Alfian Saat to LKY:Should Article 152 be scrapped Should Article 152 be scrapped?

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

TOC
Should Article 152 be scrapped from the Singapore Constitution?
Thursday, 3 September 2009
Alfian Sa’at

The event was a screening of Singapore short films. During the Question & Answer session at the end, a member of the audience, a Korean man, offered an observation: “Despite the fact that Singapore is a multiracial country, why are the films shown tonight all in Chinese?”

His query provoked an immediate response from a lady in the audience. Before the microphone could be passed to her, she had shouted out, almost defensively, ‘Majority, what!’

There is of course a certain undeniable logic to the woman’s outburst. The Chinese are an overwhelming 75% of Singapore’s population. This is a very sizeable majority, if we compare it to other ‘multiracial’ countries: Malaysia (65% Malays and Bumiputra groups), Fiji (55% Fiji Islanders) and Guyana (44% Indo-Guyanese). If there were more media representations of the Chinese than the other races in Singapore, it was a matter of simple arithmetic.

But that was the woman actually saying with that phrase? Was she peeved that this ‘foreigner’ dared to suggest that Singapore’s ‘multi-racial’ ethos was superficial, even fraudulent? At the same time, I couldn’t help but be struck by a glib sense of entitlement that accompanied her prickly response.

*********

Recently, the Straits Times ran a feature article asking whether minorities in Singapore deserve a ‘special position’. What the article failed to recognize, however, was the ‘special position’ enjoyed by Chinese Singaporeans.

Simply put, these are the privileges that come from being members of the majority race.

When I was younger, I used to question why local advertisements rarely featured non-Chinese faces (bank and credit card companies were notorious for projecting images of well-heeled Chinese yuppies). I wondered why TVMobile showed Chinese programmes, which only served to marginalize those of us sitting in the bus who didn’t understand the language. But I came to realize that equal representation was simply not possible in a country where one particular ethnic community formed the bulk of the target market. I began to appreciate the difficulties of any minority, no matter how entrepreneurial, to penetrate communal business networks, where guanxi links have ossified over several generations.

It’s not simply economic supremacy that the majority enjoys, but also political hegemony. Singapore practices a form of electoral democracy, which by its definition establishes rule by a majority. Because of the HDB quota system, which mandates that the ethnic composition in each estate should mirror that of the nation as a whole, minority communities do not form any significant electoral bloc.

While areas such as Kembangan, Geylang Serai and the Southern Islands used to be Malay-dominated strongholds, this has been diluted over time. We can contrast this, for example, with the state of Pulau Pinang in Malaysia, where the Chinese actually form the majority. Ironically, the attempt to prevent certain neighborhoods from becoming Malay or Indian enclaves has actually resulted in each ward becoming a Chinese enclave.

However, it is the privilege of the majority to be exempted from accusations of forming ‘enclaves’ (or for that matter, ‘ghettoes’) in areas where they are concentrated, simply because those words are inextricably linked with minorities.

*********

Thus it was with a sense of bewilderment that I read Minister Mentor’s agitated rebuttal to NMP Viswa Sadasivan’s speech in Parliament. According to Lee, “Our Constitution states expressly that it is a duty of the Government not to treat everybody as equal.” He made particular reference to Section 152 of the Singapore Constitution, which reads as such:

‘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.’

The implication is that the ‘special position’ accorded to Malays in Singapore is an obstacle to true racial equality. This was Lee’s argument to supposedly bring the house ‘back to earth’ and demolish Viswa’s ‘highfalutin’ ideals. But it seems as if Lee has got the whole thing backwards.

While there has been talk about jettisoning Section 152, especially by some Malays who feel that they have been unfairly scapegoated, we should bear in mind that the section consists of two parts. The first part attempts to provide some means of redress for minority communities who are structurally disadvantaged.

The fact is that inequalities already exist in any society where there is a dominant ethnic majority. In other words, instead of sabotaging the idea of racial equality, this remedial clause actually tries to promote it—by recognizing that minorities do not enjoy the economic and political clout of the majority, and would require special attention and assistance. Lee has labeled Viswa’s speech as ‘false and flawed’. The same should actually be said for his rebuttal.

*********

A concrete example of this ‘remedial clause’ can be found in the television industry. In Singapore, there are dedicated channels for ethnic minorities, namely the Suria channel for Malays and Vasantham channel for Indians. It would be extremely difficult for these channels to survive on revenue from advertising alone. Not only do they suffer from lower viewership than say, Channel 8 and Channel U (the dedicated Mandarin channels), but advertisers would also recognize that the demographic profile of their viewers is hardly appealing (the Malay community, for example, is predominantly working-class, and for advertisers, this would mean lower purchasing power).

Thus, much of the budget for programming on Suria and Vasantham is derived from television licensing fees. This is a practice commonly known as public service broadcasting, acknowledged on the website of the Media Development Authority: “These (licensing) fees are essential in helping with the production of public service programmes as they are less commercially viable and require funding support.”

Without constitutional safeguards for minorities, a multiracial country like Singapore risks sliding into majoritarianism. Sri Lanka is a prime example of a country whose tragic history is a direct result of majoritarian trends. In 1956, 8 years after Independence, the Sinhalese majority (74%) passed an act to recognize Sinhala as the only official language, effectively sidelining the Tamil minority. A new constitution enshrined Buddhism as the state religion, and pro-Sinhalese preferential policies in education and employment were instituted. The result was a protracted civil war that has claimed thousands of lives.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

*********

It is enlightening to revisit the part in Viswa’s speech which addressed the tenet in the pledge which reads as “one united people, regardless of race, language or religion”:

“…We, as a society, need to address apparent contradictions and mixed signals. Examples are the issue of Malay-Muslims in the SAF, SAP schools and cultural elitism, the need for ethnic based self help groups, the need for us to maintain the current racial distribution in society, and whether Singapore is ready for an ethnic minority Prime Minister.”

With the exception of ‘ethnic based self-help groups’, all the examples he listed represented the dangers of majoritarian impulses in Singapore. And out of this entire list, the Minister Mentor, in his rebuttal, chose only to respond to the issue of ethnic based self-help groups.

Lee’s explication of the second part of Section 152 is also notable for its selective omissions. Lily Zubaidah’s ‘The Singapore Dilemma’ provides an excellent analysis on the Singapore government’s ‘minimalist’, rather than ‘interventionist’ approach to Section 152. While the section calls for the government to exercise pro-active measures with regards to the Malay community, it does not detail what these measures should be.

Thus the government has elected to interpret the clause in narrow terms, restricting this to providing free tertiary education for the Malay minority. A more generous interpretation, for example, might have considered granting a Special Assistance Plan status to Malay-medium schools (such as the Sekolah Menengah Tun Sri Lanang and the Sekolah Menengah Sang Nila Utama), a privilege that was offered to 10 Chinese-medium schools.

In some instances, one can even argue that the government has acted in violation of Section 152. In the year 2000, the expropriation of Istana Kampong Glam, a symbol of Malay sovereignty on the island, surely did not demonstrate the political will to ‘safeguard (Malay) cultural interests’. The banning of the tudung in national schools in 2002 cannot be considered an act that ‘fosters (Malay) religious interests’. And the fact that the madrasahs in Singapore do not receive adequate funding from the Ministry of Education contravenes an obligation to ‘support (Malay) educational interests’.

As such, one wonders about the actual constitutional force of Section 152. Lee has raised Section 152 as some kind of stumbling block to equality. Yet the section itself has been subjected to unequal and arbitrary application in state policies.

*********

As I write this, I find myself wondering why it is so difficult for someone in the majority to appreciate his or her privileged status in Singapore. How is it possible for someone to yell out ‘Majority, what!’, in the same breath unapologetically disclaiming any responsibilities towards fellow citizens who are minorities? I imagine a giant flattening villages as it stomps along its carefree path. When asked to account for his actions, he answers, ‘I can’t help it, I’m big what!’

I believe there are two factors that can explain this lack of majority-consciousness among Chinese Singaporeans. The first is the fact that the Chinese did not come to the region as colonial settlers. Their arrival was facilitated by colonial capitalism, which often relied on indentured labour. Thus the Chinese do not see themselves as responsible for dispossessing native populations of their status and territories, and exploiting indigenous resources. As such, they do not carry the baggage of what has often been referred to as post-colonial guilt.

Secondly, there are some who believe that the Chinese-educated community has itself been marginalized, a phenomenon that has led sociologist Chua Beng Huat to coin the term ‘the minoritisation of the Chinese community’. I do have sympathy for such sentiments, although sometimes I wonder if a distinction needs to be made between government subjugation of leftist and communist activities (which tended to be associated with the Chinese-educated) and an actual repression of Chinese culture. Nevertheless, this sense of ‘minoritisation’ has led to a certain attitude in majority-minority relations: ‘how can the Chinese, who are themselves oppressed, be seen as the oppressors?’

No matter what the Chinese here feel about their status as the majority, the fact remains that this is a status that is not likely to change. Lee Kuan Yew himself has hinted at the need to maintain this ‘racial balance’ in a speech given in mid-August:

“By race, the fertility rate is 1.91 for Malays, 1.19 for Indians and 1.14 for Chinese. If we continue this way without the new immigrants and PRs and their children doing national service, the composition of our SAF will change. So please remember that”.

The tendency of any majority, if left unchecked, is towards tyranny. The tendency of any minority, if left unattended, is towards alienation. The presence of Section 152, a constitutional guarantee of minority protection, goes a long way towards alleviating the damaging forces of such vectors in our society. Far from undermining equality, Section 152 is an attempt to rectify asymmetries of power, to achieve parity, among those who are not born equal. It takes a particular form of genius to observe the reverse.

 

[Perspective]

I kinda think Alfian is guilty of the same. By stating the "special position of Malays" he's effectively forgetting that Indians and other races are even smaller in numbers than Malays. Nothing in the article stating the above should be extended to Indians and Eurasians as well.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

1) Ismail Kassim on September 3rd, 2009 10.49 am When Singapore was in Malaysia, Lee demanded full equality for everyone irrespective of race and religion. He was not prepared to wait.

Now, he argues that it will take decades and even centuries before the minorities especially the Malays could hope for equal treatment in all sectors of life.

Ismail Kassim
5) Sceptical on September 3rd, 2009 11.39 am And where does that leave the Indians?
6) mmm on September 3rd, 2009 11.41 am “The tendency of any majority, if left unchecked, is towards tyranny”

The words ‘if left unchecked” has no place in that sentence.
8) George on September 3rd, 2009 12.23 pm In our meritocratic system, all the six SAF scholars were Chinese. So were the six president scholars and two Lee Kuan Yew scholars.

I must say that in 44 years of nationhood, Singapore has been genuinely treating everybody equal. There is no discrimination in our multi-racial, multi-cultural, multi-lingual, meritocratic Singapore!
10) paru on September 3rd, 2009 1.03 pm 152. —(1) It shall be the responsibility of the Government constantly to care for the interests of the racial and religious minorities in Singapore.

In the first place why bother to even include this in the constitution at all, especially when there was no intention to carry it out!

What ’special position’ is the MM talking about?
Nobody’s asking or demanding for any specialties here, not even EQUALITY.. You can ‘keep’ your equality, just, don’t keep ‘harping’ on it …..
To me, Equality is just a word.
Whats the big deal?
Didn’t the minorities survive without IT for the past 50 yrs or so?
Survivors can survive anywhere regardless of the environment, the tougher the environment, the better the surviving instincts! …..So …lets move on…

Even after 50 yrs or so MM still talking about ‘majority & minority!
I am surprised.
Given his age, he should be trying to undo the ‘damage’ he had done to this nation & its citizens not ‘fan the flame’ & increase hostilities among the races?
What kind of a person is this who does not want his citizens to live in peace & brotherhood?
Still wanting Singaporeans to practice racism even after you are gone? How cynical can you be!
I just can’t believe, our MM who was so highly respected by everyone-REGARDLESS OF RACE, is resorting to such methods….

The whole world is striving for justice & equality & peace & you are striving for ‘majority’ to fullfill you own ’selfish agenda’!
Evil does have many forms doesn’t it?
I do hope Singaporeans, don’t ‘fall into this racial trap’……

“….whether Singapore is ready for an ethnic minority Prime Minister”….

If the Americans (USA) has dwelled in this kind of Asian mentality,
US would not have seen America’s First Black President- Barrack Obama today. This is proof of 1st WORLD CLASS country, not Singapore!

With all ‘high & mighty ‘ Ist world hallucinations’ , we are still the WORST of all the backward countries in the world!
There are ELITES in 3rd world countries too!
11) gemami on September 3rd, 2009 1.09 pm I think there has to be a distinction between the behaviour of the elites and the non-elites.

There is a need for the elites in power (and those who gather around them, who love the spillover of power) to ensure that they are on the side of the majority. The politics of the day must take precedence over the larger need of society. This has been the PAP way. It will come as no surprise even, that the PAP will suck up to the Malays or Indians if anyone of this group is the majority race. So, it is not a question of whether we are the Chinese majority or not.

Where the non-elites are concern, the you-and-me and those in the street, I do not think it is fair for the writer to lump all Chinese majority into one bowl. Do we receive the ‘privilege’ of majority? By suggesting that there are privileges for being the majority is in itself a racial slur.

Take the article for an example, and the screening of movies in the Chinese language. To the minority race, Mandarin may seem as Chinese as any of the other dialects like Teochew, Hokkien and Cantonese, but to some Chinese, Mandarin is nothing but a scourge to them. It cannot therefore be said to be a privilege just because there are more TV stations broadcasting in Mandarin.

On enclaves, yes, there were many kampongs that were distinctively of one race or another, and there were kampongs that were a mixture of races too. During the early days of land reclamation, eviction and resettlement, many of us were dispersed and housed into a new kind of enclosure – the HDB flats.

Surely the writer is not suggesting that the racial distribution was the work of the majority? It was the work of a bunch of elites, with the support of both the majority and the minorities. So again, the writer has got it all wrong to suggest that the majority is at fault for such distribution.

The one thing I agree with the writer is that Article 152 cuts both ways – and it has been used to cut the way the elites want it. With MM’s latest outburst, it becomes clear that it will continue to be used to play racial politics– simply because Article 152 can be used as reason for whichever side it chooses to play with.
13) RW on September 3rd, 2009 1.11 pm >> George

There is a difference between equality in opportunities (meritocracy) and equality in outcome (affirmative action).

you are using the observation of ‘lack of equal outcome’ to critique meritocracy, which is kinda confusing the two together.
14) lobo76 on September 3rd, 2009 1.35 pm 5) Sceptical on September 3rd, 2009 11.39 am

Sceptical could not have put it better. If Article 152 is correct for minority, then why is it muslim-centric?

————

The main privilege that the majority enjoys is a result of language. That is why so many FW working in the service line are from China. I think we need to reaffirm English to be the common language (does not belong to any ‘natives’) to correct this inequality.

Article 152 is, imo, meant for something else… created at a time when we are dominated by the surrounding Muslim states. It was never meant to be an equalizer, not even for the Muslims.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

17) Muhamad Nur on September 3rd, 2009 2.00 pm Alfian is placing the Malay minorities as the alienated. In actual fact, it is the Chinese who are alienated here. Malay Singaporeans see limited need to learn Mandarin, brush up their English and also to mix with other races. Many Malays even prefer mixing with their own ethnic/religious groups. Their acute belief that as long as Singapore remains a part of the Malay Archipelago, Malay Singaporeans will enjoy enviable protection. I personally have this belief that the Malays here are the outright real majority similar to the Penang Malays and also those Malays living in Malaysia and Indonesia Chinatowns. The highly controversial SAF policies with regard to hiring Malays in certain post just highlight the minority mindset much ingrained in the Chinese Singaporeans. A confident majority need not have any discriminatory policies put in place to benefit them. With this relations, I think Malay Malaysians and Chinese Singaporeans shares so much similarities.

18) singapoor on September 3rd, 2009 2.31 pm how much singapore may pretend, ESSENTIALLY the racial politics in singapore is just as bad as in malaysia. singapore chinese community descriminate the minorities just as much as the malaysian malays. what differs is the forms…

singaporean chinese community hide behind cliche slogans such as meritocracy which till today have never been proven with any evidence. it remains a political statement. singaporean minorities get measured from the line down drawn by the singaporean chinese community (i.e. they are always viewed as no better). malaysian malays measure their minorities from place of ancestoral origin (i.e. they are always viewed as no equal)

singaporean minorities also do not have the freedom within this autocratic country to express themselves in media or otherwise unlike in malaysia. nobody in the minority communities dare to stand up or organize to lead their community’s grievances unlike in malaysia, fearing the worst repercussions. even the pro-government minority leaders in malaysia have the courage to bring up issues about their communities. in singapore for the last 50 years, none of the government minority leaders have had any courage to do so.

well of course singaporean chinese community will dispute all this. they never have faced up to these realities. however what they fail to realize is that social cohesion is most important to a small country’s survival. alienating the minorities will only lead to fragile and superficial social unity, threatening any and every success and fortune the country may have generated. there are just far too many examples in the history of south east asian region alone to support this.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

compare and contrast alfian's povs with that of fellow malay singgie khartini below...no prizes for guessing who shall be getting a few golden crumbs from the PAPs in the near future:p

Proud to be a Malay Singaporean — Khartini Khalid
SEPT 3 —

I am a Malay Singaporean and I am proud of it — though the label “Malay Singaporean” often seems to make little sense to people outside of South-east Asia.

In my travels to other countries and in my current place of residence in the United States, I am often quizzed as to the meaning of this label. “You mean, you are Malaysian?” I am asked. Or: “I thought Malays are Malaysians?”

My answer, each time, is “no”. Regardless of how often I have to repeat myself, I try, each time, to explain the differences between Malay Singaporeans and Malay Malaysians. I say that history had united us and then separated us. Political leaderships and national policies have made us very distinct from one another.

This was not always the case. For many years after Separation, the racial and religious identities of Malay Muslims in Malaysia and Singapore took precedence over their national identities.

However, things have changed drastically over the past few decades and much of that has to do with how politics shaped the two communities.

I first realised how different I am from Malay Malaysians when I stayed in a kampung in Negri Sembilan for a week. I was there for a mini research project with some students — a mix of Chinese, Malay and Indian Singaporeans, plus a few foreigners. We stayed with host families in a Malay village.

After the first four days in the village, I felt something was amiss. I could not put a finger on what it was. It was only when I was hanging out at a roadside stall and saw a Chinese man that it dawned on me what I was missing: I had not seen a single non-Malay person (outside of my student group) for four whole days!

The Chinese in the area lived in a separate village across the street while the Indians lived in yet another village near some plantations. In Seremban, I saw a building for a Chinese leisure club and another for Malay games or social activities.

Singapore was once like that. But over the decades, it changed. Every day now, when we step out of our flats, we see our Chinese, Indian and perhaps Eurasian neighbours. We share the same lifts, corridors, void decks, community parks and common spaces. We go to the same schools and workplaces. Our parliamentary representatives are multiracial. Malay Singaporeans are as much a part of the everyday realities of Chinese, Indian and Eurasian Singaporeans as they are of ours. This cannot be said of Malay and non-Malay Malaysians. In short, Malay Malaysians and Malay Singaporeans live in different political and social realities.

In a recent column published in Utusan Malaysia, former Malaysian information minister Zainuddin Maidin said that Malaysia’s current racial controversies mirror the issues that surfaced in the country during the May 1969 riots. He also said that Malaysia was right to remove Singapore as it had been a thorn in Malaysia’s flesh. The “poison...spilled by Kuan Yew more than 40 years ago,” he suggested, is the reason race relations remain fraught in Malaysia.

I wonder how wanting a system that promises equality for all, as compared to one that is biased and discriminating, can be “poison”. Well, perhaps one man’s meat is another man’s “poison”. Thanks to the “meat”, Singapore has become a city state where different races co-exist peacefully and all benefit from a meritocratic system.

Should Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew have ruled Singapore using the Malaysian “model”, with discriminatory policies favouring one racial group over others, people like me might have failed to enter university though our grades are good while people of another race are admitted though their grades are poor. We would then, understandably, have felt aggrieved and over time this would have manifested itself in unpleasant social tensions.

This brings me to Datuk Seri Zainuddin’s comment that “Singapore sticks to a Third World democracy despite having a developed world mentality while Malaysia has a Third World mentality but a developed world democracy”.

I accept his point that Singapore has a developed world mentality and do not deny that Singapore’s democracy is not like that of other First World countries’. Whether we will be better off having such a democracy is another debate altogether. However, I think Singapore has greater political, economic and social democracy than Malaysia. There is no money politics here, and our system of equity based on merit pervades almost all sectors of our society.

Singapore has changed phenomenally since its separation from Malaysia. There are still challenges to overcome in the different communities, including among Malay Singaporeans, but we are at least at peace with one another.

History teaches great lessons – but only to those who want to learn from it. — The Straits Times

 

[bryanlim1972]

'good' to see old man lee has successfully diverted attention away from the FT issue.

 

[Loofydralb]

Alfian is misinformed about 2 things in his write up:

1. Education for Malays in Singapore is not subsidised. Expanding on this topics of Special Priviledge for the Malays, what tangible priviledge has the PAP under LKY bestowed on this ethnic minority?

Zilch! Zero! Nada! Nothing at all. And don't think the Malays are happy about it. It simmers right below the surface.

2. Alfian is correct that the media for the Minorities are subsidised. But this is not due to LKY's altruistic intent. Bear in mind tha whatever he does is a calculated move, to extract the best possible position from a set situation.

The whole intent of subsidising the media is so that theya re able to exert control and influence on what is printed and aired. Called it a propaganda machine if you must, but that is the stark reality.

LKY did not do it for the sole purpose of upholding 'Special Priviledges'.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Why the need to be “proud” of being a Malay Singaporean?
Saturday, 5 September 2009, 12:27 pm | 67 views
Alfian Sa’at

On 3rd September 2009, both the Straits Times and the Malaysian Insider carried the article ‘Proud To Be Malay Singaporean’. Written by Khartini Khalid, the article addresses among many things a statement made by former Malaysian Information Minister Datuk Zainuddin Maidin in the newspaper Utusan Malaysia.

In his column, the venerable Datuk made references to Singapore while discussing Malaysia’s current racial controversies. According to him, the main reason then Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman decided to kick Singapore out of Malaysia was ‘the speech made by its then Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew, in the Malaysian Parliament in May 1965 questioning the Malay government in Malaysia.’

This statement isn’t really about Singapore but a variation of the spooky ethno-nationalist warning against minorities who question the notion of Malay supremacy (as enshrined in Article 153 of the Malaysian Federal Constitution). Malaysian Home Affairs Minister Hishamuddin Hussein might wave a keris to make this point. Another politician might raise the spectre of the May 13 Incident.

Zainuddin had chosen to invoke the expulsion of Singapore. His message: ‘Don’t you dare challenge Article 153, or we’ll kick you out.’ Nevertheless, Khartini Khalid has seen it as her patriotic duty to defend Singapore from a perceived attack. And thus she begins her column with the line: ‘I am a Malay Singaporean and proud of it.’

It’s one thing to say, ‘I am a Singaporean and proud of it.’ It’s another to bring attention to the fact that you’re Malay. It’s quite obvious that the writer meant: ‘Boy, am I glad I’m not a Malay Malaysian! I can hold my head up high knowing that I never relied on crutches and handouts. As Whitney Houston’s song goes, I tried it on my own.’

The writer goes on to say that she first ‘realised how different I am from Malay Malaysians when I stayed in a kampung in Negeri Sembilan for a week.’ After the first four days, she felt that something was amiss. And what was that? The fact that she ‘had not seen a single non-Malay person for four whole days!’

I can’t speculate on her daily roaming radius, but I suspect that she was trying to say that she was staying in an ethnically homogenous village. According to her, there was a Chinese village ‘across the street’, while the Indians lived in ‘yet another village near some plantations’.

She goes on to compare this with Singapore, where a trip out of her house allows her to behold a melanin rainbow: ‘every day now, when we step out of our flats, we see our Chinese, Indian and perhaps Eurasian neighbours.’ I found myself sniggering. It was as if she was saying, ‘if we’re lucky, we’ll be able to spot a Eurasian too, and we’ll fulfil our multiracial sighting quota for the day.’

There are a few things seriously wrong with extrapolating the writer’s experiences in a remote village in Negeri Sembilan to the multicultural reality of Malaysia. First of all, I’m pretty confident that if she were to stay in a block of apartments in urban Kuala Lumpur, she would be able to visually feast on ‘Truly Asia’.

Secondly, what separated the Malay and Chinese villages was a street, not a wall. These villages were not garrisoned ghettoes. Just because they were spatially segregated does not mean that there was zero interaction between the communities. Conversely, just because I have neighbours of various races along a common corridor does not mean that any meaningful interaction occurs among us. One should not confuse the façade of multiculturalism with its substance.

I wonder if the Straits Times would have run an article written by someone after a trip to China, with the headline ‘Proud To Be Chinese Singaporean’: ‘Thank god I can have more than one child, am surrounded by breathable air and can access Facebook and Youtube!’ Or one that says, ‘Proud to be Indian Singaporean’: ‘Hindu-Muslim tensions, a nasty caste system, and movie stars-turned-politicians—how wonderful that Singapore is spared from all this!’

It’s unwise to make such judgments without understanding the real complexities in the society that one is so eager to denigrate. This is the kind of attitude that has earned Singaporeans a reputation for arrogance. Wave our flag by all means, but make sure that we don’t hit other people’s faces with it.

The generalisation that Khartini makes is that Singapore’s multiculturalism is somewhat superior to that of Malaysia’s. To her, the Malaysian ‘model’ practises ‘discriminatory policies favouring one group over others’, while Singapore has ‘a system of equity based on merit’.

Thus we’re back to comparing Singapore’s ‘meritocracy’ versus Malaysia’s ‘affirmative action’ (although it is more correct to call this ‘ameliorative action’). I am not a big fan of Malaysia’s National Economic Policy, which was instituted in 1971 as a means to allow Malays a greater economic stake in the country (at that time, they held around 4% of the economy—the rest of it was controlled by Chinese and foreign interests). This discrepancy was due to a colonial divide-and-rule policy: political power for the Malays, economic power for the Chinese.

It is clearly an unfair policy, but it has to be examined in terms of what it aims to achieve: an equality of outcome. The idea is for Malays to be given extra state support such that they will feel as if they have an equal share in the country. However, the initial socialist goals of the NEP were gradually abused over time, taking on a communalist character. Eventually, it ended up narrowly benefiting an elite class known as ‘Umnoputras’ more concerned with feathering their own nests than the alleviation of the Malay poor.

On the other hand, meritocracy is premised on equality of opportunity. But it can sometimes lead to consequences that might be argued as unfair. It is no secret that the majority of government scholarship awardees come from affluent, middle-class backgrounds. This is because of the ‘unfair’ advantages they enjoy, often referred to as social capital; these include an English-speaking home environment and the means to afford private tuition. We tend to overlook that meritocracy, while based on egalitarian ideals, often produces elitist results.

The debate over ‘meritocracy’ and ‘Malay special rights’ is therefore not one that can be reduced to which system is better. They have to be understood within the context of the societies which practice them, as well as contesting notions of what constitutes ‘equality’.

Similarly, we have to be careful about the indices that we use to judge the ‘standard’ of multiculturalism in a country. There are many Malays in Malaysia who are against the NEP because it violates their notions of social justice. Malay politicians like Anwar Ibrahim have campaigned on a platform of abolishing the NEP and replacing it with a more equitable system. The lawyer who defended the right of Lina Joy to convert out of Islam is a Muslim — Malik Imtiaz Sarwar. In Malaysia, we have members of the majority speaking up for disenfranchised minorities—something unheard of in today’s Singapore.

The watershed Malaysian election of 2008 revealed that many voters were actually crossing racial lines. In Singapore, the entrenched idea that voters only vote for their own race led to the formation of the Group Constituency Representative scheme, where minority candidates supposedly piggyback on the appeal of a Chinese candidate in a Chinese-majority ward (meaning all wards in Singapore) to get into Parliament.

Cultural producers such as Yasmin Ahmad also provide a glimpse into the active conversations on race in Malaysia. The advertisements by the visionary director Yasmin Ahmad are a case in point. Yasmin’s work (Tan Hong Ming, How to spell Dinosaur, From Madrass) not only convinced me that Malaysia wasn’t a scary country ripped asunder by NEP-apartheid, but also made me wonder why we don’t make such vignettes celebrating our racial plurality in Singapore.

In his National Day Rally address to the Malay community, the Prime Minister said, ‘Malay/Muslim Singaporeans have developed your own distinct identity. You have become different from Malays in Malaysia, Indonesia or Brunei. When abroad, you want to be identified as Singa_poreans first.’

This is a mystifying statement. I wonder if the PM said something similar to the Chinese community: “You have become different from Chinese in China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau, Indonesia, Thailand or Malaysia.” But the subtext is of course the issue of Malay loyalty to the state. 44 years after Independence, the Malay community still finds that it has to demonstrate its willingness to defend the country in the event of armed conflict with neighbouring countries.

Seen in this light, I shouldn’t be too hard on Khartini. There is something strategic in her renunciation of Malay Malaysians. One detects a hidden oath of allegiance in her exaggeration of differences: ‘Malay Malaysians and Singaporeans live in different political and social realities’. One could forgive the shoddy sociology, the simplistic us-vs-them posturing in her article. Ultimately, the fact that Malays in Singapore need to constantly defend their nationalist credentials says a lot more about Singapore’s multiculturalism than a corridor of neighbours who are Chinese, Malay, Indian—and perhaps Eurasian.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

33) Alfian on September 3rd, 2009 8.38 pm A few clarifications which I might have left out from the article…

1) I fully support the retention of Article 152(1). This would enshrine protection of all ethnic minorities in Singapore, be they Malay, Indian or any other race that is not part of the majority.

2) As for Article 152(2), I’m still ambivalent. On one hand, the government seems to have violated it on so many occasions it might not have even existed. On the other hand, the idea of Malay indigeneity is embedded in the article, and I think this is important for the Malays, even if at the end of the day it cannot be used to secure certain political and economic rights.

3) I apologise if there are some Chinese here who might feel that I am somehow accusing them of (unself-conscious) oppression. This has ever been my intention. All I wish to do is perhaps raise attention to the idea that sometimes we can be quite blissfully ignorant of the privileges we enjoy, relative to others. For example, I would never normally consider heterosexuality to be a privilege. But when I sit down with a gay person, then I start to realise that he or she is denied some of the things I take for granted.

4) I would dearly wish for us to move beyond race. But at the same time I am only too aware of how much is has permeated our language. We are a racialised society. However, I am very much heartened that the comments here so far do demonstrate that we can discuss race without adopting racist speech. Quite recently, the word ’secularism’ helped us to unlock a way to discuss religion in an open and forthright manner, and I am glad the word has found its way into public discourse. Maybe we need to find that common language too (and I don’t just mean lingua franca) to talk about race in Singapore.

5) I have to admit that sometimes discussions on race take on the following character:

Chinese: I think you are too sensitive.
Malay: No, I think you are insensitive.
Indian: I agree. You are insensitive.
Chinese: I think the both of you are too sensitive.
Indian: OK, but at least I’m less sensitive than him.
Malay: I think I have a right to be more sensitive. I’m native.
Indian: Actually I have the right to be more sensitive. I’m a smaller percentage.
Chinese: I have a right to be sensitive too. My grandma and I don’t speak the same language.

Etc etc etc. And it does get circuitous. But I sincerely believe that sometimes there’s a way to transcend these kinds of divide-and-rule dynamics. : )

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

37) GABRIEL on September 3rd, 2009 10.20 pm Aiyoh, we can never grow into becoming a nation if we continue to say we are Chinese, Malay, Indian etc, etc. The list will get even longer with the various foreigners taking up residence in Singapore. Inter-marriage will raise all kinds of new rojak combinations.
Ask an American who he is and he will say I am American. Of course, a guy like Michael Jordan is instantly recognisable as an African American, no need to wonder about his ethnicity. A guy like Michael Chang, no need to say — he is Chinese American and proud of his Chinese roots.
But he is first and foremost proud to be American.
I look forward to the day when each one of us — when asked what are you — will say simply: I am Singaporean.

45) gemami on September 4th, 2009 8.19 am Dear Alfian,

Since the majority is Chinese I shall focus on your comments regarding the Chinese.

“Chinese: I think you are too sensitive.
Chinese: I think the both of you are too sensitive.
Chinese: I have a right to be sensitive too. My grandma and I don’t speak the same language.”

I think you’ve missed, or simply ignored, the flip-side of it. You speak as if the Chinese have a bo-chap, or over-bearing attitude toward the racial minority when in fact it could be the slanted perception of the minority that makes them view the Chinese with suspicious eyes – over the presumption that the Chinese are more privileged than them.

The Chinese are the ones who have been overly sensitive to the position of the minority, non-Malays included. In fact, the Chinese would be more than happy if the minority can be a little more sensitive toward the Chinese, for a change. Every time topics on racial issues arise, the Chinese, more often than not, comes under scrutiny and fire – for being the race they are, and, just because there are more of us than the rest.

What the Malays failed to see is the privilege they themselves enjoy – for simply being Malay. I am not talking about tangible privilege or benefits here. These are debatable. The mere mention of the Malays already puts them way above the rest of the minority races. When we talk about minorities, it almost always has one definition – the Malays – as if the other minorities are inconsequential to the race composition.

The reason for the special position the Malays are enjoying is Article 152. Perhaps the Malays are the ones guilty of being “blissfully ignorant” of the privilege they are enjoying. Surely in terms of minority comparison, they are head and shoulders above the rest. And I think it can be said that they too can lord over the Chinese if they want to – because of Article 152, and the regional racial influence it can call upon (if it wants to, that is).

Now don’t get me wrong, I agree that the Malays in Singapore can hold its own and they have rightfully earned this by their own merits. It is time for them to come out of their shells and adopt a less inferior complex. There is no need to envy the Chinese majority because there are challenges and obstacles that come with being a majority. Competition for almost everything is in itself a hindrance in many circumstances.

So please, do not envy us just because we are the majority. We too have our problems for being the majority that we are.
56) walau on September 4th, 2009 1.02 pm Even as one of those ‘majority’ singaporean, I get slighted by the woman’s ‘Majority, what!’ outburst in the cinema. As much as it is about race etc, the thing that gets my goat is the crude, belligerent wavering of dominance.

The main issue to me is not the ‘competition’ between races but the insensitivity that has come to envelope Sgpreans like that woman in the cinema, which is perhaps the unintended(?) effect of racial & ethnic programing that Alfian mentioned i.e. HDB ethnic quotas, Chinese SAP schools(a guilt-redemption political project perhaps?), Article 152(2) etc. And this insensitivity gets accentuated by market forces in a consumption-driven society.

So maybe the underlying issue as #35 OR perhaps alluded in its machiavellian un-packing, is that everytime we participate – whether in self-righteous ‘majoirty what!’ and/or ‘minority what! utterances, and in our passive consumption of bus ads, mediacorpse programs etc, is that we r actually reinforcing the state’s self-serving dominance in the scripting of how Sgpreans should regard & relate to each other, which seemingly pays little heed to the tenets of our pledge ‘regardless of race, language or religion’.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

77) Gilbert Goh on September 4th, 2009 7.28 pm I found that after all these years of trying to be homogenous, we have yet to achieve the equlibrium.

There rse simply too many things that the government is doing that works in contrary to what they are trying to preach. It is strange.

They have different self help groups – Mendaki (Malays), Sinda (Indians), CDAC (Chinese) and Eurasian Assc (Eurasians). If that is not clear cut racial disintegration, then what is?

Too many of our sign boards are in four languages – there is hardly any attempt to forge a common single language so that we can identify with as a national communication tool.

We even have different language TV channels catering to the three major racial groups. It is amazing.

Racial Harmony programmes have being on going for many years but so far I heard it is non engaging and purely superficial. School children vists mosques and temples so that they can further understand the culture of another race but so what? It does not make them feel more Singaporean, it only makes them feel more different from others in our country.

I was fortunate that three decades also when the line is till not that well defined, I have many friends from other races and race was never an issue when it came to making friends. We ate together (different food of course) and I have never felt more similar with my fellow Singaporean Indian or Malay friends.

Now, I am more careful of what I say – whether I will offend someone from another race so much so that I have problem having friends from other races.

Maybe we should move back to the days when there is less talk but more action when it comes to integrating with other races.
83) Integrity on September 5th, 2009 1.30 am I agree there is pretty some racism in Singapore. However, Malay is not the only victim.

Top of the society are the westernized elitist (predominantly Chinese which also includes Indian and Malay) as well as the caucasion expatriate.

In fact, everyone of the grassroot Chinese suffer tacit discrimination under PAP. They westernized elites has erode substantial part of our values and language abilities and soon, the next generation of Ethnic Chinese will speak English as mother tongue.

I see main class discrimination is a much serious issue in Singapore.

The main issue is not race, but whether one can be on the same level of westernization and wealth as the elites.

If a Malay can achieve a certain level of wealth same time being secular and western top-down, he will be accepted as a inner member of our aristocratic class

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

85) Amin Sidek on September 5th, 2009 6.35 am MM said there is no equality in Singapore. And the Malays know this all too well because they are treated less equal regardless of Article 152. As such I believed Article 152 should be abolished. It is a show, a lie and only exists in paper but not in reality. You don’t need, let alone, missed what you don’t or never have. MM said “it (treating Malays and minorities better and/or with special privileges as enjoins in the Constitution) will lead to grave and irreparable damage”. Surely the Malays and other minorities don’t want this to happen. More importantly, to be the reason and excuse for this to happen. Thus Article 152 cannot be and/or is not implemented.

MM also said “we have asked (to me, have used) Mendaki to ask them (the Malays) to agree not to have their special rights of free education at university”. Ostensibly, “to reach a position of level playing field”. So if this is true, shouldn’t the Malays abolish Article 152 for the sake of a level playing field? What are the Malays afraid of and/or will lose if there is no Article 152? You can’t lose thing you don’t have. Or is the retort: What do the Malays “gained” if Article 152 is abolished? The answer is: No longer would Article 152 be used (conveniently and/or by the Chinese majority) to say that the Malays (and Indians) are treated better than them? But in reality it is the other way round. Let us call a spade a spade.

Likewise with Malay being the national language and one of the 4 official languages of Singapore. The reality is that English is the national language and those who do not know Mandarin will not get jobs in places where Mandarin is not even needed. Just a ruse. Or able to attend official department and division meetings of gov’t bodies during the annual “Speak Mandarin” campaign. In fact we have to learn Mandarin in order to understand China foreign workers who only speak Mandarin. It is the other way round. And all too often Malay and Indian languages not used in many signages, ceremonies and occasions. Read ST Forum pages lately. The Malay used is in the national anthem and parade command of SAF and Police. And even then very few understand them including the national anthem. And the Malays are no poorer or worse for this. There are other examples – anecdotal or otherwise. Do we think Malays would be insulted if PM does not speak in Malay at ND Rallies? I don’t think so! If the Indians are not, why should the Malays? More so considering Indians hold powerful ministries in the government. And as a community, it has greater clout and standing than the Malays.

There will be no “grave disquiet” if we abolish Article 152. But I may be hasty and wrong. I stand corrected by and from those who see the importance of not abolishing and retaining Article 152.

Article 152 is an albatross on the neck of the Malay community. Article 152 applies to Indians (other minorities) as well. I believed just like most Malays, the Indians don’t even know (or care) that Article 152 exists and that they are treated “more equal” or “better” than their Chinese counterparts. I am confident the Indians don’t care if or rather when Article 152 is abolished. Would the likes of Jayakumar, Danabalan, Thaman, Inderjit, Davinder, Vivian Balakrisnan, Balaji, Iswaran, Shanmugan, JYM Pillai, Philip Jeyaratnam, et al object to Article 152 being abolished? I don’t believe so! Could the same be said with the Malay ministers and MPs?

I don’t believe “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 which lead to failed marriages”. I also don’t believe, “The Malays will say to him: You are interfering in my private life.”

When Malays do not feel insulted and did not say: Mind your own business, when PM and non-Malay ministers advised the Malays on its (low and lacking) educational achievements and statistics, drop-out rates, comparative incomes, drug addictions etc as they often did including during National Day (ND) Rallies; why then would the Malays feel offended when, in a well-meaning manner, are advised to look after their daughters more carefully? Or for that matter about the growing Islamic religious extremism which to Malays, is even more sensitive.

Perhaps may be in the past. But after 44 years of multi-racial and physically integrated society, secular, liberal and well-educated Malays, I believed the Malays will not say so. The Malays of Singapore, as PM acknowledged in his ND Rally, are not the same as Malaysian and Brunei Malays. They are more liberal and open-minded.

In RSIS-NTU survey it showed Malays, Indians and Chinese have no problem voting and having MPs and Ministers of other races looking after their issues and problems. Also in this survey, 98% of Malays accepted MPs and ministers of other races. According to Jenandas Devan (ST 13th Nov 2007 pg 26) the Malays are the best adjusted to the country’s multiracial milieu.

Singapore Malays are not conservative and they are proud of it. And definitely they are not PAS and/or Kelantan Malays.

Of course with everything else and even with Malay MPs and ministers, such advise must be well-meaning and done tactfully and sensitively. Do Malays honestly believed if non Malay ministers like MM, SM, LSL, NHH, KBW, Jayakumar, Thaman, Vivian B et al advised the Malays nicely and caringly about looking after their daughters and sons more carefully or for that matter about their children’s education, health, finance, the need for life-long learning, flexibility in jobs and career, the need to budget wisely etc, they would be told off not to interfere in their personal or private life? To mind their own business. On the contrary, the Malays would welcome them just as they have welcomed and appreciate friendly advises on such issues from their non-Malay colleague, neigbours and friends. Thus I believe MM fears and concern that non-Malay Ministers would be told off for interfering in the Malays private life, is somewhat misplaced. I, my families and many of my Malay friends, especially the better educated and the younger generation would not feel that they are interfering in our private life. Like everybody else the Malays also believe in the maxim: We must not look who says it, but what they say. I believe the Malays should be given more credit and understanding than what the Government and the majority community is giving them.

Anyway, for the last 44 years, many Malays argued that the Malay Ministers and MPs have failed “to persuade Malay parents to look after their daughters more carefully and not have teenage pregnancies which lead to failed marriages” for the problem has not abated – significantly or otherwise. As well as with other problems like low education achievements relative to the other races, drug addictions, drop-outs, high divorce rates, teenage marriages et al. And Mendaki and AMP are not getting the support from the Malay masses. And lately they have been seen to be even more lethargic.

The point is: both Malay and non-Malay (Chinese and Indians) ministers together must persuade Malay parents and for that matter non-Malay parents as well, to look after their daughters and their sons more carefully and not have teenage pregnancies, teenage marriages, school drop-outs, education, gangsterism, drugs, juvenile delinquencies, jobs retraining and other social ills etc. What’s wrong with this idea? I believe, Malay, Chinese and Indian problems are national problems. All these, if we believed in what MM said: “Today, after 44 years later, we have a Malay community, I believe, at peace, convinced that we are not discriminating against them, convinced that we are including them in our society”.

As for Article 153, to be fair and equal, the government should and must give the other religious communities their own so-called MUIS – Religious Authority. Why should only the Malays (Muslims) enjoyed this privilege? It will help to curb and control the various religious communities and the attending religious extremism and excesses as shown by the Aware and other similar incidents as highlighted by the PM in his ND Rally speech. Religion has been identified as a major fault line. With increased religiosity, so will be its side-effect i.e. extremism.

Amin Sidek

 

[Trout]

where's alfian's new blog eh? seems to have stopped updating his blurty one....

Cheers,
Trout

 

[Loofydralb]

This Amin Sidek is so dumb in arguing for the abolishment of Sect 152.

It is the onlt thing in the Constitution that implicitly acknowledges that this island belongs to the Malays. Duh.

 

[UseYourBrain]

Does getting acknowleged make them being a Tuan (master). The Malays have been too long being fed with this bullshit article 152. As if the Chinese immigrants care whether this land belongs to the Malays or not? As long as the Malays are being kept comfortably to sleep with the lullaby song of article 152, they will not able to break this phsychological walls. What worries the MM is when this walls are broken. If they are broken you will see an exodus en mass from the Chinese. Really, if the Malays wants to excel they have to remove this thick fur coat of article 152 that have been used to put them to sleep.

 

[scroobal]

Bro, you need to read it again. You always seem to miss the well laid highway for the forest.

I kinda think Alfian is guilty of the same. By stating the "special position of Malays" he's effectively forgetting that Indians and other races are even smaller in numbers than Malays. Nothing in the article stating the above should be extended to Indians and Eurasians as well.

 

[scroobal]

I wanted to write a summary but looks like Alfian did a good job below. It does show that he has indeed matured. There has been a push to get rid of those 2 clauses by the Malays as they thinks its there for show andfor old man's coveneinec to use it circumvent arguments but after Alfian explanation, I think it is needed.

I also liked the part where he explained why the Chinese do not feel like oppressors and this attest to his keen observation skills and political sensitivity. The Chinese Ed have always felt threatehened and marginalised and thats fact.

Good article and thank TOC for carrying it.

33) Alfian on September 3rd, 2009 8.38 pm A few clarifications which I might have left out from the article…

1) I fully support the retention of Article 152(1). This would enshrine protection of all ethnic minorities in Singapore, be they Malay, Indian or any other race that is not part of the majority.

2) As for Article 152(2), I’m still ambivalent. On one hand, the government seems to have violated it on so many occasions it might not have even existed. On the other hand, the idea of Malay indigeneity is embedded in the article, and I think this is important for the Malays, even if at the end of the day it cannot be used to secure certain political and economic rights.

3) I apologise if there are some Chinese here who might feel that I am somehow accusing them of (unself-conscious) oppression. This has ever been my intention. All I wish to do is perhaps raise attention to the idea that sometimes we can be quite blissfully ignorant of the privileges we enjoy, relative to others. For example, I would never normally consider heterosexuality to be a privilege. But when I sit down with a gay person, then I start to realise that he or she is denied some of the things I take for granted.

4) I would dearly wish for us to move beyond race. But at the same time I am only too aware of how much is has permeated our language. We are a racialised society. However, I am very much heartened that the comments here so far do demonstrate that we can discuss race without adopting racist speech. Quite recently, the word ’secularism’ helped us to unlock a way to discuss religion in an open and forthright manner, and I am glad the word has found its way into public discourse. Maybe we need to find that common language too (and I don’t just mean lingua franca) to talk about race in Singapore.

5) I have to admit that sometimes discussions on race take on the following character:

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

you rather have a charade form than real substance is it?

This Amin Sidek is so dumb in arguing for the abolishment of Sect 152.

It is the onlt thing in the Constitution that implicitly acknowledges that this island belongs to the Malays. Duh.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

7) Race_Uniter on September 5th, 2009 1.21 pm Actually… regardless of Race, Language or Religion, people should try not to be so affected by other people’s Pride or their comments on being proud of being something…
We should simply cut down on our jealousies and envies, stay more humble, be more tolerant and sensitive towards other people’s differences, and abstain from overly displaying our arrogance. That will do the trick for greater Harmony.

Do not fall into THEIR Divide And Conquer Trap.

We only have one Common Enemy, “Those” that make our Lives difficult and miserable from day one…

So disregard all these Differences, Unite and Focus on that Common Enemy.
Peace! Brothers & Sisters!
8) Harrison on September 5th, 2009 1.25 pm Khartini’s supposed letter published in ST is the usual propaganda by the Smear Times of the PAP govt. Have we forgotten the Canadian who proclaimed his love affair with S’pore published just before National Day?

Politicians often use race and religion to sow discomfort, discontent, threats and suspicion among the people. LKY fought for equality in calling for a “Malaysia for Malaysians” at a time when Singapore was still under Malaysia.

Recently, LKY said that the Malays are accorded special rights/privileges under Singapore’s constitution. LKY (PAP) has been emphasising on meritocracy as the backbone of Singapore. Is there a truly or selective meritocratic system in Singapore now?

The answer is obvious when Singaporeans can see that LKY and family put themselves in position of control over the country and its wealth, without accountability.

The most damning fact is that the government of Singapore (comprising of 84 MPs) and a statuesque President see nothing wrong with this ridiculous arrangement for obvious reason.

44 years later, the Malays in Singapore still require special privileges? Is LKY admitting that PAP’s policies have been less than desirable or is it a reminder that the Malays in Singaporean still require government help?

Singaporeans of all races require assistance from the government whenever really needed, not privileges. Only corrupted minds require privileges.
11) Yamamoto on September 5th, 2009 2.31 pm Ethnocentrism….smells like it and seems like it….

somehow ST fails to recognize that the more propaganda they use, they more it backfire on them
17) Amin Sidek on September 5th, 2009 6.51 pm If only the ST has the guts, moral and intellectual courage to print Alfian’s comment. (And his other commentaries). But then again, what else is new with ST and Berita Harian. So that the likes of Khartini Khalid could read and reply intelligently and the Malays would know the flip side of her and other like-minded stories and stock replies. Hopefully the Malay MPs and Ministers including the likes of MP Zaqy Mohd would objectively read Alfian’s comment. And they rise above party and personal interests. Afterall aren’t they been selected and elected on the coat-tails of others (the majority Chines) to represent the Malay equal interests? If they are not Malays would they (ever) be selected to represent PAP in the GRCs? You know the answers. Thus aren’t this their raison d’etre?

Alfian Saat has done the Malays a splendid service in raising urgent and relevant issues of Singapore and the Malays, while the so-called Malay community and political leaders and organisations (MUIS, Mendaki, AMP, BH et al) prefer to bury their heads in the sand – the political ostrich they are – and look the other way. “Cari makan”. As with their predecessors, they hope their community issues affecting their very self-respect, self-worth, pride and “maruah” will go away. However after 44 years, they have not! I am afraid, they will still be there come another 44 years from now. If any progress, at all, it will only move at a glacial speedI I sincerely hope I will be proven wrong. Or rather my children and my children’s children would see the Malays and the minorities been treated equally and fairly.

The Malays are not asking for special privilege. They are just asking for equality and fair treatment. To be treated and given equal opportunity. Not to be discriminated and their loyalty questioned. Is this too much to ask? You tell me!

After 44 years of independence, I don’t see the relevance and honesty comparing what happened in Malaysia or for that matter in China, India, Fiji etc and how they treat their minorities with what we do in Singapore. By saying these countries treated their people and especially their minorities even worse, is indeed a cold comfort for the Malays in Singapore. And for me to ask: What that got to do with the treatment of Malays and minorities in Singapore? More so when we pledge as one united nation regardless of race, religion etc. Oops I forget not to take such pledge seriously for it is just a (mere) aspiration. It also begs the question: Are the Malays supposed to be thankful and grateful that they, as a minority, are not treated “that badly”. Thus the Malays should not complain at all and must thank the PAP for such enlightened policy. Furthermore such comparison by apologists is to divert attention from the real issue at hand and at home.
18) angry on September 5th, 2009 6.59 pm seems like the malaysians are always right to some people, no matter what. using a word like ‘venerable’ to describe that ex mamak minister is just …out of this world.

http://uncledicko.blogspot.com/2009/09/singapore-bashing-again.html
21) Alfian on September 5th, 2009 7.23 pm Hi Uncle Dick @ 17…

I used the word ‘venerable’ sarcastically. And I did call him an ethno-nationalist in the article. In an earlier draft of it, I had actually written:

“The esteemed Datuk Seri Zainuddin is notorious in Malaysia for an interview he gave to Al-Jazeera International, where he claimed that street protests are illegal because the people actually get to vote every five years. This logic—shut up and sit down until the next General Elections—is actually not very far from the rhetoric continually spewed by our local politicians.

It’s the kind of attitude that sees the rakyat’s mandate as a free pass to a five-year holiday of zero accountability. But I’m digressing. The fact is Datuk Zainuddin is not quite a crowd favourite in Malaysia, which would explain why he lost his seat to an opposition candidate in the March 2008 Elections.”

I hope that clarifies my position. I am not suggesting that ‘Malaysians are always right’. But I do think that Singaporeans and Malaysians have a lot to learn from each other.

Interesting how you mentioned him as ‘mamak’. I’ve been struck by how politicians who are of mixed ancestry often turn out to have the most purist, essentialist, chauvinist views on race. Zainuddin, who is of Malay-Indian lineage is one. Mahathir is another. It’s almost as if they feel as if their hybridity gives rise to insecurities that they have to overcome by fashioning themselves as champions of a particular, singular ‘race’.

And of course there is Lee Kuan Yew, who has never really publicly acknowledged his maternal Peranakan ancestry.
31) tom on September 5th, 2009 10.17 pm Khartini Khalid work for the govt (SPH)….To save guide her rice bowl, she need to write up something like “pround to be s’porean”.

If she is a Malaysian or American, she will carry favour of the other sides. This sort of people will only suck up who ever is her boss.

Election coming…….she needs to “write” somrthing to support her PAP bosses.
So obviously what is written SPH, definitely published in Straits Times.

How many of you are born or adolescent during the era of 1965 who is aware what happen? Not Many (so many lies from PAP).

Sat (5 Sept), Straits Times: Did LKY become PM by 1 vote (Men In White)?……Oh pls, this not soccer.

PAP make themselves “look a saviour” & the culprit is Malaysia.
Oh, give us a break.
32) Harrison on September 5th, 2009 10.17 pm Hi Andrew Chuah,

Singaporeans in general get along well with all races as we have been living amongst each other for so many years. I feel that it is totally unnecessary and unfair to single out the Malays or any other race for any particular shortcomings, not after 44 years of nationhood.

LKY’s recent pronouncement that the Malays have a problem with teenage pregnancies is really degrading. Fact is teenage pregnancies is prevalent across all races due to western cultural influences and easy access to pornography on the Internet. Moreover, the problem transcends across the various income groups.

Through observation, I realise that many service sector jobs have been taken over by Filipinos and mainland Chinese. A good example would be in the logistics sector where our Abang Singaporeans use to command a big slice of the workforce. There has been a dramatic change for the last 2 years.

My take is that the real racial issue involves the mainland Chinese who have never interacted with Malays, etc. This is the undercurrent that is frothing, made worse by the torrent of seemingly unlimited arrivals, affecting most Singaporeans.

Therefore, LHL raised this issue under the guise of Singaporeans’ majority vs minority ruse in his National Day rally speech. Understandably, he cannot reveal a situation as that created by his PAP millionaire minister in the name of growing the GDP.