Attack on madrasah students: Can you really stop people from jumping to conclusions?

SO THE ministers were out in force over the weekend to tell the people not to “jump to conclusions” over a 48-year old man’s assault on three madrasah students on Friday. The word “Islamophobia” is on the tip of tongues of many people we wager, but probably bitten back in the public domain. Then comes an interesting bit of information. That the brother of the Chinese Singaporean who was nabbed is a Muslim convert. In fact, the brother called TODAY to apologise to the Malay/Muslim community over the incident. He said his brother had a mental illness since his youth but refused treatment and that “we were always afraid that something like this would happen one day”.

Mr Koh Weng Onn, who is single, and works odd jobs, will be charged in court today under the Penal Code for committing a rash act and for voluntarily causing hurt. He will face enhanced penalties if the offence is found to be racially or religiously aggravated, according to ST.

Rules of contempt of court aside, no minister or well meaning people can stop people running off their mouths about what drove Mr Koh to attack three teenage girls in a public space. To cite a mental disorder would be too easy and even mealy-mouthed. Questions about his impulse or the provocation would arise.

The fact is madrasahs stand apart from the secular education system that all other students go through. It is an exclusive system, more so than the Special Assistance Plan schools which come under periodic attack for limiting inter-racial interactions among young people. But because everyone has a sensitive antennae when it comes discussing matters concerning religion, the role of madrasahs in Singapore identity-building has rarely been raised.

G leaders are in a bind. They have to tread the line between telling Muslims to be less “distant” and telling non-Muslims to reach out to them. There has to be a lot of give-and-take in a society like ours – but  you cannot stop people from calculating if the books are balanced.

As for balancing the books, that’s a big subject for Parliament starting today. MPs will talk about Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat’s Budget statement before moving on to scrutinising the work of the various G agencies. Get prepared for MPs to tack on labels describing what sort of Budget 2016 this is. Expect words like “transformative” and “evolutionary”, as well a Budget “for the future”. Did we just hear you sigh?

We’re hoping that some big picture questions will be answered. Such as whether the new approaches, such as the emphasis on transforming industries, will make a dent on our dismal productivity figures. Such as whether the G is conceding that past broad-based methods, such as the dispensation of Productivity and Innovation Credits (and what else?) have proven to be a waste of taxpayers’ money. Such as whether, besides reconfiguring Temasek Holdings’ returns such that more income would be available, there are other income avenues for the G to tap on in the future to fund expensive, eternal programmes such as the Silver Support scheme. If you are confused about the mention of Temasek, read this.

Let’s hope we’ll hear a fruitful debate, with more probing than platitudes.

 

Featured image by Kong Chong Yew.

If you like this article, Like The Middle Ground‘s Facebook Page as well!

For breaking news, you can talk to us via email.

The post Attack on madrasah students: Can you really stop people from jumping to conclusions? appeared first on The Middle Ground.

- The Middle Ground