Category: Sosial

  • Bernard Chen: Lee Kuan Yew Would Not Have Approved Of Malay President Through Affirmative Action

    Bernard Chen: Lee Kuan Yew Would Not Have Approved Of Malay President Through Affirmative Action

    The PAP turns 62 today. A week ago, they spoke up for and stood by affirmative action, the very principle that its founding members fought against, every tooth and every nail. The irony passes them by as they legitimises it with an overwhelming vote in Parliament.

    Unlike affirmative action apologists, the late Lee Kuan Yew would never rush into positions for appearance sake. He would have turned in his grave, literally and metaphorically. He took what he saw as a Malaysian Malaysian, put everything on the line and took us out of a merger that he had so vehemently believed in. The conviction in their spirits then, soulless today. The PAP of 2016 turned their back on what the pioneer generation believed, the same generation whom they had so profusely thanked in 2015. We the younger ones were asked to learn from our pioneers. They have clearly forgotten all of that today.

    I grew up being told by my PAP leaders that affirmative action is not what Singapore believes in. Look at Malaysia, affirmative action. Singapore wants none of that. Now we have affirmative action delivered on a plate by that parliamentary majority. Sad, none of the sitting MPs thought that this was so so wrong. None. And they say they have the interests of Singapore at heart. The temerity, the audacity, the tragedy of it all.

    Today, we have nothing but this obscurantist doctrine, reinforced by the sitting Minister for Malay-Muslim affairs. Simply to get a ceremonial position for a Malay and their problem as a community will be resolved. This is no different as how easily a bill gets passed in a parliament heavily skewed in the favour of these new apologists. The whole clan [and parliament] celebrates. It was not too long ago they call members on the other side of the spectrum chauvinists and discredit them with the might of the machinery.

    They clutched at straws but wielded the stick with the blank cheque they were given. The recent amendments to the Constitution is an indictment of how far the PAP had deviated from their beliefs and founding principles. Just cut the rhetoric. This is a totally different party today, from what it was in 1954.

    With you, for you, for Singapore. The hypocrisy. The PAP of 2016. Happy 62nd Birthday, the leviathan that is the PAP. Barely recognisable from the one that ushered in independent Singapore in 1965.

    The next time, when you say you believe in the PAP, remember to opt yourself out from that affirmative action that is now a part of the PAP’s DNA. Guilt by association, as they say.

    Source: Chen Jiaxi Bernard

  • Walid J. Abdullah: What Would Malay Community Feel About Affirmative Action-President?

    Walid J. Abdullah: What Would Malay Community Feel About Affirmative Action-President?

    Some people have made the point that having a Malay president would be a good sign to the rest of the world, and that when people of other countries see a Malay as a President of a non-Malay majority country, it looks good for both Malays and Singapore. Which is a fair point.

    However, looking at the matter a bit deeper, one could perhaps see some flaws in that line of argumentation. Firstly, how many non-Singaporeans really care about (the ethnicity of) our President? And secondly, for those who do, would they not be aware that the President was there by legislation, and not after a fair electoral battle with people of other ethnicities?

    But more importantly, the Presidency – it needs to be reiterated – is a symbolic, ceremonial post: not one with significant powers. Having a Malay Foreign Minister, one who deals with other countries perhaps only less than the Prime Minister, would be a far greater achievement, for example. A Minister, in a parliamentary system like Singapore’s, wields more influence and has more responsibilities than the head of state.
    (Incidentally, most of our Foreign Ministers have been Indian, perhaps to highlight the avowed multi-racial nature of our nation.)

    And i cannot help but wonder how the non-Malays in our country would actually feel about the President. Would they have genuine respect for that person, or would they – consciously or otherwise – feel that she, err i mean he/she, is there only because of affirmative action.

     

    Source: Walid J.Abdullah

  • Saudi Government To Enforce Ban On Transgender People Performing Umrah

    Saudi Government To Enforce Ban On Transgender People Performing Umrah

    KARACHI: The Saudi government has enforced a ban forbidding transgender people from performing Umrah, reported Geo News on Tuesday.

    Transgender people particularly those willing to visit holy land with an aim to perform Umrah would not be issued travel visa.

    Saudi Consul General is said to have issued a notification in this regard, according to Geo News.

    Travel Agents Association of Pakistan has also been informed about the decision taken by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

    Motive for the ban was not immediately known.

     

    Source: www.thenews.com.pk

  • Singapore Must Conduct Scientific Study To Ascertain Threat Of Cannabis, In Light Of Increasing Legalisation In Other Countries

    Singapore Must Conduct Scientific Study To Ascertain Threat Of Cannabis, In Light Of Increasing Legalisation In Other Countries

    Hi guys, with many states and countries legalizing Cannabis, doesn’t it cast some doubts if Cannabis is really as dangerous as we are led to believe?

    mohamed-firdaus-cannabis

    Is Singapore really that arrogant to believe that our punishment for Cannabis being death is straight and true with no shadow of a doubt and that all these other bigger countries is simply wrong.

    Wouldn’t it make sense to at the very least suspend the death penalty for Cannabis while conducting a scientific inquiry (maybe through NUS) to find out if Cannabis really is scientifically dangerous.

    Death penalty is something serious to leave it “maybe dangerous, maybe not dangerous.”

     

    Source: Mohamed Firdaus in Singapore Anti Death Penalty Campaign

  • Singapore Voted Against UN’s Sexual Orientation And Gender Identity (SOGI) Mandate Safeguard

    Singapore Voted Against UN’s Sexual Orientation And Gender Identity (SOGI) Mandate Safeguard

    Eight Latin American Countries (LAC 8) countered an African Group’s hostile resolution on the United Nations Human Rights Council Annual Report (specifically targeted at the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Independent (SOGI) Expert Mandate) and submitted an amendment in supporting and preserving the mandate.

    84 countries voted in favour of the LAC 8 amendment leading to the failure of the hostile resolution and dissipation of the immediate threat against the establishment of the SOGI Independent Expert. 77 countries voted against the amendment and Singapore is one of them.
    1

    The following is a press release on the topic by Outright Action International.


    21 November 2016 (New York) — The United Nations mandate of the Independent Expert on sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) has been safeguarded despite hostile contestation at the 71st Session of the 3rd Committee of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York City.

    LGBTIQ activists and organizations around the world quickly mobilized to voice their concerns on the implications of the hostile resolution to national governments as well as at the United Nations headquarters in New York. A joint statement endorsed by 850 organizations from 157 countries around the world, highlighted the need for states to respect the authority of the Human Rights Council and to vote in favour of upholding the SOGI Independent Expert mandate.

    ‘A lot can be accomplished when forces join hands. We are encouraged by this voting result and in the confirmation that States believe in the mechanisms of the Human Rights Council. It is vital that the integrity of the Human Rights Council remains intact and is not further undermined in the Third Committee,’ stated Jessica Stern, Executive Director, OutRight Action International, the only US based LGBTIQ organization with consultative status at the United Nations.’

    The SOGI Independent Expert position on the ‘Protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation, and gender identity (SOGI),’ was mandated by the passing of a historic resolution A/HRC/RES/32/2 on June 30 of this year, and is held by Vitit Muntarbhorn, a human rights expert from Thailand. A campaign of 628 nongovernmental organizations from 151 countries advocated for the adoption of the resolution and for the establishment of the position.

    In early November, Botswana, on behalf of the African Group, presented a hostile resolution on the Human Rights Council Annual Report, specifically targeting the SOGI Independent Expert Mandate. The resolution contested the legality of the creation of the mandate, essentially arguing that SOGI are not universally recognized as human rights and are not codified in international law. The resolution called for an indefinite postponement of the mandate until consensus could be reached on the definition of SOGI and the legal basis to which the mandate was created, the African Group statement read,

    ‘We are alarmed that the Council is delving into matters which fall essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of States counter to the commitment in the United Nations Charter to respect the sovereignty of States and the principle of non-intervention. More importantly, it arises owing to the ominous usage of the two notions: sexual orientation and gender identity. We wish to state that those two notions are not and should not be linked to existing international human rights instruments.’

    In response to the African Group resolution, submitted by Botswana, Monica Tabengwa, Botswana human rights activist and director of Pan Africa ILGA commented,

    ‘We are deeply disappointed that Botswana led this fallacious move by the Africa Group to remove gains at the HRC to include SOGI protections within the existing human rights framework. Let us remind everyone that the SOGI mandate is about real people and their right to secure lives, to be free of violence and discrimination and that these lives can’t be postponed or deferred indefinitely. We deserve more from our governments.’

    The SOGI Independent Expert was created after adoption of a resolution in the Human Rights Council in June 2016, initiated by seven Latin American countries, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico and Uruguay. They, plus El Salvador (LAC 8), countered the African Group’s attempt to postpone the mandate by introducing an amendment to the resolution deleting the hostile paragraph.

    An explanatory note provided by the eight Latin American countries on their submitted amendment in support of preserving the SOGI mandate and the integrity of the HRC reads,

    ‘The seriousness of the consequences (…) lies in the fact that never before has a country or group of countries attempted to challenge a special procedures mandate by the Human Rights Council with an appointed and fully functioning mandate holder. (…) If the General Assembly reopens the Council’s annual report and use a selective approach to which resolution it seeks to block or defer indefinitely it would fundamentally undermine the authority granted to the Council by the General Assembly, thus having far reaching implications well beyond the specific resolution under consideration.’

    While all 193 countries in the UN General Assembly had the right to vote, only 178 exercised their vote, resulting in the passing of the LAC 8 amendment, leading to the failure of the hostile resolution and dissipation of the immediate threat against the establishment of the SOGI Independent Expert. In total, 84 countries voted in favor of the LAC 8 amendment, 77 voted against the amendment, and 17 countries abstained from voting.

    LGBTIQ civil society in the Asia and the Pacific region have vocalized their support for the SOGI Independent Expert, hoping that a representative from the region would help progress protections for people of diverse sexual orientation and gender identity. In response to the voting, Ryan Silverio, Regional Coordinator for the ASEAN SOGIE Caucus said,

    ‘Today we are reminded of the fundamental mission of the Council, and the UN’s commitment to promote human rights and equality for all. We are encouraged by the open dialogue with ASEAN member states in the lead up of the vote, and are particularly thankful to Thailand for showing leadership to protecting this mandate,’

    The failure of the proposed hostile resolution is significant not only because it reinstates the authority of the Human Rights Council, but it also allows forward movement on the work of the SOGI Independent Expert- a crucial stride in the UN’s commitment towards protecting the universality of human rights, especially for vulnerable communities. It reinforces the notion that people cannot be left behind and states must protect all people from discrimination and violence without exception.

    ‘The SOGI Independent Expert position is vital in bringing to light the horrific acts of violence and discrimination many people face because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. These abuses happen everywhere; no region or country is immune to them. Having concrete documentation showing the consequences of homophobia and transphobia on the lives of people and recommendations on how to address these challenges from an HRC Special Procedure mandate holder will help states take responsibility to protect LGBTIQ persons. It will be much harder to ignore the facts,’ commented Micah Grzywnowicz, trans activist and international advocacy advisor at RFSL, the Swedish Federation for LGBTIQ Rights.’

    While the hostile resolution did not pass today, civil society has warned that future attempts to stop the progress of the SOGI Independent Expert are not out of the question.

    The Expert will be tasked with assessing implementation of existing international human rights law, identifying best practices and gaps, raising awareness of violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, engaging in dialogue and consultation with States and other stakeholders, and facilitating provision of advisory services, technical assistance, capacity-building and cooperation to help address violence and discrimination on these grounds.

    ‘As always, the fight continues to ensure that States don’t cherry pick which human rights to protect. We must continue to be vigilant and to mobilize to ensure that universality and non-discrimination triumphs at all levels. We must also ensure that we are working together to create change which will benefit all LGBTIQ people. Safeguarding human rights principles remains prime to peace and security for all people everywhere, anytime,’ said Steve Letsike, Director of Access Chapter 2, a South African LGBTIQ human rights organization.’

     

    Source: http://theindependent.sg

deneme bonusu