Archives - 2002

Saddam and al Qaeda - Dec16
When a Bumiputra is no longer a Bumiputra - Dec 2
Understanding neighbours - Nov 21
How can it be possible? - Nov 21
Why did Zulfikar run? - Jul 28
Old Age vs Old-Age Home - Jun 11

Biting maids' nipples:
Isn't it a sexual offence? - May 24
Laws, yes, but we need heart, too - May 21
The pampered lot - May 19
Wasted, unpaid effort - May 18
Causeway row: Singapore also deserves it - May 15
In need of representation for lawsuits - Apr 22

Your E-purchase rights - Apr 12
"Journalist Notebook" - Mar 27
Zulfikar's Letter / Littlespeck reply - Feb 6
Badminton - why shorter sets - Jan 11

Saddam and al Qaeda
Chiang Nee
You wrote: "Most Singaporean Muslims support Saddam Hussein - at least verbally, morally - not because they think he is a good man but despite his being an immensely bad one, but simply because he is Muslim.
That is less dangerous, of course, than a financial and militant role to support al Qaeda's violent jihad objectives like the 34 suspected bombers."
Perhaps, but if they persist, it will ultimately bring about their own destruction. compared to the "Infidel" world, the Radical Muslims are pathetically weak.
They may have some "weapons of mass destruction" (even nuclear) which will allow them to do terrible slaughter, but at their possible worst, they are no match for the rest of the world once it is aroused.
I've so often compared them to the idiot zoo attendant who, in his madness, enters the Gorilla's cage every morning and pokes the animal with a stick.
The Gorilla, a massive but peaceful creature tolerates this, until the morning of a bad hard day....WHACK! No more poking, or attendant.
Only a rare few Muslims have even spoken out against their "brothers" who murdered over 3000 innocent office workers in New York a year ago, and committing such attrocities as beheading missionaries.
WHY can they not see that if the radical Muslims keep on poking, sooner or later the outside world is going to get fed up and....WHACK!
Best,
Nat Hooper
Oxford, Arkansas USA
Dec 16, 2002
(Editor: Hate to tell you this, but most Muslims, including those in Singapore, make the clear distinction between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda. So does the French President.)

Malaysia
When a Bumiputra is
no longer a Bumiputra
(Contribution of a discussion on racial assimiliation in Malaysia just received.)
Did it ever occur to anyone that a bumiputra in Malaysia can actually lose his or her preferential status?
There are many cases in existence, increasing as the years wear on. The fault lies with the overzealous bureaucrats, mostly the Malay and Muslim ones.
When a Non-Muslim female bumiputra (Kadazan, Iban, Dayak etc)marries a
non-Malay. As an example an ‘Orang Asli’ lady marrying a Chinese man. The
offspring is normally declared a Chinese as is the norm, following the race of the husband. The poor child loses his/her status as a bumiputra.
There are many such instances especially in the Malaysian Armed forces. Indian and Chinese soldiers marrying Iban and Kadazan ladies experience the same dilemma.
The Muslims do not experience this. A Malay lady marrying any race, of course a non-bumiputra, automatically the offspring is declared a Malay , thus the child becomes a bumiputra.
Whereas the Non-Muslim and the Bumiputra can't have their children declared as Bumiputras. This happens even if a request is made to have them declared as a Kadazan or a Iban, this request is normally rejected.
Why the double standards ? The National Registration Department is primarily
responsible for perpetuating this gross injustice and selective racism.
Can't a child of mixed parentage be declared a Bumiputra, on the basis of the Bumiputra parent or should they convert to Islam to be declared Bumiputra.
Better yet, will the PM unfurl the ‘nationalistic flag’ and declare these
children of mixed parentage, as ‘kaum pendatang’ and will he then decide the Christian Kadazans and Ibans of Sabah and Sarawak are no longer Bumiputra.
Hidup Malaysia ...indeed!
Eric Mudasi
Dec 2, 2002

Understanding neighbours
I'm writing in response to the (third) of the three letters written by LCH on "A tale of of two countries retold" dated Nov 13, 2002.
As a fellow singaporean, I felt sad by their attitude towards our neighbouring countries.
We, singaporean, seem to be so proud of themselves by judging only by our material and financial achievments neglecting our neighbours feelings and tend to think that we are the best around the region.
We can say we live comfortably and safely. But, this aren't really what life is about.
In the time of unemployment, we don't have the knowledge and skill to survive on our own. we would just wait to be spoon-fed again.
This is a very negative attitude. Why are we so proud by what we have achieve and not by our characters. The roadside hawkers in our neighbouring countries may not have a comfortable life.
At least, they depend on themselves. In this sense, they are stronger than us. I really hope that we, Singaporeans, take an effort to understand our neighbours better and show more respect to them, irregardless of race.
They might not be rich, but they can be happier.
Tiong Ann
Nov 21, 2002

How can it be possible?
Delinking politics from Islam? How can that be possible?
Seah Chiang Nee's article on delinking politics from Islam shows shallowness in understanding Islam.
Islam is not merely a religion of set worshipping practices and moral order. Please understand it is a way of life which encompasses religious teachings and conduct in trade (read economic), politics and even to the way that you use water to cleanse yourself after answering nature's call.
So to divorce politics from Islam is laughable, effectively rendering Islam weak in many Eastern teachings like Buddhism, where it cannot be helped but said that many write it down as their religion in many official forms in Malaysia and Singapore yet are unable to recall what are the actual guiding
principles behing the Great Buddha's teachings.
You cannot have an Islam that have undergone political 'vasectomy', because it will not be Islam but a shell of Islam. I put this to you readers. The state of Israel is democratic and pro-Western, but Zionism and the state (nation-state) has never affected to create a split.
It is indivisible- ONE. Any Muslim scholar will tell you that Zionism is a Jewish doctrine of race-based superiority over gentiles, infused with Judaism, a political document and definitely indivisible to the majority of modern-day Israelis (minus their second class Arab citizens od course)!.
My point is, Islam is complete. It has never been weak - the perceived and actual Muslim weaknesses stems from many Muslim majority nations having bad and inept practising governance prolulgated by leaders totally devoid of good Islamic leadership!
If there are bad Muslims, there are also bad Christians, and Baddhists, and Hindus etc.
In Laos, you have Buddhists forcing Christian converts to renounce their new beliefs publicly as we speak and Buddhist organisations looting and destroying whole Myanmar Muslim villages in the Arakan state of Myanmar.
Please, don't harp on reforming an established religion. We can leave that to the prophets and clerics.
What we can do is educate the less-informed adherents of Islam that their understanding of the religion is askewed backed up by proper religious counselling, not an 'official version of Islam crash course' as practised by Malaysia and Singapore when detaining Muslim dissidents under ISA!
I am a practising Muslim, hailing from a Malaysian state where Muslims are the minority as in Singapore and was educated in a Catholic mission school.
Perhaps for many, the last point means that I am not an Muslim extremist!
A Muslim may not be pious and a hard drinker, but let me assure you that this hypothetical Muslim will definitely resent being labelled a secular Muslim. Why? Because he is Muslim, albeit a non-sober Muslim.
Taib Hampden (e-mail: www.taib @suhakam.org.my)
Nov 21, 2002

Why did Zulfikar run?
When I read the Mr Yatiman Yusof saying " ...(Zulfikar) should be a honourable enough to stay behind and fight for what he believes" I feel compelled to write this reply.
The technicalities behind this issue maybe more complex than we the public and the press might know. So Zulfikar should have stayed and fought? But what would have been the outcome for that?
Let me build a simple static game theory with pure (or non-probabilistic) and mixed (or probabilistic) strategies. The two players in this game are Zulfikar versus the law enforcement.
Zulfikar has two pure moves: to stay or to leave. The law enforcement has two mixed moves: to investigate further or to jail him. There are four separate scenarios:
1. To stay/ To investigate further,.
Beneficial to both. Give both players a chance to spill the beans and find out what had happened. This is what Mr Yusof have mentioned: to stay and fight.
2. To stay/ To jail
Incur a higher cost for Zulfikar, because once he is jailed, he has some rights taken away from him. He can no longer have the freedom to speech.
3. To leave/ To investigate further
To leave for Australia so as to prevent being jailed and yet both players can have the freedom to carry on their part of the investigation.
4. To leave/ To jail
Practically impossible. If Zulfikar left for Australia, the law enforcement can't jail him at the same time. However, the law enforcement can pencil down Zulfikar as one of the most wanted political rebels.
Once he return to Singapore, he will be jailed. If this does happen, Zulfikar can always set up a another game to stay away from Singapore forever and yet continue to voice out his opinions from abroad.
Now from Zulfikar's point of view he can do one of the following:
If Zulfikar decides to stay, the law enforcement has two choices. However, when Zulfikar claimed that "he had no choice but to leave Singapore", he must have computed a higher probability that the law enforcement would jail him if he had stayed.
So even though Scenario 1 might be thought to be the equilibrium, the high possibility of the law enforcement jailing him will land both players in Scenario 2. This will no doubt incur a very high cost for Zulfikar and very little for the law enforcement.
If Zulfikar was to choose "to leave", whatever the law enforcement chooses (to investigate further or to jail) has little effect on him. He can continue to do whatever he desires and obtain whatever support he needs.
Unfortunately, there is no clear, unique Nash equilibrium here in this game. But rather two weak Nash equilibriums (Scenarios 3 and 4).
And this is the most appropriate answer to your question on why Zulfikar's best strategy is to leave Singapore.
Vincent Pei-wen Seah
University of California, Los Angeles
Jul 28, 2002