Rilek1Corner

Tag: Yaacob Ibrahim

  • Aftermath of Closed-Door Dialogue: Muslim Leaders on Hijab Issue

    “I sincerely apologise on behalf of some of the Malay community who might get carried away by their emotions in expressing their thoughts. They might not understand how difficult it is to solve the issue. I regret that their usage of language is inappropriate,” said Singapore’s Mufti Dr Mohamed Fatris Bakaram.

    “PM Lee shared examples when some participants picture us as ‘sparring partners’, but PM Lee in all honesty said we are not a sparring partner but a dancing partner,” said Haji Mohamad Hasbi Hassan, President of Pergas.

    “This is a larger issue that concerns the type of society that you want to become. While we can pretend that we can remove any vestiges of race, language and religion, it is still below the surface,” said Dr Yaacob Ibrahim.

    “I think that is something that we cannot ignore. And I think people recognise that because when you look at it from a single perspective, you think it’s about your rights, but when you look at it in a wider context, where other people have other rights also, it becomes a battle of who is right and who is wrong.” said Dr Yaacob Ibrahim.

    Madam Moliah Hashim, former CEO of Mendaki, said: “My hope is we exemplify what it is to be a good Muslim woman. Not only in the way we… dress but in the way we… work, the way we uphold our integrity, in the way we are competent in whatever assignment we are given. That is to me is much more important than wearing the hijab or not.

    Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar, MP for Ang Mo Kio GRC, said: “I think we need to continue this dialogue so that we understand one another better, not just from the community, to the government, through the MP, but also from the perspective of the government, the challenges that it faces and how the community and the society can understand those challenges better.”

  • 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

  • A Short Response to DPM Teo and Minister Yaacob

    The DPM’s statement is encouraging, as it shows that our cabinet has acknowledged the Muslim community’s concerns. We should strongly welcome his statement. Minister Yaacob’s post on how he met up with PM Lee is also another good sign.

    In the spirit of calls by the government to engage in constructive engagement, i would like to respond briefly to the concerns raised.

    1) DPM Teo mentions that the government needs to balance the different communities’ needs. This is more than a fair statement. The questions that should be asked though:

    i) Does wearing the hijab (in schools or hospitals or elsewhere) impinge on other communities’ needs? If so, how?

    ii) Are the other communities not fine with the hijab being worn in those places?

    The second is an empirical question, that can easily be discovered. I urge the government, or the Institute of Policy Studies, or MUIS, or anyone else willing and able, to do a proper survey to establish the answer to this question, if this is a genuine question. I have been doing informal surveys on my own, and thus far i gather that non-Muslims are more than comfortable with their Muslim friends wearing the hijab. Of course, my informal surveys do not employ the statistical rigour required (random sampling etc), and hence a large organization might be better-placed to conduct such a survey.

    2) Minister Yaacob says that we should try to work to find ‘practical solutions’. I call for the government to suggest what are some of these ‘practical solutions’ that they have in mind. These suggestions should then be discussed with the Muslim and non-Muslim communities.

    On the Muslims’ part, i am sure we are more than willing to offer suggestions too.

    3) DPM Teo says that social harmony is paramount. Muslims agree. Again, the question should be how does the hijab undermine social harmony? If anything, it will only increase levels of tolerance and understanding, especially if non-Muslims are exposed to this Muslim code of dressing since a young age.

    4) Finally, it is hoped that the government will outline their concerns about the hijab, as thus far it has been unclear what those concerns actually are. For example, if social harmony is the worry, then they will need to explain how the hijab affects harmony. If the ‘secular space’ is the concern, then we need to define what is this imaginary space and how will it be affected.

    To conclude, i call on the Muslim community to work closely with our non-Muslim friends, and solicit feedback on the hijab from them. We should encourage them to be as honest as possible with us, and can help clarify their doubts. I also hope that this issue will not be framed as ‘Muslims VS PAP’ or ‘us VS them’; rather it should be ‘Singaporeans (Muslims and non-Muslims) trying to convince a legitimately-elected government to reconsider their policy.’

    Walid Jumblatt Abdullah

    Source: http://www.facebook.com/notes/osman-sulaiman/is-pap-the-solution-or-the-problem/10151696941793372