Lagi Maklumat Berkenaan Pergaduhan UMNO Singapore

Walaupun negara dah berubah, perangai UMNO tu tak boleh hilang. Seperti pepatah orang tua-tua:

”TELAGA YANG KERUH ITU TIDAK MUNGKIN MENGALIR AIR YANG JERNIH DARINYA?”

UMNO Singapura berasal dari UMNO Malaysia. UMNO dari awal penubuhan mereka sudah menipu orang Melayu. Mereka bukan mahu membantu orang Melayu, mereka hanya membantu UMNOPUTRA. Sampailah orang Melayu mengamuk di Kampung Baru dalam peristiwa May 13, barulah terhegeh2 nak bantu orang Melayu.

Kalau benar UMNO ikhlas, mengapa Dasar Ekonomi Baru tidak dilaksanakan pada 31 Ogos 1957?

Maka, dari telaga UMNO lah tumpahnya “air keruh” yang dikenali sebagai Pertubuhan Kebangsaan Melayu Singapura(PKMS).

Sedih seribu kali sedih. Kalau dahulu, UMNO masih dapat menguasai dua kerusi Parlimen di Singapura, namun apa sudah jadi sekarang ini? Satu kerusi pun UMNO tidak dapat kuasai sedangkan orang Melayu ada dalam sekitar 13.4%di Singapura.

Seharusnya UMNO ada 3-4 kerusi Parlimen di Singapura dan mampu memperjuangkan Artikel 152 Perlembagaan Singapura yang berbunyi:

“Minorities and special position of Malays
152. —(1) It shall be the responsibility of the Government constantly to care for the interests of the racial and religious minorities in Singapore.
(2) The Government shall exercise its functions in such manner as to recognise the special position of the Malays, who are the indigenous people of Singapore, and accordingly it shall be the responsibility of the Government to protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote their political, educational, religious, economic, social and cultural interests and the Malay language.”

Artikel 152 Perlembagaan Singapura mengiktiraf dengan jelas, “Hak istimewa Orang-Orang Melayu” seperti di Malaysia. Tiada salah bagi PKMS memperjuangkannya secara terbuka. Ia tidak bertentangan dengan undang-undang mahupun peraturan di Singapura.

Busuk-busuk pun, PKMS boleh menganjurkan aktiviti mendaftar pemilih supaya dapat menaikkan bilangan pengundi Melayu di Singapura. Tiada salah dalam hal ini. Dengan 13.4% penduduk Melayu, takkanlah satu kerusi Melayu pun tak boleh ada?

Adakah PKMS mahu berharap kepada MP2 Melayu dari PAP untuk memperjuangkan Hak Istimewa Melayu yang termaktub dalam Artikel 152 Perlembagaan Singapura?

Namun, mereka lebih suka berperang sesama sendiri kerana merebut kekayaan yang secebis i.e. Bangunan PKMS di Jalan Changi yang berjumlah SD10juta.

Sehingga PKMS berpecah dua kem dan bergaduh secara fizikal sehingga menumpah darah di tengah-tengah bulan puasa. Ia disaksikan oleh ramai pihak yang sedang lalu lalang. Baca artikel-artikel di bawah untuk mendapat maklumat jelas.

Pokoknya, perjuangan Melayu adalah perjuangan yang sia-sia. Perjuangan Melayu ertinya memperjuangkan isi perut dan tembolok masing-masing pada waktu yang sama membiarkan Melayu lain merempat. Itu yang sampai sanggup bergaduh dan “bertumpah darah” di tengah-tengah bulan puasa sesama sendiri.

Nak buat macamana? Kemana hendak tumpahnya kuah kalau tidak ke nasik. Bapak borek anak rintik. Kalau bapak, UMNO Malaysia, pun bergaduh berebut wang dan pangkat, apakan pula anak, PKMS, di Singapura.

Tiada langsung terfikir untuk memperjuangkan nasib dan hak orang Melayu Singapura seperti yang termaktub dalam Perlembagaan Singapura, Artikel 152. Yang mereka kesah adalah bangunan dan berebut kekayaan secebis sesama mereka.

Inikah PERPADUAN MELAYU yang dilaungkan oleh PERKASA dan UMNO?

Di Malaysia, apabila UMNO berkokok berkenaan PERPADUAN, ia bererti “JANGAN MEMPERSOALKAN AMALAN KORUPSI DAN SALAH GUNA KUASA PEMIMPIN2 UMNO”. Maka, kokokkan PERPADUAN sudah tidak berkesan lagi. Majoriti orang Melayu dan tahu “trick” UMNO ini.

Maka ditajalah pertubuhan NGO seperti PERKASA untuk menjaja idea yang sudah lapok dan bobrok ini. PERKASA pun maju terus dengan perjuangan “menggaul taik dengan mentega” mereka.

Bagi saya, perjuangan yang sebenarnya adalah kebenaran. Kita kena buang korupsi, salah guna kuasa dan meletakkan pemimpin-pemimpin yang layak memimpin serta tidak meletakkan kepentingan diri sendiri untuk memimpin orang Melayu/Islam.

Kesah UMNO Singapura mendedahkan kepada kita betapa LEMAHNYA perjuangan UMNO. Apabila mereka tiada kuasa dan jentera kerajaan, mereka seperti kayu yang terapung di laut. Boleh dibantai ombak sesuka hati. Tidak mampu berdikari. TIDAK MAMPU MEMPERJUANGKAN HAK SENDIRI.

Wallahualam.

Tulang Besi

Siti Sawiah Osman, 42, admitted to hurting Ramli Mohamad

SINGAPORE: A woman - the head of information at the beleaguered Singapore Malay National Organisation (PKMS) party - was jailed for six weeks on Friday for hitting a former party colleague on the head with a vase.

Siti Sawiah Osman, 42, admitted to hurting Ramli Mohamad, now the secretary-general of an opposing faction in PKMS, at the party headquarters in Changi Road on 28 March 2007.

Mr Ramli had left a room following a heated meeting and sat next to Siti on a bench in the lobby.

While looking through some documents, Mr Ramli turned and glared at Siti, who responded by telling him in Malay that she resented his behaviour.

The stall holder then took a porcelain vase and hit him on the head with it. Mr Ramli, 49, was hospitalised and his wound had to be stitched up.

Siti could have been jailed up to a year and fined up to S$1,000, or both.

PKMS has a history of infighting. Last month, rival factions of the party armed with weapons clashed in a street fight in full view of lunchtime traffic, resulting in bloodshed and 21 arrests.

PKMS Two Banks accounts

The latest chapter in the so-called PKMS saga unfolded last week, when the 'breakaway faction' unsuccessfully tried to get two banks to release the party's finances.

PKMS, or the Singapore Malay National Organisation, has kept a low profile in recent decades.

But it hit the headlines earlier this month when the breakaway group tried, without success, to take over the four-storey PKMS building.

Posted by Dr Anthony Ng Chiew Kiat

Excessive media publicity on PKMS fracas
September 13, 2009

From our Correspondent

It has been 2 weeks already and the Straits Times is still following up keenly on the PKMS fracas which saw two factions of the beleaguered opposition party broke out openly in a street-fight.

PKMS, which was little known previously to Singaporeans, suddenly found itself at the center of public attention unfortunately for all the wrong reasons.

This week, the Straits Times journalists gave extensive interviews to the leaders of PKMS giving them the opportunity to “wash their dirty linen” in public while their voices were never heard in the past. (since when did ST approach PKMS to solicit their opinions on matters pertaining to the Malay community?)

Yesterday, the Straits Times published a full-page editorial on how the PKMS fracas may tarnish the image of the Singapore Democratic Alliance of which it is a component party and its leader Potong Pasir MP Mr Chiam See Tong.

The writer even sounded genuinely concerned about the situation by repeatedly exhorting Mr Chiam to “keep his own house in order”.

Today, there were another two headlines dedicated to PKMS – “Is this $10 million site the reason behind the PKMS fracas” and “Party once had part in helping Malays” – Is the article implying that PKMS is not helping Malays now?

With due respect to PKMS, it is a small political party which hardly warrant such an inordinate amount of attention from the press. Very few Singaporeans have heard of its existence and they are not bothered with its internal politicking either.

The Straits Times’ coverage of the fracas is completely one-sided, biased and unfair. Its real agenda is to smear the opposition by protraying them as a divided group of squabbling, self-serving politicians who cannot resolve their differences peacefully among themselves.

Put the news on the PKMS together with the puicity blitz on the SPH’s book on the PAP – “Men in white” and the message cannot be clearer: the PAP is the only political party which is fit to govern Singapore and not the opposition which cannot be trusted.

The Straits Times’ selective reporting has brought Singapore journalism to a new low.

Events organized by opposition parties were almost never reported. The only time they hit headlines is when there is some scandals to report to bring down their standing among the people.

No wonder Workers’ Party Chief Mr Low Thia Kiang prefers to keep a low profile and avoids the SPH journalists like a plague – “no news” is actually “good news” in Singapore.

There are many happenings in the opposition which the Straits Times can report – SDP just visited a nursing home last month as part of its plan to venture into community service. The Reform Party will be hosting its first year anniversary on 25 September. These are not reported in the media.

Acting Minister for Communications, Information and Arts Mr Lui Tuck Yew praised the Singapore media lately:

“As long as the mainstream media reflects the reality on the ground more accurately than any other sources, you ought to be able to retain a sizeable segment of your population.”

Is this disproportionate, unbalanced and one-sided reporting of local politics an “accurate” reflection of the “reality on the ground”?

Mr Lui should stop acting and have his version of “reality” checked. Perhaps in his world view, only news which protray the PAP in a positive light are “accurate”.

Anything less is “adversarial” and “one-sided” like some socio-political blogs.

Posted by Dr Anthony Ng Chiew Kiat

Party once had part in helping Malays

As a political party and organisation, PKMS might be considered a spent force today.

But back in its heyday, it played a part in helping the Malay community here.

It started off as a branch of Malaysia's Umno party in Singapore in 1951.

Posted by Dr Anthony Ng Chiew Kiat

Is this $10m site the reason behind the PKMS fracas?
By Nur Dianah Suhaimi

The Singapore Malay National Organisation (PKMS) building in Changi Road is a nondescript four-storey structure which is almost half a century old.

In the day, retirees from a nearby mosque frequent the coffee shop on the ground floor. Every once in a while, patrons of the travel agency, bridal boutique and other small businesses operating in the building walk in to get a bite.

Posted by Dr Anthony Ng Chiew Kiat

MM rebuts NMP
Constitution requires Government to give Malays special position, he says in House debate
By Clarissa Oon

MM Lee rebutted as 'false and flawed' the arguments by Nominated Member of Parliament Viswa Sadasivan calling for equal treatment for all races.

IN A rare intervention in Parliament, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew rose yesterday to 'bring the House back to earth' on the issue of racial equality in Singapore.

Spelling out the Government's approach to the treatment of different races, he pointed out that the Constitution of Singapore itself enjoins the Government to give Malays a 'special position', rather than to 'treat everybody as equal'.

He rebutted as 'false and flawed' the arguments by Nominated Member of Parliament Viswa Sadasivan calling for equal treatment for all races.

On Tuesday, Mr Viswa had tabled a motion for the House to reaffirm its commitment to principles in the National Pledge when debating national policies.

A total of 14 MPs spoke on the motion over the past two days. The wide-ranging and vigorous debate ended with Parliament accepting an amended version of Mr Viswa's motion proposed by People's Action Party MP Zainudin Nordin, and modified slightly by MM Lee.

Mr Zainudin's amendment was to acknowledge the progress Singapore has made in nation building, while Mr Lee's was to highlight the principles in the Pledge as aspirations.

While present at almost every Parliament sitting, the last time Mr Lee rose to speak was in April 2007 during a furore over ministerial pay increases.

He told the House yesterday that he had not planned to weigh in on the debate over the Pledge, but was moved to do so by Mr Viswa's remarks on the hot-button issue of race.

In a lengthy speech on Tuesday, the NMP had expressed pride in Singapore's inter-racial harmony and principle of equal opportunity for all races.

However, he questioned if the Government was sending out mixed signals by emphasising racial categories, for example, through ethnic self-help groups.

MM Lee declared that the assumption of equal treatment for all races is 'false and flawed', and 'completely untrue'.

To 'remind everybody what our starting point is', he pointed to the racially tense period of the 1960s, the circumstances in which the Pledge had been written.

Singapore had just been thrown out of Malaysia. The Malays in Singapore were feeling particularly vulnerable, unsure if the Chinese majority here would treat them the way the Malay majority in Malaysia had treated the Chinese minority there.

Because of such a backdrop, the Pledge crafted by then Culture Minister S.Rajaratnam took pains to emphasise principles that would be 'regardless of race, language and religion'.

Mr Lee also drew the House's attention to Article 152 of the Constitution, which makes it the Government's responsibility to 'constantly care for the interests of the racial and religious minorities in Singapore'.

In particular, it states that the Government must recognise the special position of the Malays, 'the indigenous people of Singapore', and safeguard their political, economic and educational interests.

Mr Lee contrasted Singapore's approach with that of the United States, where despite a 1776 declaration that 'all men are created equal', blacks did not get the right to vote until a century later, and racial segregation continued well into the 20th century.

For Singapore to reach a point where all races could be treated equally 'is going to take decades, if not centuries', he said bluntly.

For this reason, he sees the Pledge not as an 'ideology', as Mr Viswa put it, but as an 'aspiration'.

Mr Viswa had also wondered if Singapore had got the balance right between prosperity and the happiness of its citizens, and if it had done enough to strengthen its democratic fundamentals.

Education Minister Ng Eng Hen, who spoke after MM Lee, provided a detailed response, spelling out how the Government's record over the past 50 years had been entirely in the spirit of the Pledge.

'Far from compromising these ideals in the pursuit of economic gro-wth, we have been defenders of these ideals in building a nation,' he said.

Policies are debated openly in Parliament, and the Government is accountable to the people at every election, he said.

He noted that Mr Viswa's model of a multi-party democracy, more opinionated media and politically active universities was drawn from other democratic models in the West.

In Asia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Thailand have elements of these models too.
But he questioned if those places had done better than Singapore, and said it was not self-evident that their models would work here.

More important than high-flown rhetoric in pledges and anthems was the reality on the ground, in the lives that citizens led, he maintained.

He agreed with the NMP that Singapore must move with the times.

However, Dr Ng said: 'We must not do so unthinkingly, but consider carefully each step forward, carving our own path towards a better society and a more vigorous economy.'