Blog

  • Turkey Protecting The Al Aqsa Mosque

    Turkey Protecting The Al Aqsa Mosque

    Turkey’s Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu said on Friday that his country has already made moves to protect Al-Aqsa Mosque, news outlets have reported.

    Davutoğlu said that he has called Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas Political Bureau Head Khaled Meshaal to discuss the issue. He pledged to do whatever it takes for Al-Quds and Al-Aqsa Mosque. “We have given the required orders; we will launch initiatives everywhere, the UN being the first place in the world for supporting Al-Quds,” he insisted.

    “Al-Quds has been entrusted with us by Hazrat Omar [the second Muslim caliph],” Davutoğlu told the audience at the opening of public facilities in the north-western Anatolian province of Bursa. “Al-Quds has been entrusted to us by Ottoman Sultans Yavuz Sultan Selim and Süleyman the Magnificent. Al-Quds has been entrusted to us by the last soldier of the Ottomans and is our cause today. Even if everybody else forgets, it will continue being our cause for eternity. Nobody can turn to a Turk and say ‘Al-Quds is not your cause’.”

    Defending the whole Middle East, he continued: “No one can say that the Middle East, which includes Al-Quds, Makkah, Madinah, Baghdad, Damascus and Cairo, is a swamp. If there are some people who have changed it into a swamp, they are the oppressive regimes and occupiers, at the top of which is the Israeli government.”

    Addressing the Israeli occupation authorities Davutoğlu warned that they should not think that just because Muslims in the region are being suppressed by certain regimes they will not turn against Israel. “You have to know that there are some who defend Syrians and Palestinians, including the Turkish Republic. It will stand beside the oppressed everywhere and every time.”

     

    Source: www.middleeastmonitor.com

  • 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

  • The PAP’s “aim number one” 60 years ago

    The PAP’s “aim number one” 60 years ago

    The People’s Action Party (PAP) was formed on 12 November 1954.

    This year thus marks the party’s 60th anniversary.

    According to the PAP Facebook page:

    “Lee [Kuan Yew] formed the socialist People’s Action Party (PAP)… with a group of English-educated middle-class colleagues and pro-communist trade unionists…”

    The next year, 1955, the PAP nominated five candidates for the Legislative Assembly elections. Described as “action candidates” by The Singapore Free Press then, four of the five were:

    actioncandidates

    And before the PAP was officially formed, in fact one month before – on 28 October 1954 – the Straits Times reported the party’s aims as a political organisation.

    The Straits Times reported the PAP’s “aim number 1” as:

    “The repeal of the Emergency Regulations heads the list of aims and objects of the People’s Action Party…”

    The PAP, however, never did repeal the Emergency Regulations.

    The Emergency Regulations were the precursor to the Internal Security Act (ISA) which the PAP Government, after it came into power, used to arrest and jail its political opponents, including those which it had partnered with – such as the “pro-communist trade unionists” – when it formed the party.

    According to this online entry:

    British colonial Malaya introduced the Emergency Regulations Ordinance 1948 on 7 July 1948 during the Malayan Emergency in response to a Communist uprising and guerrilla war. The regulations allowed the police to arrest anybody suspected of having acted or being likely to act in a way that would threaten security without evidence or a warrant, hold them incommunicado for investigation, and detain them indefinitely without the detainee ever being charged with a crime or tried in a court of law.

    The successor to the Emergency Regulations Ordinance, the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance 1955 (“PPSO”), was introduced a result of the 1955 Hock Lee bus riots by the Labour Party government in Singapore. There was strong opposition to the PPSO by the party then in opposition, the People’s Action Party (“PAP”).

    In 1958, Lee Kuan Yew of the PAP accused the Lim Yew Hock government of using the PPSO to stifle political dissent.

    In 1960, three years after Malaya’s independence, the Emergency was declared over. However, the Malayan Internal Security Act 1960 (“ISA”) was passed in place of the PPSO with much of the same powers. During parliamentary debates on the Act, Malayan Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman stated that the ISA would only be applied against only the remaining Communist insurgents. The Malayan Communist Party and its insurgents eventually surrendered in 1989.

    Nonetheless, the ISA was retained in Malaysia.

    The drafter of the Malayan ISA was Hugh Hickling, a British lawyer, author and professor.

    In 1989, he commented that he “could not imagine then that the time would come when the power of detention, carefully and deliberately interlocked with Article 149 of the Constitution, would be used against political opponents, welfare workers and others dedicated to nonviolent, peaceful activities”.

    Nonetheless, he commented that he supported review of the ISA but it was not for him to say if the law should be scrapped, as “you’ve got a multi-racial society [in Malaysia] in which emotions can run high very quickly”.

    When Singapore joined the Federation of Malaya in 1963, the Malayan ISA was extended to Singapore. The Act was retained in Singapore even after its separation from Malaysia in 1965. The current version of the Act is known as Chapter 143 of the 1985 Revised Edition.

    In 1991, then deputy prime minister Lee Hsien Loong said the government “will seriously consider abolishing the Internal Security Act if Malaysia were to do so”.

    Source: National Library Archives

    In September 2011, Malaysia announced that it was repealing the ISA.

    A month after Malaysia’s announcement, Singapore’s deputy prime minister Teo Chee Hean, told Parliament on 19 October 2011, that “[for] the foreseeable future, Singapore will need a law containing provisions like those in the ISA, including preventive detention, to empower the Government to pre-empt and prevent serious threats to our security.”

    “The precise form the law takes may evolve with time and circumstances,” he said. “But for the present, the ISA is a shield that we need that protects us against these threats, allowing us to deal with them swiftly and effectively before they cause us serious and possibly permanent harm.”

    The PAP’s “aim number 1” at its founding – to repeal the security laws – thus remains unfulfilled.

    Among the PAP’s other pledges at its founding 60 years ago was “[the] restoration of the right to assemble in public; for any purpose that does not intend force’.”

    Public assembly in Singapore remains banned, unless a police permit is granted.

    Straits Times, 28 Oct 1954

    Straits Times, 28 Oct 1954

     

    Source: www.theonlinecitizen.com

  • 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

deneme bonusu