Tag: Malays

  • Orang Malaysia bengang tentera SG berlatih di Brunei

    Malay_sergeant_of_the_Singapore_Army_and_his_father_-_20120418

    brunei-military-farewell

    images

    Negara Singapura tiada hutan belantara, jika tiada hutan belantara maka tidak perlu sangat lah melatih tentera nya didalam hutan. Tambahan apa yang patut dibuat ada lah melatih tentera nya mempertahan kota Singa itu pada urban warfare sahaja kerana mempertahan kan kota Singapura dari serangan musuh.

    Tetapi semua nya itu jika mereka mahu terhad kan kepada mempertahan kan diri.

    Bagaimana pula jika ada niat  lebih dari itu? Jika mereka mahu masuk kedalam hutan dan berperang gerila dalam hutan, hutan mana pula sasaran mereka?

    Kebetulan negara berhutan terletak tidak jauh dari pulau Singapura, hanya beberapa kilometer sahaja dari pulau Singa itu.Tapi apa pun kita berperasangka baik.

    Singapura menghantar tentera nya berlatih mengenali hutan dan berperang didalam nya dengan menguna kan kemudahan hutan negara Brunei Darussalam.

    Selain mengikat mata wang (pegged) bersama Negara Brunei , Singapura juga dibenarkan berlatih perang dalam hutan dinegara Brunei Darussalam.

    Bukan sahaja tentera Singapura dilatih cara survival didalam hutan malah juga taktikal dan tatacara perang secara total.

    ‘Singapore and Brunei share a strong and long-standing defence relationship. In addition to regular training which SAF troops conduct in Brunei, both defence establishments conduct a wide range of bilateral exercises and professional exchanges which have enhanced the professionalism and strengthened the ties between the two armed forces.’

    Mungkin menyedari bukan sahaja pertahanan yang kuat mesti ada pada kota kecil ini, maka mereka go one step further dengan memperolehi kemahiran berperang dalam hutan. Dan kebetulan keakraban dengan negara Brunei sudah terjalin maka peluang menggunakan hutan nya sebagai kawasan latihan tentera perlu diambil.

    Kerana kurang kemahiran dalam hutan maka latihan diada kan secara serious, malah sehingga beberapa kali tentera nya hilang dan sesat didalam hutan Brunei itu.

    Latihan boleh di kata kan serious dan penuh kesungguhan sehingga melibat kan nyawa tentera nya.

    “Lance Corporal (LCpl) Muhammad Fahrurrazi Salim was the coxswain in a convoy of four boats used to support the water crossing segment of the jungle training exercise at Sungai Batu Apoi. In a statement released on their website, Singapore’s Defence Ministry said the 20-year-old was last seen wearing a life jacket on his boat at 7.55am Sunday morning. However at 8am, his boat was noticed not to have followed the convoy”

    Bagi negara kita Malaysia , kita hanya mahu berfikir jika hanya mahu mempertahan kan negara sendiri, Singapura sudah pun kuat dan mantap kerana kapal perang Amerika yang berada di sekitar Laut China Selatan juga ada dan akan segera berada di sisi Singapura apabbila sahaja mereka di perlukan.

    Tetapi berperang dalam hutan?

    Itu harus kita waspada kerana Singapura tidak ada hutan yang besar, budak pengakap pun boleh survive dalam hutan mereka, tapi dengan kesungguhan mereka menghantar tentera nya di Brunei untuk berlatih perang, maka Malaysia harus berjaga jaga dengan tindakan “behind enemy line” dari pihak jiran kita.

    Banyak fakta nyata dan mudah di perolehi berkenaan tindak tanduk ketenteraan Singapura yang ada di alam maya.

    Singapore also maintains a training establishment in Brunei, known as the Jalan Aman Camp and operates support helicopters mainly to transport the soldiers to Lakiun Camp in Temburong for Jungle Training. The other Singapore military establishment in Brunei is the Lakiun Camp in Temburong. This provides jungle training for the Singapore Armed Forces in the interior of Temburong.

    Kerja kita tidak lebih selain memerhatikan sahaja.

    Malaysian Blogger The Chulan

    Source: http://bit.ly/1beCU1F

  • Constructive Dialogue and Constructing Legitimacy

    The government’s continued policy to ban the hijab should not come as a surprise.

    Yaacob Ibrahim said in his note that he wants us to continue constructive dialogue with him. According to Yaacob, he and the Malay MPs will then raise it with PM and the Cabinet.

    Constructive dialogue is a nebulous term. The best definition is an event where two or more parties speak and listen to each other to help everyone improve. A dialogue requires speaking and listening. The parties should have relatively equal power.

    But that is not how it works with the Singapore government.

    There are several key components to constructive dialogue Singapore style:

    1. Citizens provide feedback to the government.

    2. This feedback should be held in proper respect and decorum.

    3. Government representative listens to the feedback.

    4. Representative explain their position.

    5. Representative assures citizens their views will be taken under advicement.

    This is not a dialogue. It is a claim for legitimacy.

    But let us assume there is a constructive element to dialogue. Is being constructive evenly applied? Or is there greater expectation on one party than another?

    If the engagement is based on citizen disagreement with government policies, then the constructive nature applies to how the citizen engages the government.How does the engagement take place? What are their relative powers?

    The power differential is large. The government is the sole decision maker. Because it is held under the banner of being constructive, the manner, not just the message is important.

    Criticism would be considered negative. Instead, feedback should be given with proper deference.But what is also important is not the actual meeting. Both parties know how the other would react. Take yesterday’s meeting between the government and Muslim leaders for example. What was the meeting about?

    The optimists had hoped the government would make concessions. They attended the meeting with the belief that a decision had been made and the government would shift their policy. In this scenario, they expected the government to accede to their request prior to the meeting. The meeting itself was not to construct a new position. It was to listen to an announcement. That cannot be seen as being constructive.

    The pessimists (who were proven right this time), had expected the government to announce the policy would remain as is. Once again, there is nothing constructive. The only constructive argument made is that feedback is given so that the government may modify the policy in future. But this is not a new issue.

    There had been numerous discussions over 41 years. Where is the constructive agenda in the process?The pessimist’ assessment is however flawed on one significant point. They believed that the government met with Muslim leaders to inform them of the rejection prior to announcing it to the public.

    It is supposed to break the news a little easier. The argument follows that since the government took time to meet and announce it to them, it shows that the government takes the issue seriously.

    But that is not why they were invited to meet. Because what followed was more important than what was said during the meeting.

    When the government announced their rejection, they referred to the meeting to claim the decision’s legitimacy. Various media reports referred to the government’s meeting with Muslim leaders. They further indicated that the leaders understood the government’s decision.

    Halimah Yacob posted her FB page saying:

    “We had a very good discussion with representatives of PERGAS and the Malay Muslim organizations at Mendaki just now on the hijab issue. The leaders appreciated that the Malay Muslim MPs were doing our best on this issue…”

    The meeting was not simply to inform Muslim leaders of the decision. It was to grant moral authority to the rejection of the hijab. The government claimed that Muslim leaders understood the ban. That should mollify the community. If our leaders accept and appreciate the decision, then so should we.

    Constructive dialogue then was not a mere exercise to find a better process. It has always been a process to grant legitimacy to unpopular decisions.

    Zulfikar M Shariff

  • ARE WE READY FOR THE HIJAB-IN-UNIFORM?

    When Muslim girls wearing the tudung in Singapore’s public schools became a major controversy in 2002, many Muslims asked for accommodation. The government counter-argued that public spaces shared by diverse ethnic and religious groups in Singapore have to remain strictly secular and any exceptions would invite competing demands from other communities.

    The issue never went away, but we seemed to have progressed a little. When the issue of allowing the hijab in the uniformed services became a matter of public debate recently, the government responded in measured tones. While asserting that it must manage the diverse needs of society to maintain overall harmony, the government now calls for constructive dialogue and the search for practical solutions.

    It was implied that society is not ready for the hijab-in-uniform and until such time that other communities are willing to accept it, the status quo would remain. Now that the ball has been thrown to ‘society’, the question seems to be: are we ready for the hijab?

    The Dastar and the Hijab

    Dastar is the Punjabi word for the Sikh turban. In the recent debate, the dastar was frequently cited. Proponents of the hijab-in-uniform pointed to the accommodation of the dastar as a reflection that society is ready, while opponents dismissed it as a historical legacy that postcolonial society had already gotten used to.

    I think both sides are wrong.

    Accommodation of the dastar is indeed a legacy, a British colonial one. But the British decision to accommodate it was not for multicultural reasons; it was political and racial – even racist. After experiencing great difficulties subjugating the Sikhs in India, the British co-opted them into their imperial army because they were believed to be a martial race.

    The dastar, a symbol of spirituality and holiness in Sikhism, became primarily a sign of honour, courage and loyalty to the British empire.

    But those who dismissed our postcolonial accommodation of the dastar as simply being based on historical legacy are also mistaken. Such an argument amounts to saying that Singaporeans are merely tolerating the wearing of the dastar in public institutions because the British had allowed it. This smacks of condescension to Sikhs and insults us all.

    So why did we, as a postcolonial society, allow the accommodation of the dastar to continue? I believe we did so because we recognised that the dastar is an important component of Sikh culture – and the Sikh community is an integral part of our society. This is why the Chinese tomb guarded by statues of dastar-wearing Sikh guards quickly became the icon of Bukit Brown cemetery. Contemporary Singaporeans who discovered Bukit Brown immediately recognised the significance accorded to the Sikhs and their culture by the Chinese of our colonial past.

    Similarly, any accommodation of the hijab should be done out of multicultural respect and understanding, not for political expediency or the symbolic function of co-opting the purported ethnic essence in the service of the state.

    Therefore, those who used the example of Muslim women wearing the hijab in the armed forces of Pakistan or Iran to argue for accommodation in Singapore are also mistaken. The hijab is not being accommodated in these countries, but being co-opted as an Islamic symbol for the political ends of the state.

    Canada and Norway are better international comparisons for Singapore’s situation. Singapore was ahead of both countries in accommodating the dastar, but is now falling behind these progressive multicultural societies in failing to accommodate the hijab. Recently, Canada allowed the hijab in uniformed services for multicultural reasons.

    The proponents of the hijab-in-uniform in the recent debate in Singapore mainly used the Arabic name for the headscarf instead of the Malay tudung, thus signifying the conversation is part of a global movement to gain multicultural acceptance of the headscarf.

    A Maturing Discussion

    Is it inconceivable that one day, outside Parliament House, we could have a statue of the first woman speaker of parliament wearing the hijab? It would be a statement that the hijab is not just an incidental ethnic dress, but an important component of Muslim culture – hence demonstrating a greater multicultural acceptance of Muslims in our society.

    My sense is that in 2002, it was inconceivable for most Singaporeans that a prominent political leader would wear the hijab in the secular spaces of our public institutions. But a decade later, we have had its significance explained to us and are more  accustomed to our friends, colleagues and neighbours wearing the hijab.

    In fact, many Singaporeans applauded the prime minister when he appointed Madam Halimah Yacob speaker of parliament in 2013, not because she was a hijab-wearing Muslim woman, but because she was most suitably qualified by her political work and moral integrity. The point is that Madam Halimah’s hijab is irrelevant to her performance as speaker.

    Likewise, if the hijab can be designed to be incorporated into the uniform and does not interfere with job performance, would Singaporeans care that the nurse, the police officer, the paramedic or the soldier was wearing a hijab?

    After decades of meritocratic and multicultural education, it would be hard to believe that Singaporeans would mind persons in positions of trust wearing the hijab because of their faith. We are meritocratic and multicultural because we embrace our cultural diversity. And we judge each other not by our different cultural practices but by professional performance.

    You Never Know Till You Try

    So, is society ready for the hijab-in-uniform?

    There is no way to really know until we try allowing it. No matter how many surveys we take or how much we debate the issue, there will always be the suspicion there are too many of us with prejudices hiding behind politically correct opinions. If we do not try, we will not rid those prejudices lingering in us. Trying is the best way to search for practical solutions.

    And if we are not even prepared to try, what is the point of dialogue?

    By all means, start small by trying it out with one police division or with nurses at one public hospital. But at least let us start trying.

    We owe it to our cherished principles of meritocracy and multiculturalism to try.

    Daniel PS Goh

    Source: http://bit.ly/1dvAZjf

  • Muslims have Special Parking Rights?

    1606859_10151869804133091_1631010291_n

    On the afternoon of 10 January 2014 between 1.15pm- 1.30pm, I parked my car at Geylang road between Lorong 30 to 32, and left my car to run some quick errands. When I returned, I received a summon ticket for parking along a double yellow line. I am aware that it is an offence to park along a double yellow line, and I accept that I will have to pay for the parking offence. However, I noticed that there were many other cars parked along the same road and opposite from where I parked my car. They were all not issued any parking summons.

    I stood there and observed the LTA officer (One female in plain clothes by the name of Phyllis), and another in uniform (Indian guy) summoning a few other vehicles. Phyllis stood there and observed which cars belonged to Chinese owners, before directing her Indian colleague to issue summons to these vehicles. I went up to the LTA officers and questioned why they were issuing summons only to the Chinese vehicle owners and not the Malays.

    Phyllis told me that the Malays who are going to the mosque nearby are allowed to do so. Is there such a rule in Singapore that I am not aware of? If so, why do I see LTA officers summoning cars during festivals where we Chinese are offering prayers to our god? I see no racial equality in this situation. Please help to share around so that this issue will be brought to the relevant authorities attention. Thank you!

    Don Tan

    Source: http://on.fb.me/1ftJtih

  • TRANSFORMASI KEPIMPINAN MELAYU

    Sejauh manakah perubahan diperlukan dalam kepimpinan Melayu sekarang berikutan langkah berani pemerintah membuat transformasi dalam kepimpinan politik negara ini?

    Langkah besar pemerintah itu dibuat dalam bentuk perlantikan pasukan kabinet baru dengan menggugurkan hampir seluruh muka lama serta iltizam untuk menilai semula semua dasar pemerintah dan perlaksanaan dasar-dasar tersebut yang telah menimbulkan kegusaran rakyat sehingga menjadi isu besar dalam pilihan raya umum yang baru lalu.

    Pemerintah sudahpun mula mengotakan janji dengan membuat beberapa penyesuaian yang diperlukan terhadap beberapa dasar seperti perumahan, rawatan kesihatan dan pengangkutan awam, serta dalam perlaksanaan dasar-dasar tersebut untuk menjadi lebih mesra rakyat dan lebih mengambil kira keperihatinan mereka.

    Tidak mungkin gelombang besar perubahan yang didayausahakan pemerintah itu tidak terkena tempiasannya kepada kepimpinan Melayu.

    Kepimpinan Melayu di sini merujuk bukan hanya kepada individu-individu yang telah mengambil peranan sebagai pemimpin baik di bidang umum atau tertentu, tetapi juga dari kalangan badan-badan Melayu-Islam yang telah memberikan khidmat masing-masing.

    Ini termasuk badan pemerintah atau separuh pemerintah seperti Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (Muis) dan Yayasan Mendaki (YM). Muis sebagai badan yang menjalankan pentadbiran hukum Islam manakala YM pula lebih memberi tumpuan di bidang pendidikan dan kemasyarakatan.

    Terdapat juga badan-badan bukan pemerintah yang besar seperti Angkatan Karyawan Islam (AMP) dan Jamiyah, atau yang saiznya lebih sederhana seperti Persatuan Persuratan Pemuda Pemudi Melayu (4PM), Taman Bacaan dan Persatuan Ulama dan Guru Agama Singapura (Pergas). Badan-badan itu memberikan kepimpinan dalam berbagai-bagai bidang seperti keagamaan, kesenian dan kemasyarakatan.

    Untuk perubahan kepimpinan Melayu menjadi berkesan, perlu ada pengongsian pemahaman yang betul mengapa perubahan diperlukan. Perlu juga ada penerimaan bersama terhadap beberapa prinsip yang wajar menjadi panduan kepada melakaukan perubahan yang boleh membawa kepada kemajuan dan kesejahteraan masyarakat.

    Saya yakin kepimpinan Melayu yang ada sekarang, baik pemimpin mahupun pengikut, percaya bahawa kemajuan tidak mungkin tercapai tanpa kesediaan atau keberanian untuk berubah.

    Oleh itu, angin perubahan yang dicetuskan kepimpinan politik negara mungkin dapat menjadi pembakar semangat untuk segera merealisasikan perubahan yang diperlukan.

    Soalnya, apakah gagasan perubahan kepimpinan Melayu yang dikehendaki dalam usaha masyarakat mencapai kemajuan dan tidak tinggal dalam belenggu kejumudan?

    Banyak faktor yang harus diambil kira dalam langkah membuat perubahan dalam kepimpinan Melayu demi mengangkat tahap kesejahteraan masyarakat.

    Saya sekadar menyarankan beberapa faktor utama yang harus sama dipertimbangkan.

    Pertama, sejauh mana kepimpinan Melayu berani berhadapan dengan realiti?

    Sebagai masyarakat yang menganut agama Islam, kita perlu tegas menentukan bahawa kesejahteraan yang kita mahukan harus mencakup aspek kebendaan dan kerohanian. Kepimpinan Melayu harus berani berhadapan dengan realiti ini dan menjelaskan dengan tegas keperluan ini sebagai visi dan misi kepimpinan mereka.

    Tanpa keberanian berhadapan dengan realiti ini, kepimpinan Melayu akan terus lemah di mata masyarakatnya.

    Setelah menentukan tujuan dan keperluan ini, perkara seterusnya ialah menentukan struktur yang tepat untuk dipakai bagi mencapainya. Beranikah kita merubah struktur yang terpakai sejak lebih sepuluh tahun atau lebih daripada itu jika menunjukkan struktur itu gagal menghasilkan apa yang pernah dihasilkan dahulu?

    Struktur yang dianggap berjaya harus berhasil menawarkan barangan dan perkhidmatan bagi memenuhi tujuan yang hendak dicapai, memakai proses yang sejajar dengan nilai-nilai yang patut dipatuhi serta mampu memanfaatkan teknologi yang ada bagi menghasilkan barangan dan perkhidmatan yang dimaksudkan.

    Realiti yang harus dihadapi ialah apa yang berjaya dipakai pada satu masa dahulu tidak semestinya boleh berjaya dipakai untuk semua masa. Yang baik buat sekarang tidak semestinya baik untuk masa hadapan. Malah ‘ukurtara’ yang dianggap terbaik hari ini mungkin bukan lagi realiti pada penilaian masa muka.

    Kenyataan ini turut terpakai dalam proses penggantian kepimpinan Melayu itu sendiri.

    Kedua, sejauh mana kepimpinan Melayu fokus dalam hal-hal yang strategik?

    Sekurang-kurangnya ada tiga bidang strategik yang perlukan penglibatan aktif kepimpinan Melayu.

    Pimpinan dalam pelaburan yang boleh membantu membuat perubahan yang besar.

    Ini termasuk mengenalpasti bidang-bidang yang mampu membawa kemenangan lalu menyalurkan peruntukan sumber ke dalam bidang tersebut. Perlu ada keberanian mempengaruhi masyarakat supaya tidak menyalurkan sumber-sumber yang sedia terbatas ke dalam bidang-bidang yang dikenalpasti tidak banyak mendatangkan manfaat, sebaliknya sering mengecewakan.

    Kepimpinan dalam menentukan bidang kerja dengan bijak.

    Sering menjadi kecenderungan umum untuk mengukur kejayaan berdasarkan banyaknya kerja yang dijalankan atau program yang dilakar dan dilaksanakan. Akibatnya berlaku peruntukan sumber yang tidak realistik dalam bidang-bidang yang tidak strategik serta kerja timbal-balik dalam kegiatan yang tidak menguntungkan.

    Dengan keterbatasan sumber, perlu ada kebijakan dalam menyalurkan sumber yang ada dalam bidang-bidang yang lebih menjamin pulangan yang tinggi.

    Perlu ada kesedaran bahawa prestasi kejayaan kerja tidak seharusnya diukur hanya kepada berapa banyak program yang dijalankan, tetapi harus menjurus kepada pulangan hasil yang berkesan yang memberi nilai tambah dalam kesejahteraan masyarakat.

    Pembinaan ketrampilan.

    Mereka yang bersedia mengambil peranan kepimpinan mesti lebih bersedia menyediakan diri dengan ketrampilan terutama dalam memenuhi keperluan yang strategik seperti di bidang penyelesaian masalah, pembikinan keputusan dan ketrampilan kepimpinan yang lain.

    Sebagai contoh menyediakan ruang menerima maklumbalas, walaupun langkah yang baik tetapi tidak mencukupi kecuali ada ketrampilan kepimpinan dalam mendengar maklumat, keupayaan menganalisis maklumbalas yang diperolehi serta ketrampilan dalam memberikan respons mengikut keutamaan dan keperluan dengan cepat.

    Ketiga, sejauh mana kepimpinan Melayu bijak mengadakan komunikasi yang berterusan dalam menganjurkan perubahan?

    Membuat perubahan yang baik dan berkesan akan hanya bermakna jika semua pihak yang terlibat berkomunikasi secara berterusan dan berkesan. Gaya berkomunikasi itu pula harus serasi dengan setiap pihak yang berkepentingan dalam usaha membuat perubahan itu, supaya masing-masing dapat digerakkan melakukan sesuatu yang baru menurut maksud perubahan yang dijalankan.

    Kepimpinan Melayu perlu menguasai kemahiran di bidang berkomunikasi ini dan memanfaatkannya sebagai cara mempengaruhi masyarakat supaya menyokong perubahan.

    Untuk maksud itu, pesan atau perutusan yang hendak disampaikan harus jelas supaya mudah difahami, dan disampaikan dengan jujur supaya dapat dipercayai.

    Harus diingat bahawa tujuan berkomunikasi ialah untuk membolehkan orang lain mengetahui tentang diri kita dan mengajak mereka bersama memahami antara satu sama lain. Proses berkomunikasi melibatkan pengongsian idea dan rasa antara mereka yang terlibat secara jujur. Komunikasi yang dijalankan dengan proses yang telus dan betul akan mampu membentuk konsensus di kalangan semua pihak yang berkepentingan.

    Sayangnya, pengertian komunikasi begini sering terabai dalam masyarakat akibat kurang disiplin dalam memaham maksudnya. Seringkali komunikasi berakhir dengan pernyataan sehala antara satu pihak kepada pihak lain.

    Kerap tujuan berdialog atau perundingan gagal dicapai lantaran kecenderungan pihak-pihak tertentu menggunakannya sama ada sekadar untuk menyampaikan sesuatu pesan atau bagi ‘melepaskan apa yang terbuku dalam dada’. Ini satu contoh komunikasi yang buruk kerana bersifat sepihak sahaja.

    Terdapat juga kecenderungan untuk cepat membuat penilaian awal (prejudgment) atau penafsiran berbeza bagi satu hal yang sama yang sering menjadi hambatan kepada berlakunya komunikasi yang berkesan.

    Akibatnya, pertemuan dengan bentuk komunikasi yang demikian gagal menghasilkan idea-idea baru yang bernas serta rumusan yang dapat dimanfaatkan bagi perubahan dan kemajuan.
    Kepimpinan Melayu harus membantu membangunkan sistem berkomunikasi yang berkesan dan bukan menjadi penghambat kepadanya. Hanya dengan komunikasi yang berkesan dan berterusan barulah konsensus tulen didapatkan daripada masyarakat dalam mengongsi keperluan membuat perubahan untuk kemajuan dan kesejahteraan bersama.

    Tentu ada beberapa perubahan lain yang wajar dipertimbangkan. Ini termasuk misalnya keberanian dalam penggantian dan rejuvenasi kepimpinan.

    Mungkin ada orang bertanya manakah yang perlu didahulukan: penggantian kepimpinan atau kefahaman yang jelas terhadap prinsip-prinsip perubahan yang harus dijalani dalam masyarakat?

    Tiada jawapan yang betul mutlak kepada soalan ini. Yang penting ialah semua faktor itu perlu dijalin dengan baik bagi menghasilkan satu perancangan yang menyeluruh dalam usaha membuat transformasi memajukan msayarakat.

    Maarof Salleh
    Edisi tersunting makalah asal ini terbit di BH Jumaat 17.06.11