Blog

  • Indonesian Businessman: Indonesia Needs To Stop Acting Like “Big Brother”

    Indonesian Businessman: Indonesia Needs To Stop Acting Like “Big Brother”

    Tensions between Indonesia and Singapore are simmering as a kerfuffle is developing over the decision by a Singaporean court to grant a warrant to the National Environment Agency (NEA) for an Indonesian businessman suspected of involvement in last year’s forest fires. The warrant was obtained after the businessman, whose identity remains hidden, failed to turn up for an interview with the Singaporean authorities while he was in the city-state.

    The saga took an interesting twist as Singapore’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs denied its counterpart’s repeated claims that a formal complaint against the warrant had been lodged by the Indonesian Embassy in Singapore.

    The reason for Indonesia’s umbrage remains unclear, although implicit in the protest was the notion that Singapore had tried to force Indonesia’s hand in acting against responsible parties for last year’s environmental disaster, which saw much of South-east Asia engulfed in a haze. Jakarta’s reaction suggests that it deemed Singapore to have overstepped its scope of action. By contrast, Singapore’s National Environment Agency (NEA) felt that it had every right to prosecute those deemed responsible, based on the 2014 Transboundary Haze Pollution Act.

    To be fair, Singapore’s move was both logical and laudable. However, it was an inadvertent slap in the face for the Indonesian government. Chiefly, politicians in Jakarta were worried that, if successfully pulled off, it was bound to be seen by the public as a derogation of sovereignty: that an Indonesian national could be arrested and even tried in a foreign country.

    The swift action was also an embarrassing reminder of Jakarta’s own unmistakable sluggishness in bringing the forest fire perpetrators to justice as a deterrent. Although the Indonesian police did arrest several company executives suspected of wrongdoing last year, no tangible progress has been made with regard to their prosecution so far. A lack of transparency has also marred the process, with Jakarta seemingly intent on protecting the identities of the companies suspected of setting fire to the forests, or negligence in preventing forest fires, in their respective concessions.

    STUCK WITH A RESOURCE MENTALITY

    Singapore’s foreign ministry has understandably described Indonesia’s reaction as “puzzling”. To any outsider, this view probably holds sway, too. Yet the majority of Indonesians would really see Singapore’s action as an insult.

    The main problem here is that post-Suharto Indonesia is still grappling with how to deal and interact with the Singapore of today.

    Most Indonesians probably admire the city-state for its efficient bureaucracy, cleanliness and overall orderliness, which are the opposite of how things are in Indonesia.

    Our middle class still like to shop in Singapore for luxury goods and, given the choice, most of them, when ill, would rather be treated in Singapore than at home.

    Yet for a resource-oriented nation like Indonesia, it is difficult to understand Singapore’s economic success fully, especially as the latter lacks natural resources. The “resource” mentality is after all part of the national myth in Indonesia, with every student taught from an early age how “resource-rich” Indonesia ought to make the country prosperous and how this makes it the envy of the world, even the target for colonial agenda in the past and neo-colonial exploitation subsequently.

    It rarely occurs to most of us that today’s advanced economies have gone beyond the exploitation of natural resources and the production of goods as their mainstay in prosperity.

    The green-eyed monster is now quite real in the way many Indonesians see Singapore. Coupled with the firmly held belief that many of Indonesia’s super rich park their funds there, it has been conveniently cast as a “foreign” scapegoat for Indonesia’s own failures, even among the educated classes. Singapore is often portrayed as a pushy and cunning little neighbour who takes advantage of Indonesia’s good and gullible nature.

    However, many of the accusations against Singapore widely circulated in the Indonesian press could hardly pass the litmus test. For example, the “revelation” by former Air Force chief Chappy Hakim that the airspace above Riau islands falls under Singapore’s Flight Information Region (FIR) — while factually true — neglects to mention that FIRs overlapping national boundaries are more common than he would allow.

    Conveniently forgotten is also the fact that Indonesia manages the FIRs for both Timor Leste, a sovereign state in its own right, and Christmas Island, a territory belonging to Australia. The Indonesian press hardly informs the public that revenues derived from managing airspace above Riau are remitted monthly by Singapore to the Indonesian government. Instead the issues of national pride and “unjust” benefits for Singapore at Indonesia’s expense are exaggerated ad nauseam.

    It is high time that Indonesians cultivated a new mindset in dealing with Singapore. The Suharto-era self-imposed view that Indonesia must necessarily act as South-east Asia’s “big brother” is no longer relevant in today’s geopolitical realities. Former President BJ Habibie’s jibe at Singapore being a “little red dot” has also gone sour as Singaporeans appropriated the insult as a badge of pride.

    In many ways, the consoling myth of Indonesia as “big brother” to the rest of South-east Asia has been a source of great complacency for Indonesians. Rather than chastising us into bettering ourselves, it has lulled us. Isn’t it time for us to wake up? THE JAKARTA GLOBE

    ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

    Johannes Nugroho is a writer and businessman from Surabaya.

     

    Source: www.todayonline.com

  • Chee Soon Juan – The Chiam Issue: Why This, Why Now?

    Chee Soon Juan – The Chiam Issue: Why This, Why Now?

    Below are some frequently asked questions about Mr Chiam See Tong’s departure from the SDP and why we are raising the issue now. I answer them here:

    Why rehash the past over the split with Chiam See Tong? Aren’t there more important issues to discuss?

    Many of you are sick of this matter and you don’t want to hear any more of it. I agree. There is nothing that I would love more than to leave this episode behind and get on with the issues that really matter to our nation. This is exactly what we did during the general elections (GE) in 2015 and again at the by-election (BE) in Bukit Batok – campaigning on the issues that voters care about.

    It is the PAP that keeps dredging up the issue to attack me and the SDP. Take a look at the following:

    • Mr Chan Chun Sing: “Dr Chee then proceeded to betray Mr Chiam, isolate him and force him out of the SDP.” (January 2015)
    • Vivian Balakrishnan: “I have just one message to send to the SDP: In the PAP, we do not have a tradition of backstabbing our mentors.” (GE 2015)
    • Sim Ann: “Singaporeans of a certain age will know…how he ousted his mentor Mr Chiam See Tong from the party Mr Chiam had built.” (GE 2015)
    • The Straits Times: “[Grace Fu] added that it would ‘be very interesting’ to see if there would b referral letter from Mr Chiam See Tong, who had recruited Dr Chee into SDP years ago. Last week, Mrs Lina Chiam had said in a Facebook post that her husband had not given his endorsement to any candidate in the by-election.” (BE 2016)
    • Mr Heng Swee Keat: “This means a person can lie, cheat or betray someone with impunity…How are voters to believe what such politicians say or hold them accountable for their actions if they were running a town council?” (BE 2016)


    Any fair-minded person will conclude that it is not SDP who is rehashing the saga. The PAP will not let the matter rest because it is to its advantage if it can continue to use this falsehood to attack me.

    But as long as the PAP continues to resurrect the matter, the SDP will rebut the lies. We hope opposition supporters will help us disseminate this information and, in so doing, make it counter-productive for the PAP to rehash the issue.

    But didn’t the episode take place nearly 25 years ago? Is it still relevant to voters?

    A few residents in Bukit Batok raised the subject with me and my party colleagues during our recent campaign. A couple of them indicated that they would not have voted for me had I not personally explained the situation to them. How many more voters are out there who still don’t know the truth?

    As much as some people think that the SDP-Chiam episode is no longer an issue, there are many who – with the help of the PAP and the media – still think it is.

    As a political party fighting for every vote, clearing up the issue to ensure that we don’t allow our opponent to capitalise on a falsehood to sabotage our effort is the smart and right thing to do.

    But why now?

    As I mentioned, we did not counter the PAP when it raised the Chiam issue in GE 2015 and BE 2016 because we did not want the PAP to distract the voters from the real issues. But not doing so may have hurt our campaigns because there are voters who still believe that I had betrayed Mr Chiam and, because of this, would not vote for the SDP.

    This must change. We cannot wait until elections to counter the lies, we must start now. To prevent these untruths from being reinforced and spread further in future elections, the SDP will counter them whenever they are raised.

    Why not just bury the hatchet with Mr Chaim?

    We tried – repeatedly. The SDP has invited Mr Chiam on numerous occasions to our functions in the hopes that we can bury the past and move on (see here).

    A recent example was our invitation to him to attend our 35th anniversary dinner in August last year. We even approached him to be our guest at our rally during the BE in Bukit Batok. The Chiams turned down our invitations.

    We also published an article in our party newspaper written by Dr Wong Wee Nam about how Mr Chiam and the SDP nearly came together in 2015. But Mrs Lina Chiam interpreted that as the SDP trying to use the piece as an endorsement by Mr Chiam of me. We had no such intention, we only wanted to bury the proverbial hatchet and to move on.

    For the record, Dr Wong’s article was published in The New Democrat in June 2015. An online version of the piece was published on 2 April 2015 (see here). Why did Mrs Chiam raise it only nine months later during the BE – and on two occasions, one of which was published in the Straits Times during the cooling-off period?

    Are you attacking Mr Chiam?

    No, not at all. In fact, it has been quite the reverse. Mr Chiam declared in 1993: “He has not been thrust into my position. He has usurped my position!” More recently, the Straits Times reported that “Mrs Lina Chiam accused Dr Chee of ousting her husband from the party he founded in 1980.”

    Nothing could be further from the truth. When Mr Chiam resigned as the party’s secretary-general, I, together with other CEC members, tried to persuade him to remain. Even when he went to the Singapore Press Club to criticise us and left us little choice but to expel him, we still tried – right up till the very end – to see if we could effect some form of reconciliation.

    But rather than go on a he-said-she-said type of argument, it is best to cite what High Court Judge Warren Khoo wrote in his decision when he presided over the lawsuit which Mr Chiam took against the SDP:

    “There were allegations in the pleadings of bad faith and of the defendants (SDP) acting maliciously in order to injure the plaintiff (Chiam See Tong). There were suggestions in plaintiff’s counsel’s questions put to the witnesses for the defendants that the object of the disciplinary proceedings was to make the plaintiff lose his seat in Parliament, that being the consequence of the plaintiff being expelled from the party. I do not think there is very much in these suggestions, having regard to the fact that the CEC even when they had decided to expel him were making efforts to seek a reconciliation with him.”

    The truth is that I have always tried to effect a reconciliation with Mr Chiam. I tried it more than 20 years ago and I have tried it in recent times.

    The falsehood that I ousted Mr Chiam and usurped his position in the SDP has gone on for too long. It must stop. Remember, a lie, if repeated often enough, becomes truth.

     

    Source: www.cheesoonjuan.com

  • This Void-Deck Malay Wedding Just Gave New Reasons For You To Attend Malay Weddings

    This Void-Deck Malay Wedding Just Gave New Reasons For You To Attend Malay Weddings

    Weddings held at void decks have sometimes come under unfair scrutiny from some unreasonable people.

    These complaints typically gloss over the cultural and traditional factors that account for the Malay community holding weddings at void decks.

    But if anyone ever needed an idea for what would constitute an epic wedding held in the vicinity of your neighbourhood, check this out:

    If you can’t see the tweet, here are the pictures of the wedding in question.

    malaywed2

    That is an actual nacho fondue and what appears to be a chocolate fondue, with a sinfully varied choice of what looks like premium Gelato and a legit Kebab stand.

    Nothing will ever be this beautiful again.

    H/T: Twitter user/ comedian mdzulkar9

     

    Source: http://mothership.sg

  • Para Games Gold Medalist, Firdaus Nordin, Jailed 5 Years For Drug Trafficking And Consumption

    Para Games Gold Medalist, Firdaus Nordin, Jailed 5 Years For Drug Trafficking And Consumption

    The man known to be the fastest wheelchair sprinter in Singapore was on Friday (May 20) found guilty of trafficking methamphetamine and jailed the minimum five years after a five-day trial.

    Muhammad Firdaus Nordin, 28, a former Asean Para Games gold medalist, who is listed in the Singapore Book of Records, also pleaded guilty to a charge of taking the same drug on Jan 31 in 2015, saying it was to help him get in shape in time for the 8th Asean Para Games, held in Singapore in December 2015.

    He was jailed for 10 months on the drug consumption charge, but his two jail terms will run concurrently.

    The five-year prison sentence will bring to a halt the disabled athlete’s remarkable sporting achievements.

    When he was 13, Firdaus, who was born with spina bifida, raced in the National Junior Disabled Games in Australia in 2001, clinching one gold and two silver medals, and also breaking a Games record.

    Four years later in 2005, he won two golds, one of which was for the men’s 100m race, and one silver medal at the third Asean Para Games in Manila in 2005. He became famous overnight by claiming the top spot in the world for that century sprint event. The then underdog also smashed the Games record for the 100m and 200m events.

    Just a year later in 2006, he set a new Games record for the 200m event at the prestigious IPC Athletics World Championships in the Netherlands, winning a silver medal and earning the Republic its first entry into the 2008 Summer Paralympics in Beijing, although Firdaus later had to pull out due to injury.

    In 2010, he won gold medals in the 100m, 200m and 400m in the International German Open Championships for Track and Field.

    In December 2015, during the Asean Para Games held in Singapore, Firdaus also competed in the 100m, 200m and 400m events.

    But in the early hours of Feb 2, 2015, policemen stopped a car driven by Firdaus’ cousin Hamza Jubir near Block 510 Bedok North Street 3. There had been a fight in the area, and the police had information that some suspects had fled in a car.

    Firdaus was in the back seat of the car, while Hamza’s girlfriend was in the front passenger seat.

    A policeman found three packets of crystalline substance weighing 4.03g tucked between Firdaus’ jeans and boxer shorts in the area between his groin and his right thigh.

    Firdaus said the packets belonged to him. He was arrested at about 5am and taken to the Bedok Police Division Headquarters.

    His urine later tested positive for methamphetamine, while the packets were found to contain 2.65g of the same drug.

    At Bedok Police Division Headquarters, Firdaus again told a Central Narcotics Bureau officer the drugs were his and further said they were for sale.

    He also repeated this in three statements recorded on the same day of his arrest and the next day.

    But during his trial, from April 4 to 8, Firdaus claimed the drugs were found on the car’s back passenger seat. During a short chase of the car by the police, Firdaus said, Hamza’s girlfriend had taken a pouch containing the drugs from the glove compartment, passed it to Firdaus and told him to put it on the rear passenger seat.

    Firdaus’ admissions of guilt to the authorities, meanwhile, had been made because of threats from Hamza, Firdaus claimed.

    Hamza and his girlfriend took the stand to deny Firdaus’ allegations.

    However, Firdaus agreed during the trial with his admission made in his statements to the police that he took methamphetamine to get in shape for the Asean Para Games at the end of that year.

    The case was prosecuted by Deputy Public Prosecutor Tan Yanying before District Judge Lee Poh Choo.

    In his mitigation, defence lawyer Peter Fernando said: “Firdaus has clearly learnt a very serious lesson and there is absolutely no reason for him to reoffend. He is a young man who was unfortunately born with serious medical conditions.

    “He has by sheer determination proven to be a man capable of achieving great heights in wheelchair racing. He pleads to be shown leniency in view of his ill-health.”

    In sentencing him to five years’ jail and five strokes of the cane, Judge Lee noted Firdaus’ age, medical conditions and achievements.

    She told Firdaus the law mandates a minimum five strokes of the cane for his trafficking charge and that it is for the prison service to certify him to be unfit for caning.

    Firdaus showed little expression as his sentence was passed, but relatives, including his mother and an aunt, wept in court. The judge allowed Firdaus’ mother and aunt to speak with him for 10 minutes before he was led away in his wheelchair and handcuffed with his hands in front of him.

    The penalty for trafficking methamphetamine, a Class A controlled drug, is between five and 20 years’ jail, with between five and 15 strokes of the cane. The penalty for consuming the drug is jail of up to 10 years and/or a $20,000 fine.

     

    Source: www.straitstimes.com

  • Taxi Justice – Cabby Drives Against Traffic To Chase Driver Who Hit Him

    Taxi Justice – Cabby Drives Against Traffic To Chase Driver Who Hit Him

    The cabby had stopped for a red light at a traffic junction when a silver multi-purpose vehicle (MPV) slammed into the rear of his taxi.

    Before Mr Muhammad Ali Abdul Kadir, 41, could get out to investigate, the MPV sped off, beating the red light in the process.

    Unable to jot down the culprit’s licence plate in time, Mr Ali decided to give chase. The pursuit took them past two more red lights as well as against the flow of traffic, but Mr Ali said he felt he needed to catch the irresponsible driver and warn others.

    “I kept sounding my horn to warn other road users of this dangerous driver and tried to keep up,” he said.

    “I know what I did was wrong, but I needed to catch and stop him.”

    Mr Ali thought he almost had him after the driver crashed head-on into a police Land Rover, which was travelling in the opposite direction, and came to a halt.

    But when Mr Ali alighted from his taxi and tried to open the MPV door, the driver reversed his vehicle, swerved it to the right and caused Mr Ali to fall

    The MPV then sped off into the distance.

    But the driver did not get far.

    His reign of terror on the roads ended when his vehicle crashed into the wall of a mall carpark and burst into flames.

    Yesterday, Chee Chern Chun, 42, was jailed 12 weeks, fined $2,000 and banned from driving for three years.

    His 1.3km rampage began at 3.26am on Oct 3, 2014, when he crashed into the rear of Mr Ali’s taxi at the junction of Merchant Road and Eu Tong Sen Street.

    Chee then beat the red light at the junction and drove along North Canal Road, prompting Mr Ali to give chase.

    “I was very angry. I believe that you must be responsible for your actions. This driver just drove off. I couldn’t let him go just like that,” he said.

    ONE-WAY ROAD

    Chee beat a second red light as he turned onto South Bridge Road, and a third one when he made a right turn onto Upper Pickering Street, which is a one-way road.

    Mr Ali tried his best to keep up.

    “He was going very fast on a small road. I kept honking, just hoping to alert other road users and prevent an accident,” he said.

    They drove against the flow of traffic and onto a slip road from New Bridge Road, where Chee crashed head-on with a police Land Rover.

    Mr Ali quickly alighted from his taxi and tried to open Chee’s door, which was locked. He also caught a glimpse of the errant driver for the first time.

    “He looked blur, like he was in a daze. He didn’t look like someone who had been driving in such an aggressive manner,” he said.

    Their encounter was brief as Chee reversed his vehicle and caused Mr Ali, who was holding on to the door handle, to fall.

    Chee then sped off and drove against the flow of traffic along New Bridge Road until he reached Funan DigitaLife Mall.

    He crashed through the mall carpark exit barrier and collided into a hose reel, causing his engine to catch fire.

    But Chee continued his road rampage as he reversed his vehicle and grazed a parked lorry.

    The MPV eventually came to a halt after it crashed into a wall and burst into flames.

    Chee, who managed to escape, was detained by the mall’s security officers as the Singapore Civil Defence Force arrived to put out the fire.

    Mr Ali gasped when he heard the details for the first time yesterday.

    “I thought he just pulled over on his own. I didn’t know it took his vehicle going up in flames to put an end to it. I hope he was all right,” he said.

    Police officers found that Chee reeked of alcohol, had a flushed face and bloodshot eyes, and was slurring, court papers said.

    A Breath Evidential Analyser test revealed that he was two units short of failing the prescribed limit of 35 microgrammes per 100ml of breath.

    He later told the authorities that he had been suffering from extreme fatigue. Court papers said Mr Ali’s taxi and the police Land Rover suffered slight damage to their rear and front bumper respectively.

    Mr Ali also suffered bruises and was given three days of medical leave.

    Yesterday, Chee was jailed, fined and banned from driving for one count each of rash driving endangering human life, inconsiderate driving that caused the collision with Mr Ali’s taxi, and failing to stop after being involved in an accident.

    Two other charges were taken into consideration for sentencing.

    When told of Chee’s sentence, Mr Ali promptly replied: “Good.”

    But he added that he did not bear any grudges against the driver and that the experience did not faze him from going back out on the roads.

    “What was most important was that no one was seriously hurt or killed that night. And that justice is done,” he said.

    I was very angry. I believe that you must be responsible for your actions. This driver just drove off. I couldn’t let him go just like that.

    – Mr Muhammad Ali Abdul Kadir, who gave chase in his taxi after he was hit from behind by the MPV


    Chee Chern Chun, who is driving a multi-purpose vehicle, crashes into the rear of Mr Muhammad Ali Abdul Kadir’s taxi, which had stopped at the junction of Merchant Road and Eu Tong Sen Street.

    Instead of stopping, Chee drives off, beating a red light.

    He drives along North Canal Road and runs a second red light as he turns right onto South Bridge Road.

    He drives along South Bridge Road and beats a third red light as he turns onto Upper Pickering Street against the flow of traffic.

    Chee continues driving onto a slip road from New Bridge Road and crashes into a police Land Rover.

    Mr Ali, who is tailing Chee, alights and tries to open Chee’s door. But he reverses and swerves to the right, causing Mr Ali to fall.

    Chee drives onto New Bridge Road – again against the flow of traffic.

    He drives to Funan DigitaLife Mall, crashes through the exit barrier and drives into the carpark.

    There, he crashes into a hose reel, causing his engine to catch fire.

    He reverses and grazes a parked lorry. He crashes into a wall and his vehicle bursts into flame. Chee is arrested.

     

    Source: www.tnp.sg

deneme bonusu