Rilek1Corner

Tag: PAP

  • Ahmad Osman: Calvin Cheng Not Fit To Comment On Tudung Issue

    Ahmad Osman: Calvin Cheng Not Fit To Comment On Tudung Issue

    I have refrained myself from commenting on this issue, but I can’t let it continue after coming across this particular post by NMP Calvin Cheng.

    Before I begin I would like to apologize to any parties which may feel offended by my post, and to all Muslim ladies who might just have had enough mansplaining on this entire tudung issue, but at the same time, I am not here to please everyone but simply to right what I feel is wrong.

    This individual right here started off on the wrong foot, talking about the history of politics in Singapore and comparing it to Malaysia for no reason whatsoever. The reality is that the issue we are facing is unique to our own country, and there should never have been any reason to compare our political system with that of our neighbours. And that too, was flawed. You might be well versed in the political history of Singapore, but please keep your mouth shut on the history of politics of other countries, for it seems like you are just taking advantage of this situation to paint our neighbours in a negative light. Silence would then be your best bet for things you obviously have no clue in.

    If the GRC system was supposedly set up to ensure minority representation, why is it that Mr Cheng here is repeatedly against minority MPs championing minority causes? Doesn’t that go totally against the intent of the GRC that he so clearly stated? So if a Malay MP is not allowed to question the parliament regarding the tudung issue, would it be more acceptable for lets say, a Chinese MP to bring up the same issue?

    Mind you, Mr Cheng, this isn’t the first time that Malay MPs have brought up this issue in parliament, and for the past few years a number of Malay MPs from PAP have brought up this issue as well. Why then are they not considered to be divisive or sowing discord? However, when the same issue is raised by a Malay opposition MP, the tables were quickly turned against him to shut him up. Are you telling me our politicians have stooped that low today?

    Yes, Faisal Manap represents people of all races and religions in Aljunied GRC, and I am pretty sure he remembers that, for the simple fact that he brought up a lot of issues in parliament on the very same day, yet unfortunately, only this issue was highlighted by the state controlled media. Mr Cheng, if parliament isn’t the place to discuss such issues, then where else? Where have the so called closed door discussions brought us to? Has there been any changes, any progress? It only makes the most sense to bring up such a large scale issue in front of all government members to discuss it with diplomacy, however, in doing so Faisal Manap was labeled as sowing discord instead.

    I’ll end off with two quotes for you. Last year, the very same Masagos was recorded saying “All matters pertaining to any religion are often discussed in the Cabinet and we do look at ways to lead society to be more open, more accepting.” A year before that, PM Lee mentioned, “we discuss things more openly now, even sensitive matters, we discuss openly in mixed groups and we speak candidly with one another from the heart.”

    I guess you are the one who has forgotten how Singapore’s political system and multi-religious society functions. Coming from someone who has advocated the killing of terrorists, their families and all their children, really, you are the least fit individual to even talk about this issue. You should remember that.

     

    Source: Ahmad Bin Osman

  • Ismail Kassim: Tudung Issue Is Also A Matter Of Human Rights

    Ismail Kassim: Tudung Issue Is Also A Matter Of Human Rights

    Yes, why not? Tudung is not a religious issue. When those who put on are barred from certain occupations it becomes a human right issue; the right of all to equal treatment before the law and the right of employment in all sectors without any discrimination.

    It is not just what issues are raised, but also the manner in which they are brought up. What is equally important is also how should Government should react when such issues are raised.

    Faisal brought it up with admirable restraint, but the reaction from the Minister was, to say the least, inconsistent with the spirit and norms of democracy. It bordered on arrogance and bullying.

    Like the Minister, you too picked on Faisal, the safest target, the most vulnerable.

    I am sure whatever he did in Parliament had the blessings of the Workers Party and its leaders.

    Why not blame the WP also for not distributing the work load in a way more consistent with the norms of our multiracial society.

     

    Source: Ismail Kassim

  • Calvin Cheng: Bringing Up Tudung Issue In Parliament Is Divisive Because We Do Not Practice Communal Politics

    Calvin Cheng: Bringing Up Tudung Issue In Parliament Is Divisive Because We Do Not Practice Communal Politics

    Some people have been arguing that Parliament should be the right place to bring up the tudung issue.

    I would like to remind readers about the political history of Singapore: unfortunately, this would also entail a comparison to the Federation of Malaysia, from where we were ejected in 1965.

    Malaysia’s political system consists of political parties that purport to represent a certain race, who then come together to form an alliance. The ruling coalition, the BN, consists of UMNO which represents the Malays, the MCA which represents the Chinese, and the MIC which represents the Indians. There are also smaller political political parties in the ruling coalition, but most of them purport to represent a race, or a religion. The opposition coalition is also broadly the same, but with the exit of PAS, the alliance is broken.

    Malaysia thus practices communal politics.

    Singapore is precisely the opposite.

    The PAP is a multi-racial, multi-religious political party that represents the diverse interests of all Singaporeans. Our major opposition political parties are also the same. The GRC system is set up to ensure minority representation, but all MPs were elected by a diverse electorate.

    We thus do not have Malay MPs championing Malay causes, Chinese MPs championing Chinese causes and so on. Unlike the Malaysian Parliament, our Parliament is not structured this way. Bringing up narrow communal causes in Parliament is thus divisive precisely because our political system, and our Parliament, was designed to ensure that we do not practice communal politics. We elected our MPs to represent us, regardless of our race or religion, not because of it.

    Workers Party MP Faisal Manap was elected by the multi-racial electorate of Aljunied GRC. He was not elected only by the Malays or Muslims. He represents people of all races and all religions in Aljunied GRC.

    He should remember that.

     

    Source: Calvin Cheng

  • Why Have GRCs If Minority MPs Can’t Speak Up On Minority Issues?

    Why Have GRCs If Minority MPs Can’t Speak Up On Minority Issues?

    This week, when WP MP Muhammad Faisal spoke up against the ban on the wearing of tudung in certain occupations here, PAP Minister Masagos Zulkifli rebuked him for “subtly and frequently needling” the Malay community with this issue.

    Minister Masagos said that Parliament is not the the platform to discuss such issues. He further implied that MP Faisal is sowing discord and disrupting Singapore’s racial and religious harmony.

    According to the Election Dept, which comes directly under the purview of PM Lee, the GRC system was “established in 1988 to ensure that the minority racial communities in Singapore will always be represented in Parliament”.

    WP MP Faisal was the minority GRC candidate elected by Aljunied residents to ensure that their Malay community will be represented in Parliament.

    So, when MP Faisal is talking about issues related to the Malay community, how is he sowing discord? And why can’t he bring minority issues up in Parliament?

    How is he supposed to “represent” minority racial communities in Parliament? By keeping his mouth shut and not talking about any minority issues in Parliament?

    That being the case, why are we having GRCs in the first place?

     

    Source: www.theindependent.sg

  • Netizens Ask Where To Hold Discussion On Tudung If Not The Parliament

    Netizens Ask Where To Hold Discussion On Tudung If Not The Parliament

    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!”

     

    Source: www.theonlinecitizen.com

deneme bonusu