Blog

Why I Am Staying In A Rental Flat

I am currently living in a rental flat, with my family of five. I’ve heard and read reports that Ministers said it is not difficult to own your own house. What would they know? They have never been in my situation before. I was comfortably in a job that pays me $2,000 a month, enough to tide by and support my family. If we had saved and followed the financial plan we as a family had, we would be able to own our own house, one day not too far away.

But that was provided I still have my job, Unfortunately, my company deemed me too expensive. They released me when my contract ended, and in my position, they appointed a foreign worker, who they pay much less than if they had to pay me. The company saved on money, while I lost my job. Is it fair? Is the foreign worker that took over my position more highly skilled than me? Or he has a job just because he comes cheap? He does not have to own a house in Singapore. He does not have to provide shelter for his family in Singapore. This cheap foreign labour will be a rich man when he returns to his family in the country he came from.

While me and my family of five still have to live in a rental flat, where we cannot call it our very own home. We are just numbers to the government. I work hard, but i cannot help myself if cheaper foreign labour is preferred over a Malay Singpaorean male with a family of five to feed and house. Maybe that is my fate in life. I will forever be one of the growing number of Malay families living in rental flats.

Reader Contribution (Yan Yonex)

May 11, 2016
Alvin Tan Muat Naik Gambar Hanya Untuk Jenaka – Bekas Teman Wanita

Vivian Lee, bekas teman wanita blogger Alvin Tan, memberitahu Mahkamah Sesyen semalam (10 Mei) bahawa lelaki itu memuat naik gambar berserta kapsyen yang mempersenda umat Islam hanya untuk berjenaka dan melihat reaksi masyarakat.

Vivian Lee atau Lee May Ling, 27 tahun, berkata Tan memberitahunya sedemikian selepas dia (Tan) menyunting gambar berserta kapsyen bertajuk ‘Selamat Berbuka Puasa (with Bak Kut Teh…fragrant, delicious and appetising (‘Selamat Berbuka Puasa (dengan) Bak Kut Teh, Wangi, Enak dan Menyelerakan’).

Lee berkata Tan kemudian memuat naik gambar berserta kapsyen itu ke laman Facebook miliknya tanpa mendapat kebenaran daripadanya terlebih dahulu walaupun Lee merupakan seorang daripada pentadbir bagi akaun Facebook berkenaan.

Dia berkata pada mulanya, Tan enggan memadam atau menukar kapsyen itu tetapi selepas menerima kecaman dan penghinaan pelbagai kaum dan masyarakat, Tan menulis kapsyen baharu iaitu ‘Ampunkanlah kami’ ‘Selamat berbuka puasa dengan rendang ayam’.

“Kapsyen baharu itu digantikan selepas melihat sentimen negatif daripada masyarakat yang boleh menimbulkan kemarahan. Kapsyen itu diharap dapat memperbetulkan dan menjadikan keadaan lebih baik,” kataya.

Ketika pemeriksaan utama oleh peguamnya Chong Joo Tian semasa membela diri di hadapan Hakim Abdul Rashid Daud, Lee berkata dia dan Tan bergaduh berikutan tindakannya memuat naik gambar berkenaan.

Wanita itu berkata Tan turut menolaknya ketika cuba mengambil komputer riba milik Tan.

“Kami bergaduh. Saya rasa sedih, tidak gembira dan marah dengan tindakan Tan. Saya suruh dia padam kesemuanya namun Tan enggan dan memberitahu itu hanya untuk jenaka dan mahu melihat reaksi masyarakat,” katanya.

Menurutnya gambar itu diambil secara ‘selfie’ di sebuah kedai makan di Jalan Ipoh pada 10 Julai 2013.

Lee, saksi tunggal pembelaan, berkata demikian dalam perbicaraan kesnya dan Alvin Tan atau Tan Jye Yee yang didakwa menyiarkan gambar mereka sedang menikmati hidangan dengan kapsyen bertajuk ‘Selamat Berbuka Puasa (with Bak Kut Teh.. fragrant, delicious and appetising)’ dan mengandungi logo halal di laman Facebook mereka.

Mereka didakwa bersama-sama melakukan kesalahan itu pada 9.00 pagi, 12 Julai 2013 mengikut Akta Hasutan yang membawa hukuman denda RM5,000 (S$1,690) atau penjara tiga tahun atau kedua-duanya, jika sabit kesalahan.

Pada 14 April lepas, Hakim Abdul Rashid memerintah Lee membela diri terhadap pertuduhan itu.

Pada perbicaraan kes itu yang bermula pada 23 Nov lepas, hanya Lee yang hadir manakala Tan telah melarikan diri ke luar negara.

Ketika pemeriksaan semula Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Wan Shaharuddin Wan Ladin, Lee menafikan dia bersama-sama Tan memuat naik gambar itu.

Lee juga tidak bersetuju dengan cadangan Wan Shaharuddin bahawa dia boleh memuat naik gambar itu kerana dia tidak memiliki akaun facebook, komputer dan telefon bimbit pintar bagi membolehkan gambar itu dimuat naik.

Mahkamah menetapkan esok untuk hujahan kedua-dua pihak selepas pihak pembelaan menutup kesnya semalam (10 Mei).

Source: Berita MediaCorp

May 11, 2016
Pembahas Madrasah Aljunied Menang Anugerah Pembahas Terbaik Di Qatar

Pelajar Madrasah Aljunied Al-Islamiah, Nazihah Mohamad Pauzi berjaya menjulang anugerah pembahas terbaik dalam Kejohanan Bahas Antarabangsa di Doha, Qatar baru-baru ini.

Tiga anugerah pembahas terbaik dari kalangan negara-negara bukan Arab diberikan, dan Nazihah merupakan salah seorang penerimanya.

Kesemuanya, empat pelajar Madrasah Aljunied Al-Islamiah mewakili Singapura dalam kejohanan tersebut, iaitu Harithatunnu’man Hasbi, Muhammad Hariz Ramli, Humaira Julfikar Khan dan Nazihah Mohamad Pauzi.

Ini adalah kali kedua Madrasah Aljunied diundang untuk mengambil bahagian dalam kejohanan bahas dwi-tahunan itu, yang diadakan dalam Bahasa Arab.

PENCAPAIAN MEMBANGGAKAN

Pencapaian Nazihah selaku Pembahas Terbaik boleh dibanggakan kerana ia menunjukkan mutu pendidikan madrasah di Singapura. Ini sehinggakan ia berjaya melahirkan pelajar yang mempunyai bakat dan potensi yang besar, serta mampu menguasai pelbagai bahasa khususnya Bahasa Arab.

Semasa dihubungi BERITAMediacorp, Nazihah berkongsi pengalaman bertutur bahasa Arab di sana.

“Ia satu pendedahan bagi saya terhadap berbual dalam Bahasa Arab kerana pengalaman berbual Bahasa Arab antara kami di sekolah itu lain daripada kami berbual dengan mereka (para peserta negara lain). Jadi itu pun telah memperbaiki perbualan saya dalam Bahasa Arab,” kata Nazihah.

Dia juga mengambil peluang tersebut dan menjadikannya sebagai latihan untuk bertutur dalam bahasa Arab secara berkesan.

“Jika kita belajar tetapi tidak mempraktikkannya, ia akan menjadi susah. Memang mencabar untuk berbual dalam Bahasa Arab tapi saya menjadikannya satu motivasi untuk berbual dalam Bahasa Arab,” kata Nazihah lagi, kepada pihak kami.

Nazihah kemudian berkata, dia menghargai pelbagai usaha pihak madrasah untuk menanamkan rasa sayang akan bahasa Arab.

Walaupun demikian dia mengakui, menggunakan bahasa Arab dengan kumpulan penutur asli memang bukan mudah: “Ia memang sangat susah tetapi ia pengalaman yang amat baik.”

PASUKAN S’PURA MENANG 1, KALAH 4

Di peringkat saringan, pasukan dari Singapura itu mengalahkan Croatia tetapi tewas di tangan India, Kuwait, Ukraine dan Brazil. Ini menyebabkan mereka gagal mara ke peringkat suku akhir.

Pada tahun ini, 53 negara mengambil bahagian dalam kejohanan tersebut, khususnya negara-negara Arab dan Teluk.

Negara-negara bukan Arab yang turut mengambil bahagian termasuk Amerika Syarikat, Britain, Croatia, Ukraine, Bosnia, Malaysia, Turki dan Singapura.

Tuan rumah Qatar muncul sebagai juara dalam kejohanan bahas ini, manakala Syria adalah naib johan.

Pasukan Madrasah Aljunied itu berada di Qatar dari 10 April sehingga 13 April untuk menyertai kejohanan tersebut. Mereka diiringi oleh pembimbing mereka, Ustaz Mohamad Nasrullah Refa’ie.

Source: Berita MediaCorp

May 11, 2016
Muslim Charity To Put ‘Allah Is Great’ Posters On Buses To Portray Islam In A Positive Light

Hundreds of British buses will carry adverts praising Allah as part of a campaign launched by the country’s biggest Muslim charity to help victims of Syria’s civil war.

Islamic Relief hopes the posters, which bear the words “Subhan Allah”, meaning “Glory be to God” in Arabic, will portray Islam and international aid in a positive light.

Buses will carry the advertisements in London, Birmingham, Manchester, Leicester and Bradford.

These cities have large Muslim populations and the charity hopes it will encourage people to donate generously ahead of the start of Ramadan on 7 June.

According to Islamic law, Muslims are supposed to donate 2.5 per cent of their income to the poor and needy.

Known as Zakat, the pratice is regarded as one of the “five pillars of Islam”.

Many people choose Ramadan to donate their Zakat, as the month of fasting is regarded as a month of blessings.

Muslims believe the rewards for all good deeds are greater during Ramadan than during the rest of the year, according to Muslim Aid.

The charity hopes the campaign will help young Muslims channel anger about the war in Syria and discrimination at home into humanitarian work, thereby preventing them from becoming involved with extremist groups.

Imran Madden, the UK director of Islamic Relief, said: “In a sense this could be called a climate change campaign because we want to change the negative climate around international aid and around the Muslim community in this country.

“International aid has helped halve the number of people living in extreme poverty in the past 15 years, and British Muslims are an incredibly generous community who give over £100 million to international aid charities in Ramadan.”

The new campaign will appear on buses from 23 May on 640 buses around the country.

The adverts will have a special resonance in London as the city elected its first Muslim mayor, Sadiq Khan, on Thursday – despite a Conservative campaign which repeatedly accused him of having connections to extremists.

An estimated three million Muslims are believed to live in London – around 50 per cent of British Muslim population.

Transport for London (TfL), which regulates the advertisements appearing on the city’s buses, has a clause banning campaigns linked to a “political party or campaign” but does not prevent religious advertising.

It can ban ads if it believes the campaign is likely “to cause widespread or serious offence”.

In 2012, a Christian charity had its adverts cancelled by then Mayor Boris Johnson after it was accused of claiming to “cure” gay people.

In 2009, the British Humanist Association drew complaints after it ran a campaign saying “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life”.

In response, Christian groups ran a counter-campaign saying there “definitely is a God” a month later.

Source: The Independent UK

May 11, 2016
Workers’ Party, Law Ministry Cross Swords Over Rules On Litigation Against Govt

Two Workers’ Party members – Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang – crossed swords with Ms Indranee Rajah, Senior Minister of State for Law, in Parliament on Monday (May 9) over an amendment to the Government Proceedings Act.

The Opposition MPs took issue with Clause 9 in the Statutes (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 2016, which would see a change to Section 29(4) of the Government Proceedings Act (GPA). They argued that the change would make it more prohibitive for individuals to enter into litigation against the Government.

Previously, the Act stated that: “In any such civil proceedings as are referred to in subsection (2) in which two legal officers appear as advocates and the court certifies for two counsel, costs shall be payable in respect of the services of both such legal officers.”

Clause 9 replaces the section with: “In any civil proceedings mentioned in subsection (2), costs are payable in respect of the services of more than two legal officers if the court so certifies.”

According to the Act, the change is meant to bring the previous laws in line with Order 59, Rule 19 of the Rules of the Court and Rule 871 of the Family Justice Rules 2014.

THE COURT IS THE SAFEGUARD: INDRANEE RAJAH

Ms Lim rose to record her reservation about Clause 9, saying: “Ms Indranee mentioned that this does not give the Government additional powers, but the fact is that under the existing Section 29 of the Government Proceedings Act, the cost claimable is limited to two. So this amendment would actually give an allowance to the court to certify more than two lawyers’ cost being payable.

“So it is a change to the legal position as far as the GPA is concerned.”

Ms Indranee said that the intent was to “bring it in line” with what is available to other civil parties.

Said the Senior Minister of State: “It is not intended to be costs used in an oppressive manner, but really where if costs are incurred, it gives the court the discretion to allow costs for more than two counsels if the court really thinks this is an appropriate place to do so.

“So the safeguard there is that it lies in the hands of the court.”

But Ms Lim said that “when you have the Government on one side of a legal proceeding and perhaps a private individual or private entity on the other side, you are dealing with really an inequality of resources in most case”.

She added: “The Government, with its legal officers, having the whole Civil Service there – the prospect of a litigant going into litigation with the Government and sustaining that litigation I think is already prohibitive to most people.

“So my question is why is the Government not able to take a broader view – or a magnanimous view, or perhaps a view from the the accountability standpoint – that we are not going allow costs to be an inhibition, or a prohibitive factor, when a litigant decides whether to continue with litigation or to commence litigation with the Government?

“I’m sure the Government doesn’t need the money, so the question is why do you need to change that provision to allow for more than two lawyers’ costs to be claimed? Why can’t you just limit the Government’s position to two?”

Ms Indranee she said that ultimately it should be up to the Courts to decide.

“The idea is that if it is a case that really a lot of work was incurred, and it appears to the court that it is fair and just to award costs for more than two counsel in such a situation, the court can do so. But if the Court, having taken into account the circumstances of of the case, feels that it is not equitable to do so, then it will be up to the Court,” she said.

“So at the end of the day, I think it rests with the Court to do the right thing with respect to the costs. And our Courts in this matter, I believe, are objective and fair,” she said.

The Government does its best to be fair, objective and rational about legal proceedings, added Ms Indranee.

“When this Government is engaged with litigation – whether it is brought by somebody else, or whether the Government has reason to initiate it – the Government does its best to be fair, objective and rational about it,” she said.

“It would not be our approach to use costs to be oppressive, but to seek costs where we think it is fairly and justly incurred, and to leave it to the court to make the appropriate decision on the quantum of costs to be awarded, and the number of counsel to be taken into account.”

WILL SOME FEEL INTIMIDATED, ASKS LOW THIA KHIANG

WP Secretary-General Low Thia Khiang then asked for a clarification, saying that he wondered if the change will “raise the perception of Singaporeans that the Government is using the clause to intimidate Singaporeans in bringing any legal case against the Government”.

He asked: “So is it a good thing for Singapore as a society that the people who feel somehow being victimised by the Government, but are intimidated by the costs that you don’t know how much the court is going to decide?

“The sense of intimidation of Singaporeans does not spell well for the future of Singapore.”

In response to Mr Low, Ms Indranee reiterated that it is not intention of the Government to intimidate anyone.

“I’ve said it before, once. I’ve said it before, twice. And I will now say it again a third time: It is not the intention of the Government to be using costs to intimidate anyone,” said the Senior Minister of State for Law.

“As I have indicated, when the Government has to defend a matter or pursue a matter, it will do so after having taken advice, doing so rationally, and doing so if it thinks it is the right course of action. That is the first thing when it comes to taken proceedings with respect to the amount of costs that the person may face, when a person brings proceedings against the Government, that person would, no doubt, be legally advised, and also have an indication of the amount of cost that would be incurred.

“And it should not be forgotten that if costs are to be awarded against that party, it does mean that that party, at the end of the day, ultimately failed against the Government, meaning that that case should not have been brought in the first place.”

Source: ChannelNewsAsia

May 11, 2016