Rilek1Corner

Category: Politik

  • Bekas ketua AMP, Nizam Ismail hutang bank $118,000

    601740_193213774159992_1813734266_n

    nizam1carNizam1racing

     

    A FORMER director of the Association of Muslim Professionals (AMP) has failed to get a court order to stop the taxman from coming after him to make good on tax arrears totalling $117,716.

    If Mr Mohd Nizam Ismail does not meet the statutory demand to settle his debt, bankruptcy proceedings can be started against him.

    But this worry has been allayed for the 46-year-old lawyer and former deputy public prosecutor for now, having reached a settlement with the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (Iras).

    He said through his lawyer See Chern Yang last night, that the “parties have reached a mutually acceptable arrangement out of court”.

    Mr Nizam, who has been working as a lawyer drawing $18,000 a month since last July, is a civil society activist who stepped down from the AMP last April. The statutory demand relates to unpaid taxes for three years from 2010.

    Mr Nizam argued that he had worked out an instalment agreement with the Iras in March last year, which it was trying to back out of. He said he had kept to an instalment plan in 2012 but was retrenched in January 2013. That made payments difficult until he came to a new agreement with the taxman two months later.

    But High Court assistant registrar Janice Wong said in judgment grounds released yesterday that she found the agreement “unworkable” and so unclear as to make it void. She said the deal was for parties to meet and reach a “reasonable agreement” on future instalments after the initial two-month period, during which he made part payments. But there was no agreed criteria or clarity as to what would amount to a “reasonable agreement”.

    It would be “odd” to expect the taxman to “hold his hands” until a “reasonable agreement” had been reached, she added.

    She noted the Comptroller had repeatedly made clear in letters from May 2 onwards that enforcement action would be taken if Mr Nizam did not settle the arrears.

    Ms Wong further rejected Mr Nizam’s claim that he relied on the agreement with the taxman as he had other financial obligations such as the maintenance of his ex-wife and children, and the payment of friendly loans.

    She said: “He fought off the most pressing fires by borrowing money to pay off those creditors. (He) must have known that in relation to the debt owed to the (Comptroller), he could buy some time, but actions to recover the debt would ultimately be brought against him.”

    By July, he was a law partner earning $18,000 a month, she said. In August, the Comptroller had offered to allow him a final payment plan of $13,000 a month, which would clear the debt by September this year.

    But he had countered with monthly payments of $6,000 to end in November next year.

    The Comptroller rejected the proposal in October, pointing to the long-outstanding tax arrears and the many attempts to accommodate Mr Nizam. The statutory demand then followed.

    Responding to queries, an Iras spokesman said yesterday that over the past five years, there have been only three applications including this one to set aside a statutory demand and all were rejected by the courts.

    “We will take appropriate actions to recover the outstanding taxes owed by the taxpayer to the State,” he added.

    K.C Vijayan for The Straits Times

    Source: Straits Times © Singapore Press Holdings Ltd

  • Dalam Kenangan – Mohd Isa bin Abdul Aziz

    Al-Fatehah.

    Salah seorang ahli Jawatankuasa Eksekutif Pusat daripada Parti Demokratik Singapura (SDP), Allahyarham Mohd Isa bin Abdul Aziz, telah meninggal dunia akibat sakit buah pinggang kelmarin.

    Allahyarham telah menyertai SDP pada akhir 1980-an. Allahyarham telah dicalonkan SDP dalam pilihan raya 2011 untuk bertanding di Sembawang GRC. Walaupun dia sakit, dia masih menyertai aktiviti-aktiviti SDP seperti tinjauan mesra dan lawatan rumah.

    Allahyarham pernah ditahan tanpa bicara di bawah Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri (ISA) pada 1980-an.

    Allahyarham meninggalkan isterinya, Puan Norjan dan tiga orang anak – Naajia, Daanaa dan Asif.

    Salam takziah kepada keluarga Allahyarham Mohd Isa. R1C ingin mengucapkan terima kasih kepada Allahyarham Mohd Isa bin Abdul Aziz kerana sumbangan dan usaha besar beliau selama tiga dekad dalam memperjuangkan yang terbaik untuk masyarakat Melayu Islam Singapura.

  • Is PAP the solution or the problem?

    0% of the population voted for PAP during 2011 elections. The PAP vaingloriously considers this achievement as an indication that they have gotten a HUGE majority of support from the citizens as compared to other democratic nations. As we know, this figure belies the actual truth. Taking into consideration that the climate of fear still plays a crucial role in punching up the percentage, Im pretty sure their think-tank have its own analysis as to what the actual support is.

    We had seen how support for PAP has been sliding south at each general election. Again, I’m sure they conducted extensive research on why this is happening. While the frugal Lee Kuan Yew (LKY) was very fortunate to have a docile population whom he can twiddle with his imaginary hatchet, his prodigal son, Lee Hsien Loong (LHL) had to content with an electorate equipped with plethora of information from the emergence of the social media.

    Make no mistake. The PAP has absolute control over our print media. Those who think that our newspapers provide unbiased reporting, must have been living in ‘Batu Cave’ and have no other sources of information except receiving news via a subscription plan from SPH.

    Unable to control the outflow of information which has been fastidiously guarded during LKY’s term, the people are now beginning to realise that PAP is not the solution to the problems that the country is facing. In fact, they are the problem. Policies were passed down without extensive deliberations and they are reactive rather than proactive.

    Often times, when problems start to appear, it was not promptly addressed. They make it a habit of ignoring valid small feedbacks from the public as being inconsequential. Thus problems regularly get compounded.

    Now let’s examine a few bread and butter issues to ascertain the facts on whether im blowing hot air.

    Public housing – We have seen prices skyrocketing. The scholars from PAP were the one that peg new public housing prices to the open market. This is now almost irreversible as detaching it will only have dire consequences to existing owners. What’s the solution from PAP then? Except meaningless tweaking and more taxes implemented, PAP has offered no long term solution to this predicament. In fact, they are compounding it by bringing in more immigrants without building adequate supply.

    Public transport (SMRT) – Who’s the genius one who decided to privatize our public transportation? Although this process is still reversible, it will take insane amount of tax payers’ money to nationalise it again. The citizens are now at the mercy of these big organizations as and when they decide to increase the fares. What’s the solution from PAP to keep transportation cost down? Nothing except throwing in tax payer’s money to fund part of SBS and SMRT’s expenditure to keep cost from rising while tax payers were made to pay for their mistakes. For how long are we going to inject billions of public funds to feed these big organizations?

    Healthcare – Who’s the smart aleck who created this severe brain drain of doctors in Singapore when he capped the number of students allowed to take medicine at NUS? Singapore now has to attract doctors from all over to come and practice here, paying premium salaries to them. Inevitably, part of the cost is passed on to patients. We also heard many stories of how a family is burden with hospital bills amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars after a patient is diagnosed with terminal illness. Obviously our 3M has failed to provide adequate coverage to prevent such situation from happening. What’s the solution to these?

    COE – It is now a luxury to own a car in Singapore. At the present moment, Cat A and B quota premium is $85k and $93k respectively. The main purpose of implementing the COE system was to curb vehicle population growth. It had to a certain degree met its objectives albeit at the expense of the average citizen when COE prices shoot up to almost 30 times of the median income. It’s not rocket science to know that with an impending population increase and more affluent foreigners being converted into citizens, this regressive tax system will only impose a greater burden on the poor. Being a reactive government rather than proactive one, we can expect this problem will not be approaching any solution soon.

    It’s time that citizens think critically without prejudice on various issues that is affecting Singaporeans. Many of the problems were the result of bad decisions and policies. Achieving economic success alone is never a true measure of how successful a nation is. Citizen’s welfare and well-being should be placed in tandem with any economic progress.

    PAP has shown that its problem solving skills are limited to only imposing additional taxes on the citizens without any concrete solutions. It has failed the acid test and it is now time for a new holistic government to take it over for the next lap.

    Regards,
    Osman Sulaiman

    Source: http://www.facebook.com/notes/osman-sulaiman/is-pap-the-solution-or-the-problem/10151696941793372

  • WHY ARE MALAYS SPECIAL IN SINGAPORE?

    Parliament witnessed an intense Population White Paper debate recently with 77 members voted “For”, 11 voted ‘Against” and 1 “Abstain”. It was a learning experience for young PAP leaders and opposition MPs on political process in getting sensitive policy implemented for the benefit of Singaporeans at large. The debate brought up many issues affecting Singaporeans but there was one close to my heart that many might had missed – the need to maintain the percentage of minorities especially the Malays in Singapore’s population mix. In fact, Prime Minister Lee himself in closing the debate, highlighted the issue and gave assurance to Malays that they would not be diluted http://news.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20130208-401106.html. Some might asked why was it important that Malays had to be singled out and assured that they would not be diluted, to a point that PM Lee had to reiterate PAP government’s commitment to do so?

    To shed light on the question and for the benefit of younger generation, leaders and new citizens in Singapore, we need to refer to Singapore’s Constitution that took effect on 9th August 1965 (the date we celebrate National Day every year). In the written constitution, I like to highlight Article 152 pertaining Minorities and Special Position of Malays that states:

    (1) It shall be the responsibility of the Government constantly to care for the interests of the racial and religious minorities in Singapore.
    (2) The Government shall exercise its functions in such manner as to recognize the special position of the Malays, who are the indigenous people of Singapore, and accordingly it shall be the responsibility of the Government to protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote their political, educational, religious, economic, social and cultural interests and the Malay language.

    I am very sure that not many young Singaporeans, even Malays, are well aware of this Article. Some may heard of it but not too sure why it is even written in the constitution especially in multi-racial and multi-religous society in Singapore. I feel the urge to highlight Article 152 as memory lapse may lead to our younger generation of PAP and Opposition leaders succumb to pressure to treat all races in Singapore equal and making poor decision in public policy. While every word in Singapore’s Pledge champions to treat everybody as equal, it may not be pragmatic and runs counter to the spirit of the constitution itself.

    Singapore’s constitution was written after Singapore was thrown out by Malaysia in 1965 and Malays who decided to stay on after the separation felt vulnerable. Article 152 is the pillar in the constitution to recognize Malays as the indigenous people and that the Government of the day has to protect their rights. Several interest groups and individuals – the recent one by NMP Viswa Sadasivan – attempted to challenge and question the need for Article 152 in today’s context to achieve equality for all races. The response was swift and succinct from Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew when NMP Viswa called for equal treatment for all races during one Parliament session in 2009 (http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=211512). I sense that he will not be the last individual or group calling for equal treatment for all races in Singapore and to abolish Article 152. It is important to highlight that Article 152 is not an Affirmative action and Malays do not want it to be one. They stand tall with other races to compete on all fronts, though not at the success rate that they like but they continue to strive harder and make steady improvement.

    As a Singaporean Malay, I felt reassured that PM Lee had pledged to ensure that the population percentage of Malays would not shrink in the long term. For the last 47 years PAP government had demonstrated their political willingness to uphold Article 152 and looked after the interest of Malays. And as the margin of support and votes for PAP suffers, the Malay votes will get more and more critical to determine that PAP remains as the government. Once again, the spotlight has fallen on the Malay community to decide the future of Singapore. The opposition parties, especially the Worker’s Party (WP) had their chance during the recent debate in Parliament to assure Malays of their existence in the long term, but not a word in the interest of Malays was uttered by either Low Thia Kiang or Sylvia Lim of WP . And when come to think of it, I have not heard any single manifestation or plan by WP to assure the Malays that they are special and their rights will be preserved.

    To Singaporean Malay community, I urge each and every one of you to consider carefully and support those who will continue to maintain Article 152. It is always easy to play politics to the gallery but at the end of the day, the government of the day needs to know and respect that Malays are the indigenous people of the country and that their rights will have to be preserved in the constitution.

    Source: http://uahmarican.wordpress.com/2013/02/10/why-are-malays-special-in-singapore/

  • Replacing the GRC System With Ethnic Balancing Alternative?

    The crux of the matter is that not all Singaporeans have reached a political maturity level where they will vote based on performance and not who the individual is and what ethnic group he or she is from. We are still far behind in terms of achieving an environment where Singaporeans of different political association can have a decent discussion or debate without having to stoop to a low level tactic of character assassination when we disagree. A tour of many social chat rooms discussing about politics in Singapore demonstrate how some Singaporeans embark on individual character bashing instead of debating on issues at hand without having to feel responsible for the comments they made. I believe the legal term is defamation.

    As to whether Singaporeans will vote based on performance of an individual rather than his or her race – I don’t think that will happen in the next 2 or 3 generations. Different individuals from various ethnic group will have their own personal experience dealing with other members of a different group but to illustrate my argument, I will relate my own personal experience as a Malay Singaporean. During my undergraduate years in the US, I took the initiative to set up a Singapore Society for Singapore students. From ground zero to a point where we had enough Singapore students to call for the General Meeting, I was doing all the planning and execution of setting up the entity. Being the Founder, I was nominated to be elected as Chairman of the Society and to ensure that we had a democratic process of electing the leaders of the Association, we had an election. Being the only Malay student from the group, I was not able to garner the votes I needed to be elected as Chairman and lose out to a candidate who spoke the dialect of the majority and shared many cultural commonality. To me it was an introduction to Singapore Politics 101 – be pragmatic and stop the wishful thinking that people will vote based on your credentials only. In Singapore, people voted based on the party banner and who the candidate was in terms of commonality – dialect, race and culture. Having said that I believe that there are level headed Singaporeans out there who will vote a candidate based on his/her ability and not on his/her race or ethnic group. But the numbers are just too small to make a difference. I strongly advocate that we keep the GRC system in place to ensure that Malays and other members of a minority group get voted to represent their community’s interest. The GRC system has worked well to ensure political stability and more importantly racial harmony in Singapore. To me, those outcomes are priceless compared to the rhetoric argument of giving equality to all ethnic groups – we are just not ready for it.

    Source: http://uahmarican.wordpress.com/2013/08/30/replacing-the-grc-system-with-ethnic-balancing-alternative/