• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Rhetoric from KL not official stance

kensington

Alfrescian
Loyal
Posted by admin
Friday, 10 April 2009 12:09

(The Straits Times) KUALA LUMPUR, April 10 — The heated rhetoric about Singapore that comes out from Malaysia, for example in some newspapers there, is not reflective of the official policy of Singapore's closest neighbour, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said yesterday.

There is a lot of close collaboration on the ground, he said, although fundamental differences on both sides remain.

He cited collaboration between the two governments in the areas of security and law enforcement as an example.

“On terrorism, on drug smuggling, there's very low-key but very close collaboration, because it is in both our national interests, and that goes on all the time,” he said.

He was replying to a question posed by Foo Chi Hsia, a Foreign Ministry official, who asked for his view on the paths both countries will take and areas they could work on.

She noted that since Separation in 1965, both countries had embarked on very different social, cultural and political paths, resulting in divergent outlooks.

Said Lee: “There's a clear division between the public rhetoric and the quiet official national interest.

“The public rhetoric from Malaysia, especially for the Malay newspapers, is that Singapore is a troublemaker and everything we do is wrong.

“That view is not shared by the Chinese or Indian papers.”

Still, he felt that both sides “will become very divergent societies” because they hold fundamentally different views on what a nation should be, with one believing in meritocracy and the other, a race-based political system.

Back in the early 1960s when Singapore was part of Malaysia, Singapore leaders had urged the establishment of a Malaysian Malaysia — as opposed to a Malay Malaysia — and was told to leave in 1965.

“When we parted after less than two years in Malaysia and at the raw end of the minority race, we decided to do the opposite,” Lee said.

“For the last 44 years since 1965, we have assiduously insisted on 'regardless of race, language or religion' in everything we do: schools, housing, health, jobs, education, promotions. So we are becoming an integrated society.”

The emphasis on English as a common language created a slightly more cohesive society in Singapore, although Lee was unsure it would stay so in a time of stress.

Malaysia, by contrast, had segregated vernacular schools, which meant communities grew up separately, and had differential yardsticks for jobs and contracts.

“It's openly a Bumiputera country,” he said, referring to the preferential treatment of indigenous groups.

“I've often said this about Malaysia ... If you would educate your Chinese and your Indians like we do our Malays and others, you will equal if not surpass us.”

Can the countries simply acknowledge they are organised on different principles and yet seek to work together in areas where their interests converge?

Replied Lee: “You are assuming they can have two compartments in their minds.

“With the Malaysians, if you read the Malay papers, there's a certain regret that they allowed us to be independent.

“They didn't expect us to succeed. But we have, and our very existence is a challenge to their policies.

“And so they say, look, our Malays are dispossessed, are oppressed and so on. But they come down (to Singapore) and they know it's not true, that the Malays are completely part of our society,” he said.

“They share the same benefits in housing, health, education, everything. They have their mosques, they're not deprived of any freedoms as Malays. So the angst is there (in Malaysia).”



http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/20436/84/
 

fivestars

Alfrescian
Loyal
Elite English speaking sending their kids to local Elite English School and Top University in the world and come back to Malaysia and Singapore as bluebloods and highflyer white horse are main problem for poor Singaporean and Malaysian.

They always make poor Chinese Speaking, Tamill Speaking and Malay Speaking fight each others on policy making. Poor still gain nothing in the development.

Who are the Prime Minister?

1) Royal Family Tuanku Abdul Rahman
2) Tun Razak
3) Tun Lee Kuan Yew
4) Tun Hussian
5) Tun Dr Mahathir
6) Tun Goh Chok Tong
7) Tun Abdullah
8) Datuk Sri Lee Hsian Loong
9) Datuk Sri Najib

Not the Malay, Chinese and Tamil educated.
 

cleareyes

Alfrescian
Loyal
Elite English speaking sending their kids to local Elite English School and Top University in the world and come back to Malaysia and Singapore as bluebloods and highflyer white horse are main problem for poor Singaporean and Malaysian.

They always make poor Chinese Speaking, Tamill Speaking and Malay Speaking fight each others on policy making. Poor still gain nothing in the development.

Who are the Prime Minister?

1) Royal Family Tuanku Abdul Rahman
2) Tun Razak
3) Tun Lee Kuan Yew
4) Tun Hussian
5) Tun Dr Mahathir
6) Tun Goh Chok Tong
7) Tun Abdullah
8) Datuk Sri Lee Hsian Loong
9) Datuk Sri Najib

Not the Malay, Chinese and Tamil educated.

The situation in Singapore and malaysia is very very different. Dont mixed things up when you do not understand what is the actual situation.
 

fivestars

Alfrescian
Loyal
Since I do not know and mix up, please tell me more.

Malaysia old English formation of UMNO (Nazib group) (Mahathir group) (Abdullah group) (Annuar group) (other group) vs Post 1963 Group?

Singapore old English formation of PAP, Chinese Speaking of BS vs Post 1965 group?

Malaysia used Malay and Muslim to gain power because majority are Malay Muslim and Singapore used anti religion, racial harmony and Pro English speaking to gain power because majority those who master English had move from Malaysia to Singapore since 1965 to 1981 (actual local born Singapore in 1963 about 100K and half is Chinese speaking).
 
Top