A Reporter’s Memoir: NO HARD FEELINGS

Another nasty remark, another denial

…what’s next?

And what are we to make of the latest controversy involving our octogenarian and venerable ex-MM’s clarification that he did not describe Islam as a ‘’venomous religion’’ in his meeting with US Senator Hillary Clinton in July 2005.

On the day the WikiLeaks report was published, a group of friends at a Hari Raya gathering unanimously felt that certainly he was capable of saying such a thing and that he probably did say something to that effect. Even a few staunch PAP supporters in our midst concurred.

After all, who was it who publicly said years ago, that it was only prudent not to deploy religious Muslims in the army to ‘’machine guns’’ units.

The next day he denied that he had used the offensive word or said ‘’anything which could have given that impression.’’

As good citizens and good Muslims, I feel we should accept his explanation at face value and move on.

For the sake of academic argument, however, I feel there is no harm in exploring what actually could have taken place on that occasion.

1: The offensive word was used intentionally for reasons not easily fathomable;

2: It was a slip of the tongue during the course of the conversation on how best to deal with Islamic terrorism;

3: It was an adjective coined by the American side to add a little colour to the proceedings; and

4: A deliberate attempt by the note-taker to inject his own bias and prejudices in the report.

I leave it to readers to decide on what they think was the most likely scenario. For me, I have long suspected our venerable leader of having all kinds of negative images of Malays, Muslims and Islam arising from his political struggle for the PAP and he in particular to be given a leading role in Malaysia after Singapore joined the Federation.

From his tears when announcing the Separation more than 47 years ago, it must have been a traumatic event for him. It meant the shattering of all his ideals and aspirations.

To me what is important in the latest controversy is not so much what he actually did say, but what most Singaporeans think he said or is capable of saying.

Actually, many Muslims would applaud him if he had used ‘’venomous’’ to describe the more intolerant elements in their midst including preachers, religious teachers, Islamic bureaucrats, and even rulers, especially the autocratic and hereditary ones, that still deny their citizens basic human and civil rights.

Some of these rulers are still being assiduously wooed by Singapore for business reasons, and some of them are among the US’s list of best friends.

In fact, one of the root causes of the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in the last few decades is the result of massive funding by the House of Saud to spread their own narrow version of what they considered to be the true faith.

Unfortunately, when the nasty label was applied to Islam the religion, all Muslims from mullahs to modernists and from extremists to moderates, to doubters and nominal believers, will instinctively come together to defend the faith.

In his younger days, he acquired a reputation as a wordsmith who, though never flinching from spelling out the hard truths was, never off the mark in his remarks.

The same cannot be said of some of his recent utterances. Like two years ago, when he urged his predominantly Chinese constituents in Tanjong Pagar, to be more conciliatory towards newcomers from the PRC so as to make sure that the composition of the SAF remained unchanged. Though cautiously couched, the ethnic undertone was unmistaken.

Several weeks later he stood up in Parliament to demolish a plea from NMP Viswa Sadisivan that Singapore lived up to its Pledge of extending meritocracy and equal opportunities to all communities in all sectors of national life.

In that address, he told the Malays that – like the blacks in America – they would have to wait for a long time before they could expect equal treatment in the military services.

On that occasion I posted a commentary – For love of country, talk back if you disagree – in which I pointed out that history ‘’is replete with examples of great leaders who overstayed and caused harm to their cause in the latter years of their rule.’’ As an example, I cited Chairman Mao Zedong.

Years ago I remember that an order was sent out to gag the late S. Rajaratnam, on grounds of alleged dementia, when he started expressing views that made the top PAP leaders uncomfortable, but which struck a responsive chord among many Singaporeans.

I am not suggesting that the same action be adopted again. Certainly, the situation does not yet warrant such a drastic move.

But it may be time to start thinking about the negative implications of some of his remarks, which if he continued along the same lines, will complicate the PAP government’s efforts to recover ground lost in the recent general and presidential polls.

For example, just a week ago, the attention of many readers including myself was drawn to an ST report in which he uttered a three-letter word – WAR – when asked to comment on the resolution of the longstanding Malayan Railway land dispute.

To use that word in the context of the landmark bilateral deal, described as mutually beneficial, was in the view of many readers unnecessary and uncalled for.

In China, the Chinese have preferred to remember Mao’s for his contributions to the nation and ignore his mistakes and errors.

I think Singaporeans, including the Malay-Muslim minority too, should adopt the same approach to our venerable ex-MM.

No Hard Feelings.

Ismail Kassim

9 Sept 11