Tag: Singapore

  • Terrorism Is Political Problem, Not A Religious One

    Terrorism Is Political Problem, Not A Religious One

    Recently, in the aftermath of attacks by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in Europe, Singaporean leaders warned against the danger of Islamophobia.

    Mr K. Shanmugam, Home Affairs and Law Minister, expressed his fears that non-Muslims in Singapore could start developing a set of attitudes internally towards Muslims as a reaction to terror attacks elsewhere in the world, and noted that there were signs that this was already happening. He urged non-Muslims to reach out and engage Muslims here so as to maintain the nation’s social cohesion.

    In a similar vein, Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, Minister for Communications and Information, recently stressed the role of religious leaders in promoting understanding about “how Muslims and non-Muslims can live together side by side in peace and harmony”.

    This interfaith approach is not limited to the ministerial level. Teachers in secondary schools and junior colleges that I visit often ask me to include something about the importance of interfaith dialogue in my lectures about the Middle East.

    Interfaith dialogue is aimed at keeping the peace in the wake of all the attacks and should be encouraged, but it is equally important that we help the young to understand and historicise the emergence of terrorism.

    Singaporean students who I visit often ask me to explain the phenomenon of ISIS, or even of Al-Qaeda, which are in essence not a religious problem and cannot be understood using a religious approach. It is a political problem closely associated with the transformations of the role of the United States, as well as the global political landscape, from the Cold War to a post-Cold War era. Hence, we have to move beyond interfaith dialogue, and adopt a political lens to help young Singaporeans understand this political problem.

    An analogy may help illuminate the situation. When, for example, the presumptive Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump quotes from the Bible and portrays himself as an ideal Christian candidate for American evangelical voters, we do not try to understand the problematic phenomenon of Mr Trump only through the lens of Christianity. Rather, the economic problems faced by many working-class Americans and their disillusionment with establishment candidates, Republican or Democrat, are more relevant. Similarly, approaching Al-Qaeda or ISIS only through the lens of Islam misunderstands the nature of the problem completely.

    POLITICAL ALLIANCES MATTER

    Thus, apart from promoting interfaith dialogue, we need to teach students about how US Cold War-era policies and alliances took on new significance in a post-Cold War world.

    For example, US interventions in the Middle East and Central Asia in the Cold War era empowered some parties who consequently turned against US interests in a changed global political context after the fall of the Soviet Union. While these interventions may have made strategic sense during the Cold War, they set in motion other elements that gradually came to acquire a different logic in the post-Cold War world.

    A salient example to illustrate this point is Osama bin Laden, who once fought with US and Saudi aid against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s, only to “turn against” his former patron on Sept 11, 2001.

    In a similar vein, some of the US’ Cold War-era alliances that previously held strategic value against the Soviet Union have transmogrified into strategic liabilities.

    For example, Mr Lawrence Wilkerson, a retired US Army colonel and the former chief of staff to then US Secretary of State Colin Powell, has candidly shared his views in multiple interviews that the close alliance between the US and Israel, which made strategic sense during the Cold War era, was now a strategic burden for the US.

    In his open letter to the US in 2002, Osama stated that Al-Qaeda’s undertaking of the Sept 11 attacks was motivated by the Israeli occupation of Palestine – this was the first reason given in his letter, among a list of others.

    However, Osama previously had few qualms fighting on the side of the US against the Soviet Union during the Cold War in the 1980s. Why, then, was the Israeli- Palestinian issue not a priority for him at that time?

    This shows that the resistance to the US that consciously promotes itself as, and claims to be, “Islamic” is not an eternal fact, but is of a very recent vintage that emerged in a changed post-Cold War world that reinterpreted US Cold War strategy antagonistically.

    TERROR ATTACKS: POLITICAL, NOT RELIGIOUS, AT THEIR CORE

    To understand the emergence of ISIS – an issue experts and specialists are fervently debating over – requires a prior understanding of the background of these developments.

    Ultimately, there is no simple cause or reason for the post-Cold War transformations because every event emerged from a context that itself was constituted by a previous context. Nevertheless, the historical vantage point offered by the political framework sketched out above is needed if one wants to recognise that this new pattern of terrorist attacks – all of which should be condemned, whoever the perpetrator – is not religious at its core, but political.

    What is missing in many pre-tertiary education systems around the world is this political and historical approach in teaching about the post-Cold War world. Such a curriculum should be implemented at a national level.

    European countries and the US have long been models for Singapore, but the recent attacks in Paris and Brussels, not to mention the rise of racism and intolerance in the US, reflect most potently the failure of these societies to integrate their minorities.

    This makes it clear that Singapore has to strike its own path, and take a proactive approach to maintaining racial and religious harmony domestically. Singapore is a small and open society; while we cannot avoid the fact that Western media, with its predominance, overwhelms us with its own Islamophobic biases, we can – we must – train our citizens to be savvy in managing the daily influx of such information.

    Since 2013, I have been making volunteer visits to secondary schools, junior colleges and the National University of Singapore to give lectures precisely on this topic. Over the years, I have collected hundreds of little feedback slips from the students I have lectured to and exchanged e-mails with their teachers, thereby refining my pedagogical approach and presentation content.

    Based on my personal experience lecturing at over a dozen schools in Singapore over the past three years. I would say it is possible to implement this curriculum and for the Ministry of Education to design “just-in-time” resource packages to provide a timely response to this pressing topical issue.

    If we are serious about maintaining racial and religious harmony in Singapore, as Mr Shanmugam and Dr Yaacob have exhorted us to do recently, then we have to start with our young, and proactively shift the paradigm for understanding the terrorist threats to the US-dominated world order from a religious one to a geopolitical one.

    • Koh Choon Hwee is a PhD student in Middle East history at Yale University. Prior to this, she spent two years in the American University of Beirut in Lebanon working on her master’s.

     

    Source: www.straitstimes.com

  • Why I Am Staying In A Rental Flat

    Why I Am Staying In A Rental Flat

    I am currently living in a rental flat, with my family of five. I’ve heard and read reports that Ministers said it is not difficult to own your own house. What would they know? They have never been in my situation before. I was comfortably in a job that pays me $2,000 a month, enough to tide by and support my family. If we had saved and followed the financial plan we as a family had, we would be able to own our own house, one day not too far away.

    But that was provided I still have my job, Unfortunately, my company deemed me too expensive. They released me when my contract ended, and in my position, they appointed a foreign worker, who they pay much less than if they had to pay me. The company saved on money, while I lost my job. Is it fair? Is the foreign worker that took over my position more highly skilled than me? Or he has a job just because he comes cheap? He does not have to own a house in Singapore. He does not have to provide shelter for his family in Singapore. This cheap foreign labour will be a rich man when he returns to his family in the country he came from.

    While me and my family of five still have to live in a rental flat, where we cannot call it our very own home. We are just numbers to the government. I work hard, but i cannot help myself if cheaper foreign labour is preferred over a Malay Singpaorean male with a family of five to feed and house. Maybe that is my fate in life. I will forever be one of the growing number of Malay families living in rental flats.

     

     
    Reader Contribution (Yan Yonex)

  • Pembahas Madrasah Aljunied Menang Anugerah Pembahas Terbaik Di Qatar

    Pembahas Madrasah Aljunied Menang Anugerah Pembahas Terbaik Di Qatar

    Pelajar Madrasah Aljunied Al-Islamiah, Nazihah Mohamad Pauzi berjaya menjulang anugerah pembahas terbaik dalam Kejohanan Bahas Antarabangsa di Doha, Qatar baru-baru ini.

    Tiga anugerah pembahas terbaik dari kalangan negara-negara bukan Arab diberikan, dan Nazihah merupakan salah seorang penerimanya.

    Kesemuanya, empat pelajar Madrasah Aljunied Al-Islamiah mewakili Singapura dalam kejohanan tersebut, iaitu Harithatunnu’man Hasbi, Muhammad Hariz Ramli, Humaira Julfikar Khan dan Nazihah Mohamad Pauzi.

    Ini adalah kali kedua Madrasah Aljunied diundang untuk mengambil bahagian dalam kejohanan bahas dwi-tahunan itu, yang diadakan dalam Bahasa Arab.

    PENCAPAIAN MEMBANGGAKAN

    Pencapaian Nazihah selaku Pembahas Terbaik boleh dibanggakan kerana ia menunjukkan mutu pendidikan madrasah di Singapura. Ini sehinggakan ia berjaya melahirkan pelajar yang mempunyai bakat dan potensi yang besar, serta mampu menguasai pelbagai bahasa khususnya Bahasa Arab.

    Semasa dihubungi BERITAMediacorp, Nazihah berkongsi pengalaman bertutur bahasa Arab di sana.

    “Ia satu pendedahan bagi saya terhadap berbual dalam Bahasa Arab kerana pengalaman berbual Bahasa Arab antara kami di sekolah itu lain daripada kami berbual dengan mereka (para peserta negara lain). Jadi itu pun telah memperbaiki perbualan saya dalam Bahasa Arab,” kata Nazihah.

    Dia juga mengambil peluang tersebut dan menjadikannya sebagai latihan untuk bertutur dalam bahasa Arab secara berkesan.

    “Jika kita belajar tetapi tidak mempraktikkannya, ia akan menjadi susah. Memang mencabar untuk berbual dalam Bahasa Arab tapi saya menjadikannya satu motivasi untuk berbual dalam Bahasa Arab,” kata Nazihah lagi, kepada pihak kami.

    Nazihah kemudian berkata, dia menghargai pelbagai usaha pihak madrasah untuk menanamkan rasa sayang akan bahasa Arab.

    Walaupun demikian dia mengakui, menggunakan bahasa Arab dengan kumpulan penutur asli memang bukan mudah: “Ia memang sangat susah tetapi ia pengalaman yang amat baik.”

    PASUKAN S’PURA MENANG 1, KALAH 4

    Di peringkat saringan, pasukan dari Singapura itu mengalahkan Croatia tetapi tewas di tangan India, Kuwait, Ukraine dan Brazil. Ini menyebabkan mereka gagal mara ke peringkat suku akhir.

    Pada tahun ini, 53 negara mengambil bahagian dalam kejohanan tersebut, khususnya negara-negara Arab dan Teluk.

    Negara-negara bukan Arab yang turut mengambil bahagian termasuk Amerika Syarikat, Britain, Croatia, Ukraine, Bosnia, Malaysia, Turki dan Singapura.

    Tuan rumah Qatar muncul sebagai juara dalam kejohanan bahas ini, manakala Syria adalah naib johan.

    Pasukan Madrasah Aljunied itu berada di Qatar dari 10 April sehingga 13 April untuk menyertai kejohanan tersebut. Mereka diiringi oleh pembimbing mereka, Ustaz Mohamad Nasrullah Refa’ie.

    Source: Berita MediaCorp

  • Workers’ Party, Law Ministry Cross Swords Over Rules On Litigation Against Govt

    Workers’ Party, Law Ministry Cross Swords Over Rules On Litigation Against Govt

    Two Workers’ Party members – Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang – crossed swords with Ms Indranee Rajah, Senior Minister of State for Law, in Parliament on Monday (May 9) over an amendment to the Government Proceedings Act.

    The Opposition MPs took issue with Clause 9 in the Statutes (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 2016, which would see a change to Section 29(4) of the Government Proceedings Act (GPA). They argued that the change would make it more prohibitive for individuals to enter into litigation against the Government.

    Previously, the Act stated that: “In any such civil proceedings as are referred to in subsection (2) in which two legal officers appear as advocates and the court certifies for two counsel, costs shall be payable in respect of the services of both such legal officers.”

    Clause 9 replaces the section with: “In any civil proceedings mentioned in subsection (2), costs are payable in respect of the services of more than two legal officers if the court so certifies.”

    According to the Act, the change is meant to bring the previous laws in line with Order 59, Rule 19 of the Rules of the Court and Rule 871 of the Family Justice Rules 2014.

    THE COURT IS THE SAFEGUARD: INDRANEE RAJAH

    Ms Lim rose to record her reservation about Clause 9, saying: “Ms Indranee mentioned that this does not give the Government additional powers, but the fact is that under the existing Section 29 of the Government Proceedings Act, the cost claimable is limited to two. So this amendment would actually give an allowance to the court to certify more than two lawyers’ cost being payable.

    “So it is a change to the legal position as far as the GPA is concerned.”

    Ms Indranee said that the intent was to “bring it in line” with what is available to other civil parties.

    Said the Senior Minister of State: “It is not intended to be costs used in an oppressive manner, but really where if costs are incurred, it gives the court the discretion to allow costs for more than two counsels if the court really thinks this is an appropriate place to do so.

    “So the safeguard there is that it lies in the hands of the court.”

    But Ms Lim said that “when you have the Government on one side of a legal proceeding and perhaps a private individual or private entity on the other side, you are dealing with really an inequality of resources in most case”.

    She added: “The Government, with its legal officers, having the whole Civil Service there – the prospect of a litigant going into litigation with the Government and sustaining that litigation I think is already prohibitive to most people.

    “So my question is why is the Government not able to take a broader view – or a magnanimous view, or perhaps a view from the the accountability standpoint – that we are not going allow costs to be an inhibition, or a prohibitive factor, when a litigant decides whether to continue with litigation or to commence litigation with the Government?

    “I’m sure the Government doesn’t need the money, so the question is why do you need to change that provision to allow for more than two lawyers’ costs to be claimed? Why can’t you just limit the Government’s position to two?”

    Ms Indranee she said that ultimately it should be up to the Courts to decide.

    “The idea is that if it is a case that really a lot of work was incurred, and it appears to the court that it is fair and just to award costs for more than two counsel in such a situation, the court can do so. But if the Court, having taken into account the circumstances of of the case, feels that it is not equitable to do so, then it will be up to the Court,” she said.

    “So at the end of the day, I think it rests with the Court to do the right thing with respect to the costs. And our Courts in this matter, I believe, are objective and fair,” she said.

    The Government does its best to be fair, objective and rational about legal proceedings, added Ms Indranee.

    “When this Government is engaged with litigation – whether it is brought by somebody else, or whether the Government has reason to initiate it – the Government does its best to be fair, objective and rational about it,” she said.

    “It would not be our approach to use costs to be oppressive, but to seek costs where we think it is fairly and justly incurred, and to leave it to the court to make the appropriate decision on the quantum of costs to be awarded, and the number of counsel to be taken into account.”

    WILL SOME FEEL INTIMIDATED, ASKS LOW THIA KHIANG

    WP Secretary-General Low Thia Khiang then asked for a clarification, saying that he wondered if the change will “raise the perception of Singaporeans that the Government is using the clause to intimidate Singaporeans in bringing any legal case against the Government”.

    He asked: “So is it a good thing for Singapore as a society that the people who feel somehow being victimised by the Government, but are intimidated by the costs that you don’t know how much the court is going to decide?

    “The sense of intimidation of Singaporeans does not spell well for the future of Singapore.”

    In response to Mr Low, Ms Indranee reiterated that it is not intention of the Government to intimidate anyone.

    “I’ve said it before, once. I’ve said it before, twice. And I will now say it again a third time: It is not the intention of the Government to be using costs to intimidate anyone,” said the Senior Minister of State for Law.

    “As I have indicated, when the Government has to defend a matter or pursue a matter, it will do so after having taken advice, doing so rationally, and doing so if it thinks it is the right course of action. That is the first thing when it comes to taken proceedings with respect to the amount of costs that the person may face, when a person brings proceedings against the Government, that person would, no doubt, be legally advised, and also have an indication of the amount of cost that would be incurred.

    “And it should not be forgotten that if costs are to be awarded against that party, it does mean that that party, at the end of the day, ultimately failed against the Government, meaning that that case should not have been brought in the first place.”

     

    Source: ChannelNewsAsia

  • SBS Driver Jumps Bail

    SBS Driver Jumps Bail

    An SBS Transit bus driver accused of negligent driving, which resulted in 23 passengers getting hurt, failed to appear at his hearing in court yesterday.

    A warrant of arrest was issued for Ahmad Jamalulail Abdul Rashid, 43, a Malaysian national.

    Jamalulail is accused of failing to keep a proper lookout while driving an SBS bus along Sims Avenue at about 5.25pm on July 11, 2014.

    As a result, the vehicle hit the rear of another SBS bus that had slowed down because of road works ahead.

    Two passengers suffered grievous injuries. Jaswinder Singh, 18, had a nasal fracture and Mr Lee Joo Long, 58, suffered injuries to his spine, court papers said.

    Twenty-one other passengers, aged between 16 and 79, were also hurt.

    Jamalulail was charged with one count of causing grievous hurt to Mr Lee and Mr Singh by a negligent act and one count of endangering the lives of the other 21 passengers by a negligent act.

    He was granted $5,000 bail and was supposed to turn up at the State Courts yesterday.

    But defence lawyer Amarick Gill told the court he had been unable to contact Jamalulail since March and later discharged himself.

    Jamalulail’s bailor, who identified herself as his former colleague, was ordered to attend a show-cause hearing next month.

    She told the court she has since filed a police report.

    If convicted, Jamalulail faces up to two years’ jail and a fine of up to $5,000 for causing grievous hurt by a negligent act.

    For endangering human life by a negligent act, he could be jailed up to six months and fined up to $2,500.

     

    Source: The New Paper

deneme bonusu