Category: Sosial

  • S Iswaran:  Exercise Restraint And Let Due Process Take Its Course

    S Iswaran: Exercise Restraint And Let Due Process Take Its Course

    SINGAPORE – Some individuals have “gone too far” in their reactions against the unethical practices of the errant retailer at Sim Lim Square, said Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office S Iswaran today (Nov 8), as he said that police have begun looking into reports on the case, as well as a related report on harassment.

    In a Facebook post today (Nov 8), Mr Iswaran, who is also Second Minister for Home Affairs & Trade and Industry, spoke up about the recent incident at Sim Lim Square. He urged people to “exercise restraint” and not to take matters into their own hands. “Let due process take its course,” he wrote.

    Photo: Screengrab from Minister S Iswaran’s Facebook page

    Mr Jover Chew, owner of the shop Mobile Air at Sim Lim Square, was in the spotlight recently following reports of Vietnamese tourist Pham Van Thoai going on his knees to beg for his money back, and that the shop refunded a customer more than S$1,000 in coins.

    On Thursday, a T-shirt printed with an expletive was placed outside his shop, which was closed. Mr Chew’s particulars, which were leaked online, were also reportedly used to order three large pizzas to his home on Wednesday. His private photos were also leaked.

    Mr Iswaran said that the Government is looking into measures to protect consumers better but this may “take some time”, especially if the laws require amending.

    “More immediately, we are working with CASE and other stakeholders to educate consumers on their rights, so that they do not fall prey to such sales tactics, and know where and how to seek recourse when necessary,” he added.

    Member of Parliament Vikram Nair also wrote on Facebook today of his interest in looking into Singapore’s consumer protection laws. Referring to an article by TODAY, he singled out the suggestion by a lawyer to give the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) additional powers to administer fines to errant businesses.

    Photo: Screengrab from MP Vikram Nair’s Facebook page

    “Although it is highly unusual to give a consumer association such powers, I believe the public expects CASE to not only be a consumer advocate, but also to intervene more directly in cases where consumers,” he wrote.

     

    Source: www.todayonline.com

  • Surviving in Singapore:  The Question of Money

    Surviving in Singapore: The Question of Money

    Every household has different needs and a unique financial benchmark for a comfortable living; however, we can all agree that there are certain bare necessities that none of us can survive without. And survival is the name of the game today as we set out to explore what an ordinary hard-working Singaporean needs to earn to ensure his financial security in this new age uber-expensive capitalist utopia.

    Various surveys have revealed that the average salary in Singapore falls in between the $4200-$4500 range. Unfortunately, this is an insufficient criterion to reflect the true financial status of its entire citizenship, because a country’s real economic comeuppance is encapsulated by how financially empowered its lowest earning workers are.

    While highly skilled and well-educated professionals can make a comfortable living netting between $4400-$6400 per month, Singapore’s blue-collar class still stands on shaky financial ground for most of their lives earning somewhere between $800-$2100 per month. So there we have it, the lowest of the lows in the wage spectrum – an unnerving and extremely meager $800 per month!

    Now we are truly ready to commence our journey into the underbelly of Singapore, implement the finest financial acumen and examine whether $800 a month is enough to survive our daily expenses and secure our long-term future.

    Considering the current costs of living in Singapore, let us assume the following breakdown of expenditure made by the low-income worker earning $800 a month with zero savings apart from CPF contributions:

    • Housing Rental – $225
    • CPF – $100
    • Food – $300
    • Energy bills – $100
    • Transport – $75

    Now you may exercise a plethora of nifty frugal living tips like shopping for groceries using Fair Price, opting for a shared HDB flat, availing the best credit card schemes, using the public bus transport, buying cheap Big Macs, etc., but the fact of the matter is that you can only do so much to cut down your daily expenses.

    It has been widely demonstrated that blue-collar workers suffer a progressive decrease in income as they age, which means that not only is the prospect of a comfortable retirement a statistical impossibility, but their struggle for daily sustenance will be an even more uphill battle in the future.

    One of the major bones of contention for financial security for low-wage workers in Singapore is the ludicrous pre-requisite of having at least $148,000 in their CPF before they can access it. This means that nearly 16% of the Singaporean workforce that earns a monthly wage below $1000 will never be able to reach the mandatory CPF Minimum Sum milestone.

    According to various research studies on the cost of living in Singapore, it has been proven that a single working class citizen kicking off his career in his early 20s must earn around $2000-$2500 to enjoy a sustainable frugal lifestyle without putting an axe in their financial future.

    Assuming a yearly salary increase of 4% and accounting for inflation, here is what an estimate monthly expenditure breakdown should look like for an average single Singaporean working professional who makes $2500 per month:

    • CPF – $500
    • Insurance – $500
    • Energy bills – $300
    • Transport – $100
    • Food – $300
    • Miscellaneous – $300
    • Savings – $500

    On the other hand, married Singapore workers who are planning to start a family must earn at least $7000 as collective income per month to family of 4 to enjoy a similar minimal, penny-wise lifestyle.

    Unfortunately, since almost 40% of Singaporeans make less than $2000 per month and only 35% earn equal to or more than $3,500 per month, this means that only a third of the Singaporean workforce can enjoy a financially stable lifestyle throughout their life.

    Low-income workers with a paltry monthly income below $1900 are entitled to qualify for the government-sponsored Worker Income Supplement scheme. However, even if you are over 60 and make $1000 per month to qualify for the highest possible yearly WIS payout of $3500, you will still only be able to net approximately $117 per month as $2100 will automatically be credited to your CPF account first.

    In conclusion, we have deducted that the only way for Singaporean individuals to survive the exorbitant costs of this city and keep their financial boats floating is to make at least $2000 per month if they are single and $3500 if they are ready to have children.

     

    Source: www.imoney.sg

  • Malaysia Court Of Appeal Rules Anti-Crossdressing Shariah Law Unconstitutional

    Malaysia Court Of Appeal Rules Anti-Crossdressing Shariah Law Unconstitutional

    PUTRAJAYA, Nov 7 — The Court of Appeal today declared a Negri Sembilan Shariah law criminalising cross-dressing as inconsistent with the Federal Constitution, in a major victory for human rights in Malaysia.

    The appellate court said the law was discriminatory as it fails to recognise men diagnosed with the Gender Identity Disorder (GID), or transgenderism.

    “We hold Section 66 of the Negri Sembilan Shariah Criminal Enactment 1992 as invalid and unconstitutional with Articles 5(1), 8(1), 8(2), 9(2) and 10(1)(a).

    “The appeal is therefore allowed,” said Justice Datuk Mohd Hishamuddin Mohd Yunus while delivering his judgment.

    The coram, which included Justices Datuk Aziah Ali and Datuk Lim Yee Lan, was unanimous in its decision.

    Section 66 outlaws any Muslim man who “wears a woman attire and poses as a woman”, with the punishment of a fine not exceeding RM1,000 or jail of not more than six months or both.

    The court ruled that the Shariah law contravened constitutional provisions that guarantee personal liberty, equality, freedom of movement, and freedom of expression.

    It stressed that while the state is empowered to enact laws even involving the matters of Islam, it must not contravene the Federal Constitution that is the supreme law of the land.

    In his judgment, Hishamudin had described Section 66 with words such as “degrading”, “oppressive”, “inhuman” and “depriving” the appellants of their dignity.

    He also lashed out the Seremban High Court judge Justice Datuk Siti Mariah Ahmad, who declared in her decision back in October 11, 2012 that the law is needed to prevent homosexuality and the spread of HIV.

    “In our judgment, the above remarks and findings were unsupported by and contrary to the evidences. It was based on personal feelings and prejudice,” said Hishamuddin.

    “We wish to stress that the claim was without basis, grossly unfair and this has nothing to do with homosexuality … It was a complete failure of the judge to appreciate the unrebutted evidence presented before her.”

    Lawyer Aston Paiva represented three transgender clients who challenged the law after they were repeatedly charged under Section 66. ― Picture by Saw Siow FengLawyer Aston Paiva represented three transgender clients who challenged the law after they were repeatedly charged under Section 66. ― Picture by Saw Siow Feng

    Lawyers Aston Paiva and Fahri Azzat represented three transgender clients who challenged the law after they were repeatedly charged under Section 66.

    The appellants were medically diagnosed with GID under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth Edition (DSM IV), consistent with “the desire to dress as a female and be recognised as a female”.

    State legal advisor Iskandar Ali Dewa was lead counsel for the respondents that include the Negri Sembilan state government, state religious authority and its officers.

    The Attorney-General’s Chambers, the Malaysian Bar and international liberties watchdog Human Rights Watch had appeared as amicus curiae, or uninvolved parties who were present to offer counsel.

    Six civil societies including the Malaysian AIDS Council and PT Foundation, the Kuala Lumpur Women and Health Society, the Malaysian Mental Health Society, and the Malaysian Centre for Constitutionalism and Human Rights were observing parties in the case.

    Lawyer Fahri Azzat represented three transgender clients who challenged the law after they were repeatedly charged under Section 66. ― Picture by Saw Siow FengLawyer Fahri Azzat represented three transgender clients who challenged the law after they were repeatedly charged under Section 66. ― Picture by Saw Siow Feng

    The three appellants had raised the matter in the Seremban High Court in 2012, but lost when Siti Mariah ruled that Section 66 excludes the transgender people from fundamental liberties under the Constitution.

    Muslim-majority Malaysia continues to reject the perceived rise in non-heterosexual activities, which it deems to be an assault against Islam together with growing calls for greater civil liberties.

    The issue is compounded by the intermingling of politics and religion in a country where the latter has become a major platform from which to appeal for support.

    Transgender activists estimated that there are around 60,000 Malaysian who identify as transgenders, with Malays making up 70 per cent of them.

    “Transwomen” or “transgender” are terms used to refer to those who were born male but associate themselves with the female identity, and has nothing to do with sexual preferences.

     

    Source: www.themalaymailonline.com

  • Muslim Sensitivity In Malaysia:  Real Or Feigned?

    Muslim Sensitivity In Malaysia: Real Or Feigned?

    Many women who use dye to cover the grey in their hair know about the skin allergy test to be performed 48 hours before applying it. A person with an allergy to the chemicals in the dye, like the person with a food intolerance, can develop a nasty rash. In extreme cases, the face may swell and the air passages can get constricted to the point of causing suffocation.

    In Malaysia, we have a similar test, known as the “intolerance test”. Malays are sensitive creatures, or so they are told by the ulamas and religious authorities. All Malaysians live in fear of failing the Malay “intolerance test”.

    Religious authorities have told Malays that they are very sensitive creatures and that they will react badly to many everyday items. It is a relatively new phenomenon. In the past, Malays were not afflicted by this condition. Perhaps, when a lie is repeated often enough, people end up believing it.

    Today, we have Muslims, like the person with an allergy, who will react badly to many normal, everyday things, such as touching dogs, wearing items made of silk, not wearing the tudung, holding hands, being in the same house or room with a man who is not a family member, reading some types of books, listening to some types of music or watching certain films, playing stringed instruments, doing ballet, singing Christmas carols and playing choral music.

    In the past, Malay women were not forced to wear the tudung. Today, it is de rigeur, especially if you work in the civil service or aspire to be a politician. In Kelantan, steps are in place to fine women who refuse to wear the tudung. If you are Malay, was your grandmother, who was content with a shawl or selendang, less religious?

    How did we get to this stage, where mullahs and conservative Muslims fail to appreciate that a Muslim’s piety, compassion or spirituality cannot and should not be measured by how well she covers her head?

    There was a time when Malay girls who were active in sports did not mind wearing shorts, but today this mode of dressing is frowned upon. Now, we concentrate on the attire, rather than a healthy interest in sport.

    In years gone by, children were allowed to play amongst themselves. Today, girls and boys, even toddlers, are segregated. Little girls are made to wear the tudung and cover their bodies. Leggings for a child in a tropical climate encourage fungal diseases.

    Why are Malays depriving young children of both sexes the chance to bond? Why are we passing down our own adult fears of sexual impropriety to children who have not even reached the age of puberty?

    This segregation probably explains why young Malay adults are not able to relate to one another as normal human beings. Some Malay adolescents, when meeting a person of the other sex for the first time, do not know how to behave. They mistake a natural biological attraction for love.

    Older Malaysians will remember the days when Malaysians of different races or religions socialised freely. One of these occasions would have been the traditional Malaysian “open house” ritual for festivals.

    Today, Malays are reluctant to attend the open houses of their non-Muslim friends. They refuse to eat off plates which may have been contaminated by non-halal food.

    Non-Malay friends claim that their close Muslim friends would only attend a wedding reception at home if a separate section, with food cooked by halal caterers and served disposable plates, were provided. The preparations for the wedding are already stressful without this added burden. Only the very wealthy can accommodate this request.

    Older Malays used to do yoga in the privacy of their homes or in groups. A few years ago, a fatwa against Malays doing yoga was issued. Did the ulamas suggest alternative methods of stress or pain relief for these people? Is their prescription to read more of the Quran?

    At school, few non-Malay children dare share the contents of their tuck box with their Malay friends for fear of the teacher punishing them for “polluting the blood of the Muslim child” with non-halal food.

    Muslims who go overseas on holiday or work are happy to eat from plates in restaurants or dine at the house of foreigners. Back in Malaysia, some Malays behave with extreme fragility. Why the double standard? Why this Jekyll and Hyde character?

    Now we have water that is “seditious” and “insensitive” to Muslims because it comes in bottles bearing the image of Lord Murugan next to the halal logo. Will the normal, ordinary Muslim take control of his life and hound these gormless extremists from tarnishing Islam? Will Malays with common sense finally make a stand? Or do they agree that the Cactus Brand mineral water is only a side show to distract us from the other farce, the Sodomy II trial, and other issues like the KLIA2 flooding, the mudslides in Cameron Highlands, the GST, and the 1MDB debacle?

     

    Source: www.freemalaysiatoday.com

  • The CASE For And Against Online Vigilantism

    The CASE For And Against Online Vigilantism

    By now, many would be familiar with Mr Jover Chew and his shop at Sim Lim Square.

    The spotlight has recently been on him and Mobile Air after reports of foreign customers’ bad experience surfaced in mainstream media.

    But when Mr Chew showed no remorse in subsequent interviews, including with The New Paper, and Mobile Air continued its daily operations despite the bad press, infuriated netizens took matters into their own hands.

    On Tuesday night, Facebook page SMRT Ltd (Feedback) named and shamed Mr Chew, 32, and his wife.

    Photos of them, their contact numbers and Mr Chew’s properties were also listed on the Facebook page.

    And it seems that Mr Chew has succumbed to the pressure. When The New Paper visited Sim Lim Square yesterday, the shop was closed. Mr Chew has also diverted his calls to another number.

    Previously, Mobile Air did not cease operations despite regularly making it to the Consumers Association of Singapore’s (Case) blacklist of Sim Lim Square tenants.

    Some businesses on the list, like Cyber Maestro, simply switch their signboards and it’s business as usual.

    Cyber Maestro, which was slapped with a court injunction on Monday, gave way to a new tenant, Megacentrix Technologies, and subtenant VS One in August.

    But a check revealed that the person behind VS One is related to the boss of Cyber Maestro.

    The two businesses also share the same registered address. The shareholders of the two businesses are husband and wife. This is where the problem lies, said lawyer Steven Lam.

    “With the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act (CPFTA), what comes out of it is a civil remedy,” he said.

    “You can sue the offending business, but many of them simply close down and wind up.

    “Then, they open another company under different shareholders who are shadow directors.”

    He suggested a dedicated enforcement body to clamp down on errant retailers for more “regulatory bite”.

    Mr Lam also cautioned against netizens’ online shaming.

    “Although it may seem to be effective, don’t forget there’s the Prevention of Harassment Act. They have to be a bit careful about where the line is drawn.”

    Singapore Management University’s law professor Eugene Tan feels that the netizens’ disgust with Mr Chew does not justify their actions.

    INTRUSIVE

    He said: “At another level, it’s over-zealous and self-righteous. Regardless of the legitimacy of the cause, the actions by netizens are disproportionate and intrusive. Two wrongs don’t make a right.”

    Case executive director Seah Seng Choon thinks that a civil law is sufficient for now.

    “I think that for the time being, given that we have a civil law in place, this is really sufficient,” he said.

    “We can try to speed up our action by serving voluntary compliance agreements faster or hopefully get injunctions speedier to stop errant retailers.”

    Mr Seah added that Case is already “doing a lot behind the scenes” to help consumers resolve their cases.

    As CPFTA is a civil act, it will take some time to go through the necessary process to stop the unfair practices, he pointed out.

    “It is a big thing for the person affected, but we can’t jump in at the first instant when there’s a complaint. Sometimes, it may be just a one-off (incident) because of some bad employees,” Mr Seah said.

    “Errant retailers can continue their businesses, but they must understand that the law will catch up with them.”

    Rather than a legal issue, lawyer Kang Kim Yang feels that the onus is on consumers to be more cautious.

    “To me, it doesn’t seem like an elaborate way of deception. You may say that the retailers are morally wrong, but sometimes, they are playing within the rules,” he said.

    “Consumers should be reading the fine print and inquire at a few other shops before making an informed decision.”

    [email protected]

    Blacklisted shops

    These shops at Sim Lim Square have been blacklisted by the Consumers Association of Singapore (Case) for the period of August to October.

    Shop name: Number of complaints

    Mobile Air 25

    Gadget Terminal 13

    Mobile22 10

    Mobile Apps 9

    Mackin 7

    Mobile Planet 7

    K-One Mobile 4

    Megacentrix Technologies 4

    SLR Pro 4

    Cyber Maestro 3

    Source: Consumers Association of Singapore

     

    Source: http://news.asiaone.com

deneme bonusu