Blog

  • Pork Thrown into a Mosque in Penang

    PORK_AT_MOSQUE_160214_01_350_502_100
    A piece of meat believed to be pork found at the mosque in Machang Bubuk in mainland Penang on 16 Feb 2014.

    Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng has called on Penangites to unite and keep calm hours after the discovery early this morning of a slab of meat believed to be pork in the compound of a mosque in Cherok Tok Kun.

    Lim said mutual respect for each others’ differences are the most effective way to defect provocateurs and such criminal acts.

    “We condemn this treacherous act. We should not fall into such irresponsible elements that seek to disrupt our harmony.

    “Penangites must stand united and maintain the peace we enjoy,” he said today after visiting the Cherok Tok Kun Atas mosque in Machang Bubuk on the mainland.

    The mosque’s deputy imam, Saad Arop, 78, found a slab of meat at one of the entrances of the mosque at 5.30am this morning.

    Lim said closed circuit television (CCTV) will be installed outside the mosque to prevent similar incidents in the future.

    He said the state has also instructed Bukit Mertajam MP Steven Sim and Machang Bubuk assemblyman Lee Khai Loon to look into it immediately.

    “The mosque is just next to the main road so anyone could have thrown the meat.

    “So far, the mosque congregation is calm and we advise everyone to remain so,” he said.

    Earlier today, Penang crime investigation department chief senior assistant commissioner Mazlan Kesah confirmed the incident and said a police report on the matter was lodged at about 7.20am.

    Mazlan said there were no CCTVs in the area and that the meat had been sent to the Bukit Minyak Veterinary department to be tested and verified.

    The incident is being investigated under Section 295 of the Penal Code for injuring or defiling a place of worship with intent to insult a religion.

    Today’s incident is the second involving a place of worship in the state.

    On January 27, two molotov cocktails were thrown into the compound of the Assumption Church in George Town.

    Since the incident, police have been patrolling around churches and mosques. – February 16, 2014.

    Source: The Malaysian Insider

  • Sheikh Haikel hires bodyguard after death threat

    SheikhHaikel

    He received a death threat after criticising a contestant on the third season of Malaysian reality TV comedy search Maharaja Lawak Mega (MLM), on which he was a judge.

    This prompted local actor-rapper Sheikh Haikel to engage a bodyguard from Johor Baru last month, reportedly after the 11th week of the competition for whenever he had to travel to the Hall MLM Vision in Jitra, Kedah, for filming.

    The show, which was aired on Malaysian cable TV channel Astro Warna, ended its run a fortnight ago.

    “My wife and I have received a death threat (via social media) from a fanatic fan of one of the contestants of MLM. “And that’s not all. This particular fan has also threatened to run my kids down if we come to Malaysia. I was shocked,” the 38-year-old told Malaysian daily publication Utusan Malaysia late last month.

    He added: “In Singapore, I have a few personal bodyguards. I do this to ensure that my family is safe.

     

    Source: TNP

  • Denmark bans religious slaughter, affecting Jews and Muslims

    denamrkbanshalalkosher

    A Danish government’s move to ban ritual slaughter has angered both Muslim and Jewish faith communities, seeing the ban as a direct attack on their religious practices.

    “We and the Muslim organizations are talking about this,” local Jewish leader Finn Schwartz told The Jerusalem Post.

    Schwartz added that his community is in discussions with Danish authorities and is in contact with the Agriculture and Food Minister Dan Jørgensen.

    The controversy erupted last Thursday when Jørgensen announced that starting from next Monday, Jewish and Muslim ritual slaughter will be illegal in Denmark.

    “Animal rights come before religion,” the minister was quoted as saying by Danish station TV2.

    The move was widely criticized by religious leaders, dubbing it as an attack on the freedom of the religious minorities.

    “When you have religious minorities in a society you should also respect the religious minority even if you really don’t like some of the things [they] are doing,” Schwartz said.

    “If you want to change fundamental rules that concern the religious minorities then you should have an open discussion,” he said.

    Similar debates surrounding halal and kosher slaughter erupted last summer when previous Agriculture minister Karen Hækkerup stated her opposition to all slaughter without pre-stunning.

    Hækkerup was responding to the demand of a Muslim organization, that it be allowed to butcher animals without any stunning either prior to or following the cutting.

    Replying to critics who accused him of violating his citizens’ religious rights, the minister said that “when [Jews and Muslims] are upset about the ban, even though they have not taken advantage of the exemptions available, it can only be because in the future they would like to carry out slaughter without stunning.”

    Criticism

    Jewish organizations harshly censured Denmark over the impending ban on Thursday.

    “This attack on basic Jewish religious practice in Denmark puts into question the continuance of community life in the country and follows strongly on the heels of persistent attacks on Jewish circumcision,” European Jewish Congress President Moshe Kantor said.

    Kantor said that he hoped the ban was not an attempt to “placate or mollify animal rights activists in light of the international criticism” Denmark received after zookeepers shot and killed a giraffe in Copenhagen.

    European Commissioner for Health Tonio Borg has also condemned the ban, saying that it “contradicts European law.”

    The Conference of European Rabbis intends to raise the issue of “continuous attacks against religious minorities in Europe,” during a meeting with European Commission President José Manuel Barroso on Monday, CER head Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt told the Post.

    The Danish ban constituted a “further erosion of religious liberties and freedoms in Europe,” Goldschmidt said.

    According to the Islamic and Jewish ritual, the animal is slaughtered by a sharp blade.

    The concept of halal, — meaning permissible in Arabic — has traditionally been applied to food.

    Muslims should only eat meat from livestock slaughtered by a sharp knife from their necks, and the name of Allah, the Arabic word for God, must be mentioned.

    Muslim scholars agree that Shari`ah provides a divine law of mercy that should be applied on all Allah’s creations, including animals.

    Islam also provides details about avoiding any unnecessary pain.

    Denmark is home to a Muslim minority of 200,000, making three percent of the country’s 5.4 million population.

    The Scandinavian country has a Jewish minority of about 6,000.

    Source: Onislam.net

  • Companies Force Foreign Workers out of Singapore

    FT1

    Bapari Jakir’s employers wanted to see him off the job, but the welder was heavily in debt and didn’t want to go back to Bangladesh. So, he says, they encouraged him to leave — by hiring a company whose thugs held him captive in a room, holding a knife to his throat.

    Singapore needs foreign workers, but it doesn’t want them to overstay their welcome, and firms get fined when they do. That has created a market for “repatriation companies,” which deny allegations from activists and the United States that they use illegal tactics to expel foreign workers.

    The country’s wealth and continued growth rely in large part on foreign workers like Jakir, who build its skyline and maintain its top-notch infrastructure. Yet as the numbers of migrant workers soar, tales of abuse and exploitation are threatening to take some of the shine off the city-state’s international reputation.

    In December, migrant workers from South Asia rioted in the country’s first social unrest for more than 40 years. Some activists claim that anger over working conditions might have been a factor in the riots, which shocked a nation long seen as an island of stability in an unruly region.

    The activities of “repatriation companies” are a major source of concern for activists on the tightly controlled island.

    Firms hiring foreign labor must lodge 5,000 Singapore dollars ($3,900) bond with the government for each worker that is returnable only when they leave. Some firms employ companies to hunt down fired or laid-off workers, or those whose contracts have expired, and put them on a plane.

    After more than year in the job, Jakir said he was taken to a repatriation company’s office in August 2012 because his employer wanted him out of the country before his contract expired. He wasn’t given a reason, but suspects it was because they thought he was disruptive on account of his assertiveness in pressing for more working hours.

    FT2

    Once inside the office, he was asked to sign a document by three “big gangsters” stating that his employers didn’t owe him any salary arrears. He refused because he figured doing so would make it easier for them to repatriate him. He then alleges he was punched and had “a knife put to his neck.” Jakir was able to call a friend, who in turn contacted migrant rights activist Jolovan Wham.

    Jakir was allowed to leave the officers of the repatriation company after Wham signed a form stating that he would be responsible for paying the bond should he run away or disappear. Jakir is now living at a friend’s house, while his case is appealed. He wants to keep on working in the country to pay back the S$9,000 ($7,100) debt he took out to pay agents who got him the job in Singapore.

    “My father is sick now and he can’t work anymore. My two younger brothers have stopped school because I can’t send money home anymore. I also cannot call them often so I worry how they are doing,” he said.

    Jakir’s case was handled by UTR Services, the largest repatriation company in Singapore.

    In an email, the head of the company denied the allegations, which he said were fabricated.

    “We build good relationships with workers we are sending back. In fact some workers visit us when they return back to Singapore,” said J. Ravi. “If a worker refuses to go back, we will first find the reason for his refusal and if there is a valid reason, we may than refer him to the relevant authorities to legalize his stay pending outcome of his case.”

    In its 2013 report on human trafficking, the United States said the some repatriation companies in Singapore had “seized and confined” workers and used “assaults, threats and coercion to get them to the airport.” The report added that the high costs of coming to Singapore to work via agent fees “makes migrants very vulnerable to forced labor, including debt bondage.”

    Singapore’s manpower ministry said the Jakir’s case was “with the police.” In a statement, it said companies were obliged to follow the law when sending migrant workers home, and were not allowed to confine them. It said last year the ministry investigated four allegations of abuse by repatriation companies, but they were found to be unsubstantiated. The manpower ministry said it was aware of cases where foreign workers paid high fees to employment agents in their home countries before coming to Singapore, but it said the Singapore government was unable to regulate this.

    One of the wealthiest countries in the world, Singapore has about 1.1 million foreign workers out of a population of 5.3 million. The vast majority of them are low wage workers from developing countries — mainly from India, China and Bangladesh.

    Complaints about overcrowding and the difficulties some Singaporeans face in finding well-paid work are leading to discontent and anti-foreigner sentiment, a worry for the government given the key role imported labor plays in the country’s economic life.

    Compared to other places that rely on migrant workers like Dubai, conditions in Singapore are seen as relatively good. Most workers leave after a few years with the kind of savings they would have little chance of building if they had stayed at home.

    Yet, activists like Wham say many employers use repatriation companies to help them manage workers whom they perceive to be giving them problems or to get rid of those who are injured. Some say employers use the threat of repatriation to keep workers from arguing over pay disputes.

    Ravi from UTR Services said he repatriated around 1,200 workers last year. He said companies pay him S$250-S$350 ($199-$278) per worker, depending on the complexity of the job and time. On the average, he said it takes his company between six and eight hours to get the job done.

    Source: Associated Press

  • Singapore and Indonesia: An Uneasy Coexistence?

    SBY23

    The latest tensions to emerge between Singapore and Indonesia—this time after Indonesia named a naval warship for two marines executed for a 1965 bombing in Singapore—caught many political observers by surprise. Relations in recent years had remained cordial despite several noteworthy incidents, such as the transboundary haze caused by Indonesian forest fires (for which Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono memorably apologized), and Singapore’s sand reclamation works on Indonesian islands. The political fallout from both incidents seemed to have been contained by both sides.

    Yet in the recent days following Indonesia’s decision to name its new frigate the KRI Usman Harun, no fewer than five Singaporean ministers have spoken up against Indonesia’s actions, with the latest development being Indonesian defense officials pulling out of the Singapore Airshow (according to some reports, after Singapore canceled invites to junior officials).

    As with many other political events, the role of discourse has been central to the development of these tensions. Underlying these discursive tensions are structural factors that have made this conflict to be particularly intractable. However, structure and discourse have often become intertwined.

    Size Matters

    The structural disparities between Indonesia and Singapore have surfaced from time to time, most symbolically in for Indonesian President B. J. Habibie’s dismissal of Singapore as “a red dot” in 1998, which struck a raw nerve among Singapore policymakers at the time. They later deftly turned it into a synonym for Singapore’s success, as evidenced by books such as The Little Red Dot: Reflections of Singapore’s Diplomats, which paid tribute to the success of Singaporean diplomacy in helping the country punch above its weight.

    But size could also be a reason for the failure to resolve conflicts between Singapore and Indonesia. Size, in this sense, can be interpreted literally as well as symbolically, as the self-images of both countries. Both the original conflict in 1968 as well as the current one in 2014 have been directly attributed to size. When then-Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew turned down a direct appeal by former President Soeharto to pardon the two Indonesian marines, in the words of former MFA Permanent Secretary Bilahari Kausikan, “he could not have done otherwise without conceding that the small must always defer to the big and irretrievably compromising our sovereignty.”

    However, if Singaporeans are adamant that the small must not defer to the big, then the Indonesians are equally adamant that the big must not defer to the small. A few days ago, Indonesia’s Coordinating Minister for Political, Legal and Security Affairs Djoko Suyanto declared that “the fact that there is a different perception of Indonesian government policy by other countries, in this instance, Singapore, cannot make us backtrack or be uncertain about carrying on with our policy decision and implementing it.” Golkar MP Hajriyanto Thohari, deputy chairman of the People’s Consultative Assembly, went one step further, declaring “Let Singapore keep shrieking, like a chicken beaten by a stick.”

    Discourses Matter

    The Singapore-Indonesia dispute could have just been like any other in the region—and there is no shortage of them—with patriotic populations echoing the nationalist rhetoric of their political leaders. Yet what is particularly striking in this case is the disconnect between “official” and “popular” discourses. While politicians have tried to drum up support for their respective positions through the mass media, this has had limited resonance with Singaporeans and Indonesians, who regard each other as “friends” to the extent of questioning state discourses portraying the unreasonableness of the other side.

    The mix of voices on both sides is evidence that nationalist narratives, while dominant, are balanced with a good dose of self-reflection among the general public in both countries. On February 8, the Jakarta Postpublished an editorial titled “Can we be more sensitive?” while on the same day, Singaporean playwright Alfian Sa’at argued that Singapore’s denial of clemency to the two Marines could have led to their “martyrdom,” setting off a chain of events that led to the current dispute. It is not the purpose of this essay to evaluate the veracity of these counter-narratives, but simply to point out that their existence is evidence of pluralism within both Indonesian and Singapore societies. This desire to understand the other’s perspective, despite state appeals to patriotism and nationalism, augurs well for the relationship between both countries, at least on a people-to-people level.

    ASEAN Centrality

    This article has argued that an asymmetry in size has formed the basis of the security dilemma that exists between Singapore and Indonesia, leading to a diplomatic impasse between the two countries. It has also shown, however, that a gap exists between official and popular discourses. With the exception of families affected by the 1965 bombing, the events of Konfrontasi, which took place half a century ago, have little resonance for Singaporeans and Indonesians who have the good fortune of living in an era of peace, one that both their countries have played a central role in creating, as founding members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

    Indeed, both Indonesia and Singapore continue to play very important roles in ASEAN. Indonesia had an active role in mediating between Thailand and Cambodia during the Preah Vihear conflict, through a process of “shuttle diplomacy” that was the work of Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa. Singapore, too, was instrumental in the setting up of many ASEAN-related initiatives, most notably the ASEAN Regional Forum, ASEAN Plus Three, ASEAN Defence Ministers’ Meeting, and the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM).

    Given the centrality of both Indonesia and Singapore to ASEAN, it is unfortunate that an error in judgment on the part of the Indonesian Navy has led to a diplomatic impasse from which neither the bigger nor the smaller state can extricate itself easily and gracefully—a timely reminder of ASEAN’s yet-unrealized dream of becoming a “security community.” Yet it is time for Indonesia and Singapore to set aside their historical grievances, painful as these may be, and concentrate on the areas in which further cooperation may be achieved, thereby sustaining their shared vision of creating a true ASEAN Community.

    By Yvonne Guo

    The author is a PhD candidate at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore.

    Source: The Diplomat