Just learned that Said Zahari has passed away. Said was a journalist and led the fight for press freedom in Singapore before he was detained under the ISA in 1963. He remained imprisoned for 17 years.
I met Said on a couple of occasions. He was every bit the erudite gentlemen that people said he was, never the dangerous communist the PAP said he was.
My condolences to the family.
Source: Chee Soon Juan
Former Member of Parliament Inderjit Singh does not mince his words when talking about several issues the government needs to look into in order to show that it is in touch with the people on the ground.
In an interview with Inconvenient Questions (IQ), he shared his thoughts on what on what makes a Parliament that has better checks and balances, and how the government can avoid falling into the elitism trap.
He also said that his wish for Singapore society was a stronger national identity. In relation to that, Singh, who has previously pointed out the issues around integration in the Indian community, noted that integration remains an important issue that needs to be addressed in Singapore.
“Today, we have a situation where integration is not happening as well as we want to. People don’t identify together as Singaporean as much as we want to,” he told IQ.
He stressed that it is crucial that Singapore focuses on developing a national identity. “In times of difficulty, this commonness is what will help us pull through a difficult period.”
Watch the full interview below:
Source: https://sg.news.yahoo.com
The SDP had written to the Ministry of Education (MOE) for permission to conduct talks to students in schools. The MOE turned down the request saying that “schools are neutral places for learning and not platforms for partisan politics”.
The MOE also stated that the history textbook cited by the SDP as being partisan towards the PAP is not an MOE-approved textbook.
That being the case, the SDP will cite textbooks that are indisputably published by the MOE and used in our secondary schools in history and social studies classes. They are written by the Curriculum Planning & Development Division of the MOE:
The truth of the matter is that the content in these textbooks is even more biased and partisan than the one that the Ministry says is not an MOE-approved book. There is a pattern of using of opinion as facts in the MOE textbooks, especially the social studies one. This is often done to the exclusion of contrary views – and even contradictory evidence. In other words, our children are told what to think rather than how to critically evaluate what they read.
Even when attempts are made at presenting two sides of an issue, students are often asked loaded and leading questions that shepherd their answers towards the desired ends. Partisan references to the PAP leave no doubt that the textbooks are meant to promote the values and thinking of the ruling party.
This is a tragic outcome for Singapore’s future as we mould an entire generation of citizens crippled in their analytical ability and unable to think independently outside the PAP worldview.
For brevity, we highlight just 10 examples of the partisan nature of the textbooks:
Example 1: Lim Chin Siong
One of the history books paints Lim Chin Siong and Fong Swee Suan as violent troublemakers:
“The Communists had control of two powerful trade unions, namely Singapore Factory and Shop Workers’ Union (SFSWU) and Singapore Bus Workers’ Union (SBWU). These unions were led by Lim Chin Siong and Fong Swee Suan.
On the same day (24 October 1956), the pro-communist leader, Lim Chin Siong had organised a workers’ meeting a short distance away from the Chinese High School. When the meeting ended, some of the workers joined the students in creating disorder.
The riots came to an end when the police arrested almost all the union leaders, including Lim Chin Siong and Fong Swee Suan. During the riots, 13 people died and more than 100 were injured.”
It has emerged from declassified documents by the British government that it was Chief Minister Lim Yew Hock who “had provoked the riots and this had enabled the detention of Lim Chin Siong.” Documents also “show these were the tactics of provocation that were employed in the 1956 riots that led to Lim Chin Siong’s arrest.”
Shouldn’t our students be given this information and encouraged to do more reading and research before forming their conclusions? We need to stop the practice of glorifying the PAP and demonising its opponents in our schools.
Example 2: Photos and illustrations
The texts carry these illustrations:
In the section ‘What Is The Role Of The People?’, students are told that the people “have the power and responsibility to choose the right leaders for Singapore”. Accompanying the text is a photograph of PAP MP Mr Christopher de Souza.
In the chapter on governance, the book asked “What Are The Guiding Principles Of Governance?” It proceeds to cite the four areas that Lee Hsien Loong enumerated in his 2004 National Day Rally speech:
Leadership is key“Honest and capable leaders are needed to maintain stability in the government and to make the right decisions for the country. These leaders must have moral courage and integrity to do what is right and not what is popular with the people. What would happen to Singapore if the leaders only make decisions that are popular with the people?
The government has realised that good leadership and good government do not occur by chance. Potential leaders are specially selected and groomed. Besides talent and ability, leaders are also selected based on their good character.”
The paragraphs seem more suited for the Petir, the PAP’s party organ, than a school textbook. Worse, there was no attempt to help students evaluate the statement. Given that the PAP has produced Ministers and MPs like Phey Yew Kok, Tan Kia Gan, Wee Toon Boon, Teh Cheang Wan, Choo Wee Kiang, and Michael Palmer, is the text accurate and valid? Why are students presented only one side of the story?
Example 4: Representative democracy
On the subject of governance, the text says: “Singapore practices representative democracy.” But this is only half the story. For a democracy to function meaningfully and effectively, there must also be a free media and a free and fair electoral process. The people must also enjoy fundamental freedoms of speech, association and assembly. All these are not practised in Singapore. Given such a circumstance, can Singapore still be considered a democracy, much less a representative one?
This subject is not addressed anywhere in the textbooks. The basic rights of citizens that are enshrined in our Constitution are not presented and the students are not invited to have a deeper discussion on what it means to be a citizen of this country other than on the PAP’s terms.
Example 5: The Pledge
And when the National Pledge is mentioned, the book asks students to:
“Examine the phrase ‘one united people, regardless of race, language or religion’. What do you understand by this phrase? Why do you think there is a need to stress this idea in the national pledge? Share your opinion with a partner.”
There seems to be an effort to steer students away from focusing on the part that calls on citizens “to build a democratic society, based on justice and equality”.
Example 6: Healthcare
in the chapter on healthcare, a section compares the pros and cons of Medisave and Medishield. At the end, however, a sidebar called Pause and Ponder asks the question: “Why is it important for the government to have support for new policies such as Medisave and Medishield?”
Why is the question written in such a leading manner? Why are students constantly shepherded into supporting the PAP’s policies? Is there no room for a more open and meaningful discussion on the realities of healthcare affordability in Singapore?
Example 7: Foreign talent/low birthrate
As for the PAP’s Foreign Talent Policy, the Social Studies book says: “While Singapore waits for its pro-family measures to show some positive results, there is a need to enhance its competitiveness by bringing in talent from other countries.”
What the book does not tell students is that the “pro-family measures” have thus far not been effective. Our population size has been shrinking all these years. Can’t the students discuss the effectiveness, or the lack thereof, of the PAP’s family policies?
The book then instructs the student to “Look at Figure 2.37 for reasons why attracting foreign talent to Singapore is important.” The Figure reads,
“Singapore faces stiff competition from other industrialising countries and being small, it is not possible to produce all required professionals locally. Thus, we must encourage foreign talent to come here so as to boost the quality of our manpower. Foreign talent can create more jobs and increase productivity.”
Again, the text misses out crucial information. For example, Lee Kuan Yew says that without foreigners, we cannot attract investments and produce jobs. Should students not be asked how and why we have come to this stage? The book also omits to discuss related topics such as (a) New jobs created going to foreigners, (b) Our city’s infrastructure being unable to cope with the massive influx of foreigners, (c) The difficulty of foreigners integrating with locals, (d) The resultant rise in the cost of living and (e) The PAP’s definition of ‘talent’.
Instead of stimulating and encouraging our students to analyse what they read, the MOE seems more interested to get students to accept the material as received wisdom and to memorise it for exams.
Example 8: Media
On the topic of managing race relations, one of the books relates the case of Maria Hertogh and the riots, writing that, “The events throughout the [Hertogh] court trial had much media coverage in the English, Malay and Tamil newspapers.”
It shows pictures of overturned cars and houses on fire with the headline “Five dead, 100 hurt in riots”. The Pause and Ponder sidebar then asks: “Why is it important to have a newspaper that is not biased in the reporting of events?” – a clear allusion to the PAP’s justification of controlling the media in Singapore.
The text does not teach students of the importance for dialogue and debate without resorting to violence no matter how much we may disagree with the other party’s views. In other words, it does not educate students. Rather, it conditions their minds and the inculcates in them the PAP’s partisan values.
Example 9: Self-help groups
The book extols the virtues of self-help groups like CDAC, SINDA, Mendaki and the Eurasian Association by quoting an excerpt from “a newspaper”:
“The self-help groups’ biggest achievement has been in saving students from the under-achievement trap. Dropout rates have fallen, grades have improved and more students have gone on to continue post-secondary education.”
The textbook does not provide information on how it arrives at the conclusion that self-help groups have achieved what the newspaper quote purports that they have achieved. It simply makes an assertion. Again, students are told what to think and not taught how to think.
Example 10: People’s Association
In discussing the role of grassroots organisations, the textbook cites the work of the People’s Association saying that it “creates common space through a wide range of programmes and activities”.
It makes no mention of the controversy regarding the control of its activities by the PAP – even in wards that the party does not control. Such a topic may not reflect very well on the PAP but isn’t one of the purposes of education – especially in a social studies class – supposed to draw on themes such as equity and fair play for discussion?
Source: http://yoursdp.org
Entering politics has changed my life.
Since i made the decision to join politics and run in the recent elections, relations with individuals and institutions (both govt and non-govt) has changed. Friends suddenly prefers to distance themselves from associating with me as it could mean a potential risk of being misconstrued as supporting opposition.
Instead of having a non-partizan position, they somehow behaves otherwise strangely uncritical of how hypocritical they are, when they accord all the civilities and cordialities when it comes to someone from the persons of the PAP government. Yet, i was somehow accused of politicizing during the hustings eventhough rightly that is what i now do.
A step forward to move democracy forward is these individuals that are my friends taking the bold step to challenge this unhealthy mode of biasness and partizanship towards the incumbant. They can do so simply by remaining normal in their relationship with me and be seen with me in public.
Lets hope this happens.
Source: Damahuri Abas
If you had ask me this question, even five or eight years after the tragic events of 9/11, I would have said “It means nothing, there’s really no difference between being a Muslim and a Ex-Muslim” but lately, this isn’t the case anymore, being apathetic to current events especially those pertaining to Muslims and Islamic affairs is a luxury an Ex-Muslim can no longer enjoy.
There’s no denying it, Islamism is on the rise.
Islamism is the ideology of instating Sharia through political means, using democracy to defeat itself, like in the case of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
This politicization of Islam has ignited a war of identity politics with Muslims around the world.
Where a majority of Muslims see themselves as Muslims first as evident here in Singapore, the last General Elections where all but 2 political parties had their Malay candidates flaunt their piousness, and their ethnic cultures second and this drive and passion to be the best Muslim one can be is destroying communities and splitting apart families. Making it even more of a taboo for apostates to go public, as one does not simply leave Islam, you could say because doing so in certain countries warrants social suicide, jail time or even death.
I, myself, was found out to be an atheist early this year by a nosy relative who read one of my replies to a friend on facebook.
This was a shocker to many in my family, so I took it upon myself to come out publicly to my relatives and up to this day, some of them are still upset that I’ve left Islam for a whole 16 years, urging me to return to the faith, to reeducate (be indoctrinated again) myself, which I respectfully declined.
As an Ex-Muslim, there’s absolutely no reason for me to go back to Islam, why would I?
I view Islam as I do other religions, ancient fairy tales to police morality, and often these outdated moral codex are often out of touch with the present, condoning genital mutilation, wife beating, slavery and sex slavery.
And before someone tells me that I have to respect Islam and the Quranic verses, don’t you think if I had respected them, I would have remained a Muslim? I respect the right of Muslims to believe in what they chose to believe in, even if it means that they cherry pick parts of Quran that advocate peace and only peace. Religions do not have rights, religions have rites, these rites end where human rights begin and I have the right to disagree, oppose and challenge Islamic teaching, Muslim beliefs and leave the religion.
And this is what has changed in the last decade, this idea that Islam is deserving of respect and immune from scrutiny.
This is what happens when an ideology gets politicized, we have prominent figures like the Pope victim blaming the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo saying they shouldn’t be making fun of other people’s religions. We lose sight of our priorities treating a Muslim boy who was held in remand for a day after making a bomb hoax with more regard than focusing on the young Shiite Muslim man, Ali Mohamed Baqir Al-Nimr, (and his uncle) who are sentenced to death by beheading then having their headless bodies crucified by the Saudi government for being apart of a pro democracy protest.
Muslims are not a minority in the same way an ethnic group can be considered a minority.
You do not become a minority for choosing to be apart of a religious ideology that is not popular in a certain part of the world.
The more you treat Muslims as a minority the harder it is for Ex-Muslims to leave Islam without repercussion because you’re enforcing the idea that religion and ethnicity are one and this is dangerous as it is already supported the identity politics of Islamism.
Islam is a choice, do not forget that.
This choice apparently has been forgotten by a lot of Muslims who condemn apostates to death and chase them out of their home countries.
The plight of Ex-Muslims also not helped by the rise of “Political Correctness” either.
Recently 2 ex-Muslim women were barred from speaking at university campuses so Muslim students won’t be offended, Maryam Namazie from Warwick and Ayaan Hirsi Ali from Brandeis.
Warwick later overturned it’s decision after an online petition had garnered thousands of support and Ayaan Hirsi Ali was invited by secular Muslims from another University campus to speak but the fact remains that we’re treating Muslims like children who cannot handle an opposing view point and that we must protect their delicate sensibilities as they’re a minority group and evil Ex-Muslims are oppressing them.
When in reality, it’s the reverse, that the ex-Muslims are the minority and the Muslims are oppressing people like us.
People like Raif Badawi who has been sentenced to 1000 lashes and 10 years imprisonment for “insulting” Islam when the only thing hes been guilty of is promoting secularism.
Niloy Neel, and other Bangladeshi apostates who have been murdered by mobs of vigilante Muslims.
Taslima Nasrin an author from Bangladesh who now lives in exile because a fatwa was issued against her for literary works, one of which speaks out against Islamic philosophy.
Salman Rushdie another author who has a fatwa on him for his literary work.
Meriam Yehya Ibrahim Ishag who apostatized from Islam into Christianity who was sentenced to death in 2014 but had escaped from Sudan.
And all the ridiculous laws inspired by Sharia in Muslim majority countries like Saudi Arabia, Malaysia and Brunei to protect the sanctity of Islam that seeks to silence any and all dissent.
Silencing dissenting voices like the people I’ve mentioned, mine and anyone who criticizes Islam and Muslim practices that violate human rights, like the amputation of the hand of a thief or genital mutilation, by calling us Islamophobic in the name of Political Correctness so you can appear to be an uber liberal is more damaging to Secular Muslims than anyone else. Throughout my writing of this article, I have not mentioned the term “Moderate Muslim” once because to me that is an insulting term to call someone a moderate, an average person, as though the radicalized Muslims are the true representation of Muslims, something no Ex-Muslim or prominent critic of Islam has ever said.
If they’re not a secular Muslim, they’re just a Muslim.
One of the many silent “majority”, we don’t know the real number of Muslims who do oppose Islamism so in good faith, lets assume the majority is just apathetic to Islamism. Secular muslims are unique in this equation because I believe the reformation of Islam into a personal belief instead of a political tool is in their hands and it serves no purpose to other secular Muslims who want their voices heard when they know it will just be drowned out by accusations of Islamophobia and bigotry. I don’t know how a Muslim be called islamophobic and bigoted to their own group but it does happen to people like Maajid Nawaz and Irshad Manji, practicing Muslims who uphold secular values and speak out about Islamism while advocating a more personal non politically motivated Islam.
The reformation of this religion cannot happen through an external influence, non muslim critics and ex-Muslims alike.
We’ve seen what happens when an Islamic regime in Iraq was overthrown, ISIS took power and the ideology of Islamism flourished.
So where does this leave ex-Muslims like us?
We’re not responsible and cannot be the force behind its reformation but we still have a role to play.
If you’re an ex-Muslim and you feel safe enough to be open about your apostasy, make yourself heard, share your stories. (with us if you’d like)
Engage would be Muslim Apologists who play hide the ball from the media by calling Islam a “religion of peace” when it clearly isn’t.
It’s a religion like others from the Abrahamic religions, containing warlike parts, More so than the predecessors.
Stand up for your rights when the “politically correct” attempts to play the oppressed minority card when they try to silence any criticism Islam.
Help those on the fence realize that leaving Islam is a choice and there others out there like them.
And most importantly, if you’re from a country that registers you as a Muslim, get yourself unregistered (Assuming no harm would come to your person) so the media stops saying that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world and realize that apostasy from Islam is on the rise.
This is what it means to be an ex-Muslim, for me.
And I hope more ex-Muslims join me in Speaking out against Islamism for the sake of those who can’t.
Peace!
Riz Rashid