red and yellow, black and white
The Muslim student was rejected from Burnley College (United Kingdom) for standing firm in her choice of wearing her burkha. Reasons given for forbidding her enrollment was that full face to face communication and contact between the student cohort and the teachers were vital. However, Bliqes feel that the school should be more accepting to different cultural practices since we are all in the 21st century.
However, a controversy will be, should they not discard such traditions since it is in the 21st century.
Usually when one is in a foreign country, especially in another land whereby the cultural clashes are so vast, one will conform to their norms, starting from physical appearances. The way you dress will probably be the easiest to blend into a culture, to prevent you from being so prominent and stick out from the crowd. This in turn helps you to avoid prejudice: negative interpretation, discounting, fundamental attribution bias, exaggeration, polarisation. Especially after the 911 incident, Muslims are viewed very negatively and having extreme prototypes associated with them; moreover, in a schooling environment, one has to deal with polarisation especially.
From that, she has also reflected her country's collectivists' spirit, but not conforming to their cultures by dressing up as a normal British citizen. In Muslim countries, a very strong united spirit can be seen among them (the Muslims), they value their family a great deal, as seen from their color-coded dressings, and also they are very strongly rooted in their religion, traditions and customs. Their social norms are usually defined by the group, rather than for self pleasure; in this case it would be referring to the wear of the burkha, for it was a tradition that they still carry with them and it was a tradition Bliqes stuck to, right till the end. By persisting on with her decision, it also shows that she is proud of her roots and her culture, instead of trying to fit in and conform to another's, is also the trait of a member from a collectivist society.
Likewise in Singapore, was the incident back in 2002, which caused an uproar in the Muslim community, whereby 4 primary schools were being dismissed from school for they insisted on putting on their tudongs daily, despite the rule that they were not allowed to. One big contradiction, however, will be that Sikhs schoolboys are allowed to wear the turban to school? The reason behind is that during the British rule, Sikhs schoolboys were already allowed to do so, yet there were no records about Muslim girls regarding tudongs. It was accrued to the fact that there were hardly any Muslim schoolgirls then. Whatever it is, I personally do not feel that this reason is of any good to explain the differences, unless this is a gender discrimination instead of a racial one. Clearly, this is playing to an extent some sort of bias, obviously going against the government's aims of national integration.
As we know, Singapore is a multi-racial society which takes pride of its socially and racially cohesive society. Even so, another known fact amongst us is that racism still prevails and is almost impossible to be fully eradicated, in the near future at least. Culture is dynamic and has it's influences to the practices and beliefs held by each racial group. In Singapore especially, this is prevalent for everyone is more or less on a common ground. Despite of that, the government can still do something about disallowing Muslim girls to wear tudongs in government schools.
Discrimination is similar to culture as it is being learned or taught, and it also plays a part in molding culture too. In Singapore, racial discrimination is kept very low, as compared to the United States. We all may have our different perception, however we often do not show it and are generally civilized about our mannerisms. Thus, I do not think that Muslim girls wearing the tudong will make any differences to the other children in their (Muslim girls') classes, besides the fact that it might raise questions. Unless the parents of these children start injecting racist notions into their head, would then wearing tudongs be posed as a barrier towards interracial communication. If not, it will simply be of a good measure regarding how efficient and consistent the government is, when it comes to implementing the government's own policies.
So what is it that makes the government so adamant on not allowing Muslims in public schools (not including religious schools) to put on a tudong to school? Is it to minimize possible discrimination for the generations to come? Or?
posted by cheryl at
12:37 AM
39 Comments:
Hi cheryl! Nice entry there. Well, let me tell you something more about our local governement. In the army, the malays are usually posted to infantry units rather than the intel units; units that does planning and much more confidential stuffs. And usually they do not take up high ranking posts except a few. Do you know why?
Reason being muslims have their own set of beliefs and values that interfere with our local government. In this case, there's a fear in conflict. I can't really say the government is being racist here even though the bulk of local ministers are chinese. We all learnt since young about Equality in our country, and that might be the cause of why Muslims are not able to wear their religious gear as everyone should look uniform.
Hi Cheryl!
I feel that discrimination will almost always be a sensitive issue, and it will almost always exist.
Perhaps the best way to look at the abovementioned incident about the muslim girl and Burnley College is by a utilitarian perspective. Should Burnley College accept her application, there is a chance the muslim girl will not do well in school anyway, because she is not able to fulfill the need for full face to face communication and contact between students and teachers. Burnley College would be unhappy too, as the muslim girl's inability to perform would mean that they would have 'wasted' a place in their school, which could have been offered to someone else. Hence it would be a lose lose situation for both parties.
So perhaps discrimination in this case is justified, you think?
Well, here's an additional food for thought. Did u know that private racism is perfectly legal in Singapore, meaning you can own a shop that only allows the Chinese to enter? I learnt this in my Ethics class in SMU, apparently, only the civil service in Singapore has to follow the legal provision of not discriminating anyone no matter his/her race, religion, place of descent. Shocking, ain't it?
The burkha in the picture is totally different from the tudong most Signaporean women wear. The issue is not religious freedom but security and, as the college put it, the burkha inhibits communication. We know about the all important eye-contact when we speak to each other, but it doesn't mean the rest of your face isn't important. And there's the obvious risk factor in allowing students to veil themselves in terms of security.
Tudongs though are totally different. They should be allowed. They pose no threat at all, and if anything, they raise opportunities for students to explore the racial and religious diversity we have. The reason why I think the government continues disallow it is if tudongs are permitted, it'll spark an entire conversation about what is permitted. Do Muslim girls wear long sleeves and skirts too? Better to nip the issue in the bud and say no to everything.
Hey Cheryl! :D
I believe that in UK, their action is justified because of their existing culture. When the Muslin student chooses to study in that foreign country, the student should also know the need to embrace the culture of that society. If the student was not able to accept this cultural differences, she should not have accepted to study there.
However in Singapore, it is a totally different case. We are a multi-racial society, and there is no cultural difference present. In the case of where schools do not allow Tudongs, it is because schools have school rules of wearing the uniform. Personally I feel that is it weird for a muslim girl to don the Tudong with their school uniform. It is almost like it is done half way. Some actually comment that if the young girls wear the Tudong, the discrimination may be more apparent due to their difference in attire. Is it an obvious discrimination or a prevention?
Do comment on my blog too! :D
JunYing
Yoohoo Cheryl :D
To answer your question in the last paragraph, I feel the main reason why schools disallowed the young girls to wear tudongs to school was because they were afraid this would lead to the entire Malay population following suit. This will not only create conflict among the other races, but it also gives the impression that Singapore is a divided country; whereby the Malays stand out more due to their cultural beliefs.
There's a reason for the existence of religious schools in Singapore. And thats the leeway that the government has given to us. Hence I strongly feel that in governement schools, everyone should be dressed uniformly to emphasize a sense of equality.
Hope this was insightful :) hahaha
Stefanie
Well, I believe the main issue here is the conflicting rules and regulations that we have in place.
Yes, we can eliminate discrimination but we have to be consistent with matters.
In the above case, there were valid reasons as to why the school required the girl to remove her burkha. This issue is debatable, when on one hand, people might see it as an act of discrimination, yet on the other hand, the school authorities have to be consistent to prevent students from taking advantage of this exceptional case.
hello..
i agree that these muslim students should be allowed to don their religious attires but sometimes these attires inhibit their actions and communication. this is not discrimination but rather practicality. that being said, i think discrimination has been existent for ages and for us to exterminate it would take another few centuries. the best way is definitely education to the younger generation. hence i think we are some way from being a society that has no racism.
great article by the way. makes us really think that we had really exterminated racism but these incidents still exist in our surroundings.
make it simple .. be the water than the vase... be flexible when u landed on foreign land..
kandidkester: Yeh it's so ironic. It's the government which constantly inculcate these values to us yet at the same time, they do not abide to their own set of rules. This is also evident in schools and institution whereby sometimes racial differences is not an issue of de facto discrimination but it still persists. However, the government did implement de jure rules of social and ethnic cohesion such as the allocation of races in one block and various laws that protect the minority.
Sam: such irony because what kandidkester has said about the army and civil services is actually pretty true! The only face-to-face communication barrier that will build up between them is probably that they feel uneasy speaking to a veil. I'm sure eyes can be used as security recognition purposes too right. So is this a personal attack as well, because of the stigma that these muslim girls are link to Al-Qaeda because of their ethnicity, which is why she should be under stronger surveillance; thus a greater need for her to drop her veil off.
jasonzli.com: Once again thanks for the comments though I have no idea how you got my link. Anyway, how we interpret this issue can be really subjective. Just look at my stand and look at yours. You really feel that the sole reason she was rejected was that her veil hinders proper communication. Like I've mentioned to Sam, I feel it is not only the reason that facial recognition is crucial, but they will also feel uneasy speaking to someone who only reveals her eyes - that already is not accepting the culture of another. Moreover, since you said tudongs are OKAY, then why is the same ban implemented in government schools for tudongs but not for the turbans?
itsmorethanjustwords: Not the issue here is not that Malay girls aren't allowed to wear tudong yet the SIkhs are allowed to wear their turbans. Will the turbans not draw attention to it as well? And if disallowing it serves as a prevention, it also means that the social cohesion has not been ingrained deeply within us for we should be able to embrace and accept racial differences.
But yes,, it is always easier for the minority to fit in and integrate into the society rather than expecting the society to eradicate their prejudices and stereotypes.. She's pretty brave for sticking to her culture instead.
From the way I see it, within the universe set of Norms, there are subsets such as Formal laws, Societal norms, Norms put in place for business efficacy (eg. rules governing certain professions), Customs and religion, etc and the list can go on.
Sometimes certain norms will overlap such that the subsets will overlap. There has to be a certain form of order resulting from it: 1. One supersedes the other 2. Modified result stemming from interaction between the two norms. Therefore, it must be that there are certain advantages from regarding one community (who advocates one subset) over the other.
Maybe it is just that morals have to give way in the face of other considerations and these considerations will vary from country to country, institutions to institutions. Perhaps it should not be viewed as a form of discrimination but resolving the issue with the least resulting collateral damage? For all we know there may be a million other considerations running through the minds of the administration which are more important to them then the nagative result of prejudice towards a particular community of persons.
If people want to push for change, they can lobby for such change, bring their concerns to various agencies such as Human Rights organisations etc. Because after all, we live in a democratic society and I believed that people have the power to make changes.
But then again, if I were the persons on the other side of the fence, definitely I would feel the same way as they are feeling - prejudiced, discriminated, etc.
Siwei
whatscookingtoday: The government has to first respect the culture of the people, before he garners the respect of others, no? The tudong is part of a neccessity for some in the culture, like how some buddhist don't take beef and we can't possibly force them to, can we? Should the singapore government boast so much about it's racial cohesiveness then the children should be taught from young to accept all these differences in outfits. Especially the case whereby kids are still unable to set prejudice stereotypes on people and it is the best time to feed in these values to them.
michelle: yes I have to agree with you.. it's pretty subjective and after reading everyone else's comments I certainly realized I was acting on prejudices as well. Because the first thing that came to me was that they were being biased and using face to face correspondent as an excuse. But we also cannot deny the slight possibility that it might have been an excuse as well. Also by making her remove it, it might be preventing a higher chance of discrimination, from the other students, against her.
Insightful, thanks!
Hi cheryl! I believe in the government's choice in maintaining the school rules in not allowing the student to wear tudong to school. with all due respect to the muslim society. For many year, no one had raised the issue. no one complained. why wait until 2002 and insist on wearing the tudong? I believe in muslim women's rights and believes , but the government must weigh between maintain the rule, or have people abuse the system. A few of my sikh friends are not pious in any way. but they wear their turban (a specially made removable one , like a hat) so that they can keep outlandish hairstyles. a minority of student will definitely abuse this rule and there nothing the school can do when that happens.
Another factor to consider, by changing the rules to bend towards the favor of muslim girls, other racial groups might start fighting for their own rights to wear religious clothing or practice religious activities during school hours.
thus, i agree in the government decision to weigh the pros and con of their choices.
ok , alot of typo errors. sorry!
Hey Cheryl, personally I feel that since Singapore's government stresses so much on racial harmony and that all of us should be equal, these Muslims girls should be allowed to wear their tudongs to school since it is part of their religion/culture. Like you said, since turbans are allowed, why not tudongs?
As for the Muslim student who insist on wearing her burkha, I feel that when one is in another country, one should try to conform to that country's culture. Perhaps the country is just afraid that she would start a propaganda or sort. Maybe they are just prejudiced about her.
Breda
elninonumbernine: Thanks Justin. Well, I feel that discrimination can never be eradicated, unless one day we all take on the same physical appearances. In our cognitive schemata of things, we tend to for stereotypes. Because it is easier to classify a group of people together, instead of trying to break each and everyone down individually. Even so if we are educated from young, our parents would still pass on these stigmas and sentiments against other races. Even if your parent's don't, gradually we will be influenced by our peers in our way. Hence, it will just be passed on every generation. It can be lessened but can never be eradicated.
you know what, i'd feel pretty damn discriminated myself against if i cant wear my tudung to school while the sikh boy can wear his turban. i'd too would want to try and blow holes through this misshapen concept of racial equality our govt has fed to us for years. i'd jump at the chance to stand my religious ground and get myself booted out of the classroom for it, hopefully raking in enough attention along the way out to bring notice to the fallacy of our rainbows-and-sugar ideal of a harmonious society. that girl in your article might have been thinking the same way. the other muslim girls in the local papers years ago might not have been, but then their fathers' likely could have.
5+ years ago teo chee hean(M for edu) referred to the above, saying that we shouldnt be creating new differences, and went on to reveal his disappointment in these few individuals who were essentially divisive characters because of their wishes to be different. if i could spit on his shoes i would, but this is what it boils down to: any hint of a burgeoning opposition is extinguished before it becomes a problem. there is no negotiation because of what is known as the slippery slope doctrine and the opportunity for abuse, as mentioned by chrissy, and our govt is shit-scared about this. but, effectively the govt expects you to adhere to its policies because it thinks it knows what is best for you.
i really didnt expect this post to become a govt-bashing one and since i dont want to be in prison anytime soon, let it be stated that the govt always has practical reasons for its seemingly bone-headed practices. on the issue of muslims almost never getting into positions of authority in the armed forces, you'll never get anywhere in that debate because such a travesty does not exist (on paper, that is :) dont we just hate arguing about de facto practices?) but while we're at it, note that our closest geographic neighbours are muslim nations and granting that any forseeable military conflict with singapore would be with a muslim country...no further explanation reqd.
it has always been this way, that the collective well-being of the whole supersedes that of the individual. it is the basis around which our judiciary is constructed, what with people getting hanged for carrying more than a pound of cannabis or an ounce of heroin, or jailed for merely speaking in public without a permit, heck, even for spouting racially dissentive rhetoric on your blogs. in the free world, it is an offence if you harm someone (harm principle). in singapore, and many other collectivist sovereignties, it is an offence if you offend someone(offence principle). and with this in mind our govt is often reqd to weigh the necessity of human rights. lets face it, individual rights have never come up top against the perceived needs of a conservative society like ours. this is one ugly and embarrassing truth that the govt will never reveal in admission. this is why i believe the tudung banning was never discriminatory against muslims. govt just cant tell you what the real and pragmatic reasons are because it would open one hell of a can of worms on the state of human rights in this country.
one reasonable explanation for the tudungs banning is that they contravene the concept of discipline in uniformity. and though it may be true that banning the tudungs would actually reduce perceived discrimination from the peers by increasing consistency in appearance among all students, i am cynical about this being the true motivation for such a sanction. the more i think about it the more i am convinced that the govt doesnt want this to result in a runaway situation where subscribers of any and all religions start challenging the government's choices from atop the podium of human rights.
its not all bad tho, govt is pretty flexible with the many religions of the country. there's always vegetarian food available for the hindus and buddhists, there are prayer rooms, etc, and most undernoticed of all, that school ends early on fridays because our muslims friends have to go to the mosque. outside of school the govt has active laws and policies governing the terms of employment and housing (as you mentioned)--these laws fall under the umbrella term known as affirmative action and you have to be a pretty tolerant society to take it to the extent of regulating the ratios of cultures living in one hdb block. knowing this we cant really attribute the motive of the tudung banning to simple malicious discrimination; that would be a trivial accusation.
while we know the govt can simply end this nonsense by removing the exemption clause for sikhs and say IN SCHOOL NO TURBAN FOR YOU, we also know how that would turn out, considering the sikhs have enjoyed that right since the times of colonial rule. so you cant take away from the sikhs to make things fair. you cant give in to the muslims to make things fair. awesome, i think we just unearthed something interesting here. cool topic. cheers :)
I've read most of the comments posted and my prespective aligned greatly with Greg. Greater good in a society holds greater criticality to stablize a Country. The different races and cultures in Singapore can lead to potential conflicts if a balance is not maintained. If you compare America and Singapore from a racism perspective, America have come a long way to accept different colour, however Singapore has taken lesser time and not to mention we have 4 major races (colour) to deal with. Government intervention is a must to implement lasting policy to stablise the racial harmony.
So how do you draw a line to clarify what is doable and what is not. Since times, people have look into history to draw out what is right, the mechanic in this is queer. Times have change, people perspective changes as well. Government should look deeper and also implement lasting policy that will balance the greater good.
Hi Cheryl!
I think that the Muslim girl was really stong willed to be able to not conform to Britain's societal norms and expectations.
Regarding discrimination however, perhaps the college that rejected her knows that her headpiece might only raise more discrimination towards her and in the school as a whole? Wearing her headpiece would definitely cause heads to turn and people might even start questioning about race matters.
This is not a problem in Singapore however since all of us have already been taught to accept other races for all their practices and all, but because Britain is not as accepting yet, getting the Muslim girl to conform in terms of dressing might be the solution to try to curb racism from starting if she did enroll in the college.
haha Cheryl you just covered a very touchy topic.
Anyway I suppose the rulings for dress-codes for students are very much subjected to political agenda. Suppose the Muslim nations became the power-houses of the world, Singapore may very well play ball, and allow tudongs anywhere, anytime. But that is merely hypothetical.
I think that Bliques(was that her name?) should have been granted the right to study in that school though, unless she was really majoring in something highly involved in face-to-face situation(communication major I guess?). I think the reason that the school cited for barring her was a facade of a greater truth. It being the United Kingdom, I think the real reason was for security reasons. What with the bombings in UK in the past, I suppose they wanted to take utmost precaution in preventing such incidences from occuring again, thus her dismissal.
Interesting post you did here!
There does seem to be a contradiction in Singapore's government in wanting us to live in racial and religious harmony yet not allowing cultures the right to fully adhere to their beliefs and customs. If they were to make all students equal, that would eradicate the different cultures among them and rob them of the oppurtunity to truly learn and live in harmony. By not allowing certain customs to be followed, the government is indirectly taking away the chance for children to learn more about other cultures in Singapore at a young age and hence, learn to be more accepting of them.
That said, Singaporeans do seem to lean more towards prejudice than discrimination. There are stereotypes and because of these stereotypes, prejudices but not many people actually act out on these prejudices and cause conflicts which are outright acts of discrimination. This may be due to the fact that Singaporeans are somewhat more "subdued" and afraid of confrontation.
As for the case of the girl in the Burkha, it is very unfortunate and unfair that they deprive her of her education just because she dresses differently from other students on campus. The excuse that full face to face contact was vital seems to me, a lame one. As long as she is able to see and hear and speak to the students and professors, I do not "vital" need for face to face contact. Perhaps this is like you said, because of people being more wary of Muslims after the 911 incident.
hi cheryl (courtesy)
ok im glad that with this article, i can share with you what i have learnt in school as a soci student who is taking a mod called singapore and its society.
Relating to the singapore incident, it is quite right to say that racial discrimination is not prevalent in SG as compared to the US or UK due to one of the shared values of SG being racial and religious harmony. however, there is one thing that you might have missed out which is the CMIO categorization (also known as the Chinese, Malay, Indian and Others) that the government uses, probably to ensure orderliness and for demographic purposed. This CMIO categorization emphasizes the racial differences in the SG society. As you have mentioned, by highlighting such differences, there will be a higher tendency that racial discrimination will be formed- and this holds some truth. Therefore, tudong or no tudong, the government has already set up a platform for racial discrimination to take place by requiring the individual to declare his race under 4 fixed categories.
For the U.K issue, the burkha preventing effective communication might be a plausible factor but ultimately, communication does not have to purely rely on facial expressions at all. The aforementioned reason could be a veil to disguise racial profiling where a set of generalized ideas of a race is formed and then used to stereotype against any individual who shares similar physical traits with the race (like you mentioned, negative judgment towards muslims after the 9/11 and subsequent terrorist attacks)
Hey Cheryl!
Interesting post! It is a very apt subject as discrimination, whether in the form of race, religion or whatsoever, is constantly a hot topic for debators!
I feel that Burnley College's action toward the muslim student is clearly a form of discrimination. It reminds us that despite the world being increasingly modernized, discrimination is still not improving, or even improved. This incident just shows us how backward they actually are, even though they might proclaim themselves to be otherwise.
I feel that many issues that involve the government are always very complex in nature as there are many factors to think about. On the issue of the governments being adamant on not allowing Muslims to put on tudongs and such to public schools, I feel that they are sending out a very clear message: That they are not comfortable with this idea and not ready to accept culture differences wholly.
It is so ironic that they seem to potray the idea that they are trying to prevent discrimination towards the Muslim when it is actually a form of discrimination in their stand towards the issue itself. Why should any culture be disallowed to obey cultural norms as long as it does not hurt the general public? How would a person wearing a tudong hurt another who is not?
Siwei: Thanks for the crash course on law! It works something like institutional discrimination / de facto discrimination, whereby other issues and laws has indirectly resulted in this social segregation which in turn results in discrimination, and this has resulted in a vicious cycle to occur.
I guess the only way out with least collateral damage is for the statistical minority to first understand the role relation and identities of the other culture and then slowly integrate herself, first and most obvious to being with will be her physical dress up.
Chriss: So does that mean that if a minority of Malay girls don their tudungs to school, the school will then not be able to do anything as well? So all they have to do is choke up to a certain number and the school will have to give in?
In a way, maybe it is how feminism is right now. Women used to fight for equal rights as that of men. Now however, feminism is more than that. They are fighting for men's rights to be equal as them, if not more, they are fighting for further privileges as well. I guess when everything is in place, it is just human nature to take things for granted and ask for more.
blacksticks: Exactly my point! And following what Chriss has said, maybe it is just that a bigger minority of them decided to wear turbans thus they were given the green light. So if more Malay girls wear their tudungs, and force their ways upon, would they be given the go as well?
greg: wow that sure is a lengthy comment. Thanks for even commenting cause I have no idea which greg you are by the way.. Well I feel that the government has already done a pretty good job in maintaining social cohesiveness in this country. Definitely a little bit of ethnocentrism on my part that I hardly feel that there are any unjust, but on an individual level, I think most of us treat other races in a civilized manner, save a few rare cases (which are bound to happen). But what I wanted to highlight was on the differential treatment and really, why? Is it because the Sikhs are more recognized since they are a wealthy few living in our community? Like I said, they have maintained it well, but it doesn't leave the fact out that they do practice a little bit of biases in a few instances.
It is also how small our population is that has allowed us reside with one another peacefully. Like what you have mentioned, the government stubs the spark before a forest fire can be triggered. In any case of opposing views, the government intervenes right away and manipulates our mindset. I think our views are very controlled by our government as we are being brainwashed into their agenda.
"lets face it, individual rights have never come up top against the perceived needs of a conservative society like ours. this is one ugly and embarrassing truth that the govt will never reveal in admission." That is one enlightening point that you have brought up but yes, individual rights hardly play a significant role as the government should focus on how the group works together. This I feel, is nothing wrong at all and should be the way to manage.
Controversy at the end. Then what do you think is fair? The current status? It can't never be fair. Like you've said, the government stands for what is pragmatic and that has forsaken equality.
But really thanks for bringing up really good points that helped me see the situation from another light! kudos
Billene: Comparing America and Singapore, I think it is due to the population size in Singapore that enables the government to control and regulate every aspect with more ease and efficiency. And I have to disagree with you, America definitely has more different races! The african americans, the Latinos, the Asians and the other ethnic races! Have to agree with you on the last point, times are different now and rules should be altered to better fit with the current status.
Rachel Lim SY: The girl have to be mentally prepared to face such discrimination if she has already decided to wear her burkha to school to begin with. Since she has already mentally prepped herself, why is the college denying her of a chance if their main concern was to mellow down the possibilities of discrimination to occur?
I think it all boils down to time and getting used to. It is like how we are all used to living cohesively with the different racial groups.
The whites should learn how to tone down their ethnocentrism and someone has to make the first step into allowing them to be used to other racial groups and change their prejudices. However, nobody said it'll be easy!
rocknstone: Yes I realized too (haha) but it was a little late to be switching topics already. Her name is Bliqes! If the schools really placed so much emphasis on security, they could have used biometric means and have bag checks and I'm sure by then with or without her burkha, it would not have mattered.
sundaytv: It is like how Malay teachers are allowed to wear tudungs, but not the Malay students? If they were afraid that the children would question and treat their peers differently due to that extra cloth, then wouldn't their look at their teachers differently? NO! Because they were taught to respect their authorities, teachers in this case. Should they accept their teacher's way of dressing, they should be able to attribute to the fact that their peers dress that way in regards to their culture. And you're right about the point that it might actually help each other to know and relate to their culture differences better. Instead of having a uniform cohort to avoid prejudices, should they not learn to accept other races by accepting their different customs and beliefs?
WIni: Hi Wini (courtesy much), like what you have mentioned, by declaring our races, de jure laws have already allowed discrimination to occur. Hence instead of working for integrating the society to a uniform state (appearance wise), they should be getting us to accept other races for their different beliefs and culture norms! Like what I've said to sundaytv prior to this.
Valerie Chua: As our culture modernizes, people tend to feel more superior as the Global North are way way much more developed than the Asian countries in Global South. Since casting prejudices and stereotypes can't be helped, as long as it doesn't trigger discrimination I think that will be good enough. Prejudice can never be eradicated unless we all revolutionize to androids one fine day. Thus given globalization and modernization, I think it only further worsens the divide and the whites tend to be more ethnocentric about their own race instead, hence even though they are statistically the minority in some places, they are still the dominant race there.
End of the day like what greg has mentioned, they have their own reasons to be pragmatic about certain issues however they will never reveal the true rationale behind their reasons!
haha. (am i the only one starting with a "haha" here?) hmm, i just felt that if the muslims could already do for so long without wearing their tudongs in sch, why do they suddenly wanna spark an uproar? and imagine everyone start coming up with something new from their religion, there'll be no more uniformity or rather, discipline and equality in schools. at least they are not prevented from wearing tudongs in tertiary institutes! =)
WOAH sarah, if more people stand up for their rights, isn't it a good thing?! it forces the govt to reweigh priorities that were arbitrarily set ab initio.
i dont think that any ethnic imbalances, perceived or real, (tudung no, turban yes) were planned for or intended. they were just made that way in the beginning based on premature knowledge and left in the books because nobody raised anything more than an eyebrow.
these asymmetric prejudicial faults are all over the place--not limited to racial but also gender-related ones like how marriage accrues legal immunity to a man from being prosecuted for rape against his wife (s.376A). dont even start on s.377A for sexuality discrimination.
when you asked the question, cheryl, about the limit exceeding which schools would relent vis-a-vis blatant protest in the form of malay girls turning up to class with tudungs en masse, it made me laugh irl. maybe they'll ALL get thrown out of class. maybe it will work.
i think it's likely to, after all there really is no appreciable difference in the way or degree that tudungs or turbans may inhibit learning and/or any other (sure to be lame) reason. like what sarah said, once you're in schools that dont enforce uniforms, you can pretty much wear tudung over your turban with a matching cheong sam and converse sneakers and no one in class will say anything. ok maybe they will.
but if there's one thing the govt should be guilty of, it's their longtime favour for maintaining statuses quo and it manifests in policies related to the arts scene, television, newsprint and legislation--especially how slow and resistant they are to being amended.
and the rules are that way because we let 'em. after all, rigid laws are good laws, and unmoving governance is good governance right?
oh wait...
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home