Ethnicity is Poison

Source: The Real Singapore



I refer to the TRS article "LOCAL MALAY UNHAPPY WITH THE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MALAY IN THE SAF".

What does it mean by "pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion, to build a democratic society, based on justice and equality"?

When I was in BMT, my company had really outstanding malay muslim soldiers who were all-rounder and great leaders. They did well in their IPPT, SIT test and received great feedback from the peer appraisal. The best recruit being a Chinese could have been easily explained, but it was hard for me to understand why (for my platoon) only the Chinese and Indians made it to OCS and the Malays were all posted to SISPEC when they were clearly more outstanding than us in all aspect. I was disappointed but I couldn't care much because I was happy that I was in OCS.

Then, when i was in OCS, the thought came back to me again as i was indenting food for my company one day. During BMT, we had to always pay attention to how many non-muslims and how many muslims are there when we indent food. I looked around, there were no muslims in my company. There were some in other companies, but it definitely doesn't reflect the composition of our population. At that point of time I didn't think too much of it, because frankly as a Chinese, I don't really care because it's not me who's discriminated against.

When I was training in Air Force as a trainee, the thought came back to me again. At SAFTI, there was a muslim food corner. There wasn't any at the Air Force School. Again, I didn't really care but I was starting to feel disgusted at how we are discriminating our muslim friends. I had classmates in JC who shared that they were really disappointed that they couldn't pass the test to be a pilot. Some of them were told that they failed the test, some were told that they were rejected because they failed the security clearance.

There was once when the Chief of Air Force came for a visit to conduct a forum and we were told that we could ask him questions. Our instructors wanted to be sure that our questions were appropriate, so they requested that we had to submit our questions to them for vetting before they could be approved for asking.

I thought if I asked "why are there no muslim in the Air Force", it might be a little too harsh, so i rephrased a bit, it was "why are there so little muslims in the Air Force". The instructor read it and returned it back to me, saying that it was too sensitive and told me to ask something else. He said "we all know why. it's better not to ask ". So my question became "so what's next for RSAF". I never got to asked the CAF.

I went to another instructor with the same question, she was the strict and law-by-law kind, so i thought she could give me a proper explanation. Her reply was "what do you mean by there are no muslims? there is one pilot who is muslim. check your facts first before you say such things, you will get into trouble for saying things like that" Ok, so there is one muslim pilot in the entire Air Force, that just confirmed that there is discrimination.

Every time I recite the national pledge, I wonder why are we saying it when we don't even mean it. Regardless of race, language or religion? Based on justice and equality?

We have been extremely lucky that our muslim friends have been really tolerant and have not reacted badly to this issue, but who knows what might happen in the future? This is like a time bomb that may explode any time. If there are people who can "make mountains out of molehills" out of Purple Light and dirty ceilings, imagine the potential of this issue.

Ethnicity is poison. Let's just remove our ethnicity from our IC and just call ourselves Singaporeans.

By Anonymous (Scared of ISA)

Local Malay Unhappy with Discrimination Against Malays in the SAF

Source: The Real Singapore

I don't usually do these long ass posts but I really felt I needed to get this off my chest.

I was at the Navy Recruitment drive in Vivocity when I playfully decided to ask the Warrant Officer a few questions.

Me : Is joining the Navy a good career choice?

WO : Yes it is very rewarding

Me : What are the critereas I need to have if I wish to be in the Navy?

WO : You need to be a fit individual with diploma or A levels.

Me : I am a reasonably fit individual who gets minimum silver for Ippt every year. I have perfect working senses and limbs. I have a Diploma in Mass Comm and a few commendable testimonials from previous employers. However, My name is MUHAMMAD FADZRI BIN ABD RASHID. If i were to apply, will I be wasting my time?

WO : (sheepishly looks at the floor) *wry smile followed by a slight shrug*

Me : I'm just playin' with u man I know what the deal is.

My friend and I laughed at what we thought was just an act of mischief. But when we further discussed the matter, I realize that this form of discrimination has been well ignored by the general public.

We serve our duties as Singaporeans. Well and maybe even better than some. We serve national service, we vote and god knows we add to the birth rate. Why are we deprived of the opportunity for key positions in the military?

Is it because we are surrounded by muslim countries that they fear we will be in the position to choose? If so then why put us through National service?

I'm not saying the muslim community doesnt have a part to blame in this discrimination. A few over fanatic individuals do aid in raising paranoia in society especially when the term "terrorism" is always associated to Muslim males.

However, Singaporean Malay or Muslim males raised in Singapore undeniably have a different upbringing. I wish they took the time to evaluate a person well along with his background instead of discriminating an entire ethnicity. If they needed manpower that bad, they should be willing to go the extra step.

What saddens me the most? I have no idea how to defend a country that has never once defended me.

‘More rules’ needed as interest groups jostle for public space

A friend said, "More rules" is the only thing the govt can come up with to deal with evolving civil society. Ridiculous.

Former Attorney-General Walter Woon. TODAY file photo

Society must accept compromise, learn to disagree without being disagreeable, says former AGC Walter Woon

AMIR HUSSAIN, TODAY
12 November 2013

SINGAPORE — With more interest groups jostling for public space and a citizenry more inclined to challenge the Government, society will need “more rules, not fewer”, said former Attorney-General Walter Woon yesterday.

“You cannot expect, when you live with 7,400 people in the same kilometre, to have your way all the time. You must accept compromise, you must accept that, even if they (other people) do not agree with you, there has to be a form of adjudication ... uphold that rule of law ... learn to disagree without being disagreeable.”

Speaking in his personal capacity at a session of the Institute of Policy Studies’ Conference on Civil Society at the Grand Copthorne Waterfront Hotel yesterday, Professor Woon, who is a National University of Singapore law professor, cited four factors that will lead to greater interaction between the various interest groups and the Government, as well as among the groups themselves.

He pointed out that with 7,405 people per square kilometre, Singapore is “the most crowded society in human history” with no “pressure-release valve”, which other countries with a countryside possess.

The population density is expected to increase to 10,000 people per square kilometre by 2030, the former Nominated Member of Parliament added.

Secondly, it will be “inevitable” that “different interest groups will increasingly find themselves in competition for public space, in opposition to Government, in opposition, in fact, to other interest groups”.

Technology, meanwhile, also facilitates the creation of interest groups, he told the conference. “The existence of the Internet allows the lone wolf to join the pack. And the pack then also (fights) for that public space.”

Fourthly, as a result of rising education levels, people will “have a perspective that there are things that can be done better”, Prof Woon said.

In the past, he noted, the Government’s approach to clashes with interest groups had been to wield “the iron hand in iron glove”, and to say “we will make the decisions”.

However, it can no longer do this, as “it is quite clear that the electorate is now willing to vote against the Government”.

Prof Woon noted that, anecdotally, there have been more challenges to the Government in the courts within the last five years than in the past 30 to 40 years, such as the two constitutional challenges to Section 377A of the Penal Code, which criminalises sex between males.

Speaking at a dialogue session later, Law Minister K Shanmugam said the Government has to work with civil society. He described the relationship between the two sides as one that is “by and large ... working quite well”.

However, Mr Shanmugam acknowledged that not every engagement between civil servants and civil society results in a positive experience, adding that “there are areas where, maybe, agencies have been less than forthcoming”.

“My own belief is that civil servants believe, like us, in engagement, but when the rubber hits the road in terms of specific proposals, in terms of specific meetings, in terms of specific agencies, there can be a difference in perception and one can be wrong ... both sides can be wrong,” he said.

Citing the Government’s work with animal welfare groups as an example, Mr Shanmugam said Singapore cannot be governed without the active participation of people and civil society in today’s modern and complex economic and civil situation.

He said: “If you ask (the animal welfare groups) today, look at what was accomplished in the last two years. At their suggestion, the government formed the animal welfare law reform group — they came up with fairly revolutionary set of suggestions, very, very substantive suggestions. The government accepted all of them this year.”

Defining poverty in Singapore is more than just the ‘cliff effect’

Source: Yahoo News
By Kirsten Han

A man sells tissue packets on Orchard Road in Singapore. (Yahoo photo)

It’s no secret that Singapore is a rich country. In 2012, it was found to be the richest country in the world.

But despite the expensive clubs and the glamourous Formula 1 races, not everyone in Singapore is enjoying an ultra-rich lifestyle. Although unemployment is fairly low, studies have shown that a considerable number of people in Singapore can be considered the "working poor" – struggling to make ends meet despite having jobs.

With inequality becoming a real worry, the government is still loathe to define poverty. Chan Chun Sing, Minister for Social and Family Development, has now said that an official poverty line might be unhelpful as it poses the danger of a "cliff effect", where welfare schemes are only made available to those below the line while ignoring others in need of support.

It's a strange argument: if the government is already aware of the dangers of this "cliff effect", would it not then be able to avoid it? It would be an incompetent government indeed if it were able to blindside itself just by officially defining poverty.

The existence of a poverty line does not mean that all focus should be directed towards those who fall below it. An official poverty line shows that the poverty is an issue acknowledged by the government to exist as part of the structure of society. Once we see that poverty exists as a structural problem, more steps can be taken to address the distribution of resources and opportunities.

As it stands, poverty in Singapore is more often than not seen as an individual failing with individual solutions. People are urged to retrain and upskill and become more "productive" rather than to expect more social welfare. Social welfare is dangerous, we are warned. That way lies laziness, a mindset of entitlement and the loss of our brilliant status as an economic success.

An official poverty line would demonstrate that the problem is more than just one of individual struggles. An official acknowledgement of the poor would show that, try as they might, a strata in our society is unable to make ends meet. It would force us to take a good hard look at our policies and recognise that our eagerness to please and attract big businesses is not producing the trickle-down effect that was promised. And it is from that point that we start trying to figure out how to deal with poverty on a structural level.

On a certain level the Minister is right: defining poverty might not be helpful. It would not be helpful if it only existed for cosmetic purposes; if the acknowledgement of the poor was not followed by structural reform. But once we have this line and are able to see ourselves not only in terms of who's the richest, but also who's the poorest, it would be remiss of the government and its citizens to not seek solutions.

I can understand the government's desire to avoid a "cliff effect". But refusing to see the cliff doesn't mean that no one is falling off it. Refusing to define poverty doesn't mean that no one is poor; it just means that we don't get the full picture of what work needs to be done.

Kirsten Han is a Singaporean blogger, journalist and filmmaker. She is also involved in the We Believe in Second Chances campaign for the abolishment of the death penalty. A social media junkie, she tweets at @kixes. The views expressed are her own.

BBC series on Burmese Tamils

Staying back in the Golden Land: BBC Tamil radio series tells the story of Burma’s Tamils.

The lives of Burma’s (Myanmar’s) Tamil minority are in the centre of a 12-part weekly series launching on BBC Tamil radio on Sunday 18 August.

You can access it online at http://www.bbc.co.uk/tamil/multimedia/2013/08/130818_burmatamilsone.shtml

Statutory Board Will Not Take Legal Action Against Student Blogger

Another victory because of M Ravi:

Media Release

STATUTORY BOARD WILL NOT TAKE LEGAL ACTION AGAINST STUDENT BLOGGER

Court Action Discontinued as Parties Arrive at Agreement

SINGAPORE, October 8, 2013– Han Hui Hui, the 21-year old Singaporean student blogger who was threatened with a defamation suit by the Council for Private Education [“CPE”], has agreed not to proceed with her challenge in Court against the statutory board. The CPE has agreed not to take any action against Ms Han for defamation.

Acting for Ms Han, lawyer Mr M Ravi believes the matter has come to a happy outcome for his young client. “I am so proud of Ms Han’s conviction. She has not shied away from a fight and through her persistence and activism, Ms Han has raised awareness on this issue – Singaporeans should have a reasonable expectation that they will not be sued for defamation when they question or criticize a public authority.”

Through her challenge, Ms Han was asserting in the Singapore Court what is known as the “Derbyshire Principle”: plainly, that individuals should be free to criticise government institutions and their agencies without fear of being sued for defamation. The principle has been adopted widely in the Courts, beginning in the United Kingdom (Derbyshire Town, for which it takes its name) and following in Canada, Australia, India, South Africa and Malaysia. In the United States, this principle has stood for nearly a century and its purpose is to allow free and fair criticism of public institutions by the citizens who both fund them with their tax dollars and are governed by them.

“I hope that Parliament will act soon to amend the Defamation Act to ensure that government agencies do not continue to use the tax-payers’ dollars to fund actions against their own citizens in Court. The government – particularly in Singapore where the mainstream media is state-controlled – has ample resources and opportunity to respond to any inquiry or criticism raised by the public without resorting to punitive civil action against private individuals” states Mr Ravi.

An open letter to LKY: perspectives of a 20 year-old

Source

Dear LKY,

October seems to be the month where your loved ones are taken away from you. Your father passed away 16 years ago while your wife went to hell more than three years ago this week. Shortly after, Chee Soon Juan wrote to you an open letter in the hope that you finally realise the pain you have brought to others and that this pain of losing a loved one is finally something you get to experience on your own.

In and between then, we have seen a watershed election which gave Singapore a political awakening which has led to the beginning of the end of your party. Interestingly, this new level of liberty has seen many people disagree with your iron-fisted policies. Recently, your way of dealing with your opponents though lawsuits have been questioned at a forum. More than just a trait unique to you, this has resulted in many people whose innocent lives were otherwise ruined.

It is in my view that people like Tang Liang Hong did nothing to deserve an $8.075 million penalty for alleged defamation. This is a case where the quantum involved is one of the highest in the world and would have been decided differently elsewhere. As early as 1964, the US courts have decided in New York Times vs. Sullivan that politicians have a higher burden of proof in defamation suits since they have access to the media to rebut allegations against them.

Another issue which has been brought into the picture is your choosing of political successors. Even in the Shit Times, the media has admitted that you have chosen to deter your enemies from politics so much so that you can pave a smooth transition for the people you choose as successors. Indeed, they have gone on to say that it might not work as well today.

It bemuses me that you can actually say that you are going to get up from your grave if you sense that something is wrong when there are so many jokers in the current cabinet. Separately, you have even gone on to justify million dollar salaries, not understanding the essence of politics and accountably to the electorate. Even China’s new prime minister Li Keqiang said that “since [they] have chosen public office [they] should give up all thought of making money [and ] will accept the supervision of the whole public and the media.”

I may be some 70 years younger than you, but I would like to say that your old-school mind of thinking clearly has no place in today’s world and we have politically awakened. You have chosen to make offensive comments to both the malay community as well as to tell citizens in an otherwise democratic country to “repent” for their choice. As the political conditions change, we have seen that you are increasingly irrelevant and you are no longer great person you once stood for.

Empirically, the whole of the Asian region has seen tremendous growth since the 1960s and the success of our country cannot be solely attributed to you. What you have done is to oppress men who love their country and disagree with you. Should you choose to kick the bucket anytime soon, I promise to file a lawsuit to deny you a state funeral under the principle that it is unconscionable.

Till then, old man!

Joseph Kheng-Liang Tan