Blog

  • Frozen Yogurt Chain Llaollao To Be Investigated By Tripartite Aliance For Fair And Progressive Employment Practice

    Frozen Yogurt Chain Llaollao To Be Investigated By Tripartite Aliance For Fair And Progressive Employment Practice

    Frozen yogurt chain Llaollao has apologised to a local Punjabi woman who was reportedly turned away from a part-time position at an outlet because she could not speak Mandarin.

    The Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) is also investigating the incident for possibly violating employment guidelines, reported TODAY.

    Karish Kaur related the experience via her Facebook page on 7 January, explaining how she was turned away during a walk-in interview at West Mall’s outlet after telling a manager she did not speak Mandarin.

    “Why is it that the onus is now on me to learn a whole new language just so I am able to attain a part-time job at an F&B outlet?” she wrote. “Are we not taking into account the fact that this is a multiracial country and that (surprise surprise) there are people who do not speak Chinese?”

    Llaollao posted an apology on its Facebook page on January 13, saying it was “deeply sorry for the insensitivity shown”.

    Llaollao’s country manager Edwin Ferroa also personally apologised to Karish in an email on 11 January, adding that the West Mall franchisee will stop walk-in interviews for the time being in order to give staff more adequate training “to treat potential employees better”.

    After conducting its own investigations, Llaollao told TODAY that the person who turned Karish away was not an employee, but a wife of one of the franchise owners. Llaollao’s management has since warned all franchisees not to allow unauthorised people into their kitchens.

     

    Source: https://sg.news.yahoo.com

  • Main Body Of QZ8501 Found By Singapore Navy Ship

    Main Body Of QZ8501 Found By Singapore Navy Ship

    A Singaporean navy ship on Wednesday located the main body of the AirAsia plane that crashed into the Java Sea late last month, raising hopes that bodies of most of the 162 victims will now be found.

    Underwater photos showed the cracked fuselage and part of a wing of Flight QZ8501, that went down on December 28 in stormy weather during a short trip from the Indonesian city of Surabaya to Singapore.

    The discovery of the fuselage is the latest boost in a lengthy search operation in Indonesian waters hampered by bad weather. Just 50 bodies have so far been recovered with most of the victims believed to be trapped inside the Airbus 320-200’s main body

    It followed the retrieval this week of both the plane’s black boxes, which contain vital information to help investigators determine what caused the crash.

    AirAsia boss Tony Fernandes confirmed the fuselage had been found in a tweet, saying: “It is so so sad though seeing our aircraft. I’m gutted and devastated.”

    “We hope all our guests are there,” he added.

    Singapore’s Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen said in a Facebook post that the MV Swift Rescue had located the wreckage, which was 26 metres (85 feet) long and about two kilometres from where the plane’s tail was found earlier.

    On the photos accompanying the post, taken by the ship’s remotely operated vehicle, the words “now” and “everyone” are visible, apparently from AirAsia’s motto “Now Everyone Can Fly” painted on the plane’s exterior.

    Indonesia’s national search and rescue chief Bambang Soelistyo said that divers would head to the main body on Thursday.

    “It is already dark so we will carry out the dive tomorrow morning with the target to find the victims which may still be around it or trapped in the body,” he said.

    “If the divers have any difficulty, the next step will then be to lift the body and the wing.”

    He added that two more victims were found Wednesday, meaning 50 bodies have so far been retrieved.

    The Singapore navy ship was part of a huge international hunt for the plane, which also included US and Chinese ships.

    – Vital black boxes –

    The so-called black boxes — which are actually orange in colour — have been flown to Jakarta, where Indonesia’s National Transport Safety Committee is leading a probe into the accident, helped by experts from countries including France and the United States.

    The country’s meteorological agency has said bad weather may have caused the crash but only the black boxes will be able to provide definitive answers.

    Investigators have started retrieving data from the recorders and converting it into a usable format, which will take around a week, before the lengthy analysis process can begin, committee head Tatang Kurniadi told AFP.

    The flight data recorder holds a wealth of information about every major part of the plane, with details such as the jet’s speed and the direction it was heading in, while the cockpit voice recorder stores radio transmissions and sounds in the cockpit.

    The committee has said a preliminary report on the accident will be produced within a month, and a final report after a year.

    At a port near Pangkalan Bun, the search headquarters on Borneo island, Indonesian investigators and their French counterparts also began examining the tail, which was lifted out of the water at the weekend.

    Before take-off, the plane’s pilot had asked for permission to fly at a higher altitude to avoid a major storm but the request was not approved due to other planes above him on the popular route.

    In his last communication, the experienced pilot said he wanted to change course to avoid the storm. Then all contact was lost, about 40 minutes after take-off.

    All but seven of those on board the flight were Indonesian. The foreign nationals were from South Korea, Singapore, Malaysia, Britain and France.

     

    Source: https://sg.news.yahoo.com

  • Muslim Mayor Of Rotterdam: Muslim Immigrants Can Leave If Dissatisfied With Life In Western Countries

    Muslim Mayor Of Rotterdam: Muslim Immigrants Can Leave If Dissatisfied With Life In Western Countries

    The Moroccan-born mayor of Rotterdam has said Muslim immigrants who do not appreciate the way of life in Western civilisations can ‘f*** off’.

    Ahmed Aboutaleb, who arrived in the Netherlands aged 15, spoke out in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris last week.

    Appearing on live television just hours after the shootings, Mayor Aboutaleb said Muslims who ‘do not like freedom can pack your bags and leave’.

    Labour politician Ahmed Aboutaleb, a former journalist who was appointed mayor of the Dutch city in 2008, is known for his straightforward stance on integration.

    The 53-year-old won the praise of London-mayor Boris Johnson over his comments last week attacking fellow Muslims who move to Western nations but refuse to accept the Western way of life.

    ‘It is incomprehensible that you can turn against freedom,’ Mayor Aboutaleb told Dutch current affairs program Nieuwsuur (Newshour).

    ‘But if you don’t like freedom, for heaven’s sake pack your bags and leave.

    ‘If you do not like it here because some humorists you don’t like are making a newspaper, may I then say you can f*** off.

    ‘This is stupid, this so incomprehensible.  Vanish from the Netherlands if you cannot find your place here. All those well-meaning Muslims here will now be stared at’.

    Mayor Aboutaleb grew up the son of an imam in northern Morocco, but moved to the Netherlands in 1976.

    After working as a reporter he became a civil servant before being appointed State Secretary for Social Affairs and Employment in 2007.

    When he was appointed mayor of Rotterdam, the second largest city in the country with a population of more than 610,000, he became the first immigrant in such a position in the Netherlands.

    Mayor Aboutaleb, who represents the Dutch Labour Party, de Partij van de Arbeid, has long had a no-nonsense approach to immigration and integration.

    Speaking to the Observer shortly after his appointment he said his message to immigrants is ‘stop seeing yourself as victims, and if you don’t want to integrate, leave’.

    This week, London Mayor Boris Johnson hailed Mayor Aboutaleb as his ‘hero’  and ‘straight to the point’.

    ‘That is the voice of the Enlightenment, of Voltaire,’ Mr Johnson wrote in the Daily Telegraph.

    ‘If we are going to win the struggle for the minds of these young people, then that is the kind of voice we need to hear – and it needs above all to be a Muslim voice.’

    Source: www.dailymail.co.uk

  • French Muslim Philospher Abdennour Bidar: Muslims Must Acknowledge That The Roots Of Terrorism Lies Within Muslim Society

    French Muslim Philospher Abdennour Bidar: Muslims Must Acknowledge That The Roots Of Terrorism Lies Within Muslim Society

    In an essay published October 3, 2014 in the French newspaper Marianne, French Muslim philosopher Abdennour Bidar, author of  Self Islam: A Personal History of Islam (Seuil2006); Islam without Submission: Muslim Existentialism (Albin Michel, 2008), and A History of Humanism in the West (Armand Colin, 2014), wrote that Muslims cannot make do with denouncing and repudiating terrorist barbarism, but must acknowledge that its roots lie within Muslim society, and especially within the Islam that is prevalent in the Arab world today. He points out that Islam, like all religions, has throughout its history been a source of much good, wisdom and enlightenment, but that today’s mainstream Islam rejects the freedom and flexibility that are advocated by the Koran and instead promotes rigidity and regression that ultimately give rise to terrorism. The Muslim world, he concludes, must therefore reform itself, and especially its education systems, based on principles of freedom of religion and thought, equality, and respect for the other.

    The following are translated excerpts from his essay:

    “I See That You Are Losing Yourself And Your Dignity, And Wasting Your Time, In Your Refusal To Recognize That This Monster Is Born Of You”

    “Dear Muslim world: I am one of your estranged sons, who views you from without and from afar – from France, where so many of your children live today. I look at you with the harsh eyes of a philosopher, nourished from infancy on tasawwuf (Sufism) and Western thought. I therefore look at you from my position of barzakh, from an isthmus between the two seas of the East and the West.

    “And what do I see? What do I see better than others, precisely because I see you from afar, from a distance? I see you in a state of misery and suffering that saddens me to no end, but which makes my philosopher’s judgment even harsher, because I see you in the process of birthing a monster that presumes to call itself the Islamic State, and which some prefer to call by a demon’s name – Da’esh. But worst of all is that I see that you are losing yourself and your dignity, and wasting your time, in your refusal to recognize that this monster is born of you: of your irresoluteness, your contradictions, your being torn between past and present, and your perpetual inability to find your place in human civilization.

    “What do you [Muslims] say when faced with this monster? You shout, ‘That’s not me!’ ‘That’s not Islam!’ You reject [the possibility] that this monster’s crimes are committed in your name (#NotInMyName). You rebel against the monster’s hijacking of your identity, and of course you are right to do so. It is essential that you proclaim to the world, loud and clear, that Islam condemns barbarity. But this is absolutely not enough! For you are taking refuge in your self-defense reflex, without realizing it, and above all without undertaking any self-criticism. You become indignant and are satisfied with that – but you are missing an historical opportunity to question yourself. Instead of taking responsibility for yourself, you accuse others, [saying]: ‘You Westerners, and all you enemies of Islam, stop associating us with this monster! Terrorism is not Islam! The true Islam, the good Islam, doesn’t mean war, it means peace!’”

    “The Root Of This Evil That Today Steals Your Face Is Within Yourself; The Monster Emerged From Within You”

    “Oh my dear Muslim world, I hear the cry of rebellion rising within you, and I understand it. Yes, you are right: Like every one of the great sacred inspirations in the world, Islam has, throughout its history, created beauty, justice, meaning and good, and it has [been a source of] powerful enlightenment for humans on the mysterious path of existence… Here in the West, I fight, in all my books, [to make sure that] this wisdom of Islam and of all religions is not forgotten or despised. But because of my distance [from the Muslim world], I can see what you cannot… and this inspires me to ask: Why has this monster stolen your face? Why has this despicable monster chosen your face and not another? The truth is that behind this monster hides a huge problem, one you do not seem ready to confront. Yet in the end you will have to find the courage [to do so]…

    “Where do the crimes of this so-called ‘Islamic State’ come from? I’ll tell you, my friend, and it will not make you happy, but it is my duty as a philosopher [to tell you]. The root of this evil that today steals your face is within yourself; the monster emerged from within you. And other monsters, some even worse, will emerge as well, as long as you refuse to acknowledge your sickness and to finally tackle the root of this evil!

    “Even Western intellectuals have difficulty seeing this. For the most part they have forgotten the power of religion – for good and for evil, over life and over death – to the extent that they tell me, ‘No, the problem of the Muslim world is not Islam, not the religion, but rather politics, history, economics, etc.’ They completely forget that religion may be the core of the reactor of human civilization, and that tomorrow the future of humanity will depend not only on a resolution to the financial crisis, but also, and much more essentially, on a resolution to the unprecedented spiritual crisis that is affecting all of mankind.”

    “I See In You, Oh Muslim World, Great Forces Ready To Rise Up And Contribute To This Global Effort To Find A Spiritual Life For The 21st Century”

    “Will we be able to come together, across the world, and face this fundamental challenge? The spiritual nature of man abhors a vacuum, and if it finds nothing new with which to fill the vacuum, tomorrow it will fill it with religions that are less and less adapted to the present, and which, like Islam today, will [also] begin producing monsters.

    “I see in you, oh Muslim world, great forces ready to rise up and contribute to this global effort to find a spiritual life for the 21st century. Despite the severity of your sickness, you have within you a great multitude of men and women who are willing to reform Islam, to reinvent its genius beyond its historical forms, and to be part of the total renewal of the relationship that mankind once had with its gods. It is to all those who dream together of a spiritual revolution, both Muslims and non-Muslims, that I have addressed my books, and to whom I offer, with my philosopher’s words, confidence in that which their hope glimpses.”

    “Forward-Looking Muslims Understand All Too Well That Al-Qaeda, Jabhat Al-Nusra, AQIM, And The Islamic State Are Only The Most Visible Symptoms Of An Immense Diseased Body”

    “But these Muslim men and women who look to the future are not yet sufficiently numerous, nor is their word sufficiently powerful. All of them, whose clarity and courage I welcome, have plainly seen that it is the Muslim world’s general state of profound sickness that explains the birth of terrorist monsters with names like Al-Qaeda, Jabhat Al-Nusra, AQIM, and Islamic State. They understand all too well that these are only the most visible symptoms of an immense diseased body, whose chronic maladies include the inability to establish sustainable democracies that recognize freedom of conscience vis-à-vis religious dogmas as a moral and political right; chronic difficulties in improving women’s status…;  the inability to sufficiently free political power from its control by religious authority; and the inability to promote respectful, tolerant and genuine recognition of religious pluralism and religious minorities.”

    “Could All This Be The Fault Of The West? How Much Precious Time Will You Lose, Dear Muslim World, With This Stupid Accusation[?]”

    “Could all this be the fault of the West? How much precious time will you lose, dear Muslim world, with this stupid accusation that you yourself no longer believe, and behind which you hide so that you can continue to lie to yourself?

    “Particularly since the eighteenth century – it’s past time you acknowledged it – you have been unable to meet the challenge of the West. You have childishly and embarrassingly sought refuge in the past, with the obscurantist Wahhabism regression that continues to wreak havoc almost everywhere within your borders – the Wahhabism that you spread from your holy places in Saudi Arabia like a cancer originating from your very heart. In other ways, you emulated the worst [aspects] of the West – with nationalism and a modernism that caricatures modernity. I refer here especially to the technological development, so inconsistent with the religious archaism, that makes your fabulously wealthy Gulf ‘elite’ mere willing victims of the global disease – the worship of the god Money.

    “What is admirable about you today, my friend? What do you still have that is worthy of the respect of the peoples and civilizations of the world? Where are your wise men? Have you still wisdom to offer the world? Where are your great men? Who is your Mandela, your Gandhi, your Aung San Suu Kyi? Where are your great thinkers whose books should be read worldwide, as they were when Arab or Persian mathematicians and philosophers were spoken of from India to Spain? You are actually so weakened behind [the mask of] self-confidence that you always display… You have no idea who you are or where you want to go, and it makes you as unhappy as you are aggressive… You persist in not listening to those who call on you to change by finally freeing yourself from the dominion that you have granted to religion over all [aspects of] life.

    “You chose to consider Muhammad a prophet and king. You chose to define Islam as a moral, political, and social religion that must rule as a tyrant in the state as well as in civilian life, in the street and in the home, and in every man’s conscience. You chose to believe that Islam means ‘submission’ and to impose that belief – while the Koran itself declares that ‘there is no compulsion in religion’… You have made [the Koran’s] cry for freedom into the reign of coercion. How can a civilization so betray its own sacred text? I say that, in Islamic civilization, the time has come to institute this spiritual freedom – the most sublime and difficult of all [freedoms] – in place of all the laws invented by generations of theologians!”

    “Numerous Voices That You Refuse To Hear Are Rising Today In The Ummah To Denounce This Authoritarian Religion That Cannot Be Questioned”

    “Numerous voices that you refuse to hear are rising today in the ummah [Islamic nation] to denounce this authoritarian religion that cannot be questioned… Many believers have so internalized the culture of submission to tradition and to the ‘masters of religion’ (imams, muftis, sheikhs etc.) that they don’t understand us when we talk to them about spiritual freedom or personal choice vis-à-vis the ‘pillars’ of Islam. This is a ‘red line’ for them – so sacred to them that they dare not allow their own conscience to question it. And there are so many families in which this confusion between spirituality and servitude is implanted from such an early age, and in which spiritual education is so meager, that nothing concerning religion may be discussed.”

    “But this [taboo] is clearly not imposed by the terrorism of some crazy fanatics… No, this problem is infinitely deeper. But who is willing to hear this? In the Muslim world, there is only silence regarding this matter; in the Western media, they listen only to all those terrorism experts who increase the general myopia day by day. Do not delude yourself, my friend, by pretending that by eliminating Islamist terrorism we will settle all of Islam’s problems. Because what I have described here – a tyrannical, dogmatic, literalist, formalistic, macho, conservative, and regressive religion – is too often the mainstream Islam, the everyday Islam, which suffers and causes suffering to too many consciences, the irrelevant Islam of the past, the Islam that is distorted by all those who manipulate it politically, the Islam that always ends up strangling the various Arab Springs and the voice of the young people who are demanding something else. So when will you finally bring about this revolution in society and conscience that will make spirituality rhyme with liberty?

    “Of course, there are pockets of spiritual freedom in your great territory: families that hand down [to their children] an Islam of tolerance, personal choice and spiritual depth. There are places where Islam still gives the best of itself: a culture of sharing, honor, pursuit of knowledge, and spirituality in search of the sacred place where man and the ultimate reality called Allah meet. In the land of Islam, and in Muslim communities worldwide, there are strong and free consciences. But they are condemned to exercise their freedom without the recognition of real rights, facing the peril of community control or sometimes even of the religious police. Never has the right to say ‘I choose my Islam’ or ‘I have my own relationship with Islam’ been recognized by the ‘official Islam’ of the dignitaries, who fight to impose [the view] that ‘the doctrine of Islam is unique’ and that ‘obeying the pillars of Islam is the only right path…’

    “This denial of the right to freedom of religion is one of the roots of the evil from which you suffer, oh my dear Muslim world; it is one of those dark wombs in which, in recent years, monsters have grown, and from whence they leap out at the frightened faces of the whole world. For this iron religion imposes excruciating violence upon all your societies; it too closely confines your daughters and your sons in the cage of good and evil, the lawful (halal) and the illicit (haram), chosen by none but imposed on all. It traps the wills, it conditions the mind, it prevents or hinders every personal life choice. In too many of your countries, you still tie together religion with violence – against women, against ‘bad’ believers, against Christians and other minorities, against thinkers and free spirits and against rebels – so that religion and violence ultimately blend within the most unbalanced and vulnerable of your own sons – in the monstrous form of jihad.”

    “You Must Begin By Reforming Education… Based On Universal Principles”

    “So, I beg of you, don’t pretend to be amazed that demons such as the so-called ‘Islamic State’ have taken your face. Monsters and demons steal only those faces that are already distorted by too much grimacing. And if you want to know how to refrain from bringing forth such monsters, I will tell you. It’s simple yet difficult: You must begin by reforming the education you give your children, in its entirety, in all your schools and all your places of knowledge and power. You must reform them according to [the following] universal principles – even if you are not the only one violating or disregarding [these principles]: freedom of conscience, democracy, tolerance, civil rights for [those of] all worldviews and beliefs, gender equality, women’s emancipation from all male guardianship, and a culture of reflection and criticism of the religion in universities, literature, and the media. You cannot go back, and you can do no less than this. For it is only by doing so that you will no longer give birth to such monsters. If you do not do so, you will soon be devastated by [these monsters’] destructive power.

    “Dear Muslim world: I am but a philosopher, and as usual some will call the philosopher a heretic. Yet I seek only to let the light shine forth once again – indeed, the name that you have given me commands me to do so: Abdennour, Servant of the Light. If I did not believe in you, I would not have been so harsh in this essay. As we say in French, ‘He who loves well, punishes well’ – and those who today are not tough enough with you, who want to make you a victim, are doing you no favors. I believe in you. I believe in your contribution to build the future of our planet, to create a world that is both humane and spiritual!

    Salaam, peace be upon you.”

     

    Source: www.memri.org

     

  • Did Lee Hsien Loong Breach The Ministerial Code Of Conduct?

    Did Lee Hsien Loong Breach The Ministerial Code Of Conduct?

    I made the following posts on Facebook at midnight on Friday. I have now decided to put the posts up on my blog to answer some online comments

    I am seriously concerned that the PM has breached the Ministerial Code of Conduct by using his Official Press Secretary to write a letter to the Economist newspaper defending the PM’s private defamation suit against the blogger Roy Ngerng. This states:

    “4.3 A Minister must not direct or request a civil servant to do anything or perform any function that may conflict with the Singapore Civil Service’s core values of incorruptibility, impartiality, integrity and honesty.

    He should respect the duty of civil servants to remain neutral in all political matters and matters of public controversy.”

    Neutral? This is quite apart from the fact of whether it is right for the PM to use a civil servant paid by the taxpayer to assist him in his private capacity and not his official one.

    He is suing Roy as a private individual and yet he uses a state employee, paid by you the tax payer, to write to the foreign press defending his personal matter. I believe the principle has been established that State Institutions cannot sue a private individual so why can a state employee be put to work on it. Is the Press Secretary working for us, who put the government in place as public servants, or is the Press Secretary working for LHL in a private capacity. It needs clarifying.

    I pointed out the uncanny parallels with the alleged misconduct that led to the blogger Roy’s sacking from Tan Tock Seng Hospital:

    I have had another thought. If the PM used his Private secretary to write to the Economist on his personal matters was this also a misuse of office resources, computer etc such as got Roy fired?

    The posts have already attracted a lot of online comments. Some of the commentators have defended Lee Hsien Loong’s actions in getting his Press Secretary to write since, they say, Roy Ngerng’s defamation brought the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) into disrepute.

    However I would disagree. The defamation was against the person and not the office. Lee Hsien Loong is suing Roy for damage to his personal reputation not to the reputation of the PMO. If he succeeds in his action for damages the money will not go to the PMO but to Mr Lee personally. The proper person to have written to the Economist should have been Lee Hsien Loong’s lawyer, and not his Press Secretary who is paid by the taxpayer.

    Who has responsibility for determining if there has been a breach of the Code and what sanctions should apply?

    The preamble to the Ministerial Code of Conduct makes clear that any breaches of the Code are to be treated extremely

    This Code of Conduct for Ministers sets out the “rules of obligation” that all Ministers are to abide by in order to uphold these standards. Breach of any of these “rules of obligation” may expose the Minister to removal from office.

    However the Code goes on to say that:

    This Code does not have the force of law and therefore any issue concerning the compliance or non-compliance with it is not subject to review by any court or tribunal.

    The Code is silent on how it is to be enforced. While responsibility for Ministers’ observance of the Code would appear to rest with the Prime Minister, it is not clear from the Constitution how breaches by the Prime Minister would be dealt with. The onus for investigating breaches would appear to lie with the President though this needs clarification. In matters involving corruption the President has the power under the Constitution to concur with the Director of CPIB’s decision to authorise an investigation even if the Prime Minister refuses to give his consent. However the CPIB comes under the PMO so it is not independent. The President does not have the power on his own to initiate investigations.

    In this instance a request should be made to the President asking him whether he has jurisdiction in this matter? If he does not who does? If he does, then he should investigate whether Lee Hsien Loong has breached the Code and make his findings public. Surely Lee Hsien Loong would not be able to continue in office if he was found to have committed a serious breach of the Code?

     

    Source: Kenneth Jeyaretnam; http://sonofadud.com

deneme bonusu