It is the PAP which keeps politicizing the hijab issue and making it sensitive to talk about by misrepresenting the issue as an attempt by Malay-Muslims to be different and to be treated extra special.
The PAP treats every issue concerning rights of the Malay-Muslim community in this way.
Whether it is the issue of madrasah, whether it is tudung issue in government schools, whether it is the aurat issue for Muslim women in certain professions.
Masagos Zulkifli has employed the use of highly emotive language – ” sowing discord and divisiveness ” – and this is the type of language which is actually sowing discord and divisiveness.
The PAP has done this before – using highly emotive language – to shut down the Malay-Muslim community’s efforts to protect, preserve and regain its constitutionally guaranteed rights.
By doing so – by portraying the Malay-Muslim community as always being problematic – the PAP is actually endangering our racial and religious harmony
Allowing Muslim women in certain professions to cover their aurat is a non-issue. Really.
So the question is why is the PAP adamant in not allowing it ? And an even bigger question is why the PAP would attempt to justify an unfair policy at the expense of our national cohesion.
Bravo MP Faisal Manap for doing what the PAP Muslim MPs dare not, care not or cannot do. He is simply doing his job.
Shame on Masagos Zulkifli for attempting to silent MP Faisal Manap.
By doing so, Masagos Zulkifli is beng an enabler to the PAP’s unfair policy in this matter. It is this behaviour which is sowing real discord and divisiveness. Masagos Zulkifli – Stop politicizing this issue please.
A motion on the achievements of Singapore women took a drastic turn when Minister Masagos had an intense exchange with WP MP Faisal Manap in Parliament over the tudung issue yesterday.
The exchange took place in a middle of a debate on supporting the aspirations of women in Singapore, after Faisal Manap had raised the tudung issue in an earlier speech.
In a nut shell, Masagos was taking Faisal Manap to task for constantly raising “divisive” issues such as the tudung issue, role of Malays in the SAF, and Palestine etc. You get the drift. Difficult issues that tend to put the government in a spot. That might drive a wedge by making these issues into what Masagos called a “state vs religion” matter.
Why keep focusing on such issues, Masagos asked, instead of focusing on issues that matter most to the Malay-Muslim community – education, housing, jobs. Why not focus on issues that are more important and constructive?
Now, Faisal Manap is a politician at the end of the day. While I’m sure that issues such as tudung, role of Malays in the SAF and Palestine do matter to many Malay-Muslims, I am also sure that Faisal Manap specifically raised these issues precisely because these were tough issues that would put the government in a spot. And to gain some political mileage out of it too by playing to the gallery. i.e. Faisal Manap is just being a politician.
E.g. remember the photo of him praying before a GE rally in 2015, which appeared on social media?
Like what many other politicians do actually. Including PAP ones. Just that sometimes they are lousier at it – e.g remember. Koh Poh Koon helping an old auntie to carrying 32kg of old newspapers.
Yet, three points in defense of Faisal Manap:
1) Sole Malay Opposition MP
Now, the PAP is accusing Faisal Manap of raising “divisive” issues on a regular basis. The thing is, if not him, then who? There aren’t any other Malay-Muslim opposition MPs, so the onus is on him to raise certain issues that members of the Malay-Muslims want answers to.
Perhaps Faisal Manap wouldn’t need to raise such issues if Malay-Muslim PAP MPs have the guts to raise them in Parliament in the first place.
2) If not in Parliament, then where?
Masagos said that the government does not discuss such issues in public forums, such as Parliament, as they are sensitive and potentially divisive, and can be easily misunderstood because they are complex and difficult to resolve. Instead, Masagos said, the government addresses these issues behind closed doors with community leaders.
Not that we can’t discuss behind closed doors at times, but honestly, what’s so wrong about an elected representative raising issues that matter to his constituents in Parliament? And if we can’t have an open debate in Parliament, then where is a right platform for law makers to debate sensitive, but important stuff?
At least Parliament is a public forum where everything that’s said is recorded into the Hansard – so we know what exactly is said. As opposed to doing things behind closed doors all the time, where the public wouldn’t know what’s going on.
When can this society have an honest conversation about things, rather than sweep them under the rug?
3) Point about Zulfikar was a red herring
In his speech, Masagos raised the point about Zulfikar (remember the dude who was detained under the ISA last year for promoting violence and ISIS?) and Faisal Manap being at an event at the same time.
That was a classic red herring that is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand:
Somewhat insinuating something else also. Which is an ad hominem:
So Masagos Zulkifli came out with all guns blazing accusing WP’s Faisal Manap of playing to the gallery to score political points. What did Faisal Manap do to earn the ire of Masagos? Well, once again, Faisal brought up an issue dear to the Muslim community which is the hijab issue. This, according to Masagos, was tantamount to being divisive. From Masagos’ point of view, the correct way to bring the issue forward was to discuss it behind closed doors.
Excuse me Mr Masagos, Faisal Manap, as an MP representing the minority Malay community in his ward, was just doing his job. If as an MP he cannot voice out such issues in Parliament, where else can he voice out? Does he have to resort to speaking to nobody at the Speaker’s Corner? Why the need for minority representation in a GRC if matters like this cannot be raised in Parliament?
You, as a Minister, was also being disrespectful by attacking him like this. Why didn’t you use the parliamentary platform to address the issues? Where is your patience, a virtue of Prophet Muhammad SAW which is encouraged in Islam?
How many times has the government engaged the Malay/Muslim community, as well as the wider community, on the topic of hijab and discrimination in NS? These are matters that not only affect our community but also the wider Singaporean community?
Why the need to discuss behind closed doors all the time? Has there been any improvements using this approach? Yes this is a sensitive and emotive issue but don’t forget that Malays are now more integrated than ever and are more educated. We can accept decisions based on sound reasoning and if they are not in conflict with our religious tenets. We understand that there are other issues that need to be considered. We are not myopic and narrow minded.
Environment and Water Resources Minister Masagos Zulkifli criticised an opposition MP’s tendency to raise divisive issues relating to the Malay/Muslim community in Parliament on Tuesday (Apr 4).
At the debate on supporting the aspirations of women in Singapore, Workers’ Party MP Faisal Manap (Aljunied GRC) called for Muslim nurses and uniformed officers in the Home Team and armed forces to be allowed to wear the tudung, or headscarf, at work.
He said countries like Australia and the United Kingdom had allowed this, and asked when Singapore would take a similar step.
Responding, Mr Masagos said he found Mr Faisal’s approach “worrisome”, as he had used the motion “to focus on differences instead of rallying people to be united”.
“He dwells on issues that can injure or hurt the feelings of the community rather than inspire them. In fact, Mr Manap has used many occasions to raise potentially discordant issues in this House,” he added.
The minister cited issues Mr Faisal raised in past sittings, such as the need for halal kitchens in Navy ships and the perceived discrimination of Malays in the armed forces.
He asked: “Is it his or his party’s position that these issues are the top concerns of the community?”
The minister said Mr Faisal’s approach needled the community’s sensitivity “subtly and frequently”.
“It leaves a lingering feeling of (something) unsolved and unsolvable, and impatience that one day I believe will explode. Is that what Mr Faisal wants?” he asked.
Mr Masagos noted the Government had responded to Mr Faisal’s queries before, and said he would not elaborate except to emphasise “we are in a multiracial society and we all have a role to play to enlarge our common space”.
Religion is important, he said. “I too want to see progress in the tudung issue and religious matters that are dear to Muslims,” he added.
But he noted that Government and community leaders of all races and religions had been discussing such deeply emotive matters behind closed doors.
“There is a right time, a right place and right way to discuss this.”
“The way to make progress is gradually and quietly, working under the radar to strengthen mutual trust and understanding among Singaporeans so that we can move forward step by step,” he added.
In contrast, championing issues “in a higher-profile way like the member always does once in a while, using them to score political points, will not strengthen trust.”
“It will only raise the temperature and actually make the problems harder to solve,” Mr Masagos said.
He cited an old social media post by Mr Faisal, in which he posed for a photo during the Wear White campaign in 2014 with Zulfikar Shariff, who was arrested under the Internal Security Act last year for his support for ISIS. Mr Masagos said: “It makes us wonder whether it is Mr Faisal who is supporting Mr Zulfikar or Mr Zulfikar supporting Mr Faisal, or are they together in this because of a common cause.”
Mr Faisal replied he was there only to support Wear White, which opposes homosexuality: “I’m not so sure what’s behind minister’s mind when he tried to link me to Zulfikar and I’m a bit distraught by his effort to paint me negatively.”
He also disagreed he was sowing discord and said as an elected MP, he had the right to voice concerns of his community in Parliament.
Mr Masagos said Mr Faisal was “not repentant or apologetic”, and “insists his strident approach is the correct way”, although it puts Singapore’s multiracial harmony at risk.
“If each community pushes its own claims aggressively, there will be pushback, there will be animosity,” said the minister.
Mr Faisal replied all he had been asking since he was elected was for the Government to address the issue: “How does that cause divisiveness and discord?”
Mr Masagos pointed to his “practice of subtly and frequently bringing issues that are sensitive to the community, knowing (they are) not easy to resolve and cleverly turning it into a state versus religion issue.”
“These are all very dangerous moves. I actually wonder whether the WP and its leadership are committed to the racial and religious harmony which underpins the security of this country,” he added.
“Do you want to go back to the politics of race and religion of the 1960s, the politics we wanted to avoid when we left Malaysia? If we don’t want that, why do we let a member constantly raise these issues to stir the community?”
The Muslim community inherently understands adversity- we have faced persecution because of our beliefs for centuries. Despite this, the Muslim community inherits a rich history of culture, community growth, wisdom, and knowledge. Given the global rise of Islamophobia, rise of Daesh, and continued persecutions, unity as a community should be our strength; however, the problematic attitude of our leaders in our mosques and disengagement with the youth are among the problems that sway us away from achieving a stronger community.
As ‘Houses of God’, mosques are places where Muslims congregate to worship and praise our Lord; concurrently, they are platforms for all to gain Islamic knowledge and serve the community- whether it is through helping the less fortunate or raising awareness against injustices and problems. However, because of “Mosque Politics” and increased disagreements between community leaders, mosques have become houses of dissension and weak brotherhood. There are well defined and alarming hierarchies present within our communities. Most mosques have a committee of leaders who stay in charge, make decisions, and run daily programs. However, decisions are usually made without the approval of the entire community, eliminating the sense of community as a whole. Additionally, this system mainly centralizes power in the hands of men, who further silence women. Misogyny and cultural practices are abused to further subjugate women (i.e. solely holding her responsible for the cooking and cleaning at mosques).
Furthermore, consolidating power creates egos, leading to a bigger divide. Because of conflicting ideas, egos create dissonance among people that leads to an inability to reach a consensus, resulting in the creation of “rival mosques”- mosques that are built out of spite towards one another. Islam stresses the importance of akhlaq, or the practice of ethics, proper etiquette, mannerly communication, and morality. Practicing such behavior establishes respect, promotes friendship, and encourages free thought. In his last will to his sons, Ali ibn Abi Talib said, “Maintain communication and exchange of opinion among yourselves. Beware of disunity and enmity.” As followers of the Holy Prophet(s), akhlaq is a cornerstone in Islamic ideology that we should all aspire to follow. In religious programs, we learn about the high morals of the Holy Household (a); but, how often do we emulate them? To eliminate communication issues, there needs to be equal representation of all groups in our mosques. Perhaps we can hold monthly community meetings that serve as platforms to respectfully express concerns. This way, it encourages member involvement and finds ways to defeat community problems.
Many mosques are run by first generation Muslims who have adopted an authoritarian management style; sadly, this has led to a chasm between the youth and elders, resulting in youth disengagement. What community leaders fail to realize is that as time progresses, mosques must evolve and be adaptable to the needs of the time. Because of the environment young Muslims are brought up in, often very different from the time of their parents, they turn to mosques to develop a Muslim identity, for religious and spiritual growth, a center for learning, interfaith activities, and wanting to be more active in their society. Additionally, because the youth are the future leaders of the community, mosques are in need of a healthy dialogue between elders and the youth. Youth leadership at mosques is crucial for a bright future- the youth need to make time and effort to participate in the growth of their communities. In some cases, however, the main reasons for the lack of youth involvement are: inflexible attitude of leaders, lack of extra- curricular activities, and failure to understand what is being taught because of language barriers. To overcome these setbacks, some mosques invite English-speaking lecturers, hold round table discussions about various topics, and conduct sports tournaments to promote healthy competition. Such flexibility should be promoted in all mosques because it engages the youth and helps them connect with elders.
“United we stand, divided we fall” is an expression used to inspire unity and collaboration. Its core concept lies in the collectivist notion that if individuals work together as a team, they, as a group, can succeed and achieve more. In an era where Islam and Muslims are attacked continuously, implementing unity within our own societies creates strength, excellent communication, and tolerance which can be accomplished through the joint efforts of community members. Eliminating hierarchies, providing equal representation, and building stronger relationships between the youth and elderly are all ways to foster unity and advance community development. It is time to confront problems that act as obstacles in achieving unity as a community because as He said, “… hold fast on to His rope all together, and do not be divided among yourselves…” (3:103)
