-Muslim Secular Liberal and Feminist role models of SIS, and who SIS look up to and are just a pale imitation of. Or perhaps they were reluctant to debate someone who comes from the West and would disabuse the Malaysians of the false conception of the West being the “utopia” that SIS would portray it as.

If SIS truly possessed the courage of their convictions, why are they so timid? Are they afraid that their own followers would hear of a new explanation which transcends their secular liberal dogmas (that they have blindly borrowed from the West), and encourage them to truly think outside of the box?

A curious fact about SIS’ foreign founder

The day after the debate was supposed to take place was the International Muslimah Empowerment Conference (IMEC) 2015, where I presented my lecture entitled, “Feminism: Heroin(e) of the Masses” (now available to view here). Within this lecture, I discussed feminism and secular liberalism and propounded rational critiques of these philosophies, including whether or not they had truly produced success and happiness in the West. I exposed the so-called “Islamic Feminism” espoused by secular groups plaguing the Muslim world (usually set up with foreign Western support), for what it really is: the ‘reconciling’ of liberal values with Islam, by substituting it in place of the Qur’an’s values, under the guise of “interpretation”.

Secular Feminist reformists in the Muslim world have realised that their feminist claims cannot be satisfied through the reinterpretation of texts alone – rather, they now go so far as to claim that the problem is with the sources themselves – i.e. the Qur’an itself, and the Prophet himself . And to this end, SIS are a case in point.

I mentioned during my speech, the American Amina Wadud, one of the original founders of the feminist organisation, SIS, claims that forexplicit verses of the Qur’an that feminists are unable to ‘reinterpret’ (i.e. twist), the possibility of rejecting these verses should be considered.

Wadud states that she has “come to places where how the [Quranic] text says what it says is just plain inadequate or unacceptable, however much interpretation is enacted upon it”[1]. She continues to propose that because particular articulations in the Qur’an as a textare problematic, there exists the “possibility of refuting the text, to talk back, to even say “no”” [2] to the Qur’an! Wadud is proposing that rejecting the text of the Qur’an itself is a possible solution when the text of the Qur’an does not live up to feminist ideals. I mentioned in my speech that this founder of “Sisters in Islam” seems by her claim to want to be out of Islam.

Just in case anyone was in any doubt, Wadud further explains what she meant. She was not questioning whether the verse was from Allah (swt), but rather asserting some self-appointed right to disobey the verse – she would hear but disobey:

“As for “no” to the Qur’an, let me summarize the work I have been doing to overcome some of the apologia of Qur’an and Woman. Yes the Qur’an, I believe and love is considered a form of Allah’s self disclosure, but I do not believe God is locked into the 7th century Arabian context. […] When I say “no” it is not the integrity of the literal text, it is to the implementation of some practices which is a 14 centuries long debate.” [3]

And just in case we’re still misreading Wadud, let us see what her fellow “feminist interpreters” make of Wadud’s words. Omaima Abou-Bakr (whose work is also featured on SIS’ website), Wadud’s own fellow contributor to the recent publication by the Musawah Knowledge Building Initiative, “Men in Charge”, more recently cites and explains:

“Wadud’s recent work, represents a fourth interpretive philosophy […] to transcend ‘textual’ interpretation altogether […]. This development is clearly articulated by Amina Wadud in her second book, Inside the Gender Jihad (2006), which records the change in her interpretive orientation. […] The inspiration of the Qur’anic worldview remains, but because particular articulations in the Qur’an as a text are problematic, there exists the ‘possibility of refuting the text, to talk back, to even say “no”‘ (Wadud, 2006, p.191). Wadud here tries to find a solution to the persisting problematic faced by Islamic feminist interpreters in dealing with difficult, explicit texts.” [4]

Omaima Abou-Bakr continues, explaining Wadud’s approach to the Quran:

“Whereas previously such researchers have tried to resolve this difficulty by drawing attention to the general ‘principles’ of the Qur’an as a frame of reference, in light of which specific texts and injunctions should be understood and interpreted, Wadud takes the issue to another level. The ‘letter’ of the divine text remains a problem, and it is time to stop grappling with it […]. This new perspective would be a means to avoid literal application or implementation of a text when it opposes our current, more progressive human development and understandings […] in this sense the Qur’an is a text ‘in process’.” [5]

Considering that this is the position of SIS’ foreign founder, who SIS describe as being one of seven founders who ‘formed the core of what was to become Sisters in Islam’, it is hard to imagine why they would not be reluctant for someone to point this out in public, and make them answer to scrutiny over just how faithful to Islam and its texts they truly are. Of course, any pretence of basing their ideas on Islam, is merely a smokescreen to facilitate the acceptance by Malaysians of what are, in essence, foreign and un-Islamic ideas that have no basis in the Quran, or rationality.

So, why are Malaysia’s secular liberal groups so afraid of debate? Malaysia’s secular liberals are all for “debate” it seems – as long as their side are the only ones speaking.

Notes:

[1] Amina Wadud, Inside the Gender Jihad, 2006, p.192

[2] Ibid., p.191

[3] Amina Wadud’s Response to Tarek Fatah, 23/2/2005

[4] Omaima Abou-Bakr, The Interpretive Legacy of Qiwamah as an Exegetical Construct, Men in Charge, Ed. Ziba Mir Hosseini, 2015, p.60-61

[5] Ibid.

Source: http://zarafaris.com

May 20, 2015
HOME: Ihumane To Turn Away Refugee Boats

By Humanitarian Organization for Migration Economics (HOME)

Singapore should demonstrate leadership to the humanitarian crisis that is happening with the Rohingyas, who have been victims of systemic persecution, discrimination and rampant abuse. We also urge the Myanmar government to stop persecuting them to prevent the mass exodus of asylum seekers.

Even though Singapore did not ratify the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees, under international law the Singapore government has to adhere to the principle of “non-refoulement” – not to expel anyone back to places where they may experience persecution.

The crisis involving the Rohingyas is one that has to be resolved by ASEAN and not one country alone. But for Singapore to say that it is not in a position to accept refugees goes against the values of cooperation and humanitarianism and we urge the government to re-consider its decision.

Singapore need not accept and re-settle all who seek political asylum. It can work with other ASEAN governments and civil society, both locally and abroad, to ensure that the asylum seekers have temporary housing, food and medical attention while their cases are processed by the the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The solution should not be to turn these boats away as the Singapore government did in 2012 when it refused entry to 40 stranded asylum seekers after their vessel sank off the coast of Myanmar on December 5 and sought to dock in Singapore waters.

An ASEAN inter-agency framework for action should be established and all countries should work together to resolve this crisis in a sustainable way. But even as this framework is being put in place, rather than abandoning them to their deaths, Singapore should do its part and provide them with protection.

This statement has the support of the following individuals:

Lynn Lee, Terry Xu, Jennifer Teo, Rachel Zeng, Joshua Chiang, Shelley Thio, Roy Ngerng,

Source: www.theonlinecitizen.com

May 18, 2015
Hundreds Of Rohingya Migrants Stranded As Malaysia Turns Boats Away

Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia are continuing to turn away boats carrying hundreds of Rohingya and Bangladeshi migrants, despite reports that 10 people have died after a boat became stranded in the Andaman Sea.

Two large boats carrying hundreds of migrants were stranded after Malaysia turned both vessels away, the AP reports. Another boat carrying around 350 Rohingya migrants was kept at bay by Thai authorities. Those on the boat, which is stranded off the coast of Indonesia, told the BBC the crew abandoned the ship and 10 people had died. Some are drinking urine to survive as there’s no food or water, they said.

A boat carrying journalists in the Andaman Sea got close enough to hear cries of “Please help us! I have no water!” and “Please give me water!” coming from the fishing boat, The New York Times reports. The migrants said they had been on the boat for three months and the crew had abandoned them six days ago.

The Rohingya, a Muslim minority group who have for decades been ill-treated and persecuted in Myanmar, have been taking to the seas in ever-larger numbers to escape deplorable conditions in the camps where many are forced to live in Myanmar and in Bangladesh. Myanmar’s 1.33 million Rohingya population is not recognized by Thein Sein, who refers to them as “Bengalis,” implying that they’re in the country illegally.

“We have to send the right message that they are not welcome here,” Malaysian Deputy Home Minister Wan Junaidi Jafaar told the AP. He also said the country has been humane to the migrants, but they “cannot be flooding our shores like this.”

Around 25,000 Rohingya migrants took to trafficking boats between January and March this year, twice as many as the same period in 2014. Around 1,600 Rohingya and Bangladeshi migrants were rescued off the coast of Indonesia on Sunday and detained in Malaysia on Monday; Thailand is the usual destination for smuggling boats, but since it closed its borders to the boats, Malaysia and Indonesia have become hot spots.

On Thursday, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon expressed his concern about the crisis and urged countries to “keep their borders and ports open in order to help the vulnerable people who are in need.” Ban also said the root causes of the exodus—human rights violations—need to be addressed.

Source: www.newsweek.com

May 15, 2015