Rilek1Corner

Tag: PAP

  • Mantan Anggota Parlimen Ariff Suradi Meninggal Dunia

    AL-FATEHAH.

    ariff suradi

     

    MANTAN anggota parlimen Parti Tindakan Raykat (PAP) Haji Mohamed Ariff Suradi meninggal dunia pagi tadi di Hospital Besar Singapura pada usia 84 tahun.

    ariffsuradi2

    Beliau meninggalkan lima orang anak, 16 cucu dan dua cicit.

    Allahyarham Haji Mohamed Ariff merupakan generasi pertama pemimpin Melayu PAP yang mencipta sejarah dalam Pilihan Raya Umum 1963 apabila beliau memenangi kawasan undi Kampong Kembangan, ketika itu kubu kuat parti Umno Singapura.

    ariffsuradi3

    Haji Mohamed Ariff memenangi pilihan raya bagi kawasan undi Kampong Kembangan pada 1968 dan 1972. Allahyarham merupakan pemimpin kesatuan sekerja sebelum menceburi bidang politik.

    Beliau mendapat pendidikan Melayu di Sekolah Tanglin Tinggi dan Kota Raja; berpendidikan Inggeris di sekolah Inggeris di Monks’s Hill dan Victoria.

    Sumber: Berita Harian Singapura

  • BREAKING: People’s Association Gets Adverse Ratings from Auditors

    57D2F54B97B16658289AC9051ED

    Yesterday (19 Feb), Minister for National Development Khaw Boon Wan requested Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam to direct the Auditor-General to conduct an audit of the opposition-run Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council’s (AHPETC) financial accounts.

    AHPETC’s auditor, Foo Kon Tan Grant Thornton LLP, had earlier submitted a “disclaimer of opinion” on AHPETC’s FY2012-13 financial statements, raising 13 issues of concern over the town council’s accounts.

    Earlier, on 14 February 2014, the Ministry of National Development (MND) said that the auditor’s disclaimer of opinion “is more severe than a qualified opinion” [Link].

    In yesterday’s statement, the PAP government said that the observations in the auditor’s report “raise serious questions about the reliability and accuracy of AHPETC’s financial and accounting systems”.

    “This is the second year that the Auditor has submitted a disclaimer of opinion on AHPETC’sFinancial Statements. Moreover the Auditor has raised several more issues of pressing concern this year, compared to last year. AHPETC’s Auditor’s Report and Financial Statements are cause for serious concern.”

    As it turns out, auditors have been giving an “adverse opinion” on the financial reports from the People’s Association (PA) for several years now.

    PA oversees all the grassroots activities in Singapore. It is a statutory board under the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCCY). The Chairman of PA is none other than PM Lee Hsien Loong himself.

    According to ACRA, there are a few types of audit opinions. A “disclaimer of opinion” means the auditor is unable to express an opinion on the financial statements but an “adverse opinion” means qualification of the financial report is not adequate to disclose the misleading or incomplete nature of the financial statements [Link]:

    Types of Audit Opinion Explanation
    Unqualified Opinion The auditor “concludes that the financial statements give a true and fair view or are presented fairly, in all material respects, in accordance with the applicable financial reporting framework.”
    Emphasis of matter (EOM) This is to “highlight a matter affecting the financial statements which is included in a note to the financial statements that more extensively discusses the matter. The addition of such an emphasis of matter paragraph does not affect the auditor’s opinion.”
    Qualified Opinion* This is expressed when the “auditor concludes that an unqualified opinion cannot be expressed but that the effect of any disagreement with management, or limitation on scope is not so material and pervasive as to require an adverse opinion or a disclaimer of opinion.”
    Disclaimer of Opinion* It is expressed when the “possible effect of a limitation on scope is so material and pervasive that the auditor has not been able to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence and accordingly is unable to express an opinion on the financial statements.”
    Adverse Opinion* It is expressed when the “effect of a disagreement is so material and pervasive to the financial statements that the auditor concludes that a qualification of the report is not adequate to disclose the misleading or incomplete nature of the financial statements.”

    TRE has gone through PA’s financial reports on its website and found the following:

    FY2007 (07/08) [Link]

    For FY2007, PA did not include the financial statements of grassroots organizations (GROs) operating under itself. The auditor could not “assess the financial impact to the financial statements of the Association arising from the non-inclusion of the financial statements of theGROs”. As such, the auditor gave an “adverse opinion” against PA because its financial statements “[did] not present fairly” the state of affairs of the Association:

    pa1-640x457

     

    (published by PricewaterhouseCoopers, 15 Sep 2009)

    FY2009 (09/10) [Link]

    In FY2009, a new auditor, KPMG LLP, took over the audit of PA. The new auditor said, “We do not have sufficient information to assess the financial impact to the financial statements of the Association arising from the non-inclusion of the financial statements of the GROs.” As such, the new auditor also gave an “adverse opinion”:

    pa3-640x246

     

    (published by KPMG LLP, 15 Jul 2010)

    Then, the format for the online version of PA’s financial reports for the next 3 years (FY2010 – 2012) changed [a href=”http://www.pa.gov.sg/about-us/annual-reports.html”>Link].

    The public could no longer see the detailed opinions of the auditors. PA only published the “financial highlights” in these 3 reports. In other words, the financial reports became just financial summaries:

    TRE then went down to the National Library to attempt to get printed copies of PA’s financial reports but the librarian was not able to find printed copies for the last 3 FYs (FY2010 – 2012). The library only has printed copies up to FY2009. The librarian told TRE to refer to the online versions instead.

    Not giving up, TRE did a further extensive online search and managed to find an online version of PA’s FY2010 financial report. This copy was found on the Parliament website:

    FY2010 (10/11) [Link]

    Comparing this with the online version on PA’s website [Link], they are essentially the sameexcept that the one found on the Parliament website discloses the detailed opinion of the auditor at the end:

    pa5-640x433

    (published by KPMG LLP, 15 Jul 2011)

    Again, the auditor could only give an “adverse opinion” for PA’s FY2010 financial report because the auditor “[did] not have sufficient information to assess the financial impact to the financial statements of the Association arising from the non-inclusion of the financial statements of the GROs.”

    The relationship of PA and PAP is very close. Mr Lee Kuan Yew once proudly said that the Chinese have been sending teams of officials to learn from Singapore for years:

    They discover that the People’s Action Party has only a small office in Bedok. But everywhere they go, they see the PAP – in the RCs (residents’ committees),CCCs (citizens’ consultative committees), and the CCs (community clubs).

    The operating expenditure of PA is huge. According to its latest financial report (FY2012), PA’s operating expenditure for the year increased by $46 million to $483 million. Government grants which are taxpayers’ money given to PA amounted to $434 million in FY2012:

    Capture30

    Dr Ernest Kan, President of the Institute of Singapore Chartered Accountants (ISCA) and Pasir RisPunggol grassroots leader, had earlier agreed with MND that the audit findings on AHPETC are “serious” (‘President of ISCA: AHPETC’s audit report ‘serious’‘). It is not known what Dr Kan has to say about PA’s audit findings which have garnered “adverse opinions” from auditors.

    It is also not known if the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY), Lawrence Wong, will request Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam to direct the Auditor-General to conduct an audit of PA’s financial accounts, since PA comes under MCCY.

    Source: http://www.tremeritus.com/2014/02/20/breaking-auditors-give-adverse-ratings-to-pas-financial-reports/

  • 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

  • The Hijab Movement: Of hijackers, detractors and the Guidedness of the Jemaah

    AsSalaam’alaikum!

    Some of you may recall that I mentioned in a previous posting on my FB wall some time ago that the issues that the ummah is facing serves to reveal to us the hypocrisy of some Muslims. Well I hate to say I told you so, but this is happening as we speak! If you read and hear the conversations happening in so many places online and off-line, you will find the hypocrites, the foolish, the downright stupid and even the ones who feel sidelined because their agenda is eclipsed by the tudung issue and so are envious of any progress made by the hijab movement.

    The downright stupid would argue that the tudung issue does not make sense as we are in a “secular country”.

    The foolish would argue that there are more pressing issues like education and juvenile delinquency and anyway the government will never accede to our request because we are a minority anyway.

    The hypocrites will cast doubts and even give the anti-tudung elements in the government and those against the tudung among Singaporeans ammunition to undermine the Just cause of going against discrimination against the Muslimah. They are the more sophisticated ones indulging in sophistry and fallacies such as casting red herrings like emphasising etiquette in social media and so making that an issue thereby diverting our attention away from the tudung issue at hand. Others among them will indulge in the slippery slope fallacy of saying things like the Muslims will demand more and more after the tudung and indulge in fear mongering that Muslims in Singapore actually want hudud laws implemented here and are politicising the issue.

    The envious are not happy that due to the attention given to the tudung issue their agenda (which is ill conceived in the first place) takes a back-seat. An example of the envious is the Singapore’s own Murabitun cheerleaders who are peddling their coins for profits and giving spurious fatwas about zakat and paper money. Because their project has not gathered much traction in Singapore and (especially in Malaysia) has all but failed, they will say that the tudung cause is not as important as the fight against the bankers and the so-called war against riba’.

    Please be on guard against the obfuscation of the hypocrite, the foolish, the stupid and the envious ones . They are fueling dissent and divisions among us whether they actually intended to or not.

    As many have already pointed out, we must not let this issue be hijacked. How do you know if is already hijacked? Well there are signs. One, is that a particular group or organisation controls and lead the discourse. Their voice will drown out the others and then suddenly they will determine the parameters and thereby determine what would “satisfy” the Muslims in order to defuse the issue. This will always fall short of what we actually aim for. Another is when some one or some organisation uses the tudung issue by riding on the mass support for the tudung issue to, in fact, forward his/their own agenda.

    The hijab movement may not have any clear leaders but if you think that there are no leaders whatsoever you are wrong. Pay attention to those who express their ideas with Truth and how such ideas actually resonates with the jemaah. InsyaAllah Allah swt will not let the whole of the jemaah to be led astray.

    Wasalaam

    Abdul Halim

    ***********

    Hadith narrated by Abdullah ibn Umar:

    Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said: Verily my Ummah, will not agree upon an error and the hand of Allah is upon the community; he who sets himself apart from it will be set apart in Hell Fire.
    – Transmitted by Tirmidhi.

    Source: http://on.fb.me/1eRMww6

deneme bonusu