WP MP Faisal Manap raises some concerns of Muslims, as expressed in the Suara Musyawarah Report, in Parliament.
Instead of addressing the issue head-on, PAP Muslim MPs tries to corner Faisal into taking a stand on the issue (which he didn’t, and i think he should have). Later, the MPs were either silent on the issue or tried to skirt it, or even deny it.
Now i have a few questions for the Muslim MPs:
1) Is the Suara Musyawarah Report not commissioned by the government? If so, what is the follow-up?
2) What is the attitude of the Muslim MPs towards the report? Take what you like from it, and ignore what you don’t?
3) If the latter is the case, why have the report in the first place?
4) Even IF those things stated are not true, those are indeed the perceptions of many Muslims. Will you address those perceptions with facts and figures, and reasoned argumentation? Or will those just be dismissed or ignored?
I call upon them to take a stand on these issues/questions, in the name of constructive politics.
Walid Jumblatt Abdullah, a public-spirited individual, is an ongoing Political Science student of the National University of Singapore (NUS). He is a three-times award recipient of the Graduate Student Teaching (GSTA) Award Honour Roll in 2012. In the recent NUS Commencement Week, he was also selected as the Valedictorian of his cohort.
EDITOR’S NOTE
Seems like both parties cranked up their engines harder this time round with fancy new measures and proposals. The announcement on setting up of WP Malay/Muslim committee to oversee concerns faced by the community should have been done way much earlier. Nevertheless, it’s better late than never. We applaud WP to help the community alongside PAP. Having two different approaches and perspectives to issues will definitely result in expedited progress, only if sole focus is on the community, and not about the respective parties and what’s important to them.
We are glad that more and more Muslims are speaking up for what’s good for their community. This is our country and in a significant way, we have the right to decide our future. As long that discussions are not baseless and no vulgarities involved, someday somehow someone will hear us.
SINGAPORE – Mr Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap of the Workers’ Party yesterday called for the formation of a committee to address concerns of Malay-Muslims over how their loyalty to the nation is viewed.
But in a swift rebuttal, Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Education and Manpower Hawazi Daipi deemed his suggestion unnecessary as this was an issue that could be overcome by strengthening inter-racial ties.
The exchange began with Mr Faisal saying that more needed to be done to “address and find solutions” to community concerns highlighted in a recent report. He quoted the findings of the Suara Musyawarah committee, which said Malay-Muslim participants felt left out in certain policies and practices which “question the loyalty of Malays to the country”.
The committee was formed in 2012 to gather feedback on the thoughts, concerns and aspirations of Malay-Muslims. Its report highlighted personal accounts of employers expressing a preference for non-Malay workers and surfaced concerns over exclusion from certain parts of the Singapore Armed Forces.
Mr Faisal acknowledged that progress has been made in terms of opportunities afforded to Malay-Muslims in education and national service, but said the committee’s formation could offer a “quick solution” to achieving a “more inclusive and open Singapore society”.
Responding to his speech, Mr Hawazi and Mr Zainal Sapari (Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC) later asked Mr Faisal if the latter had ever felt that his loyalty to the country was questioned, and what his own views on the issue were.
“I’m concerned (that) if we highlight the differences, we will be widening (them) not only among one community but all communities,” said Mr Hawazi, adding that schools and community activities are means to forge greater social cohesion.
In response, Mr Faisal stressed that the issue of loyalty among Malays was surfaced by the Suara Musyawarah report, and not him.
Mr Hawazi then suggested that Mr Faisal had cherry-picked portions of the report, failing to highlight, for example, that Malay-Muslim participants also said they were “very committed” to Singapore on issues that include defence and security.
Maintaining that he was reflecting concerns on the ground, Mr Faisal said: “I have said in my view that I am aware and agree there is progress made, but because there are still many people who say that this issue is present, I, as a voice of the people, would like to voice it out.”
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.
Setelah lima bulan beroperasi, kami di Rilek1Corner sangat terharu dengan sambutan meriah daripada para pembaca yang banyak memberikan kami semangat memperkembangkan media alternatif kami ini, baik untuk pembaca yang berbangsa Melayu mahupun mereka yang beragama Islam.
Kami juga menganggap segala kritikan dan sokongan sebagai satu rangsangan dan dorongan untuk terus memajukan hak kebebasan bersuara di Singapura.
Tanpa sokongan anda, siapalah kami di Rilek1Corner.
Namun, sejak beberapa minggu kebelakangan ini, anggota Rilek1Corner telah menerima ancaman dan ugutan daripada beberapa pihak yang berasa tidak puas hati dengan berita dan surat-surat pembaca yang diterbitkan dengan segera di lelaman kami.
Walaupun segala berita dan informasi yang telah dipublikasikan terdiri daripada media cetak dan juga surat-surat kiriman pembaca yang setia, ada segelintir pihak tertentu berasa kurang senang kerana publikasi-publikasi tersebut mendapat kritikan daripada masyarakat umum.
Ada dua insiden yang boleh dijadikan ikhtibar.
Pertama, ada sekumpulan orang Melayu yang beragama Islam di Singapura telah memperkenalkan diri mereka sebagai ahli kewangan dan pengendali bisnes-bisnes skim cepat kaya. Setelah dimaki-hamun dan dicaci, mereka menuduh para pembaca, anggota Rilek1Corner, dan wartawan-wartawan akhbar Berita Harian Singapura sebagai pengecut, jahil dan iri hati dengan kejayaan mereka meraih duit lumayan dengan senang.
Seperti tidak cukup dengan kata-kata kesat, pihak tersebut juga telah membuat ancaman dan ugutan kepada para pembaca dan juga anggota Rilek1Corner. Ancaman dan ugutan yang dimaksudkan mempunyai unsur-unsur kekerasan fisikal dengan niat mencederakan mereka yang tidak berdosa.
Ugutan dan ancaman kekerasan ini berlaku setelah beberapa surat pembaca, beserta keratan akhbar daripada Berita Harian Singapura, dan juga gambar-gambar pihak yang terlibat telah dimuat-naikkan di Rilek1Corner, hasil perkongsian maklumat dari para pembaca. Siasatan kami mendapati bahawa gambar-gambar tersebut senang diperolehi secara terbuka di Facebook (tanpa sebarang sekatan privasi) untuk menarik anggota-anggota baru menyertai skim cepat kaya tersebut.
Ada juga diantara para pembaca yang telah menjadi mangsa skim cepat kaya yang diperkatakan, dan bersungguh-sungguh ingin berkongsi pengalaman mereka supaya masyarakat umum dapat mengelakkan diri daripada mengalami nasib yang serupa.
Kami di Rilek1Corner juga akur tentang kewajipan moral ini.
Jika betul bisnes, produk atau servis yang diberikan itu bermutu tinggi, seratus-peratus dijamin halal, dan juga sahih dari segi undang-undang, apakah perlu membuat ugutan sehingga ingin mencederakan semata-mata orang lain mempunyai pendapat yang berbeza atau memberi kritikan yang berasas?
Insiden kedua pula mengenai seseorang yang bakal menerajui satu jawatan yang mencabar sebagai pemimpin masa hadapan Islam Singapura yang berkaliber dan berwibawa. Dua minggu yang lepas, beliau telah diumumkan oleh pihak media setempat sebagai salah satu calon parti pembangkang untuk Pilihan Raya Umum yang akan datang.
Rilek1Corner telah berkongsi keratan akhbar dari sebuah media setempat dan memuat-naikkan butir-butir kelayakan beliau yang diberikan oleh seorang penyokong kuat parti pembangkang tersebut. Menurut pembaca itu, butir-butir kelayakan calon pembangkang tersebut senang diperolehi secara terbuka. Siasatan kami juga mendapati segala informasi yang diberikan senang diperolehi di Internet (tiada sekatan privasi). Namun, kerana rasa tidak puas hati, calon pembangkang tersebut membuat beberapa ugutan kepada Rilek1Corner, dan malangnya ugutan beliau itu mendapat tindak balas yang tidak disangkakan.
Rilek1Corner tidak tahu-menahu tentang apa yang telah dilakukan oleh ahli politik tersebut dan hanya dimaklumkan tentang kejadian tersebut semalam. Dengan jujur, anggota Rilek1Corner sangat kecewa dengan apa yang telah dilakukan walaupun kami telah memberi sokongan padu kepada beliau.
Kalau betul tiada apa yang ingin disembunyikan, apakah perlu berahsia? Sudah lumrah hidup orang politik. Segala hal peribadi akan tersebar buat santapan umum baik publisiti positif ataupun yang buruk, terutama sekali dalam zaman media sosial ini. Mulut tempayan boleh ditutup, mulut manusia bagaimana menutupnya.
Soalan-soalan yang bermain di fikiran kami ialah: Apakah yang maksudkan dengan media alternatif dan hak kebebasan bersuara dalam konteks demokrasi kita di Singapura yang selama ini menjadi idaman kalbu? Adakah masyarakat Melayu dan juga Islam setempat sudah benar-benar bersedia untuk menerima konsep kebebasan bersuara ini, atau ianya hanya manis dimulut sahaja? Apakah tiada toleransi terhadap pendapat orang lain yang bercanggah dengan pendapat kita? Apakah mereka yang dianggap sebagai ‘public figure’ sudah benar-benar bersedia menerima hakikat bahawa mereka bukan sahaja mendapat sokongan positif, malah akan juga menerima kritikan hebat daripada orang-orang yang tidak mempunyai matlamat yang sama atau visi yang sehaluan.
Kebebasan Bersuara
Kebebasan bersuara ialah kebebasan menyatakan pandangan mahupun fikrah tanpa batas atau penapisan tentang apa yang ingin diperkatakan. Semua masyarakat mempunyai hak kebebasan bersuara tanpa mengira kaum atau pangkat.
Kebebasan bersuara juga merangkumi aspek seperti kebebasan bersuara secara percakapan verbal, tindakan mencari, menerima dan menyebarkan maklumat atau idea, dengan tidak mengira medium yang digunakan. Kebebasan bersuara juga mempunyai etika dimana cara penyampaiannya beradab dan sopan, tanpa sebarang bahasa kesat.
Jika seseorang manusia itu mempunyai hak berfikir untuk dirinya sendiri dan kebebasan menggunakan mindanya semahunya, maka dia juga haruslah mempunyai hak untuk mengekspresikan dan meluahkan buah fikirannya dan idea-idea dalam bentuk yang konkrit, sama ada dalam bentuk penulisan ataupun lisan.
Tiada sesiapun boleh memaksa kita dirasakan sesuatu perkara itu benar atau salah melainkan kita melihat sendiri kebenarannya. Tiada jumlah paksaan yang akan mampu mengubah persepsi sesiapapun terhadap sesuatu individu, subjek atau benda.
Kebebasan bersuara juga memainkan peranan yang sangat penting dalam melindungi individu-individu yang mempunyai pendapat berbeza. Apabila pendapat segelintir orang tersilap, ianya adalah menjadi kewajipan bagi sekelompok minoriti untuk menyuarakan kebenaran.
Peranan Media Sosial Dalam Menyemarakkan Kebebasan Bersuara
Kewujudan media sosial yang bersifat terbuka, pelbagai dan bebas dari tapisan dan sekatan adalah antara asas penting bagi pembentukan masyarakat demokratik kerana ia menyumbang ke arah kemudahan pengaliran maklumat, idea secara bebas, dan menjamin ketelusan serta kebertanggungjawaban.
Persoalannya ialah, sejauh manakah kebebasan bersuara dalam media sosial ini benar-benar bebas? Apakah hubungan di antara media sosial dan kebebasan bersuara?
Media sosial adalah salah satu cabang atau bentuk ekspresi yang ada di dalam sistem sosial manusia yang luas. Malah kehadiran media sosial itu sebenarnya melengkapi dua lagi gelombang teknologi komunikasi sebelumnya – cetak dan gelombang udara sebagai wahana untuk manusia – baik secara individu atau berkelompok – untuk mengkomunikasikan maklumat, bertukar-tukar idea, pandangan, dan pendapat.
Sebagai satu konsep liberal dan ‘batu asas’ kepada demokrasi barat, kebebasan bersuara bertujuan untuk melindungi ekspresi rakyat jelata dan penyebaran maklumat ke pentas awam daripada campur tangan pihak kerajaan atau sesiapapun.
Jangan kita simpan mentaliti paranoia dan perbuatan melulu yang melampau.
Ugutan, Ancaman Diambil Serius
Rilek1Corner memandang serius terhadap segala ancaman baik terhadap diri kami mahupun ugutan terhadap para pembaca yang hanya ingin menyuarakan pandangan mereka.
Yang lebih membimbangkan ialah perkembangan media sosial yang ingin disekat dan ditapis semata-mata pandangan yang berbeza, walaupun pada hakikatnya segala pendapat telah ditulis atas nama hak kebebasan bersuara dengan cara yang beradap dan sopan.
Peliknya, pihak-pihak yang telah membuat ancaman dan ugutan terhadap kami dan juga pembaca-pembaca budiman, juga merupakan orang-orang yang pernah menegakkan hak kebebasan bersuara dan hak kemanusiaan dengan lantangnya.
Bak kata pepatah, rambut sama hitam hati lain-lain.
Dr Ismail Muhamad Hanif. Dr Ismail, 35, was seen mingling with Bukit Batok East residents on Sunday morning. — FILE PHOTO: NUS ALUMNI OFFICE
BY NUR ASYIQIN MOHAMAD SALLEH
Research scientist Dr Ismail Muhamad Hanif, 35, was seen mingling with Bukit Batok East residents on Sunday morning as Jurong GRC MP Madam Halimah Yacob took Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Lawrence Wong on a walkabout around shops in the area.
Dr Ismail, who is married, has been a member of the Tampines West Citizens’ Consultative Committee (CCC) since 2009 and had helped out in the last general elections.
Madam Halimah told reporters that she had met Dr Ismail at a community event and invited him to volunteer in her ward.
She declined to say if he was a potential PAP candidate for the next polls, only that he was part of Bukit Batok East’s Volunteer Induction Programme, which was started in 2010.
