The Nizams…

Nizam
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Nizam-ul-Mulk was the title of the ruler of Hyderabad state from 1724 to 1949. The state is therefore sometimes referred to as a nizamate. Like their Mughal predecssors, the nizams were Muslims.

The term nizām-al-mulk was first used in Urdu around 1600 to mean “governor of the realm.” It, in turn, derives from the Arabic word, nizंām, meaning “order, arrangement.” The Nizam was, and often still is, referred to as Ala Hadrat or Nizam Sarkar.

The first Nizams ruled on behalf of the mughal emperors, but as their power waned with the death of Aurangazeb – the last great moghul, the nizams split away to form their own “nizamdom”. This continued until the British who allowed the Nizams to rule their princely states. This was accepted by the Nizams and retained power over Hyderabad state until Indian independence. Even after Indian Independence, the Nizam wanted to join Pakistan or be independent, however the Indian Army launched Operation Polo that resulted in the annexation of the Nizam’s territories.

HA! There was actually a state that existed which called its residents the Nizams! And they were Muslims! Very very hilarious. Far cry from the other definition of Nizam if spelt with the arabic zal instead of the zhaw. (which bythe way means “belt” instead of “order, arrangement”.)

White elephants: revisted

I saw this in Mr Wang’s entry, as he related this to Dr Cherian George’s article and the following response from Ms Chen. I didn’t know the case was over! And the culprit wasn’t even revealed! Interesting. This are excerpts of the articles from the Straits Times featured in Mr Wang’s entry.

Oct 7, 2005
WHITE ELEPHANTS SAGA
Police give stern warning to protester

By Leslie Koh

THE Case Of The Eight White Elephants has finally been wrapped up.

The punishment for putting up eight cutouts of cartoon elephants in front of Buangkok MRT station to protest against its non-opening: A stern warning from the police.

The placards, they said in a two-paragraph statement issued yesterday, did not cause public annoyance or a nuisance. But they did infringe on a law requiring people to obtain a permit before putting up posters or exhibits for public display.

So the police have issued a stern warning, instead of prosecuting the person who did it. They did not name the culprit.

Identity of the Elephant Man?

Oct 10, 2005
‘Fight’ to open Buangkok MRT station goes on

By Lydia Lim
GRASSROOTS leaders of Punggol South will fight on to get Buangkok MRT station opened.

And they will come up with more unusual ways to get the message across.

Grassroots leader Sunny Leow told reporters yesterday: ‘We’ll still be very creative, but within the law.’

Mr Leow, 54, chairs the Punggol South Citizens’ Consultative Committee.

The businessman is believed to be the one who received a police warning after an investigation into the placing of eight white-elephant placards on the road divider outside the station.

The incident became a national talking point.

Yawning bread also ponders over the reasons behind the non-disclosure of the identity of the White Elephant Man. Even he also suspects that the person involved may be from within the ranks.

Something tells me, he has been told not to identify himself. Maybe it was a condition in the police warning given to him. Maybe it was an instruction from the MP.

If indeed it was a PAP-linked grassroots leader, then disclosure can only suggest disarray in their ranks. It seems to me to serve the PAP very well to keep it a secret.

Interesting.

US envoy slaps Singapore over freedom of speech

Financial Times
October 12, 2005
By John Burton in Singapore

THE outgoing US ambassador to Singapore has criticised the city-state’s restrictions on free speech in a rare public rebuke by a US official of one of Washington’s closest Asian allies. Ambassador Frank Levin said Singapore’s 20th-century political model may prove inadequate for the 21st century, warning that the government “will pay an increasing price for not allowing full participation of its citizens.”

The ambassador told an audience at a farewell dinner that he was “embarrassed” when police asked him if he wanted to press charges against six demonstrators protesting the Iraq war in front of the US embassy in 2003. Singapore bans demonstrations of five or more people.

“I said ‘no.’ I mean, go ahead, hold the signs and say something if you want to,” said Mr Lavin, who will become under-secretary for international trade at the US Commerce Department.

Mr Levin said it was “surprising to find constraints on discussions here” given Singapore’s strong international links in the economic sector. “In this era of Weblogs and Webcams, how much sense does it make to limit political expression?”

Singapore’s one-party political dominance provides “enormous strengths,” such as “very high quality leadership,” but it also has weaknesses since “the lack of open and vigorous debates might reduce a government’s popularity if it doesn’t let ideas or views be properly aired.”

Lee Hsien Loong, the Singapore prime minister, said last week that he did not believe that Singapore should adopt an “idealised form” of liberal democracy, explaining it was unsuitable for the country.

US-Singapore ties have strengthened during Mr Lavin’s four-year tenure as ambassador, including the signing of bilateral free-trade agreement and a new security framework that might lead to an increased US military presence in the city-state.

Recent US ambassadors to Singapore, including Mr Lavin, have normally been highly supportive in their comments on Singapore. Mr Lavin’s predecessor, Steven Green, left his post to become head of a Singapore-listed venture capital fund and was appointed a special advisor to the Singapore government and its honorary consul-general in Miami.

But Patricia Herbold, Mr Lavin’s successor, has suggested that the Bush administration might be preparing to take a tougher line on Singapore’s human rights record.

Ms Herbold, a lawyer and Republican fundraiser, told a US Senate hearing on her confirmation that she would continue a dialogue that Washington has with Singapore regarding the openness of its society and its political system.

US-Singapore relations have improved steadily since late 1980s, when Singapore accused the US of interfering in its internal affairs by alleging that the US embassy had secretly provided financial support to an opposition politician.

At the time, Singapore relaxed its ban on demonstrations and allowed a large protest rally to take place in front of the US embassy.

Read more on this in From a Singapore Angle. I guess you can’t believe everything you read in the news since it can be taken out of context. But it provides an interesting read and introduces the Mr Lavin’s successor who may change the nuances of US-Singapore relations.