Curry Cooking Case blown out of proportion

It’s a simple case of dispute between two neighbours. Both agreed a settlement amicably. But there are those who are buay song (not satisfied) with the outcome and hence, had to blow it out of proportion. Worst part is that this dispute occurred seven years ago!

Temasek Reveiw Emitrus (TRE) brought this issue up on 9 Aug 2011. It had to be National Day to give full impact of “Nationalism vs Foreigners”, you know. PRC family to Singaporean Indian neighbors: Can you not cook curry?

In a sign that social tensions are rising in Singapore due to the PAP’s unthinking and indiscriminate mass-immigration policies, the proportion of neighbour disputes handled by the Community Mediation Centre (CMC) hit a record high last year.

Note the xenophobic tone. Note it was published on National Day. And note that TRE did not mention that this incident was a seven year old incident.

So what’s the purpose of bringing up a seven year old incident that was probably forgotten by both parties that were in dispute in the first place?

TRE had all along been purporting to defend Singaporean’s rice bowl, by highlighting how foreigners take away jobs from Singaporeans. This approach is different from other countries where foreigners are hated for their culture, religion, language and lifestyle. So I was willing to accept that TRE had up to some extent, some valid cause.

However, as the weeks and months go by, I note that TRE would pick up on every issue that would put bad light on foreigners. Now it has been blown out of proportion, even a minister had to be involved. Shanmugam clarifies “curry case”. Such a pity that you need a highly paid minister to do a menial job.

My take on the Curry Issue -

I agree that the PRC family was being a little insensitive to the culture and lifestyle of others. I also think that the Indian family was very magnanimous when they decided to cook when the PRC family is not around, and even offered the family to try their dish.

Having said that, if those two parties agree amicably (like what the govt has pointed out), who are others to jump on the bandwagon? Why the hoo ha on something that has happened seven years ago?

By highlighting this incident, is not TRE trying to whip up Nationalistic sentiments against foreigners, keeping in mind it was published on National Day, and seven years late at that too!

For those who insist it is about culture and the foreigners have gone overboard, intolerant to local culture, I would say that is opportunistic. If there is any “infringement” on culture these following actions from the govt are even more blatant than the Curry Incident Issue.

- The Singapore govt restricts Thaipusam Festivities – Thaipusam Singapore 2011: Singaporean Indians resist ban

- The Sg govt restricts how joss paper is burnt.

- Restriction for the Call to Prayer in mosques.

Those practices above have been around for over a thousand years. Societies, everywhere in the world, when they meet Hindus, Taoists and Muslims, know what kind of practices come along with their society. Yet, when the govt restricts those thousands of years of cultural practices, there’s not even a whimper, but there’s a whole lot of noise on some curry cooking?

Is not restricting these cultural practices even more insensitive? So what’s with the Curry Case? Just an attempt to increase the heat on foreigners to higher xeno levels, no?

Not that I am saying the govt should allow indiscriminate burning of joss paper, or allow mosques to wake everyone up 5.30 in the morning for prayer. But what needs to be considered is – Is the Curry Issue worth that much air time, in view that this action of restricting cultural practices is nearly as old as Singapore itself?

>Xenophobia in S’pore? You only realise it now after nearly 50 yrs?

>Introduction -

As more Singaporeans, both students studying abroad and adults working overseas, are exposed to foreign culture, more are speaking up against their fellow citizens about the xenophobia that’s happening in Singapore.

The claim from them is always the same. It is always “having studied/worked abroad, I am appalled at the treatment of foreigners in Singapore….”

It is as if you need to have been abroad to know that. It is as if you had not travelled far, you won’t notice it. What self-righteous attitude that contains a smack of arrogance and elitism. 

>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.

>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.