Tag: Singapore

Bilahari Kausikan: Singapore’s Undiplomatic Diplomat

I like him, I like him not. I have listened to some of his speeches, sat in on some of his briefings and followed his Facebook posts closely.

Ambassador at large Bilahari Kausikan impresses with his intellect, witty rejoinders and say-it-as-it-is statements. He can go berserk when attacking critics of Singapore. In a recent Facebook post, he said a freelancer was writing critical articles about Singapore for a Malaysian website because of the money she can make out of it.

And just the other day, Kausikan had this smart-ass post on Han Hui Hui, who is facing charges of causing public nuisance during a protest rally at Hong Lim Park: “I think HHH… should plead not guilty for reasons of insanity.”

Nothing seems to scare him, even making unsavoury statements about politics and politicians of other countries. Earlier this month, he waded into Malaysian politics when he wrote that Chinese Malaysians were being delusional if they think the principle of Malay dominance can be changed. “Malay dominance will be defended by any means,” he thundered. Malaysian opposition politician Tony Pua hit back calling Singapore the mercenary prick of South-east Asia.

He brings back images of an era when Lee Kuan Yew reigned supreme with his undiplomatic attacks on countries like Malaysia, Australia, India. Kausikan, as the permanent secretary in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, was at the centre of it all when LKY and Mahathir Mohamad were taking relations
between the two countries to the edge of the cliff.

It is the school of LKY that Kausikan graduated from and you can see heavy doses of what he has learnt in his responses. Recently, he got into a verbal fight with France and its European allies when he accused Paris of being “hobbled by its own absolutist beliefs” on human rights. Two European ambassadors responded but Kausikan wanted to have the last word.

“Why throw the weight of the state against discrimination against one religion or group, while acquiescing in the systematic vilification of another religion, Islam, in the name of freedom of speech?” he asked in a pointed reference to the satirical Charlie Hebdo magazine.

There are enough examples like these to show how undiplomatic this diplomat has become. No one in government seems to have pulled him back and so far his messy musings don’t seem to have affected Singapore’s relations with other countries.

Maybe, they have come to terms with a man they consider to be a loose cannon who doesn’t have policy-making powers. It might also be possible that Singapore considers such a character useful to tell the world what Singapore really feels about world affairs but does not articulate publicly.

Kausikan is a breath of fresh air in the civil service where officers hardly say a word in public for fear of reprisals from their bosses. Kausikan is an open book; his views, whether you like them or not, are there for readers to agree with or dispute. And I am sure he will be ready to respond robustly against his detractors.

A good measure of the man is available in an interview he gave to a Public Service Division publication, Challenge. “I say what I think. I’m me, I can’t be anything but me,” he said.

For all his candour, he remains rather cagey when it comes to commenting on Singapore’s policy missteps. He has been silent on how Singapore got into a mess when the public housing policy backfired under Mah Bow Tan or when the exuberant immigration policy caused a transport nightmare for the government.

History will salute him if he does that.

P N Balji is a veteran Singaporean journalist who is the former chief editor of TODAY newspaper, and a media consultant. The views expressed are his own.

Source: https://sg.news.yahoo.com

November 4, 2015
Malay Kuehs Should Not Be Rebranded As Peranakan Kuehs

“These are Malay kuih, not Peranakan. If you click the link, you’ll see that a vast majority of these kuih are those that you see so many Malay women sell to get by.

“In an accompanying note, he explained that the illustrations were a part of a “proposal” he did for a Peranakan restaurant (which one could it be?). He went on to say that his illustrations for each kueh had led to the “discovery” of more kuehs he “never knew”.”

Wow, ok. You discovered a racial cuisine of a country you’ve been living in for…. How long now? “Discovery”. “Never knew”. Rebranding Malay kuih to Peranakan kueh. Hmmm. Getting serious colonial vibes here.

Peranakans want to claim it’s theirs and commodify it. What else are you going to claim yours? All of Malay cuisine? The Malay language? Fxxx off.”

Editor’s Note: Sangeetha Thanapal posted the above comments by Zarifah Anuar, on Facebook.

Source: Sangeetha Thanapal

November 2, 2015
In Face Of Rising Religiosity, Keep Faith With The Secular State

For those like me who believe that rising religiosity is the greatest pressure on the status quo in Singapore now, and for decades to come, the City Harvest trial has been a bellwether saga.

Since its start in 2012, the criminal investigation and judicial proceedings against six leaders of one of the largest and most powerful churches in Singapore have been a delicate balancing act for the secular state.

Can it punish the City Harvest Church (CHC) leaders while reaffirming the church’s freedom of worship? Can it hold its religious leaders to account and persuade their flock, 30,000 Singaporeans at its peak, to accept the legitimacy of secular judgment?

The verdict last week that found all six guilty, capping a 140-day trial that lasted two years, has answered some questions while making others more urgent.

The words and actions of current and former CHC leaders in the aftermath of the verdict have raised eyebrows among many secular observers.

As many have noted, in the matter of the misuse of $50 million of church funds, Kong Hee has persisted in referring to himself and the other five as “accused” persons rather than convicted ones; his apology to his congregation last week was for the “pain and turmoil” caused to them in the form of external criticism – not for his criminal actions.

CHC pastor Aries Zulkarnain, in explaining the verdict to the congregation, said the church leaders were saddened by the verdict, but “respected” it.

This word choice is significant and deliberate: respect is not the same as acceptance.

As the six have yet to be sentenced, let alone indicate whether they will file an appeal, expressing an acceptance of the guilty verdict may thus be premature at this stage.

But some see the public statements made last weekend as an implicit challenge to the secular judiciary’s judgment, through a differentiation of said judgment from the moral judgment of the church’s belief system.

Such a dynamic emerges from another recent collision between the state and the religious authorities.

In 2012, the Faith Community Baptist Church (FCBC), led by Pastor Lawrence Khong, fired a member of the church staff because of her adulterous relationship with a married church worker.

Because she was seven months pregnant at the time, then Minister for Manpower Tan Chuan-Jin said the church should pay her $7,000 in salary and benefits.

This was premised on the Minister’s judgment that the worker was sacked without sufficient cause. Under the Employment Act, an expectant mother from her fourth month of pregnancy must be paid benefits if she is sacked without sufficient cause.

Mr Khong’s counter was that since the church is a moral body, persistent adulterous behaviour was “sufficient cause” for dismissal.

The church petitioned the High Court for a legal review of the Minister’s decision, a challenge it unexpectedly dropped earlier this year. It said it had come to understand the rationale for the Minister’s decision and now “accepted” it.

It is important here to understand why these two cases differ in kind, not just degree, from other recent headline-making incidents involving religious or racial groups.

Petitions for the Government to allow the hijab, the Muslim headdress, to be worn by nurses in public hospitals who wish to do so, or petitions for musical instruments to be played during the Thaipusam procession are seen as challenges on the “common space” the Government believes must be kept race- and religion-neutral.

This common space is fundamental to the peaceful functioning of Singapore’s multiracialism – a founding principle of Singapore’s secular state.

The aforementioned groups want the secular state to carve out concessions from the common space to fulfil their desire for religious self-expression. The Government has hitherto, citing the pressures of snowballing demands, declined. This push and pull is the normal, healthy workings of a diverse society.

But the FCBC case is not a challenge on the common space. It challenges the authority of the secular state – whether the political leaders or the judicial authorities – to determine the perimeters of the common space.

The implicit argument it posed was that the morality of its belief systems stand equal, if not above, secular judgment.

Ultimately, its church leaders decided not to pursue that argument but to cede to secular authority.

In the CHC’s case, the legal process is ongoing but the six leaders have submitted to the workings of secular law.

So the status quo can be said to have prevailed in both cases.

But it would be naive to think that the rising religiosity, demonstrated in these cases, has not detracted from the secular state’s authority over the common space.

In recent years, for example, there has been an assertive religious campaign to keep in place the section of the Penal Code which criminalises gay sex, Section 377A.

This assertiveness has sent the signal that any repeal – rightfully a decision solely of the elected legislature – will lead to aggressive pushback against secular authority.

To avoid such a collision, it is likely the Government will not consider repealing the law for, perhaps, at least one generation.

This is yet another occasion in a long journey of rising religiosity finding an equilibrium with the secular state.

Two major reasons give me optimism that secularism will prevail. The first is that Singapore, as befits its youthfulness, is starting this chapter later than other advanced economies with secular governments.

What has emerged elsewhere is not pretty. Whether political gridlock in the United States driven by the growing influence of the religious right in the Republican party, the emergence of racial and religious enclaves in many parts of Europe or incidents of religion-related violence in many parts of the world, these trends should push popular support here behind a strong, secular state.

The second and more important reason is that Singapore is, by default, multiracial and multi-religious.

Few places in the world started off heterogeneously and have entrenched heterogeneity.

Philosopher John Rawls made his name with a thought experiment that imagined a group of people designing the rules of a society they would live in, without knowing who they would be- rich or poor, male or female, Christian or Hindu, able-bodied or disabled.

He argued that this ignorance would lead to a societal design that gave everyone the most liberties possible without infringing on the liberties of others – because who would take the chance of ending up at the mercy of a skewed system?

Singapore’s mix of religions and races could be seen as a real-life corollary of this thought experiment.

No one can imagine themselves out of their identities. But living with those of other races and religions can be a daily reminder that the only thing that guarantees your own choice of god and good is a secular state that stays silent on the merits of that choice.

Source: www.straitstimes.com

November 2, 2015
Does “No Pork, No Lard” Means The Food Is Halal?
This is the translated version of the original Malay article published in Berita Harian (Singapore) on 27 October 2013.

To access the original Malay version, please clickhere.

I would like to thank bro. Muhammad Azril bin Muhammad Yusof for his help in translating the article.

May Allah reward him with His best reward.

—————————

Question

Can Muslims patronize shops or food suppliers that have no halal certificates but instead display labels showing “No Pork , No Lard “?

Answers

Consuming halal food is obligatory on all Muslims (The Quran, 2:168 and 172) .

However, Islamic scholars differ in their opinions about what constitutes halal (permissible) and haram (non-permissible).

For example, some scholars view that there is no restriction when it comes to eating amphibious animals, while some scholars only permits fish as the only permissible seafood that can be eaten, different from the view held by the Syafiite – the dominant school of jurisprudence among Malays and in this region.

Thus, there exist varying opinions and flexibility when considering whether a food is halal in Islam, even though the principle is the same.

But in the context of Singapore and due to limited space allowed for this article, let’s address this issue to only the Syafiite school (practiced) here.

Based on the criteria set by MUIS with regards to halal food, everything is permissible except the following foods:
- Pig and all parts of its body
- Dog and all parts of its body
- Carcass (of an animal that is halal to consume but was not slaughtered in according to Islamic requirements)
- Animals with fangs, such as bear, lion and monkey
- Birds of prey that have talons such as hawks and eagles
- Animals that are forbidden by religion to be killed such as ants and bees
- Animals that are decreed by religion to be killed such as a snake, scorpion, and rat
- Filthy animals like flies and most insects
- Animals that live in two worlds, such as a toad
- Blood
- Alcohol and all other intoxicating food and drinks
- Impurities
- Plants that are poisonous or harmful to health
Therefore, any food that contains contents of prohibited substances mentioned above is considered non-halal, or in other words, is haram to be consumed.

A simple way for the public to ensure that a food is halal is by looking at the logo or halal certificates issued by MUIS or other reputable overseas Islamic institutions.

You can ask for help from MUIS halal department with regard to this should there be any doubt about a certificate or the halal logo from other Islamic institutions abroad.

It should be made clear that any food that does not meet the above criteria are not permissible to be consumed altogether although the providers, vendors, store operators and chefs are Muslims.

Instead, a food is halal if it meets all the criteria as stated above even though the providers, vendors, store operators and chefs are non-Muslims.

For foods that do not have logos or halal certifications, there are two options that can be considered.

Firstly, we can assume a food to be halal after a reasonable assessment has been made by reading the list of its contents or observing the site where the food is handled and there seems to be nothing or any evidence that makes the food forbidden to be eaten.

This is based on Islamic legal maxim that says, “Everything (related to non-ritual) is permissible until proven otherwise”, which is based on these hadiths (the Prophet’s traditions):

“Verily Allah the Almighty has prescribed the obligatory deeds, so do not neglect them; He has set certain limits, so do not go beyond them; He has forbidden certain things, so do not indulge in them; and He has said nothing about certain things, as an act of mercy to you, not out of forgetfulness, so do not go enquiring into these.” (Narrated by Al-Daruqutni)

“What Allah has made lawful in His Book is halal and what He has forbidden is haram, and that concerning which He is silent is allowed as His favor. So accept from Allah His favor, for Allah is not forgetful of anything. He then recited, ‘And thy Lord is not forgetful.’ (19:64)” (Narrated by Al-Hakim and Al-Bazzar)

Leave the food on the basis of being cautious, especially if there is an uncomfortable feeling or doubt about it, according to the hadith, “Leave what makes you doubtful for what does not.” (Narrated by Al – Turmuzi)

Especially if there are many other options that are clearly permissible and not suspicious in nature.

This is the safest choice, though it is not a must in all circumstances.

Although there are shops with notice board displaying the word “No PORK, No LARD”, here are some notes that needs to be known.

“No Pork, No Lard” is not an absolute assurance that the food is halal as the criteria for a food to be halal are as mentioned above, and not only dependent on the absence of pig elements in it.

The food may not be permissible as the animal may not have been slaughtered according to Islamic requirements.

It may also contain ingredients from alcohol or impurities.

It would be more accurate to point out that food with the status “No Pork , No Lard” is the same as foods with no logos or halal certificates as mentioned above, and the same principle needs to be applied to decide whether the food can be eaten or not .

Should be reminded that God created man, full of diversity, both in terms of knowledge, personality and others.

This leads to differences, among other things, in the level of conservatism.

Some have high conservatism and some are low that shape choices in life, including food choices.

Because of the diversity in human behaviors, we find there are some who are only comfortable eating at places that display halal certificates or, are operated by Muslims only, while some are more open and flexible .

Some are inclined to stick to the principles of being cautious and play safe, while there are others who follow the maxim, “Everything (related to non-ritual) is permissible until proven otherwise”.

There are those who want to examine in detail before deciding if something is halal and there are some who accepts whatever is visible to their eyes.

When factoring the differences in opinions among other schools of thoughts with regards to food, more and more young people are exposed to views from other schools of Islamic jurisprudence with regards to this matter and the increasing number of Muslims from other countries that follows differing schools of Islamic jurisprudence in, surely the consideration of a food being deemed as halal has become increasingly varied.

In this case, managing different viewpoints of what constitutes halal food has become important to avoid misunderstandings that could create negative reactions, which is not favored by religion.

Advices that can be considered are:

Do not be quick to judge something as haram or accuse those who choose food that has no certificate, or not displaying halal logo, or a “No Pork, No Lard” signage as beng in the wrong, unless we clearly know and have proof that the food is haram.

It is important to understand that it is the responsibility of the accuser to provide proof when they declare that the food is haram because the original rule on the matter is it is halal until proven otherwise.

Being prudence (wara’) is encouraged, but it cannot be forced on to others.

Ask questions and get clarification before reprimanding or judging because that person may have information that we do not know or he may have a different viewpoint on the matter.

If we cannot or could not be bothered to ask questions and seek clarifications, and have no solid evidence that the food is haram, we should respect a person’s food choice and be respectful about it as commanded in The Quran, 49:12.

We can offer a better choice, one that is safer or share our views of our food choices, but in a wise manner, not by being judgmental or harsh, and we should leave it to the one concerned to either accept it or not.

Do not equate people who eat foods that are not clearly stated as halal to be the same as eating food that is clearly haram such as pork or alcohol because both these types are not equal, in fact and Islamic ruling.

Muhammad Haniff Hassan is a Research Fellow at the School of International Studies S. Rajaratnam (NTU, Singapore ). He graduated in sharia and law (UKM, Malaysia) and international studies (NTU).

Source: http://haniff.sg
October 28, 2015
Workers’ Party: Set Up Committee To Address Persistent Perceptions Of Racial Discrimination

The Workers’ Party welcomes the signing of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) on October 19, 2015 and its expected ratification in 2017. The Workers’ Party strongly believes in the aspirations laid out in the National Pledge, and Singaporeans should continually better the realisation that we are “one united people, regardless of race, language, or religion.” Acceding to and ratifying ICERD is an important step towards our national vision.

All societies have room to improve on the treatment of racial minorities. Singapore is no different. Even as we celebrate the achievements of our multiracialism, Singaporeans should be mindful of areas where we can do more. It is important for a multiracial society like Singapore to ensure that racial minorities recognise that they can always be confident of a safe, inclusive environment where they are accorded the human dignity each and every person rightly deserves.

A specific area that Singapore can work on as a society is to examine structural factors and institutional practices that may reinforce persistent perceptions of discrimination among racial minorities in Singapore. We are mindful that conditions fuelling such perceptions might not have been purposefully established or maintained. This makes it all the more important for Singaporeans to examine what we can all do to live up to the spirit of our National Pledge and the ICERD in eliminating all forms of racial discrimination and preserving our national pillar of multiracialism.

The Suara Musyawarah Committee Report on the concerns and aspirations of Malay-Muslim Singaporeans, published in July 2013, highlighted persistent perceptions of discrimination that would be, in the long run, unhealthy for our racial harmony. In May 2014, Member of Parliament for Aljunied GRC Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap proposed the formation of a committee made up of government representatives, Members of Parliament and community leaders to address these perceptions of discrimination among Malay-Muslims.

In light of the signing of the ICERD, the Workers’ Party believes the formation and functioning of a multiracial committee is the best way forward to study and address persistent perceptions of discrimination among all minority communities. If the committee finds these perceptions to have some basis in institutional practices, then the findings will inform the Government to take the necessary action to rectify these practices. If these perceptions are found to have no basis, then the findings will allow the Government to work with affected communities to correct the perceptions. The committee will also serve as a useful national platform for inter-cultural conversations to promote mutual understanding and respect.

Singapore has made significant strides in multiracial integration and countering racial discrimination over the decades. Such steps are especially important for a highly diverse and multiracial society where physical space is limited and population density is rising. These conditions also mean that Singaporeans should constantly look to work on success in addressing racial discrimination and perceptions of discrimination, while conscientiously seeking to address shortcomings to strengthen our multiracialism.

Links:
The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
The Suara Musyawarah Committee’s Report
Transcript of Mr Muhamad Faisal’s speech and debate in Parliament on 26 May 2014

Dr Daniel Goh
Chair, Media Team
The Workers’ Party

27 October 2015

Source: www.wp.sg

October 28, 2015