JERUSALEM — The Israeli official responsible for encouraging Jewish immigration said that Jews have no future in western Europe, adding fuel to a dispute that has riled leaders in France, Germany and Denmark.
Israel must prepare for a mass exodus of Jews from Europe, Mr Natan Sharansky, the former Soviet dissident who heads the quasi-governmental Jewish Agency for Israel, said in an interview with Arutz Sheva news website today (Feb 17).
“It can take five years or 20 years, but there is a strengthening of the Islamist community and the growing hatred of Israel from the direction of the liberal community,” Mr Sharansky said. “The two things together make Europe a very uncomfortable place for Jews.” Mr Sharansky’s office said the remarks were accurate.
His comments echo similar statements by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu following the shootings at a kosher supermarket in Paris and the attacks in Copenhagen on Saturday, where one Danish Jew was killed at a synagogue. Mr Netanyahu called for a Jewish exodus from Europe and the response from national leaders there has spurred debate over the future of European Jewry.
“I can’t allow things to be said in Israel that would lead one to think that Jews have no place in Europe and particularly France,” French President Francois Hollande said Monday, after assailants vandalised a Jewish cemetery in north-eastern France.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said her country “will do everything to ensure the security of Jewish locations and the citizens of Jewish origin”. Jews “belong in Denmark, they are part of the Danish community and we wouldn’t be the same without the Jewish community in Denmark”, added Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt.
The number of French Jews moving to Israel doubled to about 7,000 last year, according to Jewish Agency figures, and Mr Sharansky said 15,000 are expected this year. He urged the government to allocate more funds for immigrant absorption, saying Israel will be in competition with such nations as the US, Canada and Australia to attract those Jews leaving Europe.
“There is no future for Jews in western Europe,” he said.
Some of us might be bewildered by what happened in Parliament last week, when a motion was tabled to discuss at length about the Accounting General’s investigation into the finances of Aljunied Hougang Punggol East Town Council.
Two whole days were spent niggling over the finances of a single town council, with various Ministers taking the stand to chastise, lambast, accuse and denigrate the effectiveness and integrity of the Workers’ Party Members of Parliament in charge of AHPETC, who then had to defend themselves against these allegations.
That was followed up by countless media reports, and even all the way to this week, we can hear the topic being discussed on national radio. The circus continues.
With such a big fuss, what exactly was the issue about, you might ask?
The Minister for National Development Mr Khaw Boon Wan would have you believe that it was about transparency and accountability. Much was said about how AHPETC was not able to cobble together a proper audit report, the figures were all in a mess, and how the way its managing agent attended to the affairs of the town council was anything but lawful.
Low Thia Khiang and Sylvia Lim
Indeed, AHPETC has a lot to answer for. The dearth of any managing agent or existing company willing to take up contracts run by opposition party town councils might mean the need for the party to appoint a preferred vendor that has little experience in running such affairs, but it then becomes the party’s obligation to ensure that nothing should ever slip through the cracks.
This has nothing to do with the risk of being picked on by their opposition, but the simple need to break in new vendors and ensure they can more than adequately comply with existing regulations.
Yet for all the accountably owing, is this issue worthy of time in Parliament and national media? In truth, AHPETC needs to address the concerns of its residents in how their money had been used. This issue is at best a municipal one, hardly worth a two-day debate in the House.
In spite of all the red marks AHPETC received in its annual town council audits by MND, to question the effectiveness of its leaders is very different from questioning their integrity. In fact, putting the same spotlight of scrutiny that AGO had on any other town council might have yielded similar results.
What is of national concern, however, was not given the air time it deserves in Parliament. We are talking about many millions more, given to the government led by the ruling People’s Action Party for the management of the nation, yet with clear transgressions of proper accountability. We are talking about yet another report by AGO, this time on the financial irregularities in government agencies. This is not money given to one town council, but money that an entire nation of tax-payers had entrusted to the government. Were any of these financial issues debated as robustly as AHPETC’s finances?
Oddly, a recent media report on radio, where reporters actually went to the Aljunied ward to talk to residents to get their views on the issue, indicated that residents generally trust AHPETC to do the right thing, and indeed, their neighbourhoods are no worse than before despite the fracas.
Heng Swee Keat
That aside, it is perhaps a tad contradictory that the actions by Mr Heng’s colleague should disagree with his concerns for the residents. For all the review to the Town Council Act that Mr Khaw had promised, his Ministry’s decision on the matter was to withhold about S$7 million of service and conservancy charges grants for the financial year 2014 from AHPETC until it can fill in the gaps for its finances.
Is this withholding of funds meant to penalise AHPETC, or to punish the residents? Where exactly is PAP’s focus on this issue? Has it lost focus, or did it have any to begin with?
In net effect, the berating of AHPETC using precious time in Parliament was not about accountability. It was also not about the rights of citizens, as the actions of MND have proved. But if it was about politics, then it was clearly not the smart kind.
Indeed, Mr Heng had claimed that the issue was not about partisan politics. Perhaps he was right. Partisan politics would require that you put in some effort to defend your party’s interest against your opponent. What we saw in Parliament last week was little more than the PAP going for WP’s jugular, completely disregarding that the ground had already been stained with its own blood.
PAP, in letting its key office holders loose to freely attack WP, need to realise that the residents of Alijunied, Hougang and Punggol East did not vote in WP because they wanted MPs who are fantastic at running their estates. By PAP’s own admission – and in case it has forgotten – WP won because voters wanted WP to be their voice in Parliament.
Last week, voters saw that voice being drowned out in Parliament and in media. One can only wonder what their reaction might be, come the next general elections.
If this had been about projecting a positive perception among the electorate, WP might have taken a bruising, but it was surely the PAP that has bashed itself to a pulp. But of course, it is not. It has been about, and will always be told to be about, public accountability and the interest of residents – if you would believe it.
A person is deployed in a sensitive unit in the Singapore Armed Forces based on his ability and beliefs to ensure that he is not a security risk, not on his race, said Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen on Monday night.
He also revealed that the SAF has started to deploy Malay servicemen onboard ships as sailors who will go out to sea. Previously, Malays in the navy were only deployed as “sea soldiers”, who primarily patrolled naval bases.
Dr Ng was speaking to a 200-strong crowd of students and academics in a forum that was organised by the National University of Singapore and the Government’s feedback arm Reach.
Responding to a question on a perceived bias against Malays in the SAF and why they have been excluded from the Navy until now, Dr Ng said it was a “practical issue” of having halal-certified kitchens onboard ships. “(This is) because in a confined space, it is hard to have a halal kitchen. If you spend months out at sea, it is difficult.”
But provisions have been made for Malay Muslims who are willing to serve, said Dr Ng. “So we made and found some accommodation and started to have Malays in the navy as well, if the person is willing.”
He also reiterated that Malays now serve in the army, navy and air force, adding that with Singapore’s small population, the SAF does not discriminate against anyone and promotes its servicemen based on their ability.
“We want to get the maximum out of each person in the SAF…we are putting the best people in the best positions.”
But for sensitive positions in the military, the SAF is not blind to the fact that “people can be blackmailed”, said Dr Ng. “We ask ourselves, can we trust this person in that position to make sure he will not be made use of, that he will not be vulnerable.”
During the 90-minute forum, the Defence minister also fielded other questions including women doing National Service and how to make it more meaningful to serve the country.
A prominent human rights lawyer in Singapore staged a protest on Saturday, taking to a city park to denounce what he called unfair treatment by the Law Society which has suspended him from practicing for medical reasons.
The lawyer, known as M Ravi, has defended several critics of the government and has fought for gay rights and against capital punishment.
“I would like to protest against the Law Society’s oppressive, arbitrary, discriminatory and inappropriate manner in which they have suspended me,” Ravi said.
The Law Society of Singapore said it was concerned about the state of Ravi’s mental health which it said impaired his fitness to practise law. The society has asked him to have a medical test or evaluation.
Ravi dismissed any worries about his health.
The Law Society said the decision had nothing to do with Ravi’s political views, the clients he has represented or his stated intention to stand for parliament in the next general election.
Myth:
The TC Secretary and its General Manager, who are the main directors and shareholders of the Managing Agent (MA) are freely being given contracts without tender and paying themselves handsomely without accountability.
Fact:
The MA has no decision-making power in relation to the award of tenders. Tenders are awarded by a Tenders & Contracts Committee consisting of Members of Parliament and appointed Councillors with no interest whatsoever in the MA.
The MA is not involved in evaluating any tender in which it is participating. When the MA and EMSU (essential maintenance services unit) tenders are involved, the MA is excluded from the deliberations.
Myth:
AHPETC has shown disrespect to auditors or Parliament for not submitting documents as requested.
Fact:
Throughout the audit, thousands of documents were provided. For example, more than 16,481 payment vouchers were produced.
In Appendix C of the AGO report (p.3, Attachment 2), Members will see there is just one out of 22 requests outstanding. In Attachment 3, just three out of 75 are outstanding.
Myth:
The Secretary and General Manager issued invoices, certified work done and approved and signed cheques to FMSS. Appendix C Attachment 1 and its total amount for 84 invoices of $6.6 million has been the subject of a front page headline on 9 February 2015. The Lian He Wan Bao headline entitled: “TC Secretary and GM pay their own company $6.6 million”
Fact:
The TC adopted an SOP on 8 September 2011, soon after the new management took over.
It was the policy that no cheque to FMSS, of whatever amount, could be issued unless either the TC Chairman or one of the Vice-Chairmen co-signed the cheque.
Thus, it was not possible for FMSS to pay itself unless authorised by the TC Chair or Vice-Chair, who have no interest in FMSS whatsoever.
Myth:
In the TC’s audit for FY 12, our auditors put in a disclaimer that because the project management fee details were not disclosed in the Financial Statements, they were unable to determine the completeness of the related party disclosures
Fact:
There was no clarity of practice in the financial statements of Town Councils. For instance, the same auditors audited us in FY 11, and only required a related party disclosure of the MA fees. The former Aljunied Town Council management also had related parties, and yet there were no related party transaction disclosures in Financial Statements, which had no disclaimers.
