Category: Politik

  • Rashid Hamid: Charge Zulfikar Shariff In Court, If Not, Singapore Same Like North Korea

    Rashid Hamid: Charge Zulfikar Shariff In Court, If Not, Singapore Same Like North Korea

    If singapore govt really sincere and honest towards protecting the innocent citizens and upholding justice in this country then bring this guy on to court with all the evidence that it got and let this guy defends himself if he is really innocent or better still let our highly qualified judges decide his fate without prejudice in a court of law with all the facts that it has obtained.

    Rashid Hamid 1

    ISA is obsolete and is a tool actually design to serve dictators at the helm to keep them in power until eternity and unworthy of a democratic country like singapore. also by using ISA, it makes a mockery of our judicial system as if the law here cannot be just and impartial towards the authority that it needs to go around it in order to ensure justice prevails.even malaysia has do away with ISA for goodness sake.

    ISA is only worthy for communist countries like china and north korea where they usually silent innocent people thru detention without trial or thru firing squad at the beach using rocket launcher.

    Rashid Hamid 2

    the way i see it, singapore govt is still afraid of its own shadow.learn from malaysia on how to run a country without ISA and maybe who knows one day our singapore govt will grow up.

    if malaysia boleh i believe singapore also boleh.

     

    Source: Rashid Hamid commenting on CNA article on statement by family of Zulfikar Shariff

  • Zulfikar’s Views Of Extremist Islamic Organisations Has Changed Since 2015, Family Of Man Detained Under ISA Claims

    Zulfikar’s Views Of Extremist Islamic Organisations Has Changed Since 2015, Family Of Man Detained Under ISA Claims

    The following is a press release by the family of Zulfikar Shariff. Zulfikar was recently arrested and detained under the Internal Security Act (http://bit.ly/2ahTheb).


    Statement from the family of Zulfikar Mohamad Shariff

    We refer to the various reports over the past several days in the Singapore and other media, based on content and statements originating from the Singapore Ministry of Home Affairs, Government Ministers, spokespersons and commentators relating to the announcement of the detention of Zulfikar Mohamad Shariff under the Internal Security Act (ISA).

    We are troubled that the media reports and commentaries are based on information that has been pieced together to suit the Singapore Government’s content and statements put out to justify the detention of Zulfikar under the ISA. Commentators have also used information selectively to attune their claims with that of the Singapore government.

    However, such information does not represent the true and correct picture of the situation and statements over Facebook made by Zulfikar. In fact, the allegations are mostly based on postings in 2013 and 2014, and almost nothing from 2015 and 2016 where his position on many issues have changed.

    We would like to highlight several points, but not exhaustive, of the claims made through the Singapore media:

    1.     Support of the Islamic State (ISIS):

    The accusations of supporting ISIS are based on selected Facebook postings in 2014.

    However, there were subsequent comments made by Zulfikar on Facebook which indicated that he did not agree with their actions and position. As his family, we have numerous recent conversations with him during which he had made it obvious to us, and anyone that knows him personally, that he is not a supporter of ISIS.

    On 28th June 2014, Zulfikar had published comments regarding ISIS in Iraq and Syria, when there were news releases of a reestablishment of the Islamic Caliphate. The news was greeted with excitement by a number of Muslims, as the Islamic Caliphate is meant to be a central Muslim leadership in the matters of the religious law, and being the Muslim equivalent to the Roman Catholic papacy.

    When the first global media reports of violence and beheadings by ISIS began in late July 2014 and the agendas of the ISIS fighters had seemed to differ from the peaceful perspective, Zulfikar took a different stance. He had been against their violent nature and ideology.  Anyone who knows him personally would know that he is argumentative but not a violent man, and does not condone violence.

    2.     Portrayal as being violent and promoting war:

    Zulfikar had never encouraged or promoted others to join ISIS. He’s not a violent person and does not encourage any violent behaviour towards others, no matter the race or religion.

    3.     Caliphate in Singapore:

    It was never his intention to establish the Caliphate system in Singapore or use violence to achieve such an objective.

    The stance on the reestablishment of the worldwide Islamic Caliphate is based on Muslim unity for religious adherence in creed.

    Zulfikar had, on numerous occasions, stressed on the importance of the political unity of Muslims. It was not a violent idea, neither does it condone terrorism.

    4.     The photo of him with his children and the Islamic banner:

    There had been a photo that had been circulated by the Singapore Media in an unclarified attempt to link it to a Jihadi pose.

    The banner, which had been maliciously and falsely identified as an ISIS flag, is actually a banner which has been used throughout Islamic history, as the basis of Islamic creed to represent Islam, which states the Shahadah, or professing the recognition of God and the Prophet.

    The banner in the photo was purchased to show solidarity towards the oppression of the Palestinians, which had been mentioned by Zulfikar in that post. It was never referred to as a support for ISIS or any other known terrorist organisations, besides being exaggerated by the Singapore media.

    5.     Al Makhazin 

    Al Makhazin (The Magazine), was established to give an alternative platform to raise awareness around Muslim issues around the world. It was to give a voice for Muslims to discuss current issues.

    6.     Hizbut-Tahrir 

    Zulfikar has never been a member of Hizbut-Tahrir. Claims that state otherwise are untrue and have no basis at all.

    The contents distributed in the media, and statements and commentaries made thereafter are inaccurate and selective. We find such content malicious, with the intention of portraying Zulfikar negatively.

    Zulfikar’s Facebook account had been removed while he was in detention, while media reports and commentators continue to falsely portray him as an extremist and as an ISIS sympathiser, without his FB page content being currently accessible to show the true nature of the posts.

    While Zulfikar has always been known to oppose the Singapore Government policies, his postings were written from a perspective of someone who argued and rationalised his opposition to the PAP government’s policies vis-à-vis the Malay/Muslim community.

    To detain him under the ISA for his views, is not fair. To further accuse him of being an extremist and by extension insinuating terrorism and being a sympathiser of terrorist organisations, is stretching the evidence from his FB page postings. Detaining him under the ISA without trial and without having the opportunity to challenge these aspersions in an open court is an injustice. We fear that the detention of Zulfikar also increases the chances of self-incrimination through “confessions” and “admissions”.

    All this one-sided misinformation has given opportunity to others with whom Zulfikar has had disagreements on and offline to come out now and cast one-sided aspersions.

    Zulfikar is a loving family man. His detention is doing irreparable harm to him and his family.

    This response is not exhaustive, we will respond further on this matter as appropriate and as needed.

    On behalf of the immediate family

     

    Source: TheIndependent.sg

  • Bin Centre Was A Complicated Project, Says National Arts Council After AGO Flags High Consultancy Fees

    Bin Centre Was A Complicated Project, Says National Arts Council After AGO Flags High Consultancy Fees

    The National Arts Council (NAC) has defended the high fees paid to consultants of a centralised refuse collection project in the Civic District, saying it was “not a simple bin centre to build”.

    There were many technical challenges to consider, as well as the need to ensure traffic nearby was smooth and the buildings were conserved, it said on Government website Factually, which aims to correct misinformation posted online.

    The $410,000 it paid for a study on the project alone is nearly 90 per cent of the cost of actually building the bin centre, which was another $470,000.

    The bin centre stands above the basement of the Asian Civilisations Museum’s (ACM) outhouse and is for the rubbish from Victoria Theatre and Victoria Concert Hall as well as the nearby ACM and Old Parliament House. Previously, each had its own bin centre.

    The issue drew sharp criticism, particularly online, after the Auditor-General’s Office singled out the high consultancy fees in its annual report released last week.

    Responding, the NAC acknowledged and accepted that the cost assessment for building the centre should have been more robust.

    The council, which comes under the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth, said that in future, it would decide whether consultancy fees were reasonable by looking at the quoted fee as a proportion of the project’s construction cost.

    It had not used this method for the bin centre when seeking approval for funds to pay the consultancy fee. Instead, it compared the quoted fee against fees for other complex projects. This was the reason it was not clear that the consultancy fee was exceptionally high, said the AGO report.

    The report also said NAC had directly engaged the Victoria Theatre and Victoria Concert Hall consultants to provide these additional consultancy services. It did not call for a separate tender.

    NAC said this was because the consultants – who were not named – were selected based on an open tender for the project as a whole.

    The NAC, in its reply, also said there could be some misunderstanding about the reasons for building the bin centre. It was not a standalone project, but part of the redevelopment for the Civic District, which the NAC said was “an important cultural and heritage area for Singapore”.

    Building the bin centre would improve operations and enhance the area’s aesthetics, it said.

    It also said the construction cost was less than 1 per cent of the development cost of the Victoria Theatre and Victoria Concert Hall.

    The project, it said, was complex for several reasons.It involved structural and reinforcement works as it was above the ACM basement.

    Mechanical and electrical services had to be accounted for, and existing underground services had to be diverted. The project also had to include ventilation so that foul smells would not escape from it as the bin centre stands next to the ACM offices.

    Other considerations included preserving the aesthetics of the historic area, and studying the impact of the bin centre on the ACM loading and unloading bay.

    “Consultancy services were necessary because of the complexity of the project,” said the NAC.

    The consultancy services included a feasibility study taking into account the various requirements of the three buildings, which house three separate institutions.

     

    Source: The Straits Times

  • Is The Government For Or Against A Sporting Culture In Singapore?

    Is The Government For Or Against A Sporting Culture In Singapore?

    On Sunday (31 July), Minister Grace Fu reiterated that the decision not to telecast the Olympics live from Rio was a ‘commercial one’. The public, the sports fans and the sports fraternity does not in any way dispute that it is a commercial decision by the broadcasters not to telecast the Games live. It is up to the broadcasters, and in this case, MediaCorp to decide if it makes business sense.

    However, while the broadcasters may have commercial reasons for not supporting the live broadcast due to cost, it is also important for the Government to explain why it does not think that the live broadcast of the Olympics will benefit Singapore sports, in developing a sports culture, and in inspiring people to embrace sports as a way of life. The Government, through Sport Singapore and other national agencies like Singapore Tourism Board already support many other commercial events financially, especially if they are in line with achieving national objectives in some way. Just two such examples are the Formula 1 and the WTA Finals in Singapore.

    Since the decision was announced that Singapore will not have a live broadcast, a few of us sports officials have received messages from Sport Singapore officials asking us to be neutral about the lack of a live telecast. One Sport Singapore official also told me that “this was ur PM’s decision” and asked me not to “play play”. As an elected member of the Singapore Swimming Association, representing the swimming fraternity, it is almost impossible for me to be neutral on this matter. Especially when Joseph Schooling’s finals for the 100m fly and 100m freestyle are at 9am and 10am respectively. Different time zone yes, but not at a time when Singaporeans are asleep. In fact, this would have been perfect for students in school, people at work and the community to gather and let the world pass by and watch history being made. Together.

    With so much having been invested in sports development, sports infrastructure, in having our athletes prepare for the Olympics, and in trying to inspire a sporting culture in Singapore, perhaps the public should be told why the Government isn’t willing to invest in live broadcast for the Olympics, especially when this would have been a time for a nation to unite, for bonds to be built within communities, and for a sports culture to be further enhanced.

     

    Source: Jose Raymond

  • Mahathir Attacks Singapore’s Handling Of 1MDB Issue

    Mahathir Attacks Singapore’s Handling Of 1MDB Issue

    Former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad has attacked Singapore’s handling of alleged money-laundering linked to Malaysian state investment fund 1Malaysia Development Berhard (1MDB), accusing the Republic of not targeting those accused of siphoning off more than billions from the fund.

    “Notice that the Government of Singapore is very reluctant to pinpoint the people involved in this corruption,” Dr Mahathir said in an interview with The Financial Times. “It affects Singapore’s reputation as a financial centre. It is not doing the right thing. The people who accepted the bribes are not the people who are laundering the money.”

    1MDB is the subject of investigations in six countries. Last month, the United States’ Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit to seize more than US$1 billion (S$1.35 billion) in assets bought with money it said was embezzled from the firm — by people close to Prime Minister Najib Razak, who has denied any wrongdoing and said that Malaysia takes good governance seriously and will fully cooperate with investigators.

    A day after the DOJ lawsuit, Singaporean authorities announced that they had seized bank accounts and properties worth S$240 million in a probe on possible money laundering linked to 1MDB.

    The assets belonged to Malaysian financier Jho Low, alleged by US prosecutors to have played a central role in the operations of 1MDB, and his family.

    The Monetary Authority of Singapore has vowed to fix lapses in the financial sector with tougher controls and industry supervision and is creating a dedicated money-laundering unit, after taking the rare step of ordering the closure of a Swiss bank’s branch in Singapore earlier this year.

    “Appropriate actions will be taken against those who have broken Singapore’s laws,” FT quoted a spokesperson for the Singapore attorney-general as saying. “As investigations are still ongoing, we are not able to comment any further.”

    Dr Mahathir, a former mentor turned critic of Mr Najib, recently announced that he was launching a political party that aims to be a rallying point for disaffected members of the ruling United Malays National Organisation.

    “It is quite obvious that the party that is being led by Najib is being used by Najib to cover up,” Dr Mahathir told FT. “The FBI (US Federal Bureau of Investigation) and DoJ have exposed the wrongdoing.”

    He added in the interview that the primary goal of his new party was “to get rid of Najib”. “For that purpose it will work together with other opposition parties, on this issue alone.”

    Malaysia’s Communications and Multimedia Minister Salleh Said Keruak recently claimed that Dr Mahathir’s allies were behind the US’ lawsuit, an accusation Dr Mahathir denied on Monday (Aug 1).

    “I didn’t make any such report,” he wrote in his blog.

     

    Source: TODAY Online

deneme bonusu