In Parliament, PAP MP for Moulmein-Kallang GRC, Denise Phua said that it is time for Singapore to reject gambling, in all forms.

She asked when Singapore would start to wean itself off the casino industry and eventually get rid of them.

Ms Phua was speaking during the debate on the bill to ban remote gambling. She said that we should reject all gambling, not just remote gambling.

"Just as we are bold enough to explicitly stand by principles such as the family is the first port of call for help; that extra marital relationships are not encouraged; we need to express our stand on licensed gambling in Singapore, whether online or via brick-and-mortar casinos," she said.

PETALING JAYA, Oct 9 — Human rights group Pusat Komunikasi Masyarakat (Komas) accused Putrajaya today of trampling on civil rights by allegedly pressuring it into cancelling its screening of the banned Singaporean documentary on political exiles.

Its executive director Anna Har said Komas was merely trying to create avenues for better civil discourse and had not intended to “drum any propaganda” into anyone by screening th controversial film.

“It also violates our freedom of information and expression,” she complained.

Har who is also the director of Freedom Film Fest (FFF) director, was reacting to the forced cancellation of the screening of the Singaporean production on political exiles in the city-state

Komas had earlier alleged that the screening was pulled due to mounting pressure from Putrajaya against the venue owner in Kuantan.

In his 1997 National Day Rally, then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong pointed out that Singapore needed more undergraduate students. He said: “In fact, we are short of students who can meet the entry grade of NUS and NTU.”

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong now persuades Singaporeans not to “go on a paper chase for qualifications or degrees.”

It is this kind of confused approach to education that does so much damage to the country. Through the decades the PAP has used education as a tool to achieve its economic and, most unfortunately, political goals.

A snip here and some glue there has been the guiding principle of education policy formulation with the end-result that we now have to import foreigners in massive numbers without which, in Mr Lee Kuan Yew's words, Singapore will fail.

Fortunately, Singaporeans have become more discerning (and bolder) and are pointing out the shortcomings, and even hypocrisy, of the Government when it comes to educating our children.

For example, Ministers run the line that all our schools are equally good. This earned the rebuke of Jurong West Secondary School Vice-Principle Pushparani Nadarajah who said: “How many of our leaders and top officers who say that every school is a good school put their children in ordinary schools near their home? (Only) until they actually do so are parents going to buy (it).”

The truth is that the PAP does not know how to take our education to the next level because it does not have a clear grasp of what education is and what an educated person looks like. Its cyclical pattern of making patchy revisions to our education system will lead us nowhere.

The SDP believes that education must be the process where an individual learns to discover herself and, in doing so, endeavour to improve the human condition. To this end, it is important that we teach our children that reading and learning can be enjoyable and intrinsically rewarding. The goal should be to lead our students to learn, not push them to study.

Based on these principles, we have drawn up, among others, the following alternative measures:

1. Scrap PSLE. The exam places an extraordinarily unhealthy degree of stress on children. One in three students say they sometimes think that life is not worth living because of the fear of exams. (Read the shocking statistics in Why do we do this to our children?) In addition, capability is not measured by one examination at the age of 12. Scrapping the PSLE will allow teachers to teach and students to learn in a holistic manner.

2. Stop ranking students. Segregating students according to exam results is counter-productive. Education is not about competition with one’s classmates but learning through collaboration and teamwork with one’s peers.

By now, PAP’s foreigner influx policy touching on all areas in SG has one way or another upset so many S’poreans, they are yearning for a true alternative government to lead SG. However, a big picture on what the alternative government wants to do is solely lacking.  Although more protest votes against the PAP is expected, to realize an alternative government, opposition must present it to the electorate.

First, where is the alternative government? So far, SDP has the most comprehensive alternative policies to challenge PAP. The electorate is aware there’re no perfect policies, only better ones. Suffice to say, the incumbent PAP policies such as the foreigner influx policy and no S’porean-first policy for employment had driven SG backward into a 3rd World country in terms of livelihood and society cohesion as a nation for citizens.

A glance at SDP website (if only all voters are presented with it), indicates they have plans and policies as an alternative government for: Healthcare, Budget, Population, Housing, Community, Economy, Education, Cost of Living, Transport, Minimum Wage & S’porean-First Employment, Ministerial Salaries, CPF, Income Inequality, GIC & Temasek, Special Needs & Disability, Political Rights, Media Freedom, Green Environment, National Service, etc.  The newly-formed Singaporean First Party with excellent relationship with SDP can join forces to contest for more than half the seats on the next GE. This is a concrete alternative government to challenge the PAP! Such a formation (of running a an alternative government) will appeal more to voters desiring a change of government even in the face of multi-corner fights! Just make sure party members and candidates are out to serve S’poreans, remain humble and talk sensibly.

Second, how to present alternative candidates, policies and plans? PAP has been denying all other opposition parties their platform to reach out to the electorate. The only exception is to entice the WP to present theirs so that the PAP can train the state-controlled media and numerical advantage in Parliament to brow-beat them. Lumping all opposition in the smear process is also expected since the platform to reply will be denied. Of course, the ground walk-about, door to door visitation, etc are ongoing for all opposition parties.

[Article first appeared on Mr Yee Jenn Jong personal blog page here.]

I delivered the following speech in Parliament on 8 October 2014.

Madam Speaker, I wish to declare that I run businesses that offer education services to students.

This bill will ensure that all Singaporean citizens aged seven to 16 who are not enrolled in mainstream schools will now also receive the $200-$240 yearly Edusave contributions by the government. News reports have estimated that 20,000 more children will benefit from this[1].

I believe this is a strong signal to tell Singaporeans that there are many education pathways, and Singapore children who have chosen to be enrolled in Madrasahs and other religious schools, private schools and home schools or are studying overseas are part of Singapore and deserve access to the funds that are meant for use for activities to enrich their minds.

The scheme, popularly known as Edusave was designed to provide yearly funds to students in mainstream schools to allow parents to use the moneys to pay for enrichment activities for their children in programmes that are approved by the schools. Autonomy has been given to the schools to decide what activities are best suited for the students. This is something that is useful as schools can bring in programmes that extend on their niches or programmes that they believe are best for their students.

Over the years, students have used their Edusave moneys for many sorts of programmes such as speech and drama, sports, learning expeditions and camps, and even for overseas trips.

Enrichment programmes offered through mainstream schools are often very competitively priced, as there is economy of scale from having a large number of students. Facilities within the schools are not charged to these service providers, so fees are much lower than that of similar programmes offered in venues outside of the schools that have to pay commercial rents. The enrichment providers sometimes also offer other type of programmes and services to the schools outside of Edusave funding, so there’s incentive for these providers to be as competitive as they can to sell a continuous stream of services to the schools.

While the same amount of funding per child is now available to children in religious and private schools and those that are home-schooled, enrichment providers will not rush to offer services to them as the scale of business is small. Granted that depending on rules that MOE will establish, those that are home schooled can attend enrichment courses by commercial providers individually, the costs are a lot higher per hour of learning. Hence, the yearly $200-$240 Edusave contribution that a student will receive will not go far. More importantly, there will be the missing social emotional learning elements of learning together in a large group.

I’d like to suggest that MOE can look at having schools open up participation of edusave-funded enrichment courses in their schools to those that are home schooled or in the smaller religious and private schools nearby.

I’d like to suggest that this can be a nationwide effort coordinated through MOE. Selected schools spread throughout Singapore can be satellite centres to partner with students that are in the religious schools, smaller private schools and home schools. Enrichment courses offered in the schools, especially those that are Edusave funded can be extended to these external students. This will foster interaction through joint programmes which will help develop the social and emotional learning of those outside of mainstream schools while helping students in the mainstream school better understand their peers learning under a different education system. It will also provide some form of common education experience for both groups of students.

Clarence Dorai & Sarah Sidek | YourSDP.org

Record temperatures, droughts, wildfires, floods, melting polar caps all drive home the need for urgent action on climate change.

This was the conversation at the recently held CALD Youth Climate Change Seminar in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia which we attended.

It was a meeting of youths from 10 countries to examine how youth leaders could effectively communicate climate change issues to their respective communities and political parties.

Discussions between international delegates and case studies elucidated the fact that ongoing environmentally unfriendly practices such as deforestation and over-harvesting in the region stemmed mainly from greed and the desire to push GDP growth.

However, this does not mean that we can continue down this road. We are responsible for our actions and contributions to climate change, and we must act accordingly.

Generally speaking, in the region, there is a disconnect between environmental goals and human development or social goals. These need to be integrated with economic goals in order for there to be any chance at long-term sustainable development.

Developing economies cannot afford to go the well-worn Western route of industrialization – we’ve all seen what that has done to the environment, and we are seeing it happen right here in Southeast Asia – typhoons, forest fires, floods, the haze, etc.

We cannot escape the fact that we are part of nature, we must, therefore, be concerned about human health and the lives that are being lost. We require Earth’s ecological goods and services, and no amount of economic growth can replace what is being lost.

The problem with climate change is that its effects are not instantaneous, making it difficult to convey the urgency of the situation. It has been suggested that there may be a 40-year time lag between cause and effect.

This means that the effects we are seeing today are from emission levels in the 1970s – and we know that carbon emissions have nearly tripled since then.

This morning, a dramatic headline caught my eye. “More Grads Suffer Underemployment” on pg A3 of The Straits Times.

I was rather concerned. Did something happen? We have been watching this space and tracking the various data points. The situation still remains rather positive. 

Technically the headline was not wrong. But the impression created was somehow rather different. The underemployment rate of degree holders has only increased very slightly, from a very low 2.2% to 2.3% between 2012 and 2013, as shown by the statistics in the article. In fact, our various figures do vary slightly from year to year, but it is not unexpected. The 0.1%-point change doesn't indicate any particular trend as yet. The proportion of degree graduates in our resident labour force has also increased, and the fluctuations have to be seen in this context. Also, we have kept both unemployment (2.8%) and underemployment (2.3%) of graduates low. Of course, we should still look out for those affected, but the situation remains positive by any standards.

But there are two very real concerns. Firstly, I have highlighted the impact of ever-increasing number of graduates. The problem is not upon us yet but we do want to avoid ending up in a situation like that in South Korea or Taiwan where too easily available 'degrees' result in serious underemployment. In fact qualification inflation is happening in a number of developed countries as well. We are quite some ways away from that situation but we need to be careful.

The other concern, which is real and upon us, is the changing nature of the economy. We cannot guarantee that our respective sectors will remain constant throughout our lifetime. As the article suggested, we also cannot afford to remain complacent, whether mid-level workers or otherwise. Job seekers must upskill and re-skill themselves. This is imperative because this will be our insurance in the job market when change happens. 

Through his blog, former Malaysian Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamad responded to the comments of former Singapore Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew about the race relations and ‘racist politics’ in Malaysia.

Below is an excerpt of The New York Times interview with Lee Kuan Yew

I regret having been turfed out of Malaysia. I think if the Tunku had kept us together, what we did in Singapore, had Malaysia accepted a multiracial base for their society, much of what we’ve achieved in Singapore would be achieved in Malaysia. But not as much because it’s a much broader base. We would have improved inter-racial relations and an improved holistic situation. Now we have a very polarized Malaysia, Malays, Chinese and Indians in separate schools, living separate lives and not really getting on with one another. You read them. That’s bad for us as close neighbours.

Singapore was part of the Malaysian Federation in 1963 but separated from it two years later.

Below is Mahathir’s blog reply:

Racism in Malaysia is clearly the result of Singapore's membership of the country for just three years.

Singapore's population is made up of 75 per cent Chinese and they own 95 per cent of the economy. It is therefore not a truly multi-racial country but a Chinese country with minority racial groups who are additionally much poorer

In Singapore dissent is not allowed, People who contest against the PAP (author’s note: ruling political party) would be hauled up in court for libel and if they win elections would not be allowed to take their places in Parliament.

…the party has always been led and dominated by ethnic Chinese and have won elections principally because of Chinese votes. The others are not even icing on the cake.

Konpunboyong left this comment in Mahathir’s blog

Both you and Mr. Lee Kuan Yew are nearly 70 years my senior. I do not know nor do I care what was happening in the past between Malaysia and Singapore. What I do know and care is that to-day in Malaysia we have first class citizens and second class citizens whereas in Singapore all citizens are of the same class.

Dr. Boo Cheng Hau from Malaysia clarifies the real cause of disunity among Malaysians.

In reality, it is the discriminative education policy towards various schools and the creation Malay-only schools and higher education centers that causes disunity.

Lee can rule the island state of Singapore with his own prejudice but not a much diverse and bigger country like Malaysia. His vision has made Singapore an advanced nation but might have not worked for other countries

Where Bears Roam Free from Singapore criticizes Lee

Whenever the Old Man speaks, it is about the Old Times. Yes, it is about the sixties and the seventies, although we are now in the 21st Century.

He speaks about the race issues we had in Malaysia. He speaks about the race issues we would have if we didn't do this or that. In fact, he speaks about….. nothing else! Ever since he stepped into politics in the 1950s, Old Man's favourite topic, heck let me restate that, Old Man's ONLY topic is all about race, race, race.

I will never understand why Old Man keeps living in the past. Haven't we left Malaysia about more than 40 years ago? Why is the Old Man carrying the baggage of the past? Isn't he weighing Singapore down?

Singapore Democrats

Dr Chee Soon Juan has been invited to speak at this year's International Bar Association's (IBA) Rule of Law Symposium in Tokyo on 24 October.

He is one of two speakers in the session on the subject of freedom of expression.

The SDP Secretary-General was also invited to speak at the IBA conference in 2011 in Dubai but could not attend because of his travel ban resulting from a lawsuit brought by Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr Goh Chok Tong. He sent a video instead. (Watch video here.)

Dr Chee also attended the Rule of Law Symposium when the conference was held in Singapore in 2007 and spoke from the floor during the Q&A session.

The Government had then tried to prevent the IBA from opening the Symposium to the public which would have stopped him from attending. It failed.

During the session, one of the speakers Mr S Jayakumar, then deputy prime minister and minister for law, defended the PAP's position. Dr Chee rose to rebut the minister, pointing out the numerous abuses of the law including detaining Singapore citizens without trial.

Following the conference, the IBA published a report in 2008 which stated that the rule of law in Singapore “falls far short of international standards. In particular, democratic debate and media comment are extremely restricted and government officials have initiated numerous successful defamation suits against both political and media critics.”

The report also stated that “Singapore cannot continue to claim that civil and political rights must take a back seat to economic rights” but that “[i]t is imperative that Singapore now takes its place as a leader in the region...in human rights, democracy and the rule of law.”

Freedom of expression in Singapore is still significantly restricted. Print and broadcast media are still run by the government. Bloggers and activists continue to be threatened with prosecution and lawsuits. The 2009 Public Order Act, allows the police to stop protests, even if it is by one individual.

The Singapore government recently banned the screening of a film about Singaporean exiles. Several protestors are currently under investigation by the police for alleged illegal assembly at the Speaker's Corner.

Workers’ Party Chairman Sylvia Lim was in court today as the court hearing into the case of the WP run town council allegedly holding an unlicensed trade fair started.

Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) has been accused of holding an unlicensed fair earlier this year during Chinese New Year.

They had organised a trade fair at the Hougang Central Hub which was supposed to start on January 9 this year.

However, the National Environment Agency had shut the fair down before it could be started as NEA claimed that town councils are not allowed to engage in commercial activities as these fall outside of their statutory function of managing and maintaining the common property.

In fact, AHPETC had been discussing with NEA that they were going to be holding the fair since as early as December 20 last year. They had already outlined the way that the residents would benefit from the fair.

Excerpts of HJT's speeches

 

Briefly, TWP first hit the headlines in 1975 when he was jailed for a year for rioting at the Pioneer Industries Employee Union. TWP claimed that he was not present at the scene, but the state called upon various witnesses who thought otherwise. After serving his jail term, TWP was due to be enlisted for NS, but he decided to escape to Malaysia illegally and then to London subsequently. His reason for not serving? TWP said that he feared for his personal safety and he could be assassinated should he enlist. Then the natural question would be - wasn't being imprisoned just as dangerous?

KUALA LUMPUR: The Malaysia Communication and Multimedia minister admitted today that his ministry was powerless to control Facebook because most users did not use their real names when registering for an account.

The minister Shabery Cheek also said his ministry did not have the authority to close Facebook accounts.

“We can request to close the FB account but in the end it’s still up to FB whether to close it down or not. When they (FB users) register, they’re registering with FB, not us.” he said.

Facebook postings came under scrutiny recently, especially the postings of sex-blogger Alvin Tan and his girlfriend.

Tan’s most recent posting insulted the IGP while a Sabah and Sarawak Facebook group called for secession.

Shabery said Tan who was charged under the Communication and Multimedia Act, had his case postponed and had now resorted to posting insulting statements from overseas.

“Since our national law will not be applicable overseas, we can’t do much,” the minister said.

Shabery was responding to a question by Noh Haji Omar (Tanjong Karang) on issues of media freedom.

Note by Teo Soh Lung

“Now some of you may have heard that when you are young you are idealistic, when you're old you are realistic. Now this is the kind of rubbish that is used by those who have either lost their ideals or have sold their ideals for self-interests. Each should not wither one's ideals or convictions. 

If anything, it should only consolidate and make it more resolute. If age has anything to do with it, it is only by way of expression and application of these ideals and convictions having the benefit of a youthful experience. And a life without convictions, without idealism, is a mere meaningless existence, and I'm sure most of you will agree that as human beings, we are worthy of a life much more meaningful than just that.” - Dr Lim Hock Siew at the launch of Fajar Generation on 14 Nov 2009.

Dr Lim Hock Siew was a friend of former prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew. A brilliant orator, talented artist and true socialist, he was about 9 years younger than Lee. He helped Lee found the PAP in 1954 and assisted in the drafting of the constitution for the party. In 1961, Lee did not renew his membership with the party. Together with others who had been either expelled from the party or left because of ideological differences, Dr Lim founded the Barisan Sosialis. 

On 2 Feb 1963, just a few months before the general election, Dr Lim together with almost the entire central executive committee of the Barisan were arrested under the ISA. Codenamed Operation Coldstore, a total of not less than 133 people were arrested and imprisoned for an inordinate period of time, many exceeding 10 years. At the time of arrest, Dr Lim’s son was only five months old. An idealist and a principled man, Dr Lim remained in prison for 20 years. 

(Reuters) - Prime Minister David Cameron said on Wednesday Britain should stand up for the rights of people in Hong Kong, a former British colony, after more than two weeks of protests over Chinese restrictions on how the island chooses its next leader in 2017.

Answering a question in parliament about the unrest, Cameron said it was important people in Hong Kong were able to enjoy freedoms and rights set out in an Anglo-Chinese agreement before Britain handed it back to China in 1997.

"It is important that democracy involves real choices," Cameron said, stressing the importance Britain attached to the agreement.

"It talks about rights and freedoms, including those of person, of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of travel, of movement, and, indeed, of strike.

[Article first appeared on http://yeejj.wordpress.com]

The following is an article which I had written for the Workers’ Party Hammer newsletter that was published several months ago. I am reproducing the article online after reading the article, “Demand rises for after-school care services” in the Straits Times today. The Straits Times’ article described the urgent problem facing young working parents vying for the very limited places in School-based Student Care Centres today and across the industry. It is an issue that I have been highlighting in parliament for several years already.

—————————–

Student care centres (SCCs) provide before or after school care for primary school pupils. They are an essential service for young working parents who do not have alternative arrangements to look after their primary school- going children during school days.

In recent years, there has been a huge increase in demand for student care services. This has followed a similarly large increase in the demand for childcare services since the last decade. The same young working parents that use childcare services will usually need student care for their children, at least for the first few years of schooling.

For many years, this sector has been left very much to market forces to fulfil the demand. Commercial SCCs are unattractive to run given the high cost of rent and a general lack of government support, compared to childcare. As at June 2014, the Ministry of Social and Family’s (MSF) website listed 214 student care centres, of which a good number are tuition or childcare centres. These centres may take only very few student care students, if at all, as their other operations are generally more profitable.

Good student care services could eliminate the need for tuition. However, the current number of SCC places available are too few to meet parents’ needs. The best place to run SCCs is in the schools, where students need not move out of the school and the operators can best coordinate with the teachers to follow up on homework and learning. Schools’ facilities in single-session schools are not fully utilised after school hours. If facilities are offered at token rents to operators, MOE can negotiate for lower fees and higher quality programmes. It will also reduce the need for tuition, benefiting students from disadvantaged families.

The government made a late start on this, growing school-based SCCs (SSCs) at a faster pace only after 2010. There are now 80 SSCs, with another 40 coming on-stream over the next 2 years. Even though this is fast by historical standards, more than a third of schools will still not have SSCs come 2016. MOE did not provide figures for my parliamentary question on the waitlist in existing SSCs. So, I did a random check on 12 SSCs in March 2014. I found that all had no vacancies, with one having over 50 children on the waitlist! MOE would also not commit to when all primary schools can have SSCs.

I like to see MOE aim for 100% of all primary schools to have SSCs as soon as possible. Existing operators that run community-based centres will likely be interested to move their operations into schools to avoid high rents and can pass the cost savings on to parents or to invest in staff recruitment.

With Prof Lundestad, Director of Nobel Institute in Oslo, in the Nobel Committee Room where a committee of 6 sits to decide on the winner. A painting of the founder Alfred Nobel is in the background while portraits of Nobel laureates hang on the wall.

[Article written by Mr Tan Jee Say, 2011 Presidential Candidate and the founder and current chairman of the Singaporeans First Party]

Each year in October, the world's attention is focused on the Nobel Institute in Oslo as it awaits an announcement on the year's winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.  Described as "the world's most prestigious prize",  it has been awarded  since 1901 to more than 101 individuals and 24 organisations. They have included heads of states and ordinary citizens who have worked tirelessly and fought bravely for peace and human rights.

Hailed by apologists as an "exceptional""founding father" who transformed Singapore from "a swamp to a modern metropolis", "from Third World to First World in one generation", wouldn't Singapore's  Mr Lee Kuan Yew be worthy of consideration?

Said Professor Geir Lundestad, Director of the Norwegian Nobel Institute: "LKY advocates Asian values. We do not believe in Asian values as they are used by leaders to deny elections to the people." I told him there are elections in Singapore. He asked: "Are the elections fair?"

Human rights

At the entrance of the Nobel InstituteHuman rights are the core values of the Nobel Institute which has a 6-man committee to choose the winner. Prof Lundestad explained that human rights encompass political, economic and social rights but political rights are regarded by the committee as the most important. The more famous winners among fighters of human rights included Martin Luther King Jr, Nelson Mandela and Aung San Suu Kyi.

Chia Thye Poh

I pointed out to the good professor that when the Nobel Committee awarded the Peace Prize to Mandela, it was wrongly reported that Mandela was the longest serving political prisoner. I told him that Singapore's Chia Thye Poh was detained for 32 years, five years longer than Mandela's 27 years. "I didn't know that! What was he detained for? What is he doing now?" was the professor's immediate reaction of shock. To this day, Mandela is the LAUREATE who has been in prison the longest.

After the meeting, Fatimah, Hans and I  took a short walk to the waterfront where the Nobel Museum was located. We attended the 50th anniversary commemoration ceremony of the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to US civil rights leader  Martin Luther King Jr. The US Government was represented by its Charge d''affaires in Oslo who was the Acting Ambassador.

KUALA LUMPUR — All the three key races that form Malaysia’s majority — the Malays, Chinese and Indians — are immigrants or “pendatangs”, even though the Malays, as the country’s dominant ethnic group, are given privileged status under the country’s bumiputra policy, a delegate from the Gerakan party said at its national conference yesterday.

Johor delegate Tan Lai Soon said not only were the Chinese and Indians pendatang, but the Malays were not natives of Malaysia either as they had emigrated from Indonesia.

“Except for the natives of Sabah and Sarawak and the Orang Asli, everyone else in Malaysia is a pendatang,” Mr Tan said during the party’s 43rd National Delegates Conference in Selangor.

The conference was earlier opened by Prime Minister Najib Razak.

The party, along with the Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA), are both Chinese-majority parties that are component members of Mr Najib’s ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition.

Ethnic Malays and other indigenous peoples are allowed wide-ranging affirmative action privileges under the Bumiputra, or “sons of the soil”, policy.

Mr Tan yesterday said he wanted to explain the position of Malaysians in the country, as the original bumiputras were the Orang Asli and natives of Sabah and Sarawak.

“When UMNO (United Malays National Organisation) members say that the Chinese are pendatang, they obviously forgot that they were also pendatang from Indonesia,” he said.

Former Information Minister Zainuddin Maidin on Thursday had questioned why the Chinese were annoyed when they were referred as “pendatang”, saying that many Chinese preferred to converse in their own dialects despite 57 years of independence rather than the national language, Bahasa Malaysia. “The Chinese want to identify themselves by speaking in their own dialects. They continue to isolate themselves by not mastering the national language,” he said.

In Mr Najib’s officiating address, he had said that BN, including his party, UMNO, rejected any form of extremism, calling on political leaders to show the way by demonstrating moderation.

He added that as the Internet was not subject to censorship, it was easy for people to get carried away when giving feedback on an issue. “The solution is for political leaders to show the way by rejecting extremism. BN, and this includes UMNO, rejects any form of extremism,” Mr Najib said.

Although he supported Mr Najib’s comments, Mr Tan said what was more important was whether the Prime Minister would fulfil his promises and hold members of his party accountable for their statements.

“If Mr Najib just talks but does not keep his promises, then it is pointless,” Mr Tan said.

At the conference, Gerakan president Mah Siew Keong in his opening address had proposed that BN component parties take disciplinary action against leaders who are found guilty by the coalition of making racist statements. The Gerakan chief argued that this was one way to promote moderate voices as the “true heroes” of Malaysia, while taking the spotlight off extremists.

Malaysia has seen a fair amount of racial and religious vitriol spewed over recent years, with right-wing groups pushing a pro-Malay and pro-Islam narrative to counter what they say is an active attempt by various parties to dilute the power held by the majority Malays.

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 9 — An analyst from Islamist group Ikatan Muslimin Malaysia (Isma) suggested today that ethnic Malays have always been “bullied” since colonial times by non-Malays, especially ethnic Chinese.

In an article on the group’s website, the analyst also suggested that Chinese mine owners in the 18th century were in cahoots with British invaders to “loot the riches” from Malays.

“When did the Malays bully the Chinese? Furthermore, from the facts above, it is reasonable to say that it was the Malays who were bullied from then until today.

“The question is, who are the bullied, and who are the bullies?” asked Mohd Zul Fahmi Md Bahrudin, an analyst of Malaysian history and constitution under Isma-linked Institut Kajian Arus Baru Malaysia.

The article comes ahead of the group’s president Abdullah Zaik Abd Rahman’s court case this Monday for sedition, after labelling the country’s ethnic Chinese as “intruders” who had been brought by British colonialists to oppress Malays.

Abdullah wrote on Isma’s website on May 6 that the influx of Chinese migrants into Tanah Melayu had been “a mistake” which must be rectified.

Last week, the Islamist group urged the public to gather in front of the Kajang Sessions Court in the morning of the first day of the trial, “in the name of religion and race”.

Citing literature on the subject, Zul Fahmi claimed today that Chinese mine owners had been influential with the triads, and had masterminded the intervention of British colonialists in Malay states.

He alleged that Chinese mine owners had forcibly seized mines from Malay owners, citing examples of Taiping, Kuala Lumpur and Lukut.

Zul Fahmi claimed the British had “allowed” Chinese communities to form “armed groups” to “defend” themselves from the Malays—groups of triad members who terrorised, robbed and extorted the Malays.

He also claimed the Malays were in turn forced by the British to accept non-Malays as citizens in order to get independence, and the Malays had yielded on the condition that the positions of Islam, the Malay language, the Malay rulers, and Malay’s special rights were protected.

“Today, there are some non-Malays especially their political representatives who are unashamedly challenging the social contract,” Zul Fahmi alleged.

Founder of Animal Rights group ACRES, Louis Ng, updated his facebook page this evening announcing that he has joined politics under the banner of the People's Action Party.

Read his full status here:

AM I ENTERING POLITICS?

For more than a decade now, I’ve been actively speaking up, voicing my concerns constructively and campaigning for change. There is no doubt that things are indeed changing in Singapore for the better, for both the animals and the wider community.

Many of you have asked if I will consider entering politics. Some have asked if I will join the PAP or the opposition such as the Worker’s Party.