There are a few things I don’t abide in my classes.
One of them is racism. Today in class I pulled a boy out of class because he called one of his classmates “死黒人” (it literally translates to “die black person” but colloquially it’s more accurately translated to “stupid black person”, and is typically used on people who have dark and tanned skin, not necessarily just African Americans).
This kid was from a majority race in Singapore, and I called him out on it. I told him people of his race were literally being abused and faced racism daily overseas, and that he was taking advantage of the safe environment here where he’s one of the majority. I told him that saying sorry to his friend was not enough, that he shouldn’t do it again.
Don’t we all know that’s not going to happen.
So I addressed the class on this. Acknowledged that I have said racist things before years ago, and that I have also been the target of racism right here in sunny Singapore. And that if you can’t even respect your friends and peers (because that’s what it boils down to), then how can you expect others to respect you.
Pretty sure most of it fell on deaf ears, given that they are a class that has trouble respecting themselves, and with very probable self-esteem issues.
It is so, so painful to see the world the way it is. To see kids behaving that way because we as adults tell them (through our behavior and the words we say) that it is okay. That it is normal to have pre-conceived (negative) notions of what different cultures or races or ethnicities are, or do, or have. It is tiring and exhausting trying to re-educate these kids into thinking that everyone deserves respect.
The very fact that we NEED to RE-EDUCATE them about that is, in itself, appalling.
And no, this isn’t just at the secondary school level either. I had to address a similar issue while teaching a primary 2 class this morning, when they didn’t react to 2 ethnic dances I mentioned we would be learning, but started giggling and making noise when I mentioned the third.
Every day I realize how broken our world is, and how we are the ones who broke it. But shouldn’t we also be trying to help fix it?
I have refrained myself from commenting on this issue, but I can’t let it continue after coming across this particular post by NMP Calvin Cheng.
Before I begin I would like to apologize to any parties which may feel offended by my post, and to all Muslim ladies who might just have had enough mansplaining on this entire tudung issue, but at the same time, I am not here to please everyone but simply to right what I feel is wrong.
This individual right here started off on the wrong foot, talking about the history of politics in Singapore and comparing it to Malaysia for no reason whatsoever. The reality is that the issue we are facing is unique to our own country, and there should never have been any reason to compare our political system with that of our neighbours. And that too, was flawed. You might be well versed in the political history of Singapore, but please keep your mouth shut on the history of politics of other countries, for it seems like you are just taking advantage of this situation to paint our neighbours in a negative light. Silence would then be your best bet for things you obviously have no clue in.
If the GRC system was supposedly set up to ensure minority representation, why is it that Mr Cheng here is repeatedly against minority MPs championing minority causes? Doesn’t that go totally against the intent of the GRC that he so clearly stated? So if a Malay MP is not allowed to question the parliament regarding the tudung issue, would it be more acceptable for lets say, a Chinese MP to bring up the same issue?
Mind you, Mr Cheng, this isn’t the first time that Malay MPs have brought up this issue in parliament, and for the past few years a number of Malay MPs from PAP have brought up this issue as well. Why then are they not considered to be divisive or sowing discord? However, when the same issue is raised by a Malay opposition MP, the tables were quickly turned against him to shut him up. Are you telling me our politicians have stooped that low today?
Yes, Faisal Manap represents people of all races and religions in Aljunied GRC, and I am pretty sure he remembers that, for the simple fact that he brought up a lot of issues in parliament on the very same day, yet unfortunately, only this issue was highlighted by the state controlled media. Mr Cheng, if parliament isn’t the place to discuss such issues, then where else? Where have the so called closed door discussions brought us to? Has there been any changes, any progress? It only makes the most sense to bring up such a large scale issue in front of all government members to discuss it with diplomacy, however, in doing so Faisal Manap was labeled as sowing discord instead.
I’ll end off with two quotes for you. Last year, the very same Masagos was recorded saying “All matters pertaining to any religion are often discussed in the Cabinet and we do look at ways to lead society to be more open, more accepting.” A year before that, PM Lee mentioned, “we discuss things more openly now, even sensitive matters, we discuss openly in mixed groups and we speak candidly with one another from the heart.”
I guess you are the one who has forgotten how Singapore’s political system and multi-religious society functions. Coming from someone who has advocated the killing of terrorists, their families and all their children, really, you are the least fit individual to even talk about this issue. You should remember that.
It is a reality that religious communities, even in Singapore, remain in their silos.
It is not uncommon for religious organisations and businesses to place emphasis on recruiting those who are of the same faith, even for roles not directly religion-related.
Of course, it is their prerogative to do so.
But it is sad that instead of living and working side-by-side with non-religious affiliated parties to forge mutual understanding and friendships despite their differences, these groups choose exclusivity and isolation.
I have seen it even in charity and volunteer organisations, where one can overhear remarks like “this person will not have genuine compassion because he does not share our faith” or “he is an outsider, so he cannot fully understand our religious goals”.
Rhetoric like this from any religious organisation or individual is disconcerting. Such comments are dangerous and not to be accepted here.
With the City Harvest case and the one in which an imam made insensitive remarks, it is clear that religious leaders have a big influence over their followers.
But what are they doing to promote religious pluralism?
In this age of heightened consciousness of one’s religious identity and of religious diversity, Singapore can never deviate from our pledge of “regardless of race, language or religion”.
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.
A letter from Patrick Low on the Elected President.
Dear Fellow Singaporeans
Comes September 2017 we may be going to the polls to elect our 8th President reserved for the Malay race only. Notwithstanding the constitutionaI amendments passed in Parliament I am not convinced of the wisdom and logic of changing our Presidential system to ensure that a member of the minority must always have a chance to become President via rotation.
As a Singaporean who lived through the time of our first President or the Yang di- Pertuan Negara appointed in 1959 in self governing Singapore to the 7th President elected in 2011 race was never an issue in my mind and in the minds of countless Singaporeans.
He can be Chinese Malay Indian or Eurasian elected or appointed it did not make any difference. What matters most is the President must serve the people. If he is honest sincere and capable he will be able to unify all Singaporeans regardless of race language class and religion.
As a 72 year old Singaporean it is my privilege to grow up colour blind even through the worst racial riots in 1951 1964 and 1965. I was a child of 6 when I first witnessed the horrors of the Maria Hertog riot from a cubicle window in Jalan Besar. Then came the 2nd and 3rd racial riot in 1964/65 when we were part of Malaysia. We were at the Cathay Cinema when racial riots broke out and we were told to go home.
But none of these riots change our generation’s perception that in multiracial Singapore race should not matter and should never be allowed to matter certainly not in the choice of a President whether he is black white brown or yellow.
It never occur to me that a Malay should not be the head of state in Chinese majority self governing Singapore in 1959. Neither did I have any reservation to a Eurasian President Dr. Benjamin Sheares a distinguished gynaecologist who served us well from 1971 to 1981.
Then came our third President Mr. Devan Nair an Indian MP who came from the ranks of the PAP. He unfortunately had to leave office after 4.5 years as a result of personal health problem.
Next came President Wee Kim Wee another appointive President who hailed from the Straits Time Press. He was a “baba” Chinese Singaporean who performed his role so well that he became known as the People’s President.
Another well loved President was Mr. Ong Teng Cheong the first elected President in Singapore history. He was our Deputy Prime Minister before he took office but completed only one term owing to differences in perception of the President’s role as a guardian of our reserve.
After him came the 2 term President S R Nathan a civil servant who was moderately popular with the people attending President’s Charity galas to raise funds for the people. Again race was not an issue even though the previous Indian President did not fare too well and had to leave office under a cloud.
Now we are nearing the end of the term of Mr Tony Tan an endorsed elected Chinese PresIdent who was a former DPM in the PAP government.
So all in all we have had 7 Presidents over 58 years. 1 Malay, 2 Indians, 1 Eurasian and 3 Chinese. Out of the seven 4 were appointed and 3 were elected. As far as the people are concerned it does not matter as long as they are men of integrity and perform the jobs well to serve the people.
Without going into the merits and demerits of the government’s rationale for amending the Constitution to allow for a reserved Presidential Election for only members from the Malay race my main objection is that such a change violates the Singapore Constitution and undermines the daily National Pledge recited by all school children every morning that:
“We the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion to build a democratic society based on justice and equality so as to achieve happiness prosperity and progress for our nation”.
If we have any regards at all to the history of our Presidencies one fact that stands out is the colour blind reality of the ordinary Singaporean. There was never any perceived notion that the Presidency must be rotated by race to ensure fairness to the minority. All the friends acquaintances and strangers I meet on the streets and in the parks in the last one year invariably dismiss race as a factor in their reckoning of what makes a good President.
The issue of the President holding the second key to the national reserve should also not be an issue for he is surrounded by the Council of Presidential Advisors whom he has to take advice from. So whether he is Malay Chinese Indian or others the key that he holds is a collective key held by a panel of advisors nominated by the government.
As for the financial qualifications required of a Presidential candidate it is most unlikely that the government would be able to headhunt for one who would meet all the stringent requirements.
In fact all our past Presidents never had the experience of running a $500 million company. Where then do they get the forte to disagree with the government on opening our national coffers.
However in raising the bars so high the government turns what should be a level playing field into a pole vault pitch ruling out the possibility of sourcing for a few good men who can genuinely understand the plight of the ordinary people and work for their welfare.
The office sadly is in danger of becoming the precinct of the rich and powerful.
In this day and age when governments all over the world are beginning to lose the trust of the people it is incumbent on the PAP leadership not to erode that trust further by imposing a albatross around the people’s neck.
Given the challenge from a former Presidential candidate Dr Tan Cheng Bok that the reckoning of the first elective President does not reside in Mr Wee Kim Wee’s term but rathet in Mr. Ong Teng Cheong’s it would be prudent for the government to pause before rushing to implement it’s Reserve Presidency – an area where angels may fear to tread.
It would also be doing itself a huge favour to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of Singaporeans whether race is indeed a factor in the choice of our Head of State. Afterall what is the hurry when more haste produces less speed and further undermines the trust of the people in the midst of a economic recession and a very uncertain world.
