Rilek1Corner

Category: Sosial

  • An Encounter With Racist Father & His Kids At Hawker Centre

    An Encounter With Racist Father & His Kids At Hawker Centre

    Dear ASS Editors,

    This is a disgusting racist encountered faced by our fellow Singaporean in the hawker center. After 50 years of multi racial harmony and nationhood, such racist still exist in Singapore. Thoroughly do not understand why parents do not correct their kids and allow such racist thinking to persist.

    This was his unfortunate encounter in full

    “Had an interesting lunch. Someone paid me $20 to move to another table because his young children don’t want to sit and share the table with ‘a Malay man’ even though I was already there eating halfway through and they were the ones who came later.

    Took the money, finished my food, and gave it to the cleaning lady instead. And told the guy what an expensive way to raise racist kids.”

    Shame on this parent who does not have the sense to teach the right values to his children. Pity the children really.

    Shazwan
    A.S.S. Contributor

     

    Source: www.allsingaporestuff.com

  • SDP Parents-CEC Members Call For Inquiry Into Benjamin Lim’s Case

    SDP Parents-CEC Members Call For Inquiry Into Benjamin Lim’s Case

    As parents of school-going children, we have been following Benjamin Lim’s case very closely. What happened to Benjamin is tragic. There are many answers the Ministry of Education owes to parents regarding the issue.

    First, shouldn’t schools be the safest place for our children to be in when they are away from home? Why did the school hand over one of its students to the police without his parents’ or school official’s presence?

    Second, schools have the responsibility to make sure children’s well-being are their top priority, even when faced with demands and pressure from the police.

    In Benjamin’s case, the school could have asked a school counsellor to accompany him to the police station. Even if the police did not allow anyone else to ride in the police vehicle with Benjamin, the school should have sent someone to drive separately to the police station and let Benjamin know that he was not alone.

    This is the whole problem with Singapore where most of us do not know our rights or question the limits of the authorities’ powers.

    Third, there was a school camp the following day which Benjamin was to attend. Students generally like attending these camps and there is no reason to believe that Benjamin was not looking forward to it. According to the family, however, the school called right after Benjamin left the police investigation to inform his mother that he will be excluded from the camp.

    If this account is true, why did the school decide to exclude Benjamin from the school camp and add to his already depressed state of mind?

    Already as a 14-year-old child facing five police officers without the presence of any familiar adult is very daunting. We will never know what went on in Benjamin’s mind when he decided to end his life that day, but his suicide is a wake up call to us.

    Let us make sure that no child ever goes through what Benjamin had to go through. This can only be achieved when an independent Commission of Inquiry is set up to determine exactly the events of his arrest and his treatment while he was under police custody. The current system does not afford adequate protection of minors.

    We owe it to Benjamin and his grieving family to seek justice for a son and brother lost.

    Jaslyn Go
    Jufri Salim
    Bryan Lim
    Mansura Sajahan
    Members
    Central Executive Committee
    Singapore Democratic Party

     

    Source: http://yoursdp.org

  • PAP Dreaming: When Empathy Was Not Needed

    PAP Dreaming: When Empathy Was Not Needed

    Two of the PAP’s characteristic behaviour is a lack of empathy and total loyalty to their party even when they are clearly in the wrong.

    We can see such behaviour especially, when PAP Ministers and members try to defend themselves or their party’s policies.

    From comments that the elderly collect boxes to exercise, that if they had waited to meet with Benjamin Lim at home rather than at school, he could have molested someone else, that the hijab can be problematic, these politicians show how they are insensitive and lack the common touch.

    And when their party’s policies are questioned, they take the apathetic approach in their responses.

    Shanmugam’s speech in parliament when he addressed Benjamin Lim’s death shows how disconnected he is.

    Rather than acknowledge the flaws in interrogation procedures for minors, he insinuated that Benjamin could have molested someone else if they waited just a couple of hours.

    The insinuation was uncalled for.

    Shanmugam’s attempt to defend police procedures resulted in such a terrible reference on a child who should still be assumed to be innocent.

    In the hijab case, Yaacob Ibrahim said Muslimah wearing the hijab in certain professions will be problematic. Masagos argued that we should sacrifice hijab for multiracialism.

    Again, the PAP’s defence of the policy led to callous remarks. Both Malay ministers not only support their party’s policy, they made statements that showed how much they lack empathy for Muslim ladies who wear the hijab.

    This insensitivity is reflective of a party that is intellectually and emotionally bankrupt.

    Rather than acknowledge their mistakes or seek ways to accommodate differences, the PAP chose a legalistic, uncaring approach.

    But the problem is not with Shanmugam or Yaacob Ibrahim or Tan Chuan Jin.

    The PAP’s culture is based on how it behaved from its founding.

    Lee Kuan Yew was known for verbally and politically attacking anyone who disagreed with him.

    He would use the full force of the law against those who challenged him.

    The socio-political system today is not the same as it was during Lee Kuan Yew’s leadership of the PAP.

    But the party’s culture has remained.

    While most in Singapura used to keep quiet out of fear, today many have stood up to question the PAP.

    I am sure that for some PAP members, they dream of the good old days when we used to keep quiet and accept everything the PAP says and do.
    But instead, they now have to respond.

    They do not seem to like it.

    And the lack of empathy bears evidence to how much they dislike having to respond and to how disconnected they really are.

     

    Source: Almakhazin SG

  • Atan Ahmad Osman: Melayu Singapura Tak Layak Kritik Pencapaian Dr Mahathir

    Atan Ahmad Osman: Melayu Singapura Tak Layak Kritik Pencapaian Dr Mahathir

    Seorang bekas pemberita part time Berita Harian Singapura beria ia cuba mengkritik dan mencemoh Tun Dr M tanpa malu malu, sementara diri nya sendiri tak lulus peperiksaan tammat sekolah menengah MCE ( sekolah melayu )

    Apa bila di nasihati supaya jangan campur tangan masaalah politik Negara lain dia block kita pula, kalau nak jadi reporter full time pun tak mampu, hanya sekarang cuba menjadi seorang juru gambar arti nya anda tak berkebolehan

    Jika anda sendiri tak berkebolehan jangan lah bersifat sebagai seorang yang setaraf dengan Dr M, rasa nya dengan NAJIS Dr M pun dia tak setaraf apalagI nak meletakan diri nya sebagai pengkritik Dr M, tidak kah ada perasaan malu kepada masyarakat melayu ?

    Kita rakyat Singapura sebaik nya jangan campur urusan politik negara lain, setiap manusia sudah tentu ada buruk baik nya tapi dengan Dr M kita sungguh bangga dengan sikap beliau yang cinta kan bangsa dan berusaha menaikan taraf social dan ekonomi bangsa melayu, walau pun tidak di Singapura tapi apa yang di buat oleh beliau telah meluput kan image kita yang di pangdan rendah oleh bangsa bangsa lain di Singapura

    Beliau bukan hanya berusaha supaya bangsa melayu menjadi satu bangsa intelek, dengan usaha beliau kita juga di pandang sebagai satu bangsa yang boleh bersaing di alam ekonomi, setelah beliau dan beberapa orang pemimpin melayu merancang dan Berjaya mengambil alih Guthrie dengan serangan mengejut yang di panggil

    “ The Dawn Raid “ orang orang Ingeris yang dulu nya melihat kita sebagai satu bangsa yang malas dan bodoh, dengan terkejut telah melihat kita sebagai satu bangsa yang tak boleh di permain kan

    Tentang ’ Capital Control ’ yang mana Presiden Suharto cuba melaku kan nya tapi beliau berundur setelah di beri amaran oleh Amerika, tapi dengan keberanian dan kepintaran Tun Dr M, beliau telah melaku kan ‘ Capital Control’ dalam waktu dua hari yang mana America ‘ caught by surprise ‘ tak sempat nak beri amaran, maka sebab itu beliau di benci oleh Amerika, yang mana bila beliau ke Amerika beliau di malukan dengan pemeriksaan kastam,

    Manakala deputy nya Anuar Ibrahim di berikan karpet merah !!

    Semua professor dan orang orang bijak pandai perniagaan di Singapura mengatakan ‘Malaysia is doomed’ due to capital control, tapi sekarang kita lihat Tun Dr M benar dan mereka salah !!

    Kita hanya mampu lihat selanjut nya apa yang akan berlaku !!!

     

    Source: Atan Ahmad Osman

  • Goh Meng Seng: Do Not Divert Attention From Real Issues In Benjamin Lim’s Case

    Goh Meng Seng: Do Not Divert Attention From Real Issues In Benjamin Lim’s Case

    I am utterly disappointed by the Minister for Home Affairs (who is also the Minister of Law, which I always feel is totally inappropriate as it may constitute a conflict of interests but this article is not about this) Mr. Shanmugam’s statement made in parliament with regards to the case of Benjamin Lim Jun Hui.

    Instead of addressing the many valid pertinent concerns raised by the public, on and off-line, he has put up a barrage of fire attacks at The Online Citizen (TOC) and the President of Law Society, Mr. Thio Shen Yi with totally irrelevant petty details of bickering.

    Whether there were 4 or 5 policemen went to the school, wearing police uniforms or plain clothes are really irrelevant to the pertinent questions asked by TOC, Mr Thio and the public at large.

    It is even more ridiculous for the Minister to cast doubts on TOC’s intent by raising the fact that it has reported that the Police refused to comment on the matter when approached!

    For whatever reasons the police refused to comment (such as those reasons presented by the Minister himself), it should just say so when TOC asked them! A good and competent Public Relations Officer from the Police would have made simple comment like “We cannot comment on this case as internal investigation is still ongoing.” or “We cannot comment on this case as there will be Coroner Inquiry, please wait for the result of Coroner Inquiry”…etc.

    The total ignore or silence from the Police is smacked of either arrogance or complete incompetency in Public Relations communication.

    The Police has its own Pubic Relations officers. If the Police refused to answer to TOC’s inquiries, then the Minister cannot blame the TOC for reporting so (the truth that the police refused to comment) and the public will have their own discretion to form their own opinion.

    So my dear Minister, it is the FAILURE of Police Public Relations officers in responding to the matter in timely manner that created public perception, not TOC. TOC merely reported the NO RESPONSE from the police!

    It is of course the prerogative of the Police in keeping silence but it must also understand that keeping quiet will have its consequences and implications.

    By the way, the Main stream media also reported 5 officers went to the school! Please lah! Why not fire at the Main stream media as well?

    As for the President of Law Society, the point made was the necessity of the police making the arrest at the school! So, don’t try to divert from this pertinent question by going into the irrelevant bickering. Do you think it is appropriate or necessary for the police to send 4 or 5 police officers to the school to make the arrest?

    There are more important questions raised by the public and I expect the Minister to address them, instead of using diversion tactic to dodge from these questions and public anger:

    1) Does the Minister think it is RIGHT (never mind if it is legal or not) for policemen to go to school to arrest students who are just suspects of crimes?

    2) Does the Minster think it is RIGHT (never mind if it is legal or not) for the police to interrogate minors without the presence of guardian or legal representative? In fact, is it right for police to deny legal representation or aid to suspects, regardless of age, during interrogation?

    These are the two important issues raised by the President of Law Society and they are valid questions to be addressed fully. These questions raised does NOT constitute sub judice but it is of GREAT PUBLIC INTERESTS.

    I hope the Minister could address these real issues instead of wasting time trying to divert attention to inconsequential minor details and bickering.

    Oh, by the way, the poor boy was just investigated but NO OFFICIAL JUDGMENT has been made about him just yet. I do not understand why the Minister would insinuate him as “guilty” in parliament just because, according to the police interrogation, he “confessed” to the crime. His confession could be contested in court if there was really a court case but unfortunately, he won’t have that trial now. So I would urge the Minister not to put judgment on the poor dead boy in parliament even though he is also the Minister of Law, but he is not the judge nor the case has been heard.

    Goh Meng Seng

     

    Source: People’s Power Party – PPP