Tag: tolerance

  • Residents Should Be Tolerant Of Activities At Home United Youth Academy, Help Nurture Sporting Talents

    Residents Should Be Tolerant Of Activities At Home United Youth Academy, Help Nurture Sporting Talents

    Earlier we read how void decks were restructured to make it impossible for our kids to play anything there, especially football.

    Why?

    Because residents complained.

    Now…even when our kids play in the field, complains flood the authorities.

    We are not sure if the small minority who keep on complaining represents the silent majority, or simply the small minority is bullying the sports and the relevant authorities….

    Whatever the case, it’s sad to see how some Singaporeans have become less communal, less tolerant and more individualistic.

    The kind of intolerance demonstrated in this particular instance is simply intolerable if we want to see a more vibrant sporting scene in Singapore, or simply if we want to see our kids have a good weekend at sports or simply for them to have a good, clean and healthy fun with neighbours and friends.

    Even though the Home United Youth Academy is a business entity, it is running a cause for the national sports interests – football. If this level of intolerance and bullying continues, we can forget about seeing the return of the likes of Fandi Ahmad and his generation of foodballers in Singapore. It’s as good as dead.

     

    Source: Mohd Khair

  • Damanhuri Abas: Government’s Policy Of Religious Harmony Based On Mutual Tolerance And Acceptance Is A Failure

    Damanhuri Abas: Government’s Policy Of Religious Harmony Based On Mutual Tolerance And Acceptance Is A Failure

    During the malay program ‘Bicara’, Minister for Environment and Water Resources, Masagos Zulkifli reiterated the continuation of the discriminatory policy that has prevented the employment of Malay/Muslim women who wants to don the Tudung/Hijab in jobs such as nursing and other uniformed group services. Throughout the program, the Minister tried his level best to defend the continuation of the discriminatory policy on several grounds in order to justify it.

    His reasoning ranges from the need to be sensitive to the feelings of other races, namely the majority Chinese population which he implied will be upset when they see Malay/Muslim women donning the Tudung/Hijab as nurses, police officers, military personnel, etc., right up to the fear-mongering scenario of the potential opening a Pandora box of misunderstanding and conflict that may lead to undesirable consequences such as racial conflicts for reasons that he deemed too sensitive to be shared to the public. It is unbelievable that a Minister reasoned almost similarly to a US politician that recently justified the call to ban the entry of all Muslims into his country on grounds that its better to play safe than sorry because Islamophobia is justified.

    It is indeed disappointing to hear such unsubstantiated and almost simplistic justification by a person in the position of a Minister in a public broadcast in this time and age essentially addressing the very community that feels discriminated against and who has tolerated patiently to see wisdom from the government to discontinue the archaic policy that has essentially outlived its shelf life.

    In truth, Singaporeans of all races have grown accustomed to the presence of Tudung wearing Muslim women in public. They are present as teachers in our schools, as employees in the public and private sectors too and raises no concern whatsoever. The implied suggestion that their presence is undesirable on grounds that essentially are Islamophobic are disrespectful to those women specifically and insulting to the whole Muslim community in Singapore.

    It is dishonest of the Minister to mention that any attempt to challenge this outdated discriminatory policy as dangerous and fiddling with religion and politics. The reality is the Minister and the government is precisely politicizing the issue by not dealing with it as a discrimination matter. Instead of addressing the growing anger and frustration of the community being discriminated against by this policy, the Minister chooses to confuse it by comparing the government so-called stand on the LGBT community as further justification. The comparison and a zero-sum approach vis-à-vis the LGBT community, to the issue of discrimination against Muslim women wanting to don the hijab for uniformed group is disingenuous.

    Once again, Singaporeans must honestly ask ourselves whether the efforts of the government all this years to ensure the growth and maturity of our different races and religious communities to mutually tolerate and accept one another and celebrate both our similarities and our differences, has indeed succeeded. By one Minister after another highlighting evidence of failures, it only supports the view that the policies aimed to unite our different communities are flawed and have not produced the desired results and thus have to be reformed and changed to reflect the present times where the communities are no longer separated like in the past and the majority of us, the common folks do live together in HDB flats and chat and interact with one another harmoniously.

    Finally, the Malay community has been quoted by 2 studies done by the government’s own think-tank institution namely the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and the Institute of Policy Study as being the most tolerant and accommodating of all communities when it comes to acceptance of diversity and differences. Maybe it is time that the focus of the effort to educate our society on tolerance and understanding be on the majority community rather that on the minority. Only then, wisdom based on grounded evidence will prevail instead of baseless justification that borders on political expediency.

     

    Source: Damanhuri Abas

  • Walid J. Abdullah: Singapore Needs To Re-Examine Ideas Of ‘Tolerance’, ‘Harmony’ And ‘Extremism’

    Walid J. Abdullah: Singapore Needs To Re-Examine Ideas Of ‘Tolerance’, ‘Harmony’ And ‘Extremism’

    We really need to think through the idea of ‘tolerance’ and ‘harmony’, and ‘extremism’.

    Is a person intolerant because (s)he refuses to say merry christmas to someone else? Does one turn into an extremist for having the belief that religious practices should be exclusive to one’s own faith? And if we start here, i wonder where do we draw the line: what do we make of a person who refuses to marry outside his/her faith? Is that person an ‘extremist’?

    Personally, i know of a couple of elderly Muslims who do not attend events at churches or temples (it’s a personal preference, as they would mostly acknowledge), but no one in the right mind would ever make the claim that they are ‘distant’ or ‘intolerant’: they are probably some of the nicest neighbours one could have. They give food to their neighbours (yes, non-Muslims too), always strike a conversation with strangers in the block, and never fail to smile at anyone.

    At the same time, i have many non-Muslim neighbours who have never wished me ‘Selamat Hari Raya’ or ‘Eid Mubarak’ (for whatever reasons): but of course, no one bats an eyelid when that happens. When a Muslim does/does not do the same thing, it is suddenly problematic. Unfortunately, Islam is always on trial.

    One of the ways that we should not make a community feel ‘distant’, is to stop viewing the world in false binaries. We should not be too quick to accuse and ‘advise’ a particular group, based on our own worldviews and understandings of the world.

     

    Source: Walid J. Abdullah

  • Pink Dot Supporters Should Look In The Mirror

    Pink Dot Supporters Should Look In The Mirror

    Pink Dot supporters cite the event as one emphasising tolerance, respect and love.

    Ironically, there was an intolerant, disrespectful call for governmental action against religious communities who disagree with it, in the letter “End the slurs on LGBT people and their allies” (June 22, online).

    Conservatives who disagree with Pink Dot are labelled as hatemongers. Religious leaders are accused of using the pulpit to attack persons attracted to the same sex. People with religious convictions are to be barred from discourse in “secular” public spaces.

    Of greatest concern, however, is the assumption that all persons attracted to the same sex support Pink Dot. There are many of them who disagree with its agenda, which is to “change society’s attitude”, whereby regulations “will naturally also change”.

    When an agenda seeks to alter a country’s laws and moral norms, it is only natural that society examines the merit of the movement. To suggest then that religious communities be silenced, when the movement imposes on everyone, is incredulous.

    Such uncivil attitudes and double standards have resulted in discrimination against conservative communities. For example, Focus on the Family was unfairly branded a sexist organisation (“Ministries studying feedback on relationship workshop”; Oct 9).

    Ms Agatha Tan’s accusations against it were taken wholesale and spread by news platforms and the public, with little critical thinking applied to her arguments.

    It did not take rocket science to reach the logical question one should have asked: Would the Education Ministry have approved a sexist programme promoting rape to be run for 17-year-olds?

    Even when her schoolmates who had sat in the same lecture wrote to address her allegations, little effort was made by the media, the school or the ministry to redress the issue publicly.

    The organisation and its staff have suffered real loss to their reputation and livelihood. Has integrity been compromised in a world that prizes tolerance over truth?

    Bullying of persons attracted to the same sex must be addressed. But remarks by Pink Dot supporters, such as those of the letter writer, divide the society and attack Singapore’s conservative religious communities.

     

    This article, written by Leo Hee Khian, was published on Voices, Today, on 1 Jul.

    Source: www.todayonline.com

     

     

  • #Je Suis Ahmed: A Message For Everyone

    #Je Suis Ahmed: A Message For Everyone

    After the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris, the phrase “Je Suis Charlie” — “I am Charlie” — became the unofficial slogan of solidarity with the shooting victims. #JeSuisCharlie trended on Twitter, and people held up signs featuring the phrase at rallies all over the world.

    Je Suis Charlie’s message is an important one in the wake of this horrifying crime. But now a new hashtag campaign, #JeSuisAhmed, has arisen to augment it. Its message of tolerance deserves — perhaps needs — to be heard as well.

    Terrorist vs Muslim

    #JeSuisAhmed

    #JeSuisAhmed honors Ahmed Merabet, the French police officer who was murdered outside the Charlie Hebdo offices by the same gunmen who went on to murder the magazine’s staffers. Merabet, in addition to being a police officer, is believed to have been part of France’s large Muslim community.

    I am not Charlie, I am Ahmed the dead cop. Charlie ridiculed my faith and culture and I died defending his right to do so. #JesuisAhmed

    — Dyab Abou Jahjah (@Aboujahjah) January 8, 2015
    Twitter users have rallied to the hashtag to argue that Merabet, like the murdered journalists, should be honored as a defender of free speech — particularly because he died trying to protect a publication that had mocked and derided his own religion:

    “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” Voltaire #JeSuisAhmed

    — Adalia Conti (@AJ_Conti) January 8, 2015
    #JeSuisAhmed does not dispute the sentiment of Je Suis Charlie. Rather, it adds to it, by calling attention to the importance of tolerance as well as solidarity. That is important in its own right, but it’s also an elegant response to those who might respond to the attack with broad hostility towards Islam, or suspicion of Muslims as a group.

    Many people have pointed out that the actions of a few Muslims aren’t representative of the entire religion. But those reminders can feel like an abstraction in the context of an emotional debate over a terrorist attack. #JeSuisAhmed sends that message far more powerfully, by pointing out that the same logic could be used to conclude that all Muslims are heroic police officers.

    The hashtag was also a reminder that the victims of Islamist terrorists are primarily Muslim:

    Il faut pas l’oublié, les musulmans sont la 1ere victime du terrorisme #JeSuisAhmed

    — Lincoln Osiris (@Bill9011) January 7, 2015
    Other users tweeted #JeSuisAhmed to point out the injustice of focusing on the attackers’ Muslim faith, while failing to mention Merabet’s.:

    In case you are confused… #JeSuisAhmed pic.twitter.com/ckpchvqHey

    — HibHop (@misshibhop) January 9, 2015
    Ahmed Merabet protected people. He was the true face of modern Islam. His murderers were not. #JeSuisAhmed

    — Imran Ahmed (@Imi_Ahmed) January 7, 2015
    Je Suis Dalia

    In a Facebook post entitled “Je Suis Dalia,” Dalia Mogahed, the Director of Research at the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding, further extended the message of #JeSuisAhmed, using it to highlight the prejudice inherent in the demand that Muslims like her denounce or reject the Charlie Hebdo murders.

    Post by Dalia Mogahed.
    Mogahed’s post layers a new, individualistic message of tolerance onto the communal “Je Suis” rallying cry: a reminder that Muslims are individuals, and that the actions of murderous extremists should not be attributed to others who happen to share her faith.

    The post hit a nerve, garnering more than 1500 likes and 600 shares within a day. In an email, Mogahed noted that others were sharing the same words under their own names.

    Its popularity is understandable, because Mogahed’s post is, at its most basic level, a rejection of bigotry and prejudice. As Max Fisher wrote yesterday, blaming an entire group for the actions of a few individuals is “the very definition of bigotry.” Worse, that same logic perpetuates extremist violence itself, both from Islamist extremists and from others. “It is also, by the way, the very same logic that leads French non-Muslims, outraged by the Charlie Hebdo murders, to attack French mosques in hateful and misguided retaliation.”

    Mogahed’s post serves as a polite but meaningful request that such bigotry end — and an implicit reminder that it can leave innocent people in danger.

    Update: A number of outlets, including The Telegraph and The Guardian, have reported that Merabet was Muslim. The Telegraph reports that Merabet’s family plans to bury him in a Muslim cemetery, and that a friend of Mr. Merabet referred to him as a Muslim. However, other outlets, including the New York Times, say that his religion is unconfirmed. Social media users citing his name have widely presumed that he was Muslim.

     

    Source: www.vox.com