Rilek1Corner

Tag: Singapore

  • Smoking in a headscarf

    Not too long ago, a friend of mine posted a photo of a woman wearing a headscarf and holding a cigarette in her hand. There was a minor ruckus on her profile about this picture. Why does this image shake up some of our worlds?

    Because in Singaporean society Muslim women who wear the headscarf have been constructed to be examples of virtuous, moral, proper women. If you wear a headscarf, you’d better behave in these certain ways –

    1. No smoking in public (cigarettes at least, but smoking shisha/hookah/Arab water pipe is mysteriously tolerated),
    2. No kissing in public (even if married!),
    3. No unruly behaviour like shouting or fighting, and
    4. No close contact with men in public.

    Otherwise, you’re going to be pointed out as a bad example of a Muslim woman. Interestingly, holding hands is still kind of acceptable, as is wearing trousers (not the same case in other Muslim communities).

    In our context, the headscarf is a visible sign of morality. You can’t tell if someone believes in God, or prays, or fasts, but you can see a headscarf. The wearer is assumed to be a morally-upright person who has to follow certain rules of (Islamic) behaviour, and therefore also assumed to be discipline-able by any member of the public.

    No one has any qualms about telling off a woman with a headscarf if she’s seen to be ‘violating’ any of the above rules. Many older and young women and men, have no qualms about policing young women who are not ‘properly’ dressed.

    However, women without a headscarf can do any of the above things without nary a public comment because her morality is invisible (Or you can argue that her ‘immorality’ is visible, haha.). Being under constant surveillance can be annoying at best, and exhausting at worst. Is it really a surprise then that some women choose to appear in some situations with a headscarf, and some without?

    Sadly, there are no equivalent markers for men in our Muslim community. In some other societies, perhaps a beard plays the same trick, albeit to a lesser extent (and a beard doesn’t entail an entire dress code). Baju kurung? No one wears that anymore except to the mosque or during Ramadan or Eid. Long sleeves and long pants? Come on man, Singapore is too hot and humid. But why do young men wearing (tight) T-shirts get picked on far less?

    Because of the invisible morality of young Muslim men, they can get away with a lot of things. For example, wearing a T-shirt that says “Playboy” on it. The contrast is even starker when you know that they are probably good, practising Muslim men, who have ‘proper’ social relations with young Muslim women.

    Heck, the best contrast is to see them in the company of ‘properly-dressed’ young Muslim women at Islamic events. Young men are free to go everywhere in their T-shirts and no one is going to say, Hey dude, your T-shirt is a bit too tight, eh? But you can hear, Eh your hair is sticking out! Or, You should wear a top that covers your butt, or, You look so beautiful in an abaya!

    There will be people who say that if a woman really wore the headscarf for God, all this would not matter. But my focus is not on the reasons for wearing it. My focus here is on the headscarf as a visible signifier of morality and its implications for the daily lives of young women.

    I can’t change the way people think, but I think awareness of why we think the way we think is the first step.

     

    Source: http://bit.ly/1jOTlBF

  • 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

  • ARE WE READY FOR THE HIJAB-IN-UNIFORM?

    When Muslim girls wearing the tudung in Singapore’s public schools became a major controversy in 2002, many Muslims asked for accommodation. The government counter-argued that public spaces shared by diverse ethnic and religious groups in Singapore have to remain strictly secular and any exceptions would invite competing demands from other communities.

    The issue never went away, but we seemed to have progressed a little. When the issue of allowing the hijab in the uniformed services became a matter of public debate recently, the government responded in measured tones. While asserting that it must manage the diverse needs of society to maintain overall harmony, the government now calls for constructive dialogue and the search for practical solutions.

    It was implied that society is not ready for the hijab-in-uniform and until such time that other communities are willing to accept it, the status quo would remain. Now that the ball has been thrown to ‘society’, the question seems to be: are we ready for the hijab?

    The Dastar and the Hijab

    Dastar is the Punjabi word for the Sikh turban. In the recent debate, the dastar was frequently cited. Proponents of the hijab-in-uniform pointed to the accommodation of the dastar as a reflection that society is ready, while opponents dismissed it as a historical legacy that postcolonial society had already gotten used to.

    I think both sides are wrong.

    Accommodation of the dastar is indeed a legacy, a British colonial one. But the British decision to accommodate it was not for multicultural reasons; it was political and racial – even racist. After experiencing great difficulties subjugating the Sikhs in India, the British co-opted them into their imperial army because they were believed to be a martial race.

    The dastar, a symbol of spirituality and holiness in Sikhism, became primarily a sign of honour, courage and loyalty to the British empire.

    But those who dismissed our postcolonial accommodation of the dastar as simply being based on historical legacy are also mistaken. Such an argument amounts to saying that Singaporeans are merely tolerating the wearing of the dastar in public institutions because the British had allowed it. This smacks of condescension to Sikhs and insults us all.

    So why did we, as a postcolonial society, allow the accommodation of the dastar to continue? I believe we did so because we recognised that the dastar is an important component of Sikh culture – and the Sikh community is an integral part of our society. This is why the Chinese tomb guarded by statues of dastar-wearing Sikh guards quickly became the icon of Bukit Brown cemetery. Contemporary Singaporeans who discovered Bukit Brown immediately recognised the significance accorded to the Sikhs and their culture by the Chinese of our colonial past.

    Similarly, any accommodation of the hijab should be done out of multicultural respect and understanding, not for political expediency or the symbolic function of co-opting the purported ethnic essence in the service of the state.

    Therefore, those who used the example of Muslim women wearing the hijab in the armed forces of Pakistan or Iran to argue for accommodation in Singapore are also mistaken. The hijab is not being accommodated in these countries, but being co-opted as an Islamic symbol for the political ends of the state.

    Canada and Norway are better international comparisons for Singapore’s situation. Singapore was ahead of both countries in accommodating the dastar, but is now falling behind these progressive multicultural societies in failing to accommodate the hijab. Recently, Canada allowed the hijab in uniformed services for multicultural reasons.

    The proponents of the hijab-in-uniform in the recent debate in Singapore mainly used the Arabic name for the headscarf instead of the Malay tudung, thus signifying the conversation is part of a global movement to gain multicultural acceptance of the headscarf.

    A Maturing Discussion

    Is it inconceivable that one day, outside Parliament House, we could have a statue of the first woman speaker of parliament wearing the hijab? It would be a statement that the hijab is not just an incidental ethnic dress, but an important component of Muslim culture – hence demonstrating a greater multicultural acceptance of Muslims in our society.

    My sense is that in 2002, it was inconceivable for most Singaporeans that a prominent political leader would wear the hijab in the secular spaces of our public institutions. But a decade later, we have had its significance explained to us and are more  accustomed to our friends, colleagues and neighbours wearing the hijab.

    In fact, many Singaporeans applauded the prime minister when he appointed Madam Halimah Yacob speaker of parliament in 2013, not because she was a hijab-wearing Muslim woman, but because she was most suitably qualified by her political work and moral integrity. The point is that Madam Halimah’s hijab is irrelevant to her performance as speaker.

    Likewise, if the hijab can be designed to be incorporated into the uniform and does not interfere with job performance, would Singaporeans care that the nurse, the police officer, the paramedic or the soldier was wearing a hijab?

    After decades of meritocratic and multicultural education, it would be hard to believe that Singaporeans would mind persons in positions of trust wearing the hijab because of their faith. We are meritocratic and multicultural because we embrace our cultural diversity. And we judge each other not by our different cultural practices but by professional performance.

    You Never Know Till You Try

    So, is society ready for the hijab-in-uniform?

    There is no way to really know until we try allowing it. No matter how many surveys we take or how much we debate the issue, there will always be the suspicion there are too many of us with prejudices hiding behind politically correct opinions. If we do not try, we will not rid those prejudices lingering in us. Trying is the best way to search for practical solutions.

    And if we are not even prepared to try, what is the point of dialogue?

    By all means, start small by trying it out with one police division or with nurses at one public hospital. But at least let us start trying.

    We owe it to our cherished principles of meritocracy and multiculturalism to try.

    Daniel PS Goh

    Source: http://bit.ly/1dvAZjf

  • DARI PARLIMEN: JAWAPAN DPM TEO TENTANG HIJAB

    Timbalan Perdana Menteri Teo Chee Hean berkata, membenarkan variasi dalam uniform seperti hijab atau tudung, dalam khidmat-khidmat beruniform tertentu, akan mengurangkan identiti umum perkhidmatan berkenaan.

    Dalam jawapan bertulis beliau di Parlimen hari ini, DPM Teo berkata dengan tidak membolehkan variasi sedemikian, amalan sekular Pemerintah boleh ditegakkan.

    Ini juga kata beliau akan meyakinkan rakyat bahawa mereka akan menerima khidmat-khidmat utama dengan adil dan saksama tanpa mengira kaum atau agama.

    DPM Teo berkata demikian sebagai menjawab pertanyaan AP pembangkang, Pritam Singh, yang mahu tahu sama ada Pemerintah akan menimbangkan kemungkinan membolehkan pemakaian hijab dalam perkhidmatan beruniform.

    Pemerintah kata Encik Teo perlu mengimbangi keperluan kumpulan-kumpulan berbeza dalam masyarakat Singapura yang berbilang kaum dan agama.

    Encik Teo yang juga menjadi Menteri Ehwal Dalam Negeri menambah, rakyat Singapura memahami perlunya mengimbangi apa yang diinginkan kumpulan mereka, dengan keperluan memenuhi kumpulan lain.

    Serta memahami perlunya mengekalkan ruang bersama yang memberi manfaat kepada semua, terutama kumpulan-kumpulan minoriti.

  • Kes aniaya budak: Bekas guru didakwa

    Bekas guru pusat jagaan kanak-kanak ‘My First Skool’ yang dikatakan menyebabkan kaki seorang budak berusia dua tahun retak telah didakwa di mahkamah kerana menganiaya kanak-kanak itu semalam.

    Perbuatan Siti Hadijah Mohamed Sin, 51 tahun, bekas guru sambilan di cawangan pusat penjagaan kanak-kanak My First Skool di Blok 192 Lorong 4 Toa Payoh itu telah ‘ditangkap’ menerusi video rakaman CCTV pusat jagaan tersebut. Menyusuli kejadian tersebut, Siti Hadijah telah dipecat oleh pusat jagaan tersebut.

    Dia dikatakan telah menggenggam lengan dan mengangkat serta menghempas budak itu sebanyak dua kali ke atas lantai.

    Perbuatan Siti Hadijah itu telah menyebabkan budak tersebut mengalami keretakan pada tulang kering di kaki kirinya.

    Kes tersebut akan didengar lagi di mahkamah pada 18 Februari nanti.

    Jika sabit kesalahan, Siti Hadijah boleh didenda sehingga $4000 dan dihukum penjara sehingga empat tahun.

    Tontoni video CNA: http://bit.ly/KDmjbw

    Source: http://bit.ly/1bhl9ZC