Rilek1Corner

Tag: PERGAS

  • PERGAS’ RESPONSE TO HPB’S FAQ ON SEXUALITY

     

    1236529_600623739990110_1831115209_n

    MEDIA STATEMENT

    11 February 2014

    PERGAS’ RESPONSE TO HPB’S FAQ ON SEXUALITY

    This response is to record Pergas’ disappointment to the Health Promotion Board’s (HPB) recent FAQ on sexuality.

    2 Pergas finds that the FAQ is insensitive towards the prevailing view of the Singaporean society. This is as reflected in the recent Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) survey which reported that 78.2% of Singaporeans views are generally conservative towards same-sex relation. As a national health board, Pergas is of the view that HPB should not have presented its FAQ in a manner that can be construed by some as tacit support in normalising same-sex relations.

    3 Pergas views that the message should be directed at the importance of a traditional family unit rather than implicitly showing support towards same-sex behaviour.

    4 Pergas would also like to note that the FAQ is in contrast to the state’s pro-family policy. The pro-homosexuality stance reflected in the FAQ undermines the traditional family unit which is essential in building our society.

    5 Pergas would like to assert that the family unit is a fundamental institution of human society. According to the higher objectives of Islamic Law, the family unit serves to bring in new generation and preserve the existence of humankind. For that reason, Islam gives attention in establishing a family only through the legal marriage of a man and woman. Any form of extra-marital or same-sex relations are hence prohibited in Islam.

    6 Notwithstanding the above, Pergas would also like to emphasize that in no way the ‘Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender’ or LGBT should be ostracised by the society. In line with the teachings of Islam which promote love and mercy, we must avoid rejecting them as individuals and should treat them with love and compassion.

    7 Pergas also advise Muslim to convey the true message of Islam and guide our Muslims LGBT to the right path. Meanwhile, Pergas also encourages those Muslims who are facing sexuality issues, such as tendency towards homosexuality/bisexuality to seek proper religious guidance and psychological guidance from asatizah (religious teachers) and counselors who have knowledge on Islamic perspective in this matter.

    8 Finally, Pergas wishes to state its readiness to be consulted on potentially sensitive issues such as this matter in the future. This is to ensure that the interests of all groups are represented in the consideration of government agencies such as HPB.

    SINGAPORE ISLAMIC SCHOLARS & RELIGIOUS TEACHERS ASSOCIATION (PERGAS)

  • 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