The Chinese-predominated city state of Singapore does have many undeniable and admirable socio-economic achievements given the fact that it has no natural resources. Since its independence in 1965, the puny city state has also usually been very careful and wise in managing inter-ethnic, inter-religious and even inter-state relations in the region and even the world.
Because of the geopolitics and geostrategy for survival in this then turbulent region during the Cold War years, Singapore entered into some defence arrangements and cooperation with some regional and extra-regional powers like the United States and the United Kingdom.
Since 1971, both Singapore and Malaysia have been members of the Five Power Defence Arrangement (FPDA) which also includes the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand.
According to the figures compiled by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (Sipri) in Sweden, from 1991 to 1998, among the 10 countries in Southeast Asia, Singapore consistently spent the highest percentage of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as military expenditure.
For example, according to the Sipri Military Expenditure Database, in the years 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998, Singapore spent 4.6 percent, 4.8 percent, 4.3 percent, 4 percent, 4.4 percent, 4.5 percent, 4.7 percent and 5.4 percent of its GDP respectively on defence.
For the same years, the respective percentages for Malaysia were only 3.2 percent, 3 percent, 2.9 percent, 2.8 percent, 2.8 percent, 2.4 percent, 2.1 percent and 1.6 percent.
As for Indonesia, the percentages for the period were even lower: 1.2 percent (1991), 1.2 percent (1992), 1.1 percent (1993), 1.2 percent (1994), 1.1 percent (1995), 1.1 percent (1996), 1.1 percent (1997) and 1 percent (1998).
Double standard
Given its military expenditure and defence cooperation with regional and extra-regional powers, Singapore should feel safe and secure enough to conduct its legitimate internal security affairs more reasonably, rationally and sensibly.
Seen in this light, its recent policy banning Muslim primary schoolgirls from wearing a tudung (head scarf) to school is unfortunate and regrettable. It could be perceived by others in the region and even the world as being 'paranoid', 'discriminative' and 'insensitive' to Muslims and international standards of human rights.
The republics move has also caused fear and anxiety among some non-Muslims. For instance, the Sikh community which regards the turbans worn by its males as an inseparable part of their religion and cultural identity.
Indeed, Malaysias Democratic Action Party (DAP) deputy chairman, Karpal Singh, has rightly pointed out that in the United Kingdom and Canada, Sikhs are allowed by law to wear their turbans at their workplaces.
Karpal also pointed out that in Singapore, Sikh male schoolchildren are allowed to wear turbans in schools. If such is the case in Singapore, what then is the rationale for banning Muslim schoolgirls from wearing the tudung in schools? Is this not a double-standard or discrimination against Muslims and their religion?
Popular sympathy
As this writer has consistently argued and maintained, in the fight against international terrorism, authorities everywhere, including Malaysia, the United States and Singapore, must not abuse their powers and trivialise the concept and practice of national security.
Above all, fighting Islamic religious extremism with secular fanaticism is counterproductive as the former thrives on a collective sense of being persecuted, oppressed and discriminated.
The inability or unwillingness to distinguish real extremists and fanatics from ordinary, normal and moderate people who happen to share the same faith will only induce more popular sympathy, if not support, for religious extremism.
Older Chinese Singaporeans should share with their children and grandchildren their own experiences of being accused of being either communists, Maoists or communist China's fifth columnists in the early Cold War years by some right-wing Westerners and reactionary Muslims in the region.
Moral disapproval
Some Singaporeans might argue that it is their internal affair and outsiders should not interfere. This argument is faulty for two reasons:
One, in this age of the Information Revolution, ethnic and religious sentiments travel far and wide in a matter of seconds and sentiments of this kind are usually psychologically contagious across borders.
Two, as the suppression of the Chinese language in Suharto's Indonesia had drawn international criticism, the denial of basic and fundamental human rights to ordinary and normal Muslims whether in Singapore, Malaysia, the United States or anywhere else in the world, should also be subject to the moral disapproval of the world community.
JAMES WONG WING ON is chief analyst of Strategic Analysis Malaysia (SAM) which produces the subscriber-based political report, Analysis Malaysia . Wong is a former member of parliament (1990-1995) and a former columnist for the Sin Chew Jit Poh Chinese daily. He read political science and economics at the Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. While in Sin Chew , he and a team of journalists won the top awards of Malaysian Press Institute (MPI) for 1998 and 1999.
