PAP Model : Starting Ahead and Finishing Last

By Hurr Riyahi

One of the characteristics of PAP Model is its tendency to start ahead but finish last. This can be seen in the outcomes of most PAP policies. What is funny about this is that about two thirds of Singaporeans (about 66%) only choose to see how PAP model starts ahead. Instead they fear to see how it finishes last. They are also deluded by the initial gains which they naively think will last indefinitely and/or repeat continually. That explains how PAP is able to make the voters believe that its model works and that there is no alternative model superior than its own.

EDUCATION

If you ask Singaporeans about their education system, majority will boast about how the students start ahead of other students in other countries. The ability to do English comprehension, essays and grammar in primary one is something which many point out to show that in many western education systems, the primary one kids are incompetent in such areas. However the same Singaporeans fail to realize that when those primary one kids reach the age of university graduation, say 21-24 years, the average western kid is far more competent than our average Singaporean kid in English which though starts ahead, finishes last.

In the area of mathematics and science, Singaporeans kids start ahead of kids in developed countries in primary school by being far more competent in solving the most difficult questions. Most Singaporean families look at this as a major life achievement and superiority of the PAP educational system. However it is the kids in developed world who lag behind Singaporean kids in primary school in mathematics and science who later achieve big leaps in those two topics and using that be responsible for vast majority of the accomplishments in medicine, health sciences, engineering, information technology, natural sciences, economics, finance etc.

On the other hand, close to three quarter of the Singaporean kids who slog and perform the most tedious questions in mathematics and science in primary school do not even attain university education. Those who do attain university education have hardly achieved anything much on the global scale in the sciences.

ECONOMY

When PAP transformed Singapore from a developing to an industrialised economy, it took only twenty years whereas Europe took two hundred years. Singapore was far ahead of the pace of industrialisation. However till today Singapore has not been accepted into OECD and therefore it remains an industrialised country and not a developed country.

Europe took less than twenty years to become developed countries after becoming industrialised. PAP is taking more than thirty years and still it has not been able to get Singapore into OECD as a developed country. Instead it points to IMF or World Bank classifications, which are not benchmarks, and make political statements about Singapore being a developed country.

Even amongst the developed countries, Singapore ranks the lowest amongst all of them in so many important areas. However PAP will only pick out fanciful and superficial areas like competitiveness, openness etc and try to show how its ahead of developed economies. Where Singapore needs to demonstrate is in its sustainability. Even recently the PAP leadership has come out to say its high growth strategy wont be sustainable in post crisis and Singaporeans must accept a lower growth path.

HOUSING

PAP was ahead of many countries in resolving housing problems and achieving home ownership rates. Yet today it has one of the worst housing crisis amongst countries in developed countries.

In developed countries where housing prices are high, the people still have viable options of affordable renting. Singapore does not have such options. In terms of affordability Singapore started ahead of others in being able to provide houses which the citizens could deem as affordable. Today only the politicians and foreigners can deem the housing prices as affordable. The average Singapore citizen struggles to buy a simple house.

Though in most developed countries, the government do not provide housing solutions, they create opportunities for people to find accomodation in an affordable and sustainable way either through buying or renting.

TRANSPORT

Being a small island, it was relatively easy to set up a bus, train and road network that is far ahead of any city. PAP achieved it. However today the transport network  in Singapore is one of the most congested, expensive and unpleasant all thanks to its ultra-liberal immigration policy. In many cities of developed countries, the bus and train fares are expensive but people have the option of cheaper car travel.

In a land scare Singapore, it is only prudent to make car travel expensive and public transport very cheap. However the public transport companies run by private companies that are wholly owned by government seek perpetual increase in their profits and have driven up public transport costs beyond imagination. Singapore bus drivers also had a good reputation for safety and pleasantness. Today they have been replaced with foreigner drivers who are unable to communicate and who drive buses like trucks and bullock carts. The transportation system in Singapore that started ahead of others will soon be finishing last in ranking within a decade’s time.

SINGAPORE WILL FINISH LAST

In every other area of Singapore one will find the same trend in the outcomes of PAP’s policies. The sad reality is that Singapore will finish last in every area within five years time and it will be far too late for Singaporeans to rectify the situation then. About 30% of Singaporeans are being PAP faithfully. Another 40% are not sure but they are afraid of change and they are also not intellectual enough to imagine beyond PAP. Hence they rather dream along the rhetoric put out to them. In fact some of this 40% want change without PAP not voted out of power. However PAP has set up a highly interlinked system where it cannot touch one single area without upsetting other areas. Hence it will only make cosmetic changes.

What is required is a major overhaul of the whole system. That reality alarms the 40% also who have no intellectual ability or confidence to see how it can be achieved. The 30% who wants to see change remain too few to see any real reforms becoming possible even though they may be loud. Singapore started ahead to Singaporeans and PAP. But it will also finish last due to Singaporeans and PAP.

What is PAP’s long term economic vision?

By Hurr Riyahi

After the release of the ESC’s findings, I notice a big sigh of relief on the faces of the 66% of Singaporeans, the group that votes of PAP without fail. I hear them speak about how the government has put Singapore into a firm position to ride the post-financial crisis storm. They proudly claim the ESC has charted new directions that will take Singapore out of uncertain economic waters. How good will life be for Singaporeans if only that is real and true.

During the post 1959, PAP had an economic vision for Singapore. They wanted to transform Singapore to become a manufacturing hub from one that was purely a services hub. They wanted to achieve this by luring foreign direct investments using cheap labour resources. That was a clear economic vision as the agenda clearly showed the type and number of jobs that can be created, the kind of investments that can be attracted and the type of economic transformation that Singapore will go through.

By 1980s the vision started to crack. The PAP government swung into a new direction which was to develop its services and going into high value added manufacturing. Things started to get more tricky but this vision too has become too uncertain in recent times.

The question now is what is the economic vision of Singapore. Are we going to be a services hub or manufacturing hub or both? What services and manufactuing industries are we going to focus on? Well propaganda machinese, arm chair bureacrats and sexy ST journalists may say we aleady have everything mapped out for the next 50 years. However what is clear is that Singapore does not have a long term economic vision.

A couple of years ago, it was growing the country using immigration. That cant be a long term economic vision. Already it has failed even as a strategy as conceded by the government backed economists themselves. Currently the vision seems to be casino, pharmaceuticals, petrochemical and finance. That is more like strategies than economic vision. What is clear is that PAP is no longer able to come up with a long term economic vision. Singaporeans have to accept that.

Part of the requirements of an economic vision is that it must show where are the newly created jobs in the longer term going to be. The kind of strategies for Singapore only shows some industries and its not something that all Singaporeans can rush into.

Part of the requirements of an economic vision also includes a clear identification of how incomes are going to be generated. With many of the newly created jobs going to foreigners and lack of areas for Singaporeans to seek opportunities in, its very unclear how are all Singapore families going to generate income in long term. What is clear is only for some segment population and labour force. LKY claimed that income gap can be rectified if jobs are created. But there are jobs already being created currently and income gap only has widened. Going forth this gap will only widen further.

What the PAP has instead of a longer term economic vision is a series of short term economic strategies stringed one onto another to make it appear its a long term vision. 66% of Singaporeans are naively watching this stringed rope of strategies with great relief and continued confidence as a rope that which they can hold on to. Its definitely a noose which offers no promise or security. In an era where we are seeing neighbouring economies such as Vietnam rapidly expanding, Singapore can be rest assured that it will one day become a case study of a rich country that started ahead but finished last with nothing.

Change required from others first for change expected from Temasek Review

By Hurr Riyahi

In the last year, Temasek Review has evolved and grown to be an important source of information, news and opinion about Singapore. It has been quoted in international media as a news and opinion source hereby recognising its legitimacy. Mainstream media opinions and information of citizens’ opinions have become questionable at times due to its lack of independence given its self-declared pro-government approach.

Reporters from mainstream media and even PAP MPs in Singapore have replied directly to Temasek Review, something totally or almost unprecedented. That again is due to the fact many Singaporeans, foreigners and external journalists are visiting this site more than the online sites of other local mainstream news channels.

Given these trends and the kind of power and influence Temasek Review yields on and off the internet, there are growing calls from numerous quarters for changes in Temasek Review so that the site meets their expectations. Temasek Review being a champion of change ought to heed the calls for change directed at it. However for each of the area in which Temasek Review falls short of their expectations, there is a bigger reason due to others explaining the shortcomings. Hence for change to occur in Temasek Review, change is first required from others.

Temasek Review needs newspaper and TV news channel license

One of the key criticisms levelled on Temasek Review is that its pieces need to reach highest standards of journalism. I find this humourous when it comes from Singaporeans because many people in and outside Singapore find mainstream media in Singapore to be lacking of any basic standards of journalism. The reason why Temasek Review lacks the such high standards is because it is online citizen journalism which is run by citizens. In online citizen journalism the standards are very unclear and do not match conventional journalism. Nevertheless it will be a positive change for Temasek Review if it can attain such high standards as conventional journalism because it will also mean it will be better than local mainstream media.

However the structure of Temasek Review has been rather loose from day one. Just like many  other online websites providing news, it invites all citizens to write. It also does not have full time editors. There is no formal processes. There isnt any Temasek Review core team even. There is no vetting or editing even to the articles.Those who do contribute to this site do not even know each other. They do not control each other’s actions either. They do not take responsibility for one another’s actions or decisions. There is no stakes for anyone. Even an article like this that includes criticisms about Temasek Review is allowed as it is not going to damage the site’s or anyone. But as mentioned again this is online citizen journalism. This is how things work on such a site. Its perfectly alright for such a site as it does not violate any nature of such sites.

Another key criticism levelled on Temasek Review is the kind of personal attacks made by netizens posting comments targeting the writers, the site itself, other individuals, the government etc. This is true for almost every article in Temasek Review. In fact for each postings one can see two or more sides being taken from which such personal attacks are hurled. Then again certain segment of Singaporeans, no matter what political affiliation they may have, have a tendency to use personal attacks. Unfortunately it is quite the culture in certain sectors of Singaporeans.

As mentioned earlier Temasek Review does not have a formal organisational framework or operations team. Basically one or two guys just log on and approve comments at rapid rate unless if its too unacceptable. For a more moderated discussion, Temasek Review needs full time dedicated personnel to manage this website. If Temasek Review is expected to show standards of conventional journalism, then it requires the freedom and resources needed to be a conventional media. Given Singaporeans are not going to pay for an online website, it is impossible to hire such full time personnel. The only alternative is Temasek Review be given a newspaper and news channel tv license and allow it provide news, opinions and information in the manner some quarters expect. Should anyone think closing down Temasek Review will resolve the problem, they are wrong. Especially since there are nobody who is owning it. Most importantly there are far too many netizens who will simply create a Temasek Review clone the very next day. One can expect many such sites springing up instead of just one.

In any other country a site such as Temasek Review will not have achieved as much importance as it has achieved in Singapore. That is purely because of the  repression of media, news, information and opinions. Things also have deteriorated to the extent where foreign media sometimes are relying on Temasek Review and other  online citizen journalist websites to find out what is happening in Singapore. Nobody other than the government and its controlled state media created a need for Temasek Review and other citizen journalism.

What is interesting is not the some quarters in Singapore are worried about Temasek Review but they are worried about online citizen journalism. They think they can counter it by themselves going online. It didnt work. They also imagine that if they can exert pressure using rules and regulations for conventional journalism, they can exert some control. Welcome to the new world era. The realities in the internet are not that simple. Their only last bet is to integrate Temasek Review with conventional journalism by allowing online citizen journalistic sites to have newspaper and news tv channel licenses.

In that way only can you demand and expect conventional journalistic standards. That is also the only way you can expect to promote more moderated discussions. In fact this can be a really positive step forward allowing the various quarters to engage themselves more actively and directly on a common platform.

Mainstream journalists must stop their anonymity

The other change expected of Temasek Review by local mainstream media is for its contributors to stop being anonymous. That is so hypocritical because there are intelligence agents in local mainstream media who are anonymously writing under the designations as journalists. Some of them are even open secrets. The only other countries where citizens write anonymously on websites are in countries where there is severe repression, oppression, autocracy and dictatorship. Until a day comes when there is media freedom and intelligence agents stop writing under the disguise of journalists in mainstream media, there will always be websites where people express opinions anonymously.

Set standards for all journalists in Singapore

Another set of criticisms put out at Temasek Review includes that the site is sensationalizing news, being anti-Christian, anti-Buddhist etc. Which Singapore media outlet including local mainstream media has not been accused of such things? It is not that media sensationalizes news but the way media emphasizes or prioritize or report news.  Society itself has to set standards for all journalists not just for Temasek Review. Instead society becomes selective in its criticisms and that is unhelpful. Each group tends to launch at whichever news outlet that it is unhappy with and when another group is aggrieved in the same manner by another news outlet, the former group sit silent. Society also needs to access what is the role of media in Singapore society. Till now its something solely decided by politicians. Some argue media is the voice of conscience of society but how can it be in Singapore if for instance main stream media calls itself to be
 pro-government. In issues of religion and race, Singapore for the last 50 years have regarded them as taboo topics even though they are key issues of our multi-racial and multi-religious society. The failure to establish platforms and standards on how they should be discussed has made journalists in Singapore being incompetent in covering them adequately and appropriately. Singaporeans and not politicians should be heard on how the society wants to deal with this.

Way forward for journalism in Singapore

Even though Temasek Review has long term vision and is working hard, it has already accomplished itself for what it set itself out for – premiere online citizen journalism site. Tomorrow whether Temasek Review grows bigger or shuts down is immaterial. It has set a certain standard and inspired necessary number of minds that online citizen journalism will carry on with or without it. Journalism has been one area in Singapore which primarily for half a century has been about conquer, control and power. Such hegemonistic approach has failed today with internet. It is time politicians, Lee Kuan Yew and mainstream media shed this attitude and work towards a free and open media environment. For fifty years they imagined that their continuity relied on a tightly controlled media environment. Today, its clear their continuity relies on an open media environment.

Aftermath of Rony Tan fiasco: ISD shouldn’t be policing racial and inter-faith relations

By Hurr Riyahi

In the recent fiasco of Paster Rony Tan, it is not unusual to see ISD intervening. It is always either ISD who intervene in cases of any breach or potential breach in race or inter-faith relations. However what is unusual is that if one looks at any developed or civilized countries, there is no other parallel of a security intelligence agency taking such a role. Instead without involving security or enforcement agencies, other countries try to seek resolution using much peaceful and amicable methods.

Local governments elsewhere being able to resolve race and inter-faith issues

I have seen in many instances in several countries where someone says something unpleasant like Rony Tan or whatsoever to breach the cordiality of race or inter-faith relations. Many a times, the local governments are able to intervene together with community agencies and seek a resolution.

Local governments refer to municipalities and in Singapore the equivalent will be town councils. Unfortunately in Singapore, town councils seem to be more interested of garbage collection and investing in mini-bonds even though it is not capable of the latter. The reason why local governments intervene is because they are closest to the issue and often they are able to move in fast together with all the community organizations, community representatives and so on. Then again the other issue is that local governments in civilized and developed countries will not wait for instructions from higher authorities which will be the case if Singapore town councils played a greater role in race and inter-faith relations. Local governments typically also have better staff who are capable of managing issues beyond garbage collection. They also foster close partnerships with community individuals, organisations, places of worship etc.

Communities being able to resolve race and inter-faith issues

I have also seen communities themselves being able to resolve race ad inter-faith issues. For instance in a case like Rony Tan, if this was happening in a civilized or developed country, one can expect other churches to step in to diffuse the tension. Unfortunately in Singapore we have not seen this. Should instead of Rony Tan, some other priest of some other faith in Singapore had behaved in the same fashion, the respective communities will also not have stepped in immediately. Part of the reason is the fragmentation of the various communities.

The reason why other churches didnt intervene is partly because they may have felt it is the problem of the church of Paster Rony Tan and not theirs. Part of the reason is also fear of intervening. Singaporeans are generally fearful of intervening in an issue where they are not the primary person involved. What Singapore needs is not the empowerment of politicians, ministries, statutory boards, government agencies etc but none of these can really solve a race or inter-faith issue.

The police and ISD can at the most disrupt the issues but not resolve such issues. What instead is required is empowerment of the communities in Singapore. The next time an issue such as what we have seen repeats, the first person to intervene should be the various churches together with temples. If at this day and age if Singaporeans are not capable of such amicable resolution to such issues and instead are only capable of brawls, shouting matches and confrontations, then we as a society are only half human in nature.

Politicians should play a more active role

It was funny to see there has been only the MInister of Home Affairs speaking on the issue and that too because ISD intervened. Instead all the MPs have gone into hiding. They should be the ones stepping forward to diffuse the tension. They should not try to control how the issue should be resolved but instead act as mediators bringing the various community individuals, institutions etc together to the resolution table.  I used to live in one municipality where the MP will organize community parties at the house of my friend who is a respected member of community. 

Whenever there is any issue involving the community, MP will contact and communicate majority of the key community members within an hour and resolve any issue fast within days or weeks. The fact that no MP in Singapore intervened shows they lack the confidence to manage race and inter-faith issues in Singapore. What they are capable of is only passing consitutency walkabout statements about need for harmony blah blah blah. They are absolutely useless in diffusion of tension and achieving amicable resolution of conflicts.

ISD is a security agency, in essence

Essentially ISD is a security agency. They should be intervening in issues where someone is planning to disrupt the security of the country. Pastor Rony Tan was not at all planning anything like that. He should not have received a call from ISD at all. Instead he should have received a call from his local MP who should have coordinated with his town council and other churches and temples. Many issues can hypothetically escalate to threaten public and national security and ISD shouldnt be a paranoid freakish organisation intervening in all such hypothetical cases. They should intervene in very clear categorical cases. Instead other necessary agents of society such as stated above should be the ones intervening.

 

Other articles by Hurr Riyahi:

>> Security threat posed by foreigners versus Muslims

>> How often is there tolerance in Singapore or Malaysia

 

Related articles:

1. What LKY said to Archbishop Gregory Yong in 1987

2. Is it really necessary for the ISD to deal with Pastor Rony Tan?

3. Public anger against Rony Tan fast turning to PAP

4. Rony Tan’s Facebook closed after being flooded with comments from netizens

5. Rony Tan’s views on homosexuality

6. Perceived double standards in the application of Sedition Act

7. Facebook group set up to demand punishment for Rony Tan

8. VIDEO: Pastor Rony Tan’s comments on Buddhism

9. Hardwarezone forumers up in arms over Pastor Rony Tan’s remarks

10. Pastor Rony Tan issues public apology on his remarks about Buddhism

How often is there tolerance in Singapore or Malaysia?

By Hurr Riyahi

The recent arson attacks on churches in Malaysia has triggered tongues from all quarters to go on a convenient fingering exercise.. Singaporeans pointing at Malaysians and talking about how intolerant they are. Christians pointing at Muslims. Chinese pointing at Malays. etc etc.

It is always convenient and easy to point at others and difficult to reflect about oneself. In all the years I lived in Singapore and Malaysia, I have found that both societies are pretty much the same in many ways no matter how much they may deny. In one aspect where they are similiar is the prevalence of intolerance and of course the attitude of denial about it.

In both countries one can find numerous cases of issues involving places of worship being handled with absolutely little sensitivity or tolerance. In Malaysia for instance there is indeed a problem of Hindus having built several temples without any licenses and in fact that is also a problem in India. However when dealing with the problem, seldom do you see both sides (i.e. authorities and temple worshippers) showing any sense of give and take.

The authorities’ perspective is all about illegal occupation of land and totally disregard the sacredness of the space to Hindus. The Hindu worshippers on the other hand totally disregard the need to respect the laws governing land rights. Instead of both sides compromising, they prefer to go for confrontation.

This is not limited to Hindu temples alone. Mosques also face the same similar dilemma. Authorities in states like Johor, Perak etc have tried to change names of Indian Muslim Mosques to Malay names. In some cases they have done so and in other cases they are still trying. Some of these mosques have been around for several decades and are symbolic to the Indian Muslim community.

The Malay authorities want the Indian Muslim Mosque to integrate with the Malay Mosques which is something reasonable to ask for. The Indian Muslims also should make greater attempts to integrate the Malay community. However even the Indian Muslim community often are mellow in their responses, the Malay authorities display little tact, tolerance or sensitivity in achieving it and go to the extent of forcing it instead of trying to reach a compromise. In this case, one side chooses confrontation.

In Singapore, there has been a fair number of cases involving Chinese temples. Only after severe confrontation were the cases resolved. There have been cases of Hindu temples being forced to relocate or demolish and many Hindus are not happy about how it was handled. The worst handling is in the case of mosques in Singapore.

About130 mosques since 1965 have been torn down over a period of fourty years which took the Muslim community more than 200 years to build. The government’s argument is that they required the land and that they replaced it with bigger mosques. However most Muslims in Singapore are still deeply unhappy about it since the government chose to deal with the demolishment and compensation issues only with its statutary board MUIS instead of the community. This will likely errupt as a major issue at some future point as it has been the case in many countries. Here too, one can see the lack of sensistivity and tolerance adopted by all the various quarters in dealing with mosque land.

I remember a couple of Indian Muslim friends were extremely unhappy about the redevelopment of one of their mosques, Bencoolen Mosque, which they consider to be their heritage site. As per their accounts, the mosque when rebuilt was shoved underground and the Malay authorities decided to build service apartments above and during the process, they refused to hear the community’s plea to protect their heritage site.

Last year we saw the fiasco with AWARE. There was the Christian group who was growing uncomfortable with the neo-liberal approach to matters. They could have worked out a better solution than to seek instant solutions through takeovers. The neo-liberal group responded in similar fashion. If one is to watch the recordings of the meeting at Suntec where the Christian group was voted out, one can see how both sides managed the issue in the most ugly and uncivilised manner possible. That issue has not really died out and instead will reappear in future.

In the current fiasco, you can find the whole issue in Malaysia being started unnecessarily by the Catholic newpaper. The word Allah is indeed an Arabic word that is used by Arabs of any religious background be it Muslim, Christian, Druze etc. However in the Malay language, the word has been exclusively used by Malays for centuries all this while. Especially when the Malays express disatisfaction at the word being used in a Catholic Malay paper, the editors should have been sensitive enough to avoid it and perhaps seek a solution over time. It is not going to make any difference to them if they chose not to use it. Instead they chose confrontation by going to the courts. In the response to it, we have seen some quarters reply with ugly and cowardly confrontation again refusing to act in a tolerant manner.

In any place where there are more than one group of people, the rule of thumb ought to be tolerance and sensitivity, instead of trying to push one’s agenda onto others. It is all about giving and taking instead of force down one’s throat or pulling till the string snap.

Sadly in both Singapore and Malaysia, despite history showing nasty incidents such as race riots especially after post independence, the people and the authorities still lack the ability to deal with one another in a tolerant way. Rather they rely on courts, power and authority. They simply are impotent in resolving issues amongst themselves when it comes to religion or race.

Politicians especially in Singapore choose to still believe that the only way for peaceful coexistance is if we do not talk about it, let politicians decide everything etc etc failing to realise that these methods only exacerbate the risks of meltdown. Instead of developing the methods of peaceful resolution, the chief method remains inaction.

I have lived several years outside the Asian region amongst communities that saw issues such as the above. In fact these kinds of issues occur everywhere. At times I have also seen them blow up into serious incidents of confrontation at times. However, situations never return to just like how weak and unstable as before. This is due the presence within the community of higher level of literacy and forward thinking leaders. These communities during such issues and incidents were able to forge new directions and work out new methods acceptable by all quarters in laying out how to deal with one another.

For instance, in both Singapore and Malaysia even amongst the most literate individuals, the word “tolerance” is not something you hear all the time during communication. It is definitely not ingrained in them. Instead one often hear each other speak along the lines of stereotypes, misconceptions, bias and prejudice particularly in private conversations.

In the other communities where I have lived, the word tolerance itself is something that everyone in the community talks about all the time when a sensitive issue comes up and everyone tries to measure responses along the yardscale of sensitivity. If there are issues where a compromise cannot be reached, the communities agree to work on it over time and hope to reach a compromise over time. I have seen simple issues taking like five years and people wait patiently for the outcomes.

In all the issues that I have stated above and all other issues involving religion or race in Sinapore and Malaysia, they require time for amicable resolution.. It may take even up to a generation of time. Sadly Singaporean and Malaysian people and authorities have little patience. They want quick and immediate solutions and they are willing to use methods such as:  shove down their agenda, run to courts to seek rulings, take to the streets in violent protests or engage in cowardly attacks..

When US and its allies decided to intervene in Iraq, none expected they will strike the match to the kind of sectarian strife that errupted since then and burning till now. What lied beneath a dictatorship of a cruel tyrant was a society that was deeply divided and who had no capacity of dealing with one another in a tolerant manner just like in Malaysia and Singapore.

The risks that Malaysians and Singaporeans today face are high unlike ever before and the only way forward is to chart new directions in race relations. Malaysians may like to brag how many records they have broken. Singaporeans like to brag in how many things they are number one. Dealing with one another in a tolerant manner is something both societies are way far off from how an average civilised society is able to do. Frankly it is this which matters because without this, any other material achievement can be lost when people lose themselves.

Are PAP Malay leaders and State associated Malay organisations doing enough for Malay Education?

By Hurr Riyahi

In the typical Straits Times’ shameless patronising way, the headlines of this CNA article claimed ethnic group’s performance in major examinations have been steady. However the article itself highlighted data that showed otherwise with the Malay students lagging behind the average Singaporean student in many cases. One cannot help but only ask whether PAP Malay leaders and State associated Malay organisations (MUIS, Mendaki, AMP, Warees etc) are doing enough for Malay Education.

Malay Students general dismal and lagging performance

In PSLE mathematics, only  56.3% of Malay students scored at least a C more than 30% lower than the national average of 83.1%. Malay students also lagged behind national average of GCE O level passes. The Malay students are not doing better than a decade ago in several areas. Their achievement of at least a ‘C’ in PSLE Mathematics is worse than a decade ago. The article itself claimed that the gap between Malay students and other ethnic groups has not narrowed significantly.

What could be the underlying reasons?

PSLE achievement is something that which a community in Singapore can easily work towards to achieve national averages. That is because you do not have the problems of adolescence and so on. If a community is not able to achieve it even after so long, then it is a serious concern. It only shows there are serious problems in the community.

The article attributed to the inequalities between educational performance of Malay students from the average Singapore student is mainly due to broken homes. That is so simplistic because can broken homes alone be a major factor in this? If one looks at data about incomes for Malay families, it is not readily available for public but anecdotal evidence show Malay families lag far behind in incomes. Obviously they are not getting sufficient employment opportunities, they are likely to be the last to be hired and first to be fired as they tend to form a major proportion of unemployed workers etc etc.

In Singapore’s fast changing business environment, the Malay community seems to be facing major challenges in keeping up their competitiveness. I hear from sources that close to 40% of people commuting between Johor Bahru and Singapore are Malay Singaporeans who simply cannot afford to live in Singapore any longer.

Broken families is likely to be one of the factors. The divorce rates in Malay families have been high for decades. This can have long term impact on the Malay students’ education as it can make them loose focus as they struggle with the trauma of their families breaking up or having broken up.

If one is to look at 2004 National Health Survey, there is a disproportionate level of health risks faced by Malay community. These are likely to put immense pressure on the Malay community and draw away much resources which could have been allocated for the education purposes of their students.

Are PAP Malay leaders and State associated Malay organisations doing enough?

In terms of employment issues, these PAP Malay leaders and their affiliated State associated Malay organisations have done virtually none to increase employment opportunities and income stability.

In terms of competitiveness in the fast changing business environment, the Malay community requires a lot of retraining, relevant skill development. It is clear our labour programs have also failed the Malay workers in general. The Malay PAP leaders and the State associated Malay organisations who have done virtually nothing in this area also have instead relied on purely the work of other State agencies to clear up their mess.

In terms of broken families, it is about time one recognise that the Syariah Court in Singapore along with the family services centres and other counselling mechanisms have proven to be a total failure in bringing down divorce rates and solve recurring and persistent problems of broken families. These agencies are simply being run by the most ill-equiped and incompetent individuals. Right up to now, there has been no assessment of the efficacy and effectiveness of those services. But annaecdotal evidences show they require total overhaul and require non-state enterprises to run them.

In the area of healthcare risks faced by Malay community, here again the Malay MPs and State associated Malay organisations are simply pushing cosmetic, simplistic and superficial measures and are not doing enough at all to tackle the issues.

What is clear in all of this is that the PAP Malay leaders and State associated Malay organisations share no sincere commitment to uplift the Malay community’s conditions. Education performance is just one indicator of how well the Malay community is doing overall relative to the average Singapore. It clearly shows the huge struggles they are putting up with.

Security risks posed by foreigners vs local muslims

By Hurr Riyahi

Throughout my lifetime in Singapore when I used to live there, I faced a frequent question during interviews whenever I applied for a government job. “Are you Muslim?”

In fact during my national service days training period, I was selected to attend an interview for a designation as a secretary for a high ranking security official.

On the eve of the interview, a friend of mine who was holding a senior position in my training camp came to me and told me that a mistake has happened and that I will never get the position as Muslims will never be selected for it. He consoled me and told me not to be disappointed. I didn’t care much anyway and took it as an opportunity to book out, something which recruits yearn for.

During the interview a young senior security official who is also a scholar asked me the usual questions of my background and skills. He started to like me a lot and started going on a long persuasion conversation to persuade me to choose the position. I was unsure and I frankly shared with him I am indifferent and have no real preference. I also clarified the cons of such desk bound positions but he was singing praises of the job trying harder to persuade me.

At one point he remarked that in a eight to five deskbound job during NS life, I do not need to worry about having to be in camp during my Christmas celebrations and instead can spend time with my family. I told him that I do not celebrate Christmas. He turned pale and asked what then I celebrate. When I told him I celebrate Hari Raya he grew even more pale and his very next sentence was “I wish you good luck in whatever posting you get… Dont worry wherever you go during your NS, you will enjoy it”.

That was actually my first experience in life as a Muslim in Singapore and it was never the last. I even had friends in other security agencies informing me of job openings but advising me to not appear as a Muslim in my application or during interviews. I never applied to them anyway. However in the other government jobs that I applied for, I was regularly asked if I was a Muslim.

When I travel the western world and see fellow Muslim friends or just Muslims holding important office in sensitive departments, it never failed to make me laugh and reflect how silly Singapore security clearance is. They cannot even differentiate a Muslim who is a threat and a Muslim who is not. It is little wonder that even a PAP MP Halimah Yacoob engaged the head of JI to teach her kids unwittingly.

I have read about Arabs serving in the U.S. Secret Service guarding the former US President Bush.. Even after the recent massacre at the U.S. military camp, the response taken by the security agencies is to beef up surveillance and monitoring than isolate Muslims downright from sensitive positions. That is also the case in Canada, UK, Australia, France, where there are large Muslim populations and where arrests have been made of militant Muslims planning acts of terrorism.

However the situation in Singapore remains bleak as ever as the idiotic security agencies cannot tell a friend from a foe. That ignorance and stupidity is also the reason why in recent years, a lot of PRCs and Malaysian Chinese are recruited to sensitive government departments passing security clearance without much problems.

Going by MM Lee’s argument that a Muslim Singapore will hesitate to pull the trigger in a war if he had to face rival armies comprising Muslims, I believe the security agencies in Singapore imagine that PRCs and Malaysian Chinese will only look towards the Chinese in Singapore side.

I wonder if the security agencies realise there are Chinese on the other side too. Their sense of patriotism is well displayed. Many Malaysian Chinese in Singapore refuse to take up citizenship as they want to move back when they retire. Those who do take up citizenship do so mainly to improve their employment options.

In terms of PRCs we have seen incidents of them flying China flags in Singapore etc etc. As a Singaporean Muslim, if I were to work in a government agency, which foreign government will I want to go and sell secrets if I gain them? If I were a Malaysian Chinese or PRC, I will probably be more tempted to sell secrets to foreign government basically my own native government.

If I were to build up international contacts and networks of investors and politicians due to my position in the government, as a Muslim Singapore who do I really have outside this country to want to pass on those contacts and networks. However as a Malaysian Chinese or PRC, I can easily be swayed to help my friends or family or relatives who are doing business by passing key information.

If I was a Muslim scientist in Singapore’s research agencies, unless if I were some unscrupulous Pakistani scientist part of a global nuclear smuggling syndicate, I will have no incentive to leak out any IP to anyone. Instead if I were a PRC, there is a good chance of such leaks which has happened in other countries.

I can keep going on about other scenarios which are not totally hypothetical but which have happened before. They all prove to show Singapore Muslims have no other homeland than Singapore. The average Singapore Muslim in a government position is less likely to be a threat to the security of Singapore’s economy and politics than an average Malaysian Chinese or PRC. However in the true spirit of Singapore stupidity, nobody will realise this until we get another Mas Selamat type of major security breach in about ten years time when it involves a foreigner Chinese.

Lessons from Muharram and Ashoura for Singapore Muslims

By Hurr Riyahi

There are two important religious occasions coming up for Muslims. The first is the start of a new year in the Islamic Hijri Calender. The first month of Islamic Calender is called Muharram. Muslims typically refer to the start of the new Hijri year as coming of Muharram. The second occasion is Ashoura which is on the tenth of Muharram. Both occasions saw numerous events occurring in the Prophetic tradition. Hence these two occasions signify a retreat or flight from oppression, falsehood and injustice towards justice, truth, fairness and freedom. The two sacred occasions also signify turning away from helplessness, aggression and violence to standing steadfast with courage, faith and hope resiliently.

Muharram or rather the Islamic Calender itself started when Prophet Muhammad migrated from his birthplace of Mecca to Medina. He was given the divine command to flee Mecca from the pagans who had issued a price for his head and were hunting to kill him. Till then while he preached monotheism in Mecca for years, he was ostracized, verbally and physically abused by his pagan tribesmen. They also offered him position, wealth and women to give up his message. He did not succumb to any political threats nor was he tempted by whatever they lured him with.

He could have retaliated during that period but since he did not get any divine command to do so and therefore he refrained from retaliation and instead patiently persevered. After a long time of test and tribulation that he and his companions endured, he received divine command to migrate to Medina. This symbolises the flee to freedom from injustice and oppression. It wasnt a permanent flight and so it was not running away in cowardice. Instead he came back to take over Mecca without bloodshed after a period in Medina.

Hence the message of Muharram for Singapore Muslims just like for all Muslims is they should  seek a new beginning in freedom from oppression, injustice and unfairness and till that beginning comes they must patiently endure with hope and resilience and without relenting an inch to the oppressors. That steadfast sense of endurance will be far superior than helplessly resorting to retaliation and confrontation.

Ashura is the second occasion that takes place on the tenth day of the month of Muharram. There are a lot prophetic events that took place on this day. For instance Moses escaped from Pharoah on this day when the sea was split with his shaft and Abraham was rescued on this day from the fire that was created by the tyranical king Nimrod to destroy him. It symbolises how God can save someone from the the most wicked, cruel and unjust humans using methods beyond the imagination of the victimised and oppressed one. If the victims or oppressed are pushed to the edge of the sea, the one that will drown will be the oppressor.

Ashura is also the day in history when the Prophet’s grandson Hussein was killed in battle in Karbala (present day Iraq). The ruling Muslim King, Yazid, wanted Hussein to give his allegiance to him. However Yazid was an oppressive and corrupt king. Hussein refused. The people asked Hussein to group together and wage a war against Yazid and depose him. Hussein refused saying he does not want divisions. He wanted peace at all costs. He fled and Yazid sent his army after Hussein. The army besieged Hussien and committed all kinds of attrocities such as denying him and his camp any access to water. All Yazid wanted was allegiance from Hussein but his army was so determined to get that that they exceeded their own consiousness and decided to cruelly force Hussein to submit. Hussein refused and he was killed by Yazid’s army. They also tortured his body.

This event symbolises the fight for freedom, peace and truth is far supreme and heavenly than fighting for position in this world. Hussein was fighting for truth, peace, justice and freedom. Yazid was fighting for his position in this world. Hussein lost the worldly battle but won the heavenly battle. Yazid won the worldly battle but lost the heavenly battle. If life ended only in this world, we all can be Yazid. But since there is life after death, we need to be Hussein.
This event also saw the army being so steadfast in fulfilling the vision of Yazid that they exceeded themselves.

This symbolises man’s vulnerability to exceed himself when he pursues an ill objective of his leaders. The message that Singapore Muslims need to learn from this event is that those within government service, police, army, intelligence agencies etc need to reflect on which of their leaders objective is truthful and just and which are ill and unjust. They need to only fulfill the former. If they seek to fulfill the latter they will exceed their limits as humans and loose themselves eternally.

Within the battle of Karbala, there is another interesting personality, Hurr. (Please read the full  story here http://www.shariati.com/horr.html). Hurr was one of the important commanders of the army of Yazid. On the day of battle of Karbala, he crossed over to Hussein side and he was the first to charge towards Yazid army and he was the first to fall. Why did he cross over? Before that day while he was part of Yazid’s army that besieged Hussein and his camp, he was reflecting on all the attrocities and wrongs that his army was doing. He realised his army was wrong and unjust. He consulted his peers and the commander of his army and all gave the same reply that they simply were following the law. They all agreed what they were doing was not the most appropriate but they have to do so in order to be dutiful and fulfil the orders of Yazid.

Hurr could not accept the law was just. If he had stayed in his army he will definitely been the victor as his army outnumber Hussein’s small camp. Hurr will have been given the worldy gifts and glories if he had stayed. But the name of Hurr itself means free. In the spirit of his name, he wanted to be free from wrongdoings and injustice of oppressors. He did not want to be part of any oppression. He did not want any blood on his hands. He crossed over even though that is only going to bring earthly defeat. He knew his victory is beyond that.

Singapore Muslims on this sacred occassion of Muharram and Ashura need to

1) run towards freedom, break free

2) never give in to oppressors, tyrants and cruel people and leaders

3) never give up hope for freedom and peace and boldy stand up resiliently using non-violence to oppression

4) never fulfill the ill objectives of your leaders. reflect and see if they are just and truthful

5) always cross over to the side of truth and freedom if you realise you are on the side of falsehood and injustice and oppression

6) work for a new beginning and start that with freedom

There are two groups of people who ignore Muharram and Ashura. Firstly religious radicals. They do not believe in perserverence, nor non-confrontation nor retaliation. They do not believe in patience. They obviously do not believe in freedom. The second group who ignore Muharram and Ashura are the secularcrats. They only believe in worldly benefit. They will succumb to any political pressures. They love worldly benefit. Truth, justice, fairness etc are immaterial to them. Only material things matter to them. Singapore Muslims should avoid falling into the dishonourable ranks of these people.