Tag: Singapore

Terence Nunis: Refutation Of The Alleged Defamation On The Character & Person Of Mufti Ismail Menk

as-Salaamu’Alaykum,

Please find below, my response to Ismail Menk’s lawyers on my alleged defamation. The response has already been sent out. Please do not share this outside the group. Special thanks goes to my in-house counsel, Zafirah Jeffrey, for the hard world of summarising my 63 articles into this.

Waas-Salaam

To Whom it May Concern,

RE: Defamation on the character and person of ‘Mufti’ Ismail Menk

I refer to your letter, dated 10^th December 2015, in regards to the supposed defamation of your client, Ismail ibn Musa Menk. I acknowledge as well as point out several erroneous claims on your part in regards to the matter. The premise of this letter is based on the presumption that the addressee already knows the basics of Wahhabism in terms of its principles and origins. I will assume you know what you are talking about.

1. With regards to the Wahhabi ideology,

(a) That the ideology does not fall withinthe boundaries of the Ahl as-Sunnah waal-Jama’ah is common knowledge. There is no controversy here. Only those ignorant of the theology of Islam would claim it is. They have also been referred to in similar fashion by notable Muslim scholars throughout history. I refer you to the example, from Ihya’ al-Maqbur by the late muhaddits, Imam Abu al-Faydh Ahmad ibn Abi ‘Abdallah asw-Swiddiq al-Ghimmari (r.a.). –

He said, “As for the Qarniyyun, their land has not been Blessed by Allah (s.w.t.) with any wali or swalih since the beginning of Islam down to the present day. Instead, He only Gave it the Qarn ash-Shaythan, ‘the Devil’s Horn’,whose followers were theKhwarij of the thirteenth and subsequent Islamic centuries. So fear Allah (s.w.t.) and do not be like he who is beguiled by them and supports their corrupt sect and worthless opinion and their state of misguidance which was explicitly described by the Prophet (s.a.w.). He characterised them as the ‘Dogs of the Fire’, kilab an-naar and informed us that they are the ‘worst of all who dwell beneath the sky’ and that they‘swerve from the religion as an arrow swerves away from its target.’

The Prophet (s.a.w.) said that they mouth among the best of sayings in the form of their prattlings about tawhid, and implementing the sunnah,and combating bid’ah – and yet, by Allah (s.w.t.), they are drowning in bid’ah. In fact, there is no bid’ah worse than theirs which causes them to ‘swerve from the religion as an arrow swerves away from its target’, in spite of their superficial efforts in worship and adherence to the religion. It is as the Prophet (s.a.w.) declared: ‘One of you would despise the prayer he says among them, and the fasting he completes with them; they recite Qur’an but it goes no further than their collarbones.’

It is for this reason that he refrained from making du’a for Najd in the way that he had prayed for the Yemen and for Syria, for he said, ‘Allahumma Bless us in our Yemen; Bless us in our Syria.’

And they said, ‘And in our Najd, O Messenger of Allah?’

But he repeated his prayer for the Yemen and for Syria; and they repeated their utterance; until he said, the second or the third time round, in order to explain why he would notpray for Najd. The Prophet (s.a.w.) said, ‘That is the place of earthquakes, and fitnah, and from it, the Devil’s Horn shall rise.’

This was narrated by Imam al-Bukhari (r.a.). Nothing has emerged from there to bring about earthquakes and fitnah in the religion like Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab, who was astray and led others astray. Hence he was the Devil’s Horn foretold by the Prophet (s.a.w.), and he abstained from offering prayer for Najd because of him, and because of the fitnah which would flow from his demonic da’wah. Whoever adheres to that da’wah has committed unambiguous kufr, and is destined for apostasy and ‘swerving from the religion’, as is visible in the case of the other heretical unbelievers of the age who are notorious for their ilhad,for in every case they began by holding fast to the sect of the Devil’s Horn,as is well-known to scholars of experience and insight.”

As Wahhabism originated in Najd, this hadits is in reference to the movement. We have included a list below of scholars and published works who have made similar statements to the above. Please note also that I am not the first individual to acknowledge the link between Wahhabism and extremist movements. Wahhabi jurists have also been known to reject medieval interpretations of Islam, and for being unsupportive of forging relationships with non-Muslims. I refer to the following contemporary sources purporting similar claims:

i. A Huffington Post Article dated 27^thAugust, 2014 by Alastair Crook, titled ‘You Can’t Understand ISIS If You Don’t Know the History of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia’.

ii. A report from the Library of Congress dated 17^th January 2007, by Christopher M. Blanchard, titled ‘The Islamic Traditions of Wahhabism and Salafiyya’.

iii. The definition of Wahhabism according to Oxford Islamic Studies Online, Oxford University Press.

iv. The book, ‘Wahhabi Islam’, by Natana J.Delong-Bas, published in 2004 by Oxford University Press.

v. The book, ‘The Postsocialist Religious Question: Faith and Power in Central Asia and East-Central Europe’, published in 2006 by the Deustche Nationalbibliothek, chapter 3: Extreme Conversations:Secularism, Religious Pluralism, and the rhetoric of Islamic Extremism in Southern Kyrgystan’ by Julie McBrien.

vi. The article, ‘Religious-Political Conflict in the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria’, written by Vakhit Akhaev, published by CA& CC Press.

vii. The article, ‘A Clear and Present Danger: Wahhabism as a Political Foil’ by Alexander Knysh, in the academic journal Die Welt des Islams published in 2004 by Brill.

Note also the following published works by Muslim scholars in regards to the Wahhabi ideology:

i. Imam ‘Atha’illah al-Makki (r.a.) wrote as-Sarim al-Hindi fi al-‘Unuq an-Najdi, “The Indian Scimitar on the Najdi’s Neck.”

ii. Imam ‘Abd ar-Rabbih ibn Sulayman ash-Shafi’i al-Azhari (r.a.), the author ofSharh Jami’ al-Uswul li Ahaditsar-Rasul, a basic book of uswulal-fiqh, wrote Faydh al-Wahhab fi Bayan Ahl al-Haqq wa man Dhallah ‘an asw-Swawab, “al-Wahhab’s Outpouring in Differentiating the True Muslims from Those Who Deviated from the Truth”, which comprised four volumes. ‘al-Wahhab’ here refers to Allah (s.w.t.), not the heretic, Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab.

iii. Shaykh Salama al-‘Azzami (r.a.) wrote al-Barahin as-Sati’at. “The Radiant Proofs.”

iv. Imam Sa’id Ramadhan al-Buwthi (r.a.) wrote two major refutations: as-Salafiyyatu Marhalatun Zamaniyyatun Mubarakatun laa Madzhabun Islami, “TheSalafiyyah is a Blessed Historical Period not an Islamic School of Law”; and al-Lamadzhabiyyah Akhtaru Bid’atin Tuhaddidu ash-Shari’ah al-Islamiyyah, “Non-Madzhabism is the most Dangerous Innovation Presently Menacing Islamic Law”.

v. Shaykh ad-Dahish ibn ‘Abdullah from theArab University of Morocco wroteMunazharah‘ Ilmiyyah bayna ‘Ali ibn Muhammad ash-Sharif wa al-Imam Ahmad ibn Idris fiar-Radd ‘ala Wahhabiyyat Najd wa Tihamah, wa ‘Asir, “Scholarly Debate between the Sharif and Ahmad ibn Idris against the Wahhabis of Najd, Tihamah,and ‘Asir”.

vi. Imam Ahmad ibn Zayni ad-Dahlan (r.a.), the Mufti of Makkah and Shaykh al-Islam, highest religious authority in the Ottoman jurisdiction, for the Hijaz region, wrote three major works against them. They are ad-Durar as-Saniyyah fi ar-Radd ‘ala al-Wahhabiyyah, “The Pure Pearls in Answering the Wahhabis”; Fitnat al-Wahhabiyyah, “The Wahhabi Fitnah”; and Khulaswat al-Kalam fi Bayan Umara’ al-Balad al-Haram, “The Summation Concerning the Leaders of the Sacrosanct Country”, a history of the Wahhabi fitnah in Najd and the Hijaz.

vii. Shaykh Hamdullah ad-Dajwi (r.a.) wrote al-Baswa’ir li Munkiri at-Tawaswswul la Amtsal Muhammad ibn ‘Abdal-Wahhab, “The Evident Proofs against Those Who Deny the Seeking of Intercession Like Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab”.

viii. Habib Muhammad ‘Ashiq ar-Rahman (r.a.) wrote, ‘Aqab Allah al-Mujdi li Junun al-Munkir an-Najdi, “Allah’s Terrible Punishment for the Mad Rejecter from Najd”.

ix. Sayyid ‘Abdullah ibn `Alawi al-Haddadash-Shafi’i (q.s.), the son of Sayyid al-‘Alawi ibn Ahmad al-Haddad (q.s.),wrote as-Sayf al-Bathir li ‘Unq al-Munkir ‘ala al-Akabir, “The Sharp Sword for the Neck of the Assailant of Great Scholars”. He also wrote another,unpublished manuscript of about 100 folios titled Miswbah al-Anam wa Jala’ az-Zalam fi Radd Shubah al-Bid’i an-NajdiAllati Adalla biha al-‘Awamm, “The Lamp of Mankind and the Illumination of Darkness Concerning the Refutation of the Errors of the Innovator from Najd by Which He Had Misled the Common People.” This manuscript was published in 1907.

x. Shaykh Ibrahim al-Hilmi al-Qadirial-Iskandari (r.a.) wrote Jalal al-Haqq fi Kashf Ahwal Ashrar al-Khalq, “The Splendour of Truth in Exposing the Worst of People”, which was published in 1934.

xi. Sayyid ‘Amili, Muhsin al-Husayni (r.a.) wrote Kashf al-Irtiyab fi Atba’ Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab, “The Dispelling of Doubt Concerning the Followers of Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab”.

xii. Imam ‘Ulyawi ibn Khalifah al-Azhari (r.a.) wrote Hadzihi ‘Aqidatu as-Salaf wa al-Khalaf fi Dzat Allahi Ta’ala wa Swifatihi wa Af’alihi wa al-Jawab asw-Swahih li ma Waqa’a fihi al-Khilaf min al-Furu’ bayna al-Da’in li as-Salafiyyah wa Atba’ al-Madzahib al-Arba’ah al-Islamiyyah, “This is the Doctrine of the Predecessors and the Descendants Concerning the Divergences in the Branches between Those Who Call to as-Salafiyyah and the Followers of the Four Islamic Schools of Law”. This was published in 1977.

xiii. Shaykh Hasan Khazbik (r.a.) wrote al-Maqalatal-Wafiyyat fi ar-Radd ‘ala al-Wahhabiyyah, “Complete Treatise in Refuting the Wahhabis”.

xiv. Shaykh Muhammad Hasanayn Makhluf (r.a.) wrote Risalat fi Hukm at-Tawaswswul bi al-Anbiya’ wa al-Awliya’, “Treatise on the Ruling Concerning the Use of Prophets and Saints as Intermediaries”.

xv. The muhaddits, Imam Muhammad al-Hasan ibn ‘Alawi al-Maliki al-Husayni (q.s.) wrote Mafahimu Yajibuan Tuswahhah, “Notions That Should be Corrected”. This was published in its 4^th edition as Muhammad al-Insanu al-Kamil, “Muhammad, the Perfect Human Being”, in 1984.

xvi. Shaykh Mashrifi al-Maliki al-Jaza’iri (r.a.) wrote Izhar al-‘Uquq Mimman Mana’a at-Tawaswswul bi an-Nabi’ wa al-Wali asw-Swaduq,“The Exposure of the Disobedience of Those Who Forbid Using the Intermediary of the Prophet and the Truthful Saints”.

xvii. Shaykh ‘Abdullah ibn Ibrahim al-Mirghani ath-Tha’ifi (r.a.) wrote Tahridh al-Aghbiya’ ‘ala al-Istighatsa bi al-Anbiya’ wa al-Awliya’, “The Provocations of the Ignorant against Seeking the Help of Prophets and Saints”.

xviii. The qadhi and great muhaddits, Imam Yusuf ibn Isma’il an-Nabhani ash-Shafi’i (q.s.) wrote Shawahid al-Haqq fi al-Istighatsa’ bi Sayyid al-Khalq, “The Proofs of Truth in the Seeking of the Intercession of the Prophet”.

xix. Shaykh ‘Abdullah al-Qadumi an-Nablusi al-Hanbali (r.a.) wrote Rihlat, “Journey”.

xx. Imam Muhammad Hasan al-Qazwini (r.a.) wrote al-Barahin al-Jaliyyah fi Raf` Tashkikat al-Wahhabiyah, “The Plain Demonstrations That Dispel the Aspersions of the Wahhabis”, which was published in 1987.

xxi. Sayyid Yusuf ibn Hashim ar-Rifa’i, President of the World Union of Islamic Propagation and Information, wrote Adillat Ahl as-Sunnah wa al-Jama’at awar-Radd al-Muhkam al-Mani’ ‘ala Munkarat wa Shubuhat ibn Mani’ fi Tahajjumihi ‘ala as-Sayyid Muhammad ‘Alawi al-Maliki al-Makki, “The Proofs of the People of the Way of the Prophet and the Muslim Community or the Strong and Decisive Refutation of ibn Mani’’s Aberrations and Aspersions in his Assault on Muhammad ‘Alawi al-Maliki al-Makki”.

xxii. Imam Ibrahim as-Samnudi al-Manswuri (r.a.) wrote Sa’adat ad-Darayn fi ar-Radd ‘ala al-Firqatayn al-Wahhabiyyah wa Muqallidat azh-Zhahiriyyah, “Bliss in the Two Abodes: Refutation of the Two Sects, the Wahhabi and Zhahiri Followers”.

xxiii. Imam Hasan ibn ‘Ali as-Saqqaf ash-Shafi’i, from the Islamic Research Institute in Amman, Jordan, wrote several books. They include al-Ighatsa bi Adillat al-Istighatsa wa ar-Radd al-Mubin ‘ala Munkiriat-Tawaswswul, “The Mercy of Allah in the Proofs of Seeking Intercession and the Clear Answer to Those who Reject It”; ‘Ilqam al-Hajr li al-Muthatawil ‘ala al-Asha’ira min al-Bashar,“ The Stoning of All Those Who Attack Ash’aris”; and Qamus Shata’im al-Albani wa al-Alfazh al-Munkarat Allati Yathluquha fi Haqq ‘Ulama al-Ummah wa Fudhala’iha wa Ghayrihim, “Encyclopedia of al-Albani’s Abhorrent Expressions Which He Uses Against the Scholars of the Community, Its Eminent Men and Others”. This was published in Amman by Dar al-Imam an-Nawawi in 1993.

xxiv. Imam Sayf ad-Din Ahmad ibn Muhammad wrote in English, “al-Albani Unveiled: An Exposition of His Errors and Other Important Issues”, which was published in 1994.

xxv. Imam Jamil Swidq az-Zahawi al-Baghdadi (r.a.), the Mufti of Baghdad and descendent of Khalid ibn al-Walid (r.a.),wrote al-Fajr asw-Swadiq fi ar-Radd ‘ala Munkiri at-Tawaswswul wa al-Khawariq, “The True Dawn in Refuting Those Who Deny the Seeking of Intercession and the Miracles of Saints”, which was published in 1905 in Egypt.

xxvi. Shaykh Qiyam ad-Din Ahmad wrote in English,“The Wahhabi Movement in India”, which was published in New Delhi in 1994.

Therefore, please refer to the above material as such is my response to points 4.2, 5.3, anything related to the matter in the schedule under 5.4, and 6 in your letter.

2. Further, I found it logical to establish the link between Ismail Menk and Wahhabism based on recordings of his talks made publicly available on YouTube, as well as published statements on Facebook. These sources have made clear his position on nuanced matters in Islamic theology, particularly about intercession,tawaswswul, the commemoration of the Prophet Muhammad’s (s.a.w.) birthday,Mawlid. It is commonly known amongst those versed in the theology of Islam that the outright rejection of such concepts can only be found within the Wahhabi ideology. These are positions within Sunni Islam that are considered sawad al-a’azham. Only the Wahhabis reject them, and create a controversy where there is none. It is clear that they are not part of Sunni Islam.

Also, instead of denying that he is a Wahhabi, the very fact that you are contesting the legitimacy of the doctrine here implies that Ismail Menk does subscribe to the theological positions of the sect. That means my characterisation of him as a Wahhabi is a true statement and is, thus, not ‘defamation’.

The use of the terms ‘kafirun’, ‘mushrikin’ and such are technical terms used in‘aqidah, theology. We do not take the definition of our religious nomenclature from English dictionaries. I do not consider this section 4.1 to be of merit, considering the substance of the charge has already been addressed above, but if you are interested, I recommend Lisan al-‘Arab.

Combining this with the sources listed in 1(b), my statements are thus, logical and not false. Therefore, there is no defamation.

3. I am not obliged to provide any evidence in regards to communications with the Singapore Government as it is a form of private correspondence. They are also not material to the complaint since they are not public, and thus, cannot possibly be defamation.

4. You have conveniently excluded the Singapore Government’s discretion on the matter. I may have written to the Government, but withholding Ismail Menk’s permit was not my decision to make. Also, this would not have been the first time Ismail Menk has been banned from public speaking as he has already been banned in the UK in 2014 for his homophobic comments, for example. Thus, according to the current international socio-political scene, I believe that the Singapore and UK Governments have withheld the permits where they saw fit.

I believe the above points are sufficient to clarify my position on the matter. Every statement I have made about Wahhabism and Ismail Menk has been in line with the scholars and published authors above. Therefore, to bring an action against me would necessitate bringing an action against them as well. As such, I will not rescind my published material nor will I issue any sort of apology to your client. Rather, it is Ismail Menk who should apologise to me for the inconvenience of actually having to address this frivolous legal action.

Regards,

Sayf Udeen Fariis @Terence Kenneth John Nunis

Source: A Muslim Convert Once More

December 24, 2015
Former Celebrity Chef Finalist Pleads Not Guilty To Committing Unnatural Sex And Criminal Intimidation

KUALA LUMPUR: A former celebrity chef pleaded not guilty at the Johor Bahru Sessions Court on two counts of committing unnatural sex and criminal intimidation on December 10, 2015.

Former finalist of the reality show ‘Celebrity Chef’, Muhammad Mustaqim Juri, 38, was charged of committing unnatural sex on a 22-year-old victim at a parking lot at Jalan Persiaran Tanjung, Tampoi.

He was also charged of criminal intimidation towards the victim’s mother aged 47-years-old, at the victim’s house on the same day at Taman Cempaka, Tampoi, as reported by Bernama.

The suspect is charged under Section 377C of the Penal Code which carries a jail term of five to 20 years and whipping, if found guilty.

He is also charged under Section 506 of the Penal Code which provides a two year jail term or a fine or both.

The suspect was allowed bail of RM40,000 with one surety by judge Meor Sulaiman Ahmad Tarmizi, who also set the case re-mention date for January 17, 2016.

This case is not the first such case for Muhammad Mustaqim who has three children.

He was earlier charged in 2013 in Singapore for sexual crime on a 13-year-ol boy on September 2011.

He was sentenced to a jail term of four years and one month and four whipping after pleading guilty to the offence. The duration of his jail term however started from the first day of him being remanded in 2011/

Source: http://english.astroawani.com

December 23, 2015
Top 10 Crime Zones In Johor Bahru

With year-end festivities approaching, many Singaporeans like to flock to Johor Bahru, Malaysia, to shop. While the ringgit makes it an attractive lure for Singaporean shoppers, it is always helpful to know where the crime hotspots are, and how to avoid them.

Shin Min Daily News has compiled a list of the top ten crime zones in Johor Bahru here:

1. Larkin Bus Terminal

Many buses from all over Malaysia transit at Larkin Bus Terminal, and very often, the occasional pickpocket can be seen.

2. Taman Johor Jaya

There are many shopping malls, eateries and hypermarkets in the northern suburbs of Johor Bahru where tourists like to patronize. The Chinese daily said that on Dec 8, there was a case of snatch theft where robbers on motorcyles opened the door of a car at a traffic light to steal the passenger’s bag.

3. Taman Sentosa

According to newspaper reports, motorcycle robbers snatched a package worth 2,000 yuan (S$430) from a customer outside a restaurant in the area on Nov 21. A few days later, a woman lost her handbag to robbers while standing along the same location. Shin Min Daily News said the woman fell and sustained bruises when the bag was pulled from her.

4. Taman Pelangi

This residential area with shops, eateries, and nightclubs is also a hot crime spot. On Apr 2, a Singapore-registered car was stolen here.

5. The petrok kiosk near CIQ

This petrol kiosk’s proximity to the Customs, Immigration and Quarantine (CIQ) makes it a target for criminals since many Singapore-registered cars frequent the area.

6. Taman Universiti

According to online reports, cyclists have tried to break open car doors on Dec 1 and 9.

7. Taman Century

A 31-year-old woman was the target of thieves on Nov 23 when she was dragged, kicked, and had her bag stolen in the area.

8. Stulang Laut

A Chinese woman was robbed by motorcycle bandits while walking home while another was killed after bandits stabbed the victim in the back.

9. Taman Molek

The business district is witness to stolen drain covers, stolen meters and the occasional snatch theft.

10. Taman Sri Tebrau, Jalan Keris

The popular dining area is a hotspot for thieves. On Aug 14, a Singaporean couple had parked their Honda near an eatery when it disappeared after 15 minutes.

Source: http://news.asiaone.com

December 22, 2015
Secret Documents Reveal Extent Of Negotiations For Separation

Museums play an important role in a nation’s history. They serve as repositories of national history, preserving and showcasing artefacts and documents central to our shared understanding of the past, so that we can better understand our present.

Curators and public educators in charge of museums and their exhibitions also play a key role in shaping our sense of the past, and hence our sense of self, and our shared national identity.

In this respect, there is a small but vitally interesting exhibit titled We Built A Nation at the National Museum of Singapore’s gallery on local history, the Stamford Gallery.

It may lack the glamour and scale of the international exhibition from the British Museum now displayed in our National Museum of Singapore. But our local exhibit has great historical significance for Singapore and adds to our understanding of the circumstances that led to our independence.

The Stamford Gallery and the other newly opened galleries in the National Museum feature the history of Singapore starting from pre-colonial days to the Japanese Occupation and the post-World War II era.

The first part of the Stamford Gallery features the birth of the nation of Singapore. The copy of the Proclamation of Independence is displayed behind a glass panel on a wall. This document is mounted in a simple, minimalistic manner.

The printed Proclamation of Independence – an independence that arose as a result of the federation of Malaya, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak to form the independent state of Malaysia, was signed by Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

It states: “Now I, Lee Kuan Yew, the Prime Minister of Singapore, do hereby proclaim and declare, on behalf of the people of Singapore, that as from today, the 16th day of September, 1963, Singapore shall be forever a part of the sovereign democratic and independent State of Malaysia, founded upon the principles of liberty and justice and ever seeking the welfare and happiness of her people in a more just and more equal society.”

That last sentence would prove portentous. The hope for a “more just and more equal society” was one of the key points that contributed subsequently to the separation of Singapore from Malaysia.

The pursuit of a “more just and more equal” society, a “Malaysian Malaysia”, by the Singapore leaders and members of the Malaysian Solidarity Convention was not supported by Malay leaders of the central government in Malaysia. The progress towards a “more just and more equal society” would occur in the independent nation of Singapore, separated from Malaysia.

Inside the gallery are a few selected papers taken from the previously classified “Albatross” file. “Albatross” referred to Malaysia. How did the name come about? The merger with Malaysia did not yield the intended benefits, “and it became an Albatross round our necks”, explained Dr Goh Keng Swee in a 1980 oral history interview.

This formerly top secret file contains highly confidential documents kept by Dr Goh, who was one of the founding fathers of modern Singapore. He was a trusted right-hand man of Mr Lee and served as Finance Minister, Minister for Defence, Minister for Education and Deputy Prime Minister. He played a leading role in the negotiation for the separation of Singapore from Malaysia.

He kept the Albatross file safely over the decades. This file provides details of the thinking and efforts linked to the separation and formation of Singapore, as an independent nation.

The glass case contains three important documents from the Albatross file that reveal vital aspects of our history.

LETTER

The first is a letter handwritten by Mr Lee.

It stated: “I authorise Goh Keng Swee to discuss with Tun Razak, Dato Ismail and such other Federal Ministers of comparable authority concerned in these matters in the Central Govt any proposal for rearrangements of Malaysia.”

This letter granted Dr Goh the authority to negotiate on behalf of Mr Lee with Malaysian leaders such as then Malaysian Minister for Home Affairs, Dato (Dr) Ismail Abdul Rahman; and the then first Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia, Tun Abdul Razak Hussein.

From July to early August 1965, Dr Goh had a series of negotiations and meetings with Tun Razak and Dr Ismail.

Dr Goh and Mr Lee played a major role in the separation of Singapore from Malaysia and the birth of Singapore as an independent nation. The timeline above the display lists the developments from July 1964 to August 1965.

MEMO FROM PM

The second key document is a typewritten “Memorandum from the Prime Minister” marked “Top Secret”. It revealed Mr Lee’s thinking and considerations in 1965. In the first paragraph, he noted the potential constitutional rearrangements.

He stated: “It will not be long before we will have to take a decision on the future of Singapore and of Malaysia. I believe that soon after the Puasa month we will have to respond to an open move by the Tunku. It will demand that we take a public position.”

Tunku Abdul Rahman was then the Prime Minister of Malaysia. He also played a leading role in our separation and independence. Puasa month refers to the Muslim fasting month.

Mr Lee pointed out: “Before we make this decision we should be clear in our minds on the options open to us and on the consequences not only of the short term but also the long term of each and every one of the possible decisions we make.”

Earlier, on Dec 19, 1964, Tunku Abdul Rahman proposed to Mr Lee possible constitutional rearrangements. On Jan 22, 1965, Tunku wrote to Dr Goh offering complete autonomy except in the areas of defence and foreign affairs, if Singapore gave up the Federal Parliament seats.

In this top secret memorandum, Mr Lee analysed the situation and effects.

He noted: “When the Tunku first informed Keng Swee in December last year (1964) of his desire to have Singapore “hive off” from Malaya, it generated considerable excitement amongst us first because this showed their realisation that we cannot be

fixed in Malaysia and the supremacy of Malay communalists assured forever. Next, it gave us an escape, if there is to be trouble in Malaya with communal clashes over language and other issues.

We might in such a rearrangement insulate ourselves from communal conflict which is building up in Malaya.”

Tunku’s offer to “hive off” would provide Singapore “an escape, if there is to be trouble in Malaya with communal clashes over language and other issues”. Mr Lee was concerned about racial tensions. He noted in this memorandum that Singapore “might in such a rearrangement insulate ourselves from communal conflict which is building up in Malaya”.

He highlighted that the “greatest attraction of this rearrangement is our hope to get the benefits of all worlds – the common market, political stability with economic expansion, and autonomy in Singapore without interference from KL. The picture of a prosperous and flourishing Singapore doing better than the rest of Malaysia is most attractive”. KL refers to Kuala Lumpur, the capital of Malaysia.

In some ways, his optimistic view of Singapore’s development was prescient and visionary. Mr Lee also acknowledged one of the trade-offs which was to “give up our ability to influence events in Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak”.

It could be interpreted from this memo that Mr Lee was receptive towards this “hiving off” of Singapore as it reduced the problems linked to communal conflicts, while providing room for autonomy, political stability and economic growth in a “prosperous and flourishing Singapore”.

His analysis in the secret memo and his handwritten letter disclosed his thinking with regard to the “hive-off” proposal and possible “rearrangement”, as well as the behind-the-scenes efforts to secure the well-being of Singapore. He was open to negotiations that could lead to Singapore benefiting from “political stability with economic expansion, and autonomy in Singapore without interference from KL”.

HANDWRITTEN NOTES FROM DR GOH

The third notable document consists of detailed notes handwritten by Dr Goh of his meeting on July 20, 1965, in Tun Razak’s office from 11.05am to 11.55am with the two Malaysian leaders, Deputy Prime Minister Tun Razak and Home Affairs Minister Ismail.

Dr Goh noted that only Mr Lee, Mr Lim Kim San, Mr Edmund William Barker and himself were privy to this negotiation. He warned: “Any premature leak will jeopardise (the) scheme.”

During this second meeting on the process of separation, Dr Goh persuaded his Malaysian counterparts that the only way out “was for Singapore to secede, completely”, and “it must be done very quickly, and very quietly, and presented as a fait accompli”.

These three documents from the Albatross file highlight that the Separation was a negotiated process between the two parties from Malaysia and Singapore.

In the past, popular descriptions of Singapore’s history tended to portray Singapore as being “booted out” or “expelled” by Malaysia. The exhibition of the Albatross documents, and the narration of events accompanying the exhibits, provide a more nuanced view.

Together, the picture they paint is that of Singapore’s leaders negotiating the terms of Singapore’s exit with Malaysia’s leaders. It might have been Tunku who first proposed that Singapore “hive off” in December 1964, but by the time negotiations were seriously under way in July 1965, it is clear that Dr Goh and Mr Lee were striving to make the best of the situation.

Dr Ismail, a key Malaysian leader, who was a first-hand witness and participant of these historic developments, stated that “in spite of what was believed, the separation of Singapore from Malaysia was by mutual agreement”. Leaders of both countries thus played vital roles in the formation of our independent nations and the paths ahead.

A museum’s presentation of the past requires interpretation and curation. The Albatross file exhibits deepen and broaden our understanding of our past and present as an independent nation, with a vision of a “prosperous and flourishing Singapore”. This 1965 vision of Singapore as “prosperous and flourishing” remains highly relevant today.

As we journey towards the next 50 years with our leaders, let us stay united and dedicated to fulfilling and upholding this vision, as well as the ideals and values of our National Pledge.

•The writer, Edmund Lim, is a Singaporean pursuing his PhD at Nanyang Technological University.

Source: www.straitstimes.com

December 22, 2015
ICA: Security Checks, Lack Of Lane Discipline Led To Causeway Jams

A lack of lane discipline by motorcyclists streaming in from Malaysia and heightened security checks in the wake of the Paris attacks were among the reasons for the crush seen at the Causeway last week, where some took to crossing into Singapore on foot.

These factors, cited by the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) at a media briefing today (Dec 21), worsened the waiting times already stretched by the spike in the number of travellers during the holidays.

And Malaysian motorists told TODAY that some travellers, expecting to slip through customs quickly owing to the large crowds, may have arrived at the Singapore customs without valid travel documents, and ended up subject to additional checks.

Last Thursday, large numbers of travellers, tired of the long wait, had disembarked from buses to enter Singapore on foot, spilling onto the roads as there is no proper footpath on the Malaysian side of the Causeway.

Traffic came to a near standstill, as motorcyclists from Malaysia had cut into the four lanes meant for other vehicles on the way to Singapore, only to find themselves trapped in a bottleneck when they reach the Singapore side, which has one designated lane for motorcycles.

The ICA said today that it does not have jurisdiction over this, and it has informed the Malaysian authorities on the need for enforcement during massive jams.

About 430,000 travellers cross the checkpoints daily during the year-end holiday period, compared to 400,000 during the off-peak period.

Other reasons worsening the problem include the surge in the number of foreigners detected at the two checkpoints in Singapore with invalid travel documents, such as having an expired passport. Last year, there were around 3,400 cases, while there are already 3,500 cases as of October. Among Singaporeans, there were 622 cases of using the wrong travel documents when departing Singapore as of October, compared to about 690 cases last year.

The commander of Woodlands Command, Assistant Commissioner Alan Koo, said at the car lanes for example, using invalid travel documents will mean setting up a cordon for further checks. “We treat (this) very seriously to ensure that there is no malicious intend to use this as an excuse … it could be used by terrorists to impersonate the person,” he said.

In response to queries, an ICA spokesperson said: “We have alerted the Malaysian authorities to such incidents (of invalid travel documents) and hope to work with them to resolve the problem soon.”

Motorists could also be adjusting to a new process by the ICA introduced on Dec 1 — a one-stop “forward checks” system with double barriers at the checkpoints.

Under this system, vehicles coming into Singapore will be stopped at the first barrier and checked by ICA officers. Vehicles then enter a second area and stop before a barrier, for their passports to be checked. Previously, there was only one barrier, which could lead to tailgating and car intrusion cases as seen in recent years, the ICA noted.

Mr Koo noted as with any changes, it could have “slowed down (the process) by a bit”. He added: “We have to shape their behaviour before it comes naturally, after a few times of using the checkpoints.”

A Malaysian motorist who travels to work in Singapore daily, said he has seen some motorcyclists pass through the Malaysian customs without scanning their passport properly, and this can go unnoticed during peak hours. “To save time, some motorcyclists will just zoom pass the customs and many others will just follow suit,” he said.

He also said he has seen the Malaysian police plying the roads of late to ensure motorcyclists stay in their designated lane. Nonetheless, with the increase in holiday traffic, he hoped the authorities could open more counters during the wee hours.

Source: www.todayonline.com

December 22, 2015