Community, Kamal Mamat, Main Stories - Written on Tuesday, November 6, 2007 9:32 - 50 Comments
Beyond Tokenism- Malays, Integration and the SAF
By Kamal Mamat
I would like to propose several hypotheses which I gathered after conducting a series of intense and scholarly empirical research on the levels of representation of the Malays in the SAF.
Due to space constraints, I will only list down three of them.
1. Malays’ absence in the Navy. Malay men generally cannot swim because they cannot afford the swimming lessons when they were young. In any case, they have to attend mengaji (Quranic recitation) classes in the afternoons, soccer training on Saturdays and wedding invitations on Sundays at different void decks.
2. Malays’ absence in the Armour unit. It is medically proven that Malay men are more likely to be afflicted with claustrophobia. They hate enclosed spaces, which unfortunately include the armoured vehicles of the SAF. Their propensity for spatial wealth instead of material wealth can be seen in their natural ability to congregate at void decks and the beaches of East Coast Parkway and Changi.
3. Malays’ nominal presence in the Air Force. This is the simplest one- Malay men don’t aim for the sky, they aim for the stratosphere after the sky, a.k.a. the hereafter. A Malaysian Malay proved it recently by being the first Malay to space. Coincidentally, the word hereafter can be referred to in spiritual terms. This hypothesis strongly correlates with hypothesis 2.
I don’t mean to mock the serious nature of this forum. Let me say that that I really cannot find other reasons to explain why the Malays are under-represented in the Navy, the Air Force and key, presumably sensitive, units of the Army. Bearing in mind that the Malays make up almost 15% of the population, the lack of corresponding representation in the SAF in this day and age begs questions on why tokenism persists.
When the SAF celebrated forty years of National Service recently, you cannot help but notice that in the early years of NS, the Malays were conspicuously absent. Those black and white photos that were shown was a trip down memory lane for those who had been in it, those who had experienced it. Alas for us Malays, the lane did not exist. It begs my question, what should the Malays do to convince the government that we’re ready to be deployed fully in the armed forces?
Before anyone shout cliché or label me outdated, let me assure you that there is no better time than now to resurface this prickly issue of Malays in the SAF. The events of the recent past provide new impetus for changes to be made and the issue of integration to be taken more seriously. Inherent in this are questions of security and trust, which I am going to discuss here.
Integration
The events of 2001/2002 surrounding the Malays have been the clarion call for the government to pay close attention to the issue of integration. If one were to recall, the WTC collapse of September 11, 2001, the crackdown of Jemaah Islamiah (JI) in December 2001 and the tudung (headscarf) affairs of January 2002 came like a fusillade which left an indelible mark in the consciousness of the Malay/Muslim. Throughout this period, the Malay community was put in a spot by virtue of its ethno-religious association to the events.
Malay leaders scrambled to denounce those events and call for greater understanding amidst increasing suspicions about Islam, fundamentalism and ultimately, Malays’ loyalty to the country. In one report, it was highlighted that an elderly Chinese lady refused to take the same lift with a Malay man, presuming that he was a potential terrorist. This is just one instance of the fear the events have unfortunately created among the wider society then.
It was to its credit that the government responded quickly in suppressing any signs of inter-ethnic tensions. Over the years, the Malay community itself responded by using different platforms to promote greater understanding about Islam.
However, while asserting that extremism is an exception rather than the norm within Singapore’s Malay community, the pressure on the Malays not to isolate themselves from the wider society was simultaneously made. Essentially, it is a call for the Malays to participate actively in national and grassroot activities, noting its under-representation.
Judging from this call, it is only logical for the government to take the first step and reciprocate by opening more avenues for integration. The SAF, one of the key symbols of the nation, is one avenue which can and should be fully opened to every Singaporean, including the Malays.
In fact, in a report on ethnic relations conducted by the Institute of Policy Studies in October 2002, it noted, albeit subtly, that ‘posting a mandatory percentage of minorities into each army unit could further ethnic cohesion’. I’ll put it more bluntly. It is the sine qua non to further integration. It is in the government’s hand now to take this recommendation seriously.
Security and trust
Security and trust are two narratives our leaders trumpet to account for the under-representation of the Malays in the SAF. But these narratives do not hold water anymore. Singapore is an island nestled between its two dominant countries, Malaysia and Indonesia. One draws similarity to Israel, a small Jewish nation in the middle of the Arab world.
Our founding leaders drew upon their experience to develop a siege mentality which, for reasons of security, prevented the Malays from partaking in the defence of Singapore. In fact, Israel has been instrumental in the formation of our armed forces and the development of our defence capabilities.
But this mentality is flawed when one looks at the different historical contexts. On the one hand, the birth and the subsequent history of Israel was a contentious and complex one, full of bloodbaths and cycles of violence.
Singapore, on the other hand, has seen relatively trouble-free years of independence. Except for the Konfrontasi episode of the late sixties, we have gone through a relatively peaceful forty-two years of co-existence with our neighbours. The parallel between Singapore and Israel ends here.
The siege mentality must go.
Granted, the geopolitics of ethno-religious identities, shared memories and historical proximity between Singaporean and Malaysian Malays necessitate a cautious approach in the conscription of Malays in the SAF. This explain why up to the 1980s, the Malays were hardly enlisted into National Service.
However, since the mid-90s, we saw a small but increasing number of Malay men in more sensitive units such as the air force and the commando units. If this trend is any indication of the government’s plan for integration of the Malay community, it is now the right time for this plan to go further and support full integration of the Malays in the SAF.
What about the question of trust? Wouldn’t a Malay man be put in a dilemma when asked to fight his brethren? The history of the world has shown us that common identity does not prevent people from killing each other. We have seen the two Koreas and northern/ southern Vietnam at war in spite of their commonalities.
It all boils down to ideological differences. And ideologies can be propagated when a society is more cohesive, more integrated. What better ways can the government think of other than allowing our Malay men to fight, not just in the infantry but the first lines of defence? Wouldn’t the ideology be more easily disseminated? After all, the Malays want to embrace Total Defence in its totality, not a fraction of it.
In a passionate plea written during National Day many years back, Zuraidah Ibrahim, now the political editor of The Straits Times, argued for Malays’ trust to not be questioned. I share her sentiments. Let’s dispense with tokenism, please. After which, we can truly say Majulah Singapura.
About the author: Kamal is the latest addition to the TOC’s writing team. He is currently pursuing a PhD in Politics at Queen’s University in Belfast. Kamal describes himself as “your typical brudder, typical Mat, typical Singaporean. Also a son, husband, father and a student of politics.”
Kamal has a blog here.
————————–
Related posts:
50 Comments
Daily SG: 6 Nov 2007 « The Singapore Daily
Some of my Malay peers during my National Service always will air their dissatisfaction to the Sergeant during training time that they were not sent to the Army and will demand answers to why it is the case. The standard answer is always that the Army has to make provisions for Halal food which is not simple. Later on when I lived abroad and got to meet Canadian born and UK born Muslim friends joining their state armies either as regulars or reserves, this was always the question I posed to them. How did those armies accomodate their Halal food requirements since in those environments it is a lot more challenging to find chefs to cook prepare Halal food? They informed me that their armies took considerable effort whereby in the worst cases they were at least provided with vegetarian dishes which are Halal and in the best cases they had Halal meat. They were also allowed to bring in food. Hence they never believed food was a problem and were surprised to hear about the case in Singapore.
I myself remember I used to get post cards and other marketing phamplets from the Singapore Navy when I was in high school and junior college and once when I replied to it once suggesting I am interested to join, I never received any reply nor any more marketing phamplets. I am sure some will try to reason with me that the postman probably misplaced my mail to the navy and that I need not worry about being a Muslim. The experience of Muslims in Canadian army is rather a recent one. Even though British Army had Muslim soldiers in colonial days, it is still a recent phenomenon for Britain born Muslim soldiers serving within Britain. Just as how one may argue Muslim soldiers pose a threat to Singapore army due to our neighbours being Muslim countries, one can equally argue how Canadian and British armies face the threats of Muslim soldiers turning against them due to their foreing policy. The historic British army already had in 19th century a case of Indian Muslim Sepoys turning against them in mutiny. Despite all this in the case of British and Canadian armies, they have proven to deal with the situation more maturely and effectively instead of being chronically paranoid about it.
Another army that has been constantly surrounded by debate and controversy about the representation of minorities especially Muslims in its columns is the Indian army. However in India it is a topic that is openly discussed at all levels from university academics to media to politicians to grassroots.
Yet the representation of Muslims in Indian army is not as dismal as in Singapore army. In the modern history(post independece) of Indian army, there definitely has been more high ranking officials then here (e.g. generals etc). During the 3 or 4 border wars India has been involved with Pakistan including the recent Kargil conflict, Indian Muslim solders were deployed at the battlefields. Amongst those Indian soliders who gave their lives during those wars, it included Indian Muslim soldiers.
In no country can any army afford to see its ranks having representation of minorities incosistent with the proportions of minorities in a population. This itself is a threat, a more pronounced one though, whereby it can lead to long term discontentment. Furthermore during conflicts, an army will need to be able to replace its ranks with men in its population if it looses too many soldiers at the battlefront. In conditions created above, where can any army find replacements amongst discontented minorities.
Therefore it is wiser to ward off the greater threat of unsustainability of army due to insufficient representation of minorities by having sufficient representation, than to over worry about the lesser threat, which is also of a far lesser probability, of seeing the minority soldiers break ranks.
hey, I’m a Singaporean Chinese and I’ll be honest about this: If Singapore were to go to war, I will hold my M16 rifle and fight along a Malay soldier, then fighting with an imported fucking trash Chinese (like the one you see hacking into RJC computer and trying to act pathetic).
All along, PAP has a deep mistrust for Singaporeans, not only Malays. So the question is why should I do anything for these rich elitist idle **** PAP ministers?
*Comments edited for vulgarity
Why Malays are so keen to join army?
Many Chinese would gladly change places with you all to join the police and civil defense.
to aiya,
Please la… The ppl u mention dun even need to fight. They will be the 1st to leave bro.
Scholarship for FTs, NS for Singaporeans. You don’t know meh!
Actually many people become more racist after Slavery.
“There has been discrimination both for and against Malays during Singapore’s history… The Malays were positively favoured as employees bythe British, particularly in the uniformed services (army, police, fire) and in some related clerical, transport, and personal services. In 1957, almost 20 per cent of Malay working men were employed in the uniformed services… Malay youth were not called up for National Service during the 1970s, and some were still not being called up in 1984. Those who were called up claimed to be placed only in menial capacities, and always excluded from the airforce, commando, and tank units which are the key units in Singapore’s defence system.
There was an unfortunate side effect to the non-recruitment of Malays into National Service. Employers in Singapore are generally unwilling to recruit or train young male workers who have not completed National Service or obtained exemption papers as these youths can be called up at any time. Since Malays were not officially exempted from National Service, Malay youths were uable to obtain apprenticeships or regular jobs, and many were forced into an extended limbo period of about ten years from ages 14 to 24… [this] was in part responsible for the high percentage of Malay youths who became involved in heroin abuse during the late 1970s.”
— Malays in Singapore: Culture, Economy, and Ideology / Tania Li
To show commitment, a non-discrimination policy should be enforced in the SAF just like in the US. In 1948, President Truman signed the Executive Order 9981 which started the President’s Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Services. The journey will not be smooth and easy but rather it will be a slow process in changing the mindset of yesteryears. Until then, tokenism is still prevalent.
I totally agree with Aiya.
Although I agree that in principle, all being equal, the army/navy/airforce should have the same stupid ratio as they put into the GRCs and HDB flats. I never understood why the army cook house could not just have a single halal meal, instead of halal and non-halal… most of the time the halal food looks and taste better. Strangely enough during my army times, one of the halal ration contains glutinous rice with chicken, which was my favorite, which my malay mates really hated (its not their normal food to eat!). Needless to say, I got lots of delicious glutinous donated from my good friends during field camp… :-)
Having said that, the problem, I suspect seems to be a problem of perception. One of the perception is the clan mentality of the malay community with their religion, so much so that they may identify with their religion more readily then with their own country. So if Indonesia or Malaysia calls for a jihad against Singapore, there is a perception that the malay folks may side with their religion instead.
The relative silence from the malay community during 911 and many many other Islamic related killings and bombing, did not help non-muslim ease their fear about how the malay community felt about the issue. In fact, the silence seems to reinforce the idea that the malay community somewhat supported those kind of actions.
This was not helped by having malay folks wearing bin laden or sadam hussain shirts during those times. It did not give others any assurance that when it comes to religion that the malay community could be rational about it and to defense what is right, rather than what is “godly”.
Neither was it help by the fact that there is a perception that most malay folks will see themselves as Muslim first rather than Singaporean first.
Its unfortunately, but I feel that the malay community may have to do more to show that when it comes to religion versus the country or other races (as we know most malays are muslim), the malay community will not choose religion blindly, but reason, logic and fairness.
Being anti-America was never a crime, as long as you can show you are committed to your own nation.
Saltwetfish,
Why do the Malays have to show that
when it comes to religion versus the country or other races (as we know most malays are muslim), the malay community will not choose religion blindly, but reason, logic and fairness
if the other races and religions don’t have to? And pray tell, just how are they expected to show such things? They (and everyone else) are being asked to shed blood Singapore if and when the time comes. Don’t you think it’s hypocritical to ask so much of them, and yet not trust them?
My point is, these two things aren’t exclusive. My NS mates are Chinese, Malay, Indian, Eurasian. And every one of them won’t die for their country.
But they bloody well will make the other f***** die for his. And I’m proud to fight alongside these guys. There’s no reason for anyone to ask anyone else to prove anything.
*Comments edited by moderator for vulgarity.
[...] Discourse – Journalism.sg: Why I am going online – The Online Citizen: Beyond Tokenism- Malays, Integration and the SAF – sgForums: Review of Autocracy (called leadership) versus [...]