Rilek1Corner

Category: Politik

  • Hukuman Penjara Abu Bakar Ba’a’syir Dikurangkan 3 Bulan Sempena Hari Kemerdekaan

    Hukuman Penjara Abu Bakar Ba’a’syir Dikurangkan 3 Bulan Sempena Hari Kemerdekaan

    Hukuman penjara bagi bekas pemimpin kumpulan pengganas Jemaah Islamiyah, Abu Bakar Ba’asyir, dikurangkan tiga bulan oleh pihak berkuasa Indonesia sempena menyambut Hari Kemerdekaan negara itu.

    Abu Bakar Ba’asyir, yang pernah mendalangi insiden pengeboman di Bali pada tahun 2002, dijatuhi hukuman penjara 15 tahun pada 2011 setelah disabit kesalahan menyalurkan dana kepada sebuah kem latihan pengganas di Aceh.

    Dia sedang menjalani hukuman di Penjara Gunung Sindur yang terketak di Bogor, Jawa Barat.

    Pejabat Hak Kemanusiaan dan Keadilan Jawa Barat menyatakan hukuman penjara Abu Bakar Ba’asyir wajar dikurangkan kerana dia sudahpun menjalani sepertiga hukumannya.

    Ini merupakan kali kedua, hukumannya dikurangkan sehingga tiga bulan.

    Indonesia mempunyai tradisi mengurangkan hukuman terhadap para banduan pada hari kemerdekaan negara.

    Source: Berita MediaCorp

  • Private Schools Need MOE Permission To Admit Singaporean Children

    Private Schools Need MOE Permission To Admit Singaporean Children

    The Ministry of Education (MOE) is keeping a closer watch on children who are not part of the mainstream school system.

    Previously, permission from MOE was needed only for Singaporean children who wished to be homeschooled or attend Foreign System Schools such as the Singapore American School.

    But smaller, full-time private schools, some of which base their programmes on overseas education models, will also now need to get permission from MOE if they wish to admit Singapore citizens at the primary and secondary levels.

    The Sunday Times understands that at least six private schools here are affected by the new rule.

    These include Victory Life Christian School (VLCS), Heritage Academy and TLS Academy, all private schools offering the Accelerated Christian Education (ACE) curriculum widely adopted in the US. All are registered with the Council for Private Education, and admit a mix of local and foreign students.

    Asked about the new rule, MOE would say only that it “would like all Singaporean children to attend our mainstream schools to acquire a common set of core values, knowledge and skills”.

    Mrs Jan Boey, 62, VLCS’ founder, said she worried about the new rule at first but now welcomes it after seeing that Singapore students who do not fit the mainstream can still be admitted to the school.

    “MOE wants national education for all Singapore citizens. It is good for the ministry to know which are the students who pull out from the mainstream, and that there is a place where students who cannot fit into the system can turn to,” she said.

    Under the Compulsory Education Act, a child must attend a national primary school. Only those with special needs or attending designated religious schools – the six madrasahs for primary school-going children and San Yu Adventist School – may be exempted.

    The period of compulsory education is limited to Primary 6. On average, there have been about 50 homeschooled children per cohort in the past five years, the MOE said.

    VLCS, located in Balestier Point, has grown from having only 17 students in 2002 to about 130 now. There are currently 42 Singaporean students enrolled in grades seven to 12. They earn an American high school diploma based on their school credits and can take the Scholastic Aptitude Test.

    Mrs Boey said: “Some parents feel that their children need a safer environment that teaches values alongside religious education.

    “Other children were bullied in school, and did not like going to school, and their parents had to look for an alternative.”

    Last month, three Singaporean siblings who relocated here after growing up in Japan were given the nod by the MOE to join VLCS.

    Mrs Candy Yim, a missionary in her 40s, said she decided to send her three children, aged 12 to 15, to VLCS even though they had considered public schools.

    “The standards of English in Singapore are very high, compared to Japan, and my son would have entered the Normal (Technical) stream if he joined a public school.

    “Under the ACE curriculum, the students can get school credit for Japanese, and the Christian environment is also good for them.”

    Heritage Academy in Yishun will welcome its first students soon. Most students are foreigners from regional countries, though a few Singaporean parents have asked about its secondary curriculum.

    Said education policy expert Jason Tan of the National Institute of Education: “Mainstream education is seen as a prime means of socialising young people and preparing them for adulthood. The authorities want to regularly monitor students who are not part of the mainstream system. Even one child who slips through the cracks could be one child too many.”

     

    Source: The Straits Times

  • New Law Meant To Deter Public From Expressing Views, Says WP

    New Law Meant To Deter Public From Expressing Views, Says WP

    The Workers’ Party (WP) slammed the Administration of Justice (Protection) Bill in Parliament yesterday as its members unanimously voted against it, with party chief Low Thia Khiang accusing the Government of “double standards” when it comes to fair comment on cases before the courts.

    Speaking in Mandarin, Mr Low said the real purpose of the new law — which was eventually passed with 72 votes for the Bill and nine against — was not to protect the fairness of judicial proceedings, but to “deter members of (the) public from voicing their views, although they may be reasonable and legal”.

    The new law, he said, would effectively give the Government or minister “unlimited rights”, such that “whatever statement which a member of the public makes can be considered as contempt of court”.

    “Yet, when it (comes) from the mouth of the minister, it becomes completely legal, so long as the Government can say that this is in public interest,” Mr Low said, referring to a provision under the new law that would allow the Government to make a statement on a case if it is deemed necessary for public interest.

    “The question is: What is in public interest? There’s no clear indication in this Bill, so who decides? Of course the Government decides,” he said.

    He added: “This is double standards, giving the Government all the rights but not the people … The court has become the Government’s tool to suppress freedom of speech and to deal with the people opposing the Government.”

    The newly passed Administration of Justice Act consolidates key elements of the law of contempt into statute.

    Until now, contempt was based on case law, and was not a criminal offence.

    Under the new law, the main types of contempt are disobeying court orders, publishing material that interferes with ongoing proceedings, sub judice and scandalising the court, such as by accusing a judge of bias without basis.

    Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied GRC), who is chairman of the party, said the existing contempt of court law “already protects the due administration of justice”.

    “The law is to be found in case law, and has worked well thus far. I have seen no evidence of law inadequacy,” said Ms Lim, adding that she has not come across courts recommending the need for more protection in this regard.

    Asking if the Ministry of Law was “chasing shadows”, Ms Lim pointed out that Law Society’s president Thio Shen Yi was “strongly criticised” by Law Minister K Shanmugam for commenting on the Benjamin Lim case, but public officials such as Mr Shanmugam “could make statements”. Benjamin, 14, was found dead shortly after returning home from a police interview over an alleged molest case, and his case sparked much public discussion.

    “Has he (Mr Shanmugam) been facing accusations that he acted in contempt of court, and wants a blanket licence to say what he likes?” charged Ms Lim.

    The WP parliamentarians were also concerned that there was insufficient public consultation before the Bill was introduced in Parliament on July 11. Ms Lim pointed out that the Bill was put on the Reach website — where the public can provide feedback — a day after it was tabled.

    Non-Constituency MP Daniel Goh felt the new law would undermine people’s trust in the Government. Pointing out that trust is a “two-way street”, he said he would like to be able to “express fair criticism and fair comment on events of public interest” that concern him.

    Responding, Mr Shanmugam dismissed the argument that the new law clamps down on free speech. “It doesn’t really affect what (people) can do or what they have been doing. Unless they want to think in terms of going public and attacking witnesses and judges, and trying to get certain results from the court,” he said.

    He reiterated that the sanctity of the judiciary had to be weighed against “some people’s desire to launch personal attacks against judges”.

    “Remember, those who attack the judges fall within a wide spectrum — from the idealistic, to those who are constitutionally sour, to those who are outright dishonest,” he said.

    Responding to NCMP Leon Perera’s suggestion that the Government was trying to rush the new law through, Mr Shanmugam said: “I didn’t know you’ll consider six years a rush to legislate. It is slow by the Government’s standards.”

     

    Source: TODAY Online

  • Singaporean Family Detained 14 Days For Verbally Abusing Malaysian Immigration Officer

    Singaporean Family Detained 14 Days For Verbally Abusing Malaysian Immigration Officer

    Singaporean family has been arrested and detained for 14 days for a probe into their alleged verbal abuse against an Immigration Department officer from Malaysia during a border inspection.

    Johor Immigration Department Datuk Rohaizi Bahari said the two-week remand of the Singaporean trio was to facilitate the investigations into the incident last week.

    “It is an offence to hurl abuse at my men who are just following the procedures during checks,” he was quoted saying by local daily The Star.

    “So far our investigation also showed that the officer did not ask for any bribe as alleged by the suspects,” he added.

    Rohaizi said individuals dissatisfied with the officers under him could file a direct complaint to him.

    According to The Star, the arrest was carried out after the Singaporeans refused to lower the back window of their Singapore-bound car with tinted windows for inspection at the Bangunan Sultan Iskandar Customs, Immigration and Quarantine Complex.

    The trio were reportedly a businesswoman in her 40s and her children aged 18 and 19 respectively.

    In the Friday afternoon incident, the woman was said to have verbally abused the immigration officer carrying out the inspection, while one of the trio purportedly gave a middle finger gesture.

    The investigation of the trio is under Section 56(1)(g) of the Immigration Act, where the penalty is a maximum RM10,000 fine or a maximum jail term if five years or both.

     

    Source: The Malay Mail Online

  • Lee Wei Ling: Contempt Of Court Bill Is Unfair And An Attempt To Silence Public

    Lee Wei Ling: Contempt Of Court Bill Is Unfair And An Attempt To Silence Public

    I just read CNA. The report seems to imply that I retract my entire first post of today. I only retract the part related to the comment on Mr. Tang Wee Sung. Mr. Shanmugam has informed me that even after the new law has been passed, it is not illegal to criticize a judgement or the AGC after the judgement has been delivered. Much of the proposed bill is ambiguous to a person not trained in legal matters.

    As per my current understanding, I stand by the rest of the statements I posted. The bill which will be passed in parliament tomorrow gives the government the right to comment whilst denying that to people. This is inconsistent with equality before the law and is an attempt to muzzle public opinion

    In Straits Times on 12/8/2016, it was reported that the contempt of court laws are set to be entered into the statutes.

    Minister Shanmugam stated that
    1) It gives the public a better sense of what action can unduly influence court proceedings, known as sub judice. Ironically, Sub Judice rules were set up for situation where there is laymen jury who may be naïve enough to be misled by rumours or lead by emotion rather than logic as in religious or racial issues. It was this weakness of having a jury swayed by ignorance or emotions that lead our founding PM Lee Kuan Yew, to do away with Juries in Singapore courts. If your judges are so vulnerable, then the cabinet is at fault for its choice of candidates proposed to be promoted to be judges.

    2) It provides a framework for contempt of court punishments. The maximum penalty is a fine up to $20,000 and/or jail term up to 12 months. This is very serious penalties for someone who may just want to speak out against an unfair judge and/or an unfair government. When I wrote in ST against the then penalty for Mr Tang Wee Sung, whilst I wrote out of my pity for Mr. Tang and the sense of how brutally unfair the penalty suggested by our Attorney General’s Chambers was, the letter published in Straits Time was worded with the help of Mr Shanmugam and his partner at Allen and Gledhill, Mr Lucian Wong. I would have written even if neither senior lawyers supported me, but the wording of my letter would have been very amateurish. Now being on the side of the government, Minister Shanmugam seems to see justice only from the point of view of the government and the AGC always being right.
    In fact, it is bizarre for me after what Mr. Wong and Mr. Shanmugam encouraged and supported me to do then, that Mr. Shanmugam now wants to demolish a tiny trail leading to some degree of justice for someone whom the government considers a nuisance.

    3) It provides a framework for contempt of court punishment and sets a limit on fines and prison sentences which as seen from above can be very serious.

    This has led to widespread concern amongst Singaporeans who understand the implications of this proposed law and one need only search the internet to find multiple posts stating why this bill will gag public debate on issues that are important to Singaporeans. I will not repeat what has been clearly stated in petition against this bill which was published Straits Times on 12/8/2016.

    Rather, I am amazed that there has not been more vocal protest by more Singaporeans. A phenomenon I observed this morning may provide the answer. I woke up and stepped out of my air-conditioned bedroom and immediately smelled smoked. I asked my two maids who sleep in bedrooms with their windows open whether they smelt anything smoke and they did not. I called a friend who also sleeps in air-conditioned bedroom and he too smelt smoke as he stepped out of his bedroom. Smell is a sensation that we quickly get used to and then no longer notice it if it lingers for less than an hour. Perhaps, Singaporeans have gotten used to an authoritarian government who until recently had always acted for their wellbeing, and so when another new action is taken, they do not even bother to think whether it may be against their welfare. This current government is not like previous PAP governments. I urged all Singaporeans, and all MPs and NMPs to think through what has been proposed, and also read the many commentaries on the internet.

     

    Source: Lee Wei Ling

deneme bonusu