Rilek1Corner

Category: Komentar

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

  • Nabilah Shihab: Encountering A Racist On The MRT

    Nabilah Shihab: Encountering A Racist On The MRT

    The peak hour train at Jurong East was crowded as usual. I stood in front of a well-dressed lady in her 40s sitting at the priority seat. Upon seeing me, she promptly crossed her legs and kicked her shoes against my legs. On a normal day, I would speak up and educate such an individual on the virtues of courtesy. Lucky for her, I had just made a vow before bed yesterday to become a more tolerant person. I just smiled and thought to myself, maybe it was an accident.

    The lady began talking on her mobile phone and I let my mind wander. Before long, my thoughts were interrupted by the lady’s rant.

    “A lot of Chinese girls so stupid marry Malay men.”

    It was strangely refreshing to hear a racist rant in person in Singapore. In the past I had only seen them in the comments section on Facebook. As a final year Sociology undergraduate, I was keen on hearing her perspective on the issues of race and inter-racial marriages. Also, being the child of a Malay-Chinese mother and an Arab father, miscegenation was of personal relevance.

    In between rants of how her Chinese friends were the CEO of Singapore Airlines and secretary to the Prime Minister’s office, she complained about how poor Malay men were trying to prey on her and other Chinese girls.

    At that moment it occurred to me: she was the infamous Catherine Tan known on social media for her videos where she aggressively expressed her dissatisfaction with Malays and Muslims. It also occured to me that there was probably no one on the other end of the line. She was believed to be mentally unsound. As soon as she began directing her racist rants at me, I realized that I was no longer a mere observer.

    “Look at this Muslim girl in front of me, trying to get in my face. Trying to harass me. Ya look at her she’s wearing blue jeans, black shirt, red scarf and black shoes,” she said, glaring angrily at me.

    As she was giving her Outfit-Of-The-Day commentary, I almost corrected her: Oh I’m not wearing jeans! These are trousers I bought on sale. I wear them when I feel fatter than usual because being able to fit in them is assuring. Do you like them?`

    I stopped myself when I realized that she was obviously not trying to be friendly. She was trying to direct her hatred for Malays and Muslims at me. As she continued to passive-aggressively taunt me, I half expected her to say something more vicious. However, she did nothing of the sort. I have to say that for a racist person, she was quite nice.

 As the train reached Clementi, I prepared to alight.

    “She’s alighting now,” she said as if to make sure I knew she was talking about me.

    I smiled and walked on. I continued to wonder if her views were a reflection of common sentiments buried deep within the Singaporean psyche. We do not normally hear racist views in Singapore where racial and religious harmony is celebrated as a state policy. Violent racial riots in the 1960s have made us more careful about what we say about people from other races and religions, at least in public. However, laws such as Section 298 of the Penal Code which criminalises the “wounding of religious feelings” and other limits on the freedom of speech do not actually eliminate racial tensions. Instead, they drive these racist sentiments further underground. Once in a while, a mentally unsound person would express the racial tensions in our society that we do not feel free to speak about openly.

    Within my racially diverse circle of friends, race is not a sensitive topic. It is discussed openly and respectfully in our casual conversations and also at university. We share the same belief that creating platforms for open dialogue about race and religion would facilitate tolerance and better understanding. Indeed, as Singaporeans, our relationship with one another should not be so fragile that it could be threatened by the words of some people. For us, what one wears on one’s head or the colour of one’s skin should not be of any concern. (Unless the colour of your skin is gangrene. In such a case we would be very concerned and would urge you to seek medical attention).

     

    Source: http://kentridgecommon.com

  • What Could’ve Happened If A White Horse Died Instead Of Dominique Lee?

    What Could’ve Happened If A White Horse Died Instead Of Dominique Lee?

    An NSF died while in service through the negligence of SAF officers. In any democratic country, the government would have punished those responsible, issued an apology and paid fair compensation to the victim’s family. This would have permitted closure for the victim’s family and all parties to move on.

    But under PAP’s pseudo democracy, all the government does is engage in half-truths to sweep its mistakes under the carpet. Perhaps only MINDEF is able to move on because a loophole in the law has allowed the government to save hundreds of thousands in compensation. Perhaps this is KPI related or maybe it’s about face saving.

    In SAF’s clarification, it stated that “the two officers were summarily tried in 2013 for negligent performance of lawful order or duty, found guilty, and punished according to military law”.

    Cpt Chia was one of the officers “punished” in 2013 for his negligent act in 2012. Within a year of the “punishment”, he was promoted to Major. No wonder Chia said he hoped Dominique’s family would find closure and “move on with their lives”. We can see that Chia did not only move on, he has moved up in his career, thanks to all his supportive superiors who somehow turned a blind eye to his conviction by the military court. The moral decay under the PAP should be of concern to Singaporeans: punishment = promotion when you happen to be on PAP’s side.

    Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen has now weighed in on the issue by announcing that his ministry should waive the $22,000 legal costs to be paid by Dominque’s family. Ng is still avoiding the issue of apology and just compensation. Ng made many motherhood statements but since he did not address the issue, we should not expect any closure for Dominique’s family.

    Mindef is trying to save face and money but this is penny wise, pound foolish: it will take a very long time to regain Singaporeans’ trust after its reputation has been self damaged.

    I have a son serving in the SCDF and a younger one enlisting next year. How am I to tell them to give their all after having witnessed SAF covering its own ass? Aren’t there many parents having the same thought?

    Those who have gone through grief should be able to fully empathise with Dominique’s parents: any million dollar compensation wouldn’t have made a difference to their immeasurable loss. The closure which his mum has been seeking is something she deserves and is not unreasonable.

    The PAP government must do the “right thing” and not apologise only at 2359 when its loss of power seems imminent.

    If a white horse had died, wouldn’t Minister Ng have demanded accountability by having not only both officers hentak kaki for life but their superiors as well? Wouldn’t the servile press highlight SAF’s negligence day and night as well as the immense loss to the family of the dead white horse? Wouldn’t Minister Ng seek justice if his loved one had died due to others’ negligence?

    For those who are still unable to empathise with Dominique’s family, you should touch your heart and ask yourself: Would you have made the same callous comments if a white horse had died? Would you even dare to utter your hope that the family of the dead white horse will move on with their lives knowing full well the issue of negligence has yet to be resolved?

    Source: https://likedatosocanmeh.wordpress.com

  • Malay Soldier Recovered From Skull Fracture To Enlist, Emerged Best Recruit And Best Shot

    Malay Soldier Recovered From Skull Fracture To Enlist, Emerged Best Recruit And Best Shot

    Not only is he the Best Recruit for Mohawk Company, REC Muhammad Khidir Bin Kassim is also the Best Shot with a perfect score for his Basic Trainfire Package. However, it has not been a smooth sailing journey for REC Khidir. Prior to enlistment, he was initially deemed unfit for BMT as he was recovering from a skull fracture.

    After having fully recovered, he cleared the medical review to undergo BMT. “During my training in BMT, all I want to do was to give it my all and do my best. However, I was happy yet shocked upon hearing the news that I was the Best Recruit for my Company.”

     

    Source: The Singapore Army

  • Playing Robin Hood With CPF?

    Playing Robin Hood With CPF?

    Sparring partner and friend Cynical Investor wondered why the more you leave in CPF for your retirement, the less you get proportionately from CPF LIFE payouts from age 65. https://atans1.wordpress.com/2016/0…. Here is what CPF shows us:

    As seen, the FRS is double the BRS but the pay-out is less than double. The ERS is triple the BRS but the payout is less than triple the BRS payout. As a Facebook comment said “I asked the same question. No one knows the answer”. The answer is in the complicated way of allocating interests.

    At age 55, the monies are all moved to Retirement Account earning an interest rate of 4%. The first $60,000 of your account earns an extra 1%. From this year onwards, there is another extra 1% on the first $30,000. The average interest rates earned on the sums over 10 years are as roughly follows

    BRS 4.9%, FRS 4.5%, ERS 4.3%

    Hence the bigger the sum the lower the interest rate earned. The determinant of CPF LIFE payout is the balance at age 65, not at 55. One may start with 2x or 3x BRS but the balance after 10 years is not 2x nor 3x respectively because of those extra 1% interest add-ons. In addition, at age 55, the government credits the Retirement Account with the LIFE Bonus, a flat sum which does not increase if one has more than the BRS. Hence CPF LIFE payouts do not rise proportionately. Why so?

    The answer: like the tax-funded state pension and social entitlement systems of the West but to a much lesser extent, the government is using CPF to do a bit of redistribution, i.e. allocating more to the lower income from the higher income and to the old from the young.

    The amount of interest CPF receives from the Government is roughly 4.1% (calculated from CPF’s Annual Report). Therefore, someone must lose out when those aged above 55 are earning 4.9% (BRS), 4.5% (FRS) or 4.3% (ERS) and furthermore those aged below 55 with combined balances below $60,000 are also earning aggregate interest rates higher than 4.1%.

    This works because those who are below 55 earning lower returns are subsidizing those who are above 55 earning higher returns. Those who have higher combined balances, presumably richer are subsidizing those who have lower combined balances, presumably poorer with the former earning lower returns than the latter. Moreover, LIFE Bonus is paid out of the government budget expenditures which are funded by tax revenues. The high income pays higher taxes but receives the same or slightly lower LIFE Bonus.

    The government is therefore taking from the richer and the younger and giving to the poorer and the older. That is like playing Robin Hood with our CPF monies and taxes just like the European welfare system, albeit just a tiny bit. But is it?

    Not really.

    Redistribution should be based on income not CPF balances. A member with higher CPF balance is not necessarily richer than one with a lower balance because the former may prefer a less costly home and a safer retirement. The latter may max out his CPF to overreach for a bigger home or indulge in property investments. Think of it as a system that is primed for the public and private real estate market and therefore primed to generate financial reserves for the government who ironically is still rather tight-fisted in redistributing the returns from the reserves back to citizens.

    Taken as a whole, CPF is not at all redistributive. It is highly regressive because CPF contribution caps deliver disproportionately higher investable income to the rich. In an era of escalating property prices and low wages, having higher investable income to plow into property and businesses means outsized returns earned compared with those who have to make do mostly with lower returns from CPF. Dividends from financial investments are also mostly untaxed so think of the outcome delivered by CPF as welfare for the rich.

    Source: Chris Kuan

  • Sovereignty And Loyalty In Malay Governance

    Sovereignty And Loyalty In Malay Governance

    As previously discussed, the Malay concept of citizenship/ subject is based on participation within a society and allegiance to a ruler. The concept of land and country is secondary (and almost alien for the latter).

    When someone migrates to the Alam Melayu, whether internally (such as from Sulawesi to Sumatra) or externally (GuangZhou to Singapura), their migration is understood as an application to be a part of the Malay society, acceptance of Malay customs and laws and allegiance to the Malay ruler.

    Sovereignty then, is not vested in the land or country, but with the Malay ruler. In Malay, sovereignty is understood through the concept of daulat.

    Daulat can be described as sovereignty with a supernaturally imbued character (Soenarno, 1960, p. 1).

    The recognition of the ruler’s daulat and the model of the Malay-ruler relationship is probably found in the sumpah (oath) between Sri Tri Buana and Demang Lebar Daun.

    Demang Lebar Daun, who became the father in law to Sri Tri Buana committed his service and those of his descendants to Sri Tri Buana and his successors. In return, he requested his ruler to treat them fairly and even if they were to commit grave error and receive the capital punishment, to not humiliate them:

    “Tuanku, segala anak cucu patek sedia akan jadi hambalah ke bawah Duli Yang Dipertuan; hendaklah ia diperbaiki oleh anak cucu tuanhamba. Syahadan jika ia berdosa sebesar-besar dosanya sekali pun, jangan ia difadhihatkan dan dinista dengan kata yang jahat jahat; jikalau besar dosanya dibunuh, itu pun jikalau patut pada hukum Syar’a”

    Sri Tri Buana accepted Demang lebar Daun’s request and in return asked for loyalty from Demang Lebar Daun’s descendants even when their King is oppressive and cruel:

    “hendaklah pada akhir zaman kelak anak cucu bapa jangan durhaka pada anak cucu hamba,jikalau ia zalim dan jahat pekertinya sekalipun”

    Both of them agreed to the conditions and made an oath that if either of them breaks the agreement, may Allah destroy their households.

    “Maka keduanya pun bersumpah-sumpahanlah, barang siapa mengubahkan perjanjiannya itu dibalik Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala bubungan rumahnya ke bawah kaki tiangnya ke atas. Itulah sebabnya maka dianugerahkan Allah subhanahu wata’ala kepada segala raja-raja Melayu: jikalau sebagaimana sekali pun besar dosanya, tiada diikatnya dan digantungnya dan difadhihatkannya dengan kata yang jahat. Jikalau ada seorang raja memberi ‘aib (seorang hamba Melayu) itu alamat negerinya akan dibinasakan Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala.”(Windsted, 1938)

    Relationship between ruler and subject

    The responsibility of the subject, who bears allegiance to his ruler, is to obey regardless whether it serves his interests, whether he agrees with his ruler’s decision or whether he find it oppressive. A subject cannot agree to act when it benefits him or reject his ruler when he disagrees.

    For the ruler, he commits to treat his subjects with grace and not to humiliate them.

    The only higher law that the Malays refer to, is the Hukum Syara’ or the Syariah.

    In discussing the relationship between the ruler and the people, Kratz notes:

    we find that the ruler, important as he may be, is nothing without a people, and that it is the people and their traditional leader(s) who choose their ruler, and who decide freely to whom they want to offer their total obedience…

    loyalty and respect are qualities which have to work in both directions, to and from the ruler, in order to affect positively the well-being of state and society. (1993, pp. 76-77)

    References:

    Kratz, E. U. (1993). Durhaka: The concept of treason in the Malay” Hikayat Hang Tuah”. South East Asia Research, 68-97.

    Soenarno, R. (1960). Malay Nationalism, 1896–1941. Journal of Southeast Asian History, 1(01), 1-28.

    Windsted, R. O. “The date, author and identity of the original draft of the Malay Annals.” Journal of the Malayan Branch Royal Asiatic Society 16.part 3 (1938): 27-34.

     

    Source: Almakhazin SG