Category: Sosial

Opposition Heavyweights Lend Support To Dr Tan Cheng Bock’s Constitutional Challenge

Lim Tean, Tan Kin Lian, Syafarin Sarif and I had started the initiative to publish a Non-Partisan Joint Statement in support of Dr Tan Cheng Bock’s challenge of the Constitutional change to enforce Reserved Elected Presidency based on dubious grounds.

We wanted a Non-Partisan Joint Statement basically because we feel that this is an important matter which should include private individuals, other than politicians.

You can add your name to this Joint Statement by sharing it in your Facebook. Let the Force be with us.

Please join us to stop the emasculation of our Constitution! To support please like, share & comment. Also message me if you want your name added to the bottom of the statement and I will do so.

JOINT STATEMENT MAY 11TH 2017….
The written Constitution of Singapore should be a repository of the most cherished values we hold as a people and also a bulwark of our venerable institutions.

Sadly, our Constitution has been subject to numerous attacks over the years .The recent episode over changes to the Elected Presidency Scheme is the latest demonstration of such an attack.

There was never a call by any Singaporean of any ethnic group for our next President to be a Malay. If race is an important element in the choosing of an elected President, it beggars belief that it did not surface as an issue during the period when the time scheme was first conceived and the interlude of almost 7 years until it was passed into law. The scheme was not cobbled together hurriedly as has been suggested, thereby necessitating substantial changes at this time. The scheme was first mooted by Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew as far back as 15 April 1984 during a walkabout in his Tanjong Pagar Constituency, and again brought up by him during his National Day Rally speech on 19 August that year. There was intense media and public interest in the issue. On 29 July 1988, then First Deputy Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong introduced the first White Paper on the proposed scheme in Parliament. There were changes and amendments made and a second White Paper was introduced on 27 August 1990. Following a lengthy debate during the second reading of the resultant Bill on 4 October 1990, a 12-member select committee, which included key cabinet ministers was appointed to look into issues and make recommendations. The committee’s report was presented to Parliament on 18 December 1990 and, on 3 January 1991 the Bill was passed into law .

Moreover, by 1988, the PAP had introduced the Group Representation Constituencies ( GRCs ) into the Parliamentary electoral system in Singapore. Race is the very foundation of the GRC system, as all Singaporeans are aware of.

In the years following the last Presidential election of 2011, no PAP member ever expressed any concern that too many years had passed without Singapore having a Malay President until the issue surfaced in the President’s speech, opening Parliament in January 2016. If this issue is of such grave national importance as the PAP and the Prime Minister have made it out to be, why was this issue not put before the Singapore people in the last General Elections held in September 2015? And why has this issue not been put before the Singapore people in a referendum?

The PAP euphemistically termed the changes made as a “refreshment “of the Scheme in the President’s speech. In reality, they amount to an over-arching arrangement to kill off competition so that the favoured candidate of the PAP will triumph at the next Presidential election. It tarnishes the institution of the Elected President which is supposed to be part of the “two-key “mechanism designed to safeguard Singapore’s financial reserves and the integrity of our civil service. It is a betrayal of their proclaimed ideal of meritocracy which calls for the best person to be elected to the position of President, and it is a desecration of the Singapore pledge penned by one of their founders S. Rajaratnam – in which Singaporeans pledge themselves as one united people regardless of race, language and religion to build a democratic society.

We have come together as a group of concerned Singaporeans, from diverse walks in life and from a wide political spectrum, to ask Singaporeans to stand up and to protect our Constitution from constant manipulation by the PAP government to suit their selfish political needs.

We are pleased to note that Dr Tan Cheng Bock has mounted a judicial challenge to the constitutionality of the next Presidential Election being a reserved election. Even if it is now the law that there must be a reserved election for a particular racial group if no one from that group has been President after 5 continuous terms, it is clear to everyone of us that only the Presidential election of 2023 need be a reserved election. The next Presidential election in September this year should be an open election as there have been only 4 elected Presidents since the Elected Presidency scheme came into effect, with Mr Ong Teng Cheong being our first elected President. We do not know of any ordinary Singaporean who has taken an opposing view.

Since the PAP Government insists that the upcoming Presidential election is a reserved election under the Presidential Elections (Amendment) Act 2017, the burden was on them to explain to the Singapore people the basis of their decision. It was incumbent upon them to produce the advice which they said they had obtained from the Attorney-General, which formed the basis of their decision. This is no different to a judge having to give his reasons for a decision made by him. It was important for the Government to have made known the reasoning behind the Attorney-General’s advice because the Attorney-General’s advice does not constitute the law of the land and is open to challenge by way of Judicial Review.
Finally, we note from Dr Tan Cheng Bock’s statement issued after he had filed the proceedings in Court that Lord Pannick QC, the most renown British Constitutional lawyer of his generation, whom Dr Tan consulted, is of the opinion that section 22 of the Presidential Elections (Amendment) Act 2017, which makes the upcoming Presidential election a reserved one, is unconstitutional . That means that in Lord Pannick QC’s opinion, the advice of the Attorney-General was wrong. We must now await the determination of this issue by the Supreme Court.

11th May 2017
Lim Tean, Goh Meng Seng, Syafarin Sarif, Tan Kin Lian. Dolly Peh, Firros Rajah, Steven Goh, Brad Bowyer, William Wallace, Robert Teh, Jafri Basron, Sukhdev Singh Gill, Michael Dorai, Singaram Padmanathan, Mohammad Saqib, Hong Ht, Sohibo Netads, Kelvin Law Chee Ming, Leslie Terh, C Sing Ow, Kenneth Chan, Simon Lim, Abdul Salim Harun, Soonkin Chew, Roy Boey, Ng Fark Yew, Kelvin Ong, Bernard Riio, Derek Tan, Danny Ng, Raymond CH Chan, Keith Ong, Lee Anthony, Anne Lim, Andrew Wong, David Koh, Niki Ng, Yeu Yong Teo, Stanley Goh, Ricky Lim, Richard Sim, Michael Wong K E, Sarah Lim, RockinAngels Patrick, Gloria Siew, Tan Seng Hoo, Mani Maran, Robert Teo, Simon Chong, Sue Ryan, Goh Chok Chai Ricky, Low SK, Ravi Velu, Kelvin Cheong, Wong Sunny, Alvina Khoo, Liao Bo Tan, Wong YY, AK Tan, Sandra Goh, David Wee, Ashura Chia, Alan Anthony, Issaro Poh, Hmy Shaharudin, Gillian Chan, Cheyenne Cherokee Sioux, Raymond Tham, Sajeev Kamalasanan, Johan Teh, Abdul Kadir Md Noor, Henry Tan, Christopher Chin, Andre l,Chia, Ronald Koh, Gilbert Louis, Robert Guo, Oh Bock Thin, Simon Loke, still updating….

Source: Goh Meng Seng

May 12, 2017
Mat Jailed For Having Sex With Underage Girlfriend Even When She Was 7 Months Pregnant

Despite being told by his 15-year-old girlfriend that she was pregnant, Muhammad Nur Shafiq Mohamed Noor, 22, dismissed her fears and continued to have sex with her, a district court heard.

This went on even when she was about seven months pregnant.

On Thursday (May 11), Nur Shafiq was jailed for 18 months after he pleaded guilty to three of 13 charges of sexual penetration of a minor between November 2015 and May last year.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Kavita Uthrapathy said the victim and Nur Shafiq became acquainted through mutual friends towards the end of October 2015. They subsequently became a couple.

On Nov 4 and 5 that year, he said he wanted to have sex with her but she rejected him. She had told him she was 15.

But he persisted and she gave in when they met again on Nov 10. He took her to an HDB block in New Upper Changi Road where he had unprotected sex with her at a staircase landing. They had sex again the next day at the same place.

Sometime during end-January 2016, she missed her period and suspected she was pregnant. She told Nur Shafiq but he said she was just “late”, and continued to have unprotected sex with her.

Feeling unsettled, she did a urine test in early February which confirmed her pregnancy.

Nur Shafiq did not believe she was pregnant even when she showed him the pregnancy test stick.

Although she did another test with the same result, he still refused to believe her and continued to have sex with her.

On March 28, the teen met him and his mother at a clinic where her pregnancy was confirmed. Although she agreed with Nur Shafiq’s mother to have an abortion, the doctor at the clinic said she had to go to KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital (KKH) as she was in an advanced stage of pregnancy.

She was admitted to KKH on April 8 where it was confirmed that she was about 24 weeks pregnant.

About a month later, Nur Shafiq again asked to have sex with the girl while walking around Novena Square. She was then about seven months pregnant.

He took her to the basement carpark of the nearby Mount Elizabeth Hospital and had unprotected sex with her.

Two months later, the victim gave birth to a girl, who has been placed on foster care as the teen is unable to care for her child.

DPP Kavita had sought 10 months’ jail on each of the charges in view of the aggravating factors.

District Judge Wong Li Tein sentenced him to nine months’ jail on each charge, and ordered two sentences to run consecutively. She said the only mitigating factor was that he was young.

The maximum penalty for sexual penetration of a person under 16 years old is 10 years’ jail and a fine.

Source: www.straitstimes.com

May 12, 2017
Local Football Fan: FAS Please Save Our S-League, Stop Farcical Banner-Size Limitation

Warning: Long and sad post ahead, read at own peril

Glad I made the impromptu decision to go down to Choa Chu Kang Stadium to watch Warriors FC take on Hougang United this evening. I have always been very envious of the unwavering and fervent support shown by the Hougang United fans (Hougang United FC Supporters’ Club, affectionately known as the “Hougang Hools”) towards their players, and even ex-players.

Tonight was no different – from start to end, the singing, the chanting, the beating of the drums never stopped. “Satu hati, satu Hougang” was the cry – “One heart, One Hougang”, in Bahasa Melayu. “COME ON HOUGANG, COME ON HOUGANG!”

I didn’t join in. After all, I am a Home United fan, and it would be weird to cheer Hougang on so enthusiastically and chant with the Hools.

Look at the picture featured in this post. You will see a bunch of banners belonging to the Hougang Hools, who had made their way to the game a couple of hours before kick-off, and painstakingly hung them up by one by one. You will also notice that none of the posters are obstructing the view of the fans, given that they were hung over a ledge.

So there the Hools were, chanting their lungs out, having a good time, especially after Fumiya Kogure had scrambled the ball home from a few metres out for a precious 1-0 lead against the much-fancied Warriors, who had ex-Dutch and Greek League player Joel Tshibamba in attack.

Enter CCK Stadium security personnel. Two men came down and spoke to one of the Hougang Hools, telling him to remove the banners. They cited stadium rules and FAS regulations, and said that the maximum size of flags and banners allowed to be brought in was 1m x 1m. To say the Hougang supporters were annoyed is an understatement.

They felt that there was no reasonable basis for such a rule, given that these banners had been brought all over Singapore to other S-League grounds, without incident. In fact, stadium personnel at Jalan Besar Stadium, right where the FAS Headquarters are located, had no similar objections to such banners. They also repeatedly asked security personnel whose view they were obstructing. The security personnel had no response to this rather valid question.

Things were getting heated, so I decided to step in and break up what I perceived as increasing hostility between parties. I immediately told the security personnel that I was not a Hougang supporter, and that I was only trying to help. I asked them to show me where they got the rule of 1m x 1m from – they could not answer. So there was this farcical moment where all of us whipped out our mobile phones and tried to verify if this was indeed an FAS regulation.

“You see the FAS website, it’s there.” It wasn’t. The FAS website is by no means a great source of current information, but that’s another complaint for another day.

I told the security personnel I understood that their hands were tied, but asked if they could “close one eye” just for today, and then both parties could write in to clarify if the rule applied to banners from supporters’ clubs that did not obstruct anyone’s view. They said they would have to escalate it, but they understood the point I was trying to make.

I returned to my seat and thought that was the end of it. 10 minutes later, a club official by the name of Eugene, came down and asked to talk to me. Eugene was exceedingly polite, and I think this situation could have been so much worse if Eugene had been more abrasive in his interactions with the Hougang supporters. Eugene explained to me and some of the Hougang Hools that rules are rules, and that this came from an FAS directive at the start of the season, which FAS came up with in consultation with the Singapore Police Force.

After much debate and some angst, a compromise was reached – Eugene promised he would raise this issue in the post-match report, and seek clarification. For this match, since it was coming to an end, he wouldn’t ask for the banners to be removed. A happy ending of sorts.

Given that I took on the role of a pseudo-mediator in this dispute, I had to try to maintain some neutrality when I was there. While I pushed for proof that such a rule existed, and asked for its rationale, I also ensured that I re-directed some of the angst away from the security personnel, because at the end of the day, they were just doing their jobs. In my mind, I felt they could have been more flexible, but they were not doing anything wrong. I didn’t want things to get ugly.

Now that I am at home though, I would just like to say that I think this is farcical, and puts our league in a terrible light.

1m x 1m. The maximum size of a flag or banner printed to support your team.

To offer some perspective, that means if you were at a stadium to watch an international game between Singapore and say, Japan, in a crucial World Cup / Asian Cup qualifier, you would not be allowed to bring your Singapore flag along.

Let that sink in for a bit.

Now, look at the picture again. The banners were draped over a ledge. The supporters would be seated in the blue area you see in the picture. Exactly who is being blocked by the banners / flags? With respect, I cannot think of a reason for limiting the size of such banners. Perhaps, the original intention of the rule was to prevent fans from making huge banners and then lifting them up while in the stands, obstructing the view of others. If so, then perhaps some clarification from FAS, or some flexibility from security personnel, or club officials is necessary.

This has been a very long post, so let me just end by saying this: I think it is sad, that in a dying domestic league suffering from a dwindling number of supporters, supporters (who are not paid for this, mind you) are not allowed to express themselves fully, and add to the colour of the league.

I think it is sad, that in a dying domestic league suffering from a complete lack of atmosphere in certain games, you have a band of fans who are easily the most committed and the loudest in the league, and officials try to dampen their spirits.

And I think it is incredibly sad, that when I assured the Hools that I would write in to FAS to seek clarification, and also to ask that such banners be allowed, some of them told me not to waste my time. Is that borne out of a lack of faith that even after the elections, nothing is going to change, and our league is gonna die a gradual death?

I hope not, and I will do everything in my power to ensure it doesn’t happen. But I am only one man, so I urge everyone reading this (if you’re still reading this, haha) to come down and watch an S-League game sometime. Noone to go with? Just give me a shout and I’ll gladly accompany you if I have the time. Eddy not free? Just go down and make new friends!

So, Football Association of Singapore, please do something. I have faith in the new administration. Come together with the supporters. Let’s save our S-League.

Source: Eddy Hirono

May 12, 2017
Would You Pay $12.80 For This Nasi Lemak?

What? $12.80 for a plate of nasi lemak! That’s crazy!”

That is a common response you’d get about this popular coconut rice meal, usually served with sambal.

Chef Lee Eng Su, who worked in chic French restaurants around the world before opening The Coconut Club here, found inspiration from the Kuala Lumpur-style nasi lemak in Village Park Restaurant in Damansara.

The place was said to be frequented by former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad.

Chef Lee found a recipe online, tweaked it, and that was the start of his success story.

Six months after The Coconut Club’s opening late last year, queues can still be seen every day.

I visited The Coconut Club an hour before closing on a Saturday afternoon, and there was still a queue at the door.

Apart from the crispy chicken, Chef Lee’s sambal was also outstanding. There was a kick to it despite its sweet undertone at first taste. The chilli-sting crept up on me and lingered for a while.

The rice was fluffy, loose and did not have too much lemak as it was meant to be enjoyed with roasted peanuts, crispy ikan bilis, fried chicken (ayam goreng berempah), fried sunny side up egg and a few slices of Thai cucumber.

Sides are available, and I was told some were off-menu, so you just have to ask for the daily specials.

The Coconut Club is an appealing addition to the growing hipster cafe scene in Singapore.

The place has a kopitiam-style kopi bar, and a raised centrepiece community table in the middle that lends an undulating multi-level look to the organised hipster chaos.

Chef Lee (below) said he “spent a bomb on renovations”, and though the place looks good, The Coconut Club is jam-packed because of the nasi lemak and the honest, frank service, and nothing else.

Source: www.tnp.sg

May 11, 2017
Koh Eng Khoon – A Man Undeterred

While the police raid on Mr Koh Eng Khoon’s one-room rental flat on 29 April leaves some questions to be answered, Mr Koh himself is unperturbed, as he told The Independent (TISG).

The police action came after letters were sent to the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, with hell notes attached, expressing disappointment with the upcoming closure of the Sungei Road flea market.

The letters had been signed off with Mr Koh’s name.

“Don’t forget the 200 people and supporters. We only ask for this place. That’s not much,” wrote the letter which was signed off by “Koh Eng Khoon (Friend)”.

The raid, which reportedly took place around midnight, caught Mr Koh by surprise. When asked by the police if he had sent the letters, Mr Koh denied having done so. He has also since made a police report about the use of his name.

“The police took photos, searched my things and opened my cupboards,” he told the media. “They asked if I knew how to write in English but I don’t. I didn’t even know about the existence of such a letter.”

Mr Koh, who heads the Association for the Recycling of Second Hand Goods, said he is “not at all” deterred by the incident.

“I am doing the right thing,” he told TISG. “I am speaking for the voices of 200 old people. Nobody would speak out if I am intimidated. As long as there is room for further negotiations, I would not call it quits.”

He said that the process of trying to engage the authorities has been a bitter and hopeless one for him. He is disappointed that during the planning process for Sungei Road, for example, the 200 vendors’ views were never sought. He has, to date, sent many letters to the authorities, including to PM Lee, the NEA and other ministers, only to be met with silence, he said.

Mr Koh, 76, along with some friends and supporters, has been campaigning for an alternative site from the government for the vendors to continue their trade. His effort so far, however, has been met with rejection from the authorities.

“The government is suggesting that we go through further education,” Mr Koh said. “How is that even possible for uneducated old people? I feel cheated by their proposed solutions. We have worked for employers enough. It’s time to work for our interests within our limited capability and resources.”

Mr Koh tells TISG that his Member of Parliament, Tin Pei Ling, had paid him a visit and offered him help with his necessities. Mr Koh said he declined the offer as he does not require such help.

The authorities, including the NEA and the Ministry of Social Development and Family, have also extended assistance to the stall owners in Sungei Road, including offering to help them obtain hawker stalls.

Out of those who play their trade at the flea market, however, only 5 have taken up hawker stalls, Mr Koh said.

He explained that setting up and running a hawker stall is not cheap, and that they would not be selling secondhand goods if they could afford the rents of hawker stalls.

The Sungei Road flea market, on the other hand, is a rent-free place to cater to the elderly who even have difficulty to finance their household utilities bills.

Supporters have taken to petition campaigns to try and change the fate of the flea market, but it is unlikely to move the authorities’ position on the matter.

As for the letters sent to the PM and the DPM, the police have arrested two persons suspected to be involved in the incident.

Some have questioned the police action against Mr Koh, and asked if it was appropriate for the authorities to raid his home and seize his handphone simply based, apparently, on a letter with his name on it.

The police visit, Mr Koh said, had startled his wife, who had been sleeping in the room.

Since there was apparently no evidence to link Mr Koh to the letters, could the police have instead requested that he went down to the police station the next day to help with investigations, instead of raiding his home at midnight?

Was there a need to pay him a visit so late in the night, especially considering that Mr Koh and his wife are both senior citizens?

Could anyone be put through the same situation if his or her name was used by others for nefarious purposes?

Mr Koh, when asked if he is upset that his name was used in such a way, said he is not.

“In a way, I am glad because it brought publicity to the issue we have been campaigning on,” he said. “Until this incident, not much publicity was given to our cause.”

Source: www.theindependent.sg

May 11, 2017