Come May 2017, I will start to work for a Singapore enterprise – Jing King Tech Group. This opportunity is an exciting one. This proudly-Singaporean enterprise is firmly positioned in the innovation and FinTech space. The bosses are also passionate Singaporeans who care deeply about Singapore and our local community.
Even as I embark on this new appointment, I will remain committed to MacPherson and our residents. My position with the company will offer job flexibility for me to fully discharge my MP responsibilities. I will continue with my weekly engagements, including MPS, block visits and grassroots events as before. I will also continue to oversee ongoing & upcoming community projects and programmes.
Over the past 6 years, our volunteer team has grown, even as our systems and service processes have been strengthened. Together, my team and I will strive to serve residents in MacPherson to the best of our abilities.
I have spoken with some residents about this, and they have given me much encouragement, for which I am grateful. I will certainly give my best to MacPherson and my residents, and I look forward to your continued support.
The main stumbling block of the decades old tudung issue were/ are our very own Malay-Muslim leaders, from the beginning till current day.
It’s never proven to be a great concern of the other communities or to be a hindrance for those who don it to do their jobs or even to be a justified, well- informed concern for non-muslim leaders.
Malay-Muslim MPs should collectively endorse rather than misrepresent its importance, respect rather than ignore their community’s concerns, be its supporter rather than its adversary, facilitate non-Muslim leaders to empathise rather than follow along and let the misguidance initiated and inflicted by earlier MMPs grow into an evergrowing cancer affecting the government for so long.
Dear Malay-Muslim MPs, please be accountable and correct this mistake. This is an issue close to your conscience so don’t expect your non-muslim colleagues to do it for you. They could have been waiting impatiently for so long for you to do so.
In his Facebook post, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong commented on championing divisive issues publicly, and on Minister for Environment and Water Resources Masagos Zulkifli’s “courage and conviction” in explaining to MP for Aljunied GRC Faisal Manap on why it was unwise to bring up the issue of the Muslim women headscarf.
PM Lee said that some sensitive issues of race and religion have no easy or immediate solutions and that the best way to make progress on them is quietly, and outside the glare of publicity.
This was his response to a debate in Parliament on Tuesday (4 April) on the issue of Muslim women not being allowed to wear headscarves in uniformed services between MP for Aljunied GRC Faisal Manap and Minister for Environment and Water Resources Masagos Zulkifli.
The exchange took place during the debate in parliament on the proposal to express support for women in Singapore.
PM Lee stated on his Facebook page that Parliament is the forum for serious discussion on important issues.
“This Parliament has not shied away from discussing difficult or contentious matters – last November we had a vigorous debate on changes to the Elected Presidency,” he wrote.
“Championing divisive issues publicly, to pressure the government and win communal votes, will only stir up emotions and damage our multi-racial harmony,” the Prime Minister added.
However, PM Lee’s statement raised eyebrows from netizens. Many of them said that the function of the Parliament is to discuss issues that have been stirred up among citizens.
Many also wrote that they do not have any problems to have women in headscarves in uniformed services.
Here are what they wrote:
Zhou Hongjie wrote, “Is parliament not the place for MPs to represent the needs or views of their constituency members in rational discussion? The female headscarf may be a religious issue but the proscription against adorning it in the uniformed services is governmental, is it not? It is contemptible for the PAP to brush it aside by claiming it is ‘divisive’ when if I am not mistaken, the majority of Singaporeans have no problems with Muslim women’s wearing the tudung in the workplace because sheikh men have been allowed to wear their turbans for donkey’s years.”
Khalis Benzaima wrote, “So, i guess what he is saying is that in Parliament, the only topics that should be discussed is what the next basic necessities they can increase? Correct me if I’m wrong.”
Phillip Lim wrote, “I am a Chinese but I do not find in any way my fellow Malay compatriots wearing headscarves offensive or divisive. C’mon, it’s just a traditional headdress. Singaporeans have progressed and matured enough to respect each others’ cultural dress. Don’t see the need to sensationalise the issue into something that is “divisive” or “damage harmony”.”
Keith Low wrote, “A lot of issues brought up in Parliament are not publicised, or rather not broadcasted. If PM Lee asked what is the motives of WP by bringing this up again. Then I ask what is PM Lee motives by making this news out of so many issues debated in Parliament. Who is trying to be divisive?”
Yt Lam wrote, “If don’t bring out in public, he said there is no one protesting in front of Parliament – so no issue. Now bring up for parliament debate, he wants to discuss in a hush hush manner. Be a leader, tackle the issue head-on. I know this is the year of the chicken, but…”
Moe Zaldjian wrote, “So many years and so many Muslim PAP MPs with some appointed as Ministers cannot resolve this issue. What’s the point, even with a Malay President? Shame.”
Wong Chin Nam wrote, “If this remark is divisive, what about EP reserved only for certain race.”
Aku Freddy wrote, “I would appreciate a REAL LEADER to come forward with a decision Yes or No…The truth will hurt just like in the past done by late Premier.But at least he is very direct and that is wat a leader should do.To make matter worse why link hijab issues to votes?? Have some respect for minorities and we will not disappoint you. After all it’s headdress covering the hair only, it does not cover or hinder the brain from functioning…..I’m wondering if Muslim could exchange the President for a hijab, what would other races think of it?”
Sakinah Hakim wrote, “Dear PM Lee Hsien Loong most Muslim nurses I’ve known loved their job.They are very committed to help ppl and wish to stay longer in their jobs till they retire.All they requested is to wear their hijab according to Islamic ruling. That’s all.I hope that positive decision will come anytime soon.”
Choy Weng Leong wrote, “If sheikh can wear a turban in uniform service, why one can and other want to wear tudung cannot leh… Singapore = regardless of race, language or religion mah…I thought the whole idea of having GRC is minority representation in parliament and to raise community concerns mah… If some also behind closed door = then parliament just for rubber stamping whatever agreed and decided behind closed door huh?? Reserved EP also sensitive mah, don’t see them having any problem raising it in parliament leh… only A can, B cannot meh”
QizhongChang wrote, “And what kind of ‘quiet progress’ have these private discussions brought about on the tudung issue so far? The answer is apparently no progress at all. Which is exactly why Faisal had to bring it up in Parliament.”
Nizam Ismail wrote, “Here are my thoughts:1) How is raising this “divisive”? The tudung issue is to promote acceptance of hijab-wearing Muslimahs. It’s about *inclusivity*, not *divisiveness. 2) Why are still wanting to hide behind quiet engagements? There is no public accountability. The reason of having Parliament and open parliamentary debates is to ensure transparency and accountability. In any case, the matter has been debated openly for many years. 3) The solution is a simple one but made to be a complex problem. If you are willing to have a tudung-wearing reserved president, why not allow other Singaporean Muslims to have the right to put on the tudung without discrimination. And so solve the problem. That would make sure that Faisal Manap will not was raise this in Parliament again.Until then, he has every right to.”
Radenah Abdullah wrote, “MP Muhamad Faisal good point. What about Muslim women that wanted to work as nurses do they have to open their hijab for that. You say about respect each other religion but when it come to hijab on Muslim women you try to put it as not relevant. It’s not fair for our children who wanted to pursue this industry. Why does the Sikh have no problem wearing their turbans in these industries, but for Muslim women are issues. It’s kind of bias if you asked me.”
Syed Hafeez Chishty wrote, “I see no harm. We are multi-racial. It’s with its own culture and religion. So if religious harmony to be practice than it would be done harmoniously. Get the Muslim authorities to explain to the govt the right wat of putting a hijab. I tink pm is right should be done in closed door to avoid unnecessary sensitivity.”
Darren Tan wrote, “”Not by suppressing or pretending that race differences, language differences and cultural differences do not exist. … but that there are Fundamental Primeval differences.” – LEE KUAN YEW The government has always talked about the need to deal with issues openly. But now Minister Masagos comes out to say it has to be done quietly. This is contradictory! Ask WP MPs to keep quiet, and later during the election campaign come out to criticise WP MPs for being a “mouse” in Parliament by not raising issues. Another irony!”
“Your MP is not the Chief Social Worker. He’s supposed to raise issues and make laws.”
That was the headline of an article by the Straits Times’ Opinion Editor, Chua Mui Hoong, on Saturday, 22 August.
Briefly, Ms Chua – who was at the People’s Action Party (PAP) press scrum for the introduction of its candidates for Jurong GRC – was rather perturbed by all the niceties being spewed by the candidates.
“One by one, each candidate spoke about their wish to build a more caring community in Jurong GRC,” Ms Chua wrote.
The would-be parliamentarians rattled off some of the (community) programmes they would introduce if elected.
Straits Times
“I started wondering: Were they standing as Members of Parliament, or angling for posts as Chief Social Worker in Jurong GRC?” Ms Chua said.
Indeed, are our MPs mere do-gooders or santa clauses who are on duty all year round, to be called on to grant whatever wish we have?
And it is not just the PAP Jurong election team which has presented themselves as potential town managers and social workers.
Almost every PAP press conference or media scrum to introduce its candidates is accompanied by promises of upgrading programmes, or new amenities, for the estate.
It has become such that questions have been raised not only about the roles of the MPs, but also if the candidates are not appropriating the work of public servants (such as those in the Urban Redevelopment Authority or the Housing and Development Board) as their own.
This itself would be rather dishonest – to pass someone else’s work off as one’s own.
Did the PAP candidates sit down with these public servants, prior to being announced as the party’s candidates, to discuss these estate plans and programmes?
Or were they just simply regurgitating what the URA or the HDB had already planned for each of their estates?
Another question which has risen is how the PAP itself seems to have u-turned on its own principle, espoused by its chairman just last year.
TODAY, 2014
“National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan today warned against turning elections into an auction between political parties promising voters as much ‘goodies’ as they can, with as low taxes as possible,” the TODAY newspaper reported Mr Khaw as having said in June 2014.
Mr Khaw was quoted as saying:
“In all honesty, we must acknowledge most of our people would always want more, but would never want to pay more in taxes, and it’s incumbent upon our part to be honest with our voters, because if every election is a mere auction between political parties to give as much goodies as they can with as little taxes they need to pay, I think democracy of that manner must lead to insolvency and eventually, political cynicism.”
Indeed, cynicism has crept in, with regard to the way the PAP has politicised public amenities and programmes.
Here is a look at some of the headlines in the news on the various PAP press conferences to announce its candidates for the elections thus far – with goodies being dished out in abundance (or some may say, with abandon):
And despite what he himself said last year, goodies were announced by Mr Khaw at his introduction of candidates press conference in Sembawang:
“Your MP isn’t your social worker, although doing social work is a good way to win hearts and minds – and votes,” Ms Chua said in her article. “These programmes also make a genuine, often lasting impact on people’s lives. They are wonderful.
“But your MP should also be your representative in Parliament, championing issues you believe in.”
This is a position taken by most of the opposition parties who say that the fundamental role of an elected parliamentarian is to be just that – a parliamentarian involved in the debate and even the crafting of policies which affect the large majority of people, and also perform its role of making sure policies are enforced fairly, especially with regard to those who may be in the minority.
“We are talking about electing people into parliament who can not only run town councils but more importantly make important decisions on matters which affect our daily lives,” Dr Paul Tambyah said last week at the 35th anniversary celebrationsof the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP).
“How we live and pay for our homes, how we educate our children, how we pay for healthcare when we get sick, whether we can be assured of a minimum wage or unemployment insurance and whether there will be a level playing field for all workers – local and foreign,” he added.
Dr Paul is widely expected to be a SDP candidate in the upcoming elections.
The PAP, however, insists the opposite – that the primary role of an MP is to take care of the town.
This insistence, of course, is borne out of political expediency – the PAP having charge of most of the constituencies in Singapore and such an emphasis gives it an advantage over the opposition parties.
The PAP has been in control of virtually all constituencies for 50 years.
But the truth is that an MP – even by his very title – is a parliamentarian, and voters should first and foremost regard him as such, and decide if he or she can fulfil this role above all else.
“In the next few weeks before the polls, every candidate aspiring to enter Parliament will stress his willingness to serve and maintain she has a heart for the people,” Ms Chua said. “In many cases, this will be true. But it is not enough.
“Candidates must also articulate their positions on policies, and say what they wish to retain, adapt or see changed.”
We want to look for leaders – and MPs are also leaders in their own way – who have clear vision, who can articulate that vision and inspire the populace, MPs who are brave and forward-looking, who can say, “This way, this is the direction we need to go.”
We do not want yes-men or women who simply regurgitate existing policy positions, which does not lead to new ideas, or progress.
In short, we do not want dead wood in Parliament.
“What do the future leaders of Singapore, whether from the PAP or the opposition, stand for?” Ms Chua asked.
“Or are they all for the status quo? In which case, Singapore’s future is dim indeed.”
So, the next time you see a candidate who is trying to sell you some municipal estate upgrading programme, do not be afraid to ask his or her views on national policies instead, and decide your vote based on her or his response.
For that is the role of an MP – to lead by having clear ideas of what he or she believes in.
Otherwise, why would you vote for him or her to be in Parliament?
They could work as private town managers or social workers on hire – and save us the hassle of going through the whole electoral process, wasting taxpayers’ time and money.
So, Ms Chua is right – your MP is not a social worker.
He is a lawmaker – and that is his fundamental and most important role.
SINGAPORE: He is known as the “Selfie King” but how will Member of Parliament for Tampines GRC Baey Yam Keng fare as a “romantic blogger”? Audiences can find out when Mr Baey stars in a play called Like Me. I Like, come December.
Theatre company The ETCeteras announced in a media release on Tuesday (Sep 30) that he will take the lead role in the play which will highlight “the real life obsession of social media”. It will be written and directed by Mr Baey’s wife Ms Lim Hai Yen, and he will serve as its producer.
The Mandarin play is set in an advertising firm and the story is built around the popularity of social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and WhatsApp, and how various relationships and rivalries flourish as a result.
“All these are witnessed by the firm’s pet hamster who lives, breathes and plays among its human masters’ complicated and comical relationships happening both online and offline,” ETCeteras said.
The play will also star showbiz veteran Foong Wai See, and Y.E.S. 93.3FM DJ Chung Kun Hua. Cultural medallion award winner Dick Lee will be the production’s image stylist.
Like Me. I Like will run from Dec 4 to 7. All proceeds from the play will go towards the Tampines North CCC Community Development and Welfare Fund, and the Hwa Chong Junior College Alumni Students Bursary Fund.
