Letters

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

Old Age vs Old-Age Home
My husband's grandmother has been in a Christian old-age home for about half a year.
We have visited her a few times with my 2-year-old son who will push her around in her wheel-chair. We are used to seeing her either lying in her bed with nine other old ladies in the big ward or having her meals in her wheelchair with a special table at the corridors.
The place is brand-new and beautifully furnished and she is well-taken care of by care-givers, nurses and doctors who visit once a week.
She is also looking better than when she was in her own home dirty, sickly-looking, suffering from dementia, and was showing signs of inability to look after herself.
But a few things made me think hard time and again, yielding no answers. There is a notion in the air that every old person staying at the home is waiting to die.
They are in various stage of health with some in really bad shape.
Most times when we go, the old folks are just lying in bed. They are not allowed to walk for fear that they will fall and hurt themselves or lost themselves in the neighbourhood.
So, they get tied and pushed around in a wheelchair and are tied to their beds if not in the wheelchair. This makes me realise that being able to walk around is truly a great blessing.
Mobility makes life worth living. What is life like not being able to move around when one is still physically mobile like my husband's grandmother.
My husband has also wondered why we can take care of new-born babies and toddlers but not our old folks at home. He never arrived at a certain answer. The question remained unanswered.
I am in two minds about staying in an old age home in the future. On the one hand, I really hope to stay with my children when I am old.
But I can also appreciate and understand the emotional and financial burden to my children should I become incoherent, forgetful and maybe immobile. I guess only time can tell when I grow old.
Corinne Lam
June 11, 2002

 Biting maids' nipples:
Isn't it a sexual offence?
We've had several abuse convictions in which women employers were jailed for biting their maids' nipples, among other charges . There were at least two court cases since March that I can remember.
In the more recent one, the woman had removed her maid's brassiere and underwear before committing the offence.
A couple of years ago, another female employer had used the cane on her victim's sex organ.
The question I have is why were these women not charged for molest and/or sexual assault. Surely if a man had committed these acts, he would have been charged under the sex offences act - and caned.
I think Singapore's public prosecutors and/or judges are overlooking the sexual nature of these offences by women employers.
The defence lawyers always seem to plead depression or family or money problem to mitigate their client's "mistakes." In some cases, it worked and the abuse convictions were relatively light.
I think that as long as someone has assaulted - or even touched - a woman's breasts, buttocks, or sex organ, whether a man or a woman, he or she must be charged with sexual assault, which is more severe than an ordinary abusive act.
Judges beware, women, too, can be perverts and commit a sexual offence on other women, too. Should not be too naive to neglect this.
Darren Khoo
May 24, 2002

Laws, yes,
but we need heart, too
Dear Lord, help me wash away this sour taste from my mouth. I want to throw up.
I read with much disdain the article in the Straits Times article on Saturday, May 18th 2002 regarding the CPF (Central Provident Fund) Board's decision not to honour the insurance policy of a man who died from a motorcycle accident and thus causing his poor widow to potentially lose their flat.
For goodness sake CPF, give the lady a break. Do you expect people to read the fine print in every contract document?
Did the man intentionally plan for his own death for this to befall his wife and two kids? I honestly don't think so.
So they were three days away from claiming legal ownership of their resale flat in Hougang and because of an issue over a legal technicality regarding possession, it apparently seems that the CPF Board refuses to honour the Home Protection Scheme policy taken up by the couple in the unfortunate event of either death or disability.
The CPF Board had better come up with an explanation to the entire population of Singapore on this.
If not, it might find itself embroiled in a major public relations fiasco that will probably make the story of the White House having prior knowledge to the September 11 attack sound like a Cinderella fairy tale - insignificant.
Perhaps the payout from the deceased's life insurance policy will be enough to pay for the mortgage on the flat. We don't need to give her too much help, do we?
Hey, we've got a few thousand families applying for mortgage loan restructuring, we don't need to dish out anymore goodwill if we can help it.
I totally agree with the government that we need rules to run this country.
However, must there be a clear distinction between black and white? Is the civil service so rigid and a stickler for rules and regulations that they've forgotten how to be human?
Prime Minister, if you're reading this, give a tinkle down to the Ministry of National Development. Your people don't have much to cheer about anymore. Morale is literally below sea level, now is not the time to lose faith in the functions of the CPF Board.
Madam Jenny Koh, I know how tough it is to live here sometimes. Fight the good fight.
Semper Fidelis.
Tan Wah Kum
May 21, 2002


The pampered lot
Just read the front page of Sunday Times today. It's regarding the policy of queuing for a HDB flat.Mah Bow Tan (National Development Minister) mentioned that he received a complaint letter from an applicant who claimed that he should be given priority over other Singaporeans because he travels overseas frequently for business and this makes him more cosmopolitan than his fellow Singaporeans.
Remark 1
Travelling overseas frequently for business does not make one more cosmopolitan. Same goes with travelling around the world on vacation. Being cosmopolitan means to LIVE and WORK in one or more foreign countries for a considerable amount of time. During which, one explores the foreign country extensively interacting with new people, culture and customs. I spent 7 years in the United States and I dare not even declare myself as being cosmopolitan. I believe it is a label given by peers not by oneself.
Remark 2.
Even if this applicant is indeed cosmopolitan in someway, he should be more understanding towards the government's policy regarding public housing in Singapore. Afterall, he is supposed to have seen the "World". Besides, the issue here is not supply-demand, but the applicant being choosy.
Remark 3.
Don't blame the government for not providing your ideal home. Besides, there is always private condominium as an alternative. If he is cosmopolitan, he should thought of that rather than launching a letter to Mah B.T.
Remark 4.
Since the applicant travels frequently, why bother choosing an ideal flat? The fact that he travels frequently already compromises his choice. Let those who are "less" cosmopolitan enjoy the better units. And the applicant can equally retrieve the joy by staying at one of the tallest hotels in the world, Raffles Plaza hotel.
Vincent Seah
May 19, 2002

Wasted, unpaid effort
Reading your reader's letter "Asset enhancement or bureaucratic excess", MP Tan Soo Khoon's "seven wonders of Singapore" and MP Inderjit Singh's call for the government bureaucracy to be cut by 30 percent over a period of five years, I am reminded of an instance in which government servants somehow do not apply the principles of economics in dealing with contractors.
A couple of years ago, about 40 representatives of advertising agencies, graphic design houses and printing companies crowded round the conference room of the Building and Construction Authority to attend a "tender briefing" for the production and printing of its annual report.
My company was one of them.
Among the conditions of eligibility was a clause stating that the tender must be accompanied by three "design visuals".
Assuming that all the 40 agencies handed in the required three design visuals each in their submission, this added to 120 design visuals.
If each of these agencies assigned two staff to conceptualise and execute the three designs and if they took a week of 40 hours to do so, this worked out to an astonishing 3,200 man-hours.
And the BCA would then choose one design for its annual report. Its corporate communication manager probably thought that she was doing an admirable job by getting such a wide choice of designs to pick from, gleeful that so many potential tenderers were interested in the contract.
And she probably would have earned praise for this "innovative idea" to get her job done.
But she and the BCA did not see (or care about) the pain this caused the agencies.
Only one among the 40 would finally get the job. Imagine the pressure this put on pricing, already a major factor in any tender.
On top of that, 119 design visuals were wasted, unpaid effort. They were then returned with a "thank you for participating" note.
With this type of competition (the 40 representatives attending the briefing were an indication of the difficult economic situation then, which had hardly improved), my company decided that going ahead with the tender exercise was a futile thing.
Since then we have avoided such tenders, and we have become cynical about the games that are being played on the playing field, level or otherwise.
Case of "tendernitis"
May 18, 2002

Causeway row:
Singapore also deserves it
Although I oppose Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad's racist remarks on Singapore, I also think Singapore deserves it.
Did not Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew declare public support for Umno during his visit to Kuala Lumpur after the 1999 general election?
Read the Singapore Straits Times and we would find Mahathir and Umno have always been glorified as saviour and defender of 'secularism', 'modernity' and 'moderation'.
It may really be a sandiwara for Umno and PAP to attack each other for the consumption of the credulous, malleable and timid on both sides of the causeway. It benefits both Umno and PAP.
On a more serious note, Singapore is in fact not that vulnerable vis-a-vis Malaysia. Singaporeans would be silly to believe that Malaysia would dare to attack a place where the US military presence is strong, and Western interests are deep-rooted in businesses, finance and economy.
Attacking Singapore is tantamount to declaring war on the United States and the West.
In fact, both the Malaysian and Singaporean Armed Forces have excellent relationship under the Five Power Defence Arrangements (FPDA), and both countries are located within the area of responsibility of the US' Pacific Command.
There will be no war between Malaysia and Singapore.
These 'wars' of words are merely bogeys for Umno and PAP to maintain psychological grip on their countries.
WYK
May 15, 2002

In need of representation
for lawsuits
Singapore's Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew and Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong are suing me for questioning the Government during elections in November 2001 about a secret US$10 billion loan that was made by Singapore to the former Suharto regime of Indonesia in 1997.
I have applied for representation by non-Singaporean lawyers. Singapore law allows for Queen's Counsels (QC) to argue cases in the country provided the applications for ad hoc admission to the Singapore Bar are granted by the courts (in the past, several QCs have been thus admitted).
In my case, however, the courts ruled that my choice of Stuart Littlemore was not suitable because the Australian QC had criticised the independence of the Singapore judiciary in a report he had written in 1997 for the International Commission of Jurists regarding another case of Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Chok Tong, and other ruling party politicians also suing opposition leaders.
I did not appeal the decision because I could not afford the US$6,000 security deposit I had to pay for the appeal to be heard.
I then made another application for another 2 QCs, Martin Lee (Hong Kong) and William Henric Nicholas (Australia), to represent me.
The courts then ruled on 18 April 2002 that the case was not complex enough to warrant the admission of the QCs. (The plaintiffs, on the other hand, have engaged a Senior Counsel, Singapore's equivalent of the Queen's Counsel.)
Again, I have difficulty in appealing the decision because of the US$6,000 security deposit requirement.
Lee and Goh have applied for summary judgment for the case which will be heard on 24 April 2002.
I will contest the application on the grounds that I have filed my defence, issued third party notices to media companies, and have counterclaimed against Lee Kuan Yew.
My immediate concern at the moment is simply to get legal representation.
Singapore lawyers are either too afraid to represent me or have interests in not wanting to be seen to be supportive of opposition leaders. The only recourse for me is to engage overseas lawyers.
Government politicians in Singapore have frequently taken opposition politicians to court and sued for huge sums of money, leaving them bankrupt and therefore unable to stand for elections.
Chee Soon Juan
22 April 2002

Your E-purchase rights
This is something I like to share with you from one of my seminar recently which your readers may find useful to know. It was conducted by Catherine Tay on Legal issues in E-commerce.
One important thing on contract law with regards to any purchases:
Notice that most of the time, the receipt/invoice you received from the merchant carries this exclusion clause or similarly worded statement: "Goods sold are not returnable" or "No refund once sold"
The thing that I have learnt from her is that "As long as your good is purchased for home use and not for business (ie. to be resold), the above exclusion clause is VOID.
That means, as long as the good is defective, regardless of what is worded, you CAN get back all your money spent. You do not have to accept a repair on the good or an exchange.
You CAN ask for a refund. AND you are LEGALLY right and entitled to "
What a relevation!! And most of the time the merchant will refuse to return you your money. Her advice? From her own experience (and no less than 7 and all successful!), she will threaten the merchant with four words: "SEE YOU IN COURT!"
The court here refers to the Small Claims Tribunal Court. However, you don't have to tell them what court! All you have to pay is $10 admin fee and the loser (the merchant) will have to refund you the money PLUS the admin fee!
She shared this with us because she felt that even educated people are cowed by such unfair wordings (which include her jaded friends who are not lawyers).
Don't let the merchant fleece you the next time you have a defective good.
NLK
Apr 12, 2002

"Journalist Notebook"
Hello Mr Seah,
I saw you being quoted in today's Straits Times (26 Mar 2002) and found out you have got a voice in the Web via "littlespeck.com"...
I remember fondly looking forward to most Sunday mornings few years back when I could hear anecdotes of your experiences as a journalist in the segment known then as "The Journalist's Notebook"
That must have been some time around the mid-90s.
I am not a man of words, and so I will keep my message short. I was wondering if there's any chance all the experiences you recounted in "The Journalist's Notebook" might see the light of day again, perhaps in a Web presence?
Even then, I must add nothing beats hearing the stories directly from the horse's mouth. I am sure the valuable lessons you draw from those experiences would be invaluable to many young people out there, including myself.
I wish you good health.
Glenn Hong
Mar 27, 2002
(Editor: Nice to hear that you like Journalist's Notebook. It's a good idea to bring back some of the talks in that programme. I'll think how best it can be done. Writing and talking versions of journalism are slightly different. The latter is more chatty.Best wishes.)

Zulfikar's Letter
Dear Editor
Since the article mentions me and was reprinted in other publications, I hope you will give me the right to reply some of the accusations levelled upon me in your article.
You claimed that I support Osama and condemn the arrest of the 13 ISA detainees.
That is untrue. My position is that, at the time of the attacks (and some claim even now), there were not enough proof that Osama is guilty of the attacks.
What Fateha.com did was to provide the other side of the story. Not just those who claim his guilt, but those who are critical of that claim.
We believe that it is presumptious to judge with the flimsy evidence provided. We did not support Osama. We wanted to urge caution in the laying of blame.
Neither did I condemn the arrests of the 13 detainees. What Fateha.com did was to analyse the root. We did not say that the arrests were wrong. But as citizens of Singapore, we believe that the best way to proof someone's guilt, is to charge them in court.
It is also erroeneous to claim that I "had said the government had prompted local Muslim terror plots because of Singapore's support for the US-led bombing campaign in Afghanistan."
The BBC interview was an analysis of the possible motives for the plot. I believe there are various reasons why the group could have wanted to take such an action. It may be due to their time in Afghanistan, it maybe because they were taught wrongly.
But these are reasons and not motives. To understand the motive, we need to look at the targets and analyse the feeling of the Muslim ground.
A large number of Muslims are concerned about Singapore's alignment with the United States in its attack of Afghanistan. My response to the question by BBC is that, the Singapore government's alignment with the United States and Israel could have motivated the terroristic attempt.
George Bush had also given legitimacy for anyone, not just JI, to attack Singapore when he said that it is valid for the United States to attack Afghanistan because the latter harbours the Al Qaeda.
By the same virtue, JI members may believe that it is legitimate to attack the United States military in Singapore because we harbour the US Navy.
The oft repeated Osama better than Malay leaders is a clever twist by R-Adm Teo (Chee Hean.) He referred to a Q&A piece where someone who claims to be Muslim condemned Osama and accused him of being "a political figure defending his prowess."
To answer the various accusations, we needed to contextualise the questions.
Osama claims to want to setup an Islamic state. That being the case, he has to be a practising Muslim (usually defined as someone who prays, fasts etc).If he does not, he would not have had the support of the mujahideens.
We then, pointed out to the questioner, that while we criticise someone else, living thousands of miles away, we need to look at our own society and see if we should cast the stones.
Therefore, we told her, "From reported accounts of his life and character, Osama ben laden is a practising Muslim and he requires the same of his followers and family members. His family follow Islam as best they could. This is better than some of the supposed Malay leaders in Singapura."
A number of Malay leaders in Singapore do not practise Islam. Neither do their family. It is then necessary for us, to take a look at our own conduct instead of focusing on others, especially when we do not know well enough to judge.
As for the 7 who left, except for Faris Osman, who was the Mediawatch Editor, none of them were key members. Let me give a breakdown of their roles and purpose.
Riaz Salleh: He left Fateha in October 2001. It is a wonder why he "resigned" 3 months after he had resigned.
Alzarina: No role in Fateha. She last came for a Fateha meeting in August 2001.
Sapinah: Helps me look out for grammatical errors in articles that have been posted.
Aisyah: No role in Fateha.
Terrence Nunis: He approached us 2 months ago to help him on an education
programme. Fateha accepted him to help him in his goal. He had not done anything for Fateha.
Faris: Mediawatch editor. Has since, returned to Fateha exco.
Nawab: Treasurer. Fateha only has $1,400. He had no other role.
Also, while it was claimed that they disagreed with the statements, the 7 who left were in full knowledge and agreement with the statements made. In fact, Nawab was with me when I was interviewed by BBC. At the end of the interview, he said it was very well done and he agreed with what was said.
Terence and Faris attended the interviews by TODAY and AWSJ, which took place immediately before the BBC interview and echoed the same sentiments that I stated on BBC.
They had also vetted and approved the press statements.
As for being political, Nawab lobbied for me to run in the last elections. He had argued for Fateha Exco to approve my candidacy even though I had little interest in it. The exco approved.
I rejected it.
Best regards
Zulfikar Mohamad Shariff
Feb 6, 2002
(Received via e-mail.)

Littlespeck Editor replies:-
I stand by our descriptives.
It was written after carefully going through the statements from the government, foreign reports, Zulfikar Mohamad Shariff himself and the Fateha group, including his ex-colleagues whom he now runs down.
I am glad that Zulfikar has made no efforts to deny speaking up for Osama bin Laden or the arrested suspects but evidently objects to the website's choice of words like "support" and "condemn."
I think it is "support" when he describes Osama, who planned and sanctioned such a heinous act as Sept 11, "as a good practising Muslim." That's only straight talk.
The word should be "condemn" when he criticised the cell members' arrests, even though it's done under an anti-Internal Security Act (ISA) banner, especially when done in the same breath that he used to say the terrorist cell's existence was justifiable because of Singapore's military support for USA.
Zulfikar says he just wants be fair to Osama, to "provide the other side of the story." That's a noble value, if it's true.
For balance and objectivity to work, however, Fateha has to remake its raison d'etre which is to fight for Malay or Muslim rights, an ojective that frequently - not always - means intruding on others'.
Did Zulfikar. for example, ever criticise the use of the ISA to arrest of Chinese chauvinists or leftwing pro-communists in the past? Or when the 22 mostly Catholic "new left" activists were detained without trial in 1983?
Or, indeed, condemn the use of the ISA at any time, in Singapore, Malaysia or Britain against the IRA?
Has Fateha under him ever dreamed of "providing the other side" of the Israel-Palestine conflict? And if the group consider America as doing some good anywhere, has it ever talked about it?
That's "providing the other side."
Take this from a long-time "has-been" journalist: Selective "fairness" is no fairness; it is the opposite. People instinctly know when you do it.
So is using half-hearted words - or organised disclarity in writing - for whatever reason.
We have never met. I have no ill-feelings towards you.
But I am apprehensive that what you are doing will harm Muslims (therefore others) and the country, when it is in dire economic hardship.
These are dangerous times for us, Muslims and non-Muslims. Let us join together to build a cohesive, tolerant society rather than have each race or religion fighting for a bigger piece.
I wish you and your family the best of health and happiness.
Seah Chiang Nee
Feb 7, 2002

Badminton - why shorter sets
A group of us were talking about sports recently and the subject soon turned to badminton.
Someone said the scoring rules were changed - from 15 points per set to seven (but five sets maximum instead of three) was to allow for TV advertisement breaks.
That sure is important. After all, some of the richest games in USA are those that allow advertisers to move in without disturbing enjoyment - like basketball, baseball, tennis gold, etc - but not soccer where there is no break.
If that is so, foot rules may come under change, too so that it can take off in America.
In badminton, I believe there is more to it than just adv. It is one of the few world sports that is dominated by Asians because they have more stamina (especially in tropical Asia.)
The Danes occasionally win when the game is played in cooler Europe. The shorter sets will benefit the Westerners playing in Asia because in the longer marathon sets, they lose out.
The shorter game allows players with weakerr staying power to have a benefit over the fitter fight-back players (mostly Asians.)
It goes on to show that the West still dominates sports. Remember world football, when Western-dominated FIFA cut down the number of vacancies in the finals for Asia.
The Asians announced a boycott but failed to change FIFA's mind and ate humble pie. Do you agree?
Sports Fan
Jan 11, 2002