Tag: Singaporean

  • Singaporean Muslim Mum In London: How Can My Family Live Here Safely?

    Singaporean Muslim Mum In London: How Can My Family Live Here Safely?

    Late last year, just a month after our move from Eindhoven in the Netherlands to London, the city of Paris was shaken by a number of explosions that claimed hundreds of lives.

    What we saw on the news then just numbed us.

    My family and I just sat down for a moment and watched the television without uttering a word.

    We were shocked by what was shown on the news and immediately felt scared.

    You see, Paris was only three and a half hours from our previous residence in Eindhoven and we had, on a number of occasions, taken road trips over the weekend to enjoy Paris’ beauty and serenity.

    The places where the attacks took place somehow struck a chord of familiarity.

    Just four months later, the city of Brussels became the latest target of violence in Europe.

    Once again, we sat in front of the telly and went silent.

    If Paris was a three-and-a-half-hour drive from our previous residence, Brussels was only an hour and fifteen minutes away.

    Worse still, Brussels and Antwerp were the two cities that we visited on most weekends not only because of their close proximity to us then, but also because of the large number of Muslims in these cities that gave us the opportunity to explore the many halal restaurants and shops that catered to our needs.

    When these tragedies, so close to where we have been, happened, I always ask myself if I or we can live safely here.

    Every day when my husband goes to work and the children are at school, I’m afraid to go anywhere and will stay indoors.

    Perhaps this is just me and my mind playing the scary ‘what ifs’ scenarios, but I am a Muslim woman and I don the hijab.

    Also, we now live in an area where there are hardly any Muslims and I know each time something big like the bombings happen somewhere, people will start to look at me in a funny way.

    Although not much has been reported, when incidents of violence such as the Belgium bombings happen, hate crime or hate against Muslims will also be on the rise.

    Since the Paris attack, a number of incidents have been reported in London where Muslim women wearing the hijab had been targets of racial abusers.

    TALKING ABOUT HATE

    My children have also told me that in school, their teachers held special talks about what happened and also about hate crime.

    The head teacher also informed the students that terrorism and violence will not be tolerated and that it is not their Muslim friends or neighbours who commit these devious crimes, but the so-called extremist Muslims who do not follow the teachings of Islam properly.

    But I can’t help thinking that among these students there still might be some who think that all Muslims are the same, that we know about the terrorists among us even when truthfully we don’t and that we hate violence of any kind.

    What truly riles me are these so-called Muslim extremists who claimed the right to live in these European cities, often benefitting from financial, health and housing help from the government and even their livelihood from their adopted countries, and yet committing violence without batting an eyelid.

    Which part of this is the teaching of Islam I wonder.

    Is this what Islam is all about?

    Certainly not.

    Islam is a religion of peace and calmness and teaches, like all other religions, to love and respect one another.

    For example, in the Quran, we are reminded as many as 90 times to be patient. This shows how Islam is.

    We do not inflict violence on anyone even with our tongues, never mind weapons.

    These extremists have deliberately tarnished the image of Islam that we normal abiding Muslims love.The fear these attacks have inflicted on those of us who live near where they happened has also not yet faded. I do realise that we have to choose not to think about it and just carry on living.

    We have to appreciate what we have and must not succumb to just looking behind our backs each time we go out or stay indoors and avoid life altogether.

    But it is so very hard to do.

    So, in times like this, I cannot help but ask my husband: “Will you get a Singapore posting any time soon?”

     

    Source: The New Paper by Ida Suandi- Al Shara

  • Jolovan Wham Ordered To Pay $6,063 Costs To Attorney-General After Failed Attempt To Quash Police Warning Against Him

    Jolovan Wham Ordered To Pay $6,063 Costs To Attorney-General After Failed Attempt To Quash Police Warning Against Him

    Civil activist Jolovan Wham has been ordered to pay S$6,063 in costs to the Attorney-General for his failed bid to quash a police warning that had been issued against him.

    The police warning came after Mr Wham breached rules against foreigners participating in events at Hong Lim Park without a permit, several years ago.

    The member of non-governmental group Community Action Network and executive director of HOME, a migrant worker help group, had organised a candlelight vigil to show support for protestors in Hong Kong fighting election restrictions in October 2014.

    The event was publicised on Facebook, but despite the condition that foreigners and permanent residents could not take part without a permit, some foreigners still showed up, leading to investigations against Mr Wham.

    In March last year, under the direction of the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC), Mr Wham was verbally warned.

    However, he refused to sign the Notice of Warning without having a copy to consult his lawyer first. The police declined to give him a copy of the document.

    Two months later, the police followed up with a letter saying the warning had been delivered and the matter closed.

    Concerned that the warning would stick in his record and be used against him in future, Mr Wham went to court to try to quash the police warning under a judicial review.

    In dismissing his suit last December, High Court judge Woo Bih Li said that such warnings are nothing more than an opinion of the relevant authority that the recipient has committed an offence, and have no legal effect on the recipient.

    “It does not and cannot amount to a legally binding pronouncement of guilt or finding of fact.

    “Only a court of law has the power to make such a pronouncement or finding,” the judge had said.

    The court is not entitled to treat such warnings as antecedents or aggravating factors for subsequent convictions, Justice Woo said in dismissing the suit.

    The judge also said the police’s handling of the matter had left much to be desired, while noting, among other things, that the Notice of Warning was undated and employed inconsistent wording.

    After the court issued its judgment in December last year, a spokesman for the AGC said: “AGC and the Singapore Police Force are reviewing the process by which stern warnings are administered and the use of the notice, in light of the High Court’s comments in the judgment.”

     

    Source: www.todayonline.com

  • Zulfikar Shariff: PAP Perpetuating Racism In Singapore

    Zulfikar Shariff: PAP Perpetuating Racism In Singapore

    Inevitably, the discussion about PAP’s racist policies bring in those who defend these policies.

    But what I noticed is that the divide is not between the different races.

    These policies that discriminated against the Malays were not implemented by Chinese or Indians or Eurasians or any other race or nationality in Singapura.

    It was created and implemented by the PAP.

    Those who came to defend and seek to perpetuate this racism….appears to be mainly if not solely..

    PAP members or supporters.

    The Malays, Indians, Chinese, Jews, Armenians etc do not really have much of an issue with each other.

    The racists who defend these policies do so because it implicates their party.

    We can see how the different nations in Singapura, when left to their own, will support each other.

    As can be seen during the Tradegy Natra (Maria Hertogh) in 1950, Chinese in Singapura, supported the Malays.

    And they persuaded the British to help the Malay community.

    According to Assoc Prof Khairudin:

    “The largest Chinese daily newspaper, the Nanyang Siang Pao, urged the British to ‘think thrice’ before making a legal decision in the upcoming appeal trial. The move to restore Maria Hertogh to her foster mother and husband would be of no great loss to Britain’s diplomatic ally; the Dutch.

    On the other hand, the Malays were an important and integral part of the British Empire. The British should therefore ensure the repatriation of Maria Hertogh back to Singapore to avoid the violation of the religious rights of the Muslims, which could potentially lead to further bloodshed and violence.

    The Kuomintang newspaper, Sin Chew Jit Poh, called upon the British, the Dutch and the Muslims to allow Maria Hertogh to decide for herself whether she wished to reside in the Netherlands or Malaya.

    The paper stressed that Dutch diplomatic relations with other Muslim countries, such as Indonesia and Pakistan, would most certainly be jeopardized if custody of Maria Hertogh were to be awarded to her natural parents.

    Another observer who identified himself as a ‘Straits Chinese’ expressed his regrets that the ‘very good name of the Singapore Malays and Muslims, who are regarded as a most law-abiding community in the colony has been besmirched (Straits Times, 17 December 1950).”

    If any such events are ever to happen again, I have no doubt the ordinary Chinese, Indian, Eurasian etc in Singapura will once again defend the Malays.

    And I have no doubt…the PAP Internet Brigade will lead the charge against the Malays.

    Reference:

    Aljunied, Khairudin. Heng, “Beyond the Rhetoric of Communalism:
    Violence and the Process of Reconciliation in 1950s Singapore” Derek Thiam Soon, and Syed Muhd Khairudin Aljunied, eds. Reframing Singapore: Memory, Identity, Trans-regionalism. Vol. 6. Amsterdam University Press, 2009. p. 73

     

    Source: Zulfikar Shariff

  • Father Of 2 Killed After Getting Knocked Down By Motorcyclist While Trying To Cross TPE

    Father Of 2 Killed After Getting Knocked Down By Motorcyclist While Trying To Cross TPE

    A man, suspected to be taking a shortcut, was crossing the expressway when he was knocked down by a motorcyclist.

    According to Lianhe Wanbao, the man died on scene. The motorcyclist suffered head injuries, and was sent unconscious to the hospital.

    This incident happened on Sep 27 at about 10.50pm along the Tampines Expressway (TPE).

    The deceased is a 39-year-old Malay cleaner named Ismail.

    He leaves behind a 41-year-old wife, a daughter and a son, aged 14 and 8 respectively. They live in Sengkang.

    The motorcyclist is a 23-year-old Indian man named Prakash. He suffered severe head injuries and is still currently unconscious.

    However, his condition is stable and is recuperating in a hospital. He also has some bruises and abrasions all over his body and face.

    Ismail’s wife shared in sorrow that her husband was a good father that took care of the family. She thinks that he might have been taking a shortcut by crossing the highway.

    He was returning home when the accident happened. She only knew about her husband’s accident after receiving a call from the police.

    His son shared that their house was near the expressway, but there was an overhead bridge.

    Ismail was the sole breadwinner of the family, working as a cleaner in Pasir Ris.

    His wife cried that she did not know what to do now that he’s gone, for he had all along provided for the whole family.

    Police have confirmed the accident, and are still conducting investigations.

     

    Source: http://singaporeseen.stomp.com.sg

  • 7-Eleven Store No Longer Allowed To Sell Tobacco Products After Employees Again Caught Selling Tobacco Products To Minors

    7-Eleven Store No Longer Allowed To Sell Tobacco Products After Employees Again Caught Selling Tobacco Products To Minors

    The 7-Eleven retail store at Cineleisure Orchard is no longer allowed to sell tobacco products, after its employees were caught, for the second time, selling tobacco products to minors under the age of 18. The revocation of its tobacco retail licence took effect on July 31.

    Four other errant retail outlets have also had their tobacco retail licence suspended for six months after they were caught selling tobacco products to under-18 minors for the first time.

    The suspension for Nice Minimart at Tampines Street 32 takes effect today (Sept 28) until March 27 next year, while the suspension for Tastebud Foodcourt at Queen Street and J Plus Ten Mini Mart at Bukit Batok West Ave 6 started on July 31 and will last until Jan 30 next year. The suspension for Hwa Soon Heng Mini-Supermarket at Yishun Ring Road ended on Sept 15.

    The Health Sciences Authority (HSA) listed errant retailers and actions taken against them in a press release issued today. The HSA said they were caught via its ground surveillance and enforcement activities.

    In the last three years, 37 tobacco retail licences were suspended and 22 were revoked.

    The HSA reminded licensees that they are responsible for all transactions of tobacco products taking place at their outlets, as well as for the actions of their employees.

    Under the Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) Act, anyone caught selling tobacco products to persons below the age of 18 is liable, on conviction in Court, to a fine of up to S$5,000 for the first offence and up to S$10,000 for the second or subsequent offence. In addition, the tobacco retail licence will be suspended for 6 months for the first offence and revoked for the second offence.

    If any outlet is found selling tobacco products to under-18 minors in school uniform or those below 12 years of age, the tobacco retail licence will be revoked, even at the first offence.

    The HSA also reminded members of the public that anyone caught buying or acquiring any tobacco product for a person below the age of 18 years, is liable on conviction in Court, to a fine of up to S$2,500 for the first offence and up to S$5,000 for the second or subsequent offence.

    Anyone caught giving or furnishing a tobacco product to a person below the age of 18, is liable on conviction in Court, to a fine of up to S$500 for the first offence and up to S$1,000 for the second or subsequent offence.

    Between 2011 and August this year, 48 people have been caught for such offences.

     

    Source: www.todayonline.com