Try it on for size

It is understood that in some communities, putting on the veil is supposed to repel attention away from oneself, but according to Zaiba Malik, a freelance writer and broadcaster in London, it has quite the opposite effect of what it is trying to achieve.

She has her points but the objective she set out to do with this report is clearly lopsided. Nevertheless, it is important to understand that people are welcome to have their own opinions.

I just wished she or anyone could have been less "provocative" in the pursuit of that. When will it all end if we keep going at it? Let us all live and let live.

Below is an excerpt of her report:

There's a poster on the wall of an Islamic dress shop in East London showing a young woman in a black hijab. Above her is the word "Pure."

I'm here for the full Islamic covering, the complete three-piece suit: the hijab that I will wrap around my head, the shapeless robe known as an abaya, and the now-terribly-controversial niqab — a square of material that goes over one's face with a slit of about five inches for my eyes.

... I take it all home, but I don't put it on until the next morning. When I do, I see myself for the first time in full Islamic dress — and I'm horrified.

... I don't understand the need of women to wear something as severe as the niqab. But for that tiny number that do, I will shake their gloved hands for bearing this endurance task — the staring, the swearing and the discomfort. On the streets of London, the black veil does nothing to distract attention — and everything to attract it.

Muslims being demonised

The mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, today said the row over whether Muslims should wear veils had parallels with the hounding of Jews in Nazi Germany.

The mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, in his office at City Hall on Tuesday October 23 2006

Mr Livingstone also praised the "incalculable debt" the world owes to Muslim culture, science, learning and commerce. However, Muslims in London face "serious discrimination and prejudice".

Royal row over Russian bear fate

A Russian official has claimed that a tame bear was plied with honey and vodka, before being shot dead by King Juan Carlos of Spain.

"It's not hunting - it's murder," Sergei Starostin, deputy head of Vologda region's hunting resources department told AFP news agency.

The bear - called Mitrofan - is said to have been taken from his home at a local holiday camp, put into a cage, and transported to the hunting grounds.

"Naturally, a heavy, drunken animal became an easy target. His Highness Juan Carlos took Mitrofan out with one shot," Mr Starostin said in the letter.

Somalia Bans Swimming for Women at Beach

An Islamic court has banned women from swimming at the main beach in Somalia's capital, the latest step to impose strict religious rule that has sparked fears of an emerging, Taliban-style regime.

"They cannot prevent us from our right to swim in the sea. What is wrong with us enjoying ourselves like men? That is clear discrimination," Miriam Isse told The Associated Press as she watched others swimming in the Indian Ocean.

What is wrong with these people? I am sure God never intended for women to stop living a full life on Earth. They are His creations too.

Veil row may be damaging

Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott has warned that the debate about the wearing of the veil by Muslim women could damage community relations.

Mr Prescott said that Jack Straw, the Leader of the Commons, had been right to raise the issue, insisting it should not be a "no go area for debate".

Jack Straw

But he voiced concern that it could also lead to "considerable difficulties" in terms of community relations.

On the flipside, British newspapers on Saturday backed cabinet minister Jack Straw after the political storm sparked by his remarks that veils worn by Muslim women harmed community relations.

Woman in burqa

Rashid Ibrahim, from Baltimore in the American state of Maryland, said: "One has to consider the wisdom behind the veil for women. The wisdom behind the veil is for the protection of the woman. It is not oppressive, rather, it is empowering. In a world rampant with sexuality and nakedness, it is refreshing to see a veiled woman with a strong statement about her body: judge her by the contents of her mind, not her body. It is also sign of obedience to the Almighty Allah."

But another reader, Jackie Lewis, from Harrow in the United Kingdom, said: "I have to agree with Jack Straw's comments on the Islamic veil.

"I am personally offended to see any woman covered up in the 21st century. I often see them wearing the full burka in Harrow, yet they are always accompanied by men in baseball caps, jeans and trainers. As with a lot of faiths there are always double standards between the sexes."

In the White House, blunder after blunder

Americans had better get used to a failed foreign policy, at least until 2008.

Stephen M. Walt of The Boston Globe sums it up nicely.

And if he was wrong, thousands of others couldn't be.

Oil for life

Despite Dubya's effort to keep fuelling the "anti-terrorism" movement (pardon the pun), the US military is still worn out after five years of playing cowboys and Injuns.

Should oil continue to be paid with life?

A human by any other nationality...

... is still a human, isn't it?

A NOTORIOUS Singapore stereotype — the maid suffering abuse in silence or getting her salary deducted without good reason — may soon have to be revised.

I've often seen foreigners, not only maids, who earn their living in Singapore, being exploited by their local employers.

I don't understand it.

The popular mentality here is that as long as you come from some third world country or some country whose economic situation is worse than ours, that you suddenly do not have any right as a human being.

Why is that so?

Why do some local employers subject their foreign workers to these conditions?

Why does coming from a lesser country automatically qualify one as less than a human being?

Some filipinos hired as maids, in my observation are made to work at their employers' company premises for long hours for a pittance... with no off days!

There are also Sabah and China workers who get paid slightly more in salary and slightly better terms but just because they're foreigners, they're subject to differing conditions as compared to local workers by I would say, a big margin.

For instance, a normal working day for them includes a 12 hr shift as compared to 9 for a local. Some of them do not even get paid overtime for anything on top the stipulated hours.

If they're lucky, they get an off day once a fortnight as compared to once a week for a local.

On the flipside, we could take it that they should be grateful to even manage to get a job in Singapore and they are in this respect.

The amount of money they take home is probably worth little to us but when converted to their respective home currencies, it's a fortune. That much is true.

However my argument is about whether they should be treated as less than a human being just because they come from a less fortunate place.

Why should another human being treat another this way?

From Singapore, with love...

Last week, Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi sought to find out why Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew had made certain remarks recently about the state of ethnic Chinese in Malaysia. Yesterday, Mr Lee wrote back to Mr Abdullah, explaining both the context and the reasoning behind what he had said. The following is the text of his letter.

Excerpt - My neighbours both have problems with their Chinese. They are successful, they are hardworking and, therefore, they are systematically marginalised, even in education. There are quotas to prevent you.

I don't claim to be an expert in these matters but in my observation, I do not think MM Lee was half wrong in his statement.

What he said was already quite obvious for all to see just that it is a taboo subject.

However, what makes him so smug to believe that the opposite is not happening here?

Just look at the classifieds any day of the week. "Chinese-speaking preferred" almost automatically takes a non-Chinese out of the equation in the job-search process.

Just stating the obvious. There is nothing to hide when it is not hidden in the first place.

Is Singapore less guilty in this context?