Tag: politics

  • High-Speed Rail Link Between Singapore and Malaysia to Miss 2020 Deadline

    High-Speed Rail Link Between Singapore and Malaysia to Miss 2020 Deadline

    SINGAPORE’S Ministry of Transport said on Wednesday it has not been informed by Malaysian authorities that the upcoming high-speed rail link project between the two countries will bust the 2020 deadline.

    Mr Syed Hamid Albar, chairman of Malaysia’s Land Public Transport Commission, said in an interview on Tuesday that the deadline will be missed even after using government land as much as possible to avoid property-acquisition disputes.

    The project may take six to seven years to complete once construction starts by 2016, Mr Syed Hamid told Bloomberg.

    This would effectively mean that the Singapore-Kuala Lumpur high-speed rail link may not be able to meet the 2020 deadline.

    Source: www.straitstimes.com/news/asia/south-east-asia

  • Low Thia Kiang – Lee Hsien Loong Frontal Assaults in Parliament

    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.

    Source: http://www.singapolitics.sg/news/pm-lee-wps-low-spar-over-constructive-politics

    letters to R1C

  • Workers’ Party on Hijab Issue: Government Should Conduct Constructive Public Consultations

    Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS)
    Every Wednesday, 7.30pm – 9.30pm
    @ Blk 550 Bedok North Ave 1 | Map: http://bit.ly/xShedV
    faisalmanapWP
    Office: Member of Parliament
    District: Aljunied GRC
    Party: The Workers’ Party

    By MP for Aljunied GRC, Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap
    [Delivered in Committee of Supply on 12 March 2014]

    Since 2011 the government had set out to foster social cohesion and to build an inclusive society through the budget. While an ‘inclusive society’ means different things to different people, it is important to know that a fundamental tenet of an inclusive society is the tolerant and respectful embrace of the cultures and values that each community in Singapore holds dear.

    In the context of the ‘new normal’ in Singapore society, Singaporeans are increasingly more vocal and want their views to be heard. I believe that in fostering multiculturalism, public dialogue and constant consultations are the way forward. In the case of the recent hijab issue, to the best of my understanding, the dialogue that was conducted with representatives of the Malay community was more of a platform for the government to convey its stand, rather than a dialogue. This is because the government has already came to the decision of not allowing hijab to be worn prior to the dialogue session instead of making decision at or after the session. I am of the view that the government should enhance not only the manner in which it communicates but also its attitude when performing the communicating. At the same time, consultation with one community alone is inadequate as it may lead to hasty conclusions and unnecessary assumptions. A more constructive approach would be public consultations conducted with different stakeholders, and the different ethnic communities. The Singaporeans I meet from the different ethnic communities understand that the final policy outcomes may not go according to their preferences. Nonetheless, they hope that the government should also understand that the process is equally important to them.

    It is the responsibility of any government not to overtly impose its assumptions on any issue, particularly on sensitive and emotional issues. Rather it should base its understanding on scientific findings and in the event that such information is not available, commission a study on the matter. The government should also make available the information that it has. Public engagement and consultations that adopt a more transparent, forthright and comprehensive approach would allow us to better understand the issue at large and the context and the nuances behind each issue. I hope the Minister would agree with me that such an approach would bring us closer to a consensus that is workable, productive and acceptable by the various stakeholders involved. That should be the way forward towards an inclusive society and a multicultural Singapore.

    Source: Workers’ Party

  • UMNO now plays ‘Muslim Card’, Focus on Religious Divide

    allahbanned

    A former US ambassador to Malaysia sounds the alarm

    Like other friends of Malaysia overseas, I have followed the controversy over the use of the word ‘Allah’ with interest, but also with great concern. For I believe that this issue, if left unchecked, has the potential to tear Malaysia and the dream of ‘Bangsa Malaysia’ apart.

    While there are racial and religious issues in every society, what makes the situation in Malaysia different is that it is the government that has condoned and even provoked these tensions for its own political purposes.

    For years, UMNO justified its existence by saying that the Malays are under threat, and that only UMNO could defend “the Malay race”.

    After the 13th general election, in which UMNO candidates received only 30 percent of the national vote – and in which BN as a whole got only 47 percent – it had two choices. It could broaden its appeal or it could narrow it by trying to appeal to the PAS voter base, for whom religion rather than race is a more important concern.

    Unfortunately, UMNO chose the latter course and started to play the ‘Muslim’ card. Now, according to the government and UMNO, it is not just Malays, it is also Islam that is under threat. As for the ‘Malay’ card, UMNO increasingly has gone to the extreme, pandering to extreme racist elements, starting with PERKASA.

    The irony of the “Malays/Islam under threat” claim, of course, is that in Malaysia, both Malays and Muslims are the majority. And UMNO controls the government. So how can the Malay race and the Muslim religion in Malaysia be under threat?

    To UMNO’s leadership, it doesn’t matter. There is no need to explain. They just speak and offer no evidence, and use their propaganda instruments – Bernama, RTM, Utusan Malaysia, the New Straits Times, etc – to spread the word.

    From an international perspective, they also make assertions that are totally out of line with Islamic thinking and practice in the rest of the world.

    Think about it – Malaysia is the only country in the world that ignores history and linguistics and dares to ban non-Muslims from uttering the word ‘Allah’. Like Humpty Dumpty, the Malaysian government stands alone – and claims for itself the right to decide what words mean and what words people may read, write, think, and speak.

    How can Prime Minister Najib Razak, his government, and its supporters justify their actions, when no one else in the Islamic world agrees with them? When Islamic scholars like Reza Aslan say, “We are laughing at you,” how do they respond?

    They don’t. Because they don’t know what to say. They seem to be living on their own planet.

    Actions, not just words

    But it is not just what Najib and his government say, it also is what they have done.

    • It is the government that seized more than 20,000 Bibles in 2009.
    • It is the government that banned the use of the word ‘Allah’ in Catholic weekly The Herald.

    • It is the government’s Police Force that joined the recent raid on the Bible Society of Malaysia, confiscating over 300 bibles without a search warrant.

    • It is the government’s religious affairs department, JAKIM, that directed mosques throughout Malaysia to say, without citing any evidence, that Islam is “under threat,” that Christians and Jews are “enemies of Islam,” and that Christians are responsible for turning Muslims against each other and tricking them into losing their rights.

    • It is Najib’s cabinet that stood silently by and decided not to enforce its 10-point plan to restore religious peace and harmony in the nation.

    • It is the government that refused to take any action after the leader of PERKASA called for the burning bibles.

    There is no greater example of uniformed assertions than former PM Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s recent claim that Christians have “no right” to use the word ‘Allah’. Because he is Mahathir, he just says it, and he expects everyone to agree.

    As the saying goes, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts. In this case, history and the facts are not on Mahathir’s side. Mahathir is totally, 100 percent, wrong.

    The word ‘Allah’ was used by Arabic-speaking Christians for centuries before the birth of the Prophet and the rise of Islam. Indeed, archaeologists have found an Arabic-language Christian Bible (the Mt Sinai Arabic Codex 151), that is nearly 1,300 years old, in which God is called ‘Allah’.

    Indeed, someone might ask what right Muslims have to say the word ‘Allah’, when it was used first by Christians? Who is violating whose rights?

    The answer is simple – even though Jews and Christians used it first, they would never deny Muslims the right to say the word ‘Allah’. Because while over the years, men and women have practiced and interpreted our religions in different ways, in the end we all worship the same God – the God of Abraham, the Creator of the Universe.

    So here is the question. In the entire Islamic world, why is it only in Malaysia that people claim that uttering or writing the word ‘Allah’ is the exclusive right of Muslims? Why is it only in Malaysia, and nowhere elsewhere in the world, that some Muslims say they will be “confused” if other people – Christians – use the word ‘Allah’ when they worship inside their own churches, or when they read the Bible in the privacy of their own homes?

    What makes Muslim Malaysians different from the other 1.5 billion Muslims in the rest of the world? I would like Malaysian advocates of the ‘Allah’ ban to explain this, not to me (a Christian), but to explain it to the rest of the Islamic world.

    Dangers of ‘quick research’

    The senior judge in the Allah appeal, Mohamed Apandi Ali, wrote in his opinion that through his “quick research” on the history of the language of the Bible, “it is clear that the word ‘Allah’ does not appear even once as the name of God or even of a man in the Hebrew scriptures. The name ‘Allah’ does not appear even once in either the Old or New Testament.

    “There is no such word at all in the Greek New Testament. In the Bible world, God has always been known as ‘Yahweh’, or by the contraction ‘Yah’. That being the historical fact, it can be concluded that the word or name ‘Allah’ is not an integral part of the faith and practice of Christianity.”

    Justice Apandi’s judgment clearly shows the dangers of “quick research.” He should have spent a little more time on the web. But because he refers to how the word ‘God’ is expressed in Hebrew, Greek, and Arabic, he has raised the important issue of language and the words that we use in different languages to refer to God.

    How many languages are there in the world? The Christian Bible has been translated in whole or part into an astonishing 2,817 languages, according to the Wycliffe Bible Translator, a UK organisation. The complete Bible is available in 513 languages, including Arabic and Malay.

    Both the Arabic and Malay Bibles use the word ‘Allah’ to refer to God. In the case of Arabic, it has been so for at least 1,300 years, and in the case of Malay, which “borrowed” the word ‘Allah’ from Arabic, for at least 300.

    Even so, Justice Apandi ignored both history and language when he claimed that the Arabic and Malay language word for God – Allah – belongs exclusively to Muslims. That is because Jews and Christians used the word ‘Allah’ before the Prophet was even born.

    Judge Apandi also was wrong when he said that the Jews have always referred to God as ‘Yahweh’. My own “quick research” on Wikipedia, which must have lasted 15 seconds longer than the learned judge’s, shows that the Hebrew Bible uses many names for God.

    While Yahweh is indeed the most common expression, two others are ‘Elah’ and ‘Eloah’. They both sound very similar to ‘Allah’ and there is a reason for that. Just as Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believe in the God of Abraham, the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arab languages are all related to each other.

    Most scholars say that Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Hebrew. And when Jesus spoke of God, he said, “Ellah.” That sounds remarkably very similar to the Arabic ‘Allah’. And it should, because Aramaic and Arab are what linguists call “cognates.”

    As word of Judaism and Christianity spread into the Arabian Peninsula, ‘Allah’ became the Arabic language name for the God of Abraham. The word ‘Allah’ was used first by Arab Christians and Mizrahi Jews, and only later by the Prophet and Muslims.

    UMNO

    Sorry, Justice Apandi. Sorry, Mahathir. Sorry, Najib and UMNO.

    If anyone owns the “trademark” on the word ‘Allah’, it is the Christians, who first spread the word of the God of Abraham into the Arabian peninsula, and who first used the word ‘Allah’. But here is the point – no Christian Malaysian insists and no Arabic-speaking Christian insists that the word ‘Allah’ belongs exclusively to them.

    So the burden of proof therefore is on any Malaysian who ignores history, language, and the facts – and who ignores what the rest of the Islamic world is doing – and simply asserts that only Muslim Malaysians may use the word ‘Allah’.

    John R. Malott served as US Ambassador to Malaysia from 1995 to 1998. He contributed this to the Malaysian website Malaysiakini.

    Source: MalaysiaKini

  • Bekas ketua AMP, Nizam Ismail hutang bank $118,000

    601740_193213774159992_1813734266_n

    nizam1carNizam1racing

     

    A FORMER director of the Association of Muslim Professionals (AMP) has failed to get a court order to stop the taxman from coming after him to make good on tax arrears totalling $117,716.

    If Mr Mohd Nizam Ismail does not meet the statutory demand to settle his debt, bankruptcy proceedings can be started against him.

    But this worry has been allayed for the 46-year-old lawyer and former deputy public prosecutor for now, having reached a settlement with the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (Iras).

    He said through his lawyer See Chern Yang last night, that the “parties have reached a mutually acceptable arrangement out of court”.

    Mr Nizam, who has been working as a lawyer drawing $18,000 a month since last July, is a civil society activist who stepped down from the AMP last April. The statutory demand relates to unpaid taxes for three years from 2010.

    Mr Nizam argued that he had worked out an instalment agreement with the Iras in March last year, which it was trying to back out of. He said he had kept to an instalment plan in 2012 but was retrenched in January 2013. That made payments difficult until he came to a new agreement with the taxman two months later.

    But High Court assistant registrar Janice Wong said in judgment grounds released yesterday that she found the agreement “unworkable” and so unclear as to make it void. She said the deal was for parties to meet and reach a “reasonable agreement” on future instalments after the initial two-month period, during which he made part payments. But there was no agreed criteria or clarity as to what would amount to a “reasonable agreement”.

    It would be “odd” to expect the taxman to “hold his hands” until a “reasonable agreement” had been reached, she added.

    She noted the Comptroller had repeatedly made clear in letters from May 2 onwards that enforcement action would be taken if Mr Nizam did not settle the arrears.

    Ms Wong further rejected Mr Nizam’s claim that he relied on the agreement with the taxman as he had other financial obligations such as the maintenance of his ex-wife and children, and the payment of friendly loans.

    She said: “He fought off the most pressing fires by borrowing money to pay off those creditors. (He) must have known that in relation to the debt owed to the (Comptroller), he could buy some time, but actions to recover the debt would ultimately be brought against him.”

    By July, he was a law partner earning $18,000 a month, she said. In August, the Comptroller had offered to allow him a final payment plan of $13,000 a month, which would clear the debt by September this year.

    But he had countered with monthly payments of $6,000 to end in November next year.

    The Comptroller rejected the proposal in October, pointing to the long-outstanding tax arrears and the many attempts to accommodate Mr Nizam. The statutory demand then followed.

    Responding to queries, an Iras spokesman said yesterday that over the past five years, there have been only three applications including this one to set aside a statutory demand and all were rejected by the courts.

    “We will take appropriate actions to recover the outstanding taxes owed by the taxpayer to the State,” he added.

    K.C Vijayan for The Straits Times

    Source: Straits Times © Singapore Press Holdings Ltd