Cryptocurrency as a tool of Islamic banking is being discussed by the Muslim community and could be created within the next two or three years, according to the adviser on Islamic economics and finance of the Russia’s Muftis Council Madina Kalimullina.
She told TASS that based on the cryptocurrency characteristics, the coin can be halal [permissible – Ed.]. “Sharia standards do not cover this issue yet, but in the perspective of two or three years they can be developed,” Kalimullina said after a conference in Kazan.
“This topic is now very popular in the Russian Islamic community, particularly in the Caucasus, it is constantly discussed at the meetings of Islamic economists,” she added.
There’s already a so-called ‘meet-coin’ in Kazan for settlements in the livestock business.
Kalimullina said bitcoin exchanges have been opened in some Muslim countries. Middle East’s first wallet BitOasis which opened for UAE customers, and is now available in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, and Oman. Indonesia’s Bitcoin and Malaysia’s Coinbox also offer services linked to cryptocurrencies.
The absence of a single regulator for cryptocurrencies is one of the major issues which confuses followers of Islam, according to Kalimullina. “Among the main arguments against bitcoin is a high degree of risk (maisir) and uncertainty (garar), a lack of provision of real assets and state guarantees,” she said.
The expert added that it is not forbidden to conduct bitcoin operations for Muslims if they access all the “risks and the high probability of garar and maisir.” The UAE has recently started issuing a new cryptocurrency, secured with gold, she said.
Islamic banking requires banking activities following the religious teachings of Islam. Maisir and garar are forbidden by Islamic law. Sharia law requires a currency to be tangible or to have evidence of existence. Islam forbids the use of a money that is tied to debt, and prohibits the charging and profiting from interest paid out on loans. For a currency to be halal, it must be deflationary in nature meaning that it is resistant to inflation and has a steady market price.
I think life is better outside Singapore under a certain income threshold, but life is pretty good here over a certain income threshold.
Apart from the lower tax rate, It is because there are a lot of convenience services here; foreign workers, excellent taxi services, to your door services for a whole bunch of services, etc. You can’t get a lot of this back home, even if you have money, because these services simply don’t exist.
Singapore though is remarkably safe and exceptionally clean, multi-cultural, and schooling here is fantastic – if not a bit too grades focused – so there and great things here regardless of income. Those factors combined with the lack of drinking and drug culture here, compared to where I come from, makes it ideal for raising kids.
I’m pretty happy to be here honestly. I just need to work out the local shortcuts to live a cheaper life.
I find I am bleeding money in SG at a rapid rate, more so than where I came from – Melbourne – which isn’t exactly cheap either. But I am starting to work out there’s two Singapore’s.
There’s the “cheap” Singapore where life isn’t actually that great (comparatively to where I am from) – the quality of life is better back in Australia I reckon for lower/middle income earners. Then there’s the expensive SG, which is incredibly convenient – life is better than Australia in this Singapore – but also very draining on the wallet.
There’s a big difference between the two. In Australia at least, the gap between the blue collar and white collar is no where as big as it is here. You can still have a pretty decent way of life if you’re a lower (not too low of course) income earner.
One noticeable difference here, especially for us exPats, is the heat. The heat I find forces you to do things indoors constantly, and most indoor places are basically shopping malls, which are designed to drain your wallet. Back home there’s way more outdoors things you can do with the family, that are free, far away from shopping malls, and vastly more comfortable… and owning a car is MUCH cheaper so you can get to these things cheaper and easier.
Example: Australia – 5 minutes walk to the park where you can play for a couple of hours – free. Here, if I want to take my kid to an indoor playground it’s $70 when you include taxis, entry fees, etc.
Drivers popping into the city area or a crowded hawker centre in the heartland have another reason to make it quick.
Parking at 22 popular Housing Board-managed carparks across the island has become more expensive during peak hours, with the HDB hoping it will deter drivers from lingering.
This hike is on top of a nationwide increase in rates at public carparks that began on Dec 1. Overall rates increased by 10 cents to 20 cents per half hour, depending on location.
But the rise is more drastic at the 22 carparks, generally sited in the city area and near certain food centres. For instance, rates at six HDB carparks in Rochor and Duxton shot up from $1 to $1.40 per half hour. The other 16 carparks also saw a hike from 50 cents per half hour to 80 cents now.
An HDB spokesman said that this “differential pricing” model helps to better manage parking demand in the city. Season parking holders are not affected.
News of the changes drew mixed reactions from business owners and motorists who frequent these areas. At Bras Basah Complex, carpark fees went up to $1.40 per half hour for most of the day, worrying shopkeepers who believe it discourages customers from dropping by.
Said Mr Richard Cho, 55, a watch dealer at Heng Wah Watch and Pen Company: “We are already seeing a 20 per cent drop in walk-in customers this month due to the bad economy, and the increase in parking fees does not help.”
One motorist, Mr Tng Kim Guan, 50, who works in a hotel, was unhappy when he first saw the higher charges at Bras Basah Complex. But he was later relieved he was able to find a parking space more quickly.
He used to spend 10 minutes circling the carpark looking for a spot, but yesterday was able to get one immediately. “I am not sure if it is because of the higher rates, but I don’t mind paying a bit more if it makes parking easier,” he said.
The mixed sentiment is also mirrored at Golden Mile Food Centre, where peak-period rates were raised to 80 cents per half hour.
Several residents told The Straits Times they were glad the higher fees may discourage drivers from “clogging up” the Beach Road entrance to the carpark.
However, hawkers such as Mr Jahabar Ali, 47, said the traffic situation did not change after Dec 1. “If the congestion remains and drivers realise parking costs went up, who will still want to come and eat here?”
The higher HDB carpark rates are now similar to those charged by commercial carparks in the vicinity. For instance, parking at Bras Basah Complex is more expensive than at the nearby Odeon Towers, which charges $2.20 for the first hour and $1.10 for subsequent half- hour periods.
Previously, HDB did not charge extra for parking during peak periods. It first started to do so in 2009 at The Pinnacle@Duxton and Tekka Market to “manage the high demand for short-term parking space during peak hours and encourage higher turnover of vehicles”.
HDB and the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) manage about 607,000 and 24,000 parking spaces, respectively. Asked if it will impose similar peak-period hikes, a spokesman for the URA said: “Many of URA’s carparks are located in the city centre, and it has been our practice to set our charges appropriately to manage parking demand in the city. This includes charging more if necessary during peak hours.”
Apparently, charges on plastic bags used during supermarket shopping trips.
According to a report on Channel NewsAsia at around 10pm last night, “local supermarket chains could impose a plastic bag charge if there is an industry-wide effort to implement one”.
The statement comes as a response to environmental group Zero Waste’s call for the Government to introduce charges on the use of plastic bags among Singaporeans.
Executive director of Zero Waste, Mr Eugene Tay, said: “If there is a charge [for plastic bags] then people will start thinking about how can they reduce the plastic bags that they take.”
The group proposed that retailers charge their customers 10 cents and 5 cents for large and smaller plastic bags respectively, which already sparked discussions on Facebook on the feasibility of the solution.
For example, a netizen said, “Most dwellers use plastic bags to recycle as trash bag. Imagine them dumping trash directly into our rubbish chutes. It would be environmentally unhygienic when the waste foods start rotting inside.”
On the Government side, Member of Parliament Lee Bee Wah, chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Environment and Water Resources firmly stated that it should be the big supermarkets’ duty to carry out this proposal, as “The Government should look at education; look at bigger issues on the environment, not just plastic bags, per se.”
Spokespeople from the Dairy Farm group (which owns Cold Storage and Giant), and NTUC FairPrice have come forward to tell CNA that at the moment, they already have incentives and efforts in place to reduce the dependence on plastic bags by their shoppers.
NTUC’s”Bring Your Own Bag, FairPrice Green Rewards Scheme” / Image Credit: TODAY
Singaporeans are said to use a whopping 2.5 billion plastic bags each year, and according to statistics from the National Environment Agency’s website, 824,600 tonnes of plastic waste were generated in 2015.
From the latest report, it does seem like these big supermarket chains have decided to respond, albeit without promising anything concrete, to the proposal.
Singaporean Netizens Debate
In response to the news, netizens seem to be somewhat divided.
One begged for others to look at the “bigger issue” as compared to potential inconveniences:
“The rubbish thrown down the chute doesn’t just disappear into thin air y’know.”
Some have mentioned how it is “long overdue”, and suggested ways that the implementation can be carried out:
“[…] Provide one or two reusable shopping bags to the low income group.”“For those who [don’t request for plastic bags], you pay them instead.”
One called for the Government to take the lead, in light of other nations already taking nationwide steps to reduce plastic waste:
“So come on Singapore Government […] make it compulsory across the industry”“Adding charges to [the] consumer is definitely not the way to go.”
However, some are adamantly against the potential changes, and have spoken out strongly against it:
“Don’t buy the hype”“[It’s utter] nonsense.”
Regardless, the sentiments can be accurately summarised in this particular thread, and the number of ‘likes’ for each polarising comment:
Screenshot from CNA’s Facebook page
Online Grocery Providers Can Be Pioneers In Environmentally-Friendly Practices
What’s interesting though, is the fact that a few have taken to the news as even more reason to grocery shop online.
Netizen cites saving time and money on taxi rides
The online grocery shopping scene is a highly competitive one, with honestbee and RedMart being among the few big players in the (pun intended) market.
honestbee team / Image Credit: Vulcan Post
An increasing number of Singaporeans, even without the plastic bag charge fiasco, have been turning to these online providers due to the convenience that comes with the services, especially in light of their busy schedules and the need for a means of transport after an intense grocery shopping session.
Perhaps then, these providers can be the pioneers in encouraging environmentally-friendly practices, and use recyclable bags for their clients’ purchases.
Regardless, the issue seems to be still in pending mode, and there’s no certainty on what the verdict will be.
Why do some people even think it’s okay to borrow money from others, promise to pay back by a certain date, come up with 101 excuses when it’s time to pay, and then finally stop replying to your messages or worse still, block you everywhere? EH??
WHAT’S UP WITH THESE LOAN JUNKIES?
I made the mistake of trusting a friend. He was my good friend. (Or I thought he was.) I believed his story when he asked to borrow. I did not even think twice about helping him. But he stopped replying to my messages after promising this and that. He is still in my FB list. Saw him having an open house (which I was not invited to, dang!) and celebrating raya like a normal functional family. Happy for him. ?
Money can indeed turn friends or family members into strangers, huh?
You know what really gets my goat?
The borrower will make the lender feel bad for wanting him/her to repay the amount owed. The lender on the other hand, ends up being A NAG, BAD WOLF, and THE CALCULATIVE ONE.
Where’s the logic even, dude?
Perhaps next time, before these loan junkies even think about borrowing money from someone, they should borrow a sense of responsibility first.
!["So come on Singapore Government [...]](https://cdn01.vulcanpost.com/wp-uploads/2016/09/Screen-Shot-2016-09-27-at-11.25.51-AM.png)
