atans1

Surrealism and religious harmony: The PAP way

In Political governance on 07/04/2017 at 6:32 am

PAP Minister Masagos Zulkifli’s criticism of WP MP Faisal Manap for repeatedly raising the tudung issue in Parliament and causing division in S’pore, had me in stitches about the surrealism of the scene in Parly when he said it. I mean criticising  Faisal Manap for repeatedly raising the tudung issue in Parliament and causing division in S’pore in front of a tudung wearing Speaker (and assumptive president come September)

sounds so Alice-in-Wonderland

It also reminded me that I had written this sometime back

Religious harmony: PAP’s, Putin’s way

Mr Putin said Russia had been far ahead of its European rivals in establishing a model for co-existence between faiths. In a way, that is true. But co-existence under a common, imperial regime – one that punishes “blasphemers” of all kinds, including those who challenge the regime itself, and colludes with religious authorities to maintain social control – is different from the liberal model of co-existence, where no religion is protected and each must argue its case in an open market-place of ideas.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/erasmus/2015/01/empire-islam-and-russia

Now doesn’t the Russian way sound very much like the S’porean way? Interestingly both are the products of 19th century European imperialism. In the case of Russia, the imperialism of the tsars. In the case of S’pore, British colonalism.

The British and the Russian tsars ruled multi-racial, multi-ethnic and multi-cultural empires and needed to keep the natives from killing one another or their masters.

So when Harry the axe man became PM, the laws he (and we) inherited from the British suited him to the T: in response to this on the murder of cartoonists in Paris, a reader pointed out rightly in my view,

During LKY’s time he will come out on TV to gloat that this is why we have sedition act and ISD and why he will string you up by the balls anyone who breaks his hard truths and make you wish you had been just simply killed by terrorists.

I’ll end with Chen Jiaxi Bernard‘s FB tots. (He’s a WP member will balls and brains. The “Worthless” or “Wanker” cape doesn’t fit him.)

Quite clear (if it was not already clear enough) who will be our next President. A woman Malay-Muslim president who dons a tudang will indeed show how progressive we are as an inclusive nation. The progress we have made to support the aspirations of women in this country, symbolises by the highest office in the land.

And so we have her, the appointment (the electoral walkover) of Mdm Halimah Yaccob. In an open election, Mdm Halimah will be able to hold her own against any potential candidate*. Wait, it’s reserved for members of her community. Come on, she can stand on her own and win comfortably. I am confident that she will receive more votes (across all ethnic groups) than President Tan in 2011.

Either the PAP has no confidence in their own Speaker or they really have zilch trust that Singaporeans value merit over a person’s race.

The election of Mdm Halimah come September 2017 will be a sad day for Singapore. 50 years of nation building and the ideals taught to students in school surrendered to the narrow and tribal politics of the ruling party. Hypocrisy at the highest level. Sad.

On the day when the ruling party will hail progress, they have blatantly plunged a mortal stab into the social contract that defined Singapore as a nation, regardless of race, language and religion

The biggest loser even in the context of a walkover: Singapore.

One day when our children stopped believing in the “Majulah” in Majulah Singapore and our national pledge, point them to this government and this Prime Minister, the son of our founding Prime Minister. The irony, the utter hypocrisy.


*Trumpets pls. I said this early last yr.  A later post.

 

Advertisements
  1. Never bother to follow the debate, but the below statement caught my eye wherever it was from.

    “liberal model of co-existence, where no religion is protected and each must argue its case in an open market-place of ideas”

    Wah, sibeh liberal tua kee idea. If can work, then religions won’t be called faiths already.

    Not practical lah dey.

    By the way besides Putin, Britain and the PAP, I give you another example where relative religious freedom was maintained under an imperial control. The Mongol Empire under Genghis Khan.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: