Who Wants to Be an Imam?

There was an interesting article in yesterday's (7 June 2010) Straits Times about a television show up in Malaysia called Imam Muda ("Young Imam"). The Malaysian channel Astro Oasis (which we don't get here in Singapore) has created an Apprentice-type show in which ten young men, ages 19 to 27, compete to become employed as an imam.

Each aspiring imam on the show is given a task each week, and tested on his Islamic theory and practical applications, as well as leadership qualities until only one contestant remains.

The first task the men had to do was perhaps the most emotionally demanding: cleaning and burying a dead body according to Muslim rites. In this particular case, the body was that of a man who had died of AIDS; the body had been lying in the morgue for a month because no one had claimed the body by that time. (While it is certainly possible the deceased's family did not claim the body for fear of contracting the HIV virus during the cleaning of the body, which frequently is done in the family's bathroom, it's also possible that this particular victim did not have any surviving family. Allahu alim [God knows best]. It should also be noted that religious mentors and forensic officers were on-hand for the cleaning and burial to supervise the potential imams.)

The channel manager, Izelan Basar, said of this particular task:

"We believed if the contestant could face the dead body and burial process, then obviously they could face any other task in life as Muslims."

This is very true, IMO, but it also highlights the fact that the job of imam is much more than just leading prayers. In many ways, the imam has a similar occupation to that of a priest, minister or rabbi in that he needs to provide pastoral care, in whatever capacity that may take, to the people who attend his masjid. (One imam I know has talked of having performed several exorcisms.) Other tasks the contestants will face in future weeks include delivering sermons in real mosques, and visiting women's shelters and sites where unwanted babies are taken (presumably orphanages, but the word is not used in the article).

It sounds like an interesting show; too bad it hasn't been broadcast here yet.

Pax Singaporeana: Why They Hate Singapore

Straits Times political editor Chua Lee Hoong has an interesting op-ed today about the discomfort Westerners have with Singapore. As a PR who's lived in Singapore for almost six years now, I've come across several of these Westerners online, people who are upset with the laws that govern social behavior here. I'm not so sure Westerners are as upset with the health and wealth of Singapore's economy as they are with that of China's, but their dislike for the social behavior laws here is fairly strong.

The thing is, I don't have much of a problem with how society is governed here. As I've argued a number of times on my blog, governments have a trade off to make: either deregulate social behavior and accept a society that may be more chaotic, or regulate social behavior to some degree in order to create a harmonious society. Personally, I see the wisdom of the latter strategy. Pax Singaporeana is a value I cherish; its benefits certainly outweigh its costs.

As for the issue of economic success being tied to the model of an "authoritarian" state (which I don't consider Singapore to be), as opposed to being tied solely to "Western-style 'liberal' democracy," that should be obvious to any student of international management. The fact of the matter is that almost any country that sets up pro-economic growth policies upon a solid legal framework (the rule of law) and adheres to both should do well in the long-run. And this is why, IMO, "communist" countries like China and Vietnam have been doing well economically over the past 20 years. Westerners (especially Americans) often suffer from this paradigm paralysis, their inability to accept that other paradigms may be just as good (or even better) than their own.

SINGAPORE is small enough to be a suburb in Beijing, but it has something in common with the mammoth People's Republic. The little red dot and Red China are both countries the West loves to hate.

There are those who wish bad things to happen to the Beijing Olympics. Likewise, there are those who have had it in for the Lion City for years.

What's eating them? The easy answer is that both China and Singapore are authoritarian states. The freedoms taken for granted in the West - freedom of speech and assembly - come with more caveats in these two places.

But things are not so simple. There are plenty of authoritarian states around, but most do not attract as much attention as Singapore and China.

The real sin: Singapore and China are examples of countries which are taking a different route to development, and look to be succeeding.

Success grates, especially when it cocks a snook at much-cherished liberal values.

As Madam Yeong Yoon Ying, press secretary to Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, said last month: 'Singapore is an example to other countries of how the free market plus the rule of law, and stable macro-economic policies, can lead to progress and success, but without Western-style 'liberal' democracy.'

Don't believe her words? Read these lines from British journalist John Kampfner, writing in The Guardian last month, lamenting the spread of what he calls the Singapore model.

"Why is it that a growing number of highly-educated and well-traveled people are willing to hand over several of their freedoms in return for prosperity or security? This question has been exercising me for months as I work on a book about what I call the 'pact.'

"The model for this is Singapore, where repression is highly selective. It is confined to those who take a conscious decision openly to challenge the authorities. If you do not, you enjoy freedom to travel, to live more or less as you wish, and - perhaps most important - to make money. Under Lee Kuan Yew, this city-state built on a swamp has flourished economically.

"I was born in Singapore and have over the years been fascinated by my Chinese Singaporean friends. Doctors, financiers and lawyers, they have studied in London, Oxford, Harvard and Sydney. They have traveled across all continents; they are well-versed in international politics, but are perfectly content with the situation back home. I used to reassure myself with the old certainty that this model was not applicable to larger, more diverse states. I now believe this to be incorrect.

"Provincial governments in China send their brightest officials to Singapore to learn the secrets of its 'success.' For Russian politicians it too provides a useful model. These countries, and others in Asia and the Middle East are proving that the free market does not require a free society in which to thrive, and that in any battle between politics and economics, it is the latter that will win out."

Mr Kampfner seems in a genuine intellectual funk. He cannot quite understand why otherwise normal, intelligent Singaporeans would trade certain freedoms for economic progress, and accept the Singapore political system for what it is.

But perhaps he has got the wrong end of the stick. The problem lies not in the Singaporeans, but in his own assumptions. Namely: If you speak English, if you are well-educated and well-traveled, you must also believe in Western-style democracy. They are a package.

I was on the receiving end of similar assumptions when I was in the United States in 1991-1992. When Americans asked me, 'Why is your English so good?', often it was not out of admiration but bewilderment. Their next question revealed all: 'Why then do you (i.e. your Government) ban chewing gum?'

Another telling indicator of Western assumptions about Singapore comes from a remark by Singapore's Ambassador to Washington, Professor Chan Heng Chee, who went to the US at the tail end of the Michael Fay saga.

One year into her posting there, in 1997, she arranged for a retrospective of the late choreographer Goh Choo San's works. Her Washington audience was awed.

'People suddenly remembered Choo San was a Singaporean. They may have known about Goh Choo San, but to connect him with Singapore was not so obvious for them,' she said.

Sub-text: World-class choreography does not fit their image of a country with corporal punishment.

So the real difficulty for the West is this: We are so like them, and yet so not like them. We speak, dress, do business and do up our homes very much the same way as them. Yet when it comes to political values, we settle - apparently - for much less.

One observer draws an analogy with Pavlovian behavioral conditioning. So conditioned have Westerners become to associating cosmopolitan progress with certain political parameters, they do not know how to react when they encounter a creature - Singapore - that has one but not the other.

So they chide and berate us, as if we have betrayed a sacred covenant.

Adding to the iniquity is the fact that countries - rich and powerful ones too, like Russia and the Gulf states - are looking to the Singaporean way of doing things to pick up a tip or two.

I can imagine the shudders of Singapore's Western detractors should they read about a suggestion made by Mr Kenichi Ohmae this week.

In an interview with Business Times, the Japanese management consultant who first became famous as author of The Borderless World, said Singapore should 'replicate' itself in other parts of the world.

What he meant was that Singapore should use its IQ, and IT prowess, to help organise effective economies in other regions, as its own had succeeded so well.

To be sure, his reasoning was economic, not political. But for those who hate Singapore, a Pax Singaporeana would be something to work against and head off.

Burn Carefully

A sticker on the wall of a shower in a Chinese hotel (from Stomp's "English as it is Broken").

Muslim Girl's Organs Save Four People

There is a good story on the first page of the Home section of today's Straits Times. Last month, a young Malay Muslim girl lost her life after her boyfriend's motorcycle got into an accident. The boyfriend sustained serious injuries, but survived. The girl, Syahida Said ("Sy" in Malay is pronounced as "sh"), had severe brain and lung injuries, and was pronounced brain dead three days after the accident. However, the good news is that Syahida's mother allowed some of her daughter's organs to be donated.

The problem here is that the Muslim community is reluctant to donate organs after death. This despite the fact that MUIS, the ministry for Muslim affairs, has written two fatawa permitting the donation of organs in emergencies to save lives (the fatawa were written in 1986 and 2003). "Now, under the Human Organ Transplant Act, kidneys, livers, hearts and corneas suitable for transplant are taken from all Singaporeans and permanent residents - unless they have opted out - except Muslims, upon their death. Muslims have to opt in, with the consent of two Muslim men, who need not be relatives."

In 2006, six hearts, one lung, seven livers and 56 kidneys in all were transplanted from dead donors. Of those 70 organs, only four came from one Muslim - Syahida Said. There were no Muslim donors in 2005. That's pathetic. We, the Muslim community of Singapore, need to help contribute our organs after death so that we may help others in need. Should I meet an untimely end, I authorize my wife's family to allow my organs to be donated.

May Allah (swt) reward Syahida for her gifts of life. Ameen. Her heart now beats in the chest of a man in his 50s who suffered from heart failure. Her liver saved a woman in her 50s with cirrhosis. Her kidneys went to two men in their 40s. May all of these people treat Syahida's gifts with respect and prayers for her wellbeing in the hereafter. Syahida's mother said, "She was very helpful and had wanted to be a nurse. I'm happy she managed to save four people."

Alhamdulillah!

Ramadhan/Singapore Slingers

Ramadhan
I know there's a bit of confusion among American Muslims as to when Ramadhan starts. Here in Singapore, because the weather is often overcast, relying upon moon sightings to determine the start and end of Islamic months is not really feasible. As a result, MUIS (the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore), uses the method of counting days. (I believe the other countries in this area (Indonesia, Malaysia, etc.) follow the same method.) So, to let my American brothers and sisters in Islam know, we will start fasting on Sunday, the 24th. Ramadhan will be for 30 days this year and ends, insha'allah, on Monday, October 23rd. Obviously, Eid will be on Tuesday, October 24th. At this time, Singapore is 12 hours ahead of the East Coast (i.e., it's now about 3:30 p.m. here, Friday afternoon, which makes it 3:30 a.m., very early Friday morning back home), so adjust accordingly.


Singapore Slingers
Singapore has joined the Australian National Basketball League, winning their first game in the team's history by beating the Adelaide 36ers, 98 to 91. I happened to catch about the last minute of the game on TV last night.

Singapore is the first Asian city/country to join the NBL and, insha'allah, hopefully won't be the last. A couple years ago, there was an episode of a local TV show that asked why Singapore didn't have a sporting culture. I had responded to that question by writing a letter to the editor of the Straits Times, although it was never published.

Singapore does have a small sporting culture, but you'd never know it by reading the newspapers. In S'pore, there are two main English language dailies, The Straits Times and The New Paper. The former is your typical, serious paper, similar in size and tone to any major American newspaper (e.g., Phoenix's The Arizona Republic); The New Paper is more of a gossipy tabloid. Of the two, The New Paper has the larger sports section, but focuses almost exclusively on European soccer, F1, and horse racing (there's a local race track and gambling is popular here). The Straits Times' sports section is 1/3 to 1/2 the size of The New Paper's, and covers mostly European soccer. Neither paper devotes any significant effort to covering local sports. The S League (the local soccer league) gets what little ink there is for local coverage; in the past few months, the Straits Times has only made a tiny effort at covering sports at the secondary school level (something that would get tons of ink back home).

Anyway, as a person who enjoys watching, participating in, and reading about sports, Singapore is very much a backwater compared to the US or even Korea. One of the ideas that I proposed in my Letter to the Editor was the creation of a basketball league wherein there would be a team from each of the major cities in SE Asia (somewhat similar to the way SE Asian countries send a national team every other year to compete in the Tiger Cup, a regional and popular soccer tournament). Perhaps in time, insha'allah, the NBL could continue its northward expansion to include other Asian cities in the league (KL, Manila?).

So, I've got a new team to watch and cheer for, although the name...ugh. The colors are OK (red, white and gold), the logo's OK (see above), but the name...dumb.

Local Blogger Blasphemes the Prophet Jesus (saws)

As my readers may or may not know, it is illegal here in Singapore, under the Sedition Act, to post inflammatory comments (including cartoons) on the Internet "...which may cause feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore." I blogged about this several months ago (Islamophobia = Sedition), partly in response to the Danish cartoons scandal. Singapore, as I noted in another blog post (Heroes and Hypocrites) would never have allowed the offending cartoons to be published in the first place (nor were they ever published here).

Prior to the Danish cartoon scandal, three young Chinese men were charged last year with making seditious and inflammatory racist comments on the Internet against the Malay/Muslim community. All three pled guilty. Now we have a new case. In a Straits Times article that made the front page of the paper Wednesday (14 June), another young man is being investigated for publishing inflammatory cartoons of the Prophet Jesus (saws). An excerpt from the article:

A 21-year-old accounts assistant is being investigated for allegedly flouting the Sedition Act by publishing pictures on his blog that were thought to depict Jesus Christ in an offensive manner. The blogger, who used the online moniker Char, had found the cartoons on the Internet and began posting them in January. He told The Straits Times last week that he was called in by the police for questioning in March, after they received a complaint. Yesterday, the police confirmed they are investigating the matter but declined to give details as "investigations are still ongoing."

News of the investigation was announced online by Char himself last week when he sent an e-mail to a mailing list of more than 300 young Singaporeans. He told them of his experience and how it came about. He removed the cartoons from his blog after he was questioned.

Describing himself as a free thinker, he said he had posted a cartoon that depicted Jesus as a zombie biting a boy's head in January. The following month, he received an online message asking him to remove the image. It came amid the global furore over the publication of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad by several newspapers. Char did not reply to the message but chose to irk the person instead. He searched the Internet for more pictures depicting Jesus and published three of them on his blog. Looking back, he felt he made an "unwise" move. "I never thought anyone would complain to the police because the pictures were not insidious," he said.

The good news (from my perspective) is that I don't think "Char" is either Muslim or Malay (Update: he's neither). I don't think this was a case of a Muslim trying to get back at Christians for the Danish cartoons fiasco. But I do support Singapore's use of the Sedition Act against Char; Muslims and Christians shouldn't have to put up with derogatory comments and cartoons that blaspheme their faiths. My only question now is, assuming Char either pleads or is found guilty, how he would be sentenced. The maximum penalty for this crime is jail for up to three years or a maximum fine of $5,000, or both. None of the three men who pled guilty last year had sentences that were remotely close to the maximum penalty; however, the judge at that time also said that future sentences would be stiffer should similar offences occur. We shall see, insha'allah.


Update: Since I wrote this post, I've gained a little bit of local notariety. Friday evening, I was interviewed on the phone by a reporter from The Straits Times (the largest newspaper in S'pore). The reporter was working on a follow-up article to the Wednesday article, and a brief excerpt from my post was published in the Sunday (18 June) paper:

There were several netizens who also backed tough action. One was a Muslim American management lecturer based here, known online as "JD".

Said the 44-year-old: "I support Singapore's use of the Sedition Act. People shouldn't have to put up with derogatory comments and cartoons that blaspheme their faiths."
-- "Divided Views Over Police Checks on Blogger," p. 11

(I'm also happy to say that, in this latest article, my position as expressed above was similar to the thoughts of Father John-Paul Tan, parish priest of the Church of St. Mary of the Angels, Anglican Bishop and vice-president of the National Council of Churches of Singapore John Tew, and chairman of the Centre for Contemporary Islamic Studies Ridzuan Wu, all of whom were also interviewed for the follow-up article.)

Then, this morning I was contacted by another person for the Straits Times, who asked if I minded being listed for the "Blogs of the Week" column (specifically about this post) in next Wednesday's "Digital Times," a weekly supplement to the Straits Times that focuses on IT, blogging, computer games, etc. Of course I said "yes," so we'll see how things go from here.