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

Editor, it is “Article 152″, not “Section 152″. For statutes and acts of Parliament, it’s “Section”, for constitutional documents, it’s “Article”.

You don’t have to publish this comment, I’m just informing you of a minor point.

Thanks, William for pointing this out. We’ve made the correction.

Much appreciated.

Ismail… when you have some power you can demand things… when you don’t… what can you do?

And where does that leave the Indians?

“The tendency of any majority, if left unchecked, is towards tyranny”

The words ‘if left unchecked” has no place in that sentence.

Cannot lah, later MM Lee will “DEMOLISH” this website!

Or at least wait for him to “kick the bucket”…..

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!

“Far from undermining equality, Section 152 is an attempt to rectify asymmetries of power, to achieve parity, among those who are not born equal. ”

What do you mean by this, Alfian? It sounds a bit wrong.

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!

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.

Reading “majority, what!” as a justification of majority “privilege” is a preferred reading, but it can equally be pointing out something that is obvious.

Statistical inequality should not be confused with procedural inequality.

“Without constitutional safeguards for minorities, a multiracial country like Singapore risks sliding into majoritarianism” – Somehow this has not happened for the US. Or many Western countries.

>> 8) 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.

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.

I am a chinese sporean but now a FT living/working in malaysia. i do not feel alienated in malaysia. here, every race has a voice. a real democracy! I pity the minorities in spore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfian_Sa‘at

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.

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.

A very thought provoking article. Never really saw things this way. :)

SAP schools are supposedly a Chinese “privilege”, but in reality they are a pale shadow of the Chinese schools which the PAP smashed in the earlier years of Singapore’s history.

Even the modern NTU is but an ersatz descendant of the former Nantah.

From that point of view, SAP is not a “privilege” so much as a sop.

Paru-san cited 1st world country USA can have a black president and this will never happen in Singapore.

I must say firstly Singapore is not yet a first world country. It cannot be one just because of LKY’s book ” From 3rd world to 1st world”. The most Singapore now is a more developed developing country if one does not just look at economy which is only one of the factors that characterize the so-called 1st world. There are many factors Singapore is still very much behind the benchmarks. In fact, so what if Singapore is not a 1st world country?

Secondly, I suppose what LKY recently said about English should be our “common” language like the mandarin is the “ordinary language” of China. But, I must go further than just language and Singapore should have gone further to create its own culture by blending or melting all cultures of different races into an unique Singapore culture that based on English as the common language. This is of cause difficult but not impossible in the beginning of nation building. It will be more difficult now. Will Singaporean be willing to sacrifice and sideline their own racial culture including language, religion and way of life, etc to create a Singaporean culture?

Singapore has somewhat partially done it already but not to full steam unfortunately – that created a generation who know very little about own culture, e.g. Chinese/Malay/Indian speaks only English and adopts the western culture. USA has done it because President Obama appears as a black but his culture is an American one (originated from European especially British). He thinks like an American, not white European, not African. He has a culture totally different from the blacks in Africa or outside of USA.

I was educated in Chinese but I suggest the immigrants to Singapore should pick up English as the “common language” so as to become “more Singaporean”. Unfortunately, we do not have a “common Singapore culture” now.

The problem is Singapore has done social engineering but for some reasons the process is only half bake at most. Singapore needs a strong leader to complete the social engineering as a process of nation building.

Singapore is not perfect but when it comes to race issue it is still better than China, Malaysia and India. So what is the problem my friend?

So let say if you are GOD, in regards to race problem which country will you start from?

Reality Check: Look around the world (too many examples, use google), fact is, given any chance we humans will always take advantage of power in numbers, sweeten with sugary political propaganda.
Today you are the majority, I get pushed around. A year later when I become the majority I will not hesitate to do the same. Suddenly all the beautiful ideals about equality smells like something the bull gave up.
So for those in the “majority” don’t be smug, you are just part of the game. For those in the “minority”, perhaps you should ask yourselves, given the strenght in numbers, how will YOU behave?

Frankly, I don’t see why being of a certain race here would lend you such great disadvantage that we need to go out of the way to provide for that race (be it minority or majority) something above what other races are receiving.

If you are talking about providing free education for the needy children – definitely this is applaudable since they are in this case in a situation that directly impacts on their eventual ability to improve themselves and survive.

But being of a certain race does not mean that person would not be able to 1) be educated 2) improve himself 3) make a living at least not here in Sg (and it’s certainly nt becos of Art 152).

Doesn’t that thn make us a ‘racist’ country since we are catering for certain privileges only to a specific race and not the rest? Unless this is the way they see fit to make up for some of their decisions to field only a certain % of the minorities in key defence positions.

Sometimes it is better not to over emphasize on the racial issues. It’s like an ink dot on a white clothing – the more you rub on it with all kinds of wrong solvents and solutions, the worse it becomes and looks, when actually with time, the ink dot may slowly fade away.

again, i dont understand the fuss and the big deal on this article 152.

firstly, besides the fact that the article has been almost non existent all this while.

secondly, the the article does not benefit or put any race at any disadvantage when it exist just as an ass covering part on lky part.

and lastly, the only thing that came out of this article is that it has sparked unnecessary stone towards each other. a few malays saying that they did not benefit them, a few chinese feeling insecure for whatever reason they might have and feel the need to defend, and the other minorities like the indians saying where does all this put them?

and all this for what? the article is as good as not being there in the 1st place. it just shows that maybe singaporeans are not that united after all.

who cares if your yellow, brown, white purple or black? we need to come together as ONE, instead of letting people like lky playing us like puppets in his hands.

deep inside we ALL have one common goal, and that is a change in the govt. vote wisely the next election my friends.

Ismail Kassim wrote:

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.

——

That was more than 44 years ago. LKY was then young, impatient, idealistic and had high-fallutin ideas.

When Malaysia kicked him and Singapore out, he was brought down to earth.

As long as the Malays remain the minority, Lee will continue to condescend to help them by keeping Article 152. Lee’s policy of importing so many PRCs is to redress the reproduction imbalance so as to maintain a Chinese dominance, as he believed the Chinese are more industrious, hard-driving and smarter. If one day, the PRCs stopped coming, and the Malay numbers exceed the Chinese, he will not hesitate to throw away the Article and reverse the trend. The laws that he created, only he can take down. 50 years of PAP one party rule have resulted in today’s tyranny..

There are pros and cons to having a single-race society and multi-racial society. In Singapore’s case, having a multi-racial society means I can enjoy different cultures and food, but at the expense of taking note of sensitivities towards the minorities.

3/9/09

Our Modern Singapore has been very fair to the minority races ie Malays, Indians and others, despite being majority Chinese. Further, these minority races has been better treated than in most other nations and now we have the minorities especially the Indians holding very important cabinet positions ie Deputy Prime Minister, Finance and Law (previously Law & Education) and also the ceremonial President position.

As I have written earlier in other postings, the Prime Minister and his Executive Powers must be in the hands of the Chinese (being the majority) and this must not be compromised at all costs on the pretext we are Singaporeans.

Regards
Andrew Chuah

The Leadership of the minority communities are nothing more than a bunch of castrated cats, some of whom are “the eyes of the government”. They will dare to be vocal about the minority rights or issues.

Haha….PKMS is a dead organisation la…

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. : )

21) namesenihc;

“USA has done it because President Obama appears as a black but his culture is an American one (originated from European especially British). He thinks like an American, not white European, not African. He has a culture totally different from the blacks in Africa or outside of USA.”

You mean to say that:

1)LKY, GCT & LHL are Chinese but their culture is a Singaporean one?

2) they think like Singaporeans ,not Chinese?

3) have a culture totally different from Chinese culture?

Why is it not required for them but for a minority to become a PM he has to be like Obama of USA?
Please don’t justify & practice double-standard, we no stupid you know!

I am not saying that a minority has to become a PM, but why in first place LKY need to mentioned it? He instills such thoughts among the the majorities not to accept a minority as PM in the future even if they qualify to be one.
Isn’t that the general idea?
Only majorities are superior and can lead.
Who gave him the right to say this?
He simply spout nonsense whenever he say something doesn’t he?

To me, whoever is capable & trustworthy to lead Singapore can be a PM regardless of ethnicity. i am not bothered with this trivialities.
i see a person for what he or she is, not his ethnicity or colour.

25) wika :

“who cares if your yellow, brown, white purple or black? we need to come together as ONE, instead of letting people like lky playing us like puppets in his hands.”

my sentiments too!
Why do we have to look at people as majorities & minorities in a literate society?

“Why do we have to look at people as majorities & minorities in a literate society?”

Because it’s innate in humans to compartmentalize and dissect. We allow tools to subvert goals and make the pursuit and manipulation of tools a goal in itself. The sooner the masses understand the plasticity of life, the better we can function as one species.

Ismail Kassim ,

you guys have to play the catch up game.. meritocracy … What about me, a chinese a minority without ANY help, without any special rights, without handouts, have to work my ass way up too and I have reached the top. A poor chinese is also a minority. he is at the bottom of the poor.But so what at the top? How equal is equal.So waht equality you want. There is already equal opportunity. Hope you are not thinking of handout on a platter.Look at waht happened in malaysia..handouts and the handouts landed in others’ hands.This is not a get rich quick right.

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.

I see many singaporeans are cross-racial-weds.

Many indians marrying chinese.

where got racial problem like those in other countries?

Lets not be over sensitive.

I think the discussion here is about the policies not some sociology issue. Mix marriage is prevalent here. But in the end, the IC will only say you are Chinese or Indian.

“The tendency of any majority, if left unchecked, is towards tyranny. The tendency of any minority, if left unattended, is towards alienation.”

Awesome. We truly need to observe the balance between majority and minority’s needs

Andrew Chuah,

Sure thing, let’s hope that racial preference in governance would always remain a factor because as you have said, it’s important to have a “majority” leader..

Only time will tell when some people will move out of this clouded backwardness, and I sure hope you will..

wow, so many posts…

what if this Article 152 is just a political tool?? 8)

one of the many bogeyman?

dividing the nation along racial lines can garner lots of votes for you know who, more so now that there are so many chinese “imports”.

stir the racial pot somemore, & fear will drive these “imports” to vote for the you know who…

so don’t fall for the bogeyman!!

Andrew Chuah

post #29 on September 3rd, 2009 7.02 pm 3/9/09

“As I have written earlier in other postings, the Prime Minister and his Executive Powers must be in the hands of the Chinese (being the majority) and this must not be compromised at all costs on the pretext we are Singaporeans.”

are you tasked to stir racial tension?

S’pore cannot afford to have an incompetent leaders of any race to run the country, already the current batch has a proven track record (of losses), lol…

since these Executives are from the same (MIW) group they cannot shift the blame to other parties! :) let’s start counting the losses from the Thai Telecoms…

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.

1. section 152 by itself is pretty innocent. what is more perilous in accompaniment is this bent to maintain the current racial proportion and we can only wonder to what extent measures have been endeavored to achieve this tribal ambition.

2. i get uneasy by comments like ‘ don’t be too insensitive’, first, when someone feels something, it is his or her right, you can’t tell him that he can’t feel it, underlying this mindset, not that i am accusing the specific person of it , but that these comments trigger certain neurons, is this leaning toward abstinence as a foundation for harmony.

i do admit that in some situations, this may be strategic, but on the other hand i do wonder: isn’t it only when some things are not talked about and discussed in the social sphere that it becomes an even greater issue for the very reason that unthinkingness leads to compliance (i.e. of the state espoused stand). and the more things not get talked about, probably, the more the abstinencer will want to keep it under lid and the more easily an innocent word may trigger the defense mechanism to keep that lid closed.

i get the sense that a lot of people in the opposition camp engaged in election gear don’t think that now is a good time to talk about racial/ religious issues because they think it will divert the electorate from the vote-relevant issues . well, for me, who is more concerned with the mindscape regardless of parties, i say anytime is a good time.

not to mention in a precious human capital singapura, where a thinking citizenry is paramount even for economic survival, it is not just a fantasy to envision the ideal scenario- when anything and everything can be talked about healthily, where awkwardness is accepted , where weird thinking tangents are respected, and where doodling in unfamiliar territories is not deemed to be tantamount to be opening some can of worms.

perhaps more so in a place where the arts are so underground it is only one feet wide- i mean, singapore is not a big place, and it’s not like information travels very slowly or not at all, and i am saying not because i am a fan, in fact,not at all, or i don’t even belong to that underground, but i do get fascinated at singapurans who claim not to know who alfian, the author, is.

if a nation so starved of psyche-relief spaces , arts etc, that every kind of thought or form of thoughts its inhabitants know is only of a squarish kind- i.e. logical- the kind that society, that livelihood, demands, the top down kind- i mean you even have someone talking about social engineering cultures in one of the comments here- then perhaps …..just perhaps….the singapuran mindscape is in need of serious healing.

Alfian-your ‘outburst’ about article 152 form my point of view is quite disporpotionate.I am a Malay and seems understand the uneasiness felt about artile 152.
Take note that the article is of Malaysian heritage.

If u look it’s obvious the govt appoints a minister in charge of muslim affairs. (no minister in charge of other religions.)
The muis com direcly under a ’secular’ govt.
The fund that being channel directly to Mendaki (used for free entrance to University but now for underprivileged Malay family)

Alfian-your argument about issues concerning Malays/Muslim in SAF. I read thoroughly LKY book.

His point is he does not want ‘A malay officer to be under dilemma when he have to shoot (say maybe his cousin when happens a war break out with Malaysia).He does not want hime to emotionally upset just for a ‘just’ cause.That is his concern.When I kept repeatedly read the phrase,I realised there’s connection with article 152.

Your argument about the ‘tudung issue’.Why is it you make it into some kinda political tool?
Pls take note as Muslims there are only 5 pillars of Islam that have to be noted.In the quran,the wearing of Tudung is a show of modesty of a Muslim woman.It’s stated in surah an-nur.
If u wanna argue in term of religion,dun we have to agree that all of us have to know each other among tribes/nations etc? (stated in the Quran)
Not to be enemies but the mercy and adaptive to all humans?(stated in the Quran)
To be precise,Singapore is not an Islamic state and they do not follow the rules of Quran.
I am not an Islamic scholar but be rationale cos dun mix poltics and religions.It’s a totally seperate issues.

I believed that there’s no ‘perfect’ country in the world that practised ‘precise equality’.
Your article seems in my view that the chinese as a majority has been oppressive ‘all the time’ toward the minorities.

What I mentioned above go against the understanding of your article.

quote :
“His point is he does not want ‘A malay officer to be under dilemma when he have to shoot (say maybe his cousin when happens a war break out with Malaysia).He does not want hime to emotionally upset just for a ‘just’ cause.That is his concern.When I kept repeatedly read the phrase,I realised there’s connection with article 152.”

So, how does that apply to other races, if at all?

quote:
”
I believed that there’s no ‘perfect’ country in the world that practised ‘precise equality’.”

This should not mean not improving it , if necessary.

Hi (30) Tok
I do agree with you. I can also provide ample examples.
But why is your comment awaiting moderation when it has been there
for ages. Please tell editors.

SPKER-I believed each and every race have it’s own strength and weakness.That overlaps one another and in terms bring diversity among races.

There’s a Malay saying ‘all humans have black hair but does not share the same mentality.’

Well, looks like this can be a case of a malay saying: ‘a small bacteria across a river can see, Elephant in front of you you cant see’

In any case, I somewhat agree with Alfian here. If left untended, this may descend into chaos. I shudder at Singapore becoming a Sri Lanka…

There should be no bullying, no privilege, no concession, no discrimination and no slighting of any Race anywhere in the World, SIN included. That’s the Ideal, theoretically at least.

One must be sensitive to ones’ origin as well as that of others.
One should respects ones’ own culture, tradition and belief and not impose on others, another Universal Ideal.

One should be happy with oneself, born in any colour, in any region, either gender, tall or short, nice looking or otherwise, clever or not. Ideal again

Are we prepared and ready to work for the Ideals and Peace ??

patriot

Regards
Andrew Chuah, I like your intelligent observation Singapore Govt have been fair to minority races.

Please do your utmost to hold on and keep Singapore as Chinese majority country.

antz said:

To be precise,Singapore is not an Islamic state and they do not follow the rules of Quran.
I am not an Islamic scholar but be rationale cos dun mix poltics and religions.It’s a totally seperate issues.

- So now we enter the age-old debate “Religion vs Secularism”.

“Singapore is secular” (So go demolish all mosques and churches because they encourage the public to do good and that is intefering with public life)

“Singapore is not an Islamic state” (LKY used Confucius principles to rule Singapore. Singapore a Confucius State???)

“Sikh can wear turban because it is inherited practice from the British” (Everything British, ISA British, Turban British, Education system British if I am not wrong Chinese and Indian labourer were brought here by the British. So since British are gone, what are you waiting for? Go back la!)

“We want uniformity” (So should I give you a bag of charcoal so that you can look as dark as I am?)

Is respecting cultural difference tantamount to making Singapore an Islamic state?
“Singapore is secular” is just a lame statement.
Secularism should be aimed at achieving equal and fair treatment of all cultures and religion.
Your secularism sounds more like religious intolerance.
Your “rationale” is irrationale because you do not have any scientific facts to justify your argument.

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’.

It is either Mandarin or Mediacorp “crush you like a Cockroach” (for those old enough to remember). Although should have a few Malay and Tamil movies to reflect on Singaporean identity.

Language etc. does not matter, it is still the content.

To antz:
Pehaps you should challenge yourself abit more to think about LKY’s race conscious statement. As said by another commentator, what about the issue of other races in SAF? Opressive it may not be as yet, but the systematic discrimination has eaten into our social fabric in the Singaporean context. It seems ok to seek a Mandarin speaking job candidate in a retail shop situated in a CBD shopping mall selling products that are not chinese oriented…

To Gemini:
Let me give you a little bit ot insight, a pinch of enlightenment I would say. It is not about being insensitive or not. Have you placed yourself in a minority’s shoe and try to get by life on a daily basis. When you see placecards, government sanctoned banners and even events are Mandarin oriented, thus indirectly questioning the minority on his/her status ad position in this republic? SAF recruitment advertisements potraying medievel chinese soldiers and its transformation into present day SAF, have they not disregard the differect ethnic composition tasked to defend this country, let alone disregarding the armed history of this native land of mine.

It takes two hands to clap, but if groups of chauvinist can get away with prejudical practices, it says so much about how serious our PAP government is in nation building.

Lee Kuan Yew is a man who firmly believes in Eugenics and the practice of ethnic social engineering. 60 years ago, a similar notion was charismatically sanctioned by a head of state. It turned into what we know now as a holocaust.

Sure, the comparison may be too extreme somehow, but let we not forget, our social fabric will always be perversely manhandled by irresponsible MIWs unless we set ourselves to go through an overhauling mindset process.

True, I do feel there are more that can be done for the Muslim community that is on par with what is done to chinese e.g. funding of schools – but as a whole, in general, I’m a happy & contented Malay Muslim living in Singapore.

Before LKY’s comments, there was no debate on minority/majority – no outright discrimination. Then came LKY’s comments. I think the issue here is the fact that he even made that comment.

If he is a good (ex) leader – he shouldn’t shoot down anybody’s idea or suggestions just like that. A good leader will take time to think about the gist of the suggestion made and ponder, before making any critical comments – and not let his emotions tell him what to say.

So the issue is – should LKY be making anymore official public comments that can create uneasiness? In face, should LKY even make any more public comments?

muhammad shamin

It seems from your comments it seems you are the one who seems emotional and intolerance.
Why brought up the issue of tudung politically?
In National schools,when for the past years since independance there’s no problem of students enrolling..??
Is tudung seen as a ‘religion garment’ to be forced to fit in a secular environment?

The issue about the sikh turban in the first place does not arise from my earlier comment.

Do you want to be like Malaysian police force(the women police cadets) irrespective of all races/religion to don the ‘tudung’ by force?

Do u want ppl to see Islam as an intolerant religion? I have to fly sometimes to riyadh and I have to fit in the ‘abaya’ head to toe due to respect to their religion and due that they are an Islamic state.

‘BUT when some of them-my female colleagues(Saudi woman from the branch) have to fly to Singapore.
Here,we do not force them to take out their ‘head to toe’ dress just because of our ’secularism’.

So this is what i called respecting culture..

race & religious issues are issues close to people’s hearts, its so easy to get overwhelmed by them. its a effective diversion to sidetrack issues that are originally deserves more scrutiny, like our economy, job security (or in-securities), the influx of FWs/FTS, social intergration (or the lack of) due to the influx & solutions to these issues.

people will always have some form of insecurity, be it racial, economic & so on. not to say this insecurities are unfounded, but do not let these issues detract one’s attention & look beyond. see who stands to gain from all these…

mice is nice,

are you assuming that people can’t be both passionate about economic and racial issues at the same time? or that people who are more concerned about economic issues will still be overwhelmed by racial issues? surely you trust that there are also singapurans like you who can still keep things at keel level?

probably the incumbent would assume that singapurans will be diverted, if it was meant as a diversion tactic, but do you trust their profiling of the singapuran mindscape? do you think they have a good grasp of the ground? or do you just buy it anyway?

i am just curious. where do you get the idea that their diversion tactic will work?

Seldon,

its not about trust, it about being cautious. people can be distracted by issues close to their hearts. i strongly believe people can be distracted, trust me on that.

lately trust is lacking for major institution (banks), people of influence & power. is being cautious a bad thing?

“i am just curious. where do you get the idea that their diversion tactic will work?”

hmmm, i did not imply or say their diversion tactic will or will not work.

Hi Mice Is Nice – I would have given you two thumbs and two toes up if I could ;)

29) Andrew Chuah ..
paid to create problem here…..ah? finish go back to your pappy master loh. go get ur doggy biscuit..go go..go …
we ..ah dowan ur kind here….get lost.

Diversion has always worked for the PAP. There is no need for proof. It is written in 50 years of history – if 50 years can be considered history, that is.

hi Gemami,

thanks for your vocal support, good enough for me.

cheers!!

For goodness sake – the man took 15 years to think up how to fix the opposition. We paid him 15 years just for him to introduce the elected presidency – so that if there is a freak election result, he can continue to fix the opposition.

And now he is glorifying himself in the 15 years it took him to think up one stupid idea. No, he is actually using the 15 years of thinking to scare us – that if it took him 15 years to think it up, it must be something from the immortal world – so we better believe what he says – no proof needed.

4/9/09

Hi Nazryn, Mice To Nice, Small Engineer & Angry_Angmoh

I noted your postings to my reply and I welcome them. Please don’t get carried away and thinking and believing that the Minoriy races in Singapore are not well treated and I have justified it ie in the Cabinet we have Indian-DP, Minister of Finance, Minister of Law and President….what more please don’t tell me we must have an Indian as PM with the Executive Powers and our Modern Singapore would be another Fiji where the Minority Indians took power and abused power and was overthrown by the Military controlled by the majority locals. This must never happens in our Modern Singapore.

Please don’t believe there will be a Singapore race or Bangsa Singapore which is a myth and please tell me how many can really inter marry and how far can we reduce this 75% majority being Singapore Chinese especially Singapore born which I am one of them.

I am not being paid by the PAP nor pro PAP and I did have my fair share of injustice in Singapore and I am writing this as I put our Modern Singapore above everything else.

*Footnote-the Malays in Singapore are far better off than the Malays-Bumiputras in Malaysia or Indonesia, and majority of the Malays are doing very well so are the Indians

Regards
Andrew Chuah

request to online citizen- i think should stop putting up article bout this article 152.If I am not mistaken, this is the second post after the post by ‘the modern malay pahlawan.

Things can get carried away away here,and whether article 152 stays or abolished it’s beyond our control as PAP still in power.

What we can do now is be like Japan/America to have a change and not just yelling disquietly in the net.

We gotta move on and focus on other issues.

mice is nice

its not about trust, it about being cautious. people can be distracted by issues close to their hearts. i strongly believe people can be distracted, trust me on that.

how can it not be about trust? from what you saying, it is precisely because you don’t trust that the people will be as even keel as you, that’s why the cautiousness.

gemami

Diversion has always worked for the PAP. There is no need for proof. It is written in 50 years of history – if 50 years can be considered history, that is.

are you saying that because it has always worked therefore it will always work?

54) Muhammad Shamin on September 4th, 2009 12.02 pm antz said:

“Singapore is secular” (So go demolish all mosques and churches because they encourage the public to do good and that is intefering with public life)

I belive the original commentor meant that Singapore is a secular state in terms of governent and national policy. At any rate, we are by no means a Theocracy.
If we were to do away with all forms and representations of religion i.e “demolish all mosques and churches”, that would make us an Atheistic State.
Perhaps more academic exploration on your part will serve your painfully obvious crusade a little better.

Dear Andrew Chuah,
As long as that blocking mentality exists, and we are still being taught of our differences extensively, there will be no bangsa Singapura. Who’s fault then Andrew? A united Singaporean may never be perfect, but working towards it shows our sincerity to build that ambition into reality. If you don’t believe in it, that does not mean others should not

As long as you are still alive, you are not inclined to comment based on your judged views that malays from the other parts of this region are less ell off than ours. Their fortune are not to be pawned for our stake in this native land of ours. You understand?

As long as there are rational people who are alive, I see no reason why we should take Fiji as an example and live by your xenophobic views. I really don’t see why. From this soil I came from and to those soil I shall return,never undermine a person’t stake in his own land Andrew…

To antz:
Pehaps you should challenge yourself abit more to think about LKY’s race conscious statement. As said by another commentator, what about the issue of other races in SAF? Opressive it may not be as yet, but the systematic discrimination has eaten into our social fabric in the Singaporean context. It seems ok to seek a Mandarin speaking job candidate in a retail shop situated in a CBD shopping mall selling products that are not chinese oriented…

To Gemini:
Let me give you a little bit ot insight, a pinch of enlightenment I would say. It is not about being insensitive or not. Have you placed yourself in a minority’s shoe and try to get by life on a daily basis. When you see placecards, government sanctoned banners and even events are Mandarin oriented, thus indirectly questioning the minority on his/her status ad position in this republic? SAF recruitment advertisements potraying medievel chinese soldiers and its transformation into present day SAF, have they not disregard the differect ethnic composition tasked to defend this country, let alone disregarding the armed history of this native land of mine.

It takes two hands to clap, but if groups of chauvinist can get away with prejudical practices, it says so much about how serious our PAP government is in nation building.

Lee Kuan Yew is a man who firmly believes in Eugenics and the practice of ethnic social engineering. 60 years ago, a similar notion was charismatically sanctioned by a head of state. It turned into what we know now as a holocaust.

Sure, the comparison may be too extreme somehow, but let we not forget, our social fabric will always be perversely manhandled by irresponsible MIWs unless we set ourselves to go through an overhauling mindset process.

dear editor, I do not understand why one of my comment is awaiting approval after so long???

It WILL ALWAYS work for the PAP – one of my post is under moderation. Wait a while and you’ll understand what I mean.

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.

8)George
I quite disagree with you. Well, first and for most when we speak of equality and equal treatment, do we spaek from the perspective of treating one anothe or in terms of policy making? In terms of policy making there isnt quality. Especially when you hear of racial quotas for every dumb applications. Agree?

Hi Chuah Andrew,

A good test how real your observations about S’pore minority races would be for you to stay for a few years in some African land; maybe Nigeria or Congo.

Seriously, even if you spurt out your crap story to some ulu villagers, they will either not believe you or if you get them at the wrong nerve, they will have you as barbequed meat.

sheldon

66 on September 4th, 2009 5.31 pm mice is nice

“how can it not be about trust? from what you saying, it is precisely because you don’t trust that the people will be as even keel as you, that’s why the cautiousness.”

after MSK you forgot about complacency already? lol…

“are you saying that because it has always worked therefore it will always work?”

strange question, anyway, people do rely on track record. by now the words “track record” have been echoed often enough, to me at least.

Hi Andrew Chuah #65

Don’t you know all our Indian ministers have Chinese spouses?

Andrew Chuah,
did you removed your internet info about yourself?
last time someone asked you are you that andrew chuah , what happened to that web info? You removed is it?

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.

I hope that we can get back on track and answer the question raised by the writer and that is, “Should Article 152 be scrapped from the Singapore Constitution?”

I feel it is an important question to raise for several reasons:

1. That Lee Kuan Yew had peddled an unsurprisingly unschooled interpretation of Articles 152 and 153; the two Articles DO NOT entrench special rights to either Malays or minorities.

2. That, ‘the Straits Times ran a feature article asking whether minorities in Singapore deserve a ‘special position’.

That the Straits Times proceeded in exactly the same vein as Lee Kuan Yew’s misinterpretation of Articles 152 and 153 and raise the false spectre of ’special’ rights enjoyed by Malays and minorities, should raise concerns that Articles 152 and 153 are being placed in danger of being repealed at some point in the future.

If repealed, there would be nothing left in the Constitution that specifically protects Malays and minority races from disadvantage due to historical disadvantage accumulated over time, disadvantage due to racial discrimination, and disadvantage due to (small) numbers.

I think the potentially perilous outcome of what is already taking place is serious enough to warrant a deeper examination of the question raised in this article.

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

85) Amin Sidek

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.

Yes, while that is true, yet when the same message is heard by non-Malays, wouldn’t that simply reinforce the negative perception of Malay’s non-performance? I simply object that a national platform should be used to address these issues.

Hi Amin Sidek,

Re: “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.”

I appreciate all that you’ve said in your entire post which to me was encapsulated in the above of your statement that I have highlighted. But as for myself, I’m not as ready to give up on this matter, and I’ll share with you some of the reasons for that.

You’re quite right that not many of us had known about 152 and 153 prior to this episode,. The first time I came across it was a few years ago, and then, I only glanced through it very quickly because it did seem then like a mere symbolic gesture to Malays from that quick read. I don’t even recall seeing the word “minorities” then – I’m Indian.

But as a human rights activist, my focus has – naturally – been more on Section IV (Fundamental Liberties) of the Constitution; Articles 152 and 153 are largely a more specific case of Article 12(1), in Section IV, of the Constitution.

So, in theory, even without, Articles 152 and 153, the same rights to ameliorative action can be articulated. But it has to be argued for, and that can be a daunting task because Constitutional debates are just as subject to becoming popularity contests unless a court challenge – with its deliberately astronomical costs – are issued. And even then, we wouldn’t know how independent the judiciary will be the from Executive anyway.

But I believe that we may be coming to a political crossroads in Singapore. there are definitely more people who are becoming constitutionally savvy, and they are mostly not in the government either. I believe that it is this skill that is going to help us win the battle.

Just look at this very episode: Lee Kuan Yew finally acknowledges that the Constitution even exists, but bungles big-time by making a out-of-this-world interpretation of the Articles he cited. I was among the several people who wasted no time pointing out that he was talking crap in Parliament.

In other words, there is hope. Hope may not have existed before, but I believe that it does now.

We can start making Articles 152 and 153 a reality. One redress that is definitely needed is in the area of the HDB racial quota and how it it impacts on financial losses upon resale of HDB flats for both Malays and Indians.

That is an example of where amelioration is legally required of the government by the Constitution.

[...] “The tendency of any majority, if left unchecked, is towards tyranny. The tendency of any minority, if left unattended, is towards alienation.” Alfian Sa’at [...]

1. Some would say that having a minister in charge for Muslim affairs, MUIS, etc. is a priviledge. Other would say that it is a nannying tool to ensure that the official religious line fits the ideal of the government.

2. Antz, I think your take on the tudung issue may be severely diluted. IMO, the article may just be pointing out the issue to stress on the right to observe what one believe to be an integral part of a religion. So why not just them they wear it, ala the sikh turban? Because, iif I may add, if only the 5 pillars of religion is what a Muslim would adhere to, it would place him in great disadvantage. None of it is “help others” or “work hard” or “seek knowledge:, if ya get my drift. :-)

Everyone,

Please keep your comments to within 500 words. Else they’ll be disallowed..

Thanks..

5/9/09

Hi Kum Sun of the Music

-I did not remove anything from this blog as I have no control of it, I am just an ordinary Singaporean Chinese,Yes, I am the same Andrew Chuah who has been posting on this since last year.

Hi Oxford Dude
-Our Indian Ministers having Chinese wives are beside the point, not relevant.Don’t tell me their wives are the ones who wear the pants and they are just nominees.

Hi Nazryn
-I take it that you are an educated Singaporean Malay and one who writes well.Good.Whether you agree or not, the Minorities in Singapore are well treated and holding good positions in Cabinet and Civil Service including the Armed Forces, look at Malaysia, the majority race namely the Malays actually don’t benefit at all, only the tip of the ice berg and trillions of ringgit spent were actually gone to the pockets of the BN-UMNO led government and their cronies. My vey good old friend Che Ali a Malay-Bumi whom I have known since our Singapore banking days did not benefit at all despite his children obtained very good academic results and was deprieved of all the govenment scholarships. Conversely, I have another good friend whom I knew in KL and his children’s grades are not that good all got government scholarships plus study loans and the different is his dad is an UMNO division head (his brothers and sisters children all given scholarships too).

Regards
Andrew Chuah

Well, regardless of whether you rate this bad or good, just simply accept the fact that the world is unfair and it is up to you to make it unfair to your advantage.

Simply put, get a life and stop inveighing against whatever you happen to not like. What’s the point of broadcasting your unhappiness with this and that when you simply lack the determination to make a change.

If you have such a strong conviction in the change that you think the society needs, by all means, go forth and inspire the electorate. If not, stop abusing your freedom of speech and expression just because you used your freedom of choice to make a passive decision to remain in your state of inaction.

The chuah has his mind locked in KL, keep using KL politics to compare and predict what can happen here.

TOTALLY IRRELEVANT !

How many countries in this beautiful planet of ours even with hundreds of years of history of nation building has become a homogenous race.

None.

So to wish and hope that racial lines will be no more is but a delusion.

Some people hoped that by removing “race” from our ID will magically resolve our conciousness that we are racially different, is also flawed.

They key is to accept that we are different and also to accept that despite the difference, it is ok.

In fact the wolrd would be a duller place if there is only one race, one religion, one language, one culture.

Reply WD Tan

Yes, life is unfair. And the readers of onlinecitizen is doing exactly that now to shape the opinion for overthrowing the PAP tyranny.

Not everyone has the charisma to standard for election but nevertheless, there is sufficient opposition candidate.

We are flooding the internets with alternative views that even PAP now are alarmed that there are too much basher online. We have successfully shove PAP into starting a PR campaign urging Singaporean to be “grateful”.

And please stop all your vicious remarks.

All I can see now is the only 1984 media like straits time sticking on PAP lines, everyone else is already pissed off.

We are bend to expose the truth until it reaches a critical mass so that PAP receives a bloodied nose in election.

The ancien regime of Bourbon France toppled by the revolution mainly not because of Tyranny (Tsarist Russia and Eastern Europe was worse), it fell because due to writings of l’homme de lettre Voltaire, Rousseau and Locke.

Dear Robox @87:

First of all, thank you for your very insightful comments on many of the articles on TOC. I’ve learnt a lot reading them, and pursued research on the various forms of equality that you once mentioned for a subsequent article.

I’m not familiar with constitutional law by any stretch of the imagination, but I’ve always been curious about how much force they possess. Also, when was the last time that anyone proposed a constitutional challenge?

Also, I was browsing through part XIII (General Provisions) and came across this part:

Impartial treatment of Government employees
154. Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, all persons of whatever race in the same grade of the service of the Government shall, subject to the terms and conditions of their employment, be treated impartially.

I’d like to hear your thoughts on this particular article and the ‘glass ceiling’ on Malays in the SAF. Are there certain exemptions, abrogations etc that might somehow limit this article? (Perhaps based on ‘national security’ interests?)

Thank you! I really think you should write articles for TOC, if you haven’t already (I can’t tell from your pseudonym!). An awareness of our constitutional rights and liberties would really help Singaporeans feel more empowered. : )

WD Tan

post #92 on September 5th, 2009 4.41 pm

“Well, regardless of whether you rate this bad or good, just simply accept the fact that the world is unfair and it is up to you to make it unfair to your advantage.”

that’s how pappies work? 8)

“Simply put, get a life and stop inveighing against whatever you happen to not like. What’s the point of broadcasting your unhappiness with this and that when you simply lack the determination to make a change.”

yet you are here reading such posts? welcome my friend!! lol…

“If you have such a strong conviction in the change that you think the society needs, by all means, go forth and inspire the electorate. If not, stop abusing your freedom of speech and expression just because you used your freedom of choice to make a passive decision to remain in your state of inaction.”

abusing freedom of speech? wow…. powerful englissshh…

Chuah is a narrow-minded man.

It is true that , sg has Chinese as majority and to have a non chinese as PM may be a far hope now, but it is not impossible

If it takes usa to have a black president after 232 years to have one, it make take singapore another 50 years but why can’t

Tang Liang Hong, the WP candidate for cheng san GRC in 1997 GE, raised such question, the chinese crowd did not show any dismay. It was govt took it as a provocation

But the Malay or Indian or non chinese PM should not use races as his political capital for he is all people’;s PM

to start with, we can have one of the two DPM be Malay, afterall, JayaKumar has been a DPM. Rajaratham was a SM, so why can’t a Malay be DPM

//94) KopitiamApek

//How many countries in this beautiful planet of ours even with hundreds of years of history of nation building has become a homogenous race.

//None.

That doesn’t mean we need to give a race of a country special privileges.

Of course in s’pore’s case, everything is different, FTs have more privileges.

putting race in your id is a problem.

Visually, you already can tell the difference.

putting that in a job application can be exploited by employers.

This is practise in many parts of the world.

6/9/09

Hi Chan Chee Seng, I assumed that you are in your 20s or early 30s and belongs to the minorty who wants the impossible and playing with fire which is very dangerous. My mind is not locked up in KL.Accept the fact that the Malays in Singapore are doing far better than the Malays in Malaysia and indonesia despite trillions of ringgit being so called poured to help them. Inshort, the Singapore Malays must be proud of what they have acheived without these trillions of ringgit or hands out-welfare state.

Hi Chia Chye Kong

I have noted your posting and I am not narrow minded.Please read my posting to Chan Chee Seng

Regards
Andrew Chuah

#(101) Chuah

{Re: 101) Andew Chuah on September 6th, 2009 5.25 pm 6/9/09

Hi Chan Chee Seng, I assumed that you are in your 20s or early 30s and belongs to the minorty who wants the impossible and playing with fire which is very dangerous }

Hello, Chan Chee Seng is a minority ? what minority ?

What authority do u have to tell people don’t play with fire ?
So, are u not a pappy or crony ? u sound typically like them.

Narrow-minded or not, we simply dont think u can speak for the Malays.
They made progress, they are ( officially admitted by MM ) protected and in time to come, such protection clause will not be needed, it may take a while.

A fairer clause in constitution is to help all minority and underclass ( such as orphants, etc )

Mr Chuah,
I find our views to parallel for me to even invoke my arguments futher.
However, you mentioned this:

“I take it that you are an educated Singaporean Malay…”

If it was a chinese, indian or whatever individual would the sentence be ” I think your an an educated [fill in the blanks]…”

As much as I want to thank you for the compliments, I have to look at your notion with suspicions on notions of perspective..

Naz

No one is born racist – everyone plays a part and respect for other races start young – esp in terms of how our parents, relatives and teachers educate and influence us with their own values and views.
I’m sure when we were all young, we wouldn’t be as conscious as some of us are currently of how different we are from one another. We were more concerned with having fun together and fooling around in the playgrounds.
It only take a few occasions for some parents to tell their kids to “don’t mix with the Chinese, Indians or Malays – cos they are ‘bad’, ‘dirty’ etc” for the children to start being conscious and become guarded and eventually distant from races different from their own.
As to whether art 152 is really helping the minorities (esp the malays) by providing free edu for them (in pri and sec) – well, perhaps would be useful to give us a breakdown of the % of malays who have graduated from pri and sec in proportion to the other races as well as the % who continue their edu beyond sec sch and % who are in ITEs, JCs, Poly etc and while we are at it…the % of malays and other races asking for handouts during the MPS (Meet-The-Ppl sessions).

Free may not always be good – it’s afterall human nature for most to take free things for granted.

Ismail Kassim on September 3rd, 2009 10.49 am

If u are a Singaporean Malay, i do not know what more do u want from a majority Chinese. Unlike M’sia, many Malaysian Chinese and Indians came to work in Singapore just to make a living because they cant find jobs in M’sia which mostly catered to the bumiputra. Do u know that some local Chinese families are even less well off than the exisiting Malay in Singapore. If u think the Malay govt in Malaysia can provide u and your family a good place to live, then go ahead and migrate. You enjoy more years of free education than other races.
What are there to complain about? Very simple, not happy here, migrate to Malaysia. Your own kampung people will definitely welcome u with open arm.

think-think,
The problem is that some ppl putting the tudung issue into some political tool to push against i think some other grievances.
As until now,nobody has yet answered my question..and that issue i remember is 2002,7 years ago.
Ppl get too emotional over it that I think and does not make any sense.

Agreed with CBL,

I am a Malay and just dun understand that some of the Malays have indeed indirectly ;thru online’ pouring unthinkable grievances.

Not happy then stay elsewhere (malaysia and Indonesia),simple.But wages are low if that what they wants.

when election comes,BH and majority of the Malays will be queueing up in rows marking PAP into power.

@CBL and antz,

It depresses me to count you as fellow Singaporeans. Is “Not happy then emigrate” our national motto now? Your failing to see that people who are disenchanted (to varying degrees) by our present state of affairs nevertheless have an equal stake in the direction our society takes, and that mere disagreement does not imply disloyalty or treason, shows you up as both dim-witted and close-minded.

The issue is not whether there are better alternatives out there (“Think of all the starving children in Ethiopia!”). No one should be subjected to such a false choice as accepting existing policies hook, line and sinker (do you even?), or else renouncing her citizenship and uprooting herself to find fortune ‘neath foreign skies. The real question is whether we can do better for ourselves.

(To those like Andrew Chuah who doubt that Malays are relatively disadvantaged compared to other races, I point once again to this link; the Lily Zubaidah Rahim book which Alfian refers to has also become canonical in this regard.)

(And of course, other quite despicable examples of discrimination (unintentional or otherwise) abound, even on this thread. Two examples are Andrew Chuah (“I take it that you are an educated Singaporean Malay and one who writes well.“) and CBL (“Your own kampung people will definitely welcome u with open arm.”).)

To simply respond to calls for greater substantive equality by pointing to the failures of Malaysia’s NEP and bumiputra policy is no argument at all. Only the most unimaginative minds instantly conjure up the most extreme, unworkable ’solution’ in order to dismiss out of hand any kind of solution.

92) WD Tan on September 5th, 2009 4.41 pm

If you have such a strong conviction in the change that you think the society needs, by all means, go forth and inspire the electorate.

Haha. I hope many political commentators will not fall into PAP’s trap to actually run for public office. Singapore does not have functional democracy, so I beg to ask: run for what public office? TOC has done well in being an independent media group to challenge the state propaganda machinery known as Straits Times. What need is more independent media groups to challenge the opinions and news perspective published by the Straits Times. Only through this way, we can build up a true foundation for democracy in Singapore. After this is achieved, then it makes sense to consider public office.

Hi antz,

re: “when election comes,BH and majority of the Malays will be queueing up in rows marking PAP into power.”

There is an important chapter in a book called “Paths Not Taken: Political Pluralism in Post-War Singapore.”

It’s called ‘Winning and Losing Malay Support: PAP-Malay Community Relations, 1950s and 1960s’ by Lily Zubaidah Rahim.

Basically her thesis is that PAP courted Malay support by using certain candidates from the Malay Left, who they eventually suppressed under supposed ‘anti-communist’ operations. They did the same thing with the Chinese Left.

You should also know the among the races in Singapore, the Malays are least likely to vote for the PAP (or the incumbent). If you examine table 7 in the results of a s survey conducted by the Institute of Policy Studies (http://www.lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/ips/docs/events/post-election/Political%20Orientation_ver%205%20_2_.pdf), you’ll find that support for the status quo by Malays is 19.4%, as opposed to 25.8% for Indians and 27.9% for Chinese.

Hi Alfian @ #96:

Thanks for your generous compliments. N, I have never written for TOC or anyone else for that matter. You’ve raised a whole slew of issues in your post, but iIwill zoom in on only one of them – Article 154 – just to remain mindful of the 500-word limit here.

My first instinct on reading the Article was to test it for it’s constitutionality, which I did with 12(1), 12(2), 152, and finally 154. But I got progressively angry during the process because it was becoming clear to me, someone already VERY familiar with PAP racism, that racism has been legalized not only in the SAF, but likely in the entire civil service.

(Note: Most often, discrimination for the purposes of establishing fair racial quotas do not fit into the legal definition of “discrimination”. 152 should be able to augment this if indeed the discrimination that is being referred to is for the purposes of amelioration.)

I’ll tell you right off the bat that we are going to do a grave injustice to this issue if this never gets to be an extended issue. But I will answer one question that you posed regarding 154: “Are there certain exemptions, abrogations etc that might somehow limit this article? Perhaps based on ‘national security’ interests?”

In the Singapore Constitution, there is no explicit mention that discrimination based on race is allowable in the interests of national security. In the Constitutions of the other countries that I have studied, there can be suspensions of civil liberties but only during periods of national emergencies, threats to national security being one of them. But these either apply across the board, or only to an INDIVIDUAL (or individuals) based on his or her actions only.

But it is never based on race.

What we have in Singapore is an entire (Malay) race that is:

a) considered a threat to national security;

b) on a permanent basis;

c) without any regard to what he (or she) is or does personally.

My opinion is that this is more of a political matter and not strictly a legal-constitutional one, and mainly because there is much that is still unknown and needs to undergo the querying inherent in the political process.

1. In Article 12(1), questions need to be asked about this: “Except as expressly authorised by this Constitution…”

What are those exceptions that would be permissible grounds for discrimination based on race (and religion, for the purposes of this subclause)?

2. In Article 154, questions need to be raised around “the terms and conditions of employment” that can subject an individual to racial discrimination. Shouldn’t they made explicit and public?

In my opinion, 154 contradicts 152, but a strong case needs to built to support this – not difficult if you know what you are looking for, and with competent people working on it.

I’m quite tired now, so I’ll sign off. But I hope that this can continue.

But I wil tell you that in my post that you were replying to, the reason that I requested for the topic to get back on track to the title of your article is because, I lean more towards a constitutional AMENDMENT, and not scrapping it nor keeping it intact.

Your question on 154 has only reinforced my belief. It is unacceptable becaust it flies in the face of all notions of natural justice. Constitutional law is LAW, and law cannot be separate from notions of justice.

Dear Robox,

Greetings from Simei. How wonderful to make up in the morning to read your comment. Phew. I think the sense of outrage steamed up the insides of my laptop screen.

It’s good to know that whatever sense of injustice that one feels is not based on some kind of abstract intuition but is supported by legal documents such as the Constitution.

However, I’d just like to sort of retread what Walter Woon (*shudder*) said about the Constitution in 1991 during his tenure as an NMP (before crossing over to the dark side):

“We effectively don’t have a constitution. We have a law that can be easily changed in Parliament and by the party in power because the party is Parliament. The changes themselves might not be controversial, but it is unsettling how flexible the Constitution is, unlike say the United States.”

I understand that this kind of extreme malleability is a consequence of the fact that the PAP controls (has been, since 1959) more than two-thirds of Parliament. That’s one thing the opposition should somehow emphasise; that a system of checks and balances is perhaps only effective once the PAP loses that two-thirds majority…

Hi Chuah Andrew,

…I take it that you are an educated Singaporean Chinese and one who writes well.Good.Whether you agree or not, the Majorities in Singapore are well treated and holding good positions in Cabinet and Civil Service including the Armed Forces…

@Robox (#111):

By definition, a constitutional provision like Article 154 can’t be ‘unconstitutional’; it may conceivably be inconsistent with other provisions, but that’s going to be an extremely difficult argument to make, especially since Article 154 is made “[s]ubject to the provisions of this Constitution”.

Secondly, Article 154 does not deal with the problems such as the ‘glass ceiling’ experienced by the Malays in the SAF. It merely requires persons “in the same grade of the service of the Government” to be treated equally, i.e. like must be treated alike. But the far more prevalent problem is that Malays, for various reasons, don’t attain the same grade/rank of service in the first place. If so, once the issue relates to prospects of career advancement, it’s put outside of Article 154 entirely. We don’t even need to discuss differing “terms and conditions of employment”.

Thirdly, the qualifier in Article 12(2) (“Except as expressly authorised by this Constitution“) has in mind at least two provisions. One is Article 39A, establishing GRCs; Article 39A(3) ensures that the whole provision is valid notwithstanding inconsistency with Article 12. The second set of provisions which might otherwise by inconsistent with Article 12(1) is Article 152(2) (“the special position” of the Malays as the indigenous people of Singapore) and Article 153 (requiring the Legislature to “make provision for regulating Muslim religious affairs”).

Fourthly, you are correct that Article 12(2) does not ordinarily permit discrimination justified on the basis of ‘national security’. One major exception, however, is anti-subversive legislation passed pursuant to Article 149(1): the Internal Security Act, and possibly the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act and the Sedition Act, would seem to be authorized under this Article even if they may have discriminatory effects.

In any case, the Government’s argument for excluding Malays from senior positions in the SAF is not based on the claim that that race constitutes ‘a threat to national security’. That’s too preposterous even for the PAP. Rather, the Article 12(2) prohibition covers only discrimination based solely on grounds of race/religion. The Government contends that Malays should be excluded not by virtue of their race alone, but because their race may (taken together with geopolitical realities) cause a conflict of loyalties, thus affecting their ability to be good soldiers. It would appear that the ‘glass ceiling’ is not caught by Article 12(2).

Lastly, it’s difficult to maintain that 154 (or any other provision) contradicts Article 152(1), because the latter is framed in terms of ‘interests’ rather than rights. Thus, the Government may in fact argue that more stringent criteria be imposed on Malays wishing to climb the military ranks because the interests of the Malay community as a whole require it; conversely, Article 152(1) does not furnish rights to any individual in relation to career opportunities, so a Malay soldier denied promotion could not invoke Article 152(1) (or 154).

7/9/09

Hi Kow Kee Seng-Noted your article, I refer Chan Chee Seng belong to a minority group of young people, and not a minority race. This is a group where they are still young and ideal and wants a perfect system which is impossibe (we already have a near perfect system in Singapore and what we need to to further fine tune these system ie public institutions and laws which now have flaws. I am not pro PAP as I also have my fair share of injustice in Singapore.

Hi Small Engineer-Thanks for your posting.My answer is Yes or No…..for now as the majority race in Singapore ie local born Singapore Chinese also having their difficulties and one is the influx of Chinese from China. Perhaps ,this has been over looked and thousands have migrated to other nations like Australia, New Zealand, USA, Canada.

Hi La Nausee-What I wrote is the Malays in Singapore are far better off than the Malays in Malaysia and Indonesia and they have succeeded on their own hard work and must be proud of their achievement (no help at all or any form of welfare from the government).

Regards
Andrew Chuah

@Andrew Chuah (#115), you cite no evidence for your claim that Malays in Singapore are “far better off” than Malays in our two neighbouring countries, relying instead on stereotypes, or superficial indicia like the number of minority-race Cabinet Ministers we have. Moreover, it’s a mistake to compare the Singapore Malay community with its counterparts in Indonesia and Malaysia, because the latter are in the majority in their respective countries. (Interestingly, if you compare the Chinese minority in Malaysia and Indonesia with the Malay minority here, I daresay the former are far better off.)

The correct comparison, I would reiterate, is between Malays versus other races in Singapore itself. And I’ve pointed you to some concrete statistics revealing gross disparities between the majority Chinese and minority races (esp. the Malays). (I’ve got a bunch more if you need further proof.)

Nobody’s saying that Chinese Singaporeans are not also facing difficulties. The issue is who is facing (far) greater difficulty? Who, for example, would suffer the most from the influx of China-born, Mandarin-speaking migrants? Surely not the Chinese community.

It seems that all your posts thus far can be distilled as such: “We all have our own problems, so let’s stop discussing them altogether, and just be grateful for the good stuff.” Need I say how silly that sounds?

7.9.09

Hi La Nausee-Lunch time and I noted your posting. I have many Singaporean Malays friends who are doctors, engineers, businessmen and clerks, and they are very proud of their achievements and they look down of their counterparts in Malaysia and Indonesia who so-called received trillions in Ringgit and yet not doing well and worse off since Malaysia’s independence and the same in Indonesia. The Chinese in Malaysia and Indonesia are the reverse of the Malays in Singapore and they have been doing very well with their hardwork and they are also very proud, yes, there are a good numbers who used the Malays for contracts (no such thing in Singapore where the Singaporean Malays used the Singaporean Chinese to get contracts),. and also a very good numbers who became cronies of BN-UMNO led government (the same in Indonesia).

We all have problems regardless in Singapore, Malaysia and indonesia and we also suffer injustices one way another but we move on but must always put our Modern Singapore above all things.l am sad to see the influx of those Chinese from China and sad to see our local born Singaporeans Chinese, Malays and Indians migrating in alarming numbers. Worse, bulk of these Chinese from China are second and third class qualities.

Regards
Andrew Chuah

Hi Chuah Andrew,

Thanks for your posting. My answer is Yes or No…

The reason Govt have to bring in Chinese from China is not just because ‘thousands of S’pore Chinese have migrated to other nations like Australia, New Zealand, USA, Canada’.

Chinaman from China is brought in to maintain & increase the local Chinese population in Singapore because Singapore Chinese men & women not producing many offspring.

MM say you should treat FT Chinaman well & welcome them; make them assimilate into S’pore culture quickly. They are here doing a big contribution to S’pore’s economy and help to balance back the racial composition in S’pore.

A loyal S’porean must support our Govt ’s population & statistics Dept in calibrating influx of Chinaman here.

My only concern is should their influx here become exponential, there would not be enough accomodation space for them in Chinatown; then some other place needs to be sacrified/vacated to make way for them? Then how?

Re::
(115) aNdReW cHuAh

How would you know chan chee seng is 20s or 30s, he might be a 60s retiree or a 17 years old JC student ?

You continue to talk like a Guru, but I advise you, use less comparison of Asean countries, otherwise your mind and opinion won’t get off the ground. And Sg is always a paradize (?) in Asean …

Look far and think far. Board budget jets to travel more and you may improve the quality and substance of your writing

La nausea,

I read your comments above and i did partially agreed with you.The problem is that Malays in Singapore though differed from the rest of the Malays in this region gets very easily ‘influenced’ by political things that are happening around them especially the neighbouring countries.

1.When they see that both m’sia and indonesia have dozens of general in the military or heavyweight position in the cabinet.
They start to ask themselves how come very few Singapore Malays exist in those position.

2.When more and more Chinese Nationals coming to Singapore for work and etc,they feel that they are a threat as that can cause the Malays being more as the ‘disadvantaged’ minorities.

Some Malays I know do not like the idea of ‘problems within the community’ to be brought up nationally.Reason,why pinpoint only us when well that go across all races.

Alfian bought up articles pertaining to the Malay affairs cos very seldon ‘grievances’ within the community are brought up nationally.Even the Malay paper is ‘very careful’ of not being too anti-govt.

Across PAP,the Malay MP’s have failed to acknowledge dissatisfaction among the community as they are under the noses of LKY/LHL.

Hot issues continously being talked about is
1.Lack of Malays in senior position especially in the NAVY
2.Lack of Malays in senior govt position.

But,i would like to highlight,minority chinese in Malaysia(not receiving any help from the UMNO govt) are in fact controlling the economy.
Not many in the uniform group too (the military and the police force) BUT they are not whining.Instead they push themselves harder thru numerous obstacles.
I ask myself why can’t we the Malays in Singapore see them as an example.

In Indonesia,tycoons in large scale projects are controlled by the ‘VERY” minority Chinese.
Why can’t we learn to be like them?
My personal point of view is that the problem lies with the community themselves..
Too much of negativeness and started to compare oneself with other neighbouring Malays.

If all these are left unchecked, I fear the vibrancy to excellence may falter overtime.
Inferiorty complex have become a major stumbling block indeed.

I dun believe of any ‘precise equality’ in any country in the world.No country is perfect.
Alfian-If u happen to look back at previous election in Aljunied,by facts and figures (i dunno if am correct) it is the Malays who put PAP back to power.Even at that time,Sylvia Lim (from WP) acknowledge that.

To la nausée @ #113:

Thanks for your reply; I’m going to commit to only writing shorter posts for this discussion. There was a reason that I wrote to Alfian that we would be doing this issue a grave injustice if it doesn’t become an extended discussion. His question might have been as condensed as it was, but underlying it are so many other issues that we have never even begun to deal with; those would have to be dealt with first even before dealing with his question, which was very specific to only Malays and only in the SAF – that’s not how the Constitution is worded but it does have implications on it.

I might mention right away that I am very violently in disagreement with much of what you wrote. But I welcome it nevertheless because it is an opportunity to clear the air; I get excited by constitutional debates anyway.

I’m going to propose a couple of parameters for this discussion for now; you may agree with it in whole or in part, make your own proposals for other parameters, etc. before we proceed further.

1. Neither 12(2) nor 154 have been written in a way that makes exclusive mention of employment in the SAF. I did not find any inconsistency in the wording of the various Articles that I mentioned to Alfian that I used as the test for constitutionality, but I find that as it stands, the Constitution does in fact provide for racism in the entire civil service. I suggest that we discuss the general contexts applicable to the two Articles first before moving on to how they might apply to the SAF in particular. I’m afraid that thus far, there seems to be a danger of security issues (internal and national) being conflated with non-security related ones; constitutionally allowable race-based discrimination in the SAF on the grounds of security CANNOT be allowed to become grounds for race-based discrimination in other non-SAF contexts.

2. An anti-racism perspective (ie. how to correct discrepencies resulting from racial discrimination) is going to have to be imperative in this discussion. We are obliged to by 152 alone, but more so, this is a discussion on race-based discrimination that somehow seems to be justified constitutionally (and otherwise, though in my opinion, it is without sufficient substantiation). In fact, even while I was replying to Alfian, I wondered if we were all were jumping the gun by not having a thorough Singapore-wide discussion on the topic of racism first; misunderstanding on the different starting points for discussion are bound to be the outcome when that is the case.

I will be writing some relpies to your post in the meantime. But I hope we can KIV them for discussion at a later point if you are not uncomfortable with that.

To la nausée @ #113:

Re: “By definition, a constitutional provision like Article 154 can’t be ‘unconstitutional’; it may conceivably be inconsistent with other provisions…”

Thanks for the correction. Yes, formally, the word should be “inconsistent” and not “unconstitutional” when referring to a constitutional article. Some have suggested “anti-constitutional” as an alternative, which it would be along the lines I was thinking when I used it, but I’m not too sure about that either. (Different debate.)

I was thinking more along the lines of Section IV (Fundamental Liberties) being THE section that is most fundamental to the Constitution. (It’s true! Not all constitutional articles are created equal.)

Maybe you already know that there’s actually a hierarchy within any Constitution. In the US, Canada, and the EU – to name just three that know of – their equivalents of our Section IV (the US Bill of Rights, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the European Convention on Human Rights), while still part of their Constitutions, are actually separate legal documents. All other sections of their Constitutions are required to conform to those documents in their Constitutions.

But this mostly knowledge tends to remain within academic circles – no, I’m not one of them; I just studied under one of them – and tends to be rather esoteric; politicians rarely know this.

But it is also acknowledged by the same academic circles that governments basically do whatever suits their fancy with Constitutions that they inherited and contrary to what Constitutions were intended for.

Re: “…but that’s going to be an extremely difficult argument to make, especially since Article 154 is made “[s]ubject to the provisions of this Constitution”.

I know I wasn’t explicit about this in my post, but this was exactly why I brought 12(1) and 12(2) into the discussion: Subject to which provisions in the Constitution, and where in a document that seems to be contradicting itself?

It’s also why I think 154 should be questioned alongside 12(2), especially with regards to the two qualifiers in each of them, at least one of which you disagree about being probed on. (I disagree with that, but that’s for a later post.)

To la nausée @ #113:

I wrote in #120 that, “An anti-racism perspective (ie. how to correct discrepencies resulting from racial discrimination) is going to have to be imperative in this discussion.”

Please replace “discrepancies” with “disparities”. My mistake.

To la nausée @ #113:

Please refer to this point:

Re: “Secondly, Article 154 does not deal with the problems such as the ‘glass ceiling’ experienced by the Malays in the SAF. It merely requires persons “in the same grade of the service of the Government” to be treated equally, i.e. like must be treated alike.”

Again, I had thought up of exactly this scenario that you have illustrated, and it is another reason that I mentioned to Alfian that we would all be doing this topic a grave injustice by believing it to be simpler than it really is.

I too had thought up of this particular situation: How can you be discriminated against if you are not even there to begin with?

But I hope we are not the strictly-within-the-box thinkers here but can imagine a bigger picture.

(Since this is about a law that applies to the entire civil service, I will use PSC terminology.)

Say that policy dictates that an individual cannot advance to a Grade 5 position because of his/her race; 154 actually does provide for it. In that case, it would be true that the question of race-based im/partiality in treatment does not even arise since no member of the particular race in question would be occupying a Grade 5 position to begin with.

What that now means is that there was a glass ceiling at the immediately preceeding (ie Grade 4) or earlier levels that prevent advancement to Grade 5 and higher levels for members of this race. In other words, there ARE race-based “terms and conditions” that determine that individuals from a particular race are RACIALLY DISCRIMINATED AGAINST at the Grade 4 (or earlier) level/s.

Those terms and conditions then become a violation of Article 154.

And this is exactly the reason that I disagree with you that the “terms and conditions” need not be discussed.

On the contrary, and especially since I am still discussing the law as it applies to the entire civil service and not only the SAF, it should be known to me what terms and conditions I am working under, so much so that no matter how good I am, I will not advance to the next level because of my race; I am not asking about what intelligence information the authorities have on me that determine that I don’t have the necessary security clearance for the Grade 5 position because this is about the rest of the civil service.

To la nausée @ #113:

Sorry again. I wrote in #123 that:

Re: “Those terms and conditions then become a violation of Article 154.”

What I meant to say was that Article 154 does in fact open up the possibility of racism in the civil service.

I have a strong reaction to all of this because, I have previously heard from a well connected member of the PAP establishment that “the government does not want both Indians (and ‘too may’ Indians) at certain positions” in the civil service.

8/9/09

Hi E W Barkers-I am not talking like a Guru, and I also take budget airline when I travel for my work and I am just an Ordinary Singaporean born Chinese and I have no political ambition like others, and I am not using any political platform like some, to kick off his second career. I write as I see things and I always put our Modern Singapore above all things and I also have had my fair of injustice in Singapore but I put all behind and I have moved on and still struggling in my career and working for a boutique advisory company.

I suspect our friend Chan Chee Seng is in his 20s or 30s and belonging to a minority group of people who wants change but change not for the better but for the worse (an elderly person will never write all these). There is no perfect world or perfect nation but we must treasure our Modern Singapore our only place we called our home (not our house as KJ of Justice Party put it). It has been our home since our independence from Malaysia. Let us together make our Modern Singapore a better place and I must admit there are flaws in our system ie public institutions and public policies and these need only to be fined tuned and not totally replaced.

I am not pro PAP or PAP supporter, and as I have written earlier, inorder to beat the PAP in the poltiical arena,we must be equal or better than the PAP and the present PAP Ministers and MPs have not live up to the expectations of Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew.PAP honestly has done a good job and the silent majority still support the PAP and as I have written in other postings on this blog, we must blame our grandpas, grandmas, fathers and mothers for voting them back into power come every five years. The PAP has not reached a stage need to be totally replaced like in Malaysia where the BN-UMNO, Indonesia under Suharto, or Thailand under Thaksin. What we need is a good and strong Opposition in Parliament who can give the PAP a run for their monies-sad, the present Oppositons are very weak and they are still looking for someone to lead them-perhaps another Lee Kuan Yew, not Anwar Ibrahim.

Regards
Andrew Chuah

8/9/09

Hi Small Engineer

Thanks for your highlight and I am fully aware of your point high lighted. I have noted that those Chinese from China socalled FT are second and third class qualtities, indeed very sad and those Singaporean born who left for other nations are highly qualified and it is time for our Government of the day ie PAP government to make every efforts to retain our Singapore born from leaving and at the same time, invite those who migrated to come back.

Regards
Andrew Chuah

To la nausée @ #113:

Re: “…the Government’s argument for excluding Malays from senior positions in the SAF is not based on the claim that that race constitutes ‘a threat to national security’…The Government contends that Malays should be excluded not by virtue of their race alone, but because their race may (taken together with geopolitical realities) cause a conflict of loyalties, thus affecting their ability to be good soldiers.”

Isn’t this self contradictory?

No, being Malay doesn’t constitute a threat to national security.

But yes, being Malay – for whatever reason – DOES affect their ability to be good soldiers and therefore a DOES constitute a threat to national security.

To la nausée @ #113:

Re: “…it’s difficult to maintain that 154 (or any other provision) contradicts Article 152(1), because the latter is framed in terms of ‘interests’ rather than rights.”

Once those “interests”, or specifically, the government’s obligation to care for them, are entrenched in Constitutional law, they become “rights”.

To la nausée @ #113:

Please not that all the previous posts are the ones I am requesting to KIV. It is this post that I am proposing that we set off from. Please refer to your following statements:

Re: “Secondly, Article 154 does not deal with the problems such as the ‘glass ceiling’ experienced by the Malays in the SAF. It merely requires persons “in the same grade of the service of the Government” to be treated equally, i.e. like must be treated alike. But the far more prevalent problem is that Malays, for various reasons, don’t attain the same grade/rank of service in the first place. If so, once the issue relates to prospects of career advancement, it’s put outside of Article 154 entirely. We don’t even need to discuss differing “terms and conditions of employment”.”

AND:

Re: “Thirdly, the qualifier in Article 12(2) (“Except as expressly authorised by this Constitution“) has in mind at least two provisions. One is Article 39A, establishing GRCs; Article 39A(3) ensures that the whole provision is valid notwithstanding inconsistency with Article 12. The second set of provisions which might otherwise by inconsistent with Article 12(1) is Article 152(2) (“the special position” of the Malays as the indigenous people of Singapore) and Article 153 (requiring the Legislature to “make provision for regulating Muslim religious affairs”).”

This is the third parameter for this stage of the discussion that I would like to request. Let’s start at the beginning: let’s begin ONLY by testing the various Articles in question for consistency first.

We can then move on to justify (or not) statutes and Acts of Parliament on the grounds of their constitutionality.

@Robox (#120-124), wow, that’s a long string of replies! I’ll take them sequentially, and I hope I give your comments the full response they deserve.

On the issue of Part IV of the Singapore Constitution being the ‘most fundamental’: I have much sympathies with this view, because I do think the animus of any constitutional document is the set of fundamental rights it enshrines.

At the same time, without being too didactic, there are at least two reasons why that argument won’t work legally, before a Singapore court — and, to the extent that the Government is wont to take up a legalistic view of this matter, in the local political arena as well.

First, the idea that the Constitution has a ‘basic structure’ with which other constitutional provisions or amendments cannot be inconsistent was rejected in a previous High Court decision (persuasive, though not binding). That case (Teo Soh Lung) concerned whether the 1989 constitutional amendments relating to anti-subversive legislation (specifically, the ISA) should be struck down as inconsistent with the Part IV fundamental liberties provisions. This argument was rejected.

Second, a strong indication that certain constitutional provisions are ‘basic’ would be where they are made very difficult to amend. Article 5(2A) tries to do this: it would make the amendment of any Part IV provision impossible unless it is (apart from the usual 2/3rds Parliamentary vote) also either (1) supported by a 2/3rds vote at a national referendum; or (2) the President otherwise directs in writing. However, Article 5(2A) has rather notoriously been held in abeyance since 1991 when it was passed. This suggests that, during this present ‘interregnum’ (18 years and counting), no part of the Constitution can be regarded as basic and inviolable, since the whole document is a work in progress.

@Robox (#129), I just saw this post, and see that I’ve jumped the gun a little. I’m prepared to follow your line of discussion, so for the moment, I’ll hold my replies in abeyance ;0)

This feels like having ringside seats to a constitutional debate.

I’d like to thank you both, Robox and la nausee, for this lively and extremely educational exchange.

An ST article on 30 Aug conducted a poll among 50 ‘non-Chinese Singaporeans’ (Minorities say ‘no’ to special privileges). 47 said it wasn’t necessary. I think this response came from a sense of defensiveness (‘we don’t want to make the majority think we’re an impediment to ‘racial equality’) and perhaps a lack of awareness of majority-minority dynamics (the idea that ‘market forces’ will inevitably disadvantage minorities).

But what upset me more was that the poll was not conducted among members of the majority. Because this makes it seem as if 152 was somehow the sole preserve of the minority community, and thus framed it as an issue of self-determination. I would have been interested to know what the outcome might have been if the poll was conducted among those who might not have personally benefited from 152–maybe we might be able to go further than this whole ‘it’s none of my business, they have their space, I have mine’ attitude that characterises so much of our racial dynamics here.

Thus it makes me proud, and hopeful, as a Singaporean, that this exchange about Article 152, ostensibly something that affects the Malay community (more specifically 152(2)), is being defended by someone who is Indian and another who is Chinese (I’ve had the pleasure of visiting your blog, so this isn’t an assumption). : )

@Robox (#123-124):

Our discussion risks becoming very estoteric — although I myself am quite partial to legal and philosophical arguments. The two main ‘legal’ issues relating to Article 154 can be summarized as follows:

1. Does the Government’s obligation to “treat impartially” all its employees “in the same grade of the service” include an obligation to accord everyone in the same grade an equal opportunity to move to the next grade of service?

2. What “terms and conditions of employment” may the Government legitimately impose on civil servants while still living up to its Article 154 obligation?

On Issue (1), after reconsideration, I concede that the answer should probably be “Yes”; hence, a ‘glass ceiling’ as exists in the SAF would violate Article 154. The argument I originally made is not entirely unpersuasive, though, and I foresee that the Government might argue for just such a restrictive interpretation of the phrase “impartial treatment” were a constitutional challenge to occur, i.e. it does not extend to career advancement prospects.

On Issue (2), the concern you have (as I understand it) is whether the exception will swallow up the rule. One would surmise that most racial discrimination occurs when the decision whether to hire or promote is made; the terms of employment are unlikely to be overtly discriminatory, so that e.g. a Chinese employee gets substantially more medical benefits than a Malay employee. This highlights some of Article 154’s limitations. If one is not hired because of one’s race, Article 154 does not come into the picture, because one is not even a Government employee. Conversely, if one is not promoted because of one’s race, this could be justified as the result of the Government’s (written or unwritten) HR policies which are incorporated as a term of one’s existing contract; this exception thus swallows the rule of “impartial treatment”.

This raises a ‘political’ issue, I think. Article 154 is a very narrow ledge on which to place an anti-discrimination policy, which you’re trying to do. A breach of Article 154 need not automatically mean a breach of 152 or 12, because the Government is wearing different hats in the two cases, employer versus guardian of individual rights and minority interests. So Article 154 seems almost like a loose thread, and this makes it even likelier that it will be interpreted restrictively. What’s really needed is an anti-discrimination employment law of more general application, which will confer specific rights to all participants in the labour market, set out what kinds of job criteria are and are not permissible, lay down a code of practice for HR departments, etc.

@Robox (#127, 128):

It’s a little far-fetched to say that being a poor soldier constitutes ‘a threat to national security’; that’s akin to saying that an incompetent worker threatens a company’s economic survival. The link is more indirect. National security is indeed a background consideration, but the SAF could justify its hiring and promotion decisions purely on criteria like operational effectiveness and mental fortitude.

On Article 152(1), it’s unlikely that it confers justiciable rights, in the sense that I could go to a court and get compensation from the Government for its failure to provide me with sufficient educational opportunities, or its failure to stop private companies from discriminating against me. Article 152(1) imposes a ‘positive’ obligation, i.e. the Government must take positive steps to remedy discrimination against racial and religious minorities; to enable civil litigation to emerge out of this Article would probably take things a little too far, I think, because it’s so vague and expansive.

@Alfian (#134), to rephrase your paraphrasing of de Tocqueville, perhaps the tendency of any majority is towards apathy. I may be too cynical, but I’m not sure that Singaporean Chinese in general give much of a **** about Article 152(1) and minority interests. Many comments in this thread (and the other one) are symptomatic of that indifference.

So progress will only be had if policies are implemented to some extent against majority will, or with its acquiescence (what the majority doesn’t know can’t hurt it). The Government has opted to take the latter route, trying to work quietly behind-the-scenes as an enabler, supporting VWOs like SINDA and MENDAKI, working with madrasahs to improve the quality of their education, coordinating numerous mosque-building projects, etc., even as it harps on ethno-religious harmony and meritocracy. This is sensible, but it gives the public the impression that any help the Government gives to minority communities is part of a strategy of appeasement conditioned by our demographic and geopolitical realities. MM Lee’s speech was unsettling because, even though he cited Article 152, he too portrayed it as a kind of appeasement. Such official attitudes in turn affect public perceptions about what should be done for minority communities.

The Government needs to take a different tack on racial and religious relations, one that doesn’t involve being in a perpetual mode of ‘crisis management’. It should emphasize that equal opportunities for all and cultural diversity are valuable goals in their own right, rather than a facade we put up to ensure national survival, and implement policies specifically to achieve those goals. It should also affirm that this elusive community of ‘Singaporeans’ we like to talk about is only possible if all of us have a genuine stake in it, regardless of political or cultural affiliation.

@nausee:

I think it’s precisely the act of conducting a poll which would perhaps activate people out of their indifference. I can imagine a survey conducted asking able-bodied people: “Do you support the use of public funds to build wheelchair ramps in housing estates?” This is an extreme example, of course, but a question like this does make a respondent reflect on the kinds of priviliges he or she might otherwise take for granted, and to examine a personal stand on majoritarianism and even the idea of social welfare.

It’s clear *how* the disabled are disadvantaged, but less clear how other kinds of minorities might be. So perhaps the survey methodology might include some pedagogical aspect that might persuade a respondent to reconsider entrenched views on meritocracy. I suppose one could also introduce the idea of ‘market forces’ as at times being antithetical to minority interests (race-specific employment practices for eg, the unsustainability of vernacular broadcast and print media, etc.)

****

Back to 154, I’d like to float some scenarios here to see whether 154 would be relevant to these cases:

1) Two military personnel, one Malay, and another Chinese. They are both Singaporeans, working in the same unit, of the same rank. The Chinese personnel is given a higher security clearance than the Malay one.

2) Two military personnel, one Malay, and another Chinese. They are both working in the same unit, of the same rank. However, the Malay personnel is Singaporean by birth, but the Chinese personnel is Malaysian by birth and has applied for PR status. The Chinese personnel is given a higher security clearance than the Malay one.

3) A Malay military dentist is called down to an air base. Upon arrival, he is informed that there has been some error. Some personnel actually accidentally lets slip that ‘we didn’t know the dentist from your camp is Malay.’ He is then told to return to his camp.

4) A Chinese military personnel is a specialist regular in an artillery. He marries a Malay woman and converts to Islam. After his marriage, he is transferred out from his unit, into an entirely different vocation–infantry–for which he has to begin training from scratch. The Central Manpower Branch will not disclose the reasons for this.

Thanks, gurus. : )

Excellent article.

@Alfian (#136), it’s hard to give clear-cut answers to each of your four hypotheticals (though I must say they’re very well-constructed indeed!), since Article 154 is so tersely worded. Some discursive comments, though:

Scenario (3) is unlike the others, because it appears to involve ‘horizontal’ discrimination; the Malay military dentist is treated badly, not by official policy, but by his colleagues. So this is one step removed from the archetypal situation where Article 154 is breached; if the Government is at fault, it’s because it hasn’t done enough to eliminate everyday workplace discrimination among its employees. Establishing that such a ‘due diligence’ standard exists, and that the SAF/Government hasn’t lived up to it, would be difficult, though.

The other three scenarios raise two interesting questions. First, the SAF (or any Government agency, more generally) is likely to argue that confidentiality is a “term of employment” as referred to in the proviso of Article 154, so that the SAF/Government cannot be forced to disclose its reasons for issuing or not issuing a specific security clearance, or for transferring personnel to and from specific vocations. If so, the dispute does not even get off the ground.

Second, even if somehow the reasons get disclosed, I’m not sure there would be a legal-constitutional remedy as opposed to a political one. A general principle is that decisions by the executive branch, particularly if they impinge on national security, cannot be second-guessed by the courts, except in the most flagrant cases (perhaps Scenario (4), where an experienced personnel is arbitrarily transferred elsewhere and forced to start again at the bottom rung of the ladder). Otherwise, the aggrieved serviceman will probably have to seek recourse in the court of public opinion, which may not be entirely sympathetic about his or her predicament.

How do we differentiate the will of the majority versus the inertia of the majority?

138) la nausée on September 10th, 2009 12.28 am

In the name of SECURITY….

In the name of SENSITIVITY….

In the name of SOCIAL STABILITY….

Hi Alfian and la nausée,

I haven’t abandoned this discussion; I’m just experiencing a time/energy crunch.

Will post shortly.

Should PAP be scrapped from Singapore Parliament?

YES WE CAN

Hey dude,

Great work there. This was one of the topics I intended to write about during my brief stay in TOC, and wanted to set out on a huge project to photograph and document the Chinese-dominated media on our papers and in the streets in order to show it to my fellow Chinese.

Unfortunately, I could not write about this because of my parents’ fears of repression, and I had to respect their wishes. Thank you for expressing in words the very sentiments I’ve harbored for the past half decade.

Hi Davin,

It’d have been great to see that done as some kind of a photo essay. Just keep an eye out though for the possibility of offending some quarters. I suppose it’s quite delicate, to ensure that what you do comes off as self-reflexive criticism, and does not widen the schism between the English-educated and Chinese-educated Chinese communities…

All the best! : )

Hi Alfian,

I have a bout half an hour for now, so I thought that I would write this info out for you. I tried googling for the types of equality that I had spoken about earlier, but what I’m finding is not really what I studied; hence this. Also, please note that now that I’m taking a relook at the source first had, I have my disagreements that two of them should even be part of this category – I’ll explain why when I come them. (I’m also quite sure I have left one more type out; will fill in later.)

1. Moral Equality

This is best undestood by understanding its converse, inequality based on morality. An example still topical in Singapore is that of people who believe homosexuality to be a moral issue and advocate fo different treatment on that basis. Another example is racism: while the overt ‘moral’ justification for racism – racism is a punishment from God for being born black – is clearly becoming increasingly dated, racism isn’t, and I wonder how much of a hold the original ‘moral’ basis for racism still has.

2. Legal Equality

This is easy: its equality under the law. Relevant to the discussion in this thread, Article 152 and 153 is an example if legal inequality and which is the way that Lee Kuan Yew read it. But as I have also written, it isn’t meant to read in isolation from the rest of the Constitution; in political science there must be compelling reasons for this to have be in in any legal document.

3. Equality of Liberties

This is the first of the two that I disagree should be here because I don’t really see how it is a “type” of equality. (You can tell me what you think.) this “type” of equality includes all the Articles in Section IV of the Constitution, as anorexic as Singapore’s version of it is.

4. Formal Equality

This type of equality draws from the one interpretation of legal equality; it is the committment to treat people exactly the same, and is best illustrated by examples.

Eg1. Everyone in line for theatre tickets for a show are treated exactly the same (in theory – haha, “lip service equality”): they name the show, choose their seats, pay for their tickets, colect their change and are thanked for their custom. Sometimes, depending on the context and circumstances, formal equality is the only thing that can be done

Eg2. More controversial is this example which I thought up of to help us consolidate our discussions and move it further. Every P 1 student in a class is provided exactly levels of instruction, but more controversially exact levels of help – this would disregard any systemic diadvantage that might be interfering with the students ability to perform to the same levels as his/her peers. Some have referred to this as “equality of input” – which 1 don’t disagree with – to contrast it with equality of outcome.

500-word limit-wise, I will continue in the next post; it’s also a logical separation.

Hi Alfian,

This line in the last but second para should read: “Every P 1 student in a class is provided exactly [the same] levels of instruction, but more controversially exact [the same] levels of help…”

The next group of types of equality are known as “material equality” – please note that different writers may describe the same thing differently – because they come into play more strongly in areas such as policy, jobs, education, etc. They are all quite self explanatory.

5. Equality of Access

6. Equality of Opportunity

7. Equality Outcome

8. Affirmative Action, which I now disagree is a “type’ of equality, but rather an equalization process. (Your thots?)

Hi Alfian,

A couple more supplementary points:

1. Moral Equality is sometimes spoken of as Equality of Worth; it’s inherent to the person, and therfore justification for either equal or unequal treatment. But as I said, different people may use different words even though they are conceptually the same thing.

2. In any one issue, one may be talking about multiple types of in/equality.

Eg. In the issue of gay rights, the ones that come up foremost are moral and legal equality. But formal equality – and this time, it would be the “lip service equality” that I referred to earlier – also comes into play in the government’s official statement of “non-prosecution”. In the meantime films continue to get banned, media censored, and services (gay-specific social programs) get denied – the equalities of access, opportunity, and outcome are all affected.

note to readers: for your reading convenience, just take note this is not part of the main discussion. yes, not relevant at all.

@mice is nice

after MSK you forgot about complacency already? lol…

aiyoh , mice is nice, mice is nice, what you say not relevant to what i say lei. can you rephrase?

strange question, anyway, people do rely on track record. by now the words “track record” have been echoed often enough, to me at least.

aiyoh there are principles or axioms underlying why race and religion work as diversion. stuff like human behavior, the difficulty to maintain a totalitarian state in a super global dependent small little dot. i am asking do you know what these axioms are or do you just sukah sukah take as assumption that these axioms don’t change.

actually i was asking gemani but you chose to answer so i ask you lor.

Hi,
After reading your blog or whatever is it Alfian, I should applaude your effort in composing/completing this article… Well done… Pat on the back… Come on people, a little appreciation should be fair enough.

In my opinion, Article 152 should NOT be abolished. After much thinking, my questions to all of you reading this article, is this;

1) Why does the MM of S’pore created such clause in the first place knowing that it would create disagreement in the society? (Put in his shoes/position) Do YOU PEOPLE reading this article EVER EXPERIENCED that ERA which were experienced by the MM? Ask yourself…

2) Why was the clause being compose 40~45 years ago and not in the present moment? What, our MM is a physic whom can predict the future? Ask yourself…

3) What happens if the clause were not created? Ask yourself…

4) Why would the MM of Singapore creates such clause for the minority knowing he himself is the majority?

5) Does equality even existed?

Answer:

1) For the answer in question 1 to my fellow viewer reading the article, the answer is, I dont know the answer. Yep, that right, that is the answer. We dont know the answer to question 1. Reason? Because we do not experience what the MM HAD EXPERIENCE during the ERA… That a fact. Our MM is one of the oldest yet the most experience person in Singapore… So if you viewer who wants to know the HISTORY of SINGAPORE and the reason of the clause creation, asked him… Dont be a liar and create your own grandparent’s story about Singapore.

2) If the clause were to be created in this present moment, im afraid, it will be too late for this land called Singapore. Let me give a scenario, in Sri Lanka, the Sinhalese were being prejudice by making the state as thier own. Sinhala as the priority language and declaring Sri Lanka as a buddhism state, among others.
As result of that, the tamils which were the minority were upset as equality were not shown upon them, and in return, they retaliated with AGGRESSION and many parts of the country declare them as terrorist. Terrorist were not created without a cause, in fact, terrorist is created for a reason… To be heard and fight for their right… However, in cruel ways. Besides, the tunku of malaysia a malay man kick singapore out of malaysia, our MM being concern with the safety of the malays in singapore perhaps created this clause to protect the minority from the hatred of the majority from being kick out of the country. In my opinion.

3) The clause actually gives a sense of hope towards the minority, not just the malays, rather, to all minority living in Singapore. So, if you were one of the minority, be happy that at least some of the majority shows concern to you all.

4) Because the MM is not selfish. He prefer peace over majority power.

5) It depends…. The 1st malay general was elected 40 years after singapore independecies… That shows that equality happens with respect to time.

Conclusion, yes clause 152 should not be scrapped, it shows a sign of hope for the minority that even if they are not the majority, they can succeed if they put effort in it, Clause 152 also REMINDS the majority that even if they were the majority, they should be humble about it…. IT NOT ABOUT THE QUANTITY RATHER ITS THE QUALITY that COUNTS….

Now all you minority, enough sitting down on your comfort zone and stand up and rise because we are part of the country, not the majority themselves!

@SAS 150)

Section 152 was created around the time Singapore was preparing for merger into Malaysia. Around that time too, to reassure KL that Singapore had a pro-Malay orientation, it was decided that Malay should be the National Language, and that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara (ie, the President) should be a Malay person (Yusof Ishak). There were also Malay language night classes being conducted as a rite of citizenship, and even campaigns, such as ‘learn one new Malay word a day’.

Of course, after Separation, many of these lost their relevance to the PAP elite and became only anachronistic reminders of Singapore’s aborted entry into the larger Malayo-Indonesian world.

Yes, I believe the constitution should be scrapped so that we would have one less thing to argue about.

I would never have completed my degree without the benefit of using my parent’s CPF, and I have always been envious of those who could enjoy the benefits of free education, be it in Singapore or abroad.

Let’s see how far we could go without benefits of any kind to anybody (except those who are needy and less privileged) and let the actions of each individual speak for themselves as they take up their various posts in society (if your superiors don’t appreciate your talent and work, then it’s really time to move on).

I sometimes feel discriminated by the HR in govt sector as I do not hold a prestigious scholarship…but I would not give up trying for them. I know I have nothing to lose in being persistent.

I have people telling me of how life abroad is so much better here, yet there’re those who have felt discrimination being the minority. In a way, it is a matter of what you want or look for in life that determines what kind of treatment you deem as fair or not. And I know some things here are not beneficial for me and what I want to achieve in life. I’m not sure if it’ll work out for me elsewhere, but I’ll give it a try too.

I didn’t experience the era that LKY and our pioneers lived in so I can’t judge them on the policies that they deemed were necessary for Singapore back then. Some may be archaic but a lifetime of struggles and fears could be too deep-seated to let go now. What I do appreciate is whatever small comforts I could afford even while the rest of the world is dealing with job losses and bankruptcies.

Ah, it should be article 152, not the constituition :D

In the early strait settlement, LKY is so hungry to get own independent. So any how agreed to the article, Ashe always nothing free in Singapore. He is slapping inhis own face. So article 152 should be scrape.