This is not a political blog, but I cannot not comment on a question raised in Parliament by MP Zaqy Mohamad (Hong Kah GRC). As quoted in The Straits Times (23 Nov), he said: "Based on MHA's findings so far, is the ministry [Home Affairs] satisfied that it's just confined to his family members? Given that Mas Selamat made his escape in a tudung, would the ministry assure the Malay community that there won't be unnecessary scrutiny of Malay women wearing tudung as they enter security areas, when they seek employment or when they move in and out of Singapore?"
What is he alluding to? The first question in the quote is not a problem, unless the MP is trying to draw a link between that and the second question which makes a statement of presumably verified fact -- that Mas Selamat made his escape wearing a tudung (among other articles of clothes I am sure!... "made his escape in a tudung" is intriguing if one pictures it mentally, but I digress).
What stumped me was the question he then links to the statement of fact: that -- so long after the event -- Malay women weaing tudung (note: the tudung does not cover the face; unlike the purdah) may still worry that they can be considered security risks?
Some skill may have gone into the cosmetic make-up applied to MSK's face so he could pass off as a woman (after all, Jack Neo has set a precedent [disclaimer: I'm not saying here JN is a terrorist!] but I do not think most Malay women in tudung now lose sleep over being given the once over as if they were men in drag.
The other way to see this line of questioning is the logical fallacy. MSK, a known terorist, wore a tudung. Many Malay women wear tudung. You follow this to its illogical conclusion.
So, I expect a higher quality of questions asked in Parliament. There is still the issue of women wearing the purdah but that issue was not raised, wisely so. And I'll like to believe the minister, in his reply to Mr Zaqy, was being kind to him by being rather roundabout.
Okay, next.
ST's own Page 1 (23 Nov) lead story intro could have been less sloppy. It said: "Fugitive terrorist Mas Selamat had help in Singapore after he made his dramatic escape from detention -- that was the surprise revelation made in Parliament yesterday by Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam."
I think many readers may not have noticed what is wrong with it, because they understand the context -- that is, readers know already that MSK has since been recaptured. But that is no excuse for the newspaper not to provide the context. The intro should read:
"After his dramatic escape from detention and while on the run as a fugitive, terrorist Mas Selamat had help in Singapore..."
This is not a mere exercise in quibbling. Likewise, both ST and Today (also 23 Nov) seemed to have condemned a man to his "last day".
ST: "The last day for Dr Ong, who took over as principal in 1994, will be next Tuesday. He had previously told students he would serve six months' notice."
Today: His last day will be on Nov 30.
In both cases, last day as what? Yes, we know. But how difficult is it to insert "at work at ACS (I)" into the text? Words, as I have previously posted, must seek to clarify.
On the subject of headlines, check out today's TNP, pg 47. Next to a photo of the Singapore Men's Waterpolo team in their swim trunks is an article with the headline "S'pore need exposure". Some of colleagues think it was deliberate, I think it was coincidence. You?
ReplyDelete