Tag: Islam

Leon Perera: Abandon Reserved Elected Presidency, Return To Appointed Presidency

We all want a President who can be a unifying symbol for all Singaporeans. But we disagree about the best means to achieve that end.

In Parliament on 6 Feb 2017, DPM Teo suggested that in November 2016, I had supported measures to depoliticise Presidential Elections (PEs). In fact all the Workers’ Party MPs and NCMPs, including myself, had argued in Parliament for not having an elected President at all and reverting to appointed Presidents.

DPM Teo alluded to my comments about a PAP MP who suggested political safeguards in PE campaigns. In fact, I said that it was to her credit that she attempted to address the politicisation risk issue, not that I agree with her proposed solution. I had argued earlier that day that Presidential elections inevitably become politicised.

DPM Teo went on to say that because I am “not shy” to speak in debate and since I had not challenged his characterisation of what I said, that means I agree with it. It does not. Nowhere did I say that I supported an elected President with politicisation safeguards. I did not raise my hand a second time to challenge his characterisation of what I said because my colleagues and I had already made our views emphatically clear during the three days of debate – we support an appointed Presidency, not an elected one, safeguards or no.

I reiterated my views in Parliament on 6 Feb 2017. For those who are interested, please scroll down below to read the excerpts, watch the clips and judge for yourself.
—————————————————————————————-

What I had said in Parliament on 9 November 2016 referring to a PAP MP’s speech was:-
“My second question pertains to a question we have repeated a few times – what are the strategies that the Government has to mitigate the risks of politicising the unifying office of the Presidency? No doubt, that politicisation may not have fully materialised for the past EPs that we have, but there is good reason to believe in future Presidential elections, if let us say there are 10 candidates, and let us say the winner gets 5% of the votes or let us say the campaign ends up becoming bitterly partisan, the Office of the President could be politicised. I have not heard any strategy from any Member of the PAP on how this can be managed. I think Ms Rahayu Mahzam came closest to that. To her credit, she talked about tightening up the rules for partisanship during the Presidential election campaign. So, what would be the Government’s strategy to mitigate that? That is my second question.”

This was DPM Teo’s reply to me at the time:
“Turning to the risk of politicisation and the possible tightening of rules for the Presidential Elections. The risk of politicisation is there. I have addressed it explicitly just now in my answer. But I think what Mr Leon Perera suggests, and what the Commission suggests also, is to look at rules and the way that the Presidential Elections are conducted. I think there is merit and I agree with Mr Leon Perera there.”

https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/topic.jsp…

In my earlier speech on the Bill delivered that very same day, I argued for reverting to appointed Presidents. Here is an extract from that speech:-

“Mdm Speaker, the Presidency, and I concur with Members who have talked about the importance of the Presidency, is the one precious unifying symbol of our national unity, above party politics. As a National Serviceman, I pledged my allegiance, as did many Members here, to the President and the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, proudly. When we elect this office, inevitably, it becomes a proxy General Election…The Constitutional Commission, the Menon Commission recognised this. They had the courage to do so, and suggested that we cast our eyes back to the time when Presidents were not elected.”

https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/topic.jsp…

Here is the video clip of that speech. It makes clear that I am not calling for rule changes to Presidential Elections but for a reversion to appointed Presidents.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/…/leon-perera-s…/3275492.html

On 8 November 2016, in responding to PAP MP and MOS Dr Janil Puthucheary, I said:

“Firstly, and most importantly, we have argued that subjecting the office of the Presidency to an election runs the risk that that election will inevitably become a proxy General Election, will become politicised. As a result of that process, the Elected President that emerges from there with a mandate that is less than 50% will be seen in a political light and will, therefore, have his or her ability to unify the entire country severely curtailed…Can the President be a unifying figure, after being subject to an election that is vulnerable to the tinge of partisanship? …Our proposal actually saves the Presidency from the risk of this kind of politicisation.”

https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/topic.jsp…

Here is the video clip of my exchange with DPM Teo in Parliament on 6 Feb 2017:

https://youtu.be/1Isvb5773MU

Source: Leon Perera

February 9, 2017
3 Myanmar Police Officers Found Guilty Of Abusing Rohingya Civilians, Sentenced To 2 Months Detention

YANGON — Three police officers have been sentenced to two months detention over a video showing them abusing Rohingya civilians, security sources told AFP on Wednesday (Feb 8), saying those involved had “no intention” to cause harm.

Authorities detained several officers last month for beating Rohingya villagers during operations in the north of Rakhine state, where security forces are hunting militants behind raids on border posts.

Nearly 70,000 Rohingya have fled to camps in southern Bangladesh since the lockdown started four months ago, bringing horrific stories of mass rape, murder, torture and arson.

A UN report released on Friday based on interviews with escapees said hundreds of people have likely been killed in a “calculated policy of terror” that may amount to ethnic cleansing.

Despite the mounting evidence, Myanmar’s government has largely dismissed allegations of widespread abuses against the Muslim minority, who most in the country consider a group of illegal immigrants from Bangladesh.

The beating video, which appeared online in Dec, was a rare exception where authorities have taken action.

The footage showed police hitting a young boy around the head as he walked to where dozens of villagers were lined up in rows seated on the ground, hands behind their heads.

Several officers in uniform then start attacking one of the sitting men, beating him with a stick and kicking him repeatedly in the face.

Three junior police were handed down two month sentences over the video, police sources told AFP, including the officer who filmed it previously named as Zaw Myo Htike by state media.

However the officers are not serving their time in a civilian prison, but instead in a jail for police.

Three senior police including a major were also demoted and their service terms were reduced for failing to enforce discipline.

“They didn’t have any intention to hurt them,” a senior police officer told AFP on condition of anonymity, referring to the treatment of the Rohingya villagers.

“During the operation, villagers said abusive words to security forces… such action was taken because they failed to follow police procedure.”

A local police officer in Maungdaw also confirmed the officers were sentenced last month, blaming the events on the stress of working in northern Rakhine.

“Police are dealing with many pressures on the ground and we have to risk our lives dealing with terrorists,” he said.

Source: www.todayonline.com

February 9, 2017
MUIS Should Be More Proactive In Providing Guidelines On Sale Of Products Manufactured Using Pig Derivatives

In Malaysia, when Muslims complain about pig hair paintbrush the government take action. Muslim consumers are protected.

Singapore how?

Here also you can find such pig-hair brush. Got shoes with pig-lining, wallet…..

Muis got advice? Can we touch or not. If cannot touch then Muis should advice sellers to warn consumers appropriately because some of the signs you cannot see until you already touch the shoe or what not

Zaid

Reader Contribution

February 9, 2017
Israel’s Settlement Law: Consolidating Apartheid

“Israel has just opened the ‘floodgates’, and crossed a ‘very, very thick red line’.” These were the words of Nickolay Mladenov, United Nations’ Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, in response to the passing of a bill at the Israeli Knesset on February 7 that retroactively legalises thousands of illegal settler homes, built on stolen Palestinian land.

Mladenov’s job title has grown so irrelevant in recent years that it merely delineates a reference to a bygone era: a “peace process” that has ensured the further destruction of whatever remained of the Palestinian homeland.

Israeli politicians’ approval of the bill is indeed an end of an era.

We have reached the point where we can openly declare that the so-called peace process was an illusion from the start, for Israel had no intentions of ever conceding the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem to the Palestinians.

In response to the passing of the bill, many news reports alluded to the fact that the arrival of Donald Trump in the White House, riding a wave of right-wing populism, was the inspiration needed by equally right-wing Israeli politicians to cross that “very, very thick red line”.

There is truth to that, of course. But it is hardly the whole story.

The political map of the world is vastly changing.

Just weeks before Trump made his way to the Oval Office, the international community strongly condemned Israel’s illegal settlements on Palestinian land occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem.

UN Security Council Resolution 2334 stated that these settlements have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of international law. Fourteen UNSC members voted in approval, while the US abstained, a revolutionary act by the US’ brazenly pro-Israel standards.

The US, when still in the final days of the Barack Obama administration, followed that act by even more stunning language, as Secretary of State John Kerry described the Israeli government as the “most right-wing in history”.

A chasm immediately emerged.

Capitalising on the US-Israel rift, Trump railed against Obama and Kerry for treating pompous Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with “total disdain and disrespect”. Trump asked Israel to “stay strong”, for January 20 was not too far away.

That date, Trump’s inauguration was the holy grail for Israel’s right-wing politicians, who mobilised immediately after Trump’s rise to power. Israel’s intentions received additional impetus from Britain’s Conservative Prime Minister, Theresa May. Despite her government vote to condemn Israeli settlements at the UN, she too ranted against the US for its censure of Israel.

Kerry’s attack on a “democratically elected Israeli government” was not appropriate, May charged. “We do not … believe that the way to negotiate peace is by focusing on only one issue, in this case, the construction of settlements,” she added.

Not only did May’s words define the very hypocrisy of the British government (which committed the original sin 100 years ago of handing historic Palestine to Zionist groups), but it was all that Israel needed to push forward with the new bill.

It is quite telling that the vote on the bill took place while Netanyahu was on an official visit to the UK. In a country greatly influenced by ‘Friends of Israel’ cliques in both dominant parties, he was among friends.

With the UK duly pacified, and the US in full support of Israel, moving forward with annexing Palestinian land became an obvious choice for Israeli politicians. Bezalel Smotrich, a Knesset member of the extremist Jewish Home party, put it best. “We thank the American people for voting Trump into office, which was what gave us the opportunity for the bill to pass,” he said shortly after the vote.

The so-called “Regulation Bill” will retroactively validate 4,000 illegal structures built on private Palestinian land. In the occupied Palestinian territories, all Jewish settlementsare considered illegal under international law, as further indicated in UNSC Resolution 2334.

There are also 97 illegal Jewish settlement outposts – a modest estimation – that are now set to be legalised and, naturally, expanded at the expense of Palestine. The price of these settlements has been paid mostly by US taxpayers’ money, but also the blood and tears of Palestinians, generation after generation.

It is important, though, that we realise that Israel’s latest push to legalise illegal outposts and annex large swaths of the West Bank is the norm, not the exception.

Indeed, the entire Zionist vision for Israel was achieved based on the illegal appropriation of Palestinian land. Wasn’t so-called “Israel proper” – as in land obtained by force from 1948 to 1967 – originally Palestinian land?

Soon after Israel occupied the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem in 1967, it moved quickly to fortify its military occupation by unleashing settlement construction throughout the occupied territories.

The early settlements had a strategic military purpose, for the intent was to create enough facts on the ground that would alter the nature of any future peace settlement; thus, the Allon Plan. It was named after Yigal Allon, a former general and minister in the Israeli government who took on the task of drawing an Israeli vision for the newly conquered Palestinian territories.

The plan sought to annex more than 30 percent of the West Bank and all of Gaza for security purposes. It stipulated the establishment of a “security corridor” along the Jordan River, as well as outside the “Green Line”, a one-sided Israeli demarcation of its borders with the West Bank.

While the religious component of the Israeli colonisation scheme currently defines the entire undertaking, it was not always this way. The Allon Plan was the brainchild of Israel’s Labor government, as the Israeli Right then was a negligible political force.

To capitalise on the government’s alluring settlement policies in the West Bank, a group of religious Jews rented a hotel in the Palestinian town of Al-Khalil (Hebron) to spend Passover at the Cave of the Patriarchs, and simply refused to leave.

Their action sparked biblical passion of religious orthodox Israelis across the country, who referred to the West Bank by its supposed biblical name, Judea and Samaria. In 1970, to “diffuse” the situation, the Israeli government constructed the Kiryat Arba settlement on the outskirts of the Arab city, which invited more orthodox Jews to join the growing movement.

Over the years, the strategic settlement growth was complemented by the religiously motivated expansion, championed by a vibrant movement, epitomised in the finding of Gush Emunim (Bloc of the Faithful) in 1974. The movement was on a mission to settle the West Bank with legions of fundamentalists.

Presently, by incorporating the illegal outposts (the work of religious zealots) into the strategically located, government-sanctioned larger illegal settlement blocs, Israeli politics and religion converged like never before.

And between the unfortunate past and the troubling present, Palestinians continue to be driven out of their ancestral land and homes.

But what is the Palestinian leadership doing about it? “I can’t deny that the (bill) helps us to better explain our position. We couldn’t have asked for anything more,” a Palestinian Authority official told Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity, as quoted by Shlomi Elder.

Elder writes: “The bill, whether it goes through or is blocked by the Supreme Court, already proves that Israel is not interested in a diplomatic resolution of the conflict.”

Be as it may, this is hardly enough. It is absurd to argue that it was Palestinians’ purported inability to articulate their position that emboldened Israel to this extent. It is rather the international community’s failure to translate its laws into action that bolstered Israel’s militancy.

The greatest mistake that the Palestinian leadership has committed (aside from its disgraceful disunity) was entrusting the US, Israel’s main enabler, with managing a “peace process” that has allowed Israel time and resources to finish its colonial projects, while devastating Palestinian rights and political aspirations.

Returning to the same old channels, using the same language, seeking salvation at the altar of the same old “two-state solution” will achieve nothing, but to waste further time and energy. It is Israel’s obstinacy that is now leaving Palestinians (and Israelis) with one option, and only one option: equal citizenship in one single state or a horrific apartheid. No other “solution” suffices.

In fact, the Regulation Bill is further proof that the Israeli government has already made its decision: consolidating apartheid in Palestine. If Trump and May find the logic of Netanyahu’s apartheid acceptable, the rest of the world shouldn’t.

In the words of former President Jimmy Carter, “Israel will never find peace until it … permit(s) the Palestinians to exercise their basic human and political rights.” That Israeli “permission” is yet to arrive, leaving the international community with the moral responsibility to exact it.

Dr Ramzy Baroud has been writing about the Middle East for more than 20 years. He is an internationally syndicated columnist, a media consultant, an author of several books and the founder of PalestineChronicle.com. His books include Searching Jenin and The Second Palestinian Intifada, and his latest, My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story. His website is www.ramzybaroud.net .

Source: www.aljazeera.com

February 9, 2017
Malaysian Authorities Seize Pig-Hair Paint Brushes Following Complaints From Muslims

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia (AP) — Malaysian authorities have seized thousands of paint brushes suspected of containing pig bristles after consumers in this Muslim-majority nation demanded a crackdown, officials said Wednesday.

Pigs and dogs are considered unclean by many Muslims, who make up some 60 percent of Malaysia’s 30 million people. It is illegal in the country to sell products made from any part of a pig or a dog, unless the goods are labeled and kept separately.

Zarif Anwar, an enforcement official with the domestic trade and consumer ministry, said that since Tuesday, officials nationwide have been inspecting shops selling paint brushes for art and commercial use.

He said the brushes seized were not labeled and found to have a different texture from other brushes and frayed ends, signs that they could be made from pig bristles. In some cases, the brushes had a “halal” certification that had expired, he said. The halal tag is issued by an Islamic government body to certify products safe to be used by Muslims.

The seized brushes will be sent to a lab to be examined, Zarif said.

“We want to protect consumers and we want traders to be aware of the religious sensitivity involved. This is a big offense,” Zarif told The Associated Press.

He warned that traders who flout the rule face up to three years in jail, a fine of 100,000 ringgit ($22,522) or both.

Conservative attitudes have been on the rise in Malaysia. A wide range of products have been certified halal, from mineral water to a newly launched internet browser, to appeal to Muslims.

The Muslim Consumers Association of Malaysia called for stricter enforcement not just for paint brushes, but for other products as well. An official from the group, Nadzim Johan, said the association also received complaints that culinary brushes used in eateries may also contain pig bristles.

“The key issue here is about labeling,” he said. “We want Muslim consumers to be forewarned. It’s not fair to deceive them.”

Source: https://sg.news.yahoo.com

February 9, 2017