TR EMERITUS

Let us be very forthright about the issue of divorce because there is nothing more to hide. It is as tragic as demise when two persons decide to break up after a long and memorable matrimony. But once two elderly or matured adults decide to end this union, they are exercising their personal rights and we have to respect their decision. Divorce is a grave matter and a costly decision that no sane person takes lightly. In fact many come to this crunching conclusion after thinking over it long and hard. A divorce is as painful as it is tormenting to all parties involved especially young children and dependent parents. Many issues like home, custody and alimony are at stakes. It is the ultimate option and once exercised, there is no turning back, no reverse gear. There is no turning back the clock. I mean look, between a husband and a wife, who knows better on how or why this marriage should be annulled in the first place? So then what is the purpose of mediation or compulsory counseling for divorced couples? If the aim is to save the marriage, isn’t it a bit redundant? What would a mediator tell a couple that they don’t already know? If the purpose is to bring about reconciliation, isn’t it ludicrous? What would a counselor tell a couple that they have not already gone through? And if people are old enough to get married, who is to tell them that they are not old enough to divorce? If this is another attempt at social engineering just to save a statistics, I think it is lamentable. For once, can’t we just leave people to lead their own life without interfering with their decisions? For a change, can’t we just accept people’s decision to call it quits and let them do what they want? For all we know, divorce can be a blessing to freedom than staying married to the wrong person. In all probability mediation and counseling reignite the nightmare of two persons who probably by now can’t even stand the sight of each other let alone get back together. And if there was a third party involved, such open discussion would only serve to aggravate and add more fuel to the burning fire of malevolence. Hence, attempts to save a marriage whether through mediation or counseling after a decision has been announced are not only a waste of time but would create more animosity and embarrassment for the parties involved. A friend of mine recently filed for divorce. In the midst of exchanging court documents with his wife he was shocked to read of allegations made by her against him to justify her decision to divorce. The outcome was he became even more enraged and it added to his abhorrence for a person he once lovingly called, “My wife.” Yes, nobody wants to advocate divorce and nobody yearns for it to happen. Where marriage is about a blissful future, divorce is akin to a broken dream. This broken dream is an inalienable part of life and in life as in death, there are some things that we just don’t have a saving grace solution to fix no matter how hard we try out best to avoid its coming. Divorce happens to be one of them.   Douglas Chua  Read More →

A misinformed Singaporean by the name of Vivian Chan has written to the Straits Times Forum singing praises of PAP strongman Lee Kuan Yew and wishing him a Happy Birthday "on the behalf of the people of Singapore." The octagenarian leader turned 87 years old yesterday and still shows no indications that he is going to retire from politics anytime soon, much to the dismay of Singaporeans. Unfortunately, there are still a number of Singaporeans who believe erroneously that Lee is the man who built Singapore and are "proud" of it. "Nothing brings out the national pride in me more than letting the world know that I am a Singaporean, coming from a nation built on strong foundations by Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his team of dedicated and selfless leaders," she wrote in her opening paragraph. The PAP-controlled media has been perpetuating the myth for years that Singapore is "transformed" miraculously from third to first world by Lee and his PAP colleague, leading many Singaporeans to be "brainwashed" and remained ignorant of their flaws and short-comings till now. Vivian next echoed the classic PAP rhetoric and implored Singaporeans to stop "grumbling": "There is a price to pay to be at the top and grumbling and complaining will only stall future growth for the country and the people. Why don't we channel that energy to constructive criticism, positive feedback and a willingness to participate proudly in taking our nation to greater heights." Singaporeans are grumbling and complaining because years of misrule by the PAP regime has caused them to suffer from numerous problems which they are unable to solve because there is little opportunity for them to voice out their concerns or effect change under the repressive political climate of today where the PAP calls the shots. Singapore is far more than PAP or Lee. It's time for us to stop this blind cult-figure worship and realize that Lee is only human after all and that he will not become a leader he is today without the collective efforts and hard work of all Singaporeans, past and present.   Please join our Facebook page here and invite your friends to do so to create awareness of the current affairs affecting Singaporeans. Please use our online web form to contact us.  Read More →

Lee Kuan Yew, the Minister Mentor of Singapore, is three years my senior. That means he and I practically grew up in the same period of time. That also means that I have been able to watch the progress of Lee, and in fact to interact with him on various occasions. His assertion in his interview with the New York Times that “Race relations (would be) better if Singapore (had) not (been) “turfed out” (of Malaysia) is worth studying. Is it true or is it fantasy? Before Singapore joined the Peninsular, Sabah and Sarawak to form Malaysia, there was less racial politics in the Federation of Malaysia. In 1955 the Malays who made up 80 per cent of the citizens gave a large number of their constituencies to the few Chinese and Indian citizens and ensured they won with strong Malay support. As a result the Alliance won 51 of the 52 seats contested. The Tunku then rewarded this willingness of the Chinese and Indian citizens to support the coalition concept by giving them one million unconditional citizenship. This reduced Malay majority to 60 per cent. In the 1959 elections the Alliance of Umno, MCA and MIC won easily though Kelantan was lost. PAS with only Malays as members was rejected. Racialism even when implied failed. In 1963 Singapore became a part of Malaysia. Despite having promised that the PAP will not participate in Peninsular, Sabah and Sarawak politics, Kuan Yew reneged and the PAP tried to displace the MCA in the Alliance by appealing to Chinese sentiments in the Peninsular. Of course the slogan was “Malaysian Malaysia” which implied that the Chinese were not having equal rights with the Malays. If this appeal to Chinese sentiments against the Malays was not racial, I do not know what is racial. But the Peninsular Chinese favoured working with the Malays in Umno. They totally rejected PAP in 1964. Following the Malaysian Malaysia campaign a few Umno leaders tried to rouse Singapore Malay sentiments. There were demonstrations in Singapore where before there were none. Kuan Yew accused Jaafar Albar for instigating the Singapore Malays. Although I never went to Singapore, nor met the Malays there, I was labelled a Malay ultra by Kuan Yew himself. By 1965 racism had taken hold and the Tunku was forced to end Singapore’s membership of Malaysia. But the seed of Chinese racialism had been sown, so that even after the PAP left, the “Malaysian Malaysia” war cry was picked up by the DAP, an offspring of the PAP. With the background of Singapore’s activities in Malaysia in the short three years of its membership, can we really believe that if it had not been “turfed out” race relations would be better in Malaysia? But proof of what would have happened was shown by the politics leading up to the 1969 elections. The MCA began to criticise the Sino/Malay co-operation especially on so-called special rights and demanded for a Chinese university. Umno then began to clamour for a greater share of the economy of the country. The Umno/MCA conflict resultedin the Alliance faring very badly in the 1969 elections. DAP and Gerakan, a new party largely made up of MCA dissidents, made gains. The Alliance was shocked and rattled. Then the Gerakan and DAP held their victory parade near the Malay settlement of Kampung Baru, hurling racist insults at the Malays. The result was the May 13 race riots. Till today the racist slogan “Malaysian Malaysia” is the war cry of the DAP. Racism in Malaysia is clearly the result of Singapore’s membership of the country for just three years. Can we really believe that if Singapore had not been “turfed out” Malaysia would have no racial problem. While Kuan Yew talks about his belief that all ethnic communities should free themselves from the shackles of racial segregation in order to promote fairness and equality among the races, he also said that “once we are by ourselves (out of Malaysia) the Chinese become the majority”. 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 would be hauled up in court for libel and if they win elections would not be allowed to take their places in Parliament. Whereas in Malaysia opposition parties invariably win seats in Parliament and even set up state governments (today four out of the 13 states are ruled by the opposition parties); the PAP in Singapore has to appoint PAP members to represent the opposition. Whether the PAP admits it or not, 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. If Singapore is a part of Malaysia the PAP can certainly reproduce the Singapore kind of non-racial politics because together with the Malaysian Chinese, the PAP will ethnically dominate and control Malaysian politics. No dissent would be allowed and certainly no one would dare say anything about who really runs the country. Amnesia is permissible but trying to claim that it is because Singapore had been “turfed out” for the present racist politics in Malaysia is simply not supported by facts of history. Lee Kuan Yew and I saw the same things and know the reasons why. Source: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/breakingviews/article/malaysia-according-to-lky-dr-mahathir-mohamad/  Read More →