Member of Parliament Intan Azura Mokhtar said yesterday that she did write a letter of appeal regarding Mr Yang Yin’s application for permanent residency (PR) here. But she did so only at the behest of Madam Chung Khin Chun.
Questions had been raised over the former China tour guide’s role in the Jalan Kayu Neighbourhood Committee, after pictures of him at various grassroots activities surfaced online. The People’s Association confirmed that he had been a member of the neighbourhood committee since July 5 last year but resigned on Sept 8 this year.
Dr Intan, who is an MP in Ang Mo Kio GRC and adviser to the committee, said she did not know Mr Yang personally. She recalls meeting him only when he was participating in a cooking activity.
She does remember the time Madam Chung approached her.
“She first came to see me and sought my help in May 2011… for her grandson,” said Dr Intan. “This is what she told me and I referred Madam Chung’s request to the authorities.” She said she responded only because Madam Chung was “a resident of my constituency and a Singaporean”.
“If Mr Yang had come to me, I wouldn’t be able to help him because he’s not a Singaporean,” she said. “What I would have told him is that you probably can apply for PR to the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority directly.”
Dr Intan also said she later received a piece of “feedback” on Mr Yang. She did not reveal the nature of the feedback as there are ongoing court proceedings concerning Mr Yang, but said it was forwarded to the authorities the same day.
Dr Intan also explained why she had initially referred to Mr Yang as a grassroots “leader”, when asked about him two weeks ago. She said she considers all grassroots volunteers “grassroots leaders”, reiterating that Mr Yang “did not hold a key position… he was just an ordinary member”.
In recent days, Dr Intan’s Facebook page has been inundated with questions about Mr Yang. Some claimed that she had gone into “Internet hiding” by not addressing the questions and making her Facebook page private.
When asked if comments about Mr Yang had been deleted from her Facebook page, she said the staff administering the site may have done so and she does not know what “Internet hiding” is.
Dr Intan also made it clear that only citizens and PRs can join the grassroots, although others can help out as ad-hoc volunteers. When asked if taking part in these ad-hoc activities can help in an application for permanent residency, she said that was up to the immigration authorities.
When contacted last night, Madam Chung said she remembered seeing Dr Intan “a few years ago”, but could not recall what was discussed.
In response to queries from The Straits Times, the ICA made it clear that volunteering in grassroots organisations is not part of its criteria when assessing applications for PR and citizenship.
It said: “Applications for Singapore Permanent Residence or Singapore Citizenship (SC) are evaluated on a range of factors including family ties, qualifications, income and length of stay in Singapore. While volunteering in community service such as with PA grassroots organisations had been suggested as a possible criterion, it has not been part of ICA’s criteria when assessing SC or SPR applications. Each application will be assessed on its own merits.”
The ICA also added: “Individuals who provide false information in their applications for immigration facilities will be dealt with firmly under the law. In addition, they will have their immigration facilities cancelled or revoked.”
If I’m not mistaken, Last Sabtu morning, I saw Ambassador Alami Musa.
We were both jogging. In opposite directions. Me towards East Coast. He was probably on his way back.
I don’t know whether that’s a metaphor. For the way we envision the direction of the Muslim Ummah…
Bro Alami is my Muslim brother. So I need to be careful what I say. As Muslims, we judge by what is apparent.
And what is apparent to me was that during his tenure as MUIS head, the organisation went decidedly on a Liberal bent.
It was a bold social experiment, probably done as a bulwark against terrorism against the backdrop of the JI arrests. There was clearly a movement to present a ‘version’ of Islam that is palatable to Liberal ideas. So a plan was established to use MUIS to push the Liberal agenda. No effort and money were spared. They got top Liberal ‘scholars’ to our shores – even Ali Asghar Engineer, the chap who coined the term Liberal Islam. Then scholars from Jaringan Liberal Islam from Indonesia was roped in, and MUIS even published a booklet filled with writings of Liberal scholars. Then Asatizahs doing their PhD were sent to a hub of Liberal Islam in Indonesia. Then MUIS came up with the 10 points for an ideal Muslim community, with ideas of secularism and pluralism being pushed. Then there was the tie-up with Hartford Seminary and sending MUIS officials there, presumably so that there can be ‘bridges of understanding’ with the seminary. Isn’t the primary function of a seminary to train Christians to do proselytization? Is there no other place to send MUIS officials?
Then there was the watering down of the syllabus of Youth and Kids Alive. There is ittle emphasis on absolutely critical issues like classical Tawheed. Kids are taught subjects like How to be Muslim in SG. So an intelligent Muslim child goes to these part-time classes in our mosques. He is not given a strong grounding in classical Islam. He goes to university.
And he is ripe for the picking of the Liberals that flood academia.
We now hear that Ambassador Alami has joined the Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS). And he heads a team that includes a former MUIS officical active in the Reading Group.
It is a bold social experiment. Because it has as it’s goal to move the Muslim community towards a more Liberal stance. And this is done probably at the behest of Minister-in-charge of Muslim affairs. It is an ambitious undertaking. Because the Muslim community, no matter how much faults we have, are still ideologically very much conservative.
Alhamdulillah. Allah azzawajal is Protecting the Aqeedah of the Muslim community here. After more than a decade of trying, the bold social experiment has failed. And failed miserably. Even the self-identified liberal Farish Noor has concluded that there is very little traction of Liberal Islam in the masses. All over SEA. Including SG.
I write this as a sincere attempt for Ambassador Alami and others to think long and hard before carrying on with this obstinate obsession of trying to push a Liberal Islam agenda.
Because it is causing friction within the Muslim community here. Already some MPs are voicing out their discomfort.
And subhanallah. The recent #wearwhite episode makes it really clear that the Muslim community here is conservative. And they are crying out for true leadership in the Malay-Muslim community.
So when a few like-minded brothers – led by a courageous young Ustaz – decided to do something because they were uncomfortable with the way SG society is heading, the response was overwhelming.
Many are uncomfortable wuth, for eg, the movement to mainstream homosexuality in SG. That’s why there was strong support to wear white for the first day of Ramadhan.
To be sure, the Minister and MUIS did what they could to foil the movement. Wearwhite was denied the open venue of a stadium. No matter. Muslims could use the mosque to voice their support of a return to fitrah, and a rejection of the mainstreaming of homosexuality.
Even that was denied wear white. The Minister-in-charge of Muslim affairs made that statement that mosques must be neutral and not take a stand. Huh? The mosque should not take a stand against something that is clearly against Islam? Something that is heinous in the eyes of Allah azzawajal?
But Alhamdulillah. Allah azzawajal is the Best of Planners. If wear white is restricted any physical space, they went into the virtual space. Subhanallah. So many sent pictures of support by uploading their pictures in white. Entire families wore white. There was a family who celebrated a new-born, and they all wore white. Mosques became seas of white. SG Muslims from as far as Alaska sent in pictures to lend their support to the movement. Then the Christians also lent their support, with entire congregations wearing white in the thousands.
We ask Mr Alami and his new team in RSIS to please consider that the Msulim community is still very much conservative. And we are no longer content on being the silent majority. The sleeping giant has awakened, insha Allah.
If we see more Liberal islam ideology being shoved down our throats, we will react. And we will make sure our voices are heard loud and clear.
So let’s be clear. If there is any friction in the community, it is because the minority, led by an elite bent on altering the status quo, is pushing on with theis obstinate obsession of changing the very fabric of the Malay Muslim community.
The Workers’ Party (WP) has set up a charity fund to run community programmes like financial aid, food distribution and health screenings.
The WP Community Fund (WPCF) is structured like the PAP Community Foundation (PCF), the ruling party’s charity arm.
The WPCF was registered as a company limited by guarantee in January this year and accepted by the authorities as a charity in February.
The party has been low key about the fund’s existence, but according to company and charity records obtained by The Straits Times last week, its board of 10 directors includes WP secretary-general Low Thia Khiang as chairman, and Members of Parliament Png Eng Huat, Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap and Lee Li Lian.
SINGAPORE – Mr Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap of the Workers’ Party yesterday called for the formation of a committee to address concerns of Malay-Muslims over how their loyalty to the nation is viewed.
But in a swift rebuttal, Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Education and Manpower Hawazi Daipi deemed his suggestion unnecessary as this was an issue that could be overcome by strengthening inter-racial ties.
The exchange began with Mr Faisal saying that more needed to be done to “address and find solutions” to community concerns highlighted in a recent report. He quoted the findings of the Suara Musyawarah committee, which said Malay-Muslim participants felt left out in certain policies and practices which “question the loyalty of Malays to the country”.
The committee was formed in 2012 to gather feedback on the thoughts, concerns and aspirations of Malay-Muslims. Its report highlighted personal accounts of employers expressing a preference for non-Malay workers and surfaced concerns over exclusion from certain parts of the Singapore Armed Forces.
Mr Faisal acknowledged that progress has been made in terms of opportunities afforded to Malay-Muslims in education and national service, but said the committee’s formation could offer a “quick solution” to achieving a “more inclusive and open Singapore society”.
Responding to his speech, Mr Hawazi and Mr Zainal Sapari (Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC) later asked Mr Faisal if the latter had ever felt that his loyalty to the country was questioned, and what his own views on the issue were.
“I’m concerned (that) if we highlight the differences, we will be widening (them) not only among one community but all communities,” said Mr Hawazi, adding that schools and community activities are means to forge greater social cohesion.
In response, Mr Faisal stressed that the issue of loyalty among Malays was surfaced by the Suara Musyawarah report, and not him.
Mr Hawazi then suggested that Mr Faisal had cherry-picked portions of the report, failing to highlight, for example, that Malay-Muslim participants also said they were “very committed” to Singapore on issues that include defence and security.
Maintaining that he was reflecting concerns on the ground, Mr Faisal said: “I have said in my view that I am aware and agree there is progress made, but because there are still many people who say that this issue is present, I, as a voice of the people, would like to voice it out.”
Mr Low: Madam, I wish to clarify a few points. First of all, the reason why I decided to focus my speech on constructive politics, because I thought that was an important issue that we should look at. As what I say in my speech, Singapore is becoming more diversified, there will be different views. And moving forward, how the Government will deal and accommodate different views and different perspective of Singaporeans is important for us to move forward together as one united people. And the other MPs from the Workers’ Party will be talking about different issues. They will cover, I mean ranging from social issues, social safety net to foreign affairs, national security. They will cover the full range of areas, and thereby we split our job, I will focus on constructive politics. I thought it was an important issue and of course it’s important to also understand what is the perspective of the PAP in terms of constructive politics. And from what the Prime Minister has said, it seems to me that it is more constructive dictated on the term of the PAP, rather than constructive politics in terms of the society that is moving forward. And I have affirmed my endorsement to what the President has said that we should look at the outcome of constructive politics – that is, that we should be able to move forward together despite the differences. Next, he’s talking about the Workers’ Party flip-flopping on foreign workers issue. I said again I don’t think we have flip-flopped. I have explained in this House of some misunderstanding of the speeches I have made. And in any case I also noted that when the PAP have to make a policy U-turn, they called it policy shift. I don’t know whether that is a shift or is a flip-flop.
Mr Lee: I think the record will speak for itself. When we make a shift, we acknowledge the shift. When the Workers’ Party changes position, they pretend they haven’t. That is the difference. Now, as for delegating responsibility for different parts of the Budget speech to different MPs, that’s entirely within Mr Low Khia Thiang’s prerogative. It’s not for me to suggest how he should conduct his affairs in the Workers’ Party. But as a leader, you do have a responsibility to state where does the party stand on the big issue. Somebody can look after health care. Somebody can take care of transport. Somebody can spend all his time marking Minister Heng Swee Keat on education. But where do you stand on what the Government is doing? Is the Government doing right, is it doing wrong, do you agree with the Government, do you have a better view or do you abstain or do you abstain from abstaining?
Mr Low: Well, I think opposition is quite clear on many of these issues. If the Prime Minister wanted my view on what the Government has been doing and whether he has done well, I’ll say, well, he has solved some of the problems, what the Prime Minister has mentioned, and the Workers Party MPs also acknowledged it in their speech but also pointed out there are things that is still work in progress and the Government will have to focus on and to make it better and to improve. So that is the position and I don’t see the need for me to totally sum up, I think the MPs should be able to do in their own view and to give their view and their assessment and at the same time, wherever possible, offer certain views and alternative suggestions to improve the policies.
Mr Lee: Madam Speaker, I’m very grateful for the extremely reasonable explanation from the member. I hope he takes an equally reasonable approach when he comes to election rallies because the Workers’ Party approach has been to be extremely reasonable, indeed low profile in Parliament but come election time to turn into tigers and heroes.
Mr Low: Madam Speaker, I thank the prime minister for praising the Workers Party’s ability to fight in the elections. We have no intention to hide ourselves in Parliament. We seek the mandate for people to come to Parliament to check against the Government and we have done it honestly and sincerely, we have not turned this place into a theatre, that shows we are responsible and we will behave continuously as a rational and responsible party and members should, I believe members will agree that the Workers Party has been rational. We have not come here with some wild policies or wild suggestions. We debate the policies, we came out with some suggestions but these are not bankrupting the Government coffers or suggesting to use the reserves. Election – I think we are also rational, we don’t accuse the PAP of something that we cannot substantiate or I know we’ll get sued. So I think we are fair. And elections is elections and I think the prime minister for noting that we can fight elections. I’m sure the PAP can too. You are the Government and you have been the governing party for 50 years and you’ve got more, much people, talented people than the Workers’ Party! How can you say that we are tigers and we are something else in Parliament? I’m sure the PAP can equally be tigers or lions.
Mr Lee: It’s an eloquent explanation for why the Workers Party has been inarticulate about many things. In a serious Parliament, the Government presents its policies, the opposition presents its alternatives, the Workers Party may not have alternatives on every issue, you may not have a full range of all the complexities of designing an HDB scheme or a MediShield scheme, you do have a responsibility to say which direction are we going and that direction has to be set clearly, not to explain to the PAP but to explain to Singaporeans what you stand for. And what you stand for cannot be what the PAP is doing and a little better. That means you have no stand. Whatever the PAP’s standing, ask them to do better. That’s easy, I can do that too. But where do you stand? Where are we totally wrong? Where do you think this is a completely different way to do things better? Where do you think in principle we do not want Singapore to be like this? These are big issues which deserve to be debated and not elided over and avoided in the House. And that is what a First World Parliament should be about.
Mr Low: Madam Speaker, again, I’ll like to say that the Prime Minister is reasonable to say that the Workers Party may not have come out, able to come with all the alternative policies, that’s true, but to say that the Workers Party has no position on major issues, that is not true. I think we did state our position in Parliament, we debated major policies vigorously, we don’t oppose all the policies but where we think that there is a need for us to oppose and be concerned of the future of Singapore like the Population White paper, we did so. So we state our position on important issues and we didn’t oppose for things that we think are doing right. Is that not enough?
Mr Lee: I think it probably is useful to bring it down to something very specific. Let’s come back to the Population White Paper. During the debate the position taken by the Workers Party is that enough is enough, zero growth. We have continued to grow, I have not heard the Workers Party demand zero growth today. Do you still demand that or do you now think that we should allow SMEs to survive in Singapore?
Mr Low: We have made a calculation at the point in time of debating the Population White Paper and that if you continue to allow the foreign workers to grow, it will be untenable in the future generation, future population growth and thereby we decided that we need to keep the population number in check and one way of doing it, of course, is to freeze the foreign workers growth in number. Our calculation was that probably within that existing number of the foreign workers, you can still move around with some sectors there will be no need so much of foreign workers and thereby you can still get by with zero foreign workers growth. We understand perfectly the possibility and the trade-off, that is our position at that point in time. We had not objected subsequently or grilled the Government for why we are not doing it because that’s our view that it should have zero population growth but the Government decided otherwise, there’s a way of doing it, we have said our piece but we have to respect the decision of the Government to move on but our message has got across. We cannot sustain continuously the kind of population growth plan the Government is planning. And I’m glad to hear today that, you know, Prime Minister saying that the Government is taking a very serious view of tightening and watching the growth of population.
Mr Lee: Madam Speaker, after all this complicated explanation, I don’t know whether Mr Low Thia Khiang still stands by what we said in Parliament in the White Paper debate last year because if he really does after all the explanation, he should say: We have too many foreign workers now, send home 70,000, then we will know where he stands. But after telling me that you can massage this and some people can do less and others can do, and will need more, that’s easy to say. Who’s going to do the massaging? Of course the Government. And that is the mark of a substandard opposition.
Mr Low: Madam Speaker, I disagree. This is not the mark of a substandard opposition, this is the mark of a responsible opposition not to jam up the Government, allowing the Government after giving our view, debating it, allowing the Government to move forward, not to jam up the Government, so it is a mark of responsible government and a mark of First World Parliament.
Mr Lee: Madam Speaker, we have to call a spade a spade. If you have changed the position and your previous position was wrong, say so. If you hold by your position, have your guts to reaffirm it and take the consequences. But to weasel away, play with words, avoid the issue and then claim to be responsible, that is what we fear can drive Singapore’s politics into the same place where many other countries have gone.
