Category: Politik

Muslim Charity To Put ‘Allah Is Great’ Posters On Buses To Portray Islam In A Positive Light

Hundreds of British buses will carry adverts praising Allah as part of a campaign launched by the country’s biggest Muslim charity to help victims of Syria’s civil war.

Islamic Relief hopes the posters, which bear the words “Subhan Allah”, meaning “Glory be to God” in Arabic, will portray Islam and international aid in a positive light.

Buses will carry the advertisements in London, Birmingham, Manchester, Leicester and Bradford.

These cities have large Muslim populations and the charity hopes it will encourage people to donate generously ahead of the start of Ramadan on 7 June.

According to Islamic law, Muslims are supposed to donate 2.5 per cent of their income to the poor and needy.

Known as Zakat, the pratice is regarded as one of the “five pillars of Islam”.

Many people choose Ramadan to donate their Zakat, as the month of fasting is regarded as a month of blessings.

Muslims believe the rewards for all good deeds are greater during Ramadan than during the rest of the year, according to Muslim Aid.

The charity hopes the campaign will help young Muslims channel anger about the war in Syria and discrimination at home into humanitarian work, thereby preventing them from becoming involved with extremist groups.

Imran Madden, the UK director of Islamic Relief, said: “In a sense this could be called a climate change campaign because we want to change the negative climate around international aid and around the Muslim community in this country.

“International aid has helped halve the number of people living in extreme poverty in the past 15 years, and British Muslims are an incredibly generous community who give over £100 million to international aid charities in Ramadan.”

The new campaign will appear on buses from 23 May on 640 buses around the country.

The adverts will have a special resonance in London as the city elected its first Muslim mayor, Sadiq Khan, on Thursday – despite a Conservative campaign which repeatedly accused him of having connections to extremists.

An estimated three million Muslims are believed to live in London – around 50 per cent of British Muslim population.

Transport for London (TfL), which regulates the advertisements appearing on the city’s buses, has a clause banning campaigns linked to a “political party or campaign” but does not prevent religious advertising.

It can ban ads if it believes the campaign is likely “to cause widespread or serious offence”.

In 2012, a Christian charity had its adverts cancelled by then Mayor Boris Johnson after it was accused of claiming to “cure” gay people.

In 2009, the British Humanist Association drew complaints after it ran a campaign saying “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life”.

In response, Christian groups ran a counter-campaign saying there “definitely is a God” a month later.

Source: The Independent UK

May 11, 2016
Workers’ Party, Law Ministry Cross Swords Over Rules On Litigation Against Govt

Two Workers’ Party members – Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang – crossed swords with Ms Indranee Rajah, Senior Minister of State for Law, in Parliament on Monday (May 9) over an amendment to the Government Proceedings Act.

The Opposition MPs took issue with Clause 9 in the Statutes (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 2016, which would see a change to Section 29(4) of the Government Proceedings Act (GPA). They argued that the change would make it more prohibitive for individuals to enter into litigation against the Government.

Previously, the Act stated that: “In any such civil proceedings as are referred to in subsection (2) in which two legal officers appear as advocates and the court certifies for two counsel, costs shall be payable in respect of the services of both such legal officers.”

Clause 9 replaces the section with: “In any civil proceedings mentioned in subsection (2), costs are payable in respect of the services of more than two legal officers if the court so certifies.”

According to the Act, the change is meant to bring the previous laws in line with Order 59, Rule 19 of the Rules of the Court and Rule 871 of the Family Justice Rules 2014.

THE COURT IS THE SAFEGUARD: INDRANEE RAJAH

Ms Lim rose to record her reservation about Clause 9, saying: “Ms Indranee mentioned that this does not give the Government additional powers, but the fact is that under the existing Section 29 of the Government Proceedings Act, the cost claimable is limited to two. So this amendment would actually give an allowance to the court to certify more than two lawyers’ cost being payable.

“So it is a change to the legal position as far as the GPA is concerned.”

Ms Indranee said that the intent was to “bring it in line” with what is available to other civil parties.

Said the Senior Minister of State: “It is not intended to be costs used in an oppressive manner, but really where if costs are incurred, it gives the court the discretion to allow costs for more than two counsels if the court really thinks this is an appropriate place to do so.

“So the safeguard there is that it lies in the hands of the court.”

But Ms Lim said that “when you have the Government on one side of a legal proceeding and perhaps a private individual or private entity on the other side, you are dealing with really an inequality of resources in most case”.

She added: “The Government, with its legal officers, having the whole Civil Service there – the prospect of a litigant going into litigation with the Government and sustaining that litigation I think is already prohibitive to most people.

“So my question is why is the Government not able to take a broader view – or a magnanimous view, or perhaps a view from the the accountability standpoint – that we are not going allow costs to be an inhibition, or a prohibitive factor, when a litigant decides whether to continue with litigation or to commence litigation with the Government?

“I’m sure the Government doesn’t need the money, so the question is why do you need to change that provision to allow for more than two lawyers’ costs to be claimed? Why can’t you just limit the Government’s position to two?”

Ms Indranee she said that ultimately it should be up to the Courts to decide.

“The idea is that if it is a case that really a lot of work was incurred, and it appears to the court that it is fair and just to award costs for more than two counsel in such a situation, the court can do so. But if the Court, having taken into account the circumstances of of the case, feels that it is not equitable to do so, then it will be up to the Court,” she said.

“So at the end of the day, I think it rests with the Court to do the right thing with respect to the costs. And our Courts in this matter, I believe, are objective and fair,” she said.

The Government does its best to be fair, objective and rational about legal proceedings, added Ms Indranee.

“When this Government is engaged with litigation – whether it is brought by somebody else, or whether the Government has reason to initiate it – the Government does its best to be fair, objective and rational about it,” she said.

“It would not be our approach to use costs to be oppressive, but to seek costs where we think it is fairly and justly incurred, and to leave it to the court to make the appropriate decision on the quantum of costs to be awarded, and the number of counsel to be taken into account.”

WILL SOME FEEL INTIMIDATED, ASKS LOW THIA KHIANG

WP Secretary-General Low Thia Khiang then asked for a clarification, saying that he wondered if the change will “raise the perception of Singaporeans that the Government is using the clause to intimidate Singaporeans in bringing any legal case against the Government”.

He asked: “So is it a good thing for Singapore as a society that the people who feel somehow being victimised by the Government, but are intimidated by the costs that you don’t know how much the court is going to decide?

“The sense of intimidation of Singaporeans does not spell well for the future of Singapore.”

In response to Mr Low, Ms Indranee reiterated that it is not intention of the Government to intimidate anyone.

“I’ve said it before, once. I’ve said it before, twice. And I will now say it again a third time: It is not the intention of the Government to be using costs to intimidate anyone,” said the Senior Minister of State for Law.

“As I have indicated, when the Government has to defend a matter or pursue a matter, it will do so after having taken advice, doing so rationally, and doing so if it thinks it is the right course of action. That is the first thing when it comes to taken proceedings with respect to the amount of costs that the person may face, when a person brings proceedings against the Government, that person would, no doubt, be legally advised, and also have an indication of the amount of cost that would be incurred.

“And it should not be forgotten that if costs are to be awarded against that party, it does mean that that party, at the end of the day, ultimately failed against the Government, meaning that that case should not have been brought in the first place.”

Source: ChannelNewsAsia

May 11, 2016
Almakhazin: Chee Soon Juan As An Intellectual Statesman

There are very few politicians that I believe have impeccable integrity.

Faisal Abdul Manap is one.

Chee Soon Juan is another. Chee Soon Juan’s integrity I believe, come from his deep commitment to his Christian beliefs.

It is this commitment and integrity that I am sure, helped him to weather the challenges of opposition politics in Singapura.

Soon Juan has done a lot for Singapura’s political space. He has sacrificed and suffered. He gave all that he had to the cause.

Like JBJ, he has fought the good fight.

But fighters do not necessarily become leaders. And while the system remain, they may not necessarily be fully appreciated.

Singapurans may not generally recognise his sacrifices. The system and instruments of the state have been successful in painting him as a rabble-rouser who may not be able to manage the state or a town council.

And while there is optimism that Singapurans may be better informed and more receptive of his message, we should recognise that accepting his ideas do not necessarily mean they are willing to have him as their representative.

The Bukit Batok By-Election

The election was a watershed moment. After the optimism from opposition gains in 2011, there was a strong sense that the PAP may lose a few more wards in 2016. SG50 and Lee Kuan Yew’s deification clearly swung support to the PAP.

While there is evidence of some remnants of the SG50/ Lee Kuan Yew effect, the by-election provided a strong yardstick, not only of where the PAP is with regard to the public, but whether Soon Juan is able to dismiss the public perception that has been created.

There are indications that he has changed some minds. However, once again, the perception change relates to his ideals and person. Not necessarily as a statesman or political administrator.

Soon Juan has helped to elevate how Singapurans view the political process. He has helped to expand political understanding.

His ideas are making its way among Singapurans not because he was elected into office but because he transmits it outside of the defined political arenas.

Redefine role

He did not need to be in parliament to transmit his ideas and ideals.

He has done a lot without needing political office.

I truly hope that Soon Juan will consider a shift. And we can help him to achieve that shift.

Not as a politician.

Not as a future MP.

But as a moral and public intellectual.

The fighter in him will want to keep fighting for parliamentary access.

But rather than focus on winning a seat, I hope he will redefine his role.

Help civil society develop.

And be an intellectual statesman.

Source: Almakhazin SG

May 10, 2016
Aung San Suu Kyi Asks US Not To Use ‘Rohingya’

Myanmar recognizes 135 ethnic groups within its borders. But the people who constitute No. 136? They are the-people-who-must-not-be-named.

Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of Myanmar’s first democratically elected government since 1962, embraced that view last week when she advised the US ambassador against using the term “Rohingya” to describe the persecuted Muslim population that has lived in Myanmar for generations.

Her government, like the previous military-led one, will not call the Rohingya people by that name because it does not recognize them as citizens, said her spokesman, Mr U Kyaw Zay Ya, a Foreign Ministry official.

“We won’t use the term Rohingya because Rohingya are not recognized as among the 135 official ethnic groups,” said Kyaw Zay Ya, who was at the meeting. “Our position is that using the controversial term does not support the national reconciliation process and solving problems.”

The stance does not bode well for the Rohingya or for rights activists who had hoped that Ms Suu Kyi, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, would reverse discriminatory policies that have marginalized the Rohingya and prompted many to flee.

“She is not saying anything about the Rohingya people in Myanmar and their rights to religion and education and health care,” said Aung Win, a Rohingya community leader in Rakhine state. “As a Nobel Peace Prize winner, why is she so silent?”

The US Embassy confirmed that the newly arrived ambassador, Scot A Marciel, had met with Ms Suu Kyi but would not comment on their discussions.

Her position on the name has taken on great significance as her party, the National League for Democracy, establishes the country’s first nonmilitary government in decades. Barred by the military-drafted constitution from serving as president, she holds the posts of state counselor and foreign minister, among others, but she is the country’s de facto leader. The new government took over in March.

The Rohingya in Myanmar, Muslims in a primarily Buddhist land, are denied basic rights, including citizenship, freedom of worship, education, marriage and freedom of travel. More than 100,000 who were driven from their homes by violence in 2012 are in resettlement camps. Many fled on dangerous sea voyages.

Many nationalist Buddhists reject the name Rohingya and call them Bengalis, implying that they are interlopers from Bangladesh, a position also taken by the former military government.

The US Embassy recently drew criticism for using the word Rohingya in a statement expressing condolences for the deaths of at least 20 people whose boat capsized on April 19 off the coast of Rakhine.

Nationalist Buddhists challenged the new Myanmar government to protest the Americans’ use of the word and staged a demonstration outside the United States Embassy in Yangon.

At an April 28 news conference, Marciel responded by saying that it was standard practice around the world to let communities decide for themselves what to be called.

“And normally, when that happens, we would call them what they want to be called,” he said. “It’s not a political decision; it’s just a normal practice.”

Suu Kyi’s decision to raise the issue with Marciel the next day was an apparent concession to the extremists and was welcomed by the nationalist Association for the Protection of Race and Religion, also known as Ma Ba Tha.

“We don’t want that word because they are not our nationality,” said Thaw Bar Ka, a leader of the group. “And now I read the news that the Foreign Ministry agrees with us. It’s really good. At first, I thought the new government would be useless on this issue.”

Rights advocates expressed disappointment that Ms Suu Kyi was not willing to go against popular opinion and support a dispossessed people.

“It’s dismaying that the new NLD-led government is continuing this wrongheaded effort to police the language of Yangon-based diplomats about the Rohingya,” said Mr Phil Robertson, deputy director for Asia at Human Rights Watch.

Mr Kyaw Zay Ya said Suu Kyi had not ordered the Americans to stop using the word or threatened consequences if they did.

Source: TODAY Online

May 9, 2016
Dr Chee Belum Sedia Undur Diri Dari Politik

Calon SDP yang juga Setiausaha Agung parti itu, Dr Chee Soon Juan bergiat aktif dalam politik hampir suku abad lamanya.

Pencalonannya dalam pilihan raya kecil Bukit Batok menandakan kali kelima Dr Chee bertanding untuk memasuki parlimen.

Sekitar 25 tahun selepas bertanding di Marine Parade – Dr Chee Soon Juan menjadi tokoh terkenal tetapi berkontroversi dalam arena politik Singapura.

Dr Chee menyertai SDP pada 1992 dan diperkenalkan pengasas parti Chiam See Tong sebagai calon pilihan bagi pilihan raya kecil di Marine Parade.

PAP bagaimanapun memenangi pilihan raya tersebut dengan 73 peratus undi.

KERJAYA POLITIK DIPENUHI KONTROVERSI

Pada 1997, Dr Chee mengambil alih kepimpinan parti kira-kira setahun selepas Encik Chiam meninggalkan parti menyusuli pertikaian dengan Dr Chee dan para anggota SDP yang lain.

Ada laporan menyatakan Dr Chee menyingkirkan Encik Chiam tetapi itu dinafikan Dr Chee.

Pada 1997 dan 2001, SDP kalah di MacPherson dan Jurong. Kerjaya politik Dr Chee dipenuhi kontroversi. Dr Chee dipecat dari Universiti Nasional Singapura pada 1993 kerana dituduh menyalahgunakan dana kajian. Tetapi Dr Chee menafikan tuduhan tersebut.

Dr Chee pernah mengadakan beberapa bantahan awam. Dia juga pernah disaman di mahkamah oleh mendiang Encik Lee Kuan Yew dan Encik Goh Chok Tong berhubung beberapa kenyataan yang dibuat dalam kempen pilihan raya 2001.

Dr Chee kemudian diisytiharkan muflis selepas gagal membayar ganti rugi.

Akibatnya Dr Chee tidak layak bertanding dalam dua pilihan raya pada 2006 dan 2011.

2012 RASMI BEBAS DARI MUFLIS

Pada 2012, Dr Chee secara rasmi dibebaskan dari muflis dan ini membolehkannya bertanding dalam pilihan raya.

Tahun lalu, Dr Chee bertanding dalam Pilihan Raya Umum di GRC Holland-Bukit Timah. Dr Chee dan pasukannya bagaimanapun tewas di GRC Holland-Bukit Timah dengan meraih hanya 33 peratus undi.

Kekalahan demi kekalahan itu nampaknya tidak mengekang Dr Chee daripada terus bertanding.

“Kami menerimanya, orang ramai membuat keputusan dan hanya yang dapat kita lakukan adalah melihat ke hadapan,” ujar beliau. Nampaknya, Dr Chee tidak mungkin meninggalkan politik dengan segera.

Source: Berita MediaCorp

May 8, 2016