The opposite of tolerance: the Boon Lay Garden canteen saga
The recent ruckus over the Boon Lay Garden Primary School canteen has highlighted once again the importance of ensuring that this whole attempt at multiculturalism and multi-racialism is done with the correct perspective in mind.
This may not be a politically correct thing to say, but like it or not, different races or religions will always be different. A lot of people refuse to believe this and stubbornly cling on to the belief that it is possible to foster a society where everybody embraces everybody else's way of life, to form some garish pot-pourri of lifestyles.
That is not to say that it is not possible to live harmoniously with people who don't look like you, practise the same customs, or believe in the same god-in fact it is very possible. The essential ingredient is a common understanding from both sides. This understanding isn't the kind of understanding where 'you don't mess with me, I don't mess with you', but a concerted effort in finding out the truth behind what the other person thinks, feels, or believes-and at the same time, the truth about what your community thinks, feels or believes.
Indeed, the 'you don't mess with me, I don't mess with you' attitude isn't a common understanding at all. It's tolerance, and in the past a lot of people did not appreciate the short-sighted nature of mere tolerance, which is very likely to seethe until the point where you reach flashpoint, where a straw would break the camel's back. Well, fortunately nowadays a lot of people have progressed to the level where they realise the inherent folly of merely tolerating their different neighbours and have championed the cause of creating a paradigm shift to the midpoint between tolerance and intolerance: the aforementioned common understanding.
But is it really the midpoint? After all, understanding is very different from tolerance. In fact, it is on a totally different different plane of existence, and this is where a lot of people fail to make the distinction. You can't combat tolerance by forcing people out of their comfort zones to mix with people who are different from themselves, making them share the same customs and have communal services or communal rituals. Yes, that will stop mere tolerance of others because each community is no longer insulated from the others, but that is not fostering understanding. That is assimilation, and what a lot of people don't realise is that doing that isn't the midpoint between tolerance and intolerance, but in fact, assimilation is the opposite of tolerance itself. Assimilation IS intolerance.
And the BLGPS principal did exactly that. By attempting "to provide a common eating space for all [the] children, whatever their race" by making the whole canteen halal, what he did was not to foster understanding but to enforce assimilation: assimilation into the halal eating requirements of Muslims. This takes a more vigilante tone especially when you remember that the principal actually instructed security guards to search for non-halal food, placing a pork floss bun in the same category as cigarettes, alcohol, pornography and other contraband items.
That is not understanding, that is intolerance. It is not getting Chinese students to understand that Muslims can only eat halal food-it is intolerance of Chinese students eating non-halal food. The crux of providing a common space is not to force everyone to eat the same food because Chinese students would not understand that Muslims can only eat halal food or why they have to. Indeed, I think it would do more for inter-racial understanding if a Chinese kid was to offer a pork floss bun or a piece of bak kwa to a Muslim kid only to have the Muslim kid tell his friend that he can't eat it. A string of questions would naturally ensue, and together with the corresponding answers, would enable the former to understand or at least appreciate that Muslims have specific eating requirements.
I support very strongly the MOE's decision that common school canteens must provide a mix of both halal and non-halal food. Recognising the necessity of specific dietary requirements for Muslims and their rights to have halal food should not come at the expense of the rights of non-Muslims to choose non-halal food. It is important for there to be a ruling that every public food court or hawker centre or canteen must have at least a certain number of stalls selling halal food, but it is equally important that there is also a mandated number of stalls selling non-halal food. To put it in a very un-PC way, if it is not a requirement for non-Muslims to consume halal food, then they should not be forced to do so, especially in a situation where they have no other choice, such as in a school canteen.
This incident also shows the danger of creeping fundamentalism in a secular society. There is nothing preventing people in positions of authority allowing their own (fallible) interpretations (or misinterpretations, actually) to lead them to make decisions which affect everyone detrimentally. Like in this case, the principal's fanatical misinterpretation of the halal label led him to believe that once halal certification was granted, it was his responsibility to enforce that no non-halal food was allowed in the canteen when the requirement was only related to the food stalls. In recent times, we have consistently seen examples of unthinking fanatics attempt to impose their own idea of an utopian society on the rest of the population who do not subscribe to their beliefs, like the infamous dogs-in-cabs and dogs-in-McDonald's women. Most often the agency under fire would err on the side of caution, giving in to their demands for the sake of political correctness, and yet something else would be forcibly assimilated for the sake of not being branded as intolerant (which, as stated, it ironically still is).
It is impossible to ensure that such idiots always check with the people who know before shooting their mouth off, but I feel that once somebody has shot his or her mouth off with something misinterpreted, the religious authority should do more to publicly correct (and even chastise) the individual.
Understanding and choice for both parties, not tolerance nor assimilation.
§ Technorati tags:
religion;
social commentary
This may not be a politically correct thing to say, but like it or not, different races or religions will always be different. A lot of people refuse to believe this and stubbornly cling on to the belief that it is possible to foster a society where everybody embraces everybody else's way of life, to form some garish pot-pourri of lifestyles.
That is not to say that it is not possible to live harmoniously with people who don't look like you, practise the same customs, or believe in the same god-in fact it is very possible. The essential ingredient is a common understanding from both sides. This understanding isn't the kind of understanding where 'you don't mess with me, I don't mess with you', but a concerted effort in finding out the truth behind what the other person thinks, feels, or believes-and at the same time, the truth about what your community thinks, feels or believes.
Indeed, the 'you don't mess with me, I don't mess with you' attitude isn't a common understanding at all. It's tolerance, and in the past a lot of people did not appreciate the short-sighted nature of mere tolerance, which is very likely to seethe until the point where you reach flashpoint, where a straw would break the camel's back. Well, fortunately nowadays a lot of people have progressed to the level where they realise the inherent folly of merely tolerating their different neighbours and have championed the cause of creating a paradigm shift to the midpoint between tolerance and intolerance: the aforementioned common understanding.
But is it really the midpoint? After all, understanding is very different from tolerance. In fact, it is on a totally different different plane of existence, and this is where a lot of people fail to make the distinction. You can't combat tolerance by forcing people out of their comfort zones to mix with people who are different from themselves, making them share the same customs and have communal services or communal rituals. Yes, that will stop mere tolerance of others because each community is no longer insulated from the others, but that is not fostering understanding. That is assimilation, and what a lot of people don't realise is that doing that isn't the midpoint between tolerance and intolerance, but in fact, assimilation is the opposite of tolerance itself. Assimilation IS intolerance.
And the BLGPS principal did exactly that. By attempting "to provide a common eating space for all [the] children, whatever their race" by making the whole canteen halal, what he did was not to foster understanding but to enforce assimilation: assimilation into the halal eating requirements of Muslims. This takes a more vigilante tone especially when you remember that the principal actually instructed security guards to search for non-halal food, placing a pork floss bun in the same category as cigarettes, alcohol, pornography and other contraband items.
That is not understanding, that is intolerance. It is not getting Chinese students to understand that Muslims can only eat halal food-it is intolerance of Chinese students eating non-halal food. The crux of providing a common space is not to force everyone to eat the same food because Chinese students would not understand that Muslims can only eat halal food or why they have to. Indeed, I think it would do more for inter-racial understanding if a Chinese kid was to offer a pork floss bun or a piece of bak kwa to a Muslim kid only to have the Muslim kid tell his friend that he can't eat it. A string of questions would naturally ensue, and together with the corresponding answers, would enable the former to understand or at least appreciate that Muslims have specific eating requirements.
I support very strongly the MOE's decision that common school canteens must provide a mix of both halal and non-halal food. Recognising the necessity of specific dietary requirements for Muslims and their rights to have halal food should not come at the expense of the rights of non-Muslims to choose non-halal food. It is important for there to be a ruling that every public food court or hawker centre or canteen must have at least a certain number of stalls selling halal food, but it is equally important that there is also a mandated number of stalls selling non-halal food. To put it in a very un-PC way, if it is not a requirement for non-Muslims to consume halal food, then they should not be forced to do so, especially in a situation where they have no other choice, such as in a school canteen.
This incident also shows the danger of creeping fundamentalism in a secular society. There is nothing preventing people in positions of authority allowing their own (fallible) interpretations (or misinterpretations, actually) to lead them to make decisions which affect everyone detrimentally. Like in this case, the principal's fanatical misinterpretation of the halal label led him to believe that once halal certification was granted, it was his responsibility to enforce that no non-halal food was allowed in the canteen when the requirement was only related to the food stalls. In recent times, we have consistently seen examples of unthinking fanatics attempt to impose their own idea of an utopian society on the rest of the population who do not subscribe to their beliefs, like the infamous dogs-in-cabs and dogs-in-McDonald's women. Most often the agency under fire would err on the side of caution, giving in to their demands for the sake of political correctness, and yet something else would be forcibly assimilated for the sake of not being branded as intolerant (which, as stated, it ironically still is).
It is impossible to ensure that such idiots always check with the people who know before shooting their mouth off, but I feel that once somebody has shot his or her mouth off with something misinterpreted, the religious authority should do more to publicly correct (and even chastise) the individual.
Understanding and choice for both parties, not tolerance nor assimilation.
§ Technorati tags:
religion;
social commentary