Rilek1Corner

Category: Komentar

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

  • Khairudin Aljunied: Critics Of “Arabisation” Of Malay Culture Engage In Baseless Fear-Mongering

    Khairudin Aljunied: Critics Of “Arabisation” Of Malay Culture Engage In Baseless Fear-Mongering

    About Arabisation of the Malays

    So much has been said recently on the alleged trend of Arabisation among the Malays. This fear of Malays becoming Arabized has become so chronic (ironically even among Arabs here who want Malays to still respect them as Sayyids) that there are calls for Malays to become less “Arab” . What these people are actually calling for is quite superficial.

    1. Don’t dress like Arabs. (Most of my Arab friends actually prefer wearing Tshirts and track pants).

    2. Avoid using Arabic words. (Eid Mubarak must not be replaced by Selamat Hari Raya. Funny because my Morroccan friend said Hari Raya is preferable because he can celebrate for a month when Arabs do it for only a day).

    3. Keep away from Arab versions of Islam, aka strict, rigid and literalist sort. (Try asking an Arab friend out with a Malay dude to tag along. You will realize the Arab one won’t look for Halal signs and check ingredients for E227).

    So what is actually the issue here? At the heart of this Arabisation scare is actually two things. First, it works to the advantage of close-minded secularized folks who cannot accept that Muslims are becoming more cosmopolitan in their adoption of other cultures, blending Arab, Western, Indian and Malay motifs in the things they wear, eat and in their speeches. They just want Malays to be Western. Full stop. They don’t fancy Malay culture of respect for the elderly and are in utter disdain of age-old Malay customs which the Arabs who brought Islam here didn’t actually change.

    More crucially, these people actually look down at the Malays. They feel that Malays are easily swayed by the many influences that bring them away from their pure and authentic culture, which in reality, is a product of interactions with so many civilizations. For them, Malays cannot think for themselves. They will do the thinking and the way forward is to remove Arabic traces in Malay thought, language and traditions, and finally Islam.

    So the next time you read stuff about Malays getting more Arabized and meet people who advocate such shallow thinking, sit back and have a good laugh. These people know very little about what they are talking about. It makes it worse when their names are Ahmad, Ismail and Faridah. And yet, before you head off (which you should) to leave them to their devices, spare a thought to say the Arabic word, Salam. Because that’s what the Arabic-language Quran teaches us when dealing with the ignorant.

    Peace.

     

    Source: Khairudin Aljunied

  • Humanist Society (Singapore): ‘Terrorism Has No Religion’ Slogan Is Divisive

    Humanist Society (Singapore): ‘Terrorism Has No Religion’ Slogan Is Divisive

    The Humanist Society (Singapore) sets out our position regarding the slogan “Terrorism has no religion”.
    As Singapore celebrates Racial Harmony Day this month, we are mindful that the terrorist threat to Singapore is at its highest in decades. Singapore’s political leaders has emphasised that the question is not whether a terrorist attack will happen here, but when it will happen.
    It is an unfortunate fact that most terrorist attacks in major cities have been perpetuated under the banner of radical Islamic ideology. A similar attack in Singapore will undoubtedly have ramifications on the relationship between persons of different races and faiths.
    After each attack by the Islamic State or its adherents (also known as ISIS/ DAESH), ordinary citizens, political and religious leaders often condemn the attackers by asserting that “terrorism has no religion”. However the Humanist Society (Singapore) suggest that this is a divisive slogan which discriminates against people with no religion.
    The statement ‘terrorism has no religion’ can also be read as saying that the terrorists were in fact irreligious. Such interpretation even more glaring in reactions stating that the terrorists were “not true Muslims” or “not true believers” – therefore by implication having no religion. The logical conclusion of such statements is that atheism, or the lack of religion, is the root of terrorism instead.
    While the slogan was formulated to guard against racial or religious prejudice, it inevitably casts aspersions against persons who have no religion. The Society is concerned that such sentiments may lead to further contempt and discrimination against people who do not subscribe to organised religion. We suggest that a better rallying call is “United against Terrorism”.
    It is simplistic to think that merely disassociating religious ideology from terrorism will guard society against terrorism. Society’s collective response to a terrorist attack involves physical responses like the newly established Rapid Deployment Troops, as well as social and psychological responses such as the further strengthening of our multi-racial, multi-religious fabric.
    We therefore call upon the Singapore government to step up national defense programmes regarding psychological defense, and the Inter-Religious Organisation and other grassroots organisations to conduct inter-faith events where the aftermath of a potential terrorist attack in Singapore can be honestly and frankly addressed.
    Source: Humanist Society (Singapore)
  • Live Coverage Of Olympics: Lessons To Learn For 2020

    Live Coverage Of Olympics: Lessons To Learn For 2020

    It has been looming on the horizon but the time has finally come – Singapore has said no in the face of escalating broadcast rights fees.

    By declining to provide extra funds for Mediacorp to secure live coverage of the Olympics, the Government is sending a clear message: It will not be held to ransom by broadcast rights holders.

    One can say that the writing was on the wall. Ever since Singtel’s excessive 2009 bid for the English Premier League, Singapore’s broadcaster and pay-TV operators have earned a reputation for being able and willing to pay top dollar for televised sports.

    As far as rights holders were concerned, it set the tone for future negotiations.

    The 2010 World Cup was secured only 35 days before kick-off as both sides pushed for a better deal.

    Last season, Spain’s La Liga was screened only four months into the campaign.

    But, with less than two weeks to the Olympics, where Team Singapore could return with their best medal haul, one wonders if this fiasco could have been avoided with better planning.

    Yes, bottom lines have to be respected.

    If broadcasters are unable to monetise the Olympics coverage, in part due to the Games’ odd hours that are unattractive to advertisers (Rio de Janeiro is 11 hours behind Singapore), it would be unwise to fork out an astronomical sum.

    Yes, with escalating broadcast rights fees, as Singaporeans have experienced first-hand with the World Cup and English Premier League, perhaps it is time to draw the line and say enough is enough.

    The escalating cost is not helped by the International Olympic Committee’s decision to award broadcast rights to a third party – one whose primary concern is to maximise profit – over a national broadcaster like Mediacorp.

    But there are valuable – and painful – lessons to be learnt here.

    First, Dentsu was awarded the rights in 2013 and opened talks with Mediacorp the same year.

    It is hard to understand how, after three years, no deal for live coverage could be struck, especially as the 16 other territories under Dentsu have already done so.

    Second, for the sake of viewers, it is imperative that the Government and local broadcasters decide once and for all the importance of beaming the Olympics live, and find a balance between commercial viability and national interest.

    One alternative could be the national broadcaster and the telcos combining to submit a joint bid, as was the case when Singtel and StarHub bid for the 2010 World Cup to share costs.

    Last year’s Budget saw annual funding for Mediacorp rise by 28 per cent to $250 million over five years. Can more of that be set aside for major events like the Olympics, especially if Singapore continues toproduce more world-class athletes?

    The private sector can also step in, by way of sponsorship for Olympic programming. Companies like Samsung, McDonald’s and Panasonic are all Olympic sponsors. Why couldn’t they be persuaded to come on board locally?

    Broadcasters and pay-TV operators need to be consistent with the message they are sending.

    Can Singapore claim to be serious about promoting local sports when it can pay more than $200 million for three seasons of English Premier League action, but baulk at spending less than 5 per cent of that on the Olympics, where 25 of the nation’s best athletes are pushing themselves to their limits?

    Are we taking ourselves seriously as a sporting nation if we invest $40 million in high- performance athletes but, when they have reached sport’s grandest stage, deprive them of sharing the moment with their supporters?

    Broadcast rights fees are only going to increase. Which is why, painful as it will be to miss out on a potentially monumental 2016 Olympics, all parties need to start planning to avoid a repeat four years from now.

     

    Source: The Straits Times

  • Where Has The Kampung Spirit Gone To In Singapore?

    Where Has The Kampung Spirit Gone To In Singapore?

    What has become of Singapore?

    Have we successfully evolved to become a society of binary minded beings, where the mind only sees Ones and Zeros in our day to day living?

    A neighbour of mine is in the middle of shifting out and like most of us living in high rise HDB flats, we get help from movers. By all logical thinking for accessibility, the lorry driver temporarily parked the vehicle he was driving on a No Parking lot that has a concrete gradual slope making it easy for the workers to push trolleys of heavy furniture and boxes.

    Then came along a parking warden demanding the vehicle be moved while workers were in the middle of loading the lorry. According to him, someone called to complaint and there are white lots nearby (buffered by a metre and a half divider of drainage, grasspatch and tree roots) where the lorry can park. This is very strange because according to my neighbour, there wasn’t anyone obstructed by the vehicle (there is another sloping no parking access 10 mtrs to the right) thus it is either the person who made the complaint (if any) is irrational or the warden lied about it.

    In any case, what is the issue here? Firstly, there is no loading and unloading bay in a HDB carpark, secondly, the move was done outside peak hours, thirdly this is a one off event (just like weddings, funerals, elections…). My take is that the warden is one that may not be living in a HDB flat, has no discretionary capacity and has successfully evolved into a mechanical enforcer like judge dredd.

    This is perhaps another of the many examples that appear over the net week in week out reflecting the evolution of Singapore society. Especially in the last 10 years, it does seem that Singapore has lost its compassionate soul that has for many decades long before independence allowed multi ethnicity to thrive and blend its own Singapura flavour.

    To the leaders of Singapore, do note that The Kampong Spirit is not simply a slogan to rally and move your constituents to do what your boardroom committee draw up. Military dictators achieve the same effect through propaganda. Where Kampong spirit exist, neighbours would have gathered to help out in the moving process and bid a heartfelt farewell to the leaving neighbour. Today, this neighbour of mine might just have had a bitter memory imprinted on their last day in the neighbourhood.

    P.s. If only I know the number to the Ghostbusters… I would have called them to get rid of the imposter Kampong Spirit…

     

    Source: Rafiz Hapipi

  • New Report On Iraq Invasion Raises Questions Around Singapore’s Involvement

    New Report On Iraq Invasion Raises Questions Around Singapore’s Involvement

    In 2003, Singapore deployed servicemen, ships and aircraft to the Persian Gulf in support of the Iraq war, as part of a mission to “maintain security” and to see Iraq achieve self-government through a political transition.

    Singapore was officially part of the Multinational Force — Iraq (MNF-I) from then until 2008, with the Defence Ministry describing it as supporting “reconstruction efforts” in Iraq.

    The Government publicly showed its support for the US-led invasion of Iraq, in what is perceived as it acting without the mandate of the United Nations Security Council. On March 14, 2003, in response to questions raised by Members of Parliament, then Foreign Minister, Professor S Jayakumar, asserted that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

    Former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong and President Tony Tan (then Defence Minister) issued similar statements asserting the legitimacy of the invasion of Iraq.

    Earlier this month, on July 6, the Report of the Iraq Inquiry was published by the United Kingdom and it seriously questioned any purported justifications for the invasion. The report unanimously concluded that peaceful options for disarmament had not been exhausted and therefore, military action was not a last resort.

    Significantly, the report also concluded that “(t)here was no imminent threat from Saddam Hussein”.

    The effects of the illegal invasion of Iraq were devastating, and continue to be so. Between March and April 2003 alone, 6,882 civilian deaths were caused by US-led forces. Even today, Iraq may be viewed as entering a phase that could prove every bit as destabilising — perhaps even more so — than the war against the Islamic State.

    But the report also raises important questions for Singapore: Was the Government independently satisfied of the factual and legal basis for invading Iraq, or did it take the US’ word for it, as the UK did?

    Did the Government feel compelled, as Tony Blair did, to stand together with an important ally? How does our involvement square with our oft-stated principle of acting according to the rule of international law?

    The answer is important not only because it goes to the heart of our foreign and defence policy, but also because Singaporean lives were put on the line. Singaporean assets deployed to support the illegal invasion of Iraq were withdrawn only in March 2005.

    With respect to the democratic values of accountability and transparency in government, and for the rule of law, I appeal to the Singapore Government to address these issues in Parliament.

    As our elected representatives, the decisions made by our Government reflect our entire nation. As a member of the global community, the devastation of the Iraq invasion is a responsibility borne by us all.

     

    Source: TODAYOnline