Rilek1Corner

Tag: election

  • FAQ On The Current Jerusalem Issue

    FAQ On The Current Jerusalem Issue

    (1) “So sekarang Jerusalem/Baitulmqadis tu Israel punya kah?”

    TIDAK. Bila Trump kata Jerusalem itu ibu negara Israel, bukan bermaksud secara automatik Jerusalem terus jadi hak milik Israel. Trump bukan hakim dunia. Dia hanya Presiden US. Di dunia kita sekarang, hanya Pertubuhan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu (United Nations – UN) saja yang boleh beri kata putus bahawa wilayah ini milik siapa, wilayah itu milik siapa. US hanya salah satu daripada 5 kuasa besar dunia (selainnya ialah Rusia, China, UK dan Perancis) yang boleh membuat keputusan di UN melalui kuasa veto mereka di Majlis Keselamatan. Sehingga sekarang, UN masih menganggap pendudukan Israel ke atas Jerusalem Timur tidak sah dan Israel perlu berundur ke sempadan asalnya sebelum tahun 1967. Kalau guna bahasa undang-undang antarabangsa, Israel hanya ada kawalan “DE FACTO” ke atas Jerusalem Timur. Pendudukan Israel ke atas Jerusalem Timur tidak diberi pengiktirafan “DE JURE” oleh komuniti antarabangsa.

     

    (2) “Ya Allah! Kiamat makin dekat! ”

    Baitulmaqdis tidak jatuh ke tangan Israel bermula semalam. Al-Aqsa (di Jerusalem Timur) telah pun jatuh ke tangan Israel 50 tahun yang lalu lagi, selepas kekalahan Jordan (penguasa asal Jerusalem Timur) dalam Perang Enam Hari 1967. Tanda kiamat dah mula pun sejak 50 tahun yang lepas. Apa yang korang buat selama 50 tahun lepas lah wey.

     

    (3) “Ibu negara Israel kat mana sebenarnya?”

    Sejak 1950, ibu negara Israel ialah Jerusalem Barat iaitu tempat terletaknya Parlimen, Mahkamah Agung dan Pejabat PM Israel. Selepas Israel menawan Jerusalem Timur pada 1967, Israel meluluskan Jerusalem Law pada tahun 1980 yang menyatakan “the complete and united Jerusalem is the capital of Israel”. Maksudnya Israel nak menyatukan Jerusalem Barat dan Jerusalem Timur sebagai ibu negaranya. Perjanjian Oslo 1993 yang dipersetujui oleh Yitzhak Rabin (Israel) dan Yasser Arafat (Palestin) mengatakan status Jerusalem Timur harus ditentukan melalui perundingan bersama Israel-Palestin. Ini menyebabkan Rabin dibunuh oleh ekstremis Zionis kerana ia bakal menggadaikan pemilikan penuh Israel ke atas Jerusalem Timur. Perundingan damai Israel-Palestin asyik gagal disebabkan politikus right-wing di Israel seperti Netanyahu tidak mahu berkompromi dalam isu Jerusalem. Jadi, NO, Israel tidak perlu memindahkan ibu negaranya susulan kenyataan Trump.

     

    (4) “Kenapa Trump nak mengiktiraf Jerusalem sebagai ibu negara Israel?”

    Gimik politik. Mid-Term Election dah nak dekat. Trump pernah berjanji semasa kempen tahun 2016 bahawa dia akan mengiktiraf Jerusalem sebagai ibu negara Israel, satu strategi untuk mengambil hati Yahudi Zionis dan Kristian Evangelis (tak semua Yahudi pro Israel, jangan pukul rata). Sama seperti Obama yang pernah berucap semasa kempen tahun 2008 bahawa “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided”. Apa yang Trump buat adalah lebih kepada prosedur standard Presiden. Pada tahun 1995, Kongres US telah meluluskan Jerusalem Embassy Act yang mengiktiraf “undivided Jerusalem” (merangkumi Jerusalem Barat dan Jerusalem Timur) sebagai ibu negara Israel dan mengarahkan Department of State (Kementerian Luar) untuk memindahkan kedutaan US ke Jerusalem.

    Tapi akta tersebut turut memberi peruntukan “waiver” di mana Presiden boleh menangguhkan perpindahan tersebut. Sejak 1995, Clinton, Bush dan Obama telah pun menandatangani waiver tersebut walaupun ada di kalangan mereka yang pro-Israel. Waiver itu perlu renew setiap 6 bulan. Kali terakhir Trump menandatangani waiver adalah pada 1 Jun 2017, jadi waiver itu dah expired pada Disember 2017 dan Trump mengambil kesempatan ini untuk membuat kenyataan. Tak pasti Trump sudah atau belum menandatangani waiver tu. Kalau ikut sumber ini, Trump sebenarnya dah menandatangani waiver. Jadi kali ini Trump sekadar sembang, sebab election dah dekat.

    Pada 23 Disember 2016, Majlis Keselamatan UN 2015-2016 telah meluluskan Resolusi 2334 yang mengatakan pendudukan Israel ke atas Jerusalem Timur tidak sah. Resolusi tersebut dapat diluluskan kerana US tidak menggunakan kuasa vetonya. Obama saja nak kenakan Netanyahu sebelum habis tempoh jawatannya sebagai Presiden. Kalau sekarang Israel dan US nak mengusulkan sebarang resolusi untuk menjadikan Jerusalem sebagai ibu negara Israel pun, ia tetap akan diveto oleh Rusia dan China yang telah lama menyokong Palestin dalam hal ini. Jadi kenyataan Trump kali ini tidak akan mengubah keputusan tersebut. Ia cuma dapat menyelamatkan sedikit air muka Netanyahu.

     

    (5) “So kalau tak ada apa-apa effect, buat apa nak bantah?”

    Sebab US sebagai penimbangtara proses perdamaian Israel-Palestin, ia harus menghormati Perjanjian Oslo 1993 dan menjaga perasaan Palestin. Kenyataan Trump seolah-olah memberi sokongan moral kepada Israel dan membelakangi resolusi-resolusi UN yang jelas mengecam klaim Israel ke atas Jerusalem Timur.

     

    Kadang kala kita perlu menguasai pengetahuan asas hubungan antarabangsa sebelum meninggalkan komen-komen yang tidak matang di merata media sosial. Trump tengok komen korang pun rasa WTF. Kurangkan karut, satukan hati. Insya Allah, Palestine will be free.

    (p/s: my brothers and sisters, the Jerusalem issue is not a religious issue. It is an universal humanitarian concern over Israel’s illegal occupation of East Jerusalem and its continued defiance of international law. Don’t let the extremists from both sides lure you into choosing side based on your faith).

     

     

    Source: Ayman

  • Mahathir Hits Back At Dig About His Indian Roots

    Mahathir Hits Back At Dig About His Indian Roots

    Former Malaysian premier Mahathir Mohamad has been trading barbs with Prime Minister Najib Razak over the last two years over the scandal involving state fund 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), with Datuk Seri Najib defending his record and mounting counter attacks.

    In the past week, however, the attacks against Tun Dr Mahathir have also come from Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, as the government tries to weaken the standing of the 92-year-old politician among Malay voters.

    Dr Mahathir was a feared strongman during his 22 years as prime minister until 2003, but it is now open season for him as he leads the opposition alliance into the next election.

    Dr Mahathir still has some influence among older Malays, as his leadership brought economic prosperity to Malaysia and lifted many Malay families from poverty.

    Mr Najib has attacked Dr Mahathir in recent weeks by reminding the public that many scandals happened during the Mahathir era, including the foreign-exchange losses incurred by the central bank in the 1980s, which ran into billions of dollars, local media has reported.

    Mr Najib also claimed that the MRT system should have been built long ago to boost public transport, but Dr Mahathir instead threw billions of dollars away setting up a national car industry through Proton.

    Datuk Seri Zahid joined the attacks last weekend when he took a dig at Dr Mahathir’s ancestry, saying the veteran politician’s identity card (IC) showed he was Indian because his name was stated as Mahathir a/l Iskandar Kutty. The “a/l” refers to “anak lelaki”, or “son of”, a naming convention used by Malaysians of Indian descent. Malay men on their ICs carry “bin”, which refers to “son of”, in the patronymic style used in Malaysia.

    Mr Zahid also read out the full IC number of Dr Mahathir, which alarmed some observers as this was supposed to be confidential information.

    The former PM called Mr Zahid, who is also Home Minister, a “big liar” as there was no such IC.

    “This is good enough to show that Zahid is a big liar. A big liar because he cannot show the blue-coloured identity card,” Dr Mahathir said on Monday, in a video on the Facebook page of his party Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia. “I can still remember the first identity card I received. I was still in university at the time.”

    Dr Mahathir’s daughter Marina Mahathir said Iskandar was the name of her father’s grandfather.

    While not denying her Indian heritage, she said the late Iskandar had married into a prominent Malay family.

    Mr Zahid’s deputy at the Home Ministry, Datuk Nur Jazlan Mohamed, defended his boss yesterday, saying the IC is a public record and there was nothing wrong in sharing that information with the public.

    Dr Mahathir, in the same video, made his own explosive claim about Mr Zahid. The Deputy PM – not long after he was elevated to the position by Mr Najib – had asked him for support to become the next prime minister, said Dr Mahathir.

    “Zahid should remember, when he became the DPM, he came to see me to try and seek my sympathy, my support,” Dr Mahathir said in the video. “I told Zahid the truth. Even if Najib were to resign, which is impossible, Zahid must still wait for Umno to decide who should replace Najib.”

     

    Source: http://www.straitstimes.com/

  • Future First Lady Series: Getting To Know Mrs Maria Marican, Wife Of Presidential Hopeful, Salleh Marican

    Future First Lady Series: Getting To Know Mrs Maria Marican, Wife Of Presidential Hopeful, Salleh Marican

    In the first of our Future First Lady series, we take a closer look at the women who stand beside our Presidential hopefuls. Now, Singapore may not have an Office of the First Lady, but their roles are crucial, nonetheless. They accompany our Presidents to key state or diplomatic events, and are arguably, an important face of Singapore as well.

    We start with the wife of Second Chance CEO Salleh Marican, Mdm Sapiyah Abu Bakar. Mr Salleh Marican announced his intention to contest the election last week and collected his application forms from the Elections Dept yesterday on 5 Jun.

    So, who is Ms Sapiyah?

    1.   She has been married to Mr Salleh for 43 years and they have 4 children

    Mdm Sapiyah married Mr Salleh in 1974 and has 4 children, 3 daughters and a son. She is a housewife who appears to have a close relationship with her children.

    2. She is sometimes known as Maria Marican.

    A CSI search online throws up precious little information about Mdm Sapiyah – she has virtually no online presence. She does, however, have an Instagram account @mariamarican, with 1,000 followers (not too bad!)

    The name ‘Maria Marican’ is quite unusual, actually. Traditionally, most Malay wives keep their maiden name – and do not take on their husband’s last name.

    Perhaps, this is Mdm Sapiyah’s way of portraying herself as a more Westernised figure.

    3. Mdm Sapiyah aka Maria Marican is always well-dressed, and appears to have a fondness for fashion.

    Photos online of Mdm Sapiyah typically shows her glamorously dressed, such as photos of the Marican family at events like Prestige’s Crystal Anniversary Ball – an event for society’s creme da la creme. Her heavily lined eyes seem to be a personal trademark.

    We aren’t sure if this works in their favor though. Already, with Mr Salleh’s business background, people have likened him to Singapore’s Trump. And Melania Trump.

    Netizens, generally, had mixed reactions towards Mdm Sapiyah.

    Some appreciated her good looks (come on, she’s 65!)

    While others…

    And still others likened her to other famous figures, such as our friends next door.

    Come September, will her portrait be up on the halls of fame, alongside Encik Salleh Marican?

    Your pick.

     

    Source: www.thoughtssg.com

  • 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

  • High Court Accepts Application By Dr Tan Cheng Bock On Constitutionality Of Counting Late Wee Kim Wee As First EP

    High Court Accepts Application By Dr Tan Cheng Bock On Constitutionality Of Counting Late Wee Kim Wee As First EP

    COURT APPLICATION ACCEPTED

    I would like to announce that this morning, the High Court accepted my application (HC/OS 495/2017), which seeks the Court’s determination on whether a piece of legislation (section 22 Presidential Elections (Amendment) Act 6 of 2017 which counted President Wee Kim Wee as the first Elected Presidency term for the purposes of calling a Reserved Election), is consistent with our Constitution (Articles 19B(1) and 164(1) which introduced the mechanism of a Reserved Election into our Constitution).

    I am the Plaintiff and for the purposes of serving Court papers on the Government, the Defendant is the Attorney General.

    The application was filed on 5 May 2017. The Court accepted my application this morning, and has fixed a pre-trial conference on 22 May 2017.

    To recap, on 31 March 2017, I held a press conference explaining why in my layman’s opinion, starting the count from President Wee’s term appeared to be inconsistent with the spirit and purpose for reserved elections. I then invited the Government or AG to explain the legal reasons for their count.

    On 1 April 2017 the Government through MCI said I raised no new points that require a response. I responded to say the MCI missed my point. Nothing further was heard on this issue.

    Since this is a matter of national importance, I sought to find the legal answer and consulted the best constitutional lawyer I could find. He is Queen’s Counsel Lord David Pannick. I gave Lord Pannick the Commission Report, White Paper, all relevant Hansard parliamentary reports from 7 Nov 2016 to 6 February 2017, our Constitution and all related statutes on this issue. I asked him one question: whether the AG correctly advised the Government to specify President Wee’s term as the first to be counted on the basis that he was the first President to exercise elected powers.

    Lord Pannick has advised that he disagrees with the AG’s advice, and that section 22 Presidential Elections (Amendment) Act 6 of 2017 as it stands is unconstitutional. After receiving Lord Pannick’s reply, I felt I could not keep his legal opinion to myself. It would be in public interest to have the Court decide which legal view is correct – Lord Pannick or the AG.

    On 28 April 2017, I engaged M/s Tan, Rajah & Cheah to make the necessary application, and to produce in my affidavit Lord Pannick’s written opinion before the Court. I believe this question can be answered without confrontation or hostility. Both the Government and I have the nation’s best interest at heart. It is in nobody’s interest to have a Reserved Election that is unconstitutional.

    I am satisfied that I have, to the best of my ability and capacity, done my part to do what is right in the circumstances, which is to bring to this Court’s attention Lord Pannick’s opinion. Since the matter is now before the Court, it is only right that I refrain from making any further public comment until this case is decided.

     

    Source: Dr Tan Cheng Bock