A Blazing article on the old man!

[scroobal]

A Blazing TOC article - caustic to the core, substantial and pointed. Very well written. Kudos to Khairulanwar.

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/08/lee-kuan-yew-–-the-modern-malay-pahlawan/


Khairulanwar Zaini

The Malay community has found its new defender – Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew.

Usually the community’s harshest critic, Lee invoked a Constitutional clause long regarded as dormant: Section 152, a Malaysian heritage that calls upon the government to ‘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’.

Malay Singaporeans must be left bemused by this. The government has long hectored them not to expect any special privileges or affirmative action, for Singapore operates upon the sacrosanct principles of meritocracy and racial equality. However, on Wednesday, Lee declared that ‘it is a duty of the Government not to treat everybody as equal’.
Lee’s speech was in response to Nominated Member of Parliament Viswa Sadasivan’s call for racial equality. Viswa had, in the previous sitting, alluded to instances of racial inequality, particularly the ‘issue of Malay-Muslims in the SAF, SAP schools and cultural elitism’, among others.

Lee affirmed that racial inequality not only exists, but is also mandated by the Constitution. In a rich display of parliamentary irony, he said that the Government has a ‘duty to treat Malays and other minorities with extra care’. Apparently, ‘extra care’ to minorities means marginalizing the Malays in the military and emphasizing the preeminence of Chinese culture.

The Guardian of Minority Interests

The Malaccan sultanate, during its zenith, counted among its ranks pahlawans – Malay warriors who would embody the spirit of Malay nationalism and uphold Malay interests.

Lee may seem like a modern Malay pahlawan in invoking Section 152 and Malay privileges, but in truth he was hiding behind shadows. Section 152 is hardly a convincing shield, since the clause has been diluted in substance over the years.

Arguably, the only substantive and tangible ‘privilege’ that emanates from Section 152 is the Mendaki Tertiary Tuition Fee Subsidy. This financial scheme has however ceased to be an outright privilege, but has been subjected to means-testing instead.

The means-testing was introduced by Lee, who had ‘asked Mendaki to ask (the Malays) to agree not to have their special rights of free education at university, but to take the fees they were entitled to and use the money to help more disadvantaged Malays.’

This ‘redistribution of resources amongst the poor’, to borrow a phrase from Michael Barr in his book Constructing Singapore, hardly goes with the spirit of Section 152.

The Spirit of 152 vs Reality

However, it is true that the government espouses a policy of racial inequality: but one diametrically opposite from the spirit of Section 152.

Viswa Sadasivan raised a cogent concern with the example of the SAP schools. Manifest of the government’s bent towards Chinese cultural hegemony and Confucian values, Michael Barr noted in Constructing Singapore that in 1985, when measured against mainstream schools, SAP schools had a better teacher-student ratio of 22.8% while the expenditure per student was 56.45% higher.

Meanwhile, the government’s ‘responsibility to protect, safeguard, support, foster, promote their … educational … interest and the Malay language’ entailed the closure of Malay-medium schools.

Compounding this is the whole-hearted devotion of the entire state apparatus in promoting the annual Speak Mandarin Campaigns, which runs the real risk of alienating and marginalizing one-quarter of the population that is not proficient in Mandarin.

The Malay Snowflake

Lee also argued that the PAP style of racial stratification was necessary, since ‘we will not be able to get a Chinese minister or an Indian minister to persuade Malay parents to look after their daughters more carefully and not have teenage pregnancies.’ It was more appropriate to get MUIS and Mendaki to form ‘a committee to try and reduce the numbers of such delinquents’.

The uncharacteristic display of sensitivity notwithstanding, this perspective affirms the notion of Malays suffering from cultural deficit (and by extension of Lee’s eugenics, a biological deficit as well) and perpetuates the impression that Malays are delicate snowflakes requiring special care and attention.

However, it may be worthwhile to examine the race-centric approach that the PAP seemingly adopts with every problem that plagues the Malay community. It would be inconceivable to think of teenage pregnancies as a problem isolated only in the Malay community; rather, this delinquency can be viewed as a product of socio-economic hardship.

Hence, what is essentially a socio-economic problem has unnecessarily acquired a racial element that leads to the further reinforcement of negative racial stereotypes. It may be that ethnic-based self-help bodies such as Mendaki are aggravating this predicament, since it provides a convenient community-oriented outlook to manage any given problems.

Racially Unequal: It’s their Fault

The deeper implication of Lee’s speech is that the perpetuation of racial inequality is not the fault of the government’s, but the minorities.

By citing the constraint of Section 152 to dismiss the practicality of racial equality, Lee effectively pins the blame of the government’s racially unequal policies on the need to provide ‘extra care’ to the minorities.

Therefore, the stumbling block to a sense of civic nationhood – where the ideal of ‘regardless of race, language and religion’ is lived up to – is not the government, but the pesky constitutional need to protect minority interests.

It is the Malays and Indians, who need to be protected and taken care of, they are the ones who are thwarting your idealistic notion of racial equality, Mr Viswa!

Abolishing 152

Lee mentioned that the abolition of Section 152 would cause some ‘grave disquiet’, but resentment, if any, to its repeal is misplaced. Looking at the flimsy substance that Section 152 provides to the Malays, it is doubtful that even they would rue its dismissal.

As it stands, Section 152 hardly accords any privilege that is over-and-out of those provided to other races. The Mendaki TTFS can remain, or else be integrated into a national pool that can fund all students from a disadvantaged socio-economic background, regardless of their race.

The Administration of Muslim Law Act, although arising from a separate article – 153 – may be affected, but there are surely legal avenues to provide for the effective administration of Muslim affairs without having to entrench a principle of racial inequality. In any case, it may be a judicious time to examine whether it is necessary to place MUIS under the state subordination, given that the churches have operated fine under the non-governmental umbrella of the National Council of Churches Singapore (NCCS).

Sharia courts can also remain without interfering with racial equality, as the British have shown. Behaving as ‘arbitration tribunals’ under the Arbitration Act of 1996, the sharia courts, along with Jewish courts, have effectively functioned without having to impose a state of racial inequality in Britain.

Mental Gymnastics

Whatever their sentimental attachment, Malays would rather have a choice of racial equality over Section 152 if the former will mean that they can finally enter the navy and serve in the sensitive vocations of the armed forces.

Lee’s was a fine display of mental gymnastics as he held up an empty clause devoid of meaning to defend racial inequality in favour of the minorities, when the concern was the racial dominance of the majority.

As much as it is amusing, it is also damaging to our nation-building efforts. In his parting shot to Viswa, Lee said that ‘Brahmins will not be in Sinda. It is the non-Brahmins who are in Sinda’. Lee seems to have confused socio-economic disparity with racial inequalities.

That’s the price we pay for living in racial silos.

 

[singveld]

so there is some technicality in the pledge.

 

[saratogas]

Come to think of it, how long more is this country going to subsidize the Malays?

 

[scroobal]

Here is a tip - don't think. It will confuse you. Let the adults handle this. Old man has a history of throwing spanners in the works so lesser minds keep tripping over them. Just get yourself a hot drink and play some online games.

Come to think of it, how long more is this country going to subsidize the Malays?

 

[scroobal]

Like what?

so there is some technicality in the pledge.

 

[bryanlim1972]

Here is a tip - don't think. It will confuse you. Let the adults handle this. Old man has a history of throwing spanners in the works so lesser minds keep tripping over them. Just get yourself a hot drink and play some online games.

you've become one heck of a condescending elitist mofo. used to enjoy ur posts, not anymore. seems like you're becoming just like GYeo. all that power getting to your head???

 

[scroobal]

Another good article by E-Jay

Sgpolitics.net Special Feature (Part One)
20 Aug 2009

Did new Nominated Member of Parliament Viswa Sadasivan shake the foundations of the PAP facade to the very core in his maiden Parliamentary speech on Tuesday, and in so doing, attracted an avalanche of criticism from PAP MPs who sensed that very essence of their self-serving political philosophy had been given a thunderous jolt?

Viswa Sadasivan’s motion was deemed so threatening, so audacious, that no less a personality than MM Lee Kuan Yew was compelled to state that it was dangerous to allow such high falutin ideas to go un-demolished lest they mislead Singapore.

In tabling his motion on Tuesday, NMP Viswa Sadasivan wanted Parliament to reaffirm its commitment to the principles enshrined in the National Pledge. In his view, this entailed strengthening Singaporeans’ sense of citizenship, and upholding the fundamentals of democracy and racial and religious unity. He admonished Parliament to stay mindful of these tenets when pursuing economic and other national policies.


In his 50-minute speech, Viswa lamented Singaporeans’ lack of freedom to express themselves, the Government’s seemingly unmitigated grip on power, and what appears to be an inconsistent willingness on the part of the authorities to listen to public sentiment that does not suit it.

Viswa said that the country, through the Government, is expected to be accountable to citizens. And this accountability must be visible. People’s views and concerns must be sought and heard, and acted upon. Where the Government cannot address citizens’ views and concerns, it must explain the reasons. Similarly, when citizens challenge the Government on issues and policies, the response needs to come across as being sincere, not intimidating on one hand and callous and cavalier on the other.

In the electoral arena, Viswa advocated a more level playing field, especially in the management of elections and media coverage. He stated that what is increasingly demanded is fairness and justice, not just in form but also in substance.

Viswa also said that the Government should desist from making it difficult, in an unfair and undemocratic manner, for the opposition to gain success -– through last minute changes in electoral boundaries, or a lack of media coverage, or what can sometimes be seen as biased coverage.

In Viswa’s view, it is the duty of a responsible Government to help evolve a political climate that encourages greater interest and participation from the people. If not, people are likely to feel increasingly alienated and disenfranchised, resulting in apathy, and worse, cynicism.

On the topic of new media, Viswa offered the opinion that there appears to be a resurgence of interest in engaging in debate of issues in cyberspace, accompanied by a growing sense of restlessness and even helplessness with what is viewed as a traditional media that is aligned with the Government.

He said that there is the perception that the mainstream media tows the Government’s line because it is required to, and that this is certainly not healthy for the Government or the country as it nurtures a “them versus us” climate that could become unnecessarily adversarial.

Viswa, in discussing the Government’s responsibility to the less fortunate, said that our rejection of a welfare state does not in any way absolve an elected Government of the responsibility to provide for the basic needs of a small group of citizens who cannot fend for themselves because of illness or disability.

And on the topic of political participation, Viswa stated in no uncertain terms that from the late 1960s, stringent rules have discouraged active political activism. Detention of political activists under the ISA and media controls have created a climate of fear that inhibits political participation. Over years, this has crystallized into a political culture of apathy and disinterest.

Viswa was of the view that we must consciously and proactively start the process of re-politicisation -– to get people, especially the youth, interested and involved not only in social work but political matters. A good place to start this would be our universities, which have been the traditional base of political interest and activism. Political associations should be encouraged, and campus rallies should be allowed once again.

But perhaps the remarks that drew the most ire was Viswa’s statements concerning race and religion. Viswa said that over the years, we have become very race conscious as a people. In almost everything we do we are asked about our race — starting with the NRIC, and in almost all application forms.

Most controversially, Viswa opined that the creation of ethnic self help groups such as Mendaki, SINDA, CDAC and the Eurasian Association have exacerbated the problem.

Viswa said that the practice of racial categorization and the perception of segregation due to the way the Government collects data about population trends have resulted in an apparent contradiction with the “regardless of race” tenet of the Pledge.

To be sure, Viswa expressed tremendous pride in the progress of our nation and attributed much of it to the PAP Government.

But that did not stop MM Lee from taking Viswa to task in a scathing manner that left no doubt in the mind of anyone who witnessed the debate or who watched the telecast on CNA that the Minister Mentor was going all out to thumb him down.

In Part Two of this series, I will examine what MM Lee as well as what some other MPs said, and discuss just how coherent their views were.

 

[scroobal]

Here is part 2 of E-Jay's article.

Sgpolitics.net Special Feature (Part Two)
Written by Ng E-Jay
20 Aug 2009

On Wednesday, Parliament accepted an amended version of the motion submitted by NMP Viswa Sadasivan, after a total of 14 MPs had taken turns over a two-day period to lambast Mr Viswa’s “highfalutin” ideals.

Amongst those who severely criticized Mr Viswa’s motion was Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew who delivered his scathing rebuttal in a rare Parliamentary appearance after his previous speech in April 2007 during which he defended ministerial pay increases.

Opposition MP Low Thia Khiang also gave Mr Viswa a very humiliating thumbs down by dismissing his motion altogether, and stating categorically that he did not want to have anything to do with the debate.

The MP for Hougang also said that the National Pledge should not be brought up unnecessarily, and that we should not invoke it for the sake of argument.

With both PAP MPs as well as Opposition MPs ganging up against Mr Viswa, and mainstream media channels like Channel News Asia zooming in on the new NMP in an attempt to portray him as acting nervous under pressure, it is time to give an objective assessment of the debate.


Two False Dichotomies
The arguments advanced by PAP MPs present to Singaporeans two false dichotomies.

Firstly, PAP MPs have once again resorted to using bogeymen like the racial riots of the 1960s and the current political unrest in countries like Thailand to scare Singaporeans into accepting that the ideals enshrined in statements like the National Pledge must often be compromised for the sake of stability and pragmatism.

Education Minister Ng Eng Hen in particular questioned whether Mr Viswa’s political ideals would “magically” work for us, citing the problems faced in India, the Philippines, Taiwan or Thailand where the factionalism of coalition or competing parties have led to political paralysis.

In my opinion, this line of reason presents to Singaporeans a false dilemna, because society has evolved tremendously over the past 5 decades of self-government, and it is increasing unproductive to engage in fear-mongering by projecting our republic as forever hanging on a knife’s edge.

Furthermore, countries like India, Thailand and Taiwan are so varied and their political situations so distinct from one another that it is misleading to lump them all together in an attempt to argue why the PAP has done the right thing for Singapore. Clearly PAP MPs here are talking their own book without any substantial basis.

Secondly, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew put forth the argument that Mr Viswa’s call for equal treatment of all races was in conflict with the Constitution which expressly provides for special recognition of Malays and which places a duty on the Government to pay extra attention to the needs of minority races.

In my view, MM Lee has also presented a false dichotomy to us.

There is no conflict between upholding the tenet of “regardless of race, language or religion”, and taking care of the interests of racial and religious minorities, including (rightfully) recognizing Malays as the indigenous people of Singapore.

The tenets enshrined in the Pledge fail to be upheld ONLY when there is discrimination against a particular race or religious group in the negative sense, NOT when there is affirmative action for a particular race or religious group in the positive sense as indicated by the Constitution.

It is my stand therefore that the Pledge and the Constitution can co-exist on equal footing and with each deserving equal consideration, not with one being merely regarded an “aspiration” that “may take centuries to realize”, in MM Lee’s own words.

We must continually recognize and reject the false dichotomies that the PAP continually present to us, because they hold back our nation’s progress.

Why the fury over Mr Viswa’s speech?
Why has there been such an outcry by PAP MPs over Mr Viswa’s maiden Parliamentary speech, with MM Lee going so far as to say that his views must be demolished?

Mr Viswa has not suggested anything that is racially inflammatory or discriminatory. Upon reading his speech in detail, one can readily tell that his intentions are noble and he is all for racial and religious unity.

It was not too long ago when Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong called for sensitive issues like race and religion to be openly discussed in a responsible manner. In his National Day Rally, he said that from time to time, we have to discuss such topics honestly but tactfully, to recognise the trends in our society and tell ourselves where we need to do better.

Mr Viswa’s views were as broad ranging as they were hard-hitting. But they are definitely not upsetting or divisive. They were well-considered, sincere and meaningful.

Why then the outrage and the need to demolish Mr Viswa’s message at first sight? Why is the PAP shying away from the chance to coolly address Mr Viswa’s points and rebut them in a calm and collected manner, as per PM Lee’s suggestion?

Obviously, the ruling party is not walking their own talk. They have shown that they don’t mean what they say, and that is sad.

Has the ruling party belittled the Pledge?
By denying that the Pledge represents any ideology and consigning it to a mere “aspiration” that can only be tentatively approximated but not fully realized for eons to come, has the ruling PAP belittled the Pledge?

What do we tell our school children who recite the Pledge faithfully every day at assembly? Do we tell them they are reciting words that represent merely an abstraction, that are not “down to earth”?

If the ruling party thinks the Pledge is only an aspiration, what is their view about the National Anthem? Only an aspiration and an abstraction too?

This is yet another example of the PAP using its monopoly on political philosophy and ideology to rudely abuse our common sense notion of what our national tenets and what our Pledge means.

The only way to end this peculiar conundrum is for Singaporeans to recognize how our national values are being systematically undermined, and to speak out forcefully in public and at the ballot box.