![]() |
Photo Credit: NY Times |
Obama believes that acts of violent extremism, whether ISIS-organised or lone-wolf attacks, are a reflection of both political and economic disenfranchisement. To paraphrase Obama, if they had a chance at school, got a job and if they were accepted as full and equal members of society, they wouldn't have resort to violent acts of terrorism. You would think that such a holistic approach to in the war against terrorism would receive widespread support. But unfortunately for Obama, according to the NY Times article on the speech, his critics abound in within the US and world at large.
![]() |
Egyptian Coptic Christians awaiting their grizzly death by execution |
Interestingly, Singapore's response has been a decidedly communal and religious. Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs and Foreign Affairs, who was also at the aforesaid Summit, laid the blame squarely on radical Islamic ideology. Extremists do not have the interests of Singapore at heart and must be dealt with as such, they say. Apart from stepping up homeland security against organised and lone-wolf terrorists, the state must actively work with moderate muslims in combatting what they regard as false teachings. This is what a growing voice of concerned critics in the western coalition have been saying all along: radicals breed radicals. Yes, in the immediate context, it is a (international) security issue. But as many critics seem to be pointing out in an increasingly loud voice, it is fundamentally an ideological war.
Certainly, the Singapore approach presents a few advantages. It avoids the homogenisation of the Muslim community, casting them as it were a monolithic entity of disenfranchised immigrants. It allows the state to tackle radical Islam on the ideological front head on while remaining secular. This stems from an extremely intelligent division of labour: MUIS, the state-controlled Islamic body monitors any signs of radical ideology and nips it in the bud; the Ministry of Home Affairs uses state machinery like Secret intelligence and the Internal Security Department to hunt down the threats before Singapore (and the world) ever gets to hear of it. Unless of course they're like Mas Selamat who took a toilet break and became Singapore's most wanted in over a decade, though story probably deserves another blog post of its own;-)
Most certainly, Singapore sits as an unsuitable candidate for Obama's human rights campaign against terrorism. The Singapore approach does gloss over inequalities which some argue the Muslims do face, and which can fuel a sense of political, social and economic isolation. The Singapore approach also highhandedly defines good doctrine as largely one that serves the interest of the state. But Singapore has managed to succeed where the US has failed precisely because it takes liberties with well, human liberty.
Is it right? Probably not. Does it work? Probably.
Will we regret it in years to come? You decide.
No comments:
Post a Comment