Blog

  • Noriza A. Mansor – Singaporean Of The Year 2015

    Noriza A. Mansor – Singaporean Of The Year 2015

    A woman who went beyond the call of duty and stepped up to help an elderly stranger after he soiled himself at a supermarket is named The Straits Times’ first Singaporean of the Year 2015.

    Madam Noriza A. Mansor, 50, a salesperson with the NTUC FairPrice supermarket at Toa Payoh HDB Hub, was presented with the inaugural award by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong at a ceremony held today (2 February) at UBS Business University. PM Lee was Guest-of-Honour at the award ceremony.

    Organised by The Straits Times and sponsored by global bank UBS, the Singaporean of the Year award seeks to honour extraordinary acts of goodwill, ingenuity or perseverance by Singaporeans that have made a positive impact on the lives of others.

    Madam Noriza, a mother of five, clinched the award for her extraordinary act of kindness towards a fellow Singaporean, Mr Tan Soy Yong, 76, in October 2014. When she came across Mr Tan at an NTUC FairPrice supermarket in Toa Payoh, he had clumps of faeces clinging to his shorts, legs and shoes. Instead of shunning him as others did, Madam Noriza helped him clean up and change into a new pair of shorts that she had bought for him. She also took him and his wheelchair-bound wife home in a taxi. A bystander, moved to tears by her selfless act, reported it to the media and the story quickly went viral. Following the incident, she continued to visit and care for the couple at their home and sought them out even after they moved into a nursing home, transcending the boundaries of age and race to treat them like her own parents.

    Madam Noriza beat nine other finalists, ranging from philanthropists and sportsmen to environmentalists and trail-blazing entrepreneurs (see Annexe A  for the full list of finalists), who were nominated for the award. The winner was selected by a panel of 15 judges including senior editors and correspondents from The Straits Times, as well as local celebrities and community leaders such as social entrepreneur and activist Saleemah Ismail, youth leader David Hoe and chef Willin Low (see Annex B for the full list of judges).

    Many ST readers also supported Madam Noriza in an online poll conducted by The Straits Times in January 2016. She was among the top choices, garnering 24% of 2,793 votes in the public poll.

    As part of the award, Madam Noriza will get $20,000 in cash and a trophy, while the other finalists will each receive $5,000 from UBS.

    In a video that The Straits Times recorded of Madam Noriza for the award, she said: “I hope that all Singaporeans will do what I did, to help those who really need their help. Please don’t turn them down.”

    Mr Warren Fernandez, Editor of The Straits Times, on The Straits Times’ Singaporean of the Year award, said: “This ST award aims to recognise those who inspire us all, through their actions and lives, to make a difference to our community.  It is not about finding the best entrepreneur, most outstanding social worker, top professional or some paragon of virtue.  Rather, each of the nominees, who come from a wide range of backgrounds, has a powerful story that will resonate with, and inspire, all of us.

    “As for Madam Noriza, our winner of the inaugural award, hers was a spontaneous act of great kindness and compassion, for a complete stranger. She crossed age, sex, language and racial boundaries to lend a helping hand when called upon to do so, and in a way that not many would have done. And, she followed through on this, tending to the elderly couple for many months as if they were her own parents. Her selfless act is truly a lesson for us all. It shows that any one of us can be extraordinary if we step up to help, in whatever way we can.”

    Mr Juerg Zeltner, President of Wealth Management, UBS, said: “We are delighted to present the inaugural Singaporean of the Year Award as part of UBS’s SG50 gift to Singapore. Through this award, we want to celebrate the triumph of the human spirit and honour those who have gone above and beyond their call of duty to make a difference to society.”

    “As a global firm, UBS seeks to adopt a responsible and sustainable approach to doing business, and to contribute to the communities in which it operates. Singapore has come a long way over the last 50 years. Its remarkable progress would not have been possible without the support, commitment and dedication of ordinary people determined to make Singapore a better place. Their efforts are a testament to the power of the human spirit and its capacity to enhance the quality of life across communities.”

    In addition to the 10 nominees, the judges also singled out for special mention the group of individuals who rushed to help a South Korean man trapped under a lorry on 22 July 2015, working together to lift it and free him.

    Said Mr Fernandez: “Their spontaneous and courageous response to help someone in urgent need went viral and made us all proud to be their fellowmen.”

     

    Source: http://singaporeseen.stomp.com.sg

  • Sangeetha Thanapal: Understand Georgraphy And History – Malays Always Indigenous To Singapore

    Sangeetha Thanapal: Understand Georgraphy And History – Malays Always Indigenous To Singapore

    In my work on racism and racial dynamics in Singapore, I have spent some time resolutely attacking what I believe to be harmful stereotypes of Malay people, and pointing out the myriad ways they are discriminated against in their own land. Racist Chinese people generally dislike it when I do this, and they often reply by stating that if Malay people do not like it here, they can move, (or go back to), Malaysia. Many Chinese Singaporeans tend to behave as if they have right and ownership over this land, and subsequently that they are entitled to decide who gets to live in it.

    This is all very odd to me, because it is almost as if these people never went through a single history class at Lower Secondary level.

    So let us begin with a simple but vital assertion: This land does belong to Malay people. Malay people have been living in Singapore and the area for thousands of years. In the third century, Chinese records refer to us at Pu Luo Chung, which is a transliteration from the Malay Pulau Ujong, meaning ‘island at the end’. The names given to this area are Malay, but apparently the people who speak this language are not considered indigenous to it? Who exactly are your indigenous people, if that term doesn’t include Malay people?

    There is a reason why it is Malay lore and myth in which references to the land happens. It is because they have been here long enough to produce literature about it. When you focus on the gap between our knowledge of the land and theirs, especially traditional knowledge, you start to see their relationship to the land. There is no way they are not indigenous to this land.

    Land, language, memory & history. These are all linked, and the rest of have do not possess this connection to the land. Somebody was living here before the British came, and it sure was not Chinese people.

    Denying this is ahistorical, and it constitutes an erasure of people’s histories. Denying their existence and that history is a colonial act in itself, and every colonial act is violent. It is not only an act of erasure but one of displacement as well.

    Singapore was not terra nullius, meaning it was not ‘nobody’s land’. Singapore belonged to the Johor Riau Sultanate, which means by definition it is Malay land.

    Indigeneity is not always defined by geography, but by people as well. What we think of as Malay includes indigenous people, Bugis, Minangkabau, etc. The idea of Malay does not just mean people from Malaya, but the people of the Nusantara. This entire archipelago is the Malay world. As Singapore existed within this world, it is undoubtedly Malay land.

    The Singapore government’s mistreatment of Malay people includes a focus on Malay people as diasporic, which states that Malay people came here from elsewhere, and this is an act of historical erasure. They didn’t come here, they were already here. The Singapore you think of now was never a country before, it was part of Malay land and the Malay world.

    If you cannot accept or understand this, that means you cannot understand geography and history. Why do people have so much difficulty accepting facts? Non-Malay minorities are also here on stolen land, and we need to accept and understand this. Even the rest of us, including Indians, don’t have a claim on this land. We can never truly find solidarity if we insist on acting as if Indian people and Malay people have the same claim to Singapore.

    This does not erase our contributions or our generations that have grown up here, or our own attachment to the land. But it simply not equivalent to Malay people’s claim over it. No one is asking for reparations and no one is asking you to leave their land. So why do so many people find it difficult to accept facts and the truth?

    In Singapore, Malay people are targeted for legal and cultural extinction. The percentage of Malay people in Singapore is decreasing, despite the maintenance of total fertility rate for the community. Population policies seek to bring in Indian and PRC migrants, but not Malay. They are slowly being phased out as immigration policies are making Malay people extinct in their own land. This is Malay land, and they have become second class citizens on their own land. That is simply unacceptable.

    So, who gains from the denial of Malay indigineity to Singapore? Who gains from erasure of this past? What do they gain? At what point can we admit that this “debate” over how long Malay people have been here and where their ancestors came from is just a rhetorical exercise aimed specifically to cast aspersions on indigenous birthright?

    I have my theories but I’m going to leave this here for people to think about.

    In our anti-racism work in Singapore, aboriginality must be foundational. As minorities, we need to examine our own complicity in the ongoing project of colonisation, whether it be White or Chinese in nature. During the time I have been engaged in doing this work, I have come to believe that anti-racism for the Malay community has to begin with assertions of indigeneity and ownership of land. Regardless of where you are and where you come from, you have a responsibility to know the names of the territories you are on and the people who have called those places home.

    Update: My dear friend @POZboySG pointed out what he felt was the lack of attention to Orang Asli people in this piece. He is completely correct. I did not address it because I felt I knew very little about it and that means I am not the right person to do so. I cannot speak about Orang Asli forced assimilation into mainstream Malaysian culture as I am simply not qualified. I did talk about indigenous people AND Malay people as being indigenous to the land, because that is how I see it. For the purposes of talking specifically about Singapore, I feel speaking of Malay people as indigenous to the land is the best political way to approach it, especially when faced with Chinese hegemonic claims. This is of course my opinion, and up for debate.

    Source: https://medium.com

  • CNY Greetings At Mosques – Usual Practice Or New Initiative To Appease Political Masters?

    CNY Greetings At Mosques – Usual Practice Or New Initiative To Appease Political Masters?

    There are a couple of pictures of masajid in Singapura with red banners with the wishes “Happy Chinese New Year”.

    There seems to be quite a lot of Muslims who are upset with these banners.

    As a matter of principle, I do not have a problem with the banners or wishes.

    As to its permissibility in Islam, I leave that to the scholars to decide.

    If we believe that there is khilaf in this issue, then we have to respect the decision of those who believe it is haram and those who believe it is not.

    However, I have several questions for the two masajid involved:

    1. Did they similarly put up banners last year?

    If they did, then it is fine.

    2. If they did not put up banners last year, why put them up this year?

    Are these banners in response to K Shanmugam Sc‘s comments?

    It will be terribly disappointing if these banners were put up to appease a politician.

    If they were only put up this year because of a politician’s comments, then where is the dignity and firmness of the Muslims?

    Do we make decisions and fatawa to please others?

    I hope the committee members of these two masajid can assure us that the banners were similarly exhibited last year.

    And not only this year, to appease a politician who criticised Muslims.

     

    Source: Almakhazin SG

  • My Malay Neighbour Unhappy With My 2 Year Old Child Crying And Playing, Harassed Us Frequently

    My Malay Neighbour Unhappy With My 2 Year Old Child Crying And Playing, Harassed Us Frequently

    Jiran i pun sama…diapun melayu juga..anak saya umur baru masuk tiga tahun..baik budak ni nanggis atau tengah bermainpun dia marah..call police lah…call HDB lah..

    pekik sana pekik sini..tendang kita punya gate la..tapi herannya dia ta na cakap face to face dgn kita…

    dia taruh letter kat semua letter box jiran..mengatakan kita ta lih didik anak…

    nasib baik jiran yg lain semua paham and side kita…semua letter kita taruh balik ke letter box dia…padam muka dia…kita ta layan dia….

    merekapun ada anak tp da besar..

    ***

    My neighbours also the same….they are fellow Malays…My child is 2 years plus…whether the baby is crying or playing, they will be angry..they called the police and HDB

    They screamed and shout…kicked our gate…but the funny thing is they have never complained to us face to face

    They put a letter in all the neighbours’ letter box saying that we are not teaching our child.

    Luckily the rest of our neighbours are understanding and side with us. All the letters they put back in their letter box.  Serve them right. Everyone ignored them.

    They also have a child but is already grown up.

     

    Editor’s Note: Endang Leatari was commenting on an All Singapore Stuff article, www.allsingaporestuff.com/article/neighbor-slips-angry-note-flat-over-babys-crying-gets-trolled-big-time

    Source: Endang Leatari

  • Jolovan Wham Ordered To Pay $6,063 Costs To Attorney-General After Failed Attempt To Quash Police Warning Against Him

    Jolovan Wham Ordered To Pay $6,063 Costs To Attorney-General After Failed Attempt To Quash Police Warning Against Him

    Civil activist Jolovan Wham has been ordered to pay S$6,063 in costs to the Attorney-General for his failed bid to quash a police warning that had been issued against him.

    The police warning came after Mr Wham breached rules against foreigners participating in events at Hong Lim Park without a permit, several years ago.

    The member of non-governmental group Community Action Network and executive director of HOME, a migrant worker help group, had organised a candlelight vigil to show support for protestors in Hong Kong fighting election restrictions in October 2014.

    The event was publicised on Facebook, but despite the condition that foreigners and permanent residents could not take part without a permit, some foreigners still showed up, leading to investigations against Mr Wham.

    In March last year, under the direction of the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC), Mr Wham was verbally warned.

    However, he refused to sign the Notice of Warning without having a copy to consult his lawyer first. The police declined to give him a copy of the document.

    Two months later, the police followed up with a letter saying the warning had been delivered and the matter closed.

    Concerned that the warning would stick in his record and be used against him in future, Mr Wham went to court to try to quash the police warning under a judicial review.

    In dismissing his suit last December, High Court judge Woo Bih Li said that such warnings are nothing more than an opinion of the relevant authority that the recipient has committed an offence, and have no legal effect on the recipient.

    “It does not and cannot amount to a legally binding pronouncement of guilt or finding of fact.

    “Only a court of law has the power to make such a pronouncement or finding,” the judge had said.

    The court is not entitled to treat such warnings as antecedents or aggravating factors for subsequent convictions, Justice Woo said in dismissing the suit.

    The judge also said the police’s handling of the matter had left much to be desired, while noting, among other things, that the Notice of Warning was undated and employed inconsistent wording.

    After the court issued its judgment in December last year, a spokesman for the AGC said: “AGC and the Singapore Police Force are reviewing the process by which stern warnings are administered and the use of the notice, in light of the High Court’s comments in the judgment.”

     

    Source: www.todayonline.com

deneme bonusu