AS a writer, I can say that there’s nothing like a good conflict to get one’s creative juices flowing. Somehow, conflicts always produce a sense of drama and throw up a cast of characters that make a good story.
Take the recent visit by Chinese President Hu Jintao to the US. The Chinese leader may have thought that he was going to the US to discuss simple issues of trade, but in reality he was going to fulfill the role of a protagonist in a drama that Newsweek billed as, “The Real Clash of Civilizations.” We had the perfect story. The two presidents were two adversaries, representing the conflict between good and evil and although no one expected the conflict to be resolved at the summit, there would be enough drama to leave the rest of us awaiting sequels.
As much as the writer in me appreciates this drama, it’s rather sad that the “clash of civilizations” story captured so much media space and froze out the more important one about the directions of current geopolitics.
Did anyone care to notice that the Chinese president did not rush to see his US counterpart when he landed in the US? What did it say about China’s perspective on the Sino-US relationship that the first person that President Hu visited in the US was Bill Gates, Microsoft’s chairman and the world’s richest man? No matter how rich Gates is, he is still a private citizen and one would surely imagine that the first person a visiting head of state and government visits before anyone else is his counterpart.
Why did President Hu visit a private businessman before a head of state and what did he achieve? In effect, he showed that China’s primary interest in the world today is to do business. No doubt, China is worried about its geopolitical position but primarily from a business perspective.
At the dinner that Gates hosted, President Hu assured Microsoft’s chairman that China would protect intellectual property, something that Microsoft has a deep interest in. President Hu clearly understands that protection of intellectual property is a bigger concern to foreign investors than the Chinese yuan’s fluctuation against the US dollar. President Hu was also showing that he knew who he needed to assure about China’s commitment to protecting intellectual property. Microsoft is as powerful a foreign investor as one can get.
President Hu seems to be blissfully unaware of his role in the “clash of civilizations,” drama that we as media people are so obsessed by.
The Chinese leader also visited Saudi Arabia where he signed business deals that will tie the interest of both nations. Asia has traditionally taken some 60 percent of the Kingdom’s energy exports and this figure should easily grow as China and India’s economy grow even faster. King Abdullah is clearly aware of where much of the growth in the Kingdome’s exports will be coming from and made his first overseas visits since becoming king to China and India.
Nobody in Saudi Arabia seems to be talking about the “clash of civilizations,” with the Chinese and the Indians. In fact, the Kingdom is actively telling its citizens to get to know Asia and its emerging markets on a people-to-people basis.
Saudi Arabia is definitely out to do business with the world. Not long after King Abdullah visiting China and India, Crown Prince Sultan made his first official visit since assuming his office to Japan, Singapore and Pakistan. The Crown Prince’s visit too was marked by the signing of more trade deals.
The implications of all these interactions are staggering. The world’s largest manufacturer (China) and the world’s largest back-office (India) are scurrying to build a relationship with the world’s largest supplier of energy (Saudi Arabia.) Nobody has talked about conflicts between these cultures and yet the results of the friendship that these nations are trying to develop will have an immense impact on the way the world economy develops.
Friendships lack the drama of conflicts — pictures of people shaking hands is undoubtedly less dramatic than people killing each other. The “clash of civilizations,” whether it’s between the West and East, or the East and the Islamic world or the West and Islamic world, certainly creates a wonderful sense of drama. It’s easy to get caught up in the drama.
What a pity that the media has so little desire to get excited about the unromantic things that are in fact far richer than the melodramas. The “clash of civilizations” dramas make for a great story — but imagine if we as a community of writers dared to dream about the story of how our lives will be changed by the growing desire of civilizations to do business in a spirit of friendship. Now that would be a story really worth telling.
— Tang Li is a Singapore-based freelance writer and public relations consultant. (li@tang-asia.com)
Published in Arab News Friday 28 April 2006
dinsdag, april 25, 2006
An MP's job is to listen to the people and know what they want
I was delighted to read Mr John Tan Liang-Joo's letter "Grassroot supporters led minister away from resident who had much to complain about" (ST Online Forum, April 22).
Finally someone has the good sense to point out the obvious fact that freedom of expression and basic sustenance are not two mutually exclusive ideas.
Ever since Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew discussed political issues with youths in a televised forum, Singaporeans have bombarded the media with complaints that the youths are ungrateful, that their desire for more freedom of expression will endanger Singapore's hard-won prosperity.
I have no idea how people have got it into their heads that freedom of expression is the antithesis to rising prosperity and stability.
I suppose many would argue that Singapore's prosperity is due to strong one-party, authoritarian rule. Furthermore, comparing Singapore's stability to the apparent chaos of the democracies in the Philippines or Indonesia may enforce the notion that freedom and stability are mutually exclusive.
These are comforting arguments but they fail to understand what was the true secret of Singapore's success. Contrary to what many may believe, the PAP has been successful not because it has repressed freedom of expression but because it has anticipated what the people wanted and it has delivered.
Politics, as we have been reminded, is about bread-and-butter issues such as the cost of living, education and social stability. Successive PAP governments have delivered on these. There is actually very little to complain about in Singapore, let alone actively seek an alternative party of government.
However, we cannot assume that this happy state of affairs will last forever. What happens if we get a leadership that becomes wrapped up in its own world of statistics instead of listening to the opinions of the people?
Companies that fail to listen to their customers and take them for granted lose market share. Likewise, the same thing can happen to political parties. Governments become less effective when this happens.
In our political system, our leaders are given a reality check by the need to have elections periodically. Our ministers are also Members of Parliament. This ensures that ministers need to listen to the people and be sympathetic to those who gave them high office in the first place.
Minister Raymond Lim's minders may believe that they were doing him a service when they cut out a resident who had many complaints during his house visit in his constituency.
They are doing him and Singapore a disservice by ensuring the minister is a step removed from the people who put him in power. Our ministers are busy and juggling ministerial and MP's duties can be difficult.
However, this is what they are paid to do. It's not just about voting for a government that can deliver what we want but also about giving our elected representatives the opportunity to listen and know what we want.
Tang Li
Published in Straits Times Online Forum 25 April 2006
Copyright: (C) Singapore Press Holdings Ltd 2006
Finally someone has the good sense to point out the obvious fact that freedom of expression and basic sustenance are not two mutually exclusive ideas.
Ever since Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew discussed political issues with youths in a televised forum, Singaporeans have bombarded the media with complaints that the youths are ungrateful, that their desire for more freedom of expression will endanger Singapore's hard-won prosperity.
I have no idea how people have got it into their heads that freedom of expression is the antithesis to rising prosperity and stability.
I suppose many would argue that Singapore's prosperity is due to strong one-party, authoritarian rule. Furthermore, comparing Singapore's stability to the apparent chaos of the democracies in the Philippines or Indonesia may enforce the notion that freedom and stability are mutually exclusive.
These are comforting arguments but they fail to understand what was the true secret of Singapore's success. Contrary to what many may believe, the PAP has been successful not because it has repressed freedom of expression but because it has anticipated what the people wanted and it has delivered.
Politics, as we have been reminded, is about bread-and-butter issues such as the cost of living, education and social stability. Successive PAP governments have delivered on these. There is actually very little to complain about in Singapore, let alone actively seek an alternative party of government.
However, we cannot assume that this happy state of affairs will last forever. What happens if we get a leadership that becomes wrapped up in its own world of statistics instead of listening to the opinions of the people?
Companies that fail to listen to their customers and take them for granted lose market share. Likewise, the same thing can happen to political parties. Governments become less effective when this happens.
In our political system, our leaders are given a reality check by the need to have elections periodically. Our ministers are also Members of Parliament. This ensures that ministers need to listen to the people and be sympathetic to those who gave them high office in the first place.
Minister Raymond Lim's minders may believe that they were doing him a service when they cut out a resident who had many complaints during his house visit in his constituency.
They are doing him and Singapore a disservice by ensuring the minister is a step removed from the people who put him in power. Our ministers are busy and juggling ministerial and MP's duties can be difficult.
However, this is what they are paid to do. It's not just about voting for a government that can deliver what we want but also about giving our elected representatives the opportunity to listen and know what we want.
Tang Li
Published in Straits Times Online Forum 25 April 2006
Copyright: (C) Singapore Press Holdings Ltd 2006
maandag, april 24, 2006
Gulf students can only benefit Singapore
I WAS dismayed to read the letters by Mr Choo Thim Heng, 'Questions over Saudis bound for S'pore varsities' (ST, April 6) and 'Why is S'pore giving scholarships to students from a wealthy country?' (ST Online Forum, April 20).
It shocks me that in this day and age of opening borders and greater need for cultural diversity, people still see the world in zero-sum terms.
Mr Choo seems to think that introducing more students from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf nations to Singapore somehow limits opportunities for Singaporeans.
This is false and such thinking should not be allowed to limit Singaporean opportunities for increased interaction with the outside world.
Like it or not, education is a business and governments throughout the world recognise education as an export product. Two countries that have done well by promoting education are Australia and Britain.
Every year, their governments spend millions trying to recruit foreign students to their universities because foreign students not only foster greater people-to-people ties between countries (which in turn leads to greater business ties), but also inject an important commodity to their educational establishments - cash (which local students do not).
The Singapore Government understands this and is keen to promote our institutions of higher learning to the world. Private educational organisations like Stansfield and Auston have become centres of entrepreneurial activity.
On April 1, the National University of Singapore and Nanyang Technological University were corporatised, giving them more freedom to set their admissions criteria.
These organisations are keenly aware of what will attract students from Singapore and abroad - stringent academic criteria that are essential to maintain a reputation for academic excellence. In short, who gets into our universities is decided by who deserves to get in rather than who the Government tells them to let in.
Quotas are a thing of the past. Singapore students will have to compete to get into universities here just as they compete to get a scholarship at Harvard, Cambridge and other top institutions.
Students from Saudi Arabia and elsewhere will have to meet academic requirements regardless of how many visas their governments negotiate with ours. This will only benefit NUS, NTU and other providers of higher education.
And not every student from Saudi Arabia will be on a scholarship. Most will pay fees, which will boost the cash reserves of our educational institutions.
Tang Li
Published in The Straits Times: 24 April 2006
Copyright: (C) Singapore Press Holdings Ltd: 2006
It shocks me that in this day and age of opening borders and greater need for cultural diversity, people still see the world in zero-sum terms.
Mr Choo seems to think that introducing more students from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf nations to Singapore somehow limits opportunities for Singaporeans.
This is false and such thinking should not be allowed to limit Singaporean opportunities for increased interaction with the outside world.
Like it or not, education is a business and governments throughout the world recognise education as an export product. Two countries that have done well by promoting education are Australia and Britain.
Every year, their governments spend millions trying to recruit foreign students to their universities because foreign students not only foster greater people-to-people ties between countries (which in turn leads to greater business ties), but also inject an important commodity to their educational establishments - cash (which local students do not).
The Singapore Government understands this and is keen to promote our institutions of higher learning to the world. Private educational organisations like Stansfield and Auston have become centres of entrepreneurial activity.
On April 1, the National University of Singapore and Nanyang Technological University were corporatised, giving them more freedom to set their admissions criteria.
These organisations are keenly aware of what will attract students from Singapore and abroad - stringent academic criteria that are essential to maintain a reputation for academic excellence. In short, who gets into our universities is decided by who deserves to get in rather than who the Government tells them to let in.
Quotas are a thing of the past. Singapore students will have to compete to get into universities here just as they compete to get a scholarship at Harvard, Cambridge and other top institutions.
Students from Saudi Arabia and elsewhere will have to meet academic requirements regardless of how many visas their governments negotiate with ours. This will only benefit NUS, NTU and other providers of higher education.
And not every student from Saudi Arabia will be on a scholarship. Most will pay fees, which will boost the cash reserves of our educational institutions.
Tang Li
Published in The Straits Times: 24 April 2006
Copyright: (C) Singapore Press Holdings Ltd: 2006
donderdag, april 20, 2006
Minister Mentor is Human too
Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew is a great man! Singapore is the thriving metropolis that is today because of his vision, flexibility and courage to do what needed to be done. On the whole, Singaporeans are grateful for his role in creating the society that they live in. World leaders like former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher also speak highly of MM Lee.
I was, however, disturbed to read many of the letters condemning the youth who appeared in Channel NewsAsia’s “My Vote Matters,” with the Minister Mentor. The criticism in all the letters was the fact that the youth did not show MM Lee sufficient respect.
I believe that many of the writers have confused subservience for respect. Many would justify this confusion as being part of our “Asian Culture,” but I believe that there is a difference and understanding the difference will be good for Singapore’s future.
While there is dictionary definition for both words, I think we can understand the difference between the two as:
· Subservience is the unquestioning of authority. In a subservient society, the masses simply do not question or those in authority to account.
· Respect on the other hand means that those in authority are there because they have earned the goodwill of those they have authority over. Respect is something that happens between two parties. Those in authority are respect those they have authority over and are in turn respected.
Much has been said about why Singaporeans need to be more willing to challenge standard norms. We need creativity and innovation and if our youth are willing to challenge someone of MM Lee’s stature in public it’s a healthy sign that they are willing to be independent thinkers.
Secondly, turning MM Lee into an infallible deity insults the spirit of his achievements. We’ve all studied what he did but have we understood how he did it? I believe that Singapore’s future would be bright if we put our energies into understanding the spirit of MM Lee’s achievements rather than being obsessed by the letters of the achievements.
Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Keng Swee and the late S. Rajaratnam were all men who thrived on challenges and were willing to expand their boundaries. All were born in a time when Colonial rule was a matter of fact. Instead of “Respecting” and not challenging that fact, they did and we became an independent nation. They respected British rule enough to transplant many of Britain’s institutions to Singapore. Lee Kuan Yew’s respect for Britain has resulted in his genuine friendships with many of her Prime Ministers. But the man was by no means subservient to the idea that British rule over Singapore would last forever.
Secondly, MM Lee was never a leader who expected his colleagues to follow him blindly. He was the Prime Minister and the undoubted leader of the nation. But he had respect for men like Goh Keng Swee and Rajaratnam to get on with their jobs and expected them to challenge his views when they felt it was necessary. They in turn respected him when he made his decisions after he had listened to them.
MM Lee’s achievements speak volumes. It’s hard to question a man who has been proved right on so many times on so many things. His wisdom is an asset to Singapore. But we should not worship it and condemn those who challenge it. We should, instead applaud those who are daring enough to challenge ancient wisdom and icons and create new wisdom that are best suited for the times we live and operate in.
Copyright: Tang Li (C) 2006
I was, however, disturbed to read many of the letters condemning the youth who appeared in Channel NewsAsia’s “My Vote Matters,” with the Minister Mentor. The criticism in all the letters was the fact that the youth did not show MM Lee sufficient respect.
I believe that many of the writers have confused subservience for respect. Many would justify this confusion as being part of our “Asian Culture,” but I believe that there is a difference and understanding the difference will be good for Singapore’s future.
While there is dictionary definition for both words, I think we can understand the difference between the two as:
· Subservience is the unquestioning of authority. In a subservient society, the masses simply do not question or those in authority to account.
· Respect on the other hand means that those in authority are there because they have earned the goodwill of those they have authority over. Respect is something that happens between two parties. Those in authority are respect those they have authority over and are in turn respected.
Much has been said about why Singaporeans need to be more willing to challenge standard norms. We need creativity and innovation and if our youth are willing to challenge someone of MM Lee’s stature in public it’s a healthy sign that they are willing to be independent thinkers.
Secondly, turning MM Lee into an infallible deity insults the spirit of his achievements. We’ve all studied what he did but have we understood how he did it? I believe that Singapore’s future would be bright if we put our energies into understanding the spirit of MM Lee’s achievements rather than being obsessed by the letters of the achievements.
Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Keng Swee and the late S. Rajaratnam were all men who thrived on challenges and were willing to expand their boundaries. All were born in a time when Colonial rule was a matter of fact. Instead of “Respecting” and not challenging that fact, they did and we became an independent nation. They respected British rule enough to transplant many of Britain’s institutions to Singapore. Lee Kuan Yew’s respect for Britain has resulted in his genuine friendships with many of her Prime Ministers. But the man was by no means subservient to the idea that British rule over Singapore would last forever.
Secondly, MM Lee was never a leader who expected his colleagues to follow him blindly. He was the Prime Minister and the undoubted leader of the nation. But he had respect for men like Goh Keng Swee and Rajaratnam to get on with their jobs and expected them to challenge his views when they felt it was necessary. They in turn respected him when he made his decisions after he had listened to them.
MM Lee’s achievements speak volumes. It’s hard to question a man who has been proved right on so many times on so many things. His wisdom is an asset to Singapore. But we should not worship it and condemn those who challenge it. We should, instead applaud those who are daring enough to challenge ancient wisdom and icons and create new wisdom that are best suited for the times we live and operate in.
Copyright: Tang Li (C) 2006
vrijdag, april 07, 2006
Results count, so does political competition
I COULD not agree more with Mr Low Lee Siang ('One-party state? What counts is Govt's work'; ST, April 4). Say what you will of the successive PAP governments that have run Singapore since independence but they have played a major role in turning Singapore from a Third World backwater fishing village into a First World metropolis in a generation.
I agree with Mr Low that what we should vote for in every election is the party that is best able to ensure that we have things like clean drinking water when we turn on the tap, the ability to send our children to schools that teach them skills to prepare them for the future and the ability to walk down any street without fear of being mugged.
We enjoy all of these things and I have yet to meet anyone who would sacrifice any of the above because the same political party that has been in government for the past few decades provided them.
The party that provides us with the best possible government will win this election, like every election we have had. If the People's Action Party (PAP) continues to do what it has done for the past four decades, we as an electorate would keep it on as the party of government.
However, we should not dismiss the need for an opposition in spite of all the good things done by the PAP Government. Just as competition is necessary in ensuring businesses provide consumers with the best possible products and services, competition in politics is necessary to ensure that we have the best possible form of government.
Mr Low rightly points out that no system of government or political party is perfect. The PAP acknowledges this and has been developing internal mechanisms, such as leaders stepping down voluntarily, to keep it relevant. But that does not discount the importance of an opposition.
We should never tolerate the idea that the market is too small for anything more than one player. This is especially true in the market for political ideas. No doubt the PAP Government has delivered on the issues we care about but that does not mean that we should not listen to alternative political ideas, wherever they come from.
Mr Low is right. Ultimately it is the results of good government that count, not which party is in power.
It is up to 'We, the Citizens of Singapore' to make sure that good government is the order of the day and we can do that only by showing every politician running for election that we are scrutinising them and their policies and those of their opponents. It is the only way we will get the government that we deserve.
Tang Li
Copyright: (C) Singapore Press Holdings 2006
I agree with Mr Low that what we should vote for in every election is the party that is best able to ensure that we have things like clean drinking water when we turn on the tap, the ability to send our children to schools that teach them skills to prepare them for the future and the ability to walk down any street without fear of being mugged.
We enjoy all of these things and I have yet to meet anyone who would sacrifice any of the above because the same political party that has been in government for the past few decades provided them.
The party that provides us with the best possible government will win this election, like every election we have had. If the People's Action Party (PAP) continues to do what it has done for the past four decades, we as an electorate would keep it on as the party of government.
However, we should not dismiss the need for an opposition in spite of all the good things done by the PAP Government. Just as competition is necessary in ensuring businesses provide consumers with the best possible products and services, competition in politics is necessary to ensure that we have the best possible form of government.
Mr Low rightly points out that no system of government or political party is perfect. The PAP acknowledges this and has been developing internal mechanisms, such as leaders stepping down voluntarily, to keep it relevant. But that does not discount the importance of an opposition.
We should never tolerate the idea that the market is too small for anything more than one player. This is especially true in the market for political ideas. No doubt the PAP Government has delivered on the issues we care about but that does not mean that we should not listen to alternative political ideas, wherever they come from.
Mr Low is right. Ultimately it is the results of good government that count, not which party is in power.
It is up to 'We, the Citizens of Singapore' to make sure that good government is the order of the day and we can do that only by showing every politician running for election that we are scrutinising them and their policies and those of their opponents. It is the only way we will get the government that we deserve.
Tang Li
Copyright: (C) Singapore Press Holdings 2006
maandag, april 03, 2006
Saudi Arabia calls for the “Dialogue of Civilisations”
It seems that given the recent turn of events, that Samuel Huntington is correct. Whenever different civilisations come together, conflict is inevitable. Unfortunately many of the world’s conflicts involve groups claiming to be fighting for Islam such as Al-Qaeda in the Middle East and the Jemiah Islam in South East Asia. As such, Islam has become something of a popular “Bogeyman” in the Western Media and Arab has unfortunately become synonymous with the word “terrorist” in popular Western myths. Just look at the way the Western powers reacted to the victory of Hamas in the recent Palestinian Elections. Somehow, nobody could accept that the Islamic Party of Hamas could be more capable of making peace than the secular Fatah.
Saudi Arabia’s Deputy Minister of Islamic Affairs, Dr Abdullah Ailheedan, believes that groups that commit violence in the name of Islam are perverting Islam and argues that many outside the Islamic World need to appreciate the true meaning of Islam. He says, “ Islam is about the peaceful surrender to God and in Islam we worship all of God’s prophets. We believe that Prophet Mohamed (Peace and Blessings be Upon Him) is God’s last prophet but we also revere Moses and Jesus (Peace be Upon Them) as well as Prophets not mentioned in the Koran. There is no theological reason why Islam should be in conflict with Judaism, Christianity and even Hinduism and Buddhism and we in Saudi reject the idea of the Clash of Civilisations.”
As the birthplace of Islam and the host city of the Holy Mosque of Makkah and Medina, Saudi Arabia seeks to promote what is known as the “Dialogue of Civilisations.” This involves supporting groups that seek peaceful negotiations as well as hosting international summits that promote the “Dialogue of Civilisations.” Dr Ailheedan notes, “Saudi Arabia actively promotes dialogue between civilisations. The Custodian of the Two Holy Mosque, King Abdullah recently visited China and India while His Royal Highness, The Crown Prince, His Royal Highness Prince Sultan will be visiting Japan and Singapore. As well as going overseas, Saudi Arabia has also hosted many visiting statesmen like Britain’s Prince Charles and Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew.”
South East Asia has recently shown some worrying trends in disregarding the “Dialogue of Civilisations.” In the last year, Thailand has seen clashes between its predominantly Buddhist population and minority Muslim population in the South, while the predominantly Catholic Philippines continues to suffer from the insurgencies lead by groups such as Abu Sayef. Dr Ailheedan argues that these groups need to work with the majority in their nations to find a peaceful solution to their problems. He said, “ Everyone in Saudi Arabia, from the government to the people to the Ulmas or religious scholars believes in the peaceful surrender to God. We utterly reject the perversion of Islam by committing crimes against humanity through violence. We will always work though peaceful means to encourage governments throughout the world to take care of their Muslim populations, help them to build mosque and instruct their young in the ways of God. At the same time, we urge Muslims all over the world to become good citizens in the country where they live and become valuable to the societies in which they live.”
Copyright Tang Li (C) 2006
Saudi Arabia’s Deputy Minister of Islamic Affairs, Dr Abdullah Ailheedan, believes that groups that commit violence in the name of Islam are perverting Islam and argues that many outside the Islamic World need to appreciate the true meaning of Islam. He says, “ Islam is about the peaceful surrender to God and in Islam we worship all of God’s prophets. We believe that Prophet Mohamed (Peace and Blessings be Upon Him) is God’s last prophet but we also revere Moses and Jesus (Peace be Upon Them) as well as Prophets not mentioned in the Koran. There is no theological reason why Islam should be in conflict with Judaism, Christianity and even Hinduism and Buddhism and we in Saudi reject the idea of the Clash of Civilisations.”
As the birthplace of Islam and the host city of the Holy Mosque of Makkah and Medina, Saudi Arabia seeks to promote what is known as the “Dialogue of Civilisations.” This involves supporting groups that seek peaceful negotiations as well as hosting international summits that promote the “Dialogue of Civilisations.” Dr Ailheedan notes, “Saudi Arabia actively promotes dialogue between civilisations. The Custodian of the Two Holy Mosque, King Abdullah recently visited China and India while His Royal Highness, The Crown Prince, His Royal Highness Prince Sultan will be visiting Japan and Singapore. As well as going overseas, Saudi Arabia has also hosted many visiting statesmen like Britain’s Prince Charles and Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew.”
South East Asia has recently shown some worrying trends in disregarding the “Dialogue of Civilisations.” In the last year, Thailand has seen clashes between its predominantly Buddhist population and minority Muslim population in the South, while the predominantly Catholic Philippines continues to suffer from the insurgencies lead by groups such as Abu Sayef. Dr Ailheedan argues that these groups need to work with the majority in their nations to find a peaceful solution to their problems. He said, “ Everyone in Saudi Arabia, from the government to the people to the Ulmas or religious scholars believes in the peaceful surrender to God. We utterly reject the perversion of Islam by committing crimes against humanity through violence. We will always work though peaceful means to encourage governments throughout the world to take care of their Muslim populations, help them to build mosque and instruct their young in the ways of God. At the same time, we urge Muslims all over the world to become good citizens in the country where they live and become valuable to the societies in which they live.”
Copyright Tang Li (C) 2006
Abonneren op:
Posts (Atom)