Tag: Muslim

Abu Sumaiyah Al-Jawi: A Response To Haji Mohammad Alami Musa

The attached article is symptomatic of the confusion and inferiority complex that has infected the Muslims, which has been succinctly described by the eminent Muslim thinker Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas in his 1970 work entitled Islam and Secularism.

In the article, the major premise is “doctrinal basis” upon which ideas are rendered acceptable or rejected. The writer, a bureaucrat, stated that with regards to enmity towards non-Muslims, there is no doctrinal basis and therefore such an idea is rejected. Of course, to an unsuspecting mind, there are no problems in that statement; any sane and matured Muslim can accept that. But when he rambles on about all religions sharing the same roots like the “roots of a Banyan tree”, without evaluating that idea to the same premise he had established for himself which is “doctrinal basis”, he contradicted himself. This kind of thinking, known as the transcendental unity of religions, is already effectively refuted by Al-Attas in his Prolegomena to the Metaphysics of Islam.

Furthermore, to limit the meaning of the term “fansurna” used in the Imam’s prayer to connote the act of vanquishing and enmity is already against doctrinal basis. Fansurna is derived from “nasara”, which the authoritative linguist Ibn Manzur in his Lisān al-‘Arab already explains as “rendering assistance to the oppressed”. In other words, the condition for asking God who is the Lord (Mawla) and Helper (Nāsir) is that oppression exists. So we can ask the question, is there oppression coming from those who claim to be Christians and Jews?

In 2005, George Bush claimed that his Christian god told him in his dream to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. The current administration of the United States are filled with people like this too. The Zionists of Israel still justify their atrocities using their Jewish scripture. In other words, extremists who are Christians and Jews, just like how there are extremists who are Muslims, exist. And the prayer is specifically directed at these extremists and not all Christians and Jews, some of which are our friends and family.

In our bid to preserve and enhance racial and religious harmony, we don’t have to sweep these facts under the carpet or make sweeping statements about religion and Banyan trees that have absolutely no doctrinal basis. Just as how we can talk openly about Muslim extremists without thinking that such discussions are based on enmity against Islam, there is no reason to be offended when we talk about Christian and Jewish extremists.

Source: Abu Sumaiyah Al-Jawi

April 13, 2017
Philippines: Abu Sayyaf Leader Behind Execution Of Foreigners Is Killed

A leader of a militant group who was directly involved in the kidnap and execution of Canadian and German nationals was among those killed by Philippine troops in a clash on a resort island this week, the military said on Wednesday.

Troops killed at least six members of the Islamic State-linked Abu Sayyaf during the firefight on the popular tourist island of Bohol on Tuesday, but suffered four casualties.

The military has recovered the body of Muamar Askali, also known as Abu Rami, a former spokesman for Abu Sayyaf, a group well known for extortion, piracy and kidnaps for ransom.

Armed Forces chief of Staff General Eduardo Ano described Abu Rami as “a very notorious Abu Sayyaf leader” responsible for several atrocities.

The group last year beheaded Canadians John Ridsdel and Robert Hall. Elderly German Jurgen Kantner suffered the same fate in February when a US$600,000 ransom demand was not paid.

Ano said Abu Rami was “trying to make a name of his own” and had risen to become one of Abu Sayyaf’s top leaders. He was involved in what the army said was a thwarted attempt to kidnap tourists in Bohol during Holy Week in the mainly Roman Catholic nation.

Ano said the situation in Bohol, far from Abu Sayyaf’s island strongholds in the South, was now “back to normal” even as security forces chased down other fighters involved in the gun battle.

The clash happened after the United States, Canadian, Australian and British embassies warned citizens about kidnappings during the holiday and advised against travel to Central Visayas, which includes Cebu and Bohol.

The military has declared all-out war with Abu Sayyaf on the islands of Jolo and Basilan, but is hamstrung by its presence among large civilian communities.

Abu Sayyaf has its roots in separatism but its activities are mostly banditry and piracy and it has invested the profits of its business in modern weapons and fast boats.

The military has struggled to curb the piracy, with the group’s boats difficult to detect when they target slow-moving trawlers. Indonesian, Malaysian and Vietnamese vessels are frequently targeted and their crew abducted, and the government has sought international help to patrol the Sulu Sea.

The government also says it has credible intelligence that some Abu Sayyaf leaders are in contact with Islamic State with a view to establishing a presence in the mainly Muslim southern Philippines.

President Rodrigo Duterte has warned of a potential Islamic State “contamination”.

Rilek1Corner

Source: http://www.channelnewsasia.com

April 12, 2017
Chee Soon Juan: Goh’s Folly – Commodification Of Public Housing

IT IS SAID that a politician thinks of the next elections but it takes a real leader to think of the next generation.

And so it is with Mr Goh Chok Tong who may, having bolstered the PAP’s grip in politics through his asset enhancement and HDB upgrading schemes, lay claim to being a brilliant politician but, through these same policies, demonstrated utter failure as a leader.

In 1991, under pressure to deliver a good result to secure his mandate as the new prime minister after taking over from Lee Kuan Yew, Mr Goh introduced the asset enhancement programme which, for all intents and purposes, cajoled (or threatened, as some saw it) Singaporeans into voting for his party in return for enhancing the prices of their HDB flats.

The plan worked brilliantly, securing for the prime minister and his party mates a healthy victory. But it also started the pernicious mentality among Singaporeans that one’s flat was a commodity whose price stood to appreciate markedly over a short span of time.

As a consequence, few thought little of shelling out huge sums of money, mainly by using their retirement funds, to finance HDB purchases. The motivation was that one could monetise the asset and realise robust capital gains at a later stage.

Such a trend had two unfortunate effects: The first was that using CPF savings to service HDB mortgages would leave many financially wanting in their retirement years.

The second is that as prices rose, young entrants into the public housing market would find it prohibitive to start a home. As a result, many young couples put off having children as their finances come under pressure.

The propaganda, pushed by a media that act more like cheerleaders than vehicles for thoughtful deliberation, compounded the public’s exuberance for asset enhancement. Duly stoked, homeowners devised ways of using their flats to turn a profit.

Some have even resorted to buying older flats at high prices with the view to reaping the benefits of redevelopment through the Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS).

(The SERS selects older blocks of flats for demolition and replaces them with new ones. Displaced occupants stand to gain from a fresh 99-year lease of their new flats and are, in some cases, compensated financially or given subsidised prices for their new flats.)

Related article: SDP proposes Non-Open Market flats

This prompted the National Development Minister to step in and point out that SERS, as the name suggests, is selective – extremely selective, in fact – of blocks earmarked for redevelopment; only four percent have come under the scheme since it was launched in 1995.

In addition, the Minister reminded, when the 99-year lease is up, a flat would have to be returned to the state. In other words, it becomes worthless.

How does this square with Mr Goh Chok Tong’s vaunted promise to enhance one’s asset in return for voting for the PAP?

A cynical ploy

It was the height of irresponsibility to make a promise that the government is ill-equipped to deliver. For one thing, property prices are not determined by fiat. Much of it relies on the state of the economy. With an increasing number of workers being retrenched (or if they remain employed, having their wages frozen) and the young finding it more difficult to find jobs, how are Singaporeans going to afford bigger and more expensive flats or, for that matter, even their first one? And if they can’t, how is value of HDB property going to go up?

With the global economy showing little appetite for the kind of exploitative trade seen over the past few decades, Singapore’s economic fortunes have dimmed considerably. The inexorable march of automation also means that more and more Singaporeans will be out of jobs, replaced by robots. Add to these China’s determination to by-pass Singapore (a staunch US ally) as a trading centre in order to secure its own shipping interests, our economic future looks shaky.

In the face of such uncertainty, how is the PAP going to make good on its asset enhancement promise? It was, to begin with, unrealistic to expect prices to appreciate indefinitely. Yet, Mr Goh and company chose to ignore the pitfalls in a cynical bid to buttress its political hegemony.

The policy also has ramifications at the macro level. With a significant portion of income tied up in property, consumer spending and other forms of domestic investment are necessarily curtailed. Investments in higher education or to start-up businesses are also reduced. All these have serious implications for our economy as we move ahead.

In the final analysis, housing – in particular public housing – should not be a tradeable commodity. It is our home in which we bring up our children, that roof over our heads when ill-winds blow. It should never have been turned into a commercial entity.

Therein lies Goh Chok Tong’s ultimate folly.

Source:www.cheesoonjuan.com

April 11, 2017
Contradictions On The Slippery Slope Towards The Reserved Elected Presidency
This is a summary of my thoughts that I shared at a Discussion Session with undergraduates from the University Scholars Program at Cinnamon College, NUS on 3 Apr 2017.

I was asked to broadly comment on the following issues:
1. Given the varying responses to the Reserved Presidency, how this will affect the unity of the Malay community.
2. How this will affect the standing of the Malay community in Singapore’s political landscape.
The announcement of the next Presidential Elections in Singapore being reserved for a Malay candidate has evoked mixed reactions from the Malay community in Singapore.

There are 3 broad reactions to the notion of a Malay Reserved President.
1. Disinterest. This is not so much driven by apathy, but a sense of resignation that the limited role of the Presidential will not have much impact on the Community, or that the outcome is a foregone conclusion (with the Government-supported candidate winning). It did not help that Mdm Halimah Yacob has been referred to as “Madam President” in Parliament by Minister Chan Chun Sing (albeit by mistake).
2. Agreement. The reactions from this group within the community stem from a belief that it is important for the Community to have a reference point as a beacon of hope for the community, and to also project the President as a symbol of multiculturalism in Singapore. There are those who express an underlying defeatism – that the Community will not get a chance to have a Malay candidate through meritocratic process. An IPS survey to the effect that Singaporeans will vote along ethnic lines is thrown in to support this view. There are also those from the Community who exhibit opportunism – an attitude of “it’s there, so just grab the opportunity, and don’t be apologetic.”
3. Disagreement. I belong to this group.
What are the Objections?

The Malay Community has never asked for a reserved Malay president in recent times. This was never raised as an issue by any Malay-Muslim Organization (MMO), any Malay Member of Parliament or any thought leader within the community.

In fact, the announcement of a presidential race for Malays came as a complete surprise to most within the community.

This announcement came as the Community grapples with are more fundamental problems that need fixing – gaps in educational attainment (relative to other communities in Singapore), lower socio-economic standing, over-representation in crimes/drugs, discrimination.

A prevailing sentiment was that if there was indeed a commitment to uplift the Malay community, why not fix the various gaps and issues within the Community? The Community would want to product a Malay presidential candidate can make the qualifying criteria and be elected in a national elections on his or her own footing.

There is also strong perception that genesis for the Reserved Presidency was to exclude a certain Chinese candidate from qualifying. Hence, the perception was that the Reserved Presidency was not borne out of a desire to promote the interests of the MMC. Consequently, those who hold that perception felt upset that the Malay community is used an instrument in this game.

The Government has always said that meritocracy is sacrosanct. That was what defined Singapore and made us different. This mantra was oftentimes cited as a differentiating factor for Singapore in the wake of Singapore’s eviction from Malaysia. This call was made consistently, even long after Singapore’s independence.

Interestingly and perhaps ironically, Madam Halimah Yacob herself, during her speech during a National Day Rally in 2012 mentioned the significance of meritocracy in Malay (obviously addressed to the Malay community):

“Kita perlu beri sepenuh perhatian dan jangan jemu jemu bekerja keras demi kebaikan semua.

Tuan-tuan dan Puan-puan, Saya yakin dibawah sistem meritokrasi, dan bermodalkan usaha gigih kita, masyarakat Melayu/Islam mampu mendaki tangga kejayaan yang jauh lebih tinggi.”

English translation: “We have to give full attention and cannot shun hard work for the collective good.”

“Ladies and Gentlemen, I am confident that under our system of meritocracy, and based on our hard work, the Malay/Muslim community can ascend the steps of success”

In trying to address this anomaly, an argument had been made is that the principles of meritocracy is not sacrificed as a Malay candidate will need to meet the stringent qualifying criteria for President.

However, meritocracy is not just about setting minimum qualifying standards for a candidate. It is about picking the best person for the job.

This was the argument made by the Establishment in the past against any ethnic-based affirmative action programs.

But yet, we make exceptions to meritocracy where it appears to be expedient to do so.

This gives rise to a slippery slope – where do you stop disapplying meritocracy? Apart from the reserved Presidency, the Group Representation Constituency, which guarantees minority representation, is another instance of meritocracy being disapplied (though the evidence seems to point towards more minority representation in parliament before the GRC were introduced, but that is another matter).

So where do you stop in disapplying meritocracy?
- Should we have a reserved Prime Minister?
- A reserved Deputy Prime Minister?
- Reserved Ministers in “heavyweight” ministries (such as Finance, Defence, Trade and Industry, Foreign Affairs) ?
- Reserved Permanent Secretaries?
The argument – that the elected Presidency embodies the multicultural aspect of Singapore – must similarly apply to other roles above.

It can be argued that it is important to have multicultural representation on senior policymaking roles, no?

Lest I be misunderstood, I am not advocating reserved positions or ethnic-based affirmative action programs for these position.

But by having a Malay reserved President, have we set a wrong precedent for Singapore?

Another argument against the Reserved Presidency is the belief that contrary to the IPS survey, Singaporean voters will not be blinded by ethnic affiliations in voting. Consider the fact that the GRC led by Tharman Shanmugaratnam had garnered the highest percentage of votes at the last General Elections. Muralidharan Pillai, a first-time candidate, had defeated Dr Chee Soon Juan at the Bukit Batok By-Elections. There is thus evidence that Singaporeans look beyond ethnic affiliations.

There is yet another disconnect. On the one hand, statements have been made to the effect that Singapore is not ready for a minority Prime Minister (even if polls done by research company Blackbox Research show that DPM Tharman, a minority, is seen as the most credible candidate for Prime Ministership).

And so, in the context of the Prime Minister’s position, the assertion is that minorities are not ready to assume leadership of Singapore as a country.

However, a diametrically-opposed position is taken for the Presidency – in that it is now important for Singapore to have a minority as the President.

Why the contradictory stance?

Crutch Mentality. The other fear is that having a reserved presidency perpetuates the perception that the MMC will not succeed unless there is affirmative action.

Will a Malay Reserved President therefore have the legitimacy and respect?

Already, there is already resentment amongst quarters of the non-Malay Singaporean community.

Also, if Singapore wants to be truly inclusive, why not reserve the Presidency for women? Or for people coming from lower socio-economic backgrounds? True inclusivity must move beyond ethnicity.

Source: https://nizamosaurus.wordpress.com
April 11, 2017
Osman Sulaiman: If Cannot Solve, Then PAP Malay MPs Should Not Hinder Progress On Hijab Issue

The gov would of course like to generalize anyone who brings up the tudung issue as trying to ‘sow discord’ or raising ‘divisive’ matters.

In fact, anyone who brought the matter up will be painted as a hardliner, extremist and radical etc.

It’s a red herring. It wants the people to overlook its appalling discriminatory practices against certain segment of the community.

Masagos should slam his own gov for continuing to divide and discriminate the citizen. Not shoot down those who try to bring positive changes to the nation.

If he, Masagos can’t help to solve the long standing issue, the best he could do is not to hinder.

Source: Khan Osman Sulaiman

April 11, 2017