Rilek1Corner

Blog

  • Muslims have Special Parking Rights?

    1606859_10151869804133091_1631010291_n

    On the afternoon of 10 January 2014 between 1.15pm- 1.30pm, I parked my car at Geylang road between Lorong 30 to 32, and left my car to run some quick errands. When I returned, I received a summon ticket for parking along a double yellow line. I am aware that it is an offence to park along a double yellow line, and I accept that I will have to pay for the parking offence. However, I noticed that there were many other cars parked along the same road and opposite from where I parked my car. They were all not issued any parking summons.

    I stood there and observed the LTA officer (One female in plain clothes by the name of Phyllis), and another in uniform (Indian guy) summoning a few other vehicles. Phyllis stood there and observed which cars belonged to Chinese owners, before directing her Indian colleague to issue summons to these vehicles. I went up to the LTA officers and questioned why they were issuing summons only to the Chinese vehicle owners and not the Malays.

    Phyllis told me that the Malays who are going to the mosque nearby are allowed to do so. Is there such a rule in Singapore that I am not aware of? If so, why do I see LTA officers summoning cars during festivals where we Chinese are offering prayers to our god? I see no racial equality in this situation. Please help to share around so that this issue will be brought to the relevant authorities attention. Thank you!

    Don Tan

    Source: http://on.fb.me/1ftJtih

  • A Short Response to DPM Teo and Minister Yaacob

    The DPM’s statement is encouraging, as it shows that our cabinet has acknowledged the Muslim community’s concerns. We should strongly welcome his statement. Minister Yaacob’s post on how he met up with PM Lee is also another good sign.

    In the spirit of calls by the government to engage in constructive engagement, i would like to respond briefly to the concerns raised.

    1) DPM Teo mentions that the government needs to balance the different communities’ needs. This is more than a fair statement. The questions that should be asked though:

    i) Does wearing the hijab (in schools or hospitals or elsewhere) impinge on other communities’ needs? If so, how?

    ii) Are the other communities not fine with the hijab being worn in those places?

    The second is an empirical question, that can easily be discovered. I urge the government, or the Institute of Policy Studies, or MUIS, or anyone else willing and able, to do a proper survey to establish the answer to this question, if this is a genuine question. I have been doing informal surveys on my own, and thus far i gather that non-Muslims are more than comfortable with their Muslim friends wearing the hijab. Of course, my informal surveys do not employ the statistical rigour required (random sampling etc), and hence a large organization might be better-placed to conduct such a survey.

    2) Minister Yaacob says that we should try to work to find ‘practical solutions’. I call for the government to suggest what are some of these ‘practical solutions’ that they have in mind. These suggestions should then be discussed with the Muslim and non-Muslim communities.

    On the Muslims’ part, i am sure we are more than willing to offer suggestions too.

    3) DPM Teo says that social harmony is paramount. Muslims agree. Again, the question should be how does the hijab undermine social harmony? If anything, it will only increase levels of tolerance and understanding, especially if non-Muslims are exposed to this Muslim code of dressing since a young age.

    4) Finally, it is hoped that the government will outline their concerns about the hijab, as thus far it has been unclear what those concerns actually are. For example, if social harmony is the worry, then they will need to explain how the hijab affects harmony. If the ‘secular space’ is the concern, then we need to define what is this imaginary space and how will it be affected.

    To conclude, i call on the Muslim community to work closely with our non-Muslim friends, and solicit feedback on the hijab from them. We should encourage them to be as honest as possible with us, and can help clarify their doubts. I also hope that this issue will not be framed as ‘Muslims VS PAP’ or ‘us VS them’; rather it should be ‘Singaporeans (Muslims and non-Muslims) trying to convince a legitimately-elected government to reconsider their policy.’

    Walid Jumblatt Abdullah

    Source: http://www.facebook.com/notes/osman-sulaiman/is-pap-the-solution-or-the-problem/10151696941793372

  • Is PAP the solution or the problem?

    0% of the population voted for PAP during 2011 elections. The PAP vaingloriously considers this achievement as an indication that they have gotten a HUGE majority of support from the citizens as compared to other democratic nations. As we know, this figure belies the actual truth. Taking into consideration that the climate of fear still plays a crucial role in punching up the percentage, Im pretty sure their think-tank have its own analysis as to what the actual support is.

    We had seen how support for PAP has been sliding south at each general election. Again, I’m sure they conducted extensive research on why this is happening. While the frugal Lee Kuan Yew (LKY) was very fortunate to have a docile population whom he can twiddle with his imaginary hatchet, his prodigal son, Lee Hsien Loong (LHL) had to content with an electorate equipped with plethora of information from the emergence of the social media.

    Make no mistake. The PAP has absolute control over our print media. Those who think that our newspapers provide unbiased reporting, must have been living in ‘Batu Cave’ and have no other sources of information except receiving news via a subscription plan from SPH.

    Unable to control the outflow of information which has been fastidiously guarded during LKY’s term, the people are now beginning to realise that PAP is not the solution to the problems that the country is facing. In fact, they are the problem. Policies were passed down without extensive deliberations and they are reactive rather than proactive.

    Often times, when problems start to appear, it was not promptly addressed. They make it a habit of ignoring valid small feedbacks from the public as being inconsequential. Thus problems regularly get compounded.

    Now let’s examine a few bread and butter issues to ascertain the facts on whether im blowing hot air.

    Public housing – We have seen prices skyrocketing. The scholars from PAP were the one that peg new public housing prices to the open market. This is now almost irreversible as detaching it will only have dire consequences to existing owners. What’s the solution from PAP then? Except meaningless tweaking and more taxes implemented, PAP has offered no long term solution to this predicament. In fact, they are compounding it by bringing in more immigrants without building adequate supply.

    Public transport (SMRT) – Who’s the genius one who decided to privatize our public transportation? Although this process is still reversible, it will take insane amount of tax payers’ money to nationalise it again. The citizens are now at the mercy of these big organizations as and when they decide to increase the fares. What’s the solution from PAP to keep transportation cost down? Nothing except throwing in tax payer’s money to fund part of SBS and SMRT’s expenditure to keep cost from rising while tax payers were made to pay for their mistakes. For how long are we going to inject billions of public funds to feed these big organizations?

    Healthcare – Who’s the smart aleck who created this severe brain drain of doctors in Singapore when he capped the number of students allowed to take medicine at NUS? Singapore now has to attract doctors from all over to come and practice here, paying premium salaries to them. Inevitably, part of the cost is passed on to patients. We also heard many stories of how a family is burden with hospital bills amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars after a patient is diagnosed with terminal illness. Obviously our 3M has failed to provide adequate coverage to prevent such situation from happening. What’s the solution to these?

    COE – It is now a luxury to own a car in Singapore. At the present moment, Cat A and B quota premium is $85k and $93k respectively. The main purpose of implementing the COE system was to curb vehicle population growth. It had to a certain degree met its objectives albeit at the expense of the average citizen when COE prices shoot up to almost 30 times of the median income. It’s not rocket science to know that with an impending population increase and more affluent foreigners being converted into citizens, this regressive tax system will only impose a greater burden on the poor. Being a reactive government rather than proactive one, we can expect this problem will not be approaching any solution soon.

    It’s time that citizens think critically without prejudice on various issues that is affecting Singaporeans. Many of the problems were the result of bad decisions and policies. Achieving economic success alone is never a true measure of how successful a nation is. Citizen’s welfare and well-being should be placed in tandem with any economic progress.

    PAP has shown that its problem solving skills are limited to only imposing additional taxes on the citizens without any concrete solutions. It has failed the acid test and it is now time for a new holistic government to take it over for the next lap.

    Regards,
    Osman Sulaiman

    Source: http://www.facebook.com/notes/osman-sulaiman/is-pap-the-solution-or-the-problem/10151696941793372

  • WHY ARE MALAYS SPECIAL IN SINGAPORE?

    Parliament witnessed an intense Population White Paper debate recently with 77 members voted “For”, 11 voted ‘Against” and 1 “Abstain”. It was a learning experience for young PAP leaders and opposition MPs on political process in getting sensitive policy implemented for the benefit of Singaporeans at large. The debate brought up many issues affecting Singaporeans but there was one close to my heart that many might had missed – the need to maintain the percentage of minorities especially the Malays in Singapore’s population mix. In fact, Prime Minister Lee himself in closing the debate, highlighted the issue and gave assurance to Malays that they would not be diluted http://news.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20130208-401106.html. Some might asked why was it important that Malays had to be singled out and assured that they would not be diluted, to a point that PM Lee had to reiterate PAP government’s commitment to do so?

    To shed light on the question and for the benefit of younger generation, leaders and new citizens in Singapore, we need to refer to Singapore’s Constitution that took effect on 9th August 1965 (the date we celebrate National Day every year). In the written constitution, I like to highlight Article 152 pertaining Minorities and Special Position of Malays that states:

    (1) It shall be the responsibility of the Government constantly to care for the interests of the racial and religious minorities in Singapore.
    (2) The Government shall exercise its functions in such manner as to recognize the special position of the Malays, who are the indigenous people of Singapore, and accordingly it shall be the responsibility of the Government to protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote their political, educational, religious, economic, social and cultural interests and the Malay language.

    I am very sure that not many young Singaporeans, even Malays, are well aware of this Article. Some may heard of it but not too sure why it is even written in the constitution especially in multi-racial and multi-religous society in Singapore. I feel the urge to highlight Article 152 as memory lapse may lead to our younger generation of PAP and Opposition leaders succumb to pressure to treat all races in Singapore equal and making poor decision in public policy. While every word in Singapore’s Pledge champions to treat everybody as equal, it may not be pragmatic and runs counter to the spirit of the constitution itself.

    Singapore’s constitution was written after Singapore was thrown out by Malaysia in 1965 and Malays who decided to stay on after the separation felt vulnerable. Article 152 is the pillar in the constitution to recognize Malays as the indigenous people and that the Government of the day has to protect their rights. Several interest groups and individuals – the recent one by NMP Viswa Sadasivan – attempted to challenge and question the need for Article 152 in today’s context to achieve equality for all races. The response was swift and succinct from Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew when NMP Viswa called for equal treatment for all races during one Parliament session in 2009 (http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=211512). I sense that he will not be the last individual or group calling for equal treatment for all races in Singapore and to abolish Article 152. It is important to highlight that Article 152 is not an Affirmative action and Malays do not want it to be one. They stand tall with other races to compete on all fronts, though not at the success rate that they like but they continue to strive harder and make steady improvement.

    As a Singaporean Malay, I felt reassured that PM Lee had pledged to ensure that the population percentage of Malays would not shrink in the long term. For the last 47 years PAP government had demonstrated their political willingness to uphold Article 152 and looked after the interest of Malays. And as the margin of support and votes for PAP suffers, the Malay votes will get more and more critical to determine that PAP remains as the government. Once again, the spotlight has fallen on the Malay community to decide the future of Singapore. The opposition parties, especially the Worker’s Party (WP) had their chance during the recent debate in Parliament to assure Malays of their existence in the long term, but not a word in the interest of Malays was uttered by either Low Thia Kiang or Sylvia Lim of WP . And when come to think of it, I have not heard any single manifestation or plan by WP to assure the Malays that they are special and their rights will be preserved.

    To Singaporean Malay community, I urge each and every one of you to consider carefully and support those who will continue to maintain Article 152. It is always easy to play politics to the gallery but at the end of the day, the government of the day needs to know and respect that Malays are the indigenous people of the country and that their rights will have to be preserved in the constitution.

    Source: http://uahmarican.wordpress.com/2013/02/10/why-are-malays-special-in-singapore/

  • Replacing the GRC System With Ethnic Balancing Alternative?

    The crux of the matter is that not all Singaporeans have reached a political maturity level where they will vote based on performance and not who the individual is and what ethnic group he or she is from. We are still far behind in terms of achieving an environment where Singaporeans of different political association can have a decent discussion or debate without having to stoop to a low level tactic of character assassination when we disagree. A tour of many social chat rooms discussing about politics in Singapore demonstrate how some Singaporeans embark on individual character bashing instead of debating on issues at hand without having to feel responsible for the comments they made. I believe the legal term is defamation.

    As to whether Singaporeans will vote based on performance of an individual rather than his or her race – I don’t think that will happen in the next 2 or 3 generations. Different individuals from various ethnic group will have their own personal experience dealing with other members of a different group but to illustrate my argument, I will relate my own personal experience as a Malay Singaporean. During my undergraduate years in the US, I took the initiative to set up a Singapore Society for Singapore students. From ground zero to a point where we had enough Singapore students to call for the General Meeting, I was doing all the planning and execution of setting up the entity. Being the Founder, I was nominated to be elected as Chairman of the Society and to ensure that we had a democratic process of electing the leaders of the Association, we had an election. Being the only Malay student from the group, I was not able to garner the votes I needed to be elected as Chairman and lose out to a candidate who spoke the dialect of the majority and shared many cultural commonality. To me it was an introduction to Singapore Politics 101 – be pragmatic and stop the wishful thinking that people will vote based on your credentials only. In Singapore, people voted based on the party banner and who the candidate was in terms of commonality – dialect, race and culture. Having said that I believe that there are level headed Singaporeans out there who will vote a candidate based on his/her ability and not on his/her race or ethnic group. But the numbers are just too small to make a difference. I strongly advocate that we keep the GRC system in place to ensure that Malays and other members of a minority group get voted to represent their community’s interest. The GRC system has worked well to ensure political stability and more importantly racial harmony in Singapore. To me, those outcomes are priceless compared to the rhetoric argument of giving equality to all ethnic groups – we are just not ready for it.

    Source: http://uahmarican.wordpress.com/2013/08/30/replacing-the-grc-system-with-ethnic-balancing-alternative/