image from wikileaks.orgSingapore's former Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew has come out against a Wikileaks cable that alleges he "characterizes Islam as a venomous religion".
http://wikileaks.org/cable/2005/07/05SINGAPORE2073.html
The following is a press statement released by Mdm Yeong Yoon Ying, Press Secretary to Mr Lee Kuan Yew, on behalf of Mr Lee, 5 Sept 2011
"Wikileaks released a cable by the US Embassy in Singapore reporting on the visit of Senator Hillary Clinton to Singapore in Jul 2005. The cable claimed that in my meeting with Senator Clinton, I had “characterized Islam as a ‘venomous religion’”.
This is false. I looked up MFA’s filenote of the meeting. Nowhere does it record me describing Islam as “venomous”, nor did I say anything which could have given that impression.
I did talk about extremist terrorists like the Jemaah Islamiyah group, and the jihadist preachers who brainwashed them. They are implacable in wanting to put down all who do not agree with them. So their Islam is a perverted version, which the overwhelming majority of Muslims in Singapore do not subscribe to.
I also pointed out that our Muslim leaders are rational, and that the ultimate solution to extremist terrorism was to give moderate Muslims the courage to stand up and speak out against radicals who have hijacked Islam to recruit volunteers for their violent ends."
I would like to summarily explore the reactions of the immediate stakeholders to this situation and present my views on this issue.
We have Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Ms Hilary Clinton and Representative Charles Rangel who met to discuss various issues during the visit to Singapore in July 2005.
We also have the foreign office representatives from both the USA and Singapore who were present to take notes during the discussion
Finally, we have former Ambassador Frank Lavin who signed off the confidential cable.
In light of this incident, we might begin to see finger pointing at who purportedly said what and interpreted inaccurately.
Lee's clarification today has now thrown the ball into the American's court. They will shortly have to respond whether they agree with Lee or whether they stick to their guns. I foresee an interesting exchange between Clinton, Rangel and Lavin on what their response should be.
To cut the long story short, this cable was meant to be confidential and not made available for public viewing. It would be in the Americans' interest to respond by saying that they are not against Islam and that this was a misinterpretation on Ambassador Lavin's part, thus making him the fall guy.
But the question still remains - did Lee use the 'V' word or allude to it during their conversation?
Many would argue that since Lee recently commented in his book "Lee Kuan Yew: Hard truths to keep Singapore going" that the Malay-Muslim community is 'distinct and separate', where there is smoke, there has to be fire - and so Lee would have to be anti-Islam.
I was not privy to the conversation between Lee, Clinton and Rangel, buy my very uneducated gut feel says that Lee did not do such a thing.
Why not?
Too much to lose
Having built Singapore from nothing to a first world nation, it would be terribly uncharacteristic of Lee to speak against something he feels strongly for - racial and religious harmony. Singapore is surrounded by countries that have Islam as their state religion. It would not be in Lee's interest to make the alleged statement.
Walls have ears
In diplomatic circles (so I am aware), despite 'so-called' confidential 'off-the-record' conversations, people know that what they say can (or do not say) can come biting them in the behind. Home Team officers are trained to guard against saying more than they should during contact with their foreign counterparts.
To avoid being leveraged against by the Americans
If Lee did make such a statement, the Americans could easily use it to instigate neighbouring Islamic countries against Singapore and thus pressure Singapore to gain concessions for future negotiations. While it is in the Americans' interest to support Singapore in the region, the Americans have a close working relationship with Malaysia and Indonesia. Both are moderate Islamic countries and work intimately with the Americans in the fight against terrorism. One might think that such a situation is far fetched. To this, I say that one must not be naive. Such, can be the dark side of global politics.
I have worked for a Muslim boss, with Muslim colleagues, managed Muslim staff and taught Muslim students. I have had pleasant experiences working with them and some of my Muslim students are the brightest in their cohort.
I also do not believe that Lee used the 'V' word or alluded to it in the context of Islam.
As the reader, you have a right to disagree with my opinions and conclusions. However, one thing we must agree on is that we do not condemn any religion, especially those observed by Singaporeans.
1 comment:
Did Mr. Lee say the “V” word? Well, we will not know unless a taped recording of the conversation is broadcast to the public. However, what we do know is that the Americans are generally prone to exaggerations. They write and speak well, and there is nothing wrong with choosing words or phrases that give the maximum impact, except unfortunately, as in this case, the results could sometimes cause distortion or misinterpretation of facts. It makes sense to accept the official clarifications made on this issue for the sake of racial and religious harmony, rather than dwelling on speculations that will do us no good at all. Among my best friends are Malays and Muslims. In fact, I find many of them more sincere than some of my friends from the other communities. I believe Singaporeans are now more discerning than to let this silly document that was embellished with the “V” word to cause disquiet, and disrupt the peace and harmony in our multi-racial society. Racial and religious matters are always very sensitive and, therefore, I hope this issue will pass us by quickly and life goes on as normal.
Post a Comment