So who’s the Terrorist?

Short 2 minute video. Concise, to the point.

The Bitter Truth

Understanding Islamophobia in Singapore

Introduction -

World Islamophobia since 911 has been the rage. Singapore is no exception. I know some Muslims are beginning to wonder if there are many closet Islamophobes who would stab Muslims in the back if given half a chance. I don’t believe it is that bad. The majority of those who have some degree of Islamophobia in them have nothing malicious in mind. They are just influenced by the media.

That said, there are groups of people who do engage in Islamophobia and make that a principle they hold onto in their daily lives.

This article is hence an expression of my opinion on how I see different groups of people engage in Islamophobia in different ways. It is also meant for Muslims to understand the Islamophobic mind. Please note that I will be discussing Islamophobia in the Singapore context only.

Clarifying my position -

Because I am a Chinese, many non-Muslims don’t feel threatened. Being a “non-threat” has its advantages. I get to hear the “real feelings and emotions” of non-Muslims about Islam. It is because of my “non threatening appearance” that I feel I get a chance to hear Islamophobic talk far more than the Malay Muslim does.

Readers may already notice that there is a subtle pigeon-holing from the above description – ie many assume that Muslims are Malays and vice-versa, such that if you are a Chinese and a Muslim, you are seen less of a threat than a Muslim who is a Malay, because somehow, a Chinese Muslim is “less Muslim” (ie less threatening) than a Malay Muslim. Yep, just like how in the West, an Arab Muslim is seen as a threat. But less threatening, is a White Muslim.

Different categories and degrees of Islamophobia -

Again, be reminded I am talking about the Singapore context only. Believe it or not, Islamophobia in Singapore is NOT uniform and homogeneous. There are various levels of intensity and degree to it. They can be broken down as follows:

1. The Zionist wannabe -
This group by far is probably the most ill-informed and worse, probably the most vindictive too. Their fear and disdain for Muslims is universal, which means that they carry this Islamophobia worldwide and not just against Singaporean Muslims.

As the term suggests, they take cue from Zionist ideology that Muslims are enemies of peace. They would even go as far as to support Zionist Israel in killing innocent Palestinians. A good example is Christian Eliab Ratnam.

Very unfortunately, Christian Eliab is NOT an isolated case. There are people in Singapore who fall in ths category. One example I can give to support my claim is the incident of the Massacre of the Flotilla. This happened in June 2010 where Israel boarded a Humanitarian Aid Ship in International Waters and killed unarmed Muslim civilians on board.

There was a discussion in the ST forum and quite a number of Singaporean commentators even appeared to be celebrating the terrorist act in International Waters – all because it was done by Israel, against Muslims! The ST links have already expired, but my link is still very well and alive. Here is a summary of my explanation to the Zionist wannabe Singaporeans – ST Forum – Attack on the Flotilla

Another example is in 2008, when Israel relentlessly bombed Gaza because Hamas captured Gilad Shalit. Hundreds of civilian Palestinians died. Again, there was widespread support from Singapore commentators for those killings – even to the point of celebrating deaths of civilian Gazans!

The most obvious party in this Zionist wannabe group is none other than the SAF and its high ranking personnel. Need I say more?

How to deal with the Zionist wannabe – Sadly, nothing much. Their fear and disdain for Muslims is so deeply embedded, you can’t change them. Fortunately, this vindictive group is a minority. Nevertheless, to know that the top ranking people in the SAF are these type of Islamophobes isn’t very consoling.

2. The Mischief Maker -
Slightly less vindictive, but just as damaging in results when it comes to creating disharmony and discord are the Mischief Makers. Donaldson Tan falls in this category. So does one regular spammer in this blog.

Mischief Makers are out to create mischief. They will make a hate post here, another there, and more everywhere. Then leave the scene, watching the fire grow like a crazed voyeur spying on others. Typically, they post flames and hate posts on cyber net, but may appear very “normal” in real life. Hence, if you didn’t know better, you won’t know the double life the Mischief Maker is living.

If you challenge them to remove their posts, they will love the attention you give them. They will even make more hate posts to taunt you further, and dare you to report them to the Police.

How do deal with the Mischief Maker – The Mischief Maker thrives on attention. The more attention and publicity he gets, the higher his ecstasy level. The best way is to ignore him and deprive him the chance of his desire for attention. But if you wanna play ball with him, that’s OK too – so long as YOU and not him who is controlling the situation. Because if you don’t control, you would be seen complicit in the eyes of law in spreading the hate posts.

In any case, the Mischief Maker, unlike the Zionist wannabe, is self-destructive. The Mischief Maker’s modus operandi is that he makes hate posts on the net. This something the Zionist wannabe may not do.

Not all Zionist wannabes are like Christian Eliab who posts hate. On the other hand, all Mischief Makers post hate on internet. Because if they don’t post hate, how the heck do they spread their hate? But because the Mischief Maker posts hate over and over, living in his delusional world he won’t be caught, he gets bolder and bolder to the point he lets his guard down. That’s when the game is over for him.

So there really is no need to deal with the Mischief Maker. Just ignore him and his interest will die. If his interest does not die and he does keep posting, time will catch up with him and he will be disposed of naturally.

3. The Herd – by far, this is the most common group. It is also the most harmless. They have no intention to create disharmony or ill-feelings. They have the “you go your way and I’ll go mine” attitude. As long as there’s no trouble coming their way, they won’t trouble anyone.

However, in spite of their harmless approach, many Muslims worry about them unnecessarily. In times where there are issues like the past week or so, when the emphasis appears to be hate posts against Muslims, this “herd group” will look at Muslims questioningly, causing a degree of discomfort among some Muslims.

The herd is called “the herd” for its very characteristic “follow the herd” instinct. The information, or rather should I say misinformation, about Islam comes mainly from the MSM and they simply follow the crowd in opinion – hence, “the herd”.

How to deal with The Herd – This is the easiest group to deal with because they do not have a deep seated fear or disdain for Muslims, unlike the former two groups. If you are knowledgeable about Islam, you can try to explain to them the situation. You’ll be surprised how willing they are to listen to you.

If you feel you are not competent enough to explain, then don’t say anything at all. Just smile and walk away. If you do that often enough, that itself would make them think that the (mis)information they have been fed needs to be relooked.

4. Malayphobia – Not exactly Islamophobia, but I would consider this a variation of Islamophobia. The Malayphobes generally see Malay and Islam as one. They make no distinction between the two. Hence, if you are a Chinese and you are a Muslim, they see that you have converted from a Chinese to a Malay! That’s how tunnel-vision they are in their thoughts!

This group is mainly made up of those who are strongly skewed towards Chinese chauvinism. They see that if you are a Chinese, you MUST practise Chinese Culture and any culture you practise that is not Chinese, or worse, any Chinese Culture you choose not to practise, you are considered a traitor to the Chinese race.

Note this means that Chinese Muslims who cannot practise certain Chinese customs due to Islam, is seen by them as “forsakers of the Chinese race”. That’s the reason for their tunnel vision idea that a Chinese who is a Muslim is a “Malay convert”, and not a Chinese who is a Muslim!

This group will also keep reminding the Malays that they are the ones who rioted in Singapore in the 1960s, but they forget that the Chinese have been rioting in the 1950s and 1960s.

This same group will also portray any unrest, be it political or economic unrest, as a racial unrest. A good example I can give is the 1990s Indonesian riots, where the lay consumers burned down retail shops because prices for staple foods skyrocketed. The Malayphobes took opportunity to argue that this is a long standing issue where Malays (not that Indonesians consider themselves ‘Malays’ because they have issues with Malaysian Malays too) are envious of the Chinese wealth. Hence, they target the Chinese population. Note the vindictiveness of this group to spark the flame of hate against these Indonesians.

In fact, a small group even posted fake rape photos of dark skinned men raping Chinese young girls to make it look it was an ethnic riot, when the riot was an economic one. As it turned out, the fake photos were discovered to be taken from porn sites!

Note that we have one long serving politician from PAP, who happens to engage in Malayphobia (rather than Islamophobia). No need to tell you who.

How to deal with the Malayphobe – Huh? You really want to deal with them? These people have ideas so sectarian and chauvinistic, the majority of Singaporeans are not even able to connect with them. Many from this group feel they are the elite Chinese every Singaporean should look up to. Why waste your time trying to deal with them when even the majority of Singaporeans don’t give a hoot about them?

My Conclusion -

Muslims need not fret unnecessarily. Yes, there will be many non-Muslims who appear to look at you questioningly because the last week or so, the highlight has been about hate posts against Muslims and Islam. But most of this is not filled with malice. All you need to do is open up to them a little and they will be willing to listen to what you say.

As for the vindictive groups (#1 and #2, or even #4), you don’t really have to deal with them. Their numbers are small – unless you are working under the SAF. Good luck to you then. I have no answer to that.

Free speech works both ways – if you feel you can insult religion, you must accept being preached to

Fair proposition, right? You can’t call something “freedom of speech” when you don’t give others a chance to speak when it comes to their turn, you know.

It really looks like there’s a barrage of attacks against Muslims and/or Islam on the cybernet these few days. Yet another case here – Racist posts on FB by blogger – police investigates

This is the third case. I won’t go into the details of this third case because you can read it yourself by clicking on the link above. I would like to highlight some comments made by readers instead.

Of particular interest, a Muslim lady by the nick “Halima Gose” (22 Nov 11) wrote:

Case in point, look at Amran TheDud’s remarks “be prepared to face the consequences” if the picture is not removed. Why does he need to resort to using threatening words? Did Donaldson engineered a Ponzi scheme that cheated many of their life savings? Did he kill someone in a horrific fashion, premeditated? Did he commit war crimes and jailed a bunch of political activists under some dubious and unproven Marxist conspiracy? No? Why should he go to jail, and why must he be facing any consequences other than a sharp rebuke on why juxtaposing a pig on a holy sybol of Islam is not cool?

On another note, just explain to me is it a conincidence that over the past decade or so, most if not all Sedition Act cases has got to do with Islam and not any other religion? And oh God, I feel quite bad for pointing this out as well, people who got jailed under the ISA act in the past decade or so, any non Muslims in that list? Just some months ago I came across a Singaporean Muslim male facebook page who had been making pro-Nazi and anti-Semitic posts to the tune “Jews deserved the holocaust” and such nonsense over days, causing him to lose many friends, but not one, Jew or not, made a police report against him, how come? I mean come on lah, we’re allhuman beings after all. It gets tiring and frustrating with such level of pandering to one race and one religion.

Again I reiterate, I was born and raised a Muslim. Still am what Singapore defines a moderate Muslim to be.

Replying to that comment, another reader “eremarf” posted:

Halima Gose, bravo!

I am glad you are speaking up for the Muslims who think like you. I agree with your analysis of the situation – that there’re too many Muslims, worldwide and in Singapore, who’re too intolerant or sensitive.

It’s going to create a gulf between people – if offence is too easy. How can we share common experiences when so many things cannot be talked about?

I remember (when I was teaching English in a local sec school) coming across a lesson plan to re-write “The Three Little Pigs” in a different genre, and hesitating to use it in class. I had become too wary of offending Muslims too. I have much fewer qualms however, about mentioning evidence for evolution with Christian students. Or talking about homosexuality. (Both of which are not “issues” for Muslims.)

I sometimes feel like I’m doing all the work accommodating and accepting religious people – but (some) religious people aren’t accepting secular people like me? (of course, not all of them – it just takes those few who take offence and speak up in everyone else’s name…) Where’s the harmony in that?

What those two above are actually discussing about is freedom of expression. Personally, I don’t have a problem with that. But it does appear that the very people who hide behind this argument are the very ones who are not ready for freedom of expression.

IMO, freedom of expression is good in the sense that it first allows the ignorant to make statements against a religion (or any ideal). Then in principle, the very same freedom of expression also allows the believer of that religion to explain to the ignorant what his/her religion is about. So it is all about information sharing and correcting the misinformation the ignorant has been keeping in him.

But there lies the problem, isn’t it? Because whenever someone preaches about religion (especially Islam), Islamophobia sets in. But you really can’t have your cake and eat it! If you feel that preaching of religion (be whatever religion it is) should be curtailed to preserve harmony in society, then for the very same reason, isn’t the laws that silence that freedom to insult religion is also to preserve harmony?

In other words, how can you say that you want to have the freedom to insult a religion, but bacttrack on your own words, then say that believers of that religion should not be allowed to speak up and defend their position, including preaching that religion to correct the misinfo spread by the “insulters” in the first place?

As for me, my personal choice is that we should allow freedom of speech both ways. In fact, I have been to hate sites where far worse things have been said against Muslims and Islam. All that needs to be done is to show these people how ignorant they are and you will see how the tables are turned against them.

In fact, the more knowledgeable you are about Islam, the more you are inclined to follow Islam – even convert to be a Muslim. One of the reasons for the many conversions to Islam in the West in spite of Islamophobia, is that many have decided to learn about Islam because they want to understand it better with all the hate spewed against Muslims and Islam. An irony that Islamophobia is driving up the conversion rate in the West!

Here are two articles I wrote about conversion to Islam in the UK, which attracted high profile attention worldwide.

Lauren Booth, sis-in-law of Tony Blair, converts to Islam

Women and Islam – featuring Yvonne Ridley

Here is a link to show you who are the most likely to convert to Islam in the UK. Yes, the young white liberal woman, whom everyone thinks is above the submissive burka-clad Muslim girl. Didn’t I say that all you need is to remove the bias from people for them to see the beauty of Islam, even to the point of getting them converted?

How 100,000 Britons have chosen to become Muslim… and average convert is 27-year-old white woman

Compare that to Singapore, where insulting Islam gets you charged. This allows society to keep perpetuating the idea that Islam is reclusive, and many will be unwilling to learn more about Islam, because case is closed the moment the perpetrator is charged. You can’t preach Islam is tolerant to people when that happens, can you?

To Muslims who are offended by such hate speech and posts, I say this is an excellent chance for you to explain about Islam. Very unfortunately, many Muslims feel that they are not up to par to talk about Islam. But has not Islam always told you to seek knowledge in the first place? How about doing it now, so that when the next hate speech comes, you will be ready to speak up, and who knows, trigger that ignorant person to find more about Islam – and have him/her converted after his/her bias is removed?

How do I know that such things can happen? Simple. I was on the other side once.

=====

PS – I have on many on occasion debated with people who post hate against Muslims, while the debate is being observed by dozens. Many a time, with logical reasoning and discussion, the hearts of the observers are won over and they leave with a better impression of Islam. In fact, they will even see that the hate-poster as being unreasonable.

When someone makes a hate post against Islam, it is a matter of whether you want to see it as a glass half empty or half full. For every hate post that is made, there’s a chance to get ten observers who are willing to learn about Islam if you explain it to them in a logical, rational way.

Related link: Understanding Islamophobia in Singapore

Hate posts against Muslims has roots in PAP’s Islamophobia

Yet another hate post against Muslims, this time from a member of the SAF.

NSF posts online picture of text criticising Islam

The police are investigating an incident where a full-time national serviceman (NSF) posted on his Facebook wall a picture of text that criticises Islam.

A police spokesman confirmed on Saturday that a police report has been lodged about the posting, and that investigations are ongoing.

Separately, the Ministry of Defence (Mindef) said that it ‘takes a serious view on the conduct of its servicemen in public’. ‘Police investigations are ongoing. Mindef is assisting and appropriate actions will be taken if necessary.’

A Facebook screenshot of Mr Christian Eliab Ratnam and the symbol for the Israel Defence Forces. — PHOTO: FACEBOOK

This comes right after Jason Neo’s case – Jason Neo’s case over-hyped, support for Muslims shown misplaced

Well and good that the Police is investigating both cases. However, I can’t help feeling this is due to PAP’s own Islamophobia that’s deeply embedded in the minds of senior leaders. With this embedded disdain for Muslims in them, they have come up with policies and even ideas that are passed down to their subordinates and juniors. Note that both Jason Neo and Christian Eliab Ratnam somehow are linked to the two of the most Islamophobic parties in Singapore – ie the SAF and PAP itself.

I would say this is a case of Monkey see, Monkey do.

Source of govt’s Islamophobia -

Before the govt reminds citizens about racial and religious harmony, shouldn’t they get rid of their Islamophobia that’s deeply seated in their minds, because that’s where some people take cue of what Islam/Muslims are like?

Let’s see where the sources of govt’s Islamophobia comes from. There are currently two main sources I can think of:

Source 1 – PAP’s Obedient Lapdogs Club submitting to America’s Islamophobia

One of the arguments The United States of Terrormerica uses to wage wars against Muslim nations is that they are trying to contain terror. Ex-President GW Bush places blame on Saudi Arabia’s group of Muslims, namely the Wahhabis. Wahhabism is thus the whipping boy of the US. Guess who laps up those tall stories.

PRIME MINISTER GOH CHOK TONG’S SPEECH TO THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS IN WASHINGTON DC ON 6 MAY 2004 AT 12 NOON

36. It is a fact that there is a living, vibrant Islamic ummah or global Islamic community perhaps more so today than in any time in modern world history. The ummah is not monolithic. But the identification that all Muslims feel for events affecting other Muslims has become real and visibly stronger and more widespread since global communications have facilitated the dahwa or missionary activities of the Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia preaching and spreading Wahhabism with its oil wealth. Denying that there is such a globalised Muslim political and religious consciousness, or trying to argue that a universal ummah is a danger or somehow undesirable, only mobilises all Muslims to dig in as they feel their religion is under siege.

Here’s another one.
Wikileaks: Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew calls Islam a “venomous religion”

Islamic Radicalism and Iraq—————————
3. (C) The problem of Islamic terrorism would not be easilyextirpated, observed MM Lee. While Muslims in Southeast Asiawere traditionally moderate and tolerant, they had been affected by radicalism emanating from Middle East and the spread of wahhabism from Saudi Arabia. Singapore’s Muslimleaders were rational and educated in English and the GOSkept a limit on madrassah-based education. He stressed thatmoderate Muslims had to be encouraged to stand up and speakout against radicalism. They needed confidence that theycould win. We could get to the tipping point, noted MM Lee,but he didn’t know how long it would take.

Wahhabism, a recognised branch of the Sunni Sect in Islam, is strongly rooted in Saudi. It is like a culture to them, the way it is a culture some Chinese idolize Chinese roots, ancestry and all things from Mainland China (never mind the Mainland Chinese themselves don’t give a hoot about some of those things the Chinese here worhsip).

I recall that about 10 years ago or so, Goh Chok Tong upon meeting a member of the Royal Saudi Family on a diplomatic visit (PAPpy was trying to get their petro $ invested in S’pore), said that Wahhabism is feeding terror in the region. GCT got a quick and curt reply from his Royal Haughtiness, …er I mean Royal Highness, that Singapore is a mouthpiece of the US.

Imagine a foreign leader coming to our country seeking investments. Then imagine that leader telling us that promoting Chinese culture in SAP schools and what not promotes terror. Ha ha. No need to tell you if GCT succeeded in getting those petro $$$ from the Saudis.

Source 2 – Misinformation fed by leaders of PAP

One of the longest standing misinformation is the idea that Singapore’s past riots are all about race riots caused by the Malays. However, a critical study of our past major riots shows that it is far from the truth. If there is any race bias at all, it is skewed towards the Chinese. Of the six major riots Singapore had, the Chinese were involved in all of them, save for the Maria Hertogh Riot. Details here - History of Riots in Singapore – LKY’s racist version has to be stopped

Another example that can be quoted comes from Chan Chun Sing, who wants you to believe that 200+ million Muslims in Indonesia have nothing better to do than to usurp tiny, Red Dot Singapore. Never mind that many of them are villagers and farmers who are more concerned working hard fishing and farming, trying to earn enough to feed their families, rather than worry about where the heck this place called Singapore is. Army boy Chan Chun Sing talking cock

Other cases would be the many times you have heard ministers who said that they do not want to put Malays (or Muslims) in a position where they have to open fire “at their own kind”.

This about sums up the distrust these leaders in the PAP have not only for Muslims living North and South around us, but more worryingly, also the distrust they have for our very own Singapore Muslims living among us. See this article by Andrew Loh – Racist — or just a symptom of wider malaise?

Representation gap

The lack of minority-race — Malays, especially — representation in the higher echelons and combat units of our armed forces is an issue which some have raised in the past as well.

In 1987, Lee Hsien Loong (then Second Minister for Defence) explained the absence thus: “If there is a conflict, if the SAF is called to defend the homeland, we do not want to put any of our soldiers in a difficult position where his emotions for the nation may be in conflict with his religion.”

12 years later, in 1999, former Minister Mentor (MM) Lee Kuan Yew said, referring to Malays in the Singapore armed forces:

“If, for instance, you put in a Malay officer who’s very religious and who has family ties in Malaysia in charge of a machine gun unit, that’s a very tricky business.

We’ve got to know his background… I’m saying these things because they are real, and if I don’t think that, and I think even if today the Prime Minister doesn’t think carefully about this, I and my family could have a tragedy.”

And more recently, in January, former MM Lee caused an uproar among the Malay Muslim community when he said, in his book “Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going”: “I would say today, we can integrate all religions and races except Islam”.

He added that “we were progressing very nicely until the surge of Islam came” and he called on the community to “be less strict on Islamic observances.”

So it can be seen if this deep seated, bizarre, unexplained fear called Islamophobia is found in such leaders, don’t you think their thoughts will be translated into policies and ideas, which will then be filtered downwards to the various lower level individuals of the SAF and PAP?

My View -

PAP’s Islamophobia has been around a long time. That Islamophobia has been transferred to the SAF. That’s the reason for the discriminatory practices within the SAF and other policies meted out by the govt.

With the “war on terror” hatched by Terrormerica, this Islamophobia is now multiplied a hundredfold to a thousandfold around the world, including Singapore. It is assumed that if you are a Muslim, you are a security threat. Airport security is guilty of that. Security at military and other installations also have that default mindset. Why? Because you have been subtly molded to think that way over the years, over the decades.

Jason and Christian are just the tip of the iceberg. The body of the iceberg which lies unseen below, happens to be the very practice the govt has been engaging – ie Islamophobia.

The Govt would do well to correct its own deep seated fear and disdain for Muslims before correcting its subordinates and/or juniors.

There’s Slut Walk, there’s Underwear Run, how about Niqab Walk?

There is the Slut Walk and it’s coming to Singapore – Feminists willingly accept the term slut, then blame society for stereotyping them

There’s also the exhibitionists’ dream come true, Underwear Run – Thousands run in underwear to protest ‘uptight’ Utah laws

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) – Thousands of people stripped to their underwear and ran through Salt Lake City to protest what they called the ‘uptight’ laws of Utah.

Undie Run organiser Nate Porter says the goal of the event on Saturday was to organise people frustrated by the conservative nature of the state’s politics.

Nudity was prohibited by organisers. Participants donned bras, panties, nightgowns, swimwear or colourful boxer shorts – and some added political messages by expressing support for causes like gay marriage on their chests, backs or legs.

Salt Lake City is the home of the Mormon church, which is a vocal opponent of gay marriage

Thousands of people stripped to their underwear and ran through Salt Lake City to protest what they called the ‘uptight’ laws of Utah. — PHOTO: AP

Hey, the Fatso in the blue shorts, at least have the decency to tone up your body if you want to show it off and spare us the pukes.

Slut Walk and Under Run are done in protest to the call to dress up. How about Niqab Walk to protest the call the dress down?

Veiled Muslim women flout ban in bid for freedom

PARIS (AP) – A Frenchwoman who wears an Islamic face veil, despite a nationwide ban, wants to run for president in next year’s electoins.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Kenza Drider said she wants to defend the rights of all French women.

She is among a group of women mounting an attack on the law that has banned Muslim face veils from the streets of France since April. They want to prove the measure contravenes fundamental rights.

The law’s backers, including President Nicolas Sarkozy, say the veils imprison women.

Actually, if France truly wants to have the niqab banned, the politically correct argument should be about security. Who the hell can identify you if you cover your face?

But France being France, that is being an Islamophobic Nation, will of course give an Islamophobic reason for the ban – that Islam oppresses women and it contravenes Women’s Rights.

Hey, wait a minute, isn’t Sarkozy contradicting himself when he’s against Muslim women’s rights to dress in niqab? Hellooo?

But like I said, France is France and it is an Islamophobic Nation. Lookie how Frenchies are so afraid till they pee in pants, seeing Muslims pray – Paris Bans Praying In Streets

Due to a shortage of mosques, some Parisian Muslims have taken to praying in the street. However, the French far right doesn’t like it — and a new law will ban the practice.

Heck, if there aren’t enough mosques and if they are not allowed to pray in the public, where are they gonna pray? Oh, I see, no praying at all.

Yep, that’s France, one of the Islamphobic Nations in the world.

Oh, in case you think Secularism is about separation of state and religion, you’re wrong. Secularism today is about extermination of religion and forcing non-religious beliefs.

But isn’t that the very sin secularism accuses religion of, ie the FORCING of religious beliefs?

The more I think about the so called developed nations and their ideals, the more I wonder how hypocritical they are.

Perhaps the women (and men) in France should start a Niqab Walk to state their point. But then again, that would be unthinkable. Yeah, such unacceptable affront to the wisdom of the secularism. Nooooo…. it must not be done.

Slut Walk good. Underwear Run better. Niqab Walk baaaaad.

Welcome to the world of the hypocritical secular developed nations, where Islamophobia is cool, but anything against secularism is bad.

Wikileaks: Lee Kuan Yew the Islamophobe

Lee Kuan Yew, known for his Malayphobia (and Islamophobia), vehemently denies what Wikileaks reported.

Lee Kuan Yew rejects Wikileaks cable claim

SINGAPORE: Singapore’s former Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said the claim in a cable released by Wikileaks in which he had “characterized Islam as a ‘venomous religion’”, is false.

Mr Lee on Monday issued a statement following the release by Wikileaks of a cable by the US Embassy in Singapore reporting on the visit of then United States Senator Hillary Clinton to Singapore in July 2005.

He added that that he looked up Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ filenote of the meeting and nowhere does it record him describing Islam as “venomous”, nor did he say anything which could have given that impression in his meeting with Clinton.

What is this stuff ‘he looked up Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ filenote of the meeting and nowhere does it record him describing Islam as “venomous” ‘?

If he did not say it, or anything near it, what is there to check? Unless of course he did say that, or something close to that, and now panics and tries to remember under what context and/or circumstance he said that.

No matter. Whether he did say that or not is not the issue. The issue is LKY has been known to say such in the past and for all we know, he must have meant something close to that when he met Mrs Clinton.

Lee Kuan Yew is an example where you can say an Islamophobe is an Islamophobe. Since the 1960s, he has always been suspicious of the “sea of Muslims and Malays” north and south of us. Not only that. He is even suspicious of Muslims and Malays right in this Little Red Dot Island.

How do you think the heck did we have the policy of not having Muslims in sensitive positions in the SAF?

This Islamophobia is passed down to newer generations of leaders too. Wasn’t it his son who said that we didn’t want to have a situation that a Muslim pilot had to fire at his own Malay neighbours?

What about this one? Here is Teo Chee Hean’s official reply on the issue of Malay/Muslim in the SAF. Note the veiled suspicion the SAF has against Malays/Muslims.

Reply by Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence to Parliamentary Question on Deployment of Malay or Muslim Servicemen in the SAF

Mr Speaker Sir, as I stated earlier, investigations have shown that Muhammad Fadil was a solitary individual who took the wrong path.

This specific case therefore will not affect the way MINDEF deploys Malay or Muslim servicemen in the SAF.

The role of Malays in the defence of our nation and in the SAF, and the associated challenges and dilemmas we face, are difficult and sensitive issues for our multi-racial, multi-religious society. They have confronted Singapore since our early days of nation-building. The Government has on several occasions discussed them in this House, as well as with Malay community leaders. Over the years, we have all been able to work together in an honest, realistic and practical manner to make progress together as fellow Singaporeans.

This fear of Muslims within the PAP leadership is also being passed onto the latest set of leaders. Look at latest bogeyman scare by none other than Chan Chun Sing, who claims that there are 200 over million Muslim Indonesians out to usurp tiny Singapore.

Army boy Chan Chun Sing talking cock

In his closing statement, he reminds everyone of the scary, (shiver, shiver….) fact that Indonesia is reproducing at an astronomical rate. A rate of one Singapore (population size) per year. He then makes a subtle (and sly) implication that these Indonesians (ya, the very population he told us not to pigeon hole) is in unison in idea, to usurp Singapore.

My Comments

It is a known fact that Old Man Lee’s tactic is the race card game, where he scares you into believing that the Malay Bogeyman from the North and South is out to getcha! Hence, the SAF is also taught to believe that you must be wary of that Malay Bogeyman from the North and South.

Isn’t Chun Sing trapped in this SAF mindset that Indonesians are out to get us? Just right after he said that we are not to pigeon hole them? Helloooo?

Isn’t Chan Chun Sing simply parroting all the past leaders’ Islamophobic rants?

PAPpy is Islamphobic, hence, SAF is too. LKY can deny that he said that Islam is venomous. It does not matter. What he cannot deny is that he and the leaders after him have a record of being Islamophobic to the point they are suspicious of the Malays and Muslims not only in the North and South, but the Muslims in this tiny little red dot island too.

The cable leak may have over-described LKY’s context in which it was said. But I am not surprised that is truly what LKY (and other PAPpy leaders) think of Islam (and more importantly, Muslims) in their hearts.

If a secular majority country wants secularism, what is wrong when Muslim majority country wants sharia?

Get the drift? Yeah. No one cries horror when secularists claim that countries should be secular. Bearing in mind that it is countries that have secularists as majority who make that call.

So what is wrong if a Muslim majority country wants the country to be sharia based, or that their constitution be based on the Quran as the law of their land?

I don’t want to poke my nose into the internal politics of our neighbours. That ain’t quite polite, knowing that they are just next door to us. But I feel I have to say a word or two about this article below. From Alex Au’s Yawning Bread.

Young Muslim Malaysians want Quran to replace constitution

Excerpts from the blog above…

Yet, the same report noted that few Muslim youths read the Quran often or understand it well. That being the case, the desire for the Quran to replace the existing constitution seems to signal less any true understanding of Islamic concepts of governance and jurisprudence, but more a frustration with and loss of confidence in the constitution.

By the same argument, many citizens of secular countries don’t even read their constitution or know what it even looks like. So what’s the big concern here?

The author of the blog, Alex Au, then proceeds to paint an Islamophobic political scenario, where secularism would be replaced with Islam, resulting in political unrest. It is as if Islam is to be feared. It is like as if Islam is the world’s ultimate number one enemy. It is as if Islam is the big bad wolf, about to eat you up. Why such Islamophobic approach, Alex?

The closing para reads..

The survey suggests that Muslim youths in Malaysia are more conservative than in Indonesia, and that in Malaysia they look more to Islamic law too. It also means that although sensational news reports emerge regularly from Indonesia of mobs going on rampage enforcing Islamic norms or attacking other religions, it is in Malaysia where there is a yearning for Islam to replace secular constitutional arrangements. If this is a recipe for political instability, then we should be watching northwards rather than southwards.

For an LBGT guy who fights for LGBT rights, highlighting that one should not engage in homophobia, Alex sure is not ashamed engaging in Islamophobia.

Why the double standards? Why the hypocrisy?

Putting it in plain simple English, if the majority of a country wants a secular rule and that is OK, why not when the majority wants a Quran based rule? Unless of course you say that secularism should over-ride all else, which means you are now forcing your ideals on others – the very sin you assert the religionists are guilty of.

>London has its own form of xenophobia – Islamophobia

>I came across an article from a Singaporean student residing and studying in London. The article is about xenophobia in Singapore. She cites how xenophobia is frowned upon by Londoners.

Below is the link to her article. Note the “holier than thou” tone, sinking Singaporeans to a low, while lifting the social manners of Londoners to an artificially high status.

Confessions of a foreigner

You can read her article by clicking on the link above, or scroll down to the bottom of this post.

Every society has its own xenophobic habits. Singapore is no different. So is London.

What gets me shaking my head is when some foreigner (especially from the West), or some pseudo-foreigner from the West (usually a Sporean who has resided in the West), tries to compare the level of xenophobia between Singapore and his/her “homeland”. You will notice an air of supremacy, haughtiness and even pomposity in their tone.

This lofty self-image is then projected as the “authority” to judge other societies, using their own “homeland practices” as yardstick. And if your culture or practice does not measure up to their self-acclaimed standards, you are seen as a bigot.

But the truth is that the very society they use as a yardstick has its own unsavory practices. Such hypocrisy and self-righteousness in full display without shame.

Singapore’s Xenophobia is based on social insecurity, London’s is based on ignorance and hate for a foreign culture -

The stark truth is that both Singapore and London have their own form of xenophobia.

The real stark truth is that while Singapore’s xenophobia is about foreign nationals taking up jobs and university places, London’s xenophobia is about fear and hate for Muslims.

The real stark naked truth is that while xenophobia in Singapore originates from the citizens themselves, xenophobia in London originates from the authorities. This then filters down to the residents.

No thanks to the 911 and London 7/7 attacks, authorities in London have been witch-hunting terrorists. They profile Arabs, North Africans and South Asians as the typical terrorist. This has a filtering down process onto the citizens. The citizens in London then discriminate Muslims out of fear due to ignorance and disdain for a foreign culture.

If you wear a beard and a turban, you are feared. If you wear the hijab, you are feared. The minaret is a threat. The call for prayer is a threat. Anything that resembles Islam or the Muslim community, is a threat. This is London, one of the most Islamophobic cities in the world.

This fear for Islam and Muslims extends to even their own fellow Londoners who are Muslims. Here is the perfect example.

Yvonne Ridley, white native Londoner and treated with suspicion, because she is Muslim -

Remember Yvonne Ridley? Remember her as the journalist from London who covertly tried to cover the news in Afghanistan before NATO invaded the country in 2001? Remember how she blew her cover and got kidnapped by the Taliban?

Remember how the West, INCLUDING BRITAIN, were only too keen to have the Taliban execute her for spying, so as to get sympathy from the Brits and the rest of the West World, so as to create less resistance from their citizens when they invade Afghanistan?

Well, that over-eagerness from the West to have her killed gave the game away. The Taliban believed her story that she was just a journalist and let her go – on condition she read the Quran on her return to London.

She did more than that. She read the Quran and converted to Islam.

That’s where the discrimination against her as a Muslim in her native London started. Here is an article she wrote on how she was discriminated in her native London, just because of a piece of cloth over her head.

‘It’s only a piece of cloth’

Can a woman in a hijab still get a taxi? asks Yvonne Ridley

Wearing a headscarf is no big deal… unless you happen to be a Muslim, in which case this simple piece of cloth arouses opinions, hostile glances and worse. When I converted to Islam I knew I would have to embrace the Muslim head-dress. As for many converts, it was a huge stumbling block and I found all sorts of excuses not to wear the hijab – basically a symbol of modesty and a very public statement. When I finally did, the repercussions were enormous. All I did was put on a headscarf, but from that moment I became a second-class citizen.

The reaction from some people was unbelievable. I knew I would become a target for abuse from the odd Islamaphobic oik, but I didn’t expect so much open hostility from complete strangers.

I can no longer be sure of getting a black cab in London… something I had taken for granted for many years. Let me give you some examples from the past two weeks:

Edgware Road in London, an area with a substantial Arab population: three black cabs, orange ‘for hire’ lights glowing, drive past one after another. It’s about 11.30pm and I’m freezing and desperate to get home. A fourth taxi stops to discharge a white passenger. I reach the vehicle and tap the window, beaming from ear-to-ear at my saviour. The driver turns and stares hard, his face contorted into hatred and rage, and drives off.

Last month, pre-hijab, he would have returned the smile; now, in his eyes, I have been transformed into a terrorist.

Next day, horrified by the events of the previous evening, I tell my story to a non-Muslim friend who is not sympathetic. ‘Well if you go around looking like a Chechen Black Widow what do you expect?’ she says. But black is my favourite colour. It’s just that my little black dress has become a big black dress.

That afternoon, I change my black hijab in favour of a paler silk turban-look which still covers my head. Very Vivienne Westwood, I think. I get my black cab without hassle, just a mere wave of the arm and I am taken to the West End for lunch with a very close friend who happens to be Jewish.

It was the first time she had seen me in a hijab but she just laughs and makes some nice compliments. In her eyes I am the same person she became friends with five years ago. No change. What a relief.

Later that day I meet some Muslim friends who also have not seen me for some time. They are excited to see me wearing a hijab, but tell me I look like a cross between a cancer victim and an Israeli settler. I report the unsavoury incident in the Edgware Road which had reduced me to tears.

‘Welcome to the real world. This is what we have to put up with 24/7,’ one tells me. There is more laughter at my apparent naivety, but I am puzzled and peeved at their acceptance that this is the way of things in Britain today.

A couple of days later I attend Yasser Arafat’s memorial at London’s Friends’ Meeting House and dress appropriately in black with matching hijab showing a small sliver of Palestinian kaffiyeh across the forehead.

I may as well be sporting a Hamas-green ‘jihad’ tattoo across my temple from the openly hostile glares I receive from some passengers on London’s Underground. Feeling uncomfortable and intimidated I get off at Baker Street and go to a taxi bay for the shortish journey down Euston Road. ‘It’s just across the road, why don’t you walk?’ barks the cabbie before returning to his newspaper.

There have been other incidents including one taxi driver’s, ‘Don’t leave a bomb in the back seat,’ or, ‘Where’s bin Laden hiding?’ There are also amusing moments such as being congratulated in Regent’s Park mosque for my excellent grasp of English.

But, in the eyes of many, I no longer am a real person. Waiters talk loudly and slowly if I am on my own, and if I am with a non-hijabi female, she is asked what I would like to eat.

So, when I see a woman wearing a hijab, regardless of whether I know her, I smile and say in Arabic, ‘As-Salaam-Alaikum,’ which means, ‘Peace unto you’. I know that the rest of her encounters that day may well be hostile.

· Yvonne Ridley’s current affairs show The Agenda will launch on the Islam Channel later this month.

Yvonne Ridley. Profile pic taken from her Facebook account.

That’s Yvonne Ridley a native Londoner, discriminated, feared and ridiculed by her own native fellow Londoners – just because she is Muslim.

Conclusion -

Xenophobia is everywhere. Each society has its own form. In Singapore, this fear for foreigners is based on social insecurity. Singaporeans fear that their jobs and university places will be taken away.

In London, this fear for foreign migrants is based on ignorance and even hate for a particular culture they are not familiar with – Islam.

Ms Ridley lived through it and penned down her experiences. Although she is not a migrant, she is treated as one because of her religion. Many migrant Muslims in London do not have the ability to write like she does. They have accepted the discrimination they face 24/7 in London.

London ain’t no safe haven for migrants – especially if you are from North Africa, Mid East, South Asia – and have a turban or hijab over your head.

Next time a westerner or pseudo-westerner talks big that they have a higher social tolerance for foreigners than Sinkies, remind them how they treat Muslim migrants back home. That’s reminding how black a kettle they are.

In Singapore, no non-Muslim will think anything amiss if he or she steps into the same lift with a hijabi woman and ends up standing next to her. In London, a non-Muslim will scream terrorist if he/she sees a hijabi woman a mile away.

To end off this topic, I have posted the whole of Laicite’s article below. Read it to the end.

Don’t you feel that there is an air of arrogance and self-righteousness in her tone?

======================

Confessions of a foreigner (posted at laicite.wordpress.com)

I know many Singaporeans are not afraid to display their hostility towards foreigners. My days in university have taught me that; snarky comments, nasty nicknames and resentment against “china students” were anything but uncommon. Bur recently, after viewing a video posted by Yawningbread talking about the influx of foreigners becoming a chief concern in the coming elections, and after coming across a petition for employers to employ Singaporeans first, I’m beginning to sense that this antagonism is growing, or at least becoming a lot more visible and socially acceptable.

Or maybe it’s just me. You see, I am a foreigner now, so perhaps I have become more sensitive about these things. As a Singaporean student living in the UK, never in my life have I felt more conscious of how a country’s locals treat its foreigners. It’s not because I’m treated any differently here. It’s because I’m not treated any differently here. Unlike how we used to treat the students from China back in NUS, talking about how they screwed up the grading curve making it impossible for us locals to get As, letting them form their own enclaves and never really welcoming them into our own cliques, no one treats me like a foreigner here. No one complains about me stealing places that local students “deserve”, no one makes a big deal about my race or where I come from, and I can bet that no one actually blames me or other international students for congestion on the trains and buses (which I’m sure is actually worse than the situation back home).

That’s not to say that anti-foreigner sentiments are totally absent. But the key difference is that no one here can get away with blaming social and economic problems on immigrants without looking like a total bigot. Sure, you can criticize foreigners all you want here, but in everyone’s minds, that instantly relegates you to the likes of right-wing parties like the BNP, or salacious hate and fear mongering tabloids, or ignorant racist or homophobic countryfolk. You’d have to be pretty delicate and wise with your words here if you want to argue against foreigners and immigration. That’s a far cry from the brazen xenophobia that I sometimes see in Singapore, where foreigner-blaming is common to university students and busybody aunties alike.

Looking back on it, I feel ashamed of how nasty we were to other students simply based on their nationality. These students from India and China want success as much as any one of us, and they are probably more desperate to improve their lives than most of us privileged Singaporeans. Why should nationality make any difference? If they can qualify to get into our universities, then they have every right to be there. It doesn’t seem fair to me that we are more entitled to jobs or to places in primary schools or universities, simply because we had the privilege of being born in Singapore. Simply because by some stroke of luck, our grandparents decided to leave their villages but theirs didn’t.

Is it really fair to blame foreigners who want to work and study in Singapore? If you had the ability, the opportunity and the means to, would you pass up the opportunity to work or study abroad, thus improving your job prospects, increasing your potential earnings and broadening your horizons? Foreign students and workers are simply making that same logical choice for themselves.

I had a lengthy discussion with my British colleagues on this issue. I asked them what they thought of the growing unemployment problem in the UK and the opening of the “floodgates” to workers from all over the EU. My question was met with no anger, no hostility, and not a tinge of resentment. (I dare you to ask a similar question to a young jobseeker in Singapore and attempt to stop the xenophobic rant that would most surely ensue.) Many of the responses I got were startlingly applicable to Singapore. “It’s not like the locals would want many of the jobs that the immigrants take up, anyway.” “Where would our country be without the contribution of immigrants?” “They just want to be able to enjoy the high standard of living here that we take for granted.” My friend put it most aptly. In the most matter-of-fact manner: “We’re competing with the world now. That’s just the way it is.”

With all this talk of “competing with the world”, it’s easy to let a dog-eat-dog society take over. It’s easy to sink into a world where only the fittest survive, and the weaker members of society fall through the cracks. But this is not inevitable. Even as we welcome the talent and competition that immigration brings, there is no excuse not to have a safety net to ensure that all members of society – locals or foreigners – have a minimum standard of living, and this means minimum wage, affordable healthcare and bargaining power in the form of unions.

>Jihadism? What’s that?

>The media coins terms when they don’t understand its concept. I note that the word “jihadism” (is there such a term?) has been used by the ST again. See this forum article – Teach logic to nip jihadism in the bud and this one – Research and ideas needed to counter jihadism

Jihadism? Is that some sort of bastardization of the word (and concept) of jihad? Isn’t that term offensive to the Muslims?

I first came across the term “jihad” from a non-Muslim source. Needless to say, the concept I learned was corrupted. The concept given was that jihad was all about wars, conquest and might.

Later, when I learned the concept of jihad from a Muslim source, I found that jihad didn’t even mean war. It meant “struggle in the cause of Islam”. It could be a simple daily chore like earning your living in an honest way. That would be jihad. In today’s context, we can see that even earning a living is a challenge.

So how did this idea of jihadism come about? How did it get corrupted from “struggle” to “war, conquest, might and terror”? Shouldn’t the ST take care and be sensitive about terms from religious teachings?

Personally, I feel that the most misunderstood religion in the world today is Islam. This is in spite of the fact that 1/6 of the world’s population are Muslims. We “learn” about Islam through the news, media, blogs and everywhere – except from Islamic Literature itself.

That was my mistake too. So for years, I harboured this “fear of the unknown and mystical” religion called Islam. Yes, it’s also called Islamophobia.

Fortunately, being interested in religion in general, I studied Islam (as well as other religions) and found that there is no truth at all that it teaches its followers to kill. Being educated in a mission school for ten years added to my ignorance about Islam as well. I was taught that the crusades was about bloody wars where the Muslims savagely attacked Christians.

Today, I see the same attacks by the media on Islam . But the style and theme has changed.

All religions teach love and respect. The difference between Judaism and Islam is so fine, it all boils down to one person – Jesus. To Muslims, he was a prophet. To Jews, he was just a man. Do not be mistaken and think Judaism is Zionism. Those are two different concepts.

Back to the term “jihadism”. I feel that ST using such a term shows lack of professionalism. There is no such term in Islam and definitely no such concept. Jihad means “struggle”, not war or conquest such that you could say it is used by extremists to poison Muslims to go on a jihad against the world.

>Banning the Burqa for the Wrong Reason

>In a world where security is of paramount importance, where we cannot afford to have bombers conceal their identities or hide bombs under heavy clothing, banning the burqa in a public place may look like a good decision. So when Belgium decides to ban it, that would have been the natural explanation to the world, wouldn’t it?

Unfortunately, no. The reason given is nothing short of racist, xenophobic and Islamophobic, one that reminds us of the old colonial days where the Europeans see themselves as superior, while other cultures as uncivilized.

Belgium bans burqas

Mar 31, 2010

BRUSSELS – A TOP committee of Belgian lawmakers voted on Wednesday to impose a nationwide ban on wearing the Islamic burqa in public, paving the way for the first clampdown of its kind in Europe.

The federal parliament’s home affairs committee voted unanimously to endorse a proposal from liberal members to ban any clothes or veils that do not allow the wearer to be fully identified, including the full-face niqab and burqa.

Officials say the draft law will probably be put to a vote of the full house on April 22. ‘This is a very strong signal that is being sent to Islamists,’ French-speaking liberal deputy Denis Ducarme told the assembly in Brussels.

He said he was ‘proud that Belgium would be the first country in Europe which dares to legislate on this sensitive matter’. ‘We have to free women of this burden,’ said his colleague Corinne De Parmentier.

The head of the liberal Reformist Movement, Mr Daniel Bacquelaine, said: ‘Just like dwarf throwing – even if it’s on a voluntary basis – the burqa is contrary to the dignity of women. It’s a walking prison.’ If endorsed, the vote could see the ban imposed in streets, public gardens and sports grounds or buildings ‘meant for public use or to provide services’ to the public, according to the text of the bill.

Exceptions would be allowed for certain festivities like carnivals if municipal authorities decide to grant them. — AFP

That has to be a daft excuse to ban the burqa for the following reasons:

1. The assumption is that the woman is forced to have it on.

2. The assumption that the burqa is oppressive is a Western perception. That Western perception is then used to judge against a foreign culture. Some kind cultural arrogance here?

3. Note the highly xenophobic content, not to mention the Islamophobic content.

The governments of Europe (especially Western Europe) appear to be under pressure from its citizens to address the high rate of immigrants of late. Similar situation in Singapore. We have seen how France and Germany ban the hijab in universities. We have seen how Switzerland bans the construction of minarets. We have even seen how the public media played up the protests against the prophet cartoons.

So what is the easiest way to appear to the people that the governments are doing something to address the Immigrant Threat? Simple. Ban any religious symbol (especially Islam, because Muslim migrants are the largest group of migrants in Europe) and say those are symbols of oppression and/or it is against the principle of Secularism.

Now this goes against the very grain of democracy, free speech and free choice – the very values Western countries purport to propagate.

The simplest way to address all this fear of the burqa is to cite security reasons. The burqa acts as the perfect cover for would be bombers in public places. That would have been the most politically correct and acceptable reason to have the burqa banned.

By citing that reason, the govt would be seen (in the eyes of citizens) to be putting a strong signal to immigrants that they have to assimilate. At the same time, it would be difficult for the migrants to argue against the need for high security in public places.

Unfortunately, it does appear that the people running the government just don’t have the brains. This xenophobic and anti-Muslim stance given by the Belgian govt is sure to ignite tension between the migrants and citizens.

It looks like our PAP is not the only govt that is inept in handling Citizen vs Migrant Issues.

Tsk Tsk.