Plainly speaking to my non-Muslim friends about the tudung issue.
The request since over the last 30 years;
1) Our Muslim women should be allowed to wear the tudung at work.
2) Our Muslims girls should be allowed to wear the tudung in school.
The Muslim community never request for a mandatory requirements for our women and girls to don the tudung, but to have the options available should they wish to. There is no huss and fuss about the Islamic obligations to talk about, but we are only asking for the particular options to be available for our women.
How different will it be when the options are there, and we still can see some are not with their tudung? In parliament itself is a good example of harmony between Muslim women with and without tudung, even if the ratio is majority with tudung.
What influence does it make to any person or community or the state? Who is making it a complicated matter at all? The people or the establishment?
Keeping it politically is not a correct motivation and bound to ransom and conflict. This is unfair for the women, Muslim or non-Muslim, who prefer to wear the tudung anywhere and everywhere. There are no religious reasons for a non-Muslim to put on the tudung if they want to. There are guidelines in Islam for Muslim women to put on their tudung. Ultimately it is the individual preference, and if only the option is there. But now, what options are there?
Question? Why and who and what is holding it back? Nearly 40 years with no resolution?
The main stumbling block of the decades old tudung issue were/ are our very own Malay-Muslim leaders, from the beginning till current day.
It’s never proven to be a great concern of the other communities or to be a hindrance for those who don it to do their jobs or even to be a justified, well- informed concern for non-muslim leaders.
Malay-Muslim MPs should collectively endorse rather than misrepresent its importance, respect rather than ignore their community’s concerns, be its supporter rather than its adversary, facilitate non-Muslim leaders to empathise rather than follow along and let the misguidance initiated and inflicted by earlier MMPs grow into an evergrowing cancer affecting the government for so long.
Dear Malay-Muslim MPs, please be accountable and correct this mistake. This is an issue close to your conscience so don’t expect your non-muslim colleagues to do it for you. They could have been waiting impatiently for so long for you to do so.
The Singapore Parliament was speaking about the aspirations of the Singapore Women.
WP MP Faisal Manap brought up the aspirations of the Singapore Muslim women.
He highlighted the importance of inclusiveness for Muslim women which would allow them to fulfill their career aspirations while meeting religious obligations (i.e. to wear the tudung at work)
It was a fair point, except that he seems to needle these ‘Malay-Muslim’ issues consistently every chance he gets – a point, which Minister Masagos highlighted.
In 2014, he called for the formation of a committee to tackle issues faced by the Malay-Muslim community because participants felt left out in certain policies and practices that “question the loyalty of Malays to the country”.
In 2015 and 2016, he called for inclusion of Malay officers on Navy Ships and other sensitive positions in the Military
As the only Malay Opposition member, he had every right to bring this up in parliament. After all, as a politician, he has to work to keep up his political mileage with his Malay voters.
But why is he constantly harping on this issue whenever he talks about the Malay Community?
What about other equally important and challenging issues that the Malay community is currently facing?
What about Malay entrepreneurship, upskilling of the Malay community, Malay home ownership. The Malay community significantly lags behind other races in education, health and housing and is over-represented in crime, drugs and prison statistics.
Are these issues not worth championing for, in parliament?
What good will it do for the community if they can wear the tudung on the front line, but struggles to keep pace with the rest of the races in our society.
How different is this from the political party, PAS, in Malaysia, who pushed for Hudud laws every election, organised rallies for thousands of people, championed laws prohibiting the proximity between men and women but conveniently ignored other pertinent social issues in their community such as education and standard of living.
Singapore cannot be successful and Singaporeans cannot be happy if there is any section of the population which is not doing well.
Because we are such a small population – we breathe and live each other’s air. If that under-performance is defined by race or religion, it will even be starker.
As much as we want our brothers and sisters to be able to fulfil their religious obligations, it is in our national interest, to make sure that everybody succeeds and that the under-performance is not defined by race and religion.
You want to push for the tudung issue, sure.
Make sure you champion other cases as well. Otherwise, you are nit-picking on popular issues and not really looking out for the Malay community.
The Minister for Environment and Water Resources, Masagos Zulkifli, has lashed out at Workers’ Party Member of Parliament, Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap, for raising “divisive” issues in the House.
At the heart of Mr Masagos’ concerns is how the constant airing of such “sensitive” issues would “stir the community.”
The minister said “there is a right time, a right place and right way” to discuss such matters.
“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 said.
The minister’s criticism came after Mr Faisal’s latest parliamentary question asking for the Government to allow Muslim nurses and uniformed officers to wear the tudung (a Muslim headscarf) at work.
Mr Masagos also pointed out that Mr Faisal had previously raised other “potentially discordant” issues as well, such as halal kitchens in navy ships and the perceived discrimination of Malays in the Singapore Armed Forces.
In his response to the accusations from the minister, Mr Faisal said that as an elected MP, he had a right to raise issues of concerns from his community in Parliament.
He added that since he was elected in 2011, he had raised the tudung issue and asked for the Government to address it.
“How does that cause divisiveness and discord?” he asked.
Saying that Mr Faisal “does not need to intend to sow discord” in raising these issues, Mr Masagos said nevertheless by doing so, Mr Faisal has “subtly and frequently [brought] 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,” the minister said.
“It leaves a feeling of (something) unresolved and unsolvable, and impatience that one day I believe will explode,” Mr Masagos said. “Is that what Mr Faisal wants?”
Mr Faisal had also raised the tudung issue in Parliament last month (March), where he said that “the Malay/Muslim community is also concerned about Muslim women being allowed to wear the tudung when serving in uniformed groups like the army, the Home team and nurses.”
“I sincerely hope that the Government can do something to address the concerns of the community,” he said.
The tudung issue has been raised several times by various quarters in recent years, including from PAP MPs.
In 2016, PAP MP for Jurong GRC, Rahayu Mahzam, also spoke on the matter in Parliament.
“One other thing that is constantly in the minds of our community is the tudung issue,” she told the House. “As a woman who wears tudung, I definitely hope that all women can pursue their career of choice. Hence, I hope this can be reviewed, and flexibility be given where possible, so that there will not be too many barriers for women to choose their own careers.”
Ms Rahayu also called for more open dialogues in such matters.
She said:
“Our efforts in encouraging racial and religious harmony can no longer be at a superficial level of attending each other’s cultural events. We should allow for space to talk about our identities, our religious practices such as the burning of incense paper, the wearing of the tudung, the playing of music during Thaipusam, for example. And there should be open dialogues as such conversations allow for better understanding of each other’s concerns.”
In 2015, PAP MP for Choa Chu Kang, Zaqy Mohammad, had talked about “the increase of religiosity and issues like the wearing of the tudung as part of a ‘new normal’ in governance and society in Singapore.” (See here.)
Mr Zaqy, along with Mr Faisal, had also called for the authorities “to provide more space for the discussion of identity and religion.” (See here.)
In 2013, the Suara Musyawarah committee, which is tasked to gather feedback from the Malay/Muslim community, said “that many girls coming out of madrasahs would work as nurses if they could wear the headscarf.”
“The reason given for not allowing this is that tudungs are not part of nurses’ uniforms,” the Straits Times reported then.
In his speech in 2015 at the Community Leaders’ Conference organised by OnePeople.sg, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said that race and religion remain “difficult and sensitive” issues for any society.
He said while there is room for open discussion, it would be unwise to assume there is no need to be careful when dealing with such matters.
“We discuss things more openly now,” PM Lee said. “Even sensitive matters, we discuss openly in mixed groups and we speak candidly with one another from the heart. But it is very unwise to assume that we do not have to be careful, that we do not have to be sensitive when we are dealing with issues of race and religion.”
When interviewed about the issue in 2016, Mr Masagos was asked whether the government can be more flexible on allowing discussion of identity and religion, including the wearing of the tudung.
The minister said, “We may feel that the time is right for us to discuss it amongst ourselves or with the other races. But it can also easily lead us to open old wounds that can instigate riots, and we do not want this to happen.”
Religious matters, he said, belong in the domain of scholars who “not only possess deep knowledge, but they also practice and impart religion wisely.”
Noting that “some people like to interfere in such matters, especially if they can politicise it”, Mr Masagos added: “This will make a particular issue turn into something more complicated than what it was initially.”
Asked if there are any new developments in the discussion about the issues concerning religion, race or the wearing of the tudung, Mr Masagos replied:
“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. But we are careful in doing this.”
In his Facebook post, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong commented on championing divisive issues publicly, and on Minister for Environment and Water Resources Masagos Zulkifli’s “courage and conviction” in explaining to MP for Aljunied GRC Faisal Manap on why it was unwise to bring up the issue of the Muslim women headscarf.
PM Lee said that some sensitive issues of race and religion have no easy or immediate solutions and that the best way to make progress on them is quietly, and outside the glare of publicity.
This was his response to a debate in Parliament on Tuesday (4 April) on the issue of Muslim women not being allowed to wear headscarves in uniformed services between MP for Aljunied GRC Faisal Manap and Minister for Environment and Water Resources Masagos Zulkifli.
The exchange took place during the debate in parliament on the proposal to express support for women in Singapore.
PM Lee stated on his Facebook page that Parliament is the forum for serious discussion on important issues.
“This Parliament has not shied away from discussing difficult or contentious matters – last November we had a vigorous debate on changes to the Elected Presidency,” he wrote.
“Championing divisive issues publicly, to pressure the government and win communal votes, will only stir up emotions and damage our multi-racial harmony,” the Prime Minister added.
However, PM Lee’s statement raised eyebrows from netizens. Many of them said that the function of the Parliament is to discuss issues that have been stirred up among citizens.
Many also wrote that they do not have any problems to have women in headscarves in uniformed services.
Here are what they wrote:
Zhou Hongjie wrote, “Is parliament not the place for MPs to represent the needs or views of their constituency members in rational discussion? The female headscarf may be a religious issue but the proscription against adorning it in the uniformed services is governmental, is it not? It is contemptible for the PAP to brush it aside by claiming it is ‘divisive’ when if I am not mistaken, the majority of Singaporeans have no problems with Muslim women’s wearing the tudung in the workplace because sheikh men have been allowed to wear their turbans for donkey’s years.”
Khalis Benzaima wrote, “So, i guess what he is saying is that in Parliament, the only topics that should be discussed is what the next basic necessities they can increase? Correct me if I’m wrong.”
Phillip Lim wrote, “I am a Chinese but I do not find in any way my fellow Malay compatriots wearing headscarves offensive or divisive. C’mon, it’s just a traditional headdress. Singaporeans have progressed and matured enough to respect each others’ cultural dress. Don’t see the need to sensationalise the issue into something that is “divisive” or “damage harmony”.”
Keith Low wrote, “A lot of issues brought up in Parliament are not publicised, or rather not broadcasted. If PM Lee asked what is the motives of WP by bringing this up again. Then I ask what is PM Lee motives by making this news out of so many issues debated in Parliament. Who is trying to be divisive?”
Yt Lam wrote, “If don’t bring out in public, he said there is no one protesting in front of Parliament – so no issue. Now bring up for parliament debate, he wants to discuss in a hush hush manner. Be a leader, tackle the issue head-on. I know this is the year of the chicken, but…”
Moe Zaldjian wrote, “So many years and so many Muslim PAP MPs with some appointed as Ministers cannot resolve this issue. What’s the point, even with a Malay President? Shame.”
Wong Chin Nam wrote, “If this remark is divisive, what about EP reserved only for certain race.”
Aku Freddy wrote, “I would appreciate a REAL LEADER to come forward with a decision Yes or No…The truth will hurt just like in the past done by late Premier.But at least he is very direct and that is wat a leader should do.To make matter worse why link hijab issues to votes?? Have some respect for minorities and we will not disappoint you. After all it’s headdress covering the hair only, it does not cover or hinder the brain from functioning…..I’m wondering if Muslim could exchange the President for a hijab, what would other races think of it?”
Sakinah Hakim wrote, “Dear PM Lee Hsien Loong most Muslim nurses I’ve known loved their job.They are very committed to help ppl and wish to stay longer in their jobs till they retire.All they requested is to wear their hijab according to Islamic ruling. That’s all.I hope that positive decision will come anytime soon.”
Choy Weng Leong wrote, “If sheikh can wear a turban in uniform service, why one can and other want to wear tudung cannot leh… Singapore = regardless of race, language or religion mah…I thought the whole idea of having GRC is minority representation in parliament and to raise community concerns mah… If some also behind closed door = then parliament just for rubber stamping whatever agreed and decided behind closed door huh?? Reserved EP also sensitive mah, don’t see them having any problem raising it in parliament leh… only A can, B cannot meh”
QizhongChang wrote, “And what kind of ‘quiet progress’ have these private discussions brought about on the tudung issue so far? The answer is apparently no progress at all. Which is exactly why Faisal had to bring it up in Parliament.”
Nizam Ismail wrote, “Here are my thoughts:1) How is raising this “divisive”? The tudung issue is to promote acceptance of hijab-wearing Muslimahs. It’s about *inclusivity*, not *divisiveness. 2) Why are still wanting to hide behind quiet engagements? There is no public accountability. The reason of having Parliament and open parliamentary debates is to ensure transparency and accountability. In any case, the matter has been debated openly for many years. 3) The solution is a simple one but made to be a complex problem. If you are willing to have a tudung-wearing reserved president, why not allow other Singaporean Muslims to have the right to put on the tudung without discrimination. And so solve the problem. That would make sure that Faisal Manap will not was raise this in Parliament again.Until then, he has every right to.”
Radenah Abdullah wrote, “MP Muhamad Faisal good point. What about Muslim women that wanted to work as nurses do they have to open their hijab for that. You say about respect each other religion but when it come to hijab on Muslim women you try to put it as not relevant. It’s not fair for our children who wanted to pursue this industry. Why does the Sikh have no problem wearing their turbans in these industries, but for Muslim women are issues. It’s kind of bias if you asked me.”
Syed Hafeez Chishty wrote, “I see no harm. We are multi-racial. It’s with its own culture and religion. So if religious harmony to be practice than it would be done harmoniously. Get the Muslim authorities to explain to the govt the right wat of putting a hijab. I tink pm is right should be done in closed door to avoid unnecessary sensitivity.”
Darren Tan wrote, “”Not by suppressing or pretending that race differences, language differences and cultural differences do not exist. … but that there are Fundamental Primeval differences.” – LEE KUAN YEW The government has always talked about the need to deal with issues openly. But now Minister Masagos comes out to say it has to be done quietly. This is contradictory! Ask WP MPs to keep quiet, and later during the election campaign come out to criticise WP MPs for being a “mouse” in Parliament by not raising issues. Another irony!”
