Labrador Nature & Coastal Walk

Highlights:

• An up-close and personal experience with rich mangrove flora and fauna
• Exposure to a wide variety of habitats around the seamless loop – mudflat, mangrove, coastal cliff, rocky shore, parkland and Adinandra belukar
• Mesmerising views of Keppel Harbour, Sentosa island and Labrador Nature Reserve
• Easy access by foot from Labrador Nature & Coastal Walk to Labrador Nature Reserve and the Southern Ridges

Labrador Nature & Coastal Walk consists of three distinct parts: Alexandra Garden Trail, Berlayer Creek and Bukit Charmin Boardwalk. The first path, across the road from Labrador MRT, is a 830m-long park connector along Alexandra Road. Mature trees and scented plants act as a buffer between pedestrians and cyclists heading to the Southern Ridges and the heavy traffic next door.

Berlayer Creek, which cuts through one of the few remaining mangroves left on mainland Singapore. Linking Berlayer Creek to the promenade is Bukit Chermin Boardwalk, a 330m-long sea-side walkway with scenic views of nearby Keppel Harbour and across the waters, Sentosa.

For a DIY trail guide, go to NParks website>

UPDATE:

During my last visit to Banquet IMM and City Square in early January 2012, I still did not see any MUIS Halal certificate for the stalls I mentioned in the email below. And ever since the issue of Banquet halal-ness became public dismay, I have stopped visiting Banquet any longer. 

UPDATE:

This is my email to Banquet & MUIS asking for clarification regarding the recent issue about Banquet food stalls. The email was sent on 19 Jan 2012 and has yet to receive any reply from both organizations.

====================================

Below is my email to Banquet & MUIS sent on 4 Nov 2011. Only Banquet replied as below:

to: info@banquet.com.sg
cc: ariff@muis.gov.sg, feedback@muis.gov.sg
date: Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 6:42 PM
subject: Halal certificate at Banquet outlets

Dear Banquet,

Singapore Wikileaks read here:

http://wikileaks.org/origin/51_0.html

Speech by Anwar Ibrahim, Head of the Opposition, Malaysian Parliament at the 15th Malaysian Law Conference 2010, Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre, 31 July 2010

First, I’d like to thank the organizing committee for inviting me to close the conference. Perhaps that is an understatement. Really, I should say that words can’t convey my profound appreciation for the ‘slings and arrows of outrageous fortune’ that your organization has to suffer by inviting me here. But then again, I see it as a mark of conviction and fortitude that you have stood your ground in the face of adversity. Therefore, I mean it in the truest sense when I say that I am greatly honored to be here to give my humble address to such a distinguished audience.

Today I shall depart from the usual practice of poking fun at lawyers. So let me take issue with Justice Oliver Holmes when he said that lawyers spend a great deal of their time shoveling smoke. This remark is totally uncalled for. Speaking from personal experience, I have seen the toil and the tears that some lawyers have to go through in handling certain cases. I tell myself there must be some kind of masochistic tendency in them that they can carry on in spite of so much pain. And then on closer reflection, it has to do with the nobility of the profession and certain values in life. Of course, in any basket there are always some bad apples but as they say that shouldn’t spoil the whole bunch.

Indeed, I am fortunate to be able to count among my close friends, lawyers of the highest integrity and dedication to their calling. Which is why I stand here before you in humility to speak on a subject that I believe is close to all of us.

So, with apologies to the eminent legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin, I have chosen to title my speech today as “Taking Justice Seriously”.
As one saying goes, the principle of justice is so central in a civil society that without it the concept of law has no meaning. The Holy Qur’an enjoins us to “judge with justice.” According to St. Augustine, kingdoms are but great robberies if justice is taken away. In my own humble view, no civilized society can exist without it, for justice is so central that bereft of it, the very foundation of our humanity crumbles.

To be sure, in talking about justice, we are not confined to the judges and the judicial system of a country though that is a crucial component. Nor are we limited to discussing only the role of lawyers or the law enforcement agencies, though that too is essential. And justice is not only about subjecting the actions and policies of the Executive to intense scrutiny. That too is of utmost importance.

Indeed the subject encompasses all that have come to be associated with the idea of justice: freedom and democracy, the rule of law, constitutionalism, equity and fair play, social justice and the dignity of man. Let me begin with a historical account that is still relevant to the very idea of justice.

More than a century ago, the great French writer Émile Zola published his famous open letter entitled “J’accuse” on the front page of a leading Parisian newspaper. Expressed in highly emotional language, Zola charged the nation’s military top brass with conspiracy and anti-Semitism in dealing with the infamous Alfred Dreyfus affair. But instead of bringing the culprits to book, the authorities lost no time in arresting Zola, charging him with criminal libel, and having him tried as a common criminal. The show trial was so well managed that an angry bloodthirsty Parisian mob gathered outside the court house clamoring for Zola’s head.

Anatole France, another eminent man of letters, came to his defence and valiantly testified to Zola’s “admirable good faith and absolute integrity.” But this was of no consequence as Zola was hastily convicted and sentenced to jail. However, thanks to his quick thinking and survival instincts, Zola chose freedom instead and dashed off to England. By his reckoning, there was a total failure of justice and it would be foolish for him to submit to an utterly corrupt and unjust system.

Today as we sit here in closing three days of very spirited discussions about the state of law, of human rights and of justice in the nation, we find ourselves in a situation not much different from what I have just recounted. As you can readily gather, there is indeed an uncanny parallel between the Zola episode and what is currently going on here. And I am not talking about my case here. I am referring to the persecution of a famous blogger who published not “J’accuse” but an equally sensational expose which shook the nation, and who has also chosen freedom in London.

So, at the root of this episode is the issue of the people’s participation in matters which have a bearing on society – they comment, they criticize and they expose the wrongdoings and shenanigans of those in power. Because of this, they are branded as enemies of the state and are hounded like common criminals.
From one angle, we could see this as a classic case of the tyranny of state power. Yes, we can view it that way or we can go beyond mere emotional outburst and look at it as a failure of the state to allow for government by discussion and participation.

According to one of the most influential public thinkers of our time, Nobel laureate Professor Amartya Sen, “the central issues in a broader understanding of democracy are political participation, dialogue and public interaction.”

The failure to allow for ‘government by discussion’ can be seen for example in the deprivation of a free and independent press. Without this, the advancement of public reasoning is constrained and is forced to find its voice through other channels. The benefits of a free and independent media have been well expounded by leading writers and empirically we know what that is all about. So, I need not and should not attempt to reinvent the wheel here. Unfortunately for us, far from having a free and independent press, we have one which is essentially a propaganda machine for the powers that be. As a result, the people’s voice can only be heard through an alternative media, one which thrives in spite of the constraints imposed by the authorities. As you know, we have a plethora of laws aimed at curbing freedom of expression enforced with the full might of the organs of state power.
Arbitrary, whimsical at times, but more often tyrannical and politically motivated. This is how I would characterize the Executive in their use of power. The fact that just a month ago, all three newspapers of the Pakatan Rakyat coalition were suspended speaks volumes about press freedom in this country.

The point is that media freedom is so central to the democratization process that without it there is neither democracy nor justice. To my mind, where the voices of truth are muzzled, where dissent is stifled and where opinions are censored, it is a travesty to call it democracy.
As Amartya Sen puts it so succinctly, “the media is important not only for democracy but for the pursuit of justice in general. ‘Discussionless justice’ can be an incarcerating idea.”

The suppression of the people’s voice is not restricted to just the media. The freedom to assemble and to listen to ceramahs (public lecture) is also severely curtailed and that is a violation of the people’s constitutional rights. In this regard, I must commend the Bar Council for having taken much initiative in its outreach program to educate the public about their fundamental rights as citizens of a nation founded on a constitutional charter.

Closely linked to this is what is known as the protective power of political liberty in securing justice. This is not a new concept. It is already laid down in our constitution. It is supposed to protect us from harassment and highhandedness of the authorities; it should protect us from arbitrary arrest and selective as well as vindictive prosecution; and it should protect us from the oppression and persecution of a less than impartial judiciary.

Now this protection is essential for the proper functioning of a true and viable democracy; not a democracy which is spun by an elaborate network of public relations campaigns at home and abroad with millions of the tax payers’ money to foot the bill; neither are we talking about a democracy that buys its way through op-ed columns and full page ads in foreign newspapers paid for by unknown sources; and most certainly not a democracy where the state rides rough shod over the rights of the people, treating the property of the state, the land and the rich resources like a private fiefdom, for the amassing of wealth and to live out the good life at the people’s expense.

In a true democracy, justice prevails in a system where the rule of law governs the administration of justice. That means judges will exercise their powers in accordance with the rule of law and will be mindful of the legitimate expectations of the people as to their competency, dedication and impartiality. Our society is maturing and with it, expectations of the moral dimension of justice become greater. As John Rawls has said, laws and institutions, no matter how efficient and well arranged, must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust.

In a real democracy, sham trials will not see the light of day because the principles of justice and due process will prevent the arbitrary use of prosecutorial powers. Unfortunately, we have now become familiar with this scenario in various parts of the world: first, because of the fear of losing power, a strategy is unleashed with the sole aim of crushing the political threat. This is done by neutralizing the leader or leaders. Trumped-up charges are leveled no doubt aimed at putting them behind bars for good. Then, despite the best efforts of lawyers to mount a fool-proof defence, the judgment is a foregone conclusion.
The point is when the rule of law is crushed under the tyranny of politics the administration of justice becomes farcical and perverse. We would expect that in a real democracy, the use of the judicial process to bring down political opponents will not be tolerated. However, where judges are unable to stand up to the political masters, those prosecuted for political reasons are condemned even before the trial begins. At every step along the arduous path to finality, all manner of obstacles are thrown to frustrate them in their effort to secure a fair and just trial.

We see the work of the ubiquitous unseen hand here, its invisibility made possible because of the utter lack of accountability and transparency in governance. Because of this, not only do we see the substitution of the rule of law by the rule of men but we see the entire system and process of governance being turned on its head.
Without accountability, those who wield power can get away with anything. Contracts and projects worth millions of ringgit, even hundreds of millions, are doled out without any regard to proper and due process. There are also ventures which have cost the nation billions and when they fail, the ones responsible for the fiasco not only go unpunished but actually get to benefit from it. We may shake our heads in utter disbelief but the reality is staring us in the face. That is why taking justice seriously is no longer an option but an imperative.

As government is power, we must hold to account those who wield that power. The moral imperative lies not in accountability for the sake of political expediency but in the dictates of justice. This imperative must apply to all those holding power regardless of whether they are from the Federal Government or State Governments. Access to information is essential to enable citizens to challenge actions of public officials and to seek redress for misconduct. While freedom of information laws will secure open government by fiat, the question remains as to why the moral imperative seems to evaporate along the corridors of power. In this regard, I am proud to say that, the government of Selangor has passed the Freedom of Information Enactment in spite of the obstacles thrown in its path. This is part and parcel of the Pakatan Rakyat reform agenda. In terms of governance, there shall be no compromise on accountability and transparency. We see what is wrong, we make good and we move forward. On the other hand, the Federal Government appears to be hell bent on turning back the clock.

They say that this enactment is bad law because it contradicts the Official Secrets Act. On the contrary, we say that it is the Official Secrets Act which is bad law because it violates the basic guarantees of the Federal Constitution. And more importantly in the context of justice, we believe we are on the right side of the moral argument because if there is nothing to hide, why is there a need to keep secrets? If we can defend our actions, why do we need to hide behind secrecy laws?

The amassing of wealth through corrupt means, the abuse of executive power for material gain, and the squandering of tax payers’ money – these are some of the hallmarks of the failure to have accountability and they impact directly on the question of justice. Every ringgit squandered or misappropriated is every ringgit that should rightly have gone to the people for their benefit, for free education, and for free health care. The demands of social justice alone therefore warrant the absolute need for accountability.

In Islam, the idea of social justice or al-Adala al-Ijtima’iyya enjoins upon the equitable distribution of wealth while protecting the higher objectives of the Shari’ah or al-Maqasid al-Shari’ah. Among these is the safeguarding and preservation of property, that is, protecting the wealth of the community from being pillaged and plundered by those in power. By extension, good economic governance is a moral imperative and any government which prides itself as being responsible to the people must be committed to a sound and balanced economic agenda.

This is why we have a reform agenda that aims at reducing the socio-economic inequities of the people while at the same promoting healthy economic growth. In this agenda, we welcome domestic and foreign private-sector investment initiatives, generate full employment opportunities, and ensure robust development that adds long term value to the economy. But we will have no truck with the rent-seeking practices, crony capitalism or ostentatious and wasteful development of our predecessors. Sustainable development is not a mere numbers game. As an integral part of the notion of justice, development must proceed on an even keel with the other elements so as to enhance the quality of life and uplift the dignity of all. We are not saying that this can be achieved at the blink of an eye. Indeed, with Federal power still concentrated in the hands of an elite few the odds are heavily stacked against us. The path ahead is fraught with danger and obstacles. But despair not. Let us fortify our resolve to take justice seriously and fight for the future of our generations. For in the words of Anatole France: “We will win, because we are right, and because reason is on our side.”

Thank you.

ZAKARIA: He’s been called the world’s biggest movie star, with almost 70 blockbusters to his credit. His box office stake is said to be comparable to that of his Hollywood counterparts Tom Cruise and Will Smith, and you may never have heard of him.

But his contributions to the bottom line are so prodigious, he was invited to ring the opening bell at the NASDAQ. My magazine, “Newsweek”, has named him one of the 50 most powerful people in the world, and he stirs up such passion that his fans burned a U.S. flag after he was detained at Newark Airport last summer. Perhaps the TSA agents have never heard of him either.

The film he is here in the United States to promote when he was questioned is called “My Name is Khan”, and, ironically, it’s about racial profiling of Muslims after 9/11.

Shah Rukh Khan, welcome.

KHAN: Thank you very much, Fareed.

ZAKARIA: First, tell us about this incident. So you are, without any question, the biggest movie star in India, a billion fans some people say, and you get to Newark Airport and what happens?

KHAN: You know, normally I am kind of used to being — having extra security checks, perhaps because of the name or the way profiling is done, even my kids, so I’m used to it. It’s not something new. So —

ZAKARIA: They thought your fans were sort of being unruly or —

KHAN: Yes, I guess — suddenly they started asking questions, what are you doing here and do you have a telephone number? I was going to give yours. Yes? I was going to — you know, I took out my phone and they were a little angry about me taking out my phone. So I said, I can’t give you a number until I find them out.

So I sort of — I gave a few numbers and then they would go in, check, then they came and said what are you doing here? And so I said I’ve came here for a film. There were some strange questions like if you’re a film actor — I’ve come for a live talk, and they said if you have come for a talk, how can you be a movie star? So I said, you know, I talk also. (INAUDIBLE) acting films.

So it just got out of hand, and I guess it was a process, so they went on and on — and it took a couple of hours.

ZAKARIA: But you — you feel like you have had experiences like this before?

KHAN: Not quite like this, but — not at the immigrations, but at security. I’m — you know, initially, when — post 9/11, I think, yes, there were instances when — I guess your boarding pass gets SSS (ph) written on it, so you’re taken on to the other side and you take off your shoes and stuff, yes?

ZAKARIA: Even your kids?

KHAN: Oh, yes, yes. They get very excited, because, you know, they get to put their feet on those little marks and stand like that. So they think they’re being special.

ZAKARIA: Now, you’re very — you’re relaxed about it. Does it — does it not anger you, I mean, that you’re — I mean, you’re —

KHAN: No. I said it before, Fareed. Like, you know, if I’m planning to come to your house, I have to follow the rules. It’s as simple as that. I’m very practical like that. So I’m like, OK. I said, if I have to come to your house and you have a rule that I need to take off my shoes before I walk into your study, then I do that.

But I just — just had an issue that, you know, for a country which has such outstanding processes and systems for everything, and they have a process and system for, you know, profiling people who are perhaps on a marked list, they should also have a system where people who come regularly, they should also be marked positively. And so OK, you know, you can go —

ZAKARIA: Do you think this affects America’s image in — I mean, you’re — you’re somebody who understands the power of images.

KHAN: Yes.

ZAKARIA: Does it affect America’s image in a country like India?

KHAN: Oh, yes. I think so. Yes. I think all over the world.

I think, specifically, if I can just take one — because I’m an entertainer, so I would take, say, tourism, you know? Just that way. You come to have fun, you want to go to Orlando, you know, go to the Disney or whatever, when you think about it, like I do now, I take them to Europe now, my kids, if I need to. Unlike — (INAUDIBLE) and she was traveling domestically more than internationally, to be honest, because I think domestic travel is even more strict. So you do think twice. I think it does affect the image, and I’m sure it’s in a lot of spaces (ph) also, not just wanting to come to Disney. I’m sure it goes beyond that also.

ZAKARIA: And this is a big change, right? Because, I mean, 20 years ago, 30 years ago when I was growing up in India, America was the land of openness, of freedom, a sense of adventure.

KHAN: Absolutely. I think, it still is looked upon like that. And, you know, everybody wants to come to America, everybody loves America and has all the nicest things. Whether it’s technology or businesses, whatever. It’s the land of opportunity. And suddenly, the opportunity gets a little curtailed because of this. And you do think twice. And you know, would it affect me negatively, would it affect the family negatively?

ZAKARIA: So, now talk about this movie. Because the movie is really about this problem.

KHAN: The film is about a man’s message or I wouldn’t like to make it as strong as saying a Muslim’s message, but an American who has been living here for years and who is married here, and post-9/11 how the lives of this couple gets affected. You know, it’s like a butterfly effect. It’s not directly related to the incident of 9/11. So, the film is not about terrorism or — it’s not dealing with 9/11. Or the sadness that followed around the world. But it’s dealing with how some of the people we don’t even know and some of the far corner of the world or in America affected without being directly linked to it.

And how, just the love gets completely disrupted because he’s a Muslim man, married to a Hindu girl, both American, both have been living here for 20, 25 years. And how he has to go on a journey to explain to everybody that, guys, just because “My Name is Khan” doesn’t mean I’m a terrorist. So, it’s an emotional trip across America to convince the world. And I feel the film’s relevance is that there is an issue as far as religions and ideologies are concerned in terms of the west and Islam and everywhere.

And we have to accept it. But the thing is, I think as a Muslim, I’ve not been able to explain my religion to you well enough. So unless I do that, I don’t have an excuse of saying, uh-oh, one second, these guys are taking it wrong. Maybe they don’t know him. So, I think it’s my duty as an actor.

ZAKARIA: Do you feel that Muslims have a special responsibility to explain their religion?

KHAN: See, if you were to look at it from one side and turn around and say, listen, you better know my religion. I think that’s not fair. I think, we need to — I think, not only do they need to explain their religion, they need to understand other religions also. And it’s a dual process, just because somebody doesn’t understand, of course they will take it wrongly or react to it wrongly. And I think it’s a duty of every educated, maybe a little liberal Muslim to go out in the world and if he has the opportunity, like I think I have as an actor, I think we need to make sure, that’s yes, this is what it stands for, this is what Jihad means, this is what tolerance means and this is what Islam means. And whatever little knowledge I had, and I am not fully knowledgeable, and so I find out and try to promote that and tell people. And if you understand it, maybe you’ll say it, actually no, it’s exactly like how our discipline is. I think it’s a reason for every Muslim to think about.

ZAKARIA: You know when George Bush saw Manmohan Singh at some event, the first time he had an opportunity chance to introduce his wife, Laura Bush, to Manmohan Singh, he said to her, honey, this is the prime minister of India. This is a country that has 150 million Muslims and not one member of Al-Qaeda. That was the way he thought of Indian Muslims. Why do you think Indian Muslims are not so radicalized? When you look, think about Pakistan, Afghanistan, you know, there’s so much Jihad and terrorism in the Arabic. Indian Muslims have not succumbed as much. This is the second largest Muslim population in the world by some count. What, is there a secret?

KHAN: I think the secret lies within the way Indians are. We as people are more compromising and understanding. We do give a chance to everyone to say their point of view, listen to it, and not react really radically. Of course there will be sections which do it. And that permeates to the Muslims, to the Hindus, to the Christians, to every, you know, section in our society. I would like to believe it’s like that. But I think that’s the main reason. I think Indians by nature like people and they’re compromising and understanding. Is what I’d like to believe, really.

ZAKARIA: Do you think that there is a tendency towards radicalism, violence, within Islam right now that worries you? Because, let’s be honest, when you look around the world and you see terrorism, it is basically being committed by radical Muslims. And there is something either within the, you know, some of these fringe groups, but they all tend to come from one religion by and large.

KHAN: Yes, of course. I mean, somewhere down the line, you know, religion can be very easily misused. And I think I would like to really believe as a modern person that it’s the lack of education that is being — that is there in large sections of the Islamic world. I think the youth needs to be educated in world matters, apart from their religion. I mean, it’s really wonderful to learn your religion. I think it’s fantastic for everyone to have a discipline whichever that maybe, and respect each other that way.

But I think it’s also very important to be educated in worldly affairs. If they do, they will not be misled. I think, most of these places that we’ll talk about and radicals coming from, you would know this, that there’s a huge gap between the educated and uneducated. And most of the uneducated may be falling in the category of, you know, having a religion, by religion being Muslims. So, I think that is the main reason.

ZAKARIA: We will be right back with Shah Rukh Khan. And we will talk about Bollywood, globalization and much else. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ZAKARIA: People say you have a billion fans, but as you point out, the dollar value is lower because a ticket costs less in India than it does in the States. But do you imagine there may be a time when Indian stars will be truly global in that sense?

KHAN: Much sooner than anyone would expect. Most certainly.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAKARIA: And we are back with Shah Rukh Khan, by many measures the world’s biggest movie star. Talk about Bollywood and what it’s like. When I was growing up in India, Bollywood was, you know, much, much smaller than Hollywood. It was low production qualities, wonderful movies, but always, you know, very different. Often copying trends that came directly out of Hollywood, often copying stories as the stars were big in India, but very small on a global scale. That’s all seemed to have changed in the last few years.

KHAN: The younger filmmakers, I think are completely new- thinking people…

ZAKARIA: In what sense?

KHAN: To be exposed to western cinema, western culture. They have learned the technique and technology, and writing from the western world, which is a more developed science. As far as screenplay writing, it is a more developed science in the west. And they have been able to take those ideas and say OK, we can bring them into our films. Many times failing at it, but the youth here in our country now is also understanding different kind of cinema, because they’re also exposed to because of television, Internet. So, they’re like, OK, we can compare. And somehow Indians at this juncture feel, you know what? To be really proud, we need to make films which make a mark in the world.

ZAKARIA: When you think about movie stars, you know, the biggest movie stars in the world remain all Hollywood movie stars.

KHAN: Yes.

ZAKARIA: You know, Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise or something like that. Do you imagine that, I mean, you have probably more fans than those people, you know, people say you have a billion fans. But as you point out, the dollar value is lower because a ticket costs less in India than it does in the States. Could you imagine there maybe a time when Indian stars will be truly global in that sense?

KHAN: Much sooner than anyone would expect, most certainly. You know, of course, all the main standard in the world becomes how much dollar value that finally the business brings, and that’s how you’re big. But I can see it happening in the next five or six years, very easily. Because see, also the problem is that the language that we use in our films is Hindi. So, I don’t think Hollywood, that’s the only advantage that they have is that they speak in English — they’re great filmmakers also — but I think that’s a big advantage, that we don’t make films in English yet. But the time is coming now, because I have kids and they’re all watching, you know, language in Hindi films, if you see a new Indian film, you’ll realize that the language is more English (ph). You know, we’re using, and we don’t have to translate it anymore, everyone understands it. And everyone uses it every day.

ZAKARIA: Do you think that we’re, you know, at the rise of something truly called world cinema that, you know, the United States has have this privileged position of being cinema the only global cinema, but now it’s not just India, maybe China and maybe other countries will be able to present their own world cinema?

KAHN: Absolutely. You know, I mean, everybody uses these words in business parlance, everyone talks about globalization and everybody talks about globalization and everyone talks about global village and coming together. But yes, one of the biggest things about globalization and this global village scenario that we’re going through, communication and information, is going to be very clearly that the, you know, the language as a barrier will start breaking down. Culture as a barrier will start breaking down. And you go on to the Internet — I go on Twitter or you know, I hang with kids and chat with them. And I’m realizing that, you know, they’re trying to figure out what my culture is and talking about it. So, all that will break down and other cinemas will come over, will come, and they’ll use the technology — and a lot of technicians from here. But stories, every country has a story to tell. And once it reaches a certain standard in terms of technique, I think the world would like to watch it.

ZAKARIA: Shah Rukh Khan, pleasure to have you on.

KHAN: Thank you so much, Fareed, thanks a lot.

ZAKARIA: Now, we will be back.

CENDEKIAWAN Islam terkenal, Ustaz Ahmad Sonhadji Mohamad, telah diberi penghormatan oleh Lembaga Perpustakaan Negara (NLB) atas sumbangannya menjadikan koleksinya sebagai warisan tiada tolok bandingnya kepada negara.

Ustaz Ahmad Sonhadji Mohamad, 89 tahun, telah menyumbangkan sebanyak 700 kitab agama bersiri dan meminjamkan 6,000 naskhah manuskrip kepada NLB.

Selain itu, Ustaz Ahmad Sonhadji turut menyumbangkan khutbah-khutbah tulisannya yang ditulis dalam tulisan Jawi.

Ustaz Ahmad Sonhadji yang begitu berminat dengan ilmu memberitahu, bahawa setiap kali ada kenalannya ke Indonesia, Mesir ataupun Kuwait beliau akan memesan beberapa buah buku dan majalah untuk di bawa pulang.

‘Pendirian saya ialah, jika hendak banyak ilmu, kita mesti banyak membaca. Jika hendak banyak pengalaman, kita mesti banyak menulis,’ ujarnya lagi.

Walaupun Ustaz Ahmad Sonhadji kini menghidap penyakit Parkinson beliau masih mempunyai pemikiran yang tajam.

Beliau percaya bahawa dalam keadaannya yang tidak sihat sekali pun beliau masih boleh berbakti kepada negara dan masyarakat.

‘Dengan meninggalkan beberapa kitab kepunyaan saya kepada Perpustakaan Negara, saya juga dapat meninggalkan warisan agama untuk generasi seterusnya.

‘Jika saya sendiri yang menyimpan kitab-kitab saya, saya tidak dapat mengekalkan keadaan kitab-kitab itu dengan baik. NLB punya kepakaran menjaganya,’ ujar beliau.

Ustaz Ahmad Sonhadji merupakan ahli tafsir Al-Quran di Singapura.

Pada tahun 1960-an beliau pernah menerbitkan buku-buku teks Bahasa Melayu dalam tulisan Jawi bagi peringkat sekolah rendah bersama beberapa muridnya.

Selain Ustaz Ahmad Sonhadji, penulis, penyajak dan pelukis mapan, Encik Abdul Ghani Hamid, juga diberi penghormatan oleh NLB.

Encik Abdul Ghani telah menyumbangkan buku-buku sastera kepada NLB sekali gus dapat membantu NLB membina kumpulan warisan Singapura.

Mereka juga adalah antara 19 penyumbang kepada dokumentari warisan di The Pod di Perpustakaan Negara semalam.

Kebanyakan daripada penyumbang yang diberi penghormatan ini merupakan rakyat Singapura daripada pelbagai latar belakang.

Mereka merupakan pemenang pingat budaya, penulis sastera, seniman, pemilik kedai buku dan jurugambar.

Masyarakat umum boleh melihat kumpulan daripada para penyumbang di tingkat 10, NLB di Victoria Street.

Singapura : 27 Februari 2009
Berita Harian Singapura
http://cyberita.asia1.com.sg

30 Jan 2009
Cyberita, Beritah Harian Singapura

Oleh
Linilidia Abdul Hamid

PERAYAAN Tahun Baru Cina kali ini disambut secara besarbesaran oleh Sekolah Menengah Bedok View.
Sekolah yang menyambut ulang tahunnya yang ke-30 itu menggembleng tenaga para pelajar dan kakitangannya memberikan buah limau dan kad Tahun Baru Cina kepada penduduk di sekitar kawasan sekolah itu.

Seramai 1,500 pelajar dan lebih 100 kakitangan sekolah itu mengunjungi rumah-rumah di 39 blok yang terletak di Bedok South Avenue 3.

Idea melakukan kunjungan besar-besaran itu diutarakan pendidik bersekutu (allied educator), Cik Saifiatun Jaafar, 56 tahun.

Menurutnya, idea itu timbul sebagai rasa penghargaan kepada penduduk di sekitar sekolah yang sering memberikan maklum balas dan bekerjasama dengan mereka.

Lawatan itu juga merupakan sebahagian projek penglibatan masyarakat (CIP) pihak sekolah.

‘Ini salah satu cara kami memperkenalkan pelajar-pelajar kami kepada penduduk di kawasan Bedok South Avenue 3.

‘Sebelum kunjungan ini, kami tekankan kepada para pelajar peri pentingnya mengenali jiran-jiran kita dan bekerjasama dengan mereka,’ ujar Cik Saifiatun yang mendapat sokongan melaksanakan idea itu daripada pengetua sekolah tersebut, Encik Boo Chong Han.

Salah seorang pelajar yang ditemui semasa acara kunjungan itu, Muhd Aidil Khalis, 16 tahun, berkata:

‘Sebelum keluar buat kunjungan, cikgu saya sudah beritahu tentang pantang-larang yang harus kami patuhi. Contohnya, limau yang diberikan mestilah genap kerana angka ganjil dianggap tidak bertuah.

‘Lagipun lawatan sebegini juga dapat meningkatkan profil sekolah kami di kejiranan ini.’

Dia dan rakan-rakannya kelihatan begitu ghairah mengagihkan limau serta kad Tahun Baru Cina yang mereka reka sendiri kepada penduduk di Blok 172.

Salah seorang penduduk yang menerima kunjungan para pelajar itu ialah Cik Nairooza Hassen, 30 tahun, seorang warga Sri Lanka beragama Islam.

Beliau rasa tersentuh kerana tetap diberikan limau dan kad Tahun Baru Cina meskipun telah menjelaskan kepada para pelajar yang menemuinya bahawa beliau tidak menyambut Tahun Baru Cina.

‘Saya tidak menyambut Tahun Baru Cina tetapi pelajar-pelajar itu kata tidak mengapa, mereka akan tetap berikan limau dan kad kerana Singapura negara berbilang kaum,’ ujarnya, yang baru tiba di sini lima hari lalu.

30 Jan 2009
Cyberita, Beritah Harian Singapura

Serangan pengganas di Mumbai, India, baru-baru ini meninggalkan kesan ke atas ramai orang, termasuk di Singapura. Ini lebih-lebih lagi kerana ia turut mengakibatkan korban pengganasan pertama Singapura, Cik Lo Hwei Yen. Apakah pengajaran yang dapat ditimba daripada tragedi itu dari segi usaha memupuk keharmonian kaum dan agama di sini? Ikuti petikan wawancara eksklusif (shamj@sph.com.sg) bersama bapa mentua mendiang Lo, Encik Stephen Puhaindran, mengenai tanggapan beliau terhadap kejadian itu.

BH: Bagaimanakah serangan pengganas ini menjejas pandangan anda terhadap keharmonian kaum dan agama di Singapura?
Encik Puhaindran: Pertamatama, saya ingin ceritakan sedikit tentang saat-saat sebelum kejadian itu. Anak saya, Michael, menelefon saya sekitar 2 pagi dan memberitahu bahawa isterinya, Lo, berada di hotel itu (Hotel Oberoi Trident di Mumbai yang diserang).

Disebabkan itu, isteri saya terjejas teruk. Saya pula perlu mengawal diri kerana pertama, saya lebih tua, dan kedua, saya mempunyai peranan untuk menenangkan anak dan isteri saya bahawa menantu saya akan selamat.

Jadi, tumpuan saya hanya satu, iaitu untuk membawa menantu saya pulang. Tidak ada perkara lain yang bermain dalam fikiran saya kecuali harapan itu.
Saya melihat keadaan di sana menerusi kaca televisyen dan apa yang menyentak saya ialah apabila mendapat tahu menantu saya telah dibunuh. Anak saya yang menyampaikan berita buruk itu menerusi SMS (khidmat pesanan ringkas).

Saya tertanya-tanya mengapa mereka sanggup membunuh menantu saya. Namun, saya tidak akan menjadi marah dan menggunakan perkataan-perkataan marah. Saya perlu mengawal diri. Jika kita marah, kita boleh tersilap kata dan daripada kita menghuraikan masalah, kita boleh menimbulkan masalah.
Kita semua tinggal di Singapura yang kosmopolitan. Kita mempunyai ramai kawan daripada pelbagai bangsa, dan saya bangga sebagai rakyat Singapura.
Kebanggaan saya kian menyerlah apabila mendapat tahu masyarakat daripada pelbagai latar belakang, bangsa dan agama datang menemui saya dan memberi sokongan yang amat saya perlukan. Insiden ini tiada kaitan dengan bangsa atau agama. Ia berkaitan satu golongan yang mahu membunuh. Sayangnya menantu saya yang mereka pilih untuk dibunuh.
Jadi, sedalam mana ia menjejas pandangan saya (tentang keharmonian kaum dan agama di Singapura)? Ia tidak menjejas sama sekali kerana saya tahu siapa yang sebenarnya melakukannya (pembunuhan di Mumbai).

BH: Adakah insiden ini membuat anda mempunyai pandangan negatif terhadap agama Islam yang disalah guna para militan itu?
Encik Puhaindran: Dari awal lagi saya sudah mengenali siapa sebenar yang melakukannya. Malah, isteri saya yang teruk terjejas dan sering meraung bertanya mengapa menantunya yang perlu mati sedikit pun tidak katakan tentang bangsa mahupun agama.

Dan apabila saya memerlukan seseorang untuk menjaga isteri saya – beliau dalam keadaan terlalu sedih – siapa datang membantu? Dr Fatimah Lateef, seorang Muslim. Ia seolah-olah pesanan daripada Tuhan yang mengatakan jika anda perlu bantuan, ini dia teman anda.

Ia sungguh pelik kerana saya mempunyai ramai saudara dan rakan doktor tapi beliaulah orang pertama yang datang menghulurkan bantuan. Pada saya, seolaholah Tuhan memesan: jika mahu marah, marahlah pada sasaran betul.

Lagipun saya bekas seorang guru. Saya mengajar di Raffles Institution dari 1959 hingga 1979 dan kemudian sebagai inspektor sekolah selama 15 tahun. Sebagai guru, bagaimana boleh saya ada kecenderungan atau pandangan negatif?

BH: Apakah pesanan anda kepada rakyat Singapura untuk mengelakkan kerosakan pada fabrik sosial jika kejadian seperti ini berlaku lagi?
Encik Puhaindran: Kita perlu bertindak secara normal. Dengan cara itu, kita akan mendapati kita boleh bergaul dengan orang lain tanpa masalah. Sama ada kita duduk bersama orang makan babi atau makanan halal, jika semua tahu dan saling menghormati pendirian orang lain, tiada siapa akan berasa janggal.

Saya teringat beberapa wanita Muslim datang menemui saya dan mengucapkan kata-kata takziah. Mereka sama-sama menangis dan saya mendapati bahawa selagi seseorang itu berkelakuan normal, mengikut keadaan, lebih mudah untuk kita menerima jika perkara seperti ini berlaku.

BH: Apakah pengajaran yang dapat dipelajari daripada insiden berdarah itu?
Encik Puhaindran: Bagi saya, saya perlu teruskan kehidupan seperti biasa. Dan yang penting sekali ialah meneruskan kehidupan tanpa sebarang kecenderungan atau pandangan negatif.

Kita boleh mempunyai perbezaan, tetapi kita tidak boleh terlalu cenderung terhadap sesuatu isu. Pada akhirnya, kita perlu sedar bahawa kita semuanya sama.

Fabrik sosial di Singapura amat kuat berdasarkan apa yang telah ditunjukkan oleh rakyat jelata kerana saya mendapati masyarakat pelbagai bangsa dan agama datang meratapi pemergian menantu saya. Tiada yang mengatakan ‘Oh, dia Katolik. Lupakan saja.’ Tidak, saya tidak mendengar kata-kata seperti itu.

Ada juga warga Singapura yang pulang dari luar negara dan terserempak dengan saya di jalan dan menangis kerana mereka turut berasa kesedihannya. Bagi saya, itulah penentunya.

Seluruh rakyat Singapura berkongsi apa yang saya dan keluarga saya lalui.

Semangat kesingapuraan amat kuat sekali dan sepanjang hidup saya, insiden ini merupakan yang paling ketara.

Semua orang datang dan sama-sama memberi sokongan yang saya dan keluarga saya perlukan, tanpa mengira bangsa atau agama.

30 Jan 2009
Cyberita, Beritah Harian Singapura
Oleh
Shamsul Jangarodin

PERISTIWA pahit yang menimpa Encik Stephen Puhaindran sekeluarga masih segar dalam ingatan.

Menantunya, Cik Lo Hwei Yen, dibunuh pengganas Muslim yang menyerang Hotel Oberoi Trident di Mumbai, India, November lalu.

Namun, jauh daripada menuding jari ke arah masyarakat Islam atau marah terhadap orang Islam, Encik Puhaindran membidas tindakan mereka dan mengasingkan golongan tersebut daripada masyarakat Islam yang beliau kenali.

‘Mereka orang gila. Orang Islam yang saya kenal tidak berkelakuan begini. Mereka hanya satu golongan yang mahu membunuh.
‘Sayangnya menantu saya yang mereka pilih untuk dibunuh,’ ujar Encik Puhaindran dalam satu temu ramah eksklusif bersama Berita Harian baru-baru ini.

Ini kali pertama Encik Puhaindran, 72 tahun, meluahkan perasaannya kepada media mengenai tragedi yang menimpa keluarganya itu.
Pertemuan wartawan dengan bekas guru Raffles Institution (RI) yang kini pengerusi kebajikan di Jawatankuasa Perundingan Rakyat (CCC) Marine Parade itu mendedahkan banyak tentang keperibadian beliau sebagai warga Singapura yang peka tentang kepentingan keharmonian kaum dan agama.

Beliau seorang penyabar dan amat prihatin tentang keamanan yang Singapura kecapi dan sedar ia perlu sentiasa dijaga.

Encik Puhaindran juga sedar bahawa menunjukkan kemarahan secara melulu ke arah sesebuah masyarakat boleh menimbulkan lebih banyak kacau-bilau.
‘Saya tidak akan menjadi marah dan menggunakan perkataan-perkataan marah. Saya perlu mengawal diri. Jika kita marah, kita boleh tersilap kata,’ ujar beliau.
Sambil memandang jauh, Encik Puhaindran berkata beliau percaya Tuhan telah memberinya petunjuk bahawa jika beliau perlu marah, marahlah terhadap orang yang melakukan serangan di Mumbai dan bukan orang Islam lain.

‘Apabila saya memerlukan seseorang untuk menjaga isteri saya – beliau dalam keadaan terlalu sedih – siapa datang membantu? Dr Fatimah Lateef, seorang Muslim.
‘Ia sungguh pelik kerana saya mempunyai ramai saudara dan rakan doktor tapi beliaulah orang pertama yang datang menghulurkan bantuan,’ dedah Encik Puhaindran.

Beliau juga begitu ceria menceritakan kisah beliau dibesarkan di Kampong Kapor, dekat Serangoon Road, dan mempunyai ramai kawan pelbagai bangsa.

Bahkan beliau berasa amat bertuah kerana sebagai warga Singapura, beliau berpeluang bergaul dengan kaum lain dan ini membolehkan beliau memahami ajaran agama selain agamanya, termasuk Islam.

Sebelum mengakhiri temu ramah yang diadakan di Kelab Masyarakat Marine Parade itu, Encik Puhaindran menekankan bahawa pembunuhan menantunya itu langsung tiada kaitan dengan Islam.

Perasaan tersebut diperkuat oleh kunjungan pertubuhan-pertubuhan Islam setempat yang menziarahi mendiang Lo, sekali gus memperkuatkan tanggapannya bahawa Islam
mencintai kedamaian dan menghormati semua manusia tanpa mengira bangsa atau agama.

Ditanya tentang pengajaran yang dapat dipelajari daripada peristiwa berdarah itu, Encik Puhaindran menjawab:
‘Peristiwa ini menonjolkan semangat kesingapuraan yang kuat. Semua orang datang dan sama-sama memberi sokongan yang saya dan keluarga perlukan, tanpa mengira bangsa atau agama.’

Letter signed by 45 Islamic scholars concerning Anwar Ibrahim published by the Islamica Magazine. Below is the letter obtained from Islamica website.