Rilek1Corner

Blog

  • Epigram Books Illustrated Handbooks On Singapore’s Main Races Received Mixed Responses Online

    Epigram Books Illustrated Handbooks On Singapore’s Main Races Received Mixed Responses Online

    Epigram Books came under the spotlight earlier this month for a series of illustrated handbooks released by the independent local publisher.

    Authored by Edmund Wee, the founder of Epigram Books, ‘The Understanding Singaporeans’ series consists of four illustrated handbooks. Each handbook contains 20 questions, with answers as well as useful tips, to some of the most asked questions young Singaporeans have revolving around the country’s four main races.

    According to Epigram, the four-book bundle, each representing one ethnic community within the country, was produced with one thought in mind – “How do we respond to the most awkward questions children ask?”

    Readers on the publisher’s Facebook page however, pointed out the misrepresentation between the races and its customs.

    One netizen, Sharifah Husin, said, “The titles should be “Why do Hindus dot their foreheads?” and “Why do Muslims avoid Pork?”. However, since the series is meant to focus on practices unique to each of the four races, a clear understanding of the difference between race and religion must be ensured before publishing the books. Incorrect information transmitted will mislead readers, especially children, who would like to learn more. For example, Non-Hindu Indians do not dot their foreheads, while Non-Muslim Malays do not don the Hijab.”

    While others appreciated the efforts put forth by Epigram Books on “opening a dialogue between races”, some also echoed Sharifah’s sentiments, pointing out that not all Indians are Hindus, and only Hindu women wear ‘bindis’ on their forehead.

    Epigram Books was quick to issue a response, clearing the air and explaining their choice of words for the titles and questions asked from the four-series book.

    Since the beginning of their promotions for the book series, Epigram has been receiving queries about their choice of titles, the publisher explained.

    “To be honest, we had very much the same concerns while debating the merits of these titles. To alleviate those concerns, we made sure to run through the books’ content through various focus groups sourced from representative ethnic communities and associations to ensure that any sensitivities are adequately addressed,” Epigram said, in a post.

    They had picked the titles that best represented “what our children can best relate to and most likely ask, not to mention that they would also grab the attention of adults enough to spark a much-needed conversation on race and religion”.

    Epigram agreed that the book, meant for children between 5- to 8-year-old, can only “scratch the surface of an otherwise complex topic” but they hope that it would be an opportunity for adults to address these “awkward” questions with more confidence.

    “We’d like to ask that you see the Understanding Singaporeans series with the eyes, mind and innocence of a child, so that you can understand how children might come up with these questions in the first place,” Epigram added.

    The series of illustrated books can be purchased from Epigram Books website.

     

    Source: www.theonlinecitizen.com

  • Malaysians Getting EP And PR Below Salary Criteria

    Malaysians Getting EP And PR Below Salary Criteria

    I am not sure how long this scene of Malaysians getting special benefits from MOM (to get EP below the salary criteria) has been going on, but it has definitely been around for at least 3 years.

    I know this because my Malaysian ex-colleague in my previous company, has been holding onto her EP (renewed before too) for 3 years despite drawing lesser than the required salary, as stated on MOM’s website.

    When I first got into my previous company, the boss was certainly very confident that he would be able to get me the EP with just paying me $2400. Initially I doubted him, as that was not to my knowledge and it was not openly stated anywhere on MOM’s website about this. However, when the EP came, I checked the application form which my ex-boss has filed to MOM for my work visa, and he did not lie to MOM about the salary that he would pay me monthly. It was indeed reported to MOM as 2,400, and it was approved. It came as a surprise for me, but according to my ex-colleagues, who happen to be mostly Malaysians, it was the same for them.

    I believe that this may not be applicable to other nationalities.. as the Indonesians in the very same company I have mentioned above had to be under S-Pass instead. I even tried checking the self assessment tool just like the user who opened this thread, and my qualifications warrants an EP and S-Pass, whereas an Indonesian with exact same qualifications would only be able to get a S-Pass only.

    Hope that this helps to give a clearer insight… Sorry if I’m reviving an inactive thread, but thought I would just like to share this information. Anyway, peace out.

    https://forum.singaporeexpats.com/viewtopic.php?f=78&t=113024&p=761006#p761006

     

    Source: www.transitioning.org

  • Kumpulan 25 Melayu Terkemuka – Pendapat Dr Zakir Naik Tiada Tempat Dalam Dunia Sekarang

    Kumpulan 25 Melayu Terkemuka – Pendapat Dr Zakir Naik Tiada Tempat Dalam Dunia Sekarang

    KUALA LUMPUR: Komen-komen negatif pendakwah yang penuh kontroversi, Dr Zakir Naik, terhadap agama lain boleh mencetuskan bahaya ke atas negara berbilang kaum dan sekular seperti Malaysia.

    Demikian menurut kumpulan bekas penjawat awam Melayu di Malaysia, dipanggil Kumpulan 25 Melayu Terkemuka (G25).

    Menerusi kenyataan media yang dikeluarkan minggu ini, G25 menambah pihaknya bimbang tentang sikap tolak ansur pihak berkuasa Malaysia terhadap sikap Dr Zakir Naik serta mempersoalkan status penduduk tetap yang diberikan kepadanya. Berikut ini kenyataan G25:

    G25 bimbang dengan sikap tolak ansur pihak berkuasa Malaysia terhadap komen-komen ekstrim yang dibuat oleh Dr Zakir Naik menerusi dakwahnya.

    Kami percaya dengan hak kebebasan bersuara namun apabila ia dibenarkan bagi orang-orang tertentu sementara pihak yang berlainan pendapat pula tidak diberikan kebebasan bersuara, itu bukanlah bentuk kebebasan bersuara untuk masyarakat kita yang berbilang budaya.

    Meskipun kami menghormati hak demokratik Dr Zakir Naik untuk menyuarakan pandangan beliau tentang Islam dan membandingkannya dengan agama lain dengan menukil beberapa kitab agama untuk memberikan gambaran pendapat beliau, Dr Zakir Naik seringkali mencetuskan kemarahan di kalangan masyarakat Muslim dan bukan Muslim disebabkan kebiasaannya memperolok-olokkan doktrin dan amalan agama lain.

    Beliau juga dikait rapat dengan pandangan ekstrim dan sikap tidak bertolak ansur terhadap hak kebebasan beragama. Oleh sebab itu beliau dilarang berdakwah di Britain, Kanada, Singapura, India dan Pakistan.

    Dr Zakir Naik gemar berbahas namun hanya dengan orang-orang beliau dan yayasan privetnya luluskan.

    Terdapat juga dakwaan yang menyatakan beliau tidak akan berbahas dengan para cendekiawan dari agama lain. Beliau mengelak perdebatan serius dengan para cendekiawan yang termuka di peringkat antarabangsa dengan meletakkan syaratnya sendiri.

    Dengan meletakkan syarat berbahas hanya dalam sekitaran yang menjadi pilihan beliau, Dr Zakir Naik jelas menunjukkan sikap pendakwah yang mahu diberikan sorakan gemuruh oleh hadirin supaya dapat menutup mulut lawannya.

    Kami juga bimbang komen-komen negatif Dr Zakir Naik terhadap agama lain akan membuat para ulama kita di Malaysia semakin berani mencontohi sikap tidak bertolak ansur beliau.

    Respons yang kami pantau dari kumpulan-kumpulan perbicangan menunjukkan golongan bukan Muslim berasa cemas dengan trend baru di mana para cendekiawan agama seolah-olah kebal dan boleh menyuarakan pendapat sesuka hati tanpa menimbangkan perasaan mereka yang dari agama lain.

    Sikap Dr Zakir Naik terhadap agama tiada tempat dalam dunia sekarang dan boleh mencetuskan bahaya sosial yang serius di negara yang berbilang kaum dan sekular seperti Malaysia.

    Ia juga membimbangkan apabila kami mendapat tahu Dr Zakir Naik dapat memperolehi status sebagai Penduduk Tetap dari Kementerian Ehwal Dalam Negeri tanpa diketahui oleh orang ramai sama ada beliau sudah memenuhi kriteria dan kelayakan ketat seperti yang dikenakan ke atas pemohon lain.

    Tentunya ratusan ribu kanak-kanak di Malaysia yang tidak mempunyai kerakyatan perlu mengetahuinya.

    Selain itu, jika pengecualian diberikan ke atas Dr Zakir Naik, maka penjelasannya perlu didedahkan.

    Akhirnya, pihak berkuasa Malaysia tidak sepatutnya dilihat sebagai memperjuangkan hak seseorang individu yang mempunyai reputasi sedemikian dan kami menggesa mereka supaya mengambil langkah berjaga-jaga.

    Sekiranya Malaysia digesa untuk bekerjasama dalam menangani pelampau agama yang berbahaya, kami menggalak supaya kerajaan melakukannya.

    Source: http://berita.mediacorp.sg

  • PERGAS: Pray For Well-Being Of Ustazah Nur Masreena In Her Fight Against Cancer

    PERGAS: Pray For Well-Being Of Ustazah Nur Masreena In Her Fight Against Cancer

    GET WELL SOON

    We received news that Ustazah Nur Masreena Abd Wahab is in a critical condition, battling cancer stage 4 and was hospitalised.

    She is a Manager at Little Muslim Readers (Woodlands Branch).

    We seek your kind prayers for her health and speedy recovery. May she continues to be strong and be able to return to guide the young in their journey to seek Islamic knowledge.

    —————
    SEMOGA CEPAT SEMBUH

    Kami dimaklumkan bahawa Ustazah Nur Masreena dalam keadaan kritikal di hospital dan sedang bertarung dengan kanser tahap 4.

    Beliau adalah seorang Pengurus di Little Muslim Readers (Cawangan Woodlands).

    Mari sama-sama kita mendoakan agar beliau diberi kesihatan serta kesembuhan. Semoga diberi ketabahan untuk terus berbakti dalam mendidik anak-anak kecil ilmu-ilmu agama Islam.

     

    Source: Singapore Islamic Scholars & Religious Teachers Association – Pergas

  • Opposition Heavyweights Lend Support To Dr Tan Cheng Bock’s Constitutional Challenge

    Opposition Heavyweights Lend Support To Dr Tan Cheng Bock’s Constitutional Challenge

    Lim Tean, Tan Kin Lian, Syafarin Sarif and I had started the initiative to publish a Non-Partisan Joint Statement in support of Dr Tan Cheng Bock’s challenge of the Constitutional change to enforce Reserved Elected Presidency based on dubious grounds.

    We wanted a Non-Partisan Joint Statement basically because we feel that this is an important matter which should include private individuals, other than politicians.

    You can add your name to this Joint Statement by sharing it in your Facebook. Let the Force be with us.

    Please join us to stop the emasculation of our Constitution! To support please like, share & comment. Also message me if you want your name added to the bottom of the statement and I will do so.

    JOINT STATEMENT MAY 11TH 2017….
    The written Constitution of Singapore should be a repository of the most cherished values we hold as a people and also a bulwark of our venerable institutions.

    Sadly, our Constitution has been subject to numerous attacks over the years .The recent episode over changes to the Elected Presidency Scheme is the latest demonstration of such an attack.

    There was never a call by any Singaporean of any ethnic group for our next President to be a Malay. If race is an important element in the choosing of an elected President, it beggars belief that it did not surface as an issue during the period when the time scheme was first conceived and the interlude of almost 7 years until it was passed into law. The scheme was not cobbled together hurriedly as has been suggested, thereby necessitating substantial changes at this time. The scheme was first mooted by Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew as far back as 15 April 1984 during a walkabout in his Tanjong Pagar Constituency, and again brought up by him during his National Day Rally speech on 19 August that year. There was intense media and public interest in the issue. On 29 July 1988, then First Deputy Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong introduced the first White Paper on the proposed scheme in Parliament. There were changes and amendments made and a second White Paper was introduced on 27 August 1990. Following a lengthy debate during the second reading of the resultant Bill on 4 October 1990, a 12-member select committee, which included key cabinet ministers was appointed to look into issues and make recommendations. The committee’s report was presented to Parliament on 18 December 1990 and, on 3 January 1991 the Bill was passed into law .

    Moreover, by 1988, the PAP had introduced the Group Representation Constituencies ( GRCs ) into the Parliamentary electoral system in Singapore. Race is the very foundation of the GRC system, as all Singaporeans are aware of.

    In the years following the last Presidential election of 2011, no PAP member ever expressed any concern that too many years had passed without Singapore having a Malay President until the issue surfaced in the President’s speech, opening Parliament in January 2016. If this issue is of such grave national importance as the PAP and the Prime Minister have made it out to be, why was this issue not put before the Singapore people in the last General Elections held in September 2015? And why has this issue not been put before the Singapore people in a referendum?

    The PAP euphemistically termed the changes made as a “refreshment “of the Scheme in the President’s speech. In reality, they amount to an over-arching arrangement to kill off competition so that the favoured candidate of the PAP will triumph at the next Presidential election. It tarnishes the institution of the Elected President which is supposed to be part of the “two-key “mechanism designed to safeguard Singapore’s financial reserves and the integrity of our civil service. It is a betrayal of their proclaimed ideal of meritocracy which calls for the best person to be elected to the position of President, and it is a desecration of the Singapore pledge penned by one of their founders S. Rajaratnam – in which Singaporeans pledge themselves as one united people regardless of race, language and religion to build a democratic society.

    We have come together as a group of concerned Singaporeans, from diverse walks in life and from a wide political spectrum, to ask Singaporeans to stand up and to protect our Constitution from constant manipulation by the PAP government to suit their selfish political needs.

    We are pleased to note that Dr Tan Cheng Bock has mounted a judicial challenge to the constitutionality of the next Presidential Election being a reserved election. Even if it is now the law that there must be a reserved election for a particular racial group if no one from that group has been President after 5 continuous terms, it is clear to everyone of us that only the Presidential election of 2023 need be a reserved election. The next Presidential election in September this year should be an open election as there have been only 4 elected Presidents since the Elected Presidency scheme came into effect, with Mr Ong Teng Cheong being our first elected President. We do not know of any ordinary Singaporean who has taken an opposing view.

    Since the PAP Government insists that the upcoming Presidential election is a reserved election under the Presidential Elections (Amendment) Act 2017, the burden was on them to explain to the Singapore people the basis of their decision. It was incumbent upon them to produce the advice which they said they had obtained from the Attorney-General, which formed the basis of their decision. This is no different to a judge having to give his reasons for a decision made by him. It was important for the Government to have made known the reasoning behind the Attorney-General’s advice because the Attorney-General’s advice does not constitute the law of the land and is open to challenge by way of Judicial Review.
    Finally, we note from Dr Tan Cheng Bock’s statement issued after he had filed the proceedings in Court that Lord Pannick QC, the most renown British Constitutional lawyer of his generation, whom Dr Tan consulted, is of the opinion that section 22 of the Presidential Elections (Amendment) Act 2017, which makes the upcoming Presidential election a reserved one, is unconstitutional . That means that in Lord Pannick QC’s opinion, the advice of the Attorney-General was wrong. We must now await the determination of this issue by the Supreme Court.

    11th May 2017
    Lim Tean, Goh Meng Seng, Syafarin Sarif, Tan Kin Lian. Dolly Peh, Firros Rajah, Steven Goh, Brad Bowyer, William Wallace, Robert Teh, Jafri Basron, Sukhdev Singh Gill, Michael Dorai, Singaram Padmanathan, Mohammad Saqib, Hong Ht, Sohibo Netads, Kelvin Law Chee Ming, Leslie Terh, C Sing Ow, Kenneth Chan, Simon Lim, Abdul Salim Harun, Soonkin Chew, Roy Boey, Ng Fark Yew, Kelvin Ong, Bernard Riio, Derek Tan, Danny Ng, Raymond CH Chan, Keith Ong, Lee Anthony, Anne Lim, Andrew Wong, David Koh, Niki Ng, Yeu Yong Teo, Stanley Goh, Ricky Lim, Richard Sim, Michael Wong K E, Sarah Lim, RockinAngels Patrick, Gloria Siew, Tan Seng Hoo, Mani Maran, Robert Teo, Simon Chong, Sue Ryan, Goh Chok Chai Ricky, Low SK, Ravi Velu, Kelvin Cheong, Wong Sunny, Alvina Khoo, Liao Bo Tan, Wong YY, AK Tan, Sandra Goh, David Wee, Ashura Chia, Alan Anthony, Issaro Poh, Hmy Shaharudin, Gillian Chan, Cheyenne Cherokee Sioux, Raymond Tham, Sajeev Kamalasanan, Johan Teh, Abdul Kadir Md Noor, Henry Tan, Christopher Chin, Andre l,Chia, Ronald Koh, Gilbert Louis, Robert Guo, Oh Bock Thin, Simon Loke, still updating….

     

    Source: Goh Meng Seng