This is the English version of Association of Muslim Professionals’ official response to Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew’s comments in his book – Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going. An excerpt of this statement in Malay was published in Berita Harian today.

AMP Responds to Comments by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew in Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going

  1. The Association of Muslim Professionals (AMP) deeply regrets certain comments made by Minister Mentor (MM) Mr Lee Kuan Yew in his book Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going. These comments are in relation to the practice of Islam by the Malay-Muslim community (MMC) where MM Lee had urged the MMC to be less strict in their practice of Islam in order to facilitate integration, and in relation to the issue of gaps between the MMC and other communities in Singapore, where MM Lee opined that the MMC will never catch up with the other communities. We note that these views of MM Lee are not new. It is not clear why MM Lee has chosen to repeat them at this point.
  2. However, because these views come from MM, and are repeated in print, it is important for the community to set its rejoinders. We do not agree with MM’s views. In our view, MM’s comments have hurt the community and are potentially divisive.
  3. Fundamentally, there is nothing wrong for any community in Singapore in being distinct, for it to carry out its religious practices, or in asserting its identity. Islam enjoins Muslims to integrate within the broader Singapore community. It is not mutually exclusive for a good Muslim to be a good Singaporean. In fact, a good Muslim is duty bound, in Islam, to be a good Singaporean.
  4. Many other religious communities practise their rituals. There is nothing wrong with this. Further, many ethnic communities assert their identities. Again, there is nothing wrong in this. For example, the state-promoted policy of SAP schools (where it could be argued that students do not have the same opportunity to mingle with other communities) manifests the assertion of the Chinese identity. The Speak Mandarin campaign is yet another example of the assertion of Chinese identity. The MMC has accepted these assertions of identities as part and parcel of living in a multi-ethnic and multi-religious community. Just like other Singaporeans, we celebrate diversity of beliefs and practices. It is therefore perplexing to see the Malay/Muslim community as being unfairly singled out for reasons which we cannot fathom.
  5. It is unusual for MM to conclude that Muslims have not integrated based on his sporadic observations of eating practices of Muslims. Many Muslims have no qualms sharing tables with their non-Muslim friends and colleagues. Muslims are obliged to observe certain dietary restrictions, inasmuch as people subscribing to other religions (e.g. Buddhists or Hindus who do not consume certain types of foods) or others having dietary restrictions (vegetarians, vegans). It is a stretch and disingenuous to suggest that Muslims are against or less likely to integrate primarily on account of our dietary restrictions or eating habits.
  6. Ironically, MM’s comments, which had purported to touch on integration, could be potentially divisive. MM’s comments create the misperception that the MMC is against or disinterested in integration, which is untrue and unfounded. It tends to perpetuate this misperception for younger Singaporeans in particular, who may take his views, as the first Prime Minister of Singapore, as the truth. These misperceptions could hinder integration going forward.
  7. Apart from the issue of the practice of Islam, MM had also commented that the Malay/Muslim community will never catch up with other communities in Singapore. Again, this is regrettable. To state this in print is effectively condemning the MMC as a lagging and marginalised community, even in the longer term.
  8. MM’s comments also raise questions as to whether they reflect the thinking of other political leaders. Does this thinking (relating to the misperception of Muslims being disinterested in integration, or that the MMC will never catch up with other communities) affect, directly or indirectly, other government policies? If this is not the case, then the State should clarify this. Otherwise, the perception will be that the comments expressed by MM Lee, as a core member of the Cabinet, reflects the official position of the Government.
You May Also Like

“滥用泼马法企图噤声异见” 马律师组织不遵循更正指示

今早(22日),内政部援引《防假消息法》(POFMA),要求马国捍卫自由律师团(LHL)、《网络公民》、雅虎新闻以及新闻工作者韩俐颖,发出更正指示。 事缘内政部指责捍卫自由律师团,在本月16日的新闻稿作出不实指控,称樟宜监狱以残酷和不合法方式处决囚犯。 不过,捍卫自由律师团也很快在今日作出回应,声称坚持立场,且扬言不遵守新加坡政府发出的更正指示,并要求撤回。 文告坚称樟宜监狱内确实曾发生残酷行刑、且若绞绳断裂,则朝囚犯的脖子后方使劲踢断。并指他们的声明是来自前任和现任监狱官员的证据。 “试图干预马国公民在自家土地发言自由” 同时,该律师组织董事梅丽莎(Melissa Sasidaran)也抨击,近期才生效的《防假消息法》备受争议,是欠缺民主和压迫式的法律,国际上都指责该法被用于钳制异见。 “再者,新方对在马国土地发文告的组织,用《防假消息法》发出更正指示,是令人愤慨和无法接受的。新方无权干预马国公民在自家土地发声明的言论自由。” 梅丽莎认为新加坡内政部的做法无疑是要让该组织噤声,避免处决方式的真相公开;他揶揄新加坡政府应学会接受批评。 “他们对于真相和事实没有独断权。这种尝试把管辖权力延伸到马国公民身上的做法,是挑衅、非法的,也违反国际法。” 内政部驳斥指控 内政部驳斥,捍卫自由律师团作出不实指控;并强调政府不遗余力确保执法严格遵守法律程序,而执刑也都有监狱长或一名医生在场等。…

PM Lee’s ESS speech and Q & A session

Economic Society of Singapore Annual Dinner 2012 Question & Answer Seesion –…

Singapore: Space Narrows for Online News Media 

Government Control Grows as More Websites Must Get Onerous Licenses (Bangkok, October 16,…