Rilek1Corner

Tag: Singapore

  • FAS Donation To AFF Raises Many Questions

    FAS Donation To AFF Raises Many Questions

    By: Leong Sze Hian

    I refer to the media reports where Hougang United chairman Bill Ng claimed that he had donated about $850,000 to the FAS since 2012 but was unsure where the money went; as well as to the Football Association of Singapore’s (FAS) rebuttals to the allegations by Mr Ng. The various news reports piqued my interest and I went through the FAS’s annual reports (financial report section) for FY2015 and FY2014, covering the period from 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2015, but could not find any mention of this $500,000 donation to the Asean Football Federation (AFF) in it.

    As this sum of $500,000 is extremely huge, relative to the FAS Group’s (operating) deficit (revenue – expenses) before taxation of $5,445 and $5,453 in FY2015 and FY2014, respectively – instead of just stating that “all donations and sponsorships from our partners are recorded and accounted for”, and that they “are prepared to share the documents relating to this subject with the relevant parties.”  – can the FAS help to clarify where this donation is reflected in their annual report, and make public the documents recording its receipt and subsequent payment and receipt to the AFF.

    This may be a matter of some urgency, given that the elections will be held on 29 April.

    I also refer to FAS general secretary Winston Lee’s comments as reported in the media that Ng “had full knowledge of what the donation was for, and that none of it came to the FAS.” Mr Lee further said that Mr Ng “knew that the money was not being donated to FAS or any Singapore footballing activity, and to claim it was given to FAS is not factual.”

    But the question really is, did the FAS inform the donor in writing that the money was in fact for the AFF?

    Also, since the FAS is an Institution of Public Character (IPC) which means that donations are tax deductible, did the donor get a tax deduction, with full knowledge (according to FAS) that the money was not for local football, but for the AFF? Also, why were the donation(s) channeled “through FAS” to the AFF? Was the $500,000 donation (cheque) paid to the FAS?

    In this regard, questions by the soccer fraternity and fans about “where the funds of a hugely profitable amateur club were channelled to, and why they did not make moves to invest in local football or join the professional S.League”, is well justified.

    Mr Ng further said in his statement to the press that he believes “that none of the council (members) knew anything about this (donation).” But at the time of writing this article (10 am, 15 April), I do not seem to be able to find any response to this assertion in the various FAS statements.

    FAS subsequently issued a second statement which included a quoted from the AFF on the football management system, where the the AFF spokesman said the football management system will enhance the “capabilities of football associations and clubs, which will then better position them to achieve success in key result areas including but not limited to income generation, information technology, corporate governance, and facilities utilisation, among others.”

    The AFF spokesman in thanking the Singapore NFL club for the $500,000 donation, further said that the system will be launched “within the next nine to 12 months”. But, is taking more than three years or four years to develop a “football management system” arguably, kind of long?

    And also, should not the AFF thank the FAS and not the Singapore NFL for the donation since the donation went to AFF via FAS? Was the donation paid to the AFF by the FAS or directly to the AFF by Tiong Bahru FC?

     

    Source: www.theindependent.sg

  • Comfort Taxi Driver Tries To Claim $12,000 Damages For Bumper Scratches, Is This Fraud?

    Comfort Taxi Driver Tries To Claim $12,000 Damages For Bumper Scratches, Is This Fraud?

    Comfort taxi driver claiming absurd amount for insurance claim. Surveyors believed to have profit from the accident claim

    We need to stop all this foul play as my friend kenna the same treatment from comfort taxi ! Where got kenna bang and they claim you so much one siol.

    SGD$12,000 for scratches on the bumper ? Not even a broken headlamp or dent on the bumper. Kenna bang on my door lei. #whyliddat

    Taxi driver still got face to claim medical when he can shout vulgarities like f my Mother and he even want to punch me. This shows clearly he is perfectly fine what. Where got need medical attention when he can be so drama. He tried to call 999 too. ?!? Is this taxi driver on drugs or what? All the actions happening in front of his cool blue Hyundai. #whysostupid #carcam

    Taxi driver also unwilling to cooperate by giving me identification card to take down his particulars. So now he know how I am but I don’t even know who is he. Is he even the rightful hirer ? #winliaolor

    Contact comfort but the CSO mentioned they will try not to agitate the driver in case they return car and join Uber / Grab. LOL

    After which he fled the scene after his speech filled with dirty vugalrities. #liddatcanmeh Just received the attached letter from his lawyer and the damages stated $12,000 siol.

    We need to stop taxi driver from all this foul play ! Making people bang on their rear by jam braking or don’t give way when you want to filter out than they bang you hard. Of course last but not least, how to get $12,000?

    Dawson
    A.S.S. Contributor

    Source: www.allsingaporestuff.com

  • Ahmad Osman – Refuting Claims Mimbar At Yusof Ishak Mosque Is Phallic Symbol

    Ahmad Osman – Refuting Claims Mimbar At Yusof Ishak Mosque Is Phallic Symbol

    Firstly, Alhamdulillah for the 71st mosque of Singapore. All praises to Allah for allowing us with more areas to pray, insyaAllah we are one step closer to reaching the huge number of mosques we once had before, the state had them demolished or discontinued.

    There have been quite a controversy circulating online regarding the mimbar (pulpit of the mosque where the imam delivers his sermons) of the newly opened Yusof Ishak Mosque. There were claims that the design of the mimbar was not pleasing to the eyes, as it was akin to a type of architecture known as “phallic architecture” and to a certain extent, resembled the lingam, a representation of the Hindu god Shiva, commonly found in Hindu temples.

    With my very limited knowledge as a mere student of architecture, I seek permission to humbly reason out my thoughts on this issue. I would have to give the author, Isa Kamari due credit and benefit of the doubt, for he obviously have been in this field longer than I have. The author too have been to said mosque, while I can only rely on photos available online at the time of writing.

    However, I feel that this has been blown entirely out of proportion. I would vehemently reject any opinions that this resembled a phallic symbolization or architecture, simply due to the nature of the building. While phallic architecture does exist and have been repeated time and time again as a trademark of certain architects and design styles, no one in the right mind would do that to a religious building.

    Furthermore, it has already been clarified that the design of the mosque was a blend of “traditional mosque characteristics with Nusantara heritage.” (That, in and of itself, requires further clarification but I guess we can all agree that phallic would not be a word to describe this mosque or any parts of its design).

    I get the author when he referenced the mimbar to what he terms as “maha linggam” which, from my very limited knowledge once again, I reference to an object called lingam, or also known as Shiva lingam. Again, I have to disagree with the author on two points. Firstly, I agree that the front elevation of the mimbar from a very low angle does resemble a shaft. However, when viewed from all other angles, the same can’t be said. The design, which many have commented to be a futuristic one, is in my opinion a hybrid of the modern and the vernacular, with carvings and lights etched on a timber pulpit which seems to be suspended above ground. Nowhere did my friends and me found any resemblance to the male genetilia whatsoever, it didn’t even cross our minds. Many things in this world resembles a shaft, not all of them can be correlated with a penis.

    Secondly, to say that the lingam is phallic in nature and that the Hindus worship these phallic symbols is totally out of line. Yes, there have been debates by western scholars on the nature of the lingam, yes there are those who claimed that the phallic-based designs were a later addition, but ask any Hindu and he/she would be outraged at such claims. One could also simply Google how it looks like, and you’ll realise that the lingam isn’t phallic and this mimbar does not even look like a lingam.

    I am very upset at the snide remarks. Lest we forget, there are mosques in the Malay Nusantara which have Hindu motifs on them, such as the naga guarding the elixir of life, the meru roof and so on, and at the same time, there are mosques which have appropriated the spaces of what used to be Hindu temples. Do these mosques lose their Islamic-ness whatsoever? No, because all these are merely symbols which doesn’t affect the function of the mosque, all the more, those elements reaffirm ourselves as to our religion.

    Now let me reiterate, it is my modest opinion that the mimbar isn’t phallic, isn’t inspired from the lingam, and the lingam isn’t phallic. In addition to that, it’s upsetting to see the introduction of another religion which from my point of view only seeks to stoke the flames in the hearts of the ignorant. There’s also an element called power of suggestion, for when I showed the same photo to both Muslims and non-Muslims who are not aware of the controversy, none of them had any phallic like ideas in their heads. But once someone forces himself to see it and spread the word, naturally it would be hard for people to unsee.

    My point being, it is evidently clear to us that this is simply making a mountain out of a molehill, or rather nothing at all. Purify our hearts and niat such that Allah rid our minds of such thoughts from what we see through our eyes. There are a lot of other problems plaguing the Malay and Muslim community which needs more attention, rather than such controversies which does not benefit anyone. At the end of the day, these are just my opinions as a Muslim architecture undergraduate. Indeed, Allah knows best.

    Wallahualam

     

     

    Source: Ahmad Bin Osman

  • Teacher Calls Out Student For Racist Comments, Class Learns Meaning Of Majority Privilege

    Teacher Calls Out Student For Racist Comments, Class Learns Meaning Of Majority Privilege

    There are a few things I don’t abide in my classes.

    One of them is racism. Today in class I pulled a boy out of class because he called one of his classmates “死黒人” (it literally translates to “die black person” but colloquially it’s more accurately translated to “stupid black person”, and is typically used on people who have dark and tanned skin, not necessarily just African Americans).

    This kid was from a majority race in Singapore, and I called him out on it. I told him people of his race were literally being abused and faced racism daily overseas, and that he was taking advantage of the safe environment here where he’s one of the majority. I told him that saying sorry to his friend was not enough, that he shouldn’t do it again.

    Don’t we all know that’s not going to happen.

    So I addressed the class on this. Acknowledged that I have said racist things before years ago, and that I have also been the target of racism right here in sunny Singapore. And that if you can’t even respect your friends and peers (because that’s what it boils down to), then how can you expect others to respect you.

    Pretty sure most of it fell on deaf ears, given that they are a class that has trouble respecting themselves, and with very probable self-esteem issues.

    It is so, so painful to see the world the way it is. To see kids behaving that way because we as adults tell them (through our behavior and the words we say) that it is okay. That it is normal to have pre-conceived (negative) notions of what different cultures or races or ethnicities are, or do, or have. It is tiring and exhausting trying to re-educate these kids into thinking that everyone deserves respect.

    The very fact that we NEED to RE-EDUCATE them about that is, in itself, appalling.

    And no, this isn’t just at the secondary school level either. I had to address a similar issue while teaching a primary 2 class this morning, when they didn’t react to 2 ethnic dances I mentioned we would be learning, but started giggling and making noise when I mentioned the third.

    Every day I realize how broken our world is, and how we are the ones who broke it. But shouldn’t we also be trying to help fix it?

    Sarah
    A.S.S. Contributor

    Source: www.allsingaporestuff.com

  • The Economist Got Reminded – Bigotry And Hate Speech Is Not Free Speech

    The Economist Got Reminded – Bigotry And Hate Speech Is Not Free Speech

    High Commissioner to the UK Foo Chi Hsia has responded to an article by The Economist, saying it is not true teen blogger Amos Ye was prosecuted here for political dissent and not for making vicious statements about Christians and Muslims as implied in the report.

    On Mar 30, The Economist published the article, titled An outspoken Singaporean blogger wins asylum in America, which talked about how a US immigration judge granted Yee asylum, and the reasons for doing so. The article cited the judge’s reasons, including that while the blogger was legally prosecuted under Singapore law, his prosecution served a “nefarious purpose – namely, to stifle political dissent”.

    In a response published by the UK-based weekly on Apr 12, Ms Foo, referencing specific comments against Christians and Muslims made by Yee in 2015 and 2016, said The Economist may agree with the US judge that such bigotry is free speech, but Singapore “does not countenance hate speech” as it has “learnt from bitter experience how fragile racial and religious harmony is”.

    She added that contrary to the suggestion in the article, Singapore’s laws on contempt do not prevent fair criticisms of court judgements.

    “Singapore’s court judgments, including on Mr Yee’s case, are reasoned and published, and can stand scrutiny by anyone, including The Economist.”

    This is not the first time Ms Foo has responded to an article by The Economist. In March this year, she took issue with an article alleging restrictions on free speech in Singapore, saying that no country gives an absolute right to free speech.

     

    Source: www.channelnewsasia.com

deneme bonusu