The ABC’s Religion Report recently interviewed the parliamentary secretary on Multicultural Affairs, Mr Laurie Ferguson on the government’s plans to reinstate the Muslim Community Reference Group.
Muslim Reference Group 2.0
March 26th, 2008 | Austrolabe | Uncategorized
31 comments ↓
Baybers’ memorable post (Muslimus publicus…) brought forth an interesting discussion, and elsewhere on this blog people have discussed the problems with these sorts of initiatives.
But what benefits may we obtain from these groups, if they are to be formed despite the parasiticus-I’ll-take-lots-of-funding aspect? If this group is formed, how might it be something worthwhile?
There are several problems that are central to the model itself, that are so critical that it cannot be reformed.
I believe these are
1. A non-Muslim, in this case a union offical decides what is meritorious for Muslims, and therefore what constitutes an exemplary Muslim. What other community would allow this to happen? What qualification does he or his department posess to determine this? What research has he or the department done into the aspirations of Muslims?
2. Public money insulates the reference group from their major stakeholder, the muslim community, It is also the predominant motivation (along with government patronage) for these people doing and saying certain things.
3. Paying people to be role models is ridiculous and counterproductive.
4. In the absence of determining merit, the government falls back on the usual suspects, there is the verbose self styled liberal muslim intellectual, the lesbain in a wheelchair, the secular turk with labour party connections who is owed a favour, the pseudo academic who can be relied upon to eat with cutlery at public events, and the pompous religious leader who cannot eat with cutlery but who has to be bought off and suprise, suprise the sporting hero whose qualification as a muslim role model is his ability to catch and throw.
its also my damm money, stolen by the government under force of arms, to pay these parasites.
Thanks, T cell. I note that the model is problematic, etc. It’s pointless and you’re right, a waste of money.
But given it is likely to happen, what can be done to make it at least somewhat beneficial? Is there a way the money could be actually put to good use?
For example, would it be slightly redeemed if there were some decent faces amongst the chosen few who are involved in community welfare groups? Would Muslims be less averse to the group if there were people participating who do have others’ best interests at heart?
What do you think the goals should be for this group and would you agree that if Muslims get one, every other group in society should have one too?
Let me be clear that I am against the idea, but we’re going to get one regardless of what I or you think. And no, they’re not likely to assign a reference group to every other ‘group’ in society. That Muslims belong to one group is laughable in any case.
But I do think it’s worthwhile to consider what can be done to avoid a repeat of last time where certain people obtained funding for bogus research while they sold out other Muslims.
If the answer is that nothing can be done to make this even partially worthwhile then fine. Otherwise, it would be good to get some ideas.
The main thing is to make them accountable and ensure the community they represent is aware of everything they say and do.
I think the government should publish a charter and then we can decide who are the best people to provide that advice.
There are some steps that would help
1. Make it unpaid.
2. Clearly and narrowly define its role
3. Make the selction annual with no exceptions (out after a year).
4. Publish and enforce selction criteria.
5. Exclude anyone who has previously said on a paid govt board or who has recieved any money or benifit in kind from the government.
6. There must be an IQ test. Minimum 140 to get in.
People with moderately IQs like 140 are likely to be very busy and/or doing highly paid work. If you make this unpaid, you are not going to get these people putting their hands up to offer the government free consultancy on how to develop its Muslim Management Policy.
well if they are already highly paid (and they may not be, because iq is not clearly linked to income except when both are low), and they have some fikr for the community, they are likely to do the work for free. An example of this is the US muslim community.
if the only reason that people want to be involved is for money then they are ipso facto unsuitable for the position.
The position is always going to be a load of rubbish but we still want smart people to take it because you need to be smart to avoid being ensnared in the government’s tricks. i.e. you want smart people to take a job that they know is pointless and a waste of their time.
So you either make the position interesting and genuinely useful for the community (impossible IMHO) or you have to compensate the best and brightest for throwing their time away sitting in a room with a bunch of public servants and professional “Moslems”.
Well, it’s unclear as yet as to whether the purpose of this grup will be to represent Muslim concerns to government and provide input into government policy or whether it is to send a particular message back into the Muslim community with government-selected “Muslim role models”. The former has been pretty useless but I think the latter model would be even worse.
If it’s a case of the government wanting smart Muslims to advise it on how to deal with some of the challenges/issues facing the Muslim community, such as the fear of terrorism, concerns about discrimination, etc, then, although I don’t like the idea much of singling out the Muslims for this ’special treatment’, I can see the value of someone using this platform to give the government the one bit of advice they, like their predecessor, really needs to hear and adhere to: that the best way to ‘handle’ multiculturalism and religious/ethnic diversity is to completely disengage from it and allow individuals to make these decisions for themselves.
If it’s just the case of the usual suspects, with their vested interest in perpetuating the status quo and Managed Multiculturalism, then I think it’s bound to be yet another waste of time and money.
My opinion is that we need an anti-racism and prejudice working group more than we need a Muslim one. The typical model is to assume it is the migrant / minority group that has the ‘problem’ with ‘assimilating’ into the dominant majority. Yet, there is research coming out of the UK that surveyed attitudes among different groups of school kids, and the minority kids (eg. Muslim, Sikh, etc.) had relatively good notions about diversity and social inclusion, whereas the kids from dominant majority white schools were coming up with some really alarming prejudices.
The problem with a government trying to treat prejudice is: where does it end?
Prejudice against obese and short people is as prevalent as racial prejudice
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....172129.htm
Does this mean that government should organise a a working group of overweight or short people to break down stereotypes? or to organise some type of inter-weight/height council, or legislate against this discrimination?
We cannot regulate or cure prejudice as we cannot control bad manners or swearing by legislation or government indoctrination (nor should we). Who wants a society like Singapore where the government indoctrinates its citizens?
The best way is to expose them and let public scrutiny through a free press do the job
see here
http://austrolabe.com/2007/04/.....o-peoples/
and here
http://austrolabe.com/2007/11/.....iah-speak/
But also to realise that no amount of government indoctrination of he community will work, nor should it.
Sure, prejudice is as old as the shaytan, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t attempt to tackle it as a social/psychological disease any more than we would say ‘heart attacks have been suffered by humanity for aeons, so what’s the point in trying to prevent heart attacks.’
Furthermore, in terms of the Muslim community - addressing prejudice and discrimination that exists in parts of the wider community, particularly parts of the media & government, has to be a first step in preventing the alienation and disaffection of certain young people.
Baybers, could you possibly qualify your statement about Singapore with a few links, or a few words, or both?
When Baybers says, “Who wants a society like Singapore where the government indoctrinates its citizens?”, he’s assuming that because the government has a somewhat tighter control on how life is lived here, including what the press can report on, that all of us living in Singapore are living in lock-step harmony.
First, all countries formally “indoctrinate” their citizens to one degree or another, starting in primary school. Second, the level of discourse on various issues in this country is much greater than Baybers assumes. The press is much more free here than in, say, Malaysia. Third, even though there still remains some prejudice among Singaporeans, the expression of that prejudice has been minimized through legislation (the Sedition Act), which is a far better solution, IMO, than having to deal with the “benefits” of free speech, like the rampant Islamophobia in the US, Europe and Australia. (The Danish cartoons were never published here; a movie like “Fitna” would never be allowed to be shown here, even on the Internet; people like your friend Darrin would know that their commentary is subject to prosecution.)
Who wants a society like Singapore? I do. I’ve lived here for over five years now, and I appreciate the benefits of a harmonious society, one where religious, racial and ethnic bigotry and prejudice is minimized through regulation, rather than dealing with a wild west society where bigotry and prejudice are allowed to fester.
Edu ,
I don’t need to provide the examples, JSD already has.
JSD, what happens when because of demographic changes or political events, the government starts to regulate what Muslims can say in the Masjid, would you be in favour of that?
but this is what freedomhouse says
Baybers, you obviously don’t know. MUIS, the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore, already writes the khutbahs for the masajid. Which is why I often get an e-mailed copy of the Friday khutbah on Thursday.
As for Freedom House, yeah, so? There’s nothing new there. Do you read, for example, the Straits Times or any of the other newspapers here in S’pore? Try dealing with some of my criticisms.
Your proposition is that the govt regulating free speech is superior because it protects Muslims from bad people saying nasty wasty things about us, the small price you have to pay is that your khutbahs are force fed to you, and the imam merely parrots them on the mimber.
How do you know the govt is not writing your khutbahs?
I would rather have people say naughty things than some person in the govt regulate what can be said.
no I never read the straits times
Personally, I’d prefer Hong Kong to Singapore.
Your proposition is that the govt regulating free speech is superior because it protects Muslims from bad people saying nasty wasty things about us…
My proposition is that everyone is protected from bad people saying nasty wasty things about anyone. In 2006, when Singaporean Christians were attacked by a local blogger who published inflammatory cartoons on the Internet of the prophet Isa (pbuh), I defended the right of the Christians not to have this sort of filth published. As the Straits Times paraphrased from their interview with me, “People shouldn’t have to put up with derogatory comments and cartoons that blaspheme their faiths.” Not just Muslims, not just Christians, everyone. (I’ve written extensively on this topic over the past few years; see here.)
…the small price you have to pay is that your khutbahs are force fed to you, and the imam merely parrots them on the mimber. How do you know the govt is not writing your khutbahs?
Yes, it is a small price to pay. Instead of sermons about politics, there are sermons about how to live an Islamic life. Ooooh, how terrible. See here for a typical MUIS khutbah.
BTW, did you not even look at the URL for the link I provided for MUIS. See that “.gov.sg”?
I would rather have people say naughty things than some person in the govt regulate what can be said.
And I would rather live in a society that works to maintain harmonious relations between the many ethnic and religious groups that make up this society. I would rather have a society that works to prevent fitna than allow it. Because even though I may not have experienced much prejudice in my life, being a white man, I’ve seen enough prejudice and the results of prejudice in my life and my country’s history to realize what a terrible thing it is. But if you’d rather continue being the victim of prejudice and Islamophobia for the sake of your precious libertarian principles, be my guest.
JDsg, do you think that the harmony would continue to exist even if the government took more of a “hands off” policy or do you think it’s the government’s involvement in race/religious religious in Singapore that keeps a lid on things?
I’m not sure. I think ultimately the government will need to become more hands off in the future, but this may not occur for some time. OTOH, the government works to create understanding among the various ethnicities and religions in ways that you all may not know about. For example, despite there being neighborhoods here called “Little India” and “Chinatown,” the government has tried to prevent the creation of ghettos, quarters, enclaves, whatever you want to call it, where people of one ethnicity live in one area and there’s an isolation (deliberate or unintentional) of them from the rest of society. In the HDB blocks, where most Singaporeans live (including my wife and I), a certain percentage of flats are set aside for Malays and Indians, so that, for example, you’ll never come across a block that is 100% Chinese families. Likewise, most neighborhoods have several masajid, churches and Buddhist temples. At work, we all tend to have friends of most every ethnicity and religion. And the first two of these (the mix of ethnicities at the HDB blocks and the location of religious facilities) are the work of the government. (And I support the government’s efforts at that as well.) But the end result is that we all get to know each other. Everyone’s got Indian and Chinese and Malay friends; everyone’s got Christian and Buddhist and Hindu and Muslim friends. And in that regard, I’d hope that the harmony would indeed continue to exist if and when the government does become more hands off.
I think DSJ is right, if the Australian government acted sooner to make us all friends, Australia would not have had the tens of thousands of deaths from inter-communal violence.
I feel like lighting a carbon neutral candle for all those people, and I think I also need a hug.
http://ban-signs.blogspot.com/.....apore.html
does this mean that defecation is OK ?
T cell: If you try to do that, be sure to have at least an extra thousand dollars or so on hand for the fine you’ll have to pay.
The fact that such a body exists in a 21st modern western liberal democracy like Australia is absolutely disgusting. These people already have a political voice and channels. It is called the ballot box and running for parliament!
John, you get value for money though. Why shouldn’t Muslim leaders be able to get money for nothing?
While I would certainly agree that the pulpit being used to air political issues is not ideal, I am perturbed by any such restriction on the thoughts and words the Imam is to convey.
I find the idea of pre-written, government approved Khutbat abhorrent. This is not in our Islamic tradition, that’s for sure.
Statism! *sigh*
Leave a Comment