Category: Komentar

Send in your opinion to [email protected].
Kirimkan pandangan anda kepada [email protected].

  • I’m Not Pro-PAP, I’m Pro-Singapore

    I’m Not Pro-PAP, I’m Pro-Singapore

    If you have read my “About Me” page, you would probably have realised that I am pro-government.

    “And if you ask me: why politics? Well, I have an unabashed deep admiration for my Singapore government…”

    It was probably a risk to have made that statement in my introductory page. Fervent opposition party supporters would probably have blacklisted my blog or swore never to come by again. (Not that I’ve actually ever blogged about politics.) Yet, being the passionate person that I am, I had no qualms in professing my ardent support of the incumbent government, albeit not explaining why.

    Today, on the 50th birthday of this country that I love with all my heart – that in order to protect it, (if need be) I’m willing to die on the battlefield – I will endeavour to justify my utmost support for the government: not with political arguments but with day-to-day experiences.

    To begin, I confess that I used to be a naïve – critics call it “brainwashed” – supporter of the PAP. I would volunteer at the local Meet-the-People Session religiously every week. I would read the news and take the ministers’ words as it is. I would aggressively defend against irrationalised opinions of government policies. I chose to study Politics with a great intent to understand the psyche of politicians, to be well equipped to combat any accusations of the government that were poorly thought of.

    I completed my freshmen year as a Politics and International Relations undergraduate in the United Kingdom (University of Manchester). What I learnt in university turned out to be different from what I had expected. Instead of reinforcing my beliefs, it made me more critical. Liberal democracy, checks and balances, free press, freedom of speech… The more I studied, the more I realised how my government was under the attack of the prodemocrats. However, at the same time, something else seemed to be invigorating my allegiance to the Singapore government. It wasn’t what I was learning in university. It was my everyday experiences – the long walks down the streets of Manchester, the trips to the Underground Tube in London, and the interaction with friends from all around the world – that bolstered my faith in how Singapore is being run, and my sense of pride to be called a Singaporean.

    I walked to college and back every day, saddened by the sight of homeless men and women begging for spare change. I visited the city center every weekend to immerse myself in the vibrant city life, only to be tainted by the ugly streets plastered with splotches of unwanted gum. I tried my best to go home before the sun went down; otherwise, I would be jumping at every alarming sound that could possibly have been a gunshot or a violent attack. I ran to the bus stop on Sunday mornings, hoping and praying that I didn’t missed the bus (for I would never know when the next one would come). I walked to the nearby Underground Tube when I was in London for the weekend, half expecting the station not to be operating on that day. I learnt about the concerns of my peers in finding a job back in their home country upon graduation. I heard about their plans of not returning to their country, in search of better prospects elsewhere.

    All of these are things I would rarely – if not, never – experience in Singapore. And on one of the occasions when I sought the opinion of a European friend of mine on Singapore’s lack of freedom of expression, his reply took me by surprise. “Who cares? You have money.” His reply brought things into perspective. I’m not saying (and I believe that’s not what he meant) that such freedoms aren’t important. What I’m saying, reader, is that compared to the people living in many other countries, in fact even in most of the 1st world countries, we are very fortunate to be living in Singapore. Before the anything-but-PAP supporters rebut with their arguments on how we – the average citizen – “technically” don’t have money, or that money isn’t everything, I would like to remind them that despite how financially handicapped you are, you still have the freedom to food security and personal safety that more than a handful of Europeans do not even have. My point is simply: do not take it for granted.

    On the 23rd of March this year at about 9p.m., I was on a trip to London, waiting for my scrumptious dinner to be served at the very sought-after Burger and Lobster. While waiting for my platter of steamed lobster to appear in front of me, I was scrolling through Facebook. That was when I first caught sight of PM Lee’s official statement on the passing of former MM Lee Kuan Yew. My first instinct told me that his Facebook account was probably hacked, again. Denial. It was only after confirming with the various sources that I finally came to terms with reality. I, along with my fellow Singaporean friends who were on holiday with me, continued dining as though nothing had happened. Yet, deep inside, we all knew that something had changed. There was an extremely unsettling feeling within me – a subtle amalgamation of grief and anxiety. I was tempted to pour out my feelings in a blog post a few days after his death; to lament the death our dearest founding father, to vent my anger at those who were disrespectful, to express the innumerous worries that I was harbouring for the future of Singapore.  However, I abstained from doing so in order not to pass off as non-objective and emotional.

    Today, more than 4 months after the death of Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, I vindicate the anxiety that I had harboured and I restore the right to write this blog post. The general elections are coming. There are speculations that it would be in September. If that is the case, I wouldn’t get to vote – I would be a month late. Yet, I hope that through this post, I would convince at least one person to consider where Singapore is right now, in the light of what is happening in the world – what is happening to our neighbours, what is happening to our former colonial authorities, what is happening to the supposed 1st world. In the light of all these, there is a reason to be grateful to our government. There is a reason to rejoice for your birth in this blessed nation. There is a reason to stay and fight for the country amidst its challenges.

    I do not want to sound over-optimistic. There are a myriad of issues and policies that I have started to question ever since I have been exposed to liberal democracy outside the country. I hate the inequality; my family struggled for more than a year with the meager earnings of my father’s small business. I do not believe in gerrymandering; I reckon that a capable party should compete based on fair elections. I don’t think that ministers should be paid so much; a genuine servant of the country ought not to be motivated by money. I disagree with certain aspects of how the public service is being run; more than 2 years in the Armed Forces have showed me more than enough flaws to convince me of the inefficiencies of the public service. Yet, unlike many who turn these frustrations into blind hatred for the government, I choose to accept that no government is perfect.

    I’m no longer pro-PAP. I’m pro-Singapore. I love my country and I would support the party that proves its mettle and worth. For taking care of my country for the past 50 years and nurturing her to whom she is today, I’m grateful to the PAP. However, if there comes a day when the country is being wrecked in the hands of this party that I have placed my trust in, I will not hold back my vote for the opposition, if there be a more capable one.

    And on a final note, to the Singaporeans who claim that they hate the country (especially because of the huge influx of foreigners) and are eager to leave for another country: by doing so, you are a hypocrite and you are no different from the foreigners in our country that you so very hate. You are not welcomed in another country either.

     

    Source: www.melodysim.com

  • Malaysia’s VEP Discriminates Against Singapore Vehicles

    Malaysia’s VEP Discriminates Against Singapore Vehicles

    Malaysia’s upcoming RM20 (S$7.16) entry fee for foreign-registered vehicles travelling through Johor, “discriminates against Singapore vehicles”, the Ministry of Transport (MOT) said on Tuesday (Aug 4).

    The fee kicks in on Oct 1 and the ministry said Singapore will consider matching the levy in some form after studying its implementation.

    MOT also said it is requesting more information from Malaysian authorities on their new requirement for Singapore vehicles to pre-register before entering Malaysia. Over the weekend, Malaysian Deputy Transport Minister Abdul Aziz Kaprawi was quoted by The Star as saying “from Sep 1, Singapore vehicles which are not registered with the Road Transport Department (JPJ) would be refused entry into Malaysia”.

    Online registration starts on Aug 15 and the road charge costs RM10 (S$3.60) for five years. The rules apply to all private vehicles, public buses, taxis, goods vehicles as well as diplomatic cars.

    An MOT spokesperson said “such costs and inconveniences could discourage Singaporeans from going to Malaysia, in particular Johor, for leisure purposes such as shopping, entertainment, sight-seeing, holiday”.

    Last August, Singapore had raised its vehicle entry permit charges for foreign-registered cars from S$20 to S$35 per day, while the Goods Vehicle Permit fee for foreign-registered goods vehicles was raised from S$10 to S$40 per calendar month. In that month, Malaysia announced a 400 per cent increase in toll charges to RM6.80 (S$2.65), RM10.20, RM13.60, RM3.40 and RM5.50 for Class 1 to Class 5 vehicles, respectively.

    In response, Singapore’s Land Transport Authority increased toll charges for all vehicles, except motorcycles, leaving Singapore through the Causeway from Oct 2014.

     

    Source: www.channelnewsasia.com

  • MH370 Search: Reunion Islander Picks Up Water Bottle From Malaysia

    MH370 Search: Reunion Islander Picks Up Water Bottle From Malaysia

    KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 4 — A local lawyer on the French island of Reunion found two mineral water bottles from Malaysia among debris from the Indian Ocean washed ashore amid an ongoing search for the clues to the Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 that went missing over a year ago.

    In an interview with Australian daily Herald Sun, Philippe Creissen said he found three mineral water bottles while walking along the Bois Rouge beach; two of them bore made in Malaysia labels while the third was from Taiwan.

    “I walk along this beach all the time and 99 per cent of the debris that is here comes from Reunion,” Creissen was quoted as saying in the Melbourne-based publication.

    The foreign-made mineral water bottles caught his eye, more so following the discovery of an airline wing part that has been confirmed to be from a Boeing 777, the same model plane as MH370.

    The plane carrying 239 people on board from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing disappeared off the radar on March 8, 2013, believed somewhere over the Indian Ocean; over 130 of the passengers were China nationals.

    Creissen said he handed the bottles to the police, and was later told they had been passed to a Malaysian investigation team on the island.

    The islander had snapped pictures of the bottles which he posted on Twitter account on Sunday which showed two common Malaysian bottled water brands — “Cactus Mineral Water” and “Life Pure Distilled Drinking Water”.

    Questions have been raised over whether those debris found came from MH370 that went missing March 8, last year following the discovery of a wing piece of a plane on the French island of Réunion in the Indian Ocean last week.

    Despite MH370 being the only Boeing 777 to be lost in the Indian Ocean, authorities have not confirmed the debris’ link to the missing aircraft.

     

    Source: www.themalaymailonline.com

  • What Does Islam Say About Being Gay?

    What Does Islam Say About Being Gay?

    ISTANBUL — On June 29, Turkey’s 12th Gay Pride Parade was held on Istanbul’s crowded Istiklal Avenue. Thousands marched joyfully carrying rainbow flags until the police began dispersing them with water cannons. The authorities, as has become their custom since the Gezi Park protests of June 2013, once again decided not to allow a demonstration by secular Turks who don’t fit into their vision of the ideal citizen.

    More worrying news came a week later when posters were put up in Ankara with a chilling instruction: “If you see those carrying out the People of Lot’s dirty work, kill the doer and the done!” The “People of Lot” was a religious reference to gays, and the instruction to kill them on sight was attributed to the Prophet Muhammad. The group that put the posters up, the so-called Islamic Defense Youth, defended its message by asserting: “What? Are you offended by the words of our prophet?!”

    All of this suggests that both Turkey and the Muslim world need to engage in some soul-searching when it comes to tolerance for their gay compatriots.

    Of course this intolerance is not exclusive to either Turks or Muslims. According to the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association, Turkey scores slightly better on measures of gay rights when compared with some nearby Christian-majority nations such as Russia, Armenia and Ukraine. Indeed, Turkey’s secular laws don’t penalize sexual orientation, and some out-of-the-closet L.G.B.T. icons have long been popular as artists, singers or fashion designers. Among them are two of the most popular Turkish entertainers of the past half-century: The late Zeki Muren was flamboyantly gay and the singer Bulent Ersoy is famously transsexual. Their eccentricity has apparently added to their popularity.

    But beyond the entertainment industry, the traditional mainstream Islamic view on homosexuality produces intolerance in Turkey toward gays and creates starker problems in Muslim nations that apply Shariah. In Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan or Afghanistan, homosexuality is a serious offense that can bring imprisonment, corporal punishment or even the death penalty. Meanwhile, Islamic State militants implement the most extreme interpretation of Shariah by throwing gays from rooftops.

    At the heart of the Islamic view on homosexuality lies the biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah, which is narrated in the Quran, too. According to scripture, the Prophet Lot had warned his people of “immorality,” for they did “approach men with desire, instead of women.” In return, the people warned by Lot tried to expel their prophet from the city, and even tried to sexually abuse the angels who came down to Lot in the guise of men. Consequently, God destroyed the people of Lot with a colossal natural disaster, only to save the prophet and a few fellow believers.

    The average conservative Muslim takes this story as a justification to stigmatize gays, but there is an important question that deserves consideration: Did the people of Lot receive divine punishment for being homosexual, or for attacking Lot and his heavenly guests?

    The even more significant nuance is that while the Quran narrates this divine punishment for Sodom and Gomorrah, it decrees no earthly punishment for homosexuality — unlike the Old Testament, which clearly decrees that homosexuals “are to be put to death.”

    Medieval Islamic thinkers inferred an earthly punishment by considering homosexuality as a form of adultery. But significant names among them, such as the eighth-century scholar Abu Hanifa, the founder of the popular Hanafi school of jurisprudence, argued that since a homosexual relationship did not produce offspring with an unknown father, it couldn’t be considered adultery.

    The real Islamic basis for punishing homosexuality is the hadiths, or sayings, attributed to the Prophet Muhammad. (The same is true for punishments on apostasy, heresy, impiety, or “insults” of Islam: None come from the Quran; all are from certain hadiths.) But the hadiths were written down almost two centuries after the prophet lived, and their authenticity has been repeatedly questioned — as early as the ninth century by the scholar Imam Nesai — and they can be questioned anew today. Moreover, there is no record of the prophet actually having anyone punished for homosexuality.

    Such jurisprudential facts might help Muslims today to develop a more tolerant attitude toward gays, as some progressive Islamic thinkers in Turkey, such as Ihsan Eliacik, are encouraging. What is condemned in the story of Lot is not sexual orientation, according to Mr. Eliacik, but sexual aggression. People’s private lives are their own business, he argues, whereas the public Muslim stance should be to defend gays when they are persecuted or discriminated against — because Islam stands with the downtrodden.

    It is also worth recalling that the Ottoman Caliphate, which ruled the Sunni Muslim world for centuries and which the current Turkish government claims to emulate, was much more open-minded on this issue. Indeed, the Ottoman Empire had an extensive literature of homosexual romance, and an accepted social category of transvestites. The Ottoman sultans, arguably, were social liberals compared with the contemporary Islamists of Turkey, let alone the Arab World.

    Despite such arguments, the majority of Muslims are likely to keep seeing homosexuality as something sinful, if public opinion polls are any indication. Yet those Muslims who insist on condemning gays should recall that according to Islam, there are many sins, including arrogance, which the Quran treats as among the gravest moral transgressions. For Turks and other Muslims, it could be our own escape from the sin of arrogance to stop stigmatizing others for their behavior and focus instead on refining ourselves.

    The writer, Mustafa Akyol, is the author of “Islam Without Extremes: A Muslim Case for Liberty.”

    Source: www.nytimes.com

  • Gay Couple Vow Not To Leave Thailand Without Surrogate Baby

    Gay Couple Vow Not To Leave Thailand Without Surrogate Baby

    BANGKOK – A foreign same-sex couple Monday vowed not to leave Thailand without their daughter after a local surrogate mother rescinded permission for them to take the baby she gave birth to.

    Gordon Lake, an American, and his Spanish husband, Manuel Valero, say the woman decided not to let them leave the kingdom with their daughter Carmen after she discovered the couple were gay.

    The dispute has revived tensions in Thailand over its controversial reputation for once being a thriving international surrogacy hub.

    The couple, who have a surrogate son born in India, are currently caring for Carmen in Bangkok, but have not been given the necessary paperwork to leave the country with her.

    The woman, who has only been identified by her family nickname “Oy”, insists her refusal to sign the release papers has nothing to do with the couple’s sexual orientation.

    Lake, who lives with his husband in Valencia, Spain, fought back tears in an emotional television interview in which he pleaded with the surrogate mother to change her mind.

    “She’s our daughter, we’ll be here as long as we need to be. We’re not leaving Thailand without our daughter,” he told Channel 3.

    “From the very beginning we’ve wanted to solve this peacefully. We want her to be involved in her life. We want to sit down and figure out how we solve this situation,” he added.

    For years Thailand boasted a lucrative – yet largely unregulated – international surrogacy trade which was particularly popular among gay couples.

    But in February legislation was passed banning foreigners from using Thai surrogates after a series of high-profile scandals.

    The move was spurred by an Australian couple who were accused last spring of abandoning a baby with Down’s syndrome carried by a Thai surrogate while taking his healthy twin sister.

    A second high profile surrogacy controversy erupted when nine babies fathered by a Japanese man using Thai surrogate mothers were discovered in a Bangkok apartment.

    As those scandals broke, Oy was already pregnant with Carmen.

    She carried the baby to term and handed her to Lake and Valero, but did not appear for an appointment at the US embassy to sign the final paperwork, leaving the couple stranded.

    Speaking anonymously to Channel 3 last week Oy said she had no issue with Lake and Valero being gay.

    “But I’m worried about the baby, her future and that she might fall into the hands of human traffickers,” she said, without further elaborating on those concerns.

    Lake told Channel 3 he and his husband had tried to hold a meeting with Oy on three occasions but she had backed out each time at the last minute.

    “We just want to talk to her… and find a way where she’ll be comfortable knowing we’re good parents and where she’ll be comfortable knowing Carmen is in a good family,” he said.

     

    Source: http://news.asiaone.com

deneme bonusu