1. 5 August, 2009
Dr. Phang Chiew Hun,
Director of Health Sciences,
Ngee Ann Polytechnic,
535 Clementi Road,
Singapore 599489.
RE: REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION REGARDING UNIFORM
Dear Dr. /Madam,
1. I refer to your letter dated 13 July 2009 regarding the above, as well as my previous
other correspondences on the matter (reference letters dated: 12 April; 30 May; 11
June; 29 June 2009), addressed directly or copied sent to you.
2. In your letter of 13 July 2009, although in paragraph 2 you asserted “we explained
the need for our nursing students to keep to stipulated hospital uniform dress code
...” you have totally missed my query for seeking the rationale to your insisting such
“need” - other than stating the obvious that it is a policy that your Department has
chosen to adopt. In the absence of any reasonable and comprehensible grounds,
your mere insistence of this so-called “needs” lacks any merit compared to my
daughter’s religious obligation regarding modest dressing. Or, can I take it that a
Muslim’s religious needs would not be tolerated? If so, be forthright so that we
could be justified to deem your enforcing such policy to be rather rigid and
discriminatory.
3. Your mention of the offer for alternative course has been responded (vide our letter
of 11 June 2009): “We appreciate your suggestion for my daughter to transfer
course. Unfortunately, we have to decline because the alternative courses offered
were not amongst her choices, and the dateline for making the transfer was too
close.” Thus, in your paragraph 3 which you merely recorded our decision, but did
not stipulate our reason for not taking up the offer, does not present the full facts on
the matter. As your letter is also now copied to others, in all fairness this point
should also be known, lest our not taking up your offer may be unfairly judged.
4. As to your Clinical Manager Ms Siti Muslehat meeting with my daughter on 12 June
2009 (paragraph 4), our understanding of what transpired was that my daughter was
told that she has to conform to the stipulated dress code as stated in the Clinical Log
book, to which she informed your CM that she would have no problem conforming.
Going through what was stated in the said log book, no where does it state that
headscarf (which, by the way is not an accessory) must be removed. Thus we are of
1

2. the opinion that this insistence to have my daughter removing her headscarf was an
interpretation which is subjective, and may not at all be the intention of the rule –
since it clearly meticulously forbids only the wearing of accessories.
5. When my daughter went for her CA on 29 June 2009, the staff in Bedok Multiservice
Day-care Rehabilitation Centre did not raise any objection to her appearing in
headscarf. It was your staff, Clinical Manager, who insisted to disallow her from
proceeding with the attachment. This was when a meeting with you was
subsequently arranged.
6. Perhaps you may assume that by merely telling us that this is a policy taken by your
Department, it suffices as explanation of “the need” for uncovering her head (even
though this means contravening her religious obligation). This was not our requested
explanation from you in our earlier correspondence. We know your prerogative
regarding adopting any policy in your Department, but we would not like to think
that in Ngee Ann Polytechnic, people and staff there do not care nor can they
tolerate a genuine religious concern of a citizen. We hope that we are not proven
wrong. It was with such optimism, hoping for tolerance that we wrote to you in the
first place. Well, barring any reasonable rationale from you, and yet insisting that a
Muslim must contravene a religious ruling, if not she would be deprived of the CA
(Clinical Attachment) and other tests, is discrimination. This was the crux of what I
had tried to explain when we spoke in your office. Unfortunately, you were not fully
apprised of my earlier letter dated 29 June 2009, which your staff then duly
submitted to you only during that meeting.
7. We have also raised to you the point that, technically my daughter did conformed to
the dress-code as specified in the Log-book, by putting on the Nursing uniform as
issued. The only contention, it seemed that you and your staff raised, was her not
wanting to expose parts of her body which her religion forbid from being exposed.
When asked as to which clause you meant by this insistence, we received evasive
and rather bureaucratic monologue. Even our request to understand “How does a
headscarf becomes a hindrance to her performing her duty as a Nurse?” met with
silence. Furthermore, I have also contended that, by her appearing less that your
standard on dress-code, even so, she could only be faulted on points regarding the
uniform per se, but to disqualify her from participating at all in the CA just because
of this, is indeed excessive, unjust and discriminatory.
8. Your reiteration that “nursing students will have to abide by... “- is stating the
obvious, but totally missed the whole issue and contention. We would like to believe
that in Singapore we still exercise tolerance and respect multi-religious freedom.
Thus, whenever we feel aggrieved, we seek for mutual understanding and due
2

3. reconsideration because things may have inadvertently been overlooked, perhaps
uninformed or even misinformed. We are giving you the benefit of the doubt.
9. So, do you still reiterate this even after being aware that a Muslim nursing student
(women) in your Department would have to commit a sin (in her religion) if she was
to conform to your rule?
10. We are aware that certain people may use a twisted argument by perhaps saying,
“Well, she has a choice!” whereas in fact, the so-called “choice” is that “she can
choose either: not to be discriminated, by conforming to what is dictated (even if it
meant for her to commit a sin in her religion). Or, to uphold her religious rights and
accept the discrimination because nobody cares.” Surely, this is akin to bullying.
Well, whether you agree or not, we can only hope that any with conscience and
justice would be able to see my daughter’s predicament.
11. And as I have pointed out: “We believe that we are not being unreasonable in our
request and hope that in your school wanting to synchronise with hospital practices,
it must evaluate the reason for such practices, especially when it contradict personal
rights of others. Unless the reason is compelling, what should be adopted must not
exceed reasonable bounds nor rigidly imposed.”
12. We note again your reiteration: “the dress code is consistent with practices of the
other nursing education providers offering basic nursing course” as though this is
universally applied. We have already responded by correcting you that this may only
apply presently in Singapore, but not in many other countries. Perhaps you are
bringing this up because there is no rationale on your part to justify this dress-code
which barred the wearing of headscarf as it pertains directly to the Nursing
profession.
13. And may I remind (to whoever is relevant) what I previously stated: “... we hope for
your support in upholding a basic religious right. I know that there are many more
Muslim students who would love to pursue nursing course at your prestigious
school, if not for the uniform rule. When or if ever the Nursing Board review their
code of uniform for nurses in their profession, your students should not also be
saddled by such dilemma while still pursuing education in this field. Even, presently,
your accommodation on this issue would gladden many amongst your students and
their parents.”
14. Just for the record, my daughter has always availed herself to go for the CA (Clinical
Attachment) and other tests, but has always been prevented by your staff from
participating, due to this insistence, which we submit, is unreasonable (i.e. without
3

4. reason other than mere bureaucracy). Please also, advise your staff as to the
sensitive nature of this issue. Although they may not agree to nor is expected to
conform to what we Muslim practice, yet we expect due respect be given by your
staff on the matter (especially towards my daughter). In the absence of any rational
argument on their part, some may choose intimidation and condescending remarks.
Again, threatening remark and intimidation to disallow and would failed my
daughter if she refuses to conform may have been suggested by one of your
overzealous non-Muslim staff, as though decision has already been made regarding
the matter, whereas you have indicated that this request for exemption is still being
pursued and referred to other authorities. And how can she be said to have failed
when she is actually being prevented from taking the test? I hope you realise how
cruel and disheartening such callous attitude and insensitive remarks can be upon
my daughter’s educational experience while in your institution.
15. As, we have agreed to allow other relevant authorities to also know about this
request, I have copied my response to them as inputs for their considerations,
deliberations, and perhaps they may suggest an amicable way out to this matter.
Thank you
Sincerely yours,
‫ذوامكفل حاج امسعيل‬
Zhulkeflee Bin Haji Ismail
Apt. Block 716,
#04-4504
Bedok Reservoir Road,
Singapore
470716.
cc. Principal,
Director/Academic Affairs,
Ms Siti Muslehat
Ngee Ann Polytechnic
535 Clementi Road,
Singapore 599489.
4

5. Chief Nursing Officer,
Ministry of Health
College of Medicine Building
16 College Road, Singapore 169854
Deputy Director/Higher Education Division,
Ministry of Education, Singapore
1 North Buona Vista Drive
Singapore 138675
Secretary,
PERGAS
Singapore Islamic Scholars and
Religious Teachers Association,
Wisma Indah,
448, #03-01 Changi Road,
Singapore 419975
5