I really salute her for going forward to help even if no one care to see.
Most of the Singaporean only care to stomp this and that about stupid unnecessary things and get 50 bucks out of it but when the real important thing happens, they just turn a blind eye on it. Don’t even bother. What she did is truly inspirational.
Thank you Abhi! She even took the address of the malay auntie to follow check her up in the future.
Recently, a young Malay woman Xiaoxiao Budaqqkecik posted a comment and uploaded a video of a Chinese funeral that lasted for several days at her void deck.
She also brought in example of how Malay void deck weddings would not be easily tolerated due to the noise, and questioned how this could easily escalate into hate comments and complaints from residents who would call the police. To know more about Xiaoxiao Budaqqkecik comments, click here.
Several Chinese Singaporeans have also expressed their views on the video. Here are their comments:
Some chinese won’t agree with this doe .. but all I’m saying is you respect my culture and I’ll respect yours. Malay wedding is not the same place every week. And we only do on the weekend. Same as chinese but they weekdays also have yet we don’t complain much. It’s just that we really want to get along and respect each other culture. Not comparing but this is the fact that is happening in singapore you guys always complain but when one malay speak up, you just can’t seems to agree. Like that then very hard lorr. – Authored by Xiaoxiao Budaqqkecik
Every culture has its own quirky display of happiness and sadness. Certain occasions, we can be loud and flamboyant; at times we embrace it quietly. And that’s what makes us uniquely Singaporeans. Singaporeans have high tolerance towards many things. We earned it!
Let’s face it guys, we live in HDB. We share common spaces, and that’s the great thing about living so close to one another. We learn to accept each other’s erratic behaviour and admittedly we grow fond of it. When it comes to sharing, we must give and take.
Let’s not bicker on the issue of tolerance and question our steel hard social cohesion.
Our parents have done it peacefully, why can’t we? Think about it.
I hope that what I am going to say here will help to make you reconsider your stance with regard to several issues which the Malay Muslim community has long been unhappy about, the latest of which concerns its women folks’ desire to wear the tudung wherever their employment may be.
To say that the Malay Muslim community is sad and disappointed with your decision to still disallow its woman folks in certain sectors of employment to don the tudung is an understatement.
As usual the mainstream media tried to paint a different picture with its lopsided report. The Berita Harian topped it up with a group photo of seemingly happy, smiling people to give the false impression that the community is happy with your decision. I do not see any sensible reason as to why they should be smiling.
Inso far as this issue is concerned the community has been keeping track of statements made by your ministers, including those of the Minister in charge of Muslim Affairs and members of Parliament from your party over the last few months.
I read the statement you made after last Saturday’s dialog session several times over to try and make some sense of what you were saying and what message it was supposed to convey.
I find it strange that in spite of having lived among Malay Muslims all your life and after more than 50 years lording over the people – 55 years of PAP rule since 1959 – you and senior members of your party still do not understand the psyche of the Malays and their steadfastness over their religious faith.
Perhaps you have been relying too much on feedback from the mainstream media and from people around you who may include those who regard themselves ulamas and who have the tendency of making a virtue of telling you only what they think you would like to hear. Many among them may have mastered the art of posturing or are simply playing the PR game.
If you continue to rely on the mainstream media – in this case the Berita Harian,which many in the community feel is being micro managed by your Minister in charged of Muslim Affairs – for your feedback and be counseled largely by people around you,chances are you will remain blissfully ignorant of what the Malay ground is really saying.
Some are already saying that the Prime Minister seems to think that he is now mightier than God since he has the power to easily overrule what has been made obligatory by the religion.
They are not happy that they have to subject themselves to the discretion and whims and of the government even in carrying out certain aspects of their religious obligation.
Granted that not all Muslim women will want to put on the tudung even if they are allowed to. That is their personal choice and they are answerable to God for their defiance. As for those who choose to don the tudung it is felt that there should not be an earthly power to prevent them from doing so. Even the Constitution guarantees them the freedom to practise their religion.
You also warned against a ‘push back’ from the other communities should we insist on having it our way.
At the same time you noted that the issue over the tudung was an old one and that you fully appreciate the desire of those who want the headscarf to be able to be worn by women more freely. According to you the change has got to be gradual.
It can be agreed that change has got to be gradual. We have no quarrel with that and have been patiently waiting for change to happen. There has not been muchprogress since the 10 years that the issue last surfaced. We are neither asking for any concession nor are we taking anything away from or even depriving the other communities of anything, let alone intruding into their space.
As such the likelihood of any push back from the other communities is very remote.It is only your government that is making it sound so threatening. Singaporeans are very rational people and when given the proper explanation as well as by citing examples shown by other countries where Muslims make up even smaller numbers there is less likelihood that they would raise any objection.
As things stand today, there is no evidence that members of the other communities are unhappy if Muslims women are allowed to wear the tudung no matter where their places of employment may be. They have got so usedto such sights. Contrary to what you think, my experience shows that they are quite supportive of our effort. This only goes to show how out of the touch you and your government are with the ground.
I shall not dwell into the example you mentioned, equating the tudung issue with the putting up of Chinese language signs on the circle line as I feel that it is irrelevant in this discussion and totally out of context. This can be discussed at another forum.
ButI agree that the issue at hand is broader than the tudung itself. I suppose you are trying to say that you have to be fair to followers of the other faiths, hence the term ‘push back ‘. I suppose the breath of the issue also include the need to broaden the common space and your government’s declared intention to build an inclusive society.
I find this argument quite hollow and insincere. On the one hand you and yourministers talk about broadening the common space and the government’s desire in building aninclusive society. But on the other hand and in practice you are shrinking the common space by importing large numbers of immigrants mainly from the People’s Republic of China, India and the Philippines to swarm our limited space and in the process making life less bearable for Singaporeans. This has also further reduced the percentage of Malays compared to the others. Again no worries about any push back.
But what is so annoying and detestable to the Malays is the carving out of areas and making them exclusive to non Malays and Muslims. In case you miss the point I am referring to your long time discriminatory national service policy which bars us from large sectors of the armed forces, especially the in the more specialised areas in the army, the air force and the navy.
You have turned these sectors into exclusive domains of the non Malays and non Muslims.And you still have the audacity to talk about broadening the common space andbuilding an inclusive society? Can there be more hypocritical than this. We are taken to be fools.
The psychological, and to a certain extent, economic, damage this destructive policy has done to the nation as a whole and to the Muslims in particular is incalculable.This is no way to build a united multi ethnic nation. Of course you are not worried about any push back since non Malays make up an overwhelming 86.6% of the population.
For the sake of our future as a peaceful, united and progressive nation urgent steps need to be taken to make right where you have gone wrong.
You may begin by allowing our Muslim female nurses to don the tudung and gradually the other sectors like the Customs and Immigration, the Civil Defence and the rest. This should be followed by changes to other areas. Let us celebrate our diversity in unity.
I received many comments to my post last week, and many messages from Singaporeans, both personally as well as online. Although I disagreed with some policies which I highlighted, some seem to think that I was rejecting all the PAP Government’s policies which is not the case.
In my post, I touched on a number of issues in the way some policies have been implemented which I felt should have been better done. But I also acknowledged that the government has been resolving many of the problems, like transport and housing, and setting a new direction for the future especially in our social policies. For example, I pointed out that the icing on the cake was the Pioneer Generation Package, which is a good example of an inclusive policy showing compassion.
I am sure the government will continue to focus on solving the problems I mentioned and it will be good to also focus on how to have better policy formulation and implementation so that we have more effective policies in the future. I am confident the government will be doing this. Using the OSC approach for major policies will be one good way to have more ground up inputs for better policies.
The government has also put in place many social safety nets in the last three years and this has generally been helpful, but as I mentioned in my post, what will be useful is for the government to help Singaporeans through higher incomes instead of hand-outs. Compulsory progressive wages for cleaners and security officers is a good start, which I have been calling on the Government to do for many years. I would like to see this expanded so that we can see more Singaporeans earning a decent living wage.
While many Singaporeans wrote to me to express their appreciation for my post, some who wrote to me said I made some factual errors especially when I mentioned that cost increases had outpaced wage increases. Let me share what they highlighted to me. They pointed to government statistics that showed that net wages for Singaporeans have generally risen even after taking into account inflation.
One Singaporean currently studying in the UK wrote to me highlighting that the National Talent and Population Division, a government organization, has been keeping in touch with students studying in the UK and overseas.
A couple of grassroots leaders told me they felt that the asset enhancement policy did benefit them with real wealth and they are happy with it. Nevertheless, I was glad the PM said that we are looking more carefully at retirement adequacy such as by improving CPF-LIFE and that MND is further improving policies to help elderly Singaporeans unlock the savings in their flats so that they can look forward to a comfortable retirement without having to worry about their finances. It is important we continue to address these issues so that Singaporeans feel life has become better.
Some have asked me what prompted me to express my views and if they would lead to concrete changes. As an MP elected by the people, it is my duty to make an assessment of the issues which concern Singaporeans based on the feedback I get and reflect them as accurately as possible so that the government can improve upon them. As to whether the government will listen, I can tell you that the reason I voice these concerns so confidently, is because I know they do not fall on deaf ears and that some action will be taken on them. I have seen this for the past 18 years in Parliament and that spurs me on to keep on doing my best as an MP. So the PAP government can and will solve problems and we all must continue to voice our concerns and feedback.
The debate in Parliament last week was a robust one. I am particularly heartened to see our Prime Minister reiterating what the PAP promised at the last GE2011 – to “Secure Our Future Together”. Many of my fellow MPs also spoke about how we can achieve this and we are on the right track. With this as a governing objective, we should achieve our desired outcome so that all Singaporeans feel their personal and family’s future remains comfortable and secure while the country prospers.
There is one thing we all need to do together as Singaporeans. We need to rally behind this single cause making Singapore a place where our children, and their children, can live comfortably, be proud of and can call home.
We like the idea of speaking up and sharing your opinion if you find something is not right and worth correcting simply by saying what you truly feel about it. That is the beauty of discourse and honesty. There will always be a fruitful outcome at the end of it all.
Mr Low: Madam, I wish to clarify a few points. First of all, the reason why I decided to focus my speech on constructive politics, because I thought that was an important issue that we should look at. As what I say in my speech, Singapore is becoming more diversified, there will be different views. And moving forward, how the Government will deal and accommodate different views and different perspective of Singaporeans is important for us to move forward together as one united people. And the other MPs from the Workers’ Party will be talking about different issues. They will cover, I mean ranging from social issues, social safety net to foreign affairs, national security. They will cover the full range of areas, and thereby we split our job, I will focus on constructive politics. I thought it was an important issue and of course it’s important to also understand what is the perspective of the PAP in terms of constructive politics. And from what the Prime Minister has said, it seems to me that it is more constructive dictated on the term of the PAP, rather than constructive politics in terms of the society that is moving forward. And I have affirmed my endorsement to what the President has said that we should look at the outcome of constructive politics – that is, that we should be able to move forward together despite the differences. Next, he’s talking about the Workers’ Party flip-flopping on foreign workers issue. I said again I don’t think we have flip-flopped. I have explained in this House of some misunderstanding of the speeches I have made. And in any case I also noted that when the PAP have to make a policy U-turn, they called it policy shift. I don’t know whether that is a shift or is a flip-flop.
Mr Lee: I think the record will speak for itself. When we make a shift, we acknowledge the shift. When the Workers’ Party changes position, they pretend they haven’t. That is the difference. Now, as for delegating responsibility for different parts of the Budget speech to different MPs, that’s entirely within Mr Low Khia Thiang’s prerogative. It’s not for me to suggest how he should conduct his affairs in the Workers’ Party. But as a leader, you do have a responsibility to state where does the party stand on the big issue. Somebody can look after health care. Somebody can take care of transport. Somebody can spend all his time marking Minister Heng Swee Keat on education. But where do you stand on what the Government is doing? Is the Government doing right, is it doing wrong, do you agree with the Government, do you have a better view or do you abstain or do you abstain from abstaining?
Mr Low: Well, I think opposition is quite clear on many of these issues. If the Prime Minister wanted my view on what the Government has been doing and whether he has done well, I’ll say, well, he has solved some of the problems, what the Prime Minister has mentioned, and the Workers Party MPs also acknowledged it in their speech but also pointed out there are things that is still work in progress and the Government will have to focus on and to make it better and to improve. So that is the position and I don’t see the need for me to totally sum up, I think the MPs should be able to do in their own view and to give their view and their assessment and at the same time, wherever possible, offer certain views and alternative suggestions to improve the policies.
Mr Lee: Madam Speaker, I’m very grateful for the extremely reasonable explanation from the member. I hope he takes an equally reasonable approach when he comes to election rallies because the Workers’ Party approach has been to be extremely reasonable, indeed low profile in Parliament but come election time to turn into tigers and heroes.
Mr Low: Madam Speaker, I thank the prime minister for praising the Workers Party’s ability to fight in the elections. We have no intention to hide ourselves in Parliament. We seek the mandate for people to come to Parliament to check against the Government and we have done it honestly and sincerely, we have not turned this place into a theatre, that shows we are responsible and we will behave continuously as a rational and responsible party and members should, I believe members will agree that the Workers Party has been rational. We have not come here with some wild policies or wild suggestions. We debate the policies, we came out with some suggestions but these are not bankrupting the Government coffers or suggesting to use the reserves. Election – I think we are also rational, we don’t accuse the PAP of something that we cannot substantiate or I know we’ll get sued. So I think we are fair. And elections is elections and I think the prime minister for noting that we can fight elections. I’m sure the PAP can too. You are the Government and you have been the governing party for 50 years and you’ve got more, much people, talented people than the Workers’ Party! How can you say that we are tigers and we are something else in Parliament? I’m sure the PAP can equally be tigers or lions.
Mr Lee: It’s an eloquent explanation for why the Workers Party has been inarticulate about many things. In a serious Parliament, the Government presents its policies, the opposition presents its alternatives, the Workers Party may not have alternatives on every issue, you may not have a full range of all the complexities of designing an HDB scheme or a MediShield scheme, you do have a responsibility to say which direction are we going and that direction has to be set clearly, not to explain to the PAP but to explain to Singaporeans what you stand for. And what you stand for cannot be what the PAP is doing and a little better. That means you have no stand. Whatever the PAP’s standing, ask them to do better. That’s easy, I can do that too. But where do you stand? Where are we totally wrong? Where do you think this is a completely different way to do things better? Where do you think in principle we do not want Singapore to be like this? These are big issues which deserve to be debated and not elided over and avoided in the House. And that is what a First World Parliament should be about.
Mr Low: Madam Speaker, again, I’ll like to say that the Prime Minister is reasonable to say that the Workers Party may not have come out, able to come with all the alternative policies, that’s true, but to say that the Workers Party has no position on major issues, that is not true. I think we did state our position in Parliament, we debated major policies vigorously, we don’t oppose all the policies but where we think that there is a need for us to oppose and be concerned of the future of Singapore like the Population White paper, we did so. So we state our position on important issues and we didn’t oppose for things that we think are doing right. Is that not enough?
Mr Lee: I think it probably is useful to bring it down to something very specific. Let’s come back to the Population White Paper. During the debate the position taken by the Workers Party is that enough is enough, zero growth. We have continued to grow, I have not heard the Workers Party demand zero growth today. Do you still demand that or do you now think that we should allow SMEs to survive in Singapore?
Mr Low: We have made a calculation at the point in time of debating the Population White Paper and that if you continue to allow the foreign workers to grow, it will be untenable in the future generation, future population growth and thereby we decided that we need to keep the population number in check and one way of doing it, of course, is to freeze the foreign workers growth in number. Our calculation was that probably within that existing number of the foreign workers, you can still move around with some sectors there will be no need so much of foreign workers and thereby you can still get by with zero foreign workers growth. We understand perfectly the possibility and the trade-off, that is our position at that point in time. We had not objected subsequently or grilled the Government for why we are not doing it because that’s our view that it should have zero population growth but the Government decided otherwise, there’s a way of doing it, we have said our piece but we have to respect the decision of the Government to move on but our message has got across. We cannot sustain continuously the kind of population growth plan the Government is planning. And I’m glad to hear today that, you know, Prime Minister saying that the Government is taking a very serious view of tightening and watching the growth of population.
Mr Lee: Madam Speaker, after all this complicated explanation, I don’t know whether Mr Low Thia Khiang still stands by what we said in Parliament in the White Paper debate last year because if he really does after all the explanation, he should say: We have too many foreign workers now, send home 70,000, then we will know where he stands. But after telling me that you can massage this and some people can do less and others can do, and will need more, that’s easy to say. Who’s going to do the massaging? Of course the Government. And that is the mark of a substandard opposition.
Mr Low: Madam Speaker, I disagree. This is not the mark of a substandard opposition, this is the mark of a responsible opposition not to jam up the Government, allowing the Government after giving our view, debating it, allowing the Government to move forward, not to jam up the Government, so it is a mark of responsible government and a mark of First World Parliament.
Mr Lee: Madam Speaker, we have to call a spade a spade. If you have changed the position and your previous position was wrong, say so. If you hold by your position, have your guts to reaffirm it and take the consequences. But to weasel away, play with words, avoid the issue and then claim to be responsible, that is what we fear can drive Singapore’s politics into the same place where many other countries have gone.
