Quick-thinking checkpoint officers to the rescue!
This morning’s strong wind at Tuas Checkpoint had caused the canopies at the car and motorcycle arrival zones to topple. Here are some photos of quick-thinking officers who acted promptly to ensure motorists’ safety.
Kudos to CPL Anthony, CPL Leow, SGT Nur, SGT Herman, SSGT Farhan, WPC Atiwah, WPC Surinah, LCP Hisham, CPL Max and SGT Salam for their quick-thinking and fast response!
Justice for Zulfikar.
The government detains him for his opposing views, portraying him as someone who supports terrorism but at the same time it keeps a blind eye to the terrorism, murder and genocide committed by its friends in Israel. What hypocrisy!
In actual fact the atrocities committed by Israel are the major contributing factor for the rise of extremists and terrorism that we are witnessing today.
Source: Mohamed Jufrie Mahmood
The following is a press release by the family of Zulfikar Shariff. Zulfikar was recently arrested and detained under the Internal Security Act (http://bit.ly/2ahTheb).
—
Statement from the family of Zulfikar Mohamad Shariff
We refer to the various reports over the past several days in the Singapore and other media, based on content and statements originating from the Singapore Ministry of Home Affairs, Government Ministers, spokespersons and commentators relating to the announcement of the detention of Zulfikar Mohamad Shariff under the Internal Security Act (ISA).
We are troubled that the media reports and commentaries are based on information that has been pieced together to suit the Singapore Government’s content and statements put out to justify the detention of Zulfikar under the ISA. Commentators have also used information selectively to attune their claims with that of the Singapore government.
However, such information does not represent the true and correct picture of the situation and statements over Facebook made by Zulfikar. In fact, the allegations are mostly based on postings in 2013 and 2014, and almost nothing from 2015 and 2016 where his position on many issues have changed.
We would like to highlight several points, but not exhaustive, of the claims made through the Singapore media:
1. Support of the Islamic State (ISIS):
The accusations of supporting ISIS are based on selected Facebook postings in 2014.
However, there were subsequent comments made by Zulfikar on Facebook which indicated that he did not agree with their actions and position. As his family, we have numerous recent conversations with him during which he had made it obvious to us, and anyone that knows him personally, that he is not a supporter of ISIS.
On 28th June 2014, Zulfikar had published comments regarding ISIS in Iraq and Syria, when there were news releases of a reestablishment of the Islamic Caliphate. The news was greeted with excitement by a number of Muslims, as the Islamic Caliphate is meant to be a central Muslim leadership in the matters of the religious law, and being the Muslim equivalent to the Roman Catholic papacy.
When the first global media reports of violence and beheadings by ISIS began in late July 2014 and the agendas of the ISIS fighters had seemed to differ from the peaceful perspective, Zulfikar took a different stance. He had been against their violent nature and ideology. Anyone who knows him personally would know that he is argumentative but not a violent man, and does not condone violence.
2. Portrayal as being violent and promoting war:
Zulfikar had never encouraged or promoted others to join ISIS. He’s not a violent person and does not encourage any violent behaviour towards others, no matter the race or religion.
3. Caliphate in Singapore:
It was never his intention to establish the Caliphate system in Singapore or use violence to achieve such an objective.
The stance on the reestablishment of the worldwide Islamic Caliphate is based on Muslim unity for religious adherence in creed.
Zulfikar had, on numerous occasions, stressed on the importance of the political unity of Muslims. It was not a violent idea, neither does it condone terrorism.
4. The photo of him with his children and the Islamic banner:
There had been a photo that had been circulated by the Singapore Media in an unclarified attempt to link it to a Jihadi pose.
The banner, which had been maliciously and falsely identified as an ISIS flag, is actually a banner which has been used throughout Islamic history, as the basis of Islamic creed to represent Islam, which states the Shahadah, or professing the recognition of God and the Prophet.
The banner in the photo was purchased to show solidarity towards the oppression of the Palestinians, which had been mentioned by Zulfikar in that post. It was never referred to as a support for ISIS or any other known terrorist organisations, besides being exaggerated by the Singapore media.
5. Al Makhazin
Al Makhazin (The Magazine), was established to give an alternative platform to raise awareness around Muslim issues around the world. It was to give a voice for Muslims to discuss current issues.
6. Hizbut-Tahrir
Zulfikar has never been a member of Hizbut-Tahrir. Claims that state otherwise are untrue and have no basis at all.
The contents distributed in the media, and statements and commentaries made thereafter are inaccurate and selective. We find such content malicious, with the intention of portraying Zulfikar negatively.
Zulfikar’s Facebook account had been removed while he was in detention, while media reports and commentators continue to falsely portray him as an extremist and as an ISIS sympathiser, without his FB page content being currently accessible to show the true nature of the posts.
While Zulfikar has always been known to oppose the Singapore Government policies, his postings were written from a perspective of someone who argued and rationalised his opposition to the PAP government’s policies vis-à-vis the Malay/Muslim community.
To detain him under the ISA for his views, is not fair. To further accuse him of being an extremist and by extension insinuating terrorism and being a sympathiser of terrorist organisations, is stretching the evidence from his FB page postings. Detaining him under the ISA without trial and without having the opportunity to challenge these aspersions in an open court is an injustice. We fear that the detention of Zulfikar also increases the chances of self-incrimination through “confessions” and “admissions”.
All this one-sided misinformation has given opportunity to others with whom Zulfikar has had disagreements on and offline to come out now and cast one-sided aspersions.
Zulfikar is a loving family man. His detention is doing irreparable harm to him and his family.
This response is not exhaustive, we will respond further on this matter as appropriate and as needed.
On behalf of the immediate family
Source: TheIndependent.sg
A Canadian judge has turned down a Singaporean’s bid for refugee protection in Vancouver, finding his claims of alleged potential persecution in Singapore to be unfounded.
Jedidiah Ian Tan, 23, who was exempted from national service on medical grounds after serving two months, had claimed the exemption was revocable and that he had no redress in Singapore except military justice.
“A refugee claimant must adduce clear and convincing evidence that is both relevant and reliable, and sufficient to convince the tribunal that state protection is inadequate,” said Justice Cecily Y. Strickland in decision grounds last week.
The Canadian Federal Court judge noted that the Singapore authorities had “acted reasonably and expeditiously” in exempting Mr Tan from national service.
” The documentary evidence indicated that the safety of conscripts is taken seriously and failures to do so often receive considerable public scrutiny,” she said.
“Additionally, evidence concerning similarly situated persons demonstrated that Singapore has measures in place to deal with physical and mental incapacity of national service members and their mistreatment by others in the military.”
Mr Tan had applied to the court in British Columbia for a judicial review of the decision last year by the Refugee Appeals Division (RAD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, which had rejected his case for protection as a refugee.
Entering Canada in January last year, he had first successfully applied in May last year to the country’s Refugee Protection Division (RPD) to qualify as a refugee in need of protection. He claimed that he faced persecution in Singapore as a male who was granted medical exemption from military service.
But that decision was quashed on appeal by the RAD, which led to the present court application.
The RAD was not convinced that “Singapore would not be reasonably forthcoming with adequate state protection should (Mr Tan) seek it”.
He was medically diagnosed as suffering from spinal curve problems. He suffered back pains, had difficulty walking and could not sit down for long periods of time.
But he was found fit for service and reported for training in December 2013.
He claimed the training was difficult and caused him to suffer psychologically and physically. After a series of medical consultations, he was notified on May 23, 2014, that he had been exempted from service.
He claimed he was exempted on psychological grounds. But subsequent to his exemption, Mr Tan claimed that he and his father received phone calls and text messages from several SAF officers of his former platoon threatening to have him returned to continue military training.
Mr Tan also claimed he feared his exemption would be revoked and he would face job discrimination as he is required to disclose his military history when applying for jobs here.
The RAD, in rejecting Mr Tan’s claim, found that as he is no longer a serviceman because of the exemption, he was entitled to redress from the civilian authorities should the military authorities consider revoking his exemption.
Documentary evidence also showed that Singapore “had effective mechanisms in place to address abuse and corruption in the police and armed forces,” noted Justice Strickland.
She ruled that there was no procedural unfairness on the part of the RAD just because it viewed some of the same evidence differently from the RPD. The RAD had pointed to potential avenues of protection in Singapore against job discrimination and had not been unreasonable, she added.
Source: The Straits Times
The National Arts Council (NAC) has defended the high fees paid to consultants of a centralised refuse collection project in the Civic District, saying it was “not a simple bin centre to build”.
There were many technical challenges to consider, as well as the need to ensure traffic nearby was smooth and the buildings were conserved, it said on Government website Factually, which aims to correct misinformation posted online.
The $410,000 it paid for a study on the project alone is nearly 90 per cent of the cost of actually building the bin centre, which was another $470,000.
The bin centre stands above the basement of the Asian Civilisations Museum’s (ACM) outhouse and is for the rubbish from Victoria Theatre and Victoria Concert Hall as well as the nearby ACM and Old Parliament House. Previously, each had its own bin centre.
The issue drew sharp criticism, particularly online, after the Auditor-General’s Office singled out the high consultancy fees in its annual report released last week.
Responding, the NAC acknowledged and accepted that the cost assessment for building the centre should have been more robust.
The council, which comes under the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth, said that in future, it would decide whether consultancy fees were reasonable by looking at the quoted fee as a proportion of the project’s construction cost.
It had not used this method for the bin centre when seeking approval for funds to pay the consultancy fee. Instead, it compared the quoted fee against fees for other complex projects. This was the reason it was not clear that the consultancy fee was exceptionally high, said the AGO report.
The report also said NAC had directly engaged the Victoria Theatre and Victoria Concert Hall consultants to provide these additional consultancy services. It did not call for a separate tender.
NAC said this was because the consultants – who were not named – were selected based on an open tender for the project as a whole.
The NAC, in its reply, also said there could be some misunderstanding about the reasons for building the bin centre. It was not a standalone project, but part of the redevelopment for the Civic District, which the NAC said was “an important cultural and heritage area for Singapore”.
Building the bin centre would improve operations and enhance the area’s aesthetics, it said.
It also said the construction cost was less than 1 per cent of the development cost of the Victoria Theatre and Victoria Concert Hall.
The project, it said, was complex for several reasons.It involved structural and reinforcement works as it was above the ACM basement.
Mechanical and electrical services had to be accounted for, and existing underground services had to be diverted. The project also had to include ventilation so that foul smells would not escape from it as the bin centre stands next to the ACM offices.
Other considerations included preserving the aesthetics of the historic area, and studying the impact of the bin centre on the ACM loading and unloading bay.
“Consultancy services were necessary because of the complexity of the project,” said the NAC.
The consultancy services included a feasibility study taking into account the various requirements of the three buildings, which house three separate institutions.
Source: The Straits Times