Rilek1Corner

Tag: state

  • Damanhuri Abas: Reserved PE Is A PAP’s Ploy, Sadly A Compliant Malay Community Will Only Served Their Plan To The Tee

    Damanhuri Abas: Reserved PE Is A PAP’s Ploy, Sadly A Compliant Malay Community Will Only Served Their Plan To The Tee

    Today we are sadly living in times when values are mere rhetorical slogans thrown around with no sense of truth that it becomes meaningless.

    Few years ago they said to attract good leaders in government, peg ministers pay to top private salary bracket. The assumption is that this would bring the so-called talent from private to the public sector. What it failed to explain is the logic of correlating two different positions and roles with two different objectives and responsibilities. Yet we seemed to swallow it. A dismal flow of ‘quality’ people from private to public since they up the salary is a damning exposé on its illogical logic.

    Actually all this strange logic is only possible because the whole process only went to a parliamentary route which is already a biased one as the overwhelming power of one party would simply allow them to use it to push through their preferred decisions. The fair route would have been to allow thorough public debate which would have prevented this and other changes from seeing the light of day but alas we killed that possibility by allowing such a lopsided parliament to exist in the first place.

    And the rest is history.

    This PE being reserved is but another similar episode of the PAP simply using their power to get away with what they want. The full machinery of control is then used to validate a clearly unjustified ruling. A compliant Malay community do not help as they simply served the PAP plan to the tee.

    This will not end and more crazy changes will take place so long as we the people continue to allow them to do so by our own failure to act according to our conscience.

    Today the PAP has set the ground rules to ensure that the chance or possibility of a political breakthrough for the opposition to be minuscule if not impossible. With the GRC and the gerrymandering, they effectively already won even before election is called. If we factor in the exclusive access to public broadcast where they no longer even bother to hide their utter blatantness in utilizing the public media to propagandized and even bring disrepute to oppositions, the outlook and prospect gets only worst for the opposition.

    This is the state of the nation today.

    The fundamental role of check and balance, fairness and justice no longer exist in so far as political space and reality are in Singapore. We collectively are responsible for this situation. History has shown how this is unsustainable and will lead to abuse and suppression or even oppression on any segment of society that dare to challenge their dominance.

    We had a window of hope in 2011 but 2015 showed how we chose to follow our emotions rather than our rational mind and logic. By the way things are, and the slew of changes to strengthen their almost absolute control, 2020 may be worst.

    Without unhindered political space, unlike most other regional nations, we remained sadly behind the political maturity curve. This stagnation or even regression is taking place amidst a changing economic reality that are driven primarily by freedom and space accorded for dynamic social growth in which political freedom is key.

    Therefore it do not augur well for our future that today we remained stuck in this clearly debilitating discourse over the highest office in the land not over the critical role and function that it meant but the secondary or even minor issue of racial equality totally misplaced and clouded with so much questions, half-truths to even strange redefinitions. It is really painful to see the acting by all parties to this national charade.

    To think that with all the intelligent minds that we have produced as a nation and to see such outright dumbing down of the people for vested political interest of the PAP is a damning indictment on our ownself. No one else is to blame really.

     

    Source: Damanhuri Bin Abas

  • Singapore A Secular State? Think Again

    Singapore A Secular State? Think Again

    By Michael Y.P. Ang

    In recent years, there have been loud calls to exclude religion from the public sphere in Singapore.

    Singapore is widely seen as a secular state because it has no official religion. But there’s more to secularism than the absence of a state religion.

    Secularism also involves the strict separation of the state from religious institutions and the equal treatment of all citizens under the law, whatever their religion or belief.

    Two weeks ago, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong reinforced the commonly held view of a secular Singapore: “To maintain harmony in Singapore’s multiracial and multi-religious society, the government … has got to be neutral, secular in its approach, and pragmatic in solving problems.”

    However, going by the definition of secular — not connected with religious or spiritual matters — it’s hard to see Singapore as a secular state.

    Let’s consider two points.

    1) Religion-based public holidays

    Have you noticed that more than half of the 11 public holidays you enjoy every year are related to religion? Good Friday, Vesak Day, Hari Raya Puasa, and Deepavali are some of these religion-based holidays.

    With the state giving official recognition to religious holidays, taxpayer money is used to pay public servants a full day’s worth of salary for taking a day off to celebrate a holiday related to a particular religion. Private companies too are legally bound to give their employees a paid day off.

    Doesn’t sound secular, does it? Let’s face it, religion has always been a part of the public sphere in Singapore.

    It’s baffling that Singaporeans who advocate secularism do not question state-sanctioned religious holidays. Perhaps they only believe in selective secularism, voicing their objections only when it is convenient.

    Have true secularists ever considered suggesting Total Defence Day, Mother’s Day, Father’s Day, Youth Day, Remembrance Day, or any other non-religious day to be observed as a public holiday? They could even argue that the official observance of such days has nation-building value.

    Personally, I like having the various religious holidays. In fact, I wish for more.

    2) Religion-based government agencies

    Another clear indication of Singapore being non-secular is the existence of religion-based statutory boards. Such bodies are government agencies under the care and budget of the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth.

    One of them is the Hindu Endowments Board. Set up under the Hindu Endowments Act in 1968, itmanages four temples, among other functions. Another is MUIS (the Malay acronym for the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore), established when the Administration of Muslim Law Act came into effect in 1968.

    The mission of MUIS is “to work with the community in developing a profound religious life and dynamic institutions”, while its strategic priority is “to set the Islamic agenda, shape religious life and forge the Singaporean Muslim Identity”.

    With government agencies performing religious functions, how can a country consider itself a secular state?

    The lack of public opposition to religion-based statutory boards possibly means that Singaporeans, including secularists, either support or do not object to the allocation of taxpayers’ public resources for religious purposes. This is a positive sign.

    But once again, secularists’ apparent lack of opposition to having religion in the public sphere may mean they are not really serious about secularism.

    Proselytising isn’t only about religion

    Besides emphasising state neutrality on religious matters recently, PM Lee also raised some concerns. He said religious fervour, although in itself positive, could make people “proselytise more aggressively, offending others”.

    We should apply PM Lee’s statement to secular issues as well. Proselytising also means “trying to persuade someone to change their political beliefs to your own”.

    Proselytising per se is perfectly fine, but when people excessively promote their way of life or political beliefs and practically demand others to accept their views or change the status quo, they are crossing the line.

    Don’t cry foul just because others disagree with your beliefs or lifestyle. Social issues, whether they are of a religious or secular nature, are rarely simple and straightforward.

     

    Source: https://sg.news.yahoo.com