Kurang ajar betul minah tudung nie, bergambar dalam keadaan yang memalukan di tempat awam. Pakai saja tudung tetapi perangai macam apa!! Kalau tidak salah gambar ini dirakamkan di sebuah restoran makanan segera.
Kalaulah tempat terbuka sudah macam ini, apa lagi kalau tempat yang tertutup. Kenapalah perempuan sanggup buat apa saja demi teman lelakinya? Bukan tunang…jauh sekali suami. Menyesal kemudian hari tiada gunanya. Fikir-fikirkanlah.
Source: http://nblo.gs
Christians, perhaps because they call themselves Christians and believe in Christianity, like to claim ownership of Christ. But the veneration of Jesus by Muslims began during the lifetime of the Prophet of Islam. Perhaps most telling is the story in the classical biographies of Muhammad, who, entering the city of Mecca in triumph in 630AD, proceeded at once to the Kaaba to cleanse the holy shrine of its idols. As he walked around, ordering the destruction of the pictures and statues of the 360 or so pagan deities, he came across a fresco on the wall depicting the Virgin and Child. He is said to have covered it reverently with his cloak and decreed that all other paintings be washed away except that one.
Jesus, or Isa, as he is known in Arabic, is deemed by Islam to be a Muslim prophet rather than the Son of God, or God incarnate. He is referred to by name in as many as 25 different verses of the Quran and six times with the title of “Messiah” (or “Christ”, depending on which Quranic translation is being used). He is also referred to as the “Messenger” and the “Prophet” but, perhaps above all else, as the “Word” and the “Spirit” of God. No other prophet in the Quran, not even Muhammad, is given this particular honour. In fact, among the 124,000 prophets said to be recognised by Islam – a figure that includes all of the Jewish prophets of the Old Testament – Jesus is considered second only to Muhammad, and is believed to be the precursor to the Prophet of Islam.
In his fascinating book The Muslim Jesus, the former Cambridge professor of Arabic and Islamic studies Tarif Khalidi brings together, from a vast range of sources, 303 stories, sayings and traditions of Jesus that can be found in Muslim literature, from the earliest centuries of Islamic history. These paint a picture of Christ not dissimilar to the Christ of the Gospels. The Muslim Jesus is the patron saint of asceticism, the lord of nature, a miracle worker, a healer, a moral, spiritual and social role model.
“Jesus used to eat the leaves of the trees,” reads one saying, “dress in hairshirts, and sleep wherever night found him. He had no child who might die, no house which might fall into ruin; nor did he save his lunch for his dinner or his dinner for his lunch. He used to say, ‘Each day brings with it its own sustenance.’”
According to Islamic theology, Christ did not bring a new revealed law, or reform an earlier law, but introduced a new path or way (tariqah) based on the love of God; it is perhaps for this reason that he has been adopted by the mystics, or Sufis, of Islam. The Sufi philosopher al-Ghazali described Jesus as “the prophet of the soul” and the Sufi master Ibn Arabi called him “the seal of saints”. The Jesus of Islamic Sufism, as Khalidi notes, is a figure “not easily distinguished” from the Jesus of the Gospels.
What prompted Khalidi to write such a provocative book? “We need to be reminded of a history that told a very different story: how one religion, Islam, co-opted Jesus into its own spirituality yet still maintained him as an independent hero of the struggle between the spirit and the letter of the law,” he told me. “It is in many ways a remarkable story of religious encounter, of one religion fortifying its own piety by adopting and cherishing the master spiritual narrative of another religion.”
Islam reveres both Jesus and his mother, Mary (Joseph appears nowhere in the Islamic narrative of Christ’s birth). “Unlike the canonical Gospels, the Quran tilts backward to his miraculous birth rather than forward to his Passion,” writes Khalidi. “This is why he is often referred to as ‘the son of Mary’ and why he and his mother frequently appear together.” In fact, the Virgin Mary, or Maryam, as she is known in the Quran, is considered by Muslims to hold the most exalted spiritual position among women. She is the only woman mentioned by name in Islam’s holy book and a chapter of the Quran is named after her. In one oft-cited tradition, the Prophet Muhammad described her as one of the four perfect women in human history.
But the real significance of Mary is that Islam considers her a virgin and endorses the Christian concept of the Virgin Birth. “She was the chosen woman, chosen to give birth to Jesus, without a husband,” says Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra, an imam in Leicester and assistant secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB). This is the orthodox Islamic position and, paradoxically, as Seyyed Hossein Nasr notes in The Heart of Islam, “respect for such teachings is so strong among Muslims that today, in interreligious dialogues with Christians . . . Muslims are often left defending traditional . . . Christian doctrines such as the miraculous birth of Christ before modernist interpreters would reduce them to metaphors.”
With Christianity and Islam so intricately linked, it might make sense for Muslim communities across Europe, harassed, harangued and often under siege, to do more to stress this common religious heritage, and especially the shared love for Jesus and Mary. There is a renowned historical precedent for this from the life of the Prophet. In 616AD, six years in to his mission in Mecca, Muhammad decided to find a safer refuge for those of his followers who had been exposed to the worst persecution from his opponents in the pagan tribes of the Quraysh. He asked the Negus, the Christian king of Abyssinia (modern-day Ethiopia), to take them in. He agreed and more than 80 Muslims left Mecca with their families. The friendly reception that greeted them upon arrival in Abyssinia so alarmed the Quraysh that, worried about the prospects of Muhammad’s Muslims winning more allies abroad, they sent two delegates to the court of the Negus to persuade him to extradite them back to Mecca. The Muslim refugees, claimed the Quraysh, were blasphemers and fugitives. The Negus invited Jafar, cousin of Muhammad and leader of the Muslim group, to answer the charges. Jafar explained that Muhammad was a prophet of the same God who had confirmed his revelation to Jesus, and recited aloud the Quranic account of the virginal conception of Christ in the womb of Mary:
And make mention of Mary in the Scripture, when she had withdrawn from her people to a chamber looking East,
And had chosen seclusion from them. Then We sent unto her Our Spirit and it assumed for her the likeness of a perfect man.
She said: Lo! I seek refuge in the Beneficent One from thee, if thou art God-fearing.Set featured image
He said: I am only a messenger of thy Lord, that I may bestow on thee a faultless son.
She said: How can I have a son when no mortal hath touched me, neither have I been unchaste?
He said: So (it will be). Thy Lord saith: It is easy for Me. And (it will be) that We may make of him a revelation for mankind and a mercy from Us, and it is a thing ordained.
Quran, 19:16-21
Karen Armstrong writes, in her biography of Muhammad, that “when Jafar finished, the beauty of the Quran had done its work. The Negus was weeping so hard that his beard was wet, and the tears poured down the cheeks of his bishops and advisers so copiously that their scrolls were soaked.” The Muslims remained in Abyssinia, under the protection of the Negus, and were able to practise their religion freely.
However, for Muslims, the Virgin Birth is not evidence of Jesus’s divinity, only of his unique importance as a prophet and a messiah. The Trinity is rejected by Islam, as is Jesus’s Crucifixion and Resurrection. The common theological ground seems to narrow at this point – as Jonathan Bartley, co-director of the Christian think tank Ekklesia, argues, the belief in the Resurrection is the “deal-breaker”. He adds: “There is a fundamental tension at the heart of interfaith dialogue that neither side wants to face up to, and that is that the orthodox Christian view of Jesus is blasphemous to Muslims and the orthodox Muslim view of Jesus is blasphemous to Christians.” He has a point. The Quran singles out Christianity for formulating the concept of the Trinity:
Do not say, “Three” – Cease! That is better for you. God is one God. Glory be to Him, [high exalted is He] above having a son.
Quran 4:171
It castigates Christianity for the widespread practice among its sects of worshipping Jesus and Mary, and casts the criticism in the form of an interrogation of Jesus by God:
And when God will say: “O Jesus, son of Mary, did you say to the people, ‘Take me and my mother as gods besides God’?” he will
say, “Glory be to You, it was not for me to say what I had no right [to say]! If I had said it, You would have known it.
Quran 5:116
Jesus, as Khalidi points out, “is a controversial prophet. He is the only prophet in the Quran who is deliberately made to distance himself from the doctrines that his community is said to hold of him.” For example, Muslims believe that Jesus was not crucified but was raised bodily to heaven by God.
Yet many Muslim scholars have maintained that the Islamic conception of Jesus – shorn of divinity; outside the Trinity; a prophet – is in line with the beliefs and teachings of some of the earliest Jewish-Christian sects, such as the Ebionites and the Nazarenes, who believed Jesus to be the Messiah, but not divine. Muslims claim the Muslim Jesus is the historical Jesus, stripped of a later, man-made “Christology”: “Jesus as he might have been without St Paul or St Augustine or the Council of Nicaea”, to quote the Cambridge academic John Casey.
Or, as A N Wilson wrote in the Daily Express a decade ago: “Islam is a moral and intellectual acknowledgement of the lordship of God without the encumbrance of Christian mythological baggage . . . That is why Christianity will decline in the next millennium, and the religious hunger of the human heart will be answered by the Crescent, not the Cross.” Despite the major doctrinal differences, there remain areas of significant overlap, such as on the second coming of Christ. Both Muslims and Christians subscribe to the belief that before the world ends Jesus will return to defeat the Antichrist, whom Muslims refer to as Dajjal.
The idea of a Muslim Jesus, in whatever doctrinal form, may help fortify the resolve of those scholars who talk of the need to reformulate the exclusivist concept of a Judaeo-Christian civilisation and refer instead to a “Judaeo-Christian-Muslim civilisation”. This might be anathema to evangelical Christians – especially in the US, where populist preachers such as Franklin Graham see Islam as a “very evil and wicked religion” – but, as Khalidi points out, “While the Jewish tradition by and large rejects Jesus, the Islamic tradition, especially Sufi or mystical Islam, constructs a place for him at the very centre of its devotions.”
Nonetheless, Jesus remains an esoteric part of Islamic faith and practice. Where, for example, is the Islamic equivalent of Christmas? Why do Muslims celebrate the birth of the Prophet Muhammad but not that of the Prophet Jesus? “We, too, in our own way should celebrate the birth of Jesus . . . [because] he is so special to us,” says Mogra. “But I think each religious community has distinct celebrations, so Muslims will celebrate their own and Christians their own.”
In recent years, the right-wing press in Britain has railed against alleged attempts by “politically correct” local authorities to downplay or even suppress Christmas. Birmingham’s attempt to name its seasonal celebrations “Winterval” and Luton’s Harry Potter-themed lights, or “Luminos”, are notorious examples. There is often a sense that such decisions are driven by the fear that outward displays of Christian faith might offend British Muslim sensibilities, but, given the importance of Jesus in Islam, such fears seem misplaced. Mogra, who leads the MCB’s interfaith relations committee, concurs: “It’s a ridiculous suggestion to change the name of Christmas.” He adds: “Britain is great when it comes to celebrating diverse religious festivals of our various faith communities. They should remain named as they are, and we should celebrate them all.”
Mogra is brave to urge Muslims to engage in an outward and public celebration of Jesus, in particular his birth, in order to match the private reverence that Muslims say they have for him. Is there a danger, however, that Muslim attempts to re-establish the importance of Jesus within Islam and as an integral part of their faith and tradition might be misinterpreted? Might they be misconstrued as part of a campaign by a supposedly resurgent and politicised Islam to try to take “ownership” of Jesus, in a western world in which organised Christianity is in seeming decline? Might it be counterproductive for interfaith relations? Church leaders, thankfully, seem to disagree.
“I have always enjoyed spending time with Muslim friends, with whom we as Christians have so much in common, along with Jewish people, as we all trace our faith back to Abraham,” the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, tells me. “When I visit a mosque, having been welcomed in the name of ‘Allah and His Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon Him’, I respond with greetings ‘in the name of Jesus Christ, whom you Muslims revere as a prophet, and whom I know as the Saviour of the World, the Prince of Peace’.”
Amid tensions between the Christian west and the Islamic east, a common focus on Jesus – and what Khalidi calls a “salutary” reminder of when Christianity and Islam were more open to each other and willing to rely on each other’s witness – could help close the growing divide between the world’s two largest faiths. Mogra agrees: “We don’t have to fight over Jesus. He is special for Christians and Muslims. He is bigger than life. We can share him.”
Reverend David Marshall, one of the Church of England’s specialists on Islam, cites the concluding comments from the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, at a recent seminar for Christian and Muslim scholars. He said he had been encouraged by “the quality of our disagreement”. “Christians and Muslims disagree on many points and will continue to do so – but how we disagree is not predetermined,” says Marshall. “Muslims are called by the Quran to ‘argue only in the best way with the People of the Book’ [Quran 29:46], and Christians are encouraged to give reasons for the hope that is within them, ‘with gentleness and reverence’ [1 Peter 3:15]. If we can do this, we have no reason to be afraid.”
“The Muslim Jesus” by Tarif Khalidi is published by Harvard University Press (£14.95)
Mehdi Hasan is the NS’s senior editor (politics)
Source: www.newstatesman.com
The Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC), run by the opposition Workers’ Party, was on Wednesday (Dec 24) fined S$800 for holding a festive trade fair without a permit earlier this year.
A district court had found the town council guilty on Nov 28 for flouting Section 35 of the Environmental Public Health Act. AHPETC faced a fine of up to S$1,000.
AHPETC ARGUES FOR NOMINAL FINE
In its mitigation plea, defence lawyer Peter Low said AHPETC “is not deserving of the maximum fine” of S$1,000 and instead argued for a nominal fine of S$200.
He urged the court to take into account the particular circumstances that the town council found itself in at the time of the offence. Among them, that AHPETC was uncertain as to whether the National Environment Agency (NEA) would require the town council to apply for a permit for organising its Chinese New Year fair.
The town council also went ahead to fill up the application form it received from the NEA despite having reservations over the requirements in the form.
Mr Low also argued that the town council showed substantial compliance of NEA’s demands, and when the town council highlighted to NEA that some of the requirements were unreasonable, the agency “maintained silence as to why it imposed unreasonable conditions”. These conditions include getting support from the area’s Citizens’ Consultative Committee for the running of the fair.
Mr Low said AHPETC “honestly believed it was justified in proceeding without a trade fair permit”.
Prosecution lawyer Isaac Tan though said the town council was deliberate in its action and unremorseful.
Elaborating on his grounds for sentencing, District Judge Victor Yeo said the undisputed fact was that the town council made a conscious decision to start its fair a day earlier despite being told by the NEA that its application for a permit was incomplete. He reiterated that the true objection of the town council centred on the conditions attached to the permit and not the requirement for a permit.
He added AHPETC had also ignored repeated warnings by the NEA that it could face prosecution if it continued with the fair. The fair ran its full course for three weeks.
A nominal fine, said the judge, would send the wrong signal to others who want to organise temporary fairs.
“In deciding on the appropriate fine to impose other than the duration of the the temporary fair, I have also considered the nature and the scale of the temporary fair. Suffice for me to note, the event was held at the sheltered Hougang Central Hub, in the vicinity of commercial shops and residential blocks, where considerable human traffic can be expected. The size of the fair was not small as it covered about 560 square metres, accommodating five stalls and numerous benches,” said District Judge Yeo.
AHPETC UNABLE TO ORGANISE ACTIVITIES, SAYS SYLVIA LIM
AHPETC Chairman Sylvia Lim said she respects the court’s decision but is not satisfied with the outcome, adding that the issue is a matter of public interest.
“The reason why we contested the case in court is not because we want to give any problems to any Government agency but we believe there’s a public interest question involved. How Government agencies should exercise the powers given to them under the law and whether they act in a just and fair manner,” she said.
She added that the town council has been hampered in managing common areas under its charge, and that it has not been able to organise activities to benefit residents in the area.
This, said Ms Lim, has also affected the town council’s revenue source.
Source: www.channelnewsasia.com
David William Graaskov, 18, is no ordinary Singapore young man. He is one of the few young men and women, far too few unfortunately in that island, who has the character and courage to stand on principle. No one can say that he does not have courage, character or integrity, qualities that most young men and women who have grown up under Lee Kuan Yew, the Singaporean dictator and his son, the Prime Minister, utterly lack.
Any father or mother should be proud to have a boy like him. And in his journey in life ahead of him, one can see the making of a leader unlike the vast majority of others in that island who can only live their lives in fear and obedience.
Singapore is a repressive island, devoid of basic human rights such as freedom of speech, assembly, association and anyone engaging in any such activity is liable to be arrested and imprisoned, loss of job and career and victimized the rest of his life by a government determined to keep their citizens under control.
Since the consequences of any attempt to assert their citizens rights under the Constitution will result in harsh and serious consequences to their life and liberty, most Singaporeans do not dare to criticize the government openly or demand their rights for fear of certain retribution, as is the case in Communist China.
This courageous young man David William Graaskov is not among the general cowardly population that you find in in the island of Singapore. On May 07, 2014, he and 4 other young men of his age, climbed atop a HDB Government Housing Residential Block and wrote slogans such as “Freedom” protesting the lack of basic human rights of the citizens. Since as mentioned Singapore laws makes it illegal to protest, he and the others were charged for vandalism which under Singapore law not only results in imprisonment but also caning (whipping) a very brutal and inhuman form of punishment which leaves the victim suffering permanent injury and scarred for life.
Yesterday, December 22, 2014, young Graaskov pleaded guilty to theft and criminal trespass in Lee Kuan Yew’s sons Courts in Singapore. He will be sentenced at a subsequent date.
Graskov is clearly a hero. He need not have bothered to do this. He has nothing to gain from doing this. Like the other cowardly young men and women who are satisfied to live in bondage, he could have done nothing and merely went on with his life. But not Graaskov. He felt that this is wrong. And when something is wrong, it is courageous who stand up to it. It is honorable act. It shows character and leadership.
In fact he has much more integrity and leadership than even his ethnic Chinese lawyer walking next to him, a member of a legal profession that has shown it has no intention to do any real lawyering. Very probably his lawyer , undoubtedly a very timid fellow would have advised him to plead guilty and not antagonize the judge. To show how timid these Singapore lawyers are, you might want to know that opposition politician Chee Soon Juan, when sued for defamation of character some years ago, by Lee Kuan Yew and his son, was unable to find a single lawyer to represent him in that entire island! That explains volumes of the lawyering capacity of these Singaporean lawyers.
If I was Graaskov’s lawyer, I would have advised him to fight the charges. Of course I realize that there is the possibility of caning, but this government today is so maligned and has lost so much respectability that it is most unlikely that they would cane 18 year old Graaskov.
Of course it is certain that he would lose at any trial but the publicity that he generates by mounting a Constitutional right of free speech and expression , would result in Lee’s son, the Prime Minister who controls everything including the courts, suffering much more loss to his reputation, while Graaskov would come out the hero, a David who stood up to the one eyed Goliath.
We all come to the cross roads in life’s journey. At that point those with courage and leadership take the right path, even though it is hard. Others take the easy path although they know it is wrong. Here we have Graaskov, standing up to what is right regardless of the consequence, while other lesser mortals remain quiet and submit.
If I had to follow a leader, I can say without hesitation that it will be Graaskov, not the hundreds of thousands of young men and women who are incapable of doing anything but going back from school to their TV sets as if nothing is happening around them.
Making a prediction, I say, 18 year old Graaskov, would one day be a leader of men.
I would also suggest that Graasskov’s parents should try to send him to the West for his higher education. He is surrounded by an entire island of submissive and cowed population and this is not good for his upbringing or his education. His Singapore teachers themselves terrified of the government would be telling him to be like the others and submit in silence. His parents, if they are Singaporeans would probably be telling him the same thing. And the Singaporean mindset is itself bad because it considers submission and obedience as virtues while challenging authority is a crime.
Graaskov has shown extraordinary courage even while living under such suppressive and repressive climate as Singapore island. Imagine how much more he will progress if allowed to live among people who have their heads screwed on right and know that it is heroic and honorable to stand up to an unjust regime, and submission to injustice is cowardly.
Well done Graaskov. You have guts.
Gopalan Nair
Attorney at Law
A Singaporean in Exile
Fremont California USA
Tel: 510 491 8525
Email: [email protected]
Facebook: www.facebook.com/singapore.dissident
Single-party governments in Southeast Asia are failing across the region unless they are able to reinvent themselves.
This was what Norshahril Saat, a PhD candidate at the Department of Political and Social Change, Australian National University and a graduate of the National University of Singapore, wrote, in The Straits Times.
“Are dominant parties of the last century doomed to fail in the 21st?” he asked.
“Twenty years ago, dominant single-parties were a recognisable feature of South-east Asian politics. Indonesia’s Golkar, Malaysia’s Umno and Singapore’s People’s Action Party were marching to the beat of their own drums, proving to be too formidable for opposition parties.
“Today, however, the drumbeats are not as confident as in the 1990s: the rhythm has either slowed down – as in Malaysia and Singapore – or is in disarray, as in Indonesia,” he said.
He pointed how “all three parties have held their congresses” over the last month.
“Umno and PAP leaders told cadres to persevere or risk losses in the next elections, while Golkar’s leaders acknowledge their crisis.”
Already, change has taken place in Indonesia.
“For the first time in its 50-year history, Golkar has become an opposition party,” Mr Norshahril said.
“During former president Suharto’s New Order administration (1966-1998), Golkar’s authority was unmatched by the opposition parties PDI and PPP. Even after Mr Suharto’s resignation in 1998, Golkar was somehow able to stay in government through forming coalitions with the winning parties and appointing members to the Cabinet.
“After this year’s legislative and presidential elections, Golkar chose Mr Prabowo Subianto’s opposition Red-White coalition.”
Golkar lost.
In Malaysia, even though the dominant party has also weakened tremendously, it has however managed to retain government.
“In contrast, Malaysia’s Umno stayed united after the disastrous 2013 elections, though the possibility of splits looms large in the years to come,” Mr Norshahril said.
“At this year’s Umno General Assembly, Prime Minister Najib Razak, who is Umno president, warned party members to unite and to kick-start the party’s renewal process. He urged senior members to give young members a chance to lead the party. The party’s deputy president, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, also urged party members to work harder to regain grassroots support, saying: “…do or be dead!””
“Similar alarm bells sounded during the PAP’s 60th-anniversary rally,” Mr Norshahril noted.
“Party secretary-general Lee Hsien Loong warned cadres to treat the next election, due by early 2017, as a national contest. He also cautioned members about possible losses if they did not work hard.
“Calling the next election “a deadly serious fight”, Mr Lee also spoke about the possibility of a freak election result that could see the party lose power.”
However, Mr Norshahril is more lenient in his assessment of the PAP.
“So far, the PAP has done everything right to avoid Umno’s and Golkar’s mistakes,” he said.
“First, PAP has given its young members more say in the party’s decisions. It has not repeated Golkar’s failures, of totally ignoring the renewal process, or Umno’s, of leaving the renewal agenda till too late.”
But Mr Norshahril questioned the wisdom of PAP’s use of “young candidates”.
“Mr Lee’s decision to place young candidates in the 2011 election appears to have backfired at first glance. Netizens questioned the fielding of Ms Tin Pei Ling – then 27 years old – who was considered lacking in political experience.
“Still, the decision has allowed the young candidates to make their mark at the grassroots level,” Mr Norshahril thought.
He also said that, “populism is necessary in politics, but does not guarantee election success”.
“PAP politicians have been actively posting selfies on social media, telling the public of their outreach.
“However, as Umno members will tell them, repeated selfies, Facebook and Twitter updates and “I Love PM” campaigns do not automatically translate into votes.
“Thus, the PAP must not rely too much on such populist moves.
This is even though the PAP has claimed that it is not a populist government. It looks like its action suggest otherwise and the PAP does seem to want to pander to populist sentiments.
However, even so, this is unlikely to matter.
What is more important is for “the PAP needs to be daring enough to break from its past, including its past ideology,” Mr Norshahril said. “Political ideologies have to be made relevant to the political realities of the day.”
However, Mr Norshahril believes that the PAP is on the right track.
“The PAP has taken tentative steps to strike out on a new path. For the first time in 32 years, it has amended the party’s Constitution, calling for a “compassionate meritocracy” and “democracy of deeds”. The party has pledged more help for those in the lower-income group and the pioneer generation.”
“The party would be wise to continue to refresh its ideology, and to allow current leaders to state their disagreements with their predecessors in a respectful manner,” he ended by saying.
However, what Mr Norshahril did not point out was that when the PAP first started out, it has started out on a constitution of “equality” but it removed this in 1982.
The latest amendment to its constitution does not include any mention of “equality”.
Moreover, it is unlikely that Singaporeans’ assessment of the PAP is as generous as Mr Norshahril.
Where wages in Singapore are one of the lowest here, as compared to the other developed countries and where Singapore has become the most expensive place to live in the world, many Singaporeans are now unforgiving towards the PAP government, believing that the PAP has “lost touch with the ground”.
Many also believe that the PAP no longer has the heart of the people and do not trust the PAP to lead Singapore anymore.
Mr Norshahril’s opinion piece seems to act as a warning to the PAP but also as a simplistic hope that the speeches that the PAP has made would actually translate into actual change. Seasoned political observers would understand that the PAP’s current behaviour is only a continuation of its use of its typical rhetoric to sway the people’s minds without any actual change to the policies.
As the Asia Regional Director for the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue, Michael Vatikiotis, said, “for established elites in the region it’s that last point about a genuine democratic system that is hardest to swallow. Power can be responsibly wielded, even in the name of the people, but is not easily surrendered.”
It is unlikely that the PAP would give up its throne without a fight.
Indeed, the soon-to-be general election will be a “deadly fight” because the PAP will fight to the end for its hold onto power.
Source: www.therealsingapore.com