Melissa Chen:
We can talk about UAE / Singapore versus Australia and the West more broadly as model states in how they deal with Islamist extremism but let's actually look at an example that demonstrates the point. In 2002, Singaporean Zulfikar Shariff fled to Australia after getting charged for his activities organizing and campaigning against a hijab ban in schools, and defending and promoting Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. Australia welcomed him with open arms, and provided him with scholarships and a place to further postgraduate study, despite not having an undergraduate degree, even after his work with Al-Qaeda financiers was made public in 2006 by the left leaning ABC. He was granted Australian citizenship in 2011. He continued to receive state grants and unemployment benefits from the Australian government, all the while continuing his activism from there. He made videos posted on various social media sites where he said things like Chinese Singaporeans were colonial settlers, not migrants, and that Singapore's ideology had insulted, degraded and oppressed Muslims. In 2016, he gets arrested when he returned to Singapore and detained under the Internal Security Act. He then renounces his Singaporean citizenship and returned to Australia where he now resides with his family. If this is the kind of immigrant Australia accepts, is the Bondi massacre really such a surprise? Why does Australia grant citizenship to people who are not compatible with the values they claim to embrace? Shariff's case highlights differences in how Singapore and Australia approach these issues. The West embraces high-minded ideals of tolerance and pluralism which is commendable, but has its trade-offs in terms of balancing security and freedom. It's time to have that difficult conversation: which way, Western man?
Melissa Chen is Editor and Chair of the world's oldest magazine, The Spectator
