Alfian Sa’at
On 3rd September 2009, both the Straits Times and the Malaysian Insider carried the article ‘Proud To Be Malay Singaporean’. Written by Khartini Khalid, the article addresses among many things a statement made by former Malaysian Information Minister Datuk Zainuddin Maidin in the newspaper Utusan Malaysia.
In his column, the venerable Datuk made references to Singapore while discussing Malaysia’s current racial controversies. According to him, the main reason then Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman decided to kick Singapore out of Malaysia was ‘the speech made by its then Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew, in the Malaysian Parliament in May 1965 questioning the Malay government in Malaysia.’
This statement isn’t really about Singapore but a variation of the spooky ethno-nationalist warning against minorities who question the notion of Malay supremacy (as enshrined in Article 153 of the Malaysian Federal Constitution). Malaysian Home Affairs Minister Hishamuddin Hussein might wave a keris to make this point. Another politician might raise the spectre of the May 13 Incident.
Zainuddin had chosen to invoke the expulsion of Singapore. His message: ‘Don’t you dare challenge Article 153, or we’ll kick you out.’ Nevertheless, Khartini Khalid has seen it as her patriotic duty to defend Singapore from a perceived attack. And thus she begins her column with the line: ‘I am a Malay Singaporean and proud of it.’
It’s one thing to say, ‘I am a Singaporean and proud of it.’ It’s another to bring attention to the fact that you’re Malay. It’s quite obvious that the writer meant: ‘Boy, am I glad I’m not a Malay Malaysian! I can hold my head up high knowing that I never relied on crutches and handouts. As Whitney Houston’s song goes, I tried it on my own.’
The writer goes on to say that she first ‘realised how different I am from Malay Malaysians when I stayed in a kampung in Negeri Sembilan for a week.’ After the first four days, she felt that something was amiss. And what was that? The fact that she ‘had not seen a single non-Malay person for four whole days!’
I can’t speculate on her daily roaming radius, but I suspect that she was trying to say that she was staying in an ethnically homogenous village. According to her, there was a Chinese village ‘across the street’, while the Indians lived in ‘yet another village near some plantations’.
She goes on to compare this with Singapore, where a trip out of her house allows her to behold a melanin rainbow: ‘every day now, when we step out of our flats, we see our Chinese, Indian and perhaps Eurasian neighbours.’ I found myself sniggering. It was as if she was saying, ‘if we’re lucky, we’ll be able to spot a Eurasian too, and we’ll fulfil our multiracial sighting quota for the day.’
There are a few things seriously wrong with extrapolating the writer’s experiences in a remote village in Negeri Sembilan to the multicultural reality of Malaysia. First of all, I’m pretty confident that if she were to stay in a block of apartments in urban Kuala Lumpur, she would be able to visually feast on ‘Truly Asia’.
Secondly, what separated the Malay and Chinese villages was a street, not a wall. These villages were not garrisoned ghettoes. Just because they were spatially segregated does not mean that there was zero interaction between the communities. Conversely, just because I have neighbours of various races along a common corridor does not mean that any meaningful interaction occurs among us. One should not confuse the façade of multiculturalism with its substance.
I wonder if the Straits Times would have run an article written by someone after a trip to China, with the headline ‘Proud To Be Chinese Singaporean’: ‘Thank god I can have more than one child, am surrounded by breathable air and can access Facebook and Youtube!’ Or one that says, ‘Proud to be Indian Singaporean’: ‘Hindu-Muslim tensions, a nasty caste system, and movie stars-turned-politicians—how wonderful that Singapore is spared from all this!’
It’s unwise to make such judgments without understanding the real complexities in the society that one is so eager to denigrate. This is the kind of attitude that has earned Singaporeans a reputation for arrogance. Wave our flag by all means, but make sure that we don’t hit other people’s faces with it.
The generalisation that Khartini makes is that Singapore’s multiculturalism is somewhat superior to that of Malaysia’s. To her, the Malaysian ‘model’ practises ‘discriminatory policies favouring one group over others’, while Singapore has ‘a system of equity based on merit’.
Thus we’re back to comparing Singapore’s ‘meritocracy’ versus Malaysia’s ‘affirmative action’ (although it is more correct to call this ‘ameliorative action’). I am not a big fan of Malaysia’s National Economic Policy, which was instituted in 1971 as a means to allow Malays a greater economic stake in the country (at that time, they held around 4% of the economy—the rest of it was controlled by Chinese and foreign interests). This discrepancy was due to a colonial divide-and-rule policy: political power for the Malays, economic power for the Chinese.
It is clearly an unfair policy, but it has to be examined in terms of what it aims to achieve: an equality of outcome. The idea is for Malays to be given extra state support such that they will feel as if they have an equal share in the country. However, the initial socialist goals of the NEP were gradually abused over time, taking on a communalist character. Eventually, it ended up narrowly benefiting an elite class known as ‘Umnoputras’ more concerned with feathering their own nests than the alleviation of the Malay poor.
On the other hand, meritocracy is premised on equality of opportunity. But it can sometimes lead to consequences that might be argued as unfair. It is no secret that the majority of government scholarship awardees come from affluent, middle-class backgrounds. This is because of the ‘unfair’ advantages they enjoy, often referred to as social capital; these include an English-speaking home environment and the means to afford private tuition. We tend to overlook that meritocracy, while based on egalitarian ideals, often produces elitist results.
The debate over ‘meritocracy’ and ‘Malay special rights’ is therefore not one that can be reduced to which system is better. They have to be understood within the context of the societies which practice them, as well as contesting notions of what constitutes ‘equality’.
Similarly, we have to be careful about the indices that we use to judge the ‘standard’ of multiculturalism in a country. There are many Malays in Malaysia who are against the NEP because it violates their notions of social justice. Malay politicians like Anwar Ibrahim have campaigned on a platform of abolishing the NEP and replacing it with a more equitable system. The lawyer who defended the right of Lina Joy to convert out of Islam is a Muslim — Malik Imtiaz Sarwar. In Malaysia, we have members of the majority speaking up for disenfranchised minorities—something unheard of in today’s Singapore.
The watershed Malaysian election of 2008 revealed that many voters were actually crossing racial lines. In Singapore, the entrenched idea that voters only vote for their own race led to the formation of the Group Constituency Representative scheme, where minority candidates supposedly piggyback on the appeal of a Chinese candidate in a Chinese-majority ward (meaning all wards in Singapore) to get into Parliament.
Cultural producers such as Yasmin Ahmad also provide a glimpse into the active conversations on race in Malaysia. The advertisements by the visionary director Yasmin Ahmad are a case in point. Yasmin’s work (Tan Hong Ming, How to spell Dinosaur, From Madrass) not only convinced me that Malaysia wasn’t a scary country ripped asunder by NEP-apartheid, but also made me wonder why we don’t make such vignettes celebrating our racial plurality in Singapore.
In his National Day Rally address to the Malay community, the Prime Minister said, ‘Malay/Muslim Singaporeans have developed your own distinct identity. You have become different from Malays in Malaysia, Indonesia or Brunei. When abroad, you want to be identified as Singaporeans first.’
This is a mystifying statement. I wonder if the PM said something similar to the Chinese community: “You have become different from Chinese in China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau, Indonesia, Thailand or Malaysia.” But the subtext is of course the issue of Malay loyalty to the state. 44 years after Independence, the Malay community still finds that it has to demonstrate its willingness to defend the country in the event of armed conflict with neighbouring countries.
Seen in this light, I shouldn’t be too hard on Khartini. There is something strategic in her renunciation of Malay Malaysians. One detects a hidden oath of allegiance in her exaggeration of differences: ‘Malay Malaysians and Singaporeans live in different political and social realities’. One could forgive the shoddy sociology, the simplistic us-vs-them posturing in her article. Ultimately, the fact that Malays in Singapore need to constantly defend their nationalist credentials says a lot more about Singapore’s multiculturalism than a corridor of neighbours who are Chinese, Malay, Indian—and perhaps Eurasian.
——
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
148)Alfian
Read .Thanks for the reply.Will join you in other topic.
dear alfian,
“the lady doth protest too much, methinks” was my initial take upon reading khartini’s piece.
however as a malaysian who is quite tired of her own countrymen (the malay malaysians in particular) always being so ready to believe the “story” of the dismal plight of the malay minority in singapore, probably to feed a similar sense of superiority that’s been alluded to ms khartini here, i couldn’t help but also went “you tell ‘em, girl!”. :D
you see, from friends and family in singapore, i know that the actual situation is probably somewhere in the middle. so i saw khartini’s “protest” as quite an understandable reaction.
until i read your take and all the comments here, i wasn’t aware of the spectrum of hues that are visible only to her countrymen . it has been really enlightening and thought-provoking, to say the least. thank you!
The PAP idea of patriotism seems to entail animosity toward Malaysia. Being proud to be Singaporean is always being linked to being “better than Malaysia.” This shows the extent to which the idea of Singaporean patriotism – and the very notion of what Singapore is – is dominated by the personal emotions and ambitions of the PAP. A culturally mature and genuine nation will need to look farther back for its historical roots and identity – outside of and before PAP and Raffles – and it will find the ability to be proud to be Singapore, AND proud to be part of the Malay world and wider Southeast Asia at the same time.
And this vain but ongoing attempt to get Singaporean Malays to hate and be embarrassed of Malaysia is not producing Malay pride in Singapore. It only increases the sense of alienation. Even if Malaysia – and the Muslim world in general – really were a wreck like the Sraits Times describes it, I don’t see how shoving their noses in it is supposed to make Malays proud of being Singaporean. In fact, how can anyone be proud of being “Singaporean” if the greatness of Singapore is LKY’s doing alone? It seems that only he has the right to be ‘proud’.
Alfian,
I am fortunate to have found you in discussing “Malay” here in this site. I can’t find “sparring partner” like you in Malaysian sites as Malays in Malaysia find this rather “sensitive”, more so if Islam or Muslim is dragged into discussion. I find it quite weird even though we are living in internet age. This is why I say there is very strong correlation in Malay-Muslim. I prefer to us ‘hyphen’ instead of ‘oblique’. In the context of ‘-’, it signifies ‘strong’ correlation while ‘/’ , weak correlation.
Maybe in the context of Malay Singaporean, “/” is more suitable as per what you commented “apostasy law in Singapore. In addition, if a Muslim wishes to marry a non-Muslim, there is no compulsion on the non-Muslim partner to convert to Islam–they can register their marriage under civil law.” This weaker correlation, to me is one of the differences between Malays of both countries.
Personally, I am long to see this weaker correlation in Malays Malaysian, as if the correlation is strong, then emphasis of Islamic values, rightly or wrongly, overshadowed Malay values. “Policing” of compliance of Islamic values is getting tighter in term of dressing code, forbid to drink beer, forbid close proximity and so on. I believe, this ‘policing’ is not happening in Singapore. In a way, this will lead to more apparent differences among Malays in Singapore and Malaysia. It is this weaker correlation that allows you all to mix freely with other ethnics of Singaporeans. Perhaps, this is what Khartina was talking about the polarization that she observed during her stay in Malaysia. Then, who knows, she does not need to emphasise the word ‘Malay’ in being a Proud Singaporean.
As a minority in Malaysia, perhaps I can understand how Malays in Singapore feel. But, one thing for sure, you people are fortunate to be in a system that works with merits. NEP, in essence is good, but was screwed up by its implementation.
Maybe the Malays in Malaysia should think this way, if the Malays in Singapore can prosper or excel without clutch, why not us? Having said this, not all Malays in Malaysia are in favour of NEP. You have mentioned some in your article, and there are many more. If not, tsunami 308 won’t happen.
I must qualify here that I am not here to criticize Malay, Muslim or Islam. Human’s interpretations on Islamic teachings can be very much different to an extent they give wrong perceptions of what non-Muslims have on Islam. We have seen people like Nik Aziz, Khalid Samad, Nizar, Malik Imtiaz, Haris Ibrahim, Husam give a fresh look of what true teachings of Islam, or should I say, pure Malay values that was overshadowed by too much emphasis of Islamic value compliance.
The best is still to leave religions out of politics. Alfian, I can say you are different.
There is still ethnocentrism in Singapore because the ruling elite believe and practice it too.
Comparing the people in the tiny red dot Singapore with the people in the vast green hinterland Malaysia is out of porportion on the part of Khatini.
In the land scarce city-state the population of various races is huddled by the government into small and limited space such as the high-rise HDB flats. They have no chance to live elsewhere or buy land and build houses away from the crowding people unlike in Malaysia where the people there, the Malays still live in the Malay kampungs, Indian in the estates and Chinese predominantly in the cities. Singaporeans have no choice, they have to stick and live together. That’s why they always get to bump into and see each other at the corridors, in the lifts, in the streets, in the supermall, and elsewhere…..
Alfian,
My response to your comments #145
A recent survey conducted among Malays in Malaysia showed that majority of them regard themselves as Muslim first, then Malay. I can’t recall the actual statistics but it should be more than 70%. I am not sure if the same survey is conducted among Malays in Singapore, what would be the result, but it should be the opposite, ie more than 70% regard themselves as Malay first, then Muslim. Basically because Singapore Constitution does not define who is a Malay, no apostasy law and no compulsion on the non-Muslim partner to convert to Islam. Maybe Lina Joy and her boyfriend should apply to be a Singaporean, and get her marriage registered under Singapore Civil Law.
So, this is why my statement of ““You see, Malay is probably the only ethnic in this civilization that identified itself with being a race that is a Muslim, speaks Malay and follows Malay tradition, with or without the definition in Malaysian Constitution.” where a Malay must be a Muslim, if not he or she is not a Malay.
Your statement “There are various groups where religion is actually central to their ‘ethnic’ identity; these include Judaism, Irish Catholicism, Thai Theravada Buddhism, Japanese Shintoism, etc.” is not really true, for instance, not all Japanese are Shintoist and while Thai are mainly Theravada Buddhist, they identify themselves as Thai, not Buddhist.
This is also the reason for my statement “I think it is this correlation of Malay-Muslim that bogged down the progress of the Malay race, politically as well as integration with other ethnics of the world both in Malaysia and Singapore.”, but I think I can take Singapore out of my statement. Do you have any statistics on Malay Singaporeans that are not Muslim or not regard themselves as Muslim? That would be interesting, if you have.
As for the point of Peranakan culture, you can see this culture is mainly found in Straits Settlement states of Penang, Malacca & Singapore, but not in other Malay states. Why? Do you have the answer?
About close-knit, I meant more of the negative. This is more applicable in Malaysia, which I think play a big role in racial polarization.
Anyway, it is good to learn something from you and I can appreciate more now the difference between Malays of both our countries. The wider the differences, the better perception of loyalty of Malay Singapore to your own country. Do you think so?
Dear true Malaysian,
I really hope that you don’t have to ‘cross the Causeway’ (metaphorically speaking, of course), to have this kind of conversation on Malay ethnicity and religion! As you’ve mentioned–and that’s an impressive list you’ve produced–there are Malays in Malaysia who are also engaged in promoting a kind of what has sometimes been controversially described as ‘liberal Islam’. To your list I’d also add the Sisters in Islam.
Interestingly, while ‘Malayness’ does not have a constitutional definition, there was an occasion where the state was somewhat ‘forced’ to define it. In 1987, bills were introduced in Parliament to introduce the Group Representative Constituency (GRC) scheme. The GRC scheme requires that the candidates contesting in a ward include at least one minority member. The relevant clauses in the article reads:
2) Any law made under clause (1) shall provide for —
(a) the President to designate every group representation constituency —
(i) as a constituency where at least one of the candidates in every group shall be a person belonging to the Malay community; or
(ii) as a constituency where at least one of the candidates in every group shall be a person belonging to the Indian or other minority communities;
There would also be a committee appointed to ensure that the person was ‘Malay’ or ‘Indian’:
(b) the establishment of —
(i) a committee to determine whether a person desiring to be a candidate belongs to the Malay community; and
(ii) a committee to determine whether a person desiring to be a candidate belongs to the Indian or other minority communities,
On the surface, this scheme was supposed to ensure minority representation in Parliament (it has been criticised, however, by many political observers as a system that is designed to disadvantage the opposition–the latter already finds it difficult fielding candidates for single seats, what more for wards where there are anything between 3 to 6 seats).
My personal view is that it violates a certain principle of Singapore’s proud meritocracy–that minority candidates get into Parliament by hanging on the coattails of majority-race candidates. In addition, I think the GRC system reproduces instead of diminishes communal politics–for me, each GRC seems suspiciously to look like a mini Alliance party (ie, UMNO, MCA, MIC).
Anyway, it was proposed that a Malay be legally defined as ‘someone who is Malay, Javanese, Boyanese, Bugis, Arab or any other person who is generally accepted as a member of the Malay community by that community.’ Isn’t that so…loose?
Compare this with the Malaysian constitution, where clause 2 of Article 160 defines Malay:
“Malay” means a person who professes the religion of Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language, conforms to Malay custom and -
(a) was before Merdeka Day born in the Federation or in Singapore or born of parents one of whom was born in the Federation or in Singapore, or was on that day domiciled in the Federation or in Singapore; or
(b) is the issue of such a person;
On the surface, though, this is one of the things that might distinguish Singaporean and Malaysian Malays–greater ‘religiosity’ on the part of the latter. BUT a legal definition of ‘Malayness’ does not mean it is something that is accepted by the community itself. Singaporean Malay elites protested against the government’s attempt to impose an identity on the Malays. According to research done by Dr Syed Md Khairudin Aljunied, a former head of Malay Studies in NUS prof Syed Hussein Alatas said, “Islam is very much a part of the Malay identity and the Malays–just like the Thais–cannot be dissociated from their religion”. Dr Hussin Mutalib stated that ‘the deletion of Islam is conspicuous and may not be accepted by the majority of Malays’.
So I guess my point is that legal and constitutional definitions might not accurately reflect the actual attitudes of the community. While Singapore does not have apostasy laws, there is still a significant social stigma attached to those who convert out of the religion, and even for civil marriages.
“Do you have any statistics on Malay Singaporeans that are not Muslim or not regard themselves as Muslim? That would be interesting, if you have.”
Officially, the percentage of Malays who are Muslims is 99.6% in 2000 (http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/papers/people/c2000adr-religion.pdf). To tell you the truth, I’m not quite sure what religion that remaining 0.4%, but I suspect that a majority might be Christians, because Christians in Singapore are the most aggressive proselytizers among all the religious groups. Anyway, the very fact that this group of 0.4% has not gone public on a very appreciable scale might tell us something about the kind of social stigma I mentioned above.
“As for the point of Peranakan culture, you can see this culture is mainly found in Straits Settlement states of Penang, Malacca & Singapore, but not in other Malay states. Why? Do you have the answer?”
This is an interesting question, and I don’t have an answer! But I will hazard a guess…it’s likely Peranakans originated first in Malacca, because of its status as a cosmopolitan port-city. There’s a gap in my knowledge here, because ultimately by the 19th century the Peranakans somehow developed very close links with the British community (possibly due to their usefulness as intermediaries) eventually earning them the title of the ‘King’s Chinese’ (English king, that is). Due to these links and networks, they eventually spread out to both Penang and Singapore, where the colonial administration of the Straits Settlement probably required their services.
“The wider the differences, the better perception of loyalty of Malay Singapore to your own country. Do you think so?”
The question of ‘Malay loyalty’ is so damned complex it might require an article (or even a monograph!) of its own.
But let me share with you something I’d gleaned from a book by Lai Ah Eng on multiculturalism in Singapore (Meanings of Multiethnicity: A Case-study of Ethnicity and Ethnic Relations in Singapore, 2004). Lai identified four seminal moments when the issue of Malay loyalty to Singapore was thrown into the public spotlight:
1) “The first event occurred when Malays criticized the government’s decision to invite the President of Israel to visit Singapore in 1986, on the ground of the Israeli government’s acts of aggression against Palestinians. This objection was interpreted by the Prime Minister as showing that, in certain circumstances, Singapore Malays would act more as Muslims than as Singaporeans.”
2) “The second event was a Cabinet Minister’s hint about the strength of Malay loyalty to religion, as opposed to the nation, as the reason for the government’s policy towards Malays in national service and employment in the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF)…”
3) “A third issue pertained to Malay political support for the PAP. In the 1988 post-election analysis, the First Deputy Prime Minister claimed that the PAP had lost a significant proportion of Malay votes to the opposition…”
4) “The fourth ‘incident’ concerned the allied forces’ attack on Iraq in 1991…a poll…was interpreted as Malays responding as Muslims even though they agreed that it was not a religious war.” (p. 174)
As you can see, pegging ‘loyalty’ to the indicators I’ve listed above seemed extremely arbitrary. Sometimes ‘loyalty’ is seen as being related to religiosity–the way the PAP sees it, the more religious you are, the closer you are politically to Malaysia. And then there sometimes the PAP sees it fit to equate loyalty to the political party with loyalty to the state. I think these are connections that need to be unpacked. The indignity of it all is that an immigrant population can ask an indigenous one whether it is willing to defend its own ancestral land… : (
Like it or not, our discussion here lead to a common point, i.e. Malay identity is very much linked to Islam, such link is not easy or should I say, impossible to detach, due mainly to ‘social stigma’ that you mentioned. The correlation of Malay-Muslim or Malay/Muslim is definitely there.
Also, I think it is not necessary to have a legal or official definition of “Malay” in whatever form as such definition will place a stigma in you which somehow affect integration with other communities. You can see other ethnics of the world have no such definition at all where certain religions are linked with them.
Religions, Islam inclusive, are something that we human cannot fully understood. They are not like a science of maths where something can solidly proven their logic. Too much emphasis of a religion by human being, like claiming it contains more truths than the others will invite unnecessary conflicts, and maybe misused by certain group of people.
So, my conclusion over the discussion here is, it is more meaningful to treat another person as a person per se, and disregard his or her religion or belief. It is on this basis that we can build up trust among us that is seriously lacking that I mentioned in #59 above. Only then, loyalty will not be an issue. Agree?
Thank you so much, you are just wonderful.
Alfian,
My comment #163 did not take into account your comment #159. Maybe at the time of comment, your #159 comment was under ‘moderation’.
Wow, it is indeed a eye-opener to me. I have to read through again and shall response to you if warranted.
Hi true Malaysian,
The segregation along racial lines that you have observed, in my opinion, is against the true spirit of Islam. I think there is this tendency–because of dietary restrictions among Muslims, for example–to start seeing the ‘other’ as unclean, polluted, etc. This is in addition to the idea of non-Muslims as infidels (kafir).
Faced with such intolerant behaviour, I often reflect on the verse 49:13 in the Quran, which states: ”
“O Mankind, We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know each other. Verily the most honored of you in the sight of God is he who is the most righteous of you.”
I’m not an Islamic scholar at all, but it seems clear to me the message of humanism in this verse, of universal brother(and sister)hood.
So I agree with you that we should embrace this kind of humanism–which insists that we recognise what is common (and human) between ourselves and another person, instead of obsessing about the differences. However, your suggestion that we should ‘disregard his or her religion or belief’ is perhaps not so practical, as religion, whether rightly or wrongly, has become a fundamental part of many people’s identity.
I think rather than ‘disregarding’, we can try to aim for some kind of ‘mutual respect’, which means first and foremost an acknowledgement of another person’s difference, while at the same time abstaining ascribing value-judgements to those differences. And lastly, if I may add just one tiny clarification, my views and attitudes are shaped less by the fact that I am Singaporean, and more by my own political inclinations–in my case, as a left-liberal.
This whole string of discussions–minus the unpleasant name-calling–has I think been very fruitful in demonstrating that there is a wide spectrum of political views within the Singapore Malay community. I find it very laudable that even when commentators are attacking Khartini, they are not attacking her from a racial angle, but on her supposedly conservative (and by this I mean support for the status quo) political views. Same goes for me–by and large, nobody has really called me a ‘disgruntled Malay playing the victim card’ in overt terms.
And that I think is a commendable way forward. : )
Hi Alfian,
Though you are not an Islamic scholar, I found “wisdom” in yourself that I cannot find in many Ulama and many politicians that claim they fight in the name of Islam. It is lack of this “wisdom” in them that resulted in many wrong perceptions that non-Muslim had on Islam.
Well, my “disregarding” was misconstrued by you. It carries the same meaning as what you comment, i.e. “mutual respect”. My “disregarding” is not one of “blatantly”.
Overall, I can see “maturity” over here. Such topic of Malay and Islam is a taboo to many, especially in Malaysia, as in many instances, accusation of anti-Islam, anti-Malay will be shot at you even before the discussion starts.
All in all, it is important to build up trust among ourselves as trust create bonds that hold us together where a little misunderstanding can be disregarded or dissolved with ease.
On topic of GRC and what constitutes a Malay for the election requirement, I would have to digest properly first, before I share my view over here.
Alfian, I found sincerity in you even though we have not met each other. This is why I always tell people, internet technology is the greatest invention that mankind could ever had.
I thank you again for sharing, Alfian.
Hi Alfian Sa’at, you write beautifully and thought provokingly on this interesting subject but, I would say, from your perspective as one indignant Malay who feels hopelessly marginalized in the very land that he considers should rightfully belong to the Malays. I think the Malays brought this upon themselves. Let me give my impressions as a neutral peranakan Singaporean.
When the British first set foot here they were dealing with the Temengongs and Sultans with wholly Malays as their subjects. There were practically no Chinese or Indians to speak of then as they were only brought in by the British much later on from China and India. So it was the Temengongs and Sultans who did all the dealing and wheeling with the British resulting in the Malays being short-changed and ultimately losing their land to the immigrant population. If this was a historical blunder this was not the first one.
History gave them a second chance to redeem themselves and they blundered yet again by letting Singapore go out of Malaysia. It was plain Malay dominance in Malaysia. The armed forces and the police were largely populated and controlled by the Malays to effect any changes they wanted to suit their agenda. The Malay political leadership could have given itself more time to explore other ways to keep Malaysia intact and deal differently with Mr. Lee Kuan Yew and his close political associates who were considered a grave security threat to nationhood and Malay supremacy. One possible manner of dealing with the PAP and possibly defeating them electorally as well would have been for the Alliance Government leaders to clandestinely negotiate and strike a bargain with the incarcerated leftist leaders of the Barisan Socialis, to take on the PAP, the sworn enemy to both camps, at the next polls to be conducted in Singapore. As long as the leftists swear their allegiance to Malaysia and undertake to engage in political participation within the provisions provided for in the Constitution, they could be allowed to rule Singapore should they win the election. The first step would be to release them unconditionally. The next step would be to detain Mr. Lee and his close aides under the Internal Security Act and declare emergency rule in Singapore paving way for election to be held within 3 to 6 months. Things would have changed dramatically irrespective of PAP or Barisan winning the election, making Singapore’s exit from Malaysia certainly a non-event.
Singapore being circumspect in deploying Malays in sensitive posts and sensitive areas is something that will continue for sometime to come and perhaps justifiably so I would say. The reasons are plenty and a lot to do with religion that has a propensity to sway minds and emotions intractably. I will elaborate on this on another posting at a suitable time.
Hi Alfian Sa’at, you write beautifully and thought provokingly on this interesting subject but, I would say, from your perspective as one indignant Malay who feels hopelessly marginalized in the very land that he considers should rightfully belong to the Malays. I think the Malays brought this upon themselves. Let me give my impressions as a neutral peranakan Singaporean.
When the British first set foot here they were dealing with the Temengongs and Sultans with wholly Malays as their subjects. There were practically no Chinese or Indians to speak of then as they were only brought in by the British much later on from China and India. So it was the Temengongs and Sultans who did all the dealing and wheeling with the British resulting in the Malays being short-changed and ultimately losing their land to the immigrant population. If this was a historical blunder this was not the first one.
History gave them a second chance to redeem themselves and they blundered yet again by letting Singapore go out of Malaysia. It was plain Malay dominance in Malaysia. The armed forces and the police were largely populated and controlled by the Malays to effect any changes they wanted to suit their agenda. The Malay political leadership could have given itself more time to explore other ways to keep Malaysia intact and deal differently with Mr. Lee Kuan Yew and his close political associates who were considered a grave security threat to nationhood and Malay supremacy. One possible manner of dealing with the PAP and possibly defeating them electorally as well would have been for the Alliance Government leaders to clandestinely negotiate and strike a bargain with the incarcerated leftist leaders of the Barisan Socialis, to take on the PAP, the sworn enemy to both camps, at the next polls to be conducted in Singapore. As long as the leftists swear their allegiance to Malaysia and undertake to engage in political participation within the provisions provided for in the Constitution, they could be allowed to rule Singapore should they win the election. The next step would be to detain Mr. Lee and his close aides under the Internal Security Act and declare emergency rule in Singapore paving way for election to be held within 3 to 6 months. Things would have changed dramatically irrespective of PAP or Barisan winning the election, making Singapore’s exit from Malaysia certainly a non-event.
Singapore being circumspect in deploying Malays in sensitive posts and sensitive areas is something that will continue for sometime to come and perhaps justifiably so I would say. The reasons are plenty and a lot to do with religion that has a propensity to sway minds and emotions intractably. I will elaborate on this on another posting at a suitable time.
I am sorry. The posting is repeated.
Dear K Das,
You’re mistaken if you think I consider Singapore as ‘belonging to the Malays’. I have never espoused such a view before, and I do hope that you do not attribute it to me.
The idea of ‘Malays bringing it upon themselves’ is an old one–the argument is: ‘you don’t have anyone to blame but yourself for the geopolitical and demographic realities of Singapore today’.
Just to put a few historical events in perspective, the ‘sultans and temenggongs’ did not engage in ‘wheeling and dealing’. We’re not given the full context of the Raffles’ arrival in our school history books, but it tends to be reduced to a story of how the Temenggong and Sultan, motivated by greed, ‘sold the land’ to the British.
The truth was much more complex. There was a succession dispute after the death of Sultan Mahmud Shah, ruler of the Johor-Riau empire. Raffles exploited the rivalry between his sons, namely Tengku Long and Tengku Abdul Rahman. The Dutch and the Bugis supported the latter. Since Tengku Abdul Rahman, under the influence of the Dutch, would never allow a British base to be set up in Singapore, the British hatched a plan where they would install Tengku Long as the new Sultan of Johor.
But Tengku Long (later known as Sultan Hussein) was never more than a puppet ruler. The myth of Malay rulers selling off land to the British is perpetuated because Singapore’s history is reluctant to paint the manoeuvres of the British colonials as cunning and exploitative. To do so would raise the difficult question of historical redress–if what the British had done was considered unjust (ie, playing the royal brothers against each other, amputating Singapore from the Riau islands), then how does one’s nationalist movement correct this wrong? Obviously, in Malaysia, this was through restoration of power back to the (constitutional) monarchy. Such an option, of course, was never considered in Singapore…
Dear Alfian,
I got the impression, by reading this specific commentary and other related articles of yours, that you are a genuinely aggrieved son of the soil Malay over the loss of ancestral motherland. Honestly I did not write to mean it in an offensive sort of way. Perhaps I should have nuanced and crafted my thoughts more carefully. On the contrary I see and admire you as a bright, outspoken and open-minded Singaporean. I am glad you clarified your stand unequivocally. My sincere apology for any offence caused.
If we accept the concept – and many do – that by historical origin any land should deem to belong to the natives or original settlers of the land and not to later-day conquerors or occupiers, then India, Burma, Malaya and Singapore should not have become the land of the British Empire, Indonesia as an outreach archipelago of the Dutch or Philippines that of Spanish Occupation or in current times Hawaii as a state and Guam as protectorate of the US. History of the victors is not necessarily the history of truth. The losers have a different story to tell which may be nearer the truth, if not truth itself.
May honest free thoughts and expressions flourish on TOC.
For K Das to say “The armed forces and the police were largely populated and controlled by the Malays” is not appropriate. Populated yes but not controlled. K Das has to understand the whole situation in Malaysia, there are many reasons why non-Malay Malaysians are reluctant to join armed forces and the Police. The main reasons, to me, are remuneration package and prospect for promotion. I believe many of the non-Malay Malaysians had no qualm on this so long as the responsibilities of these security personnel are executed in impartial and fair manner. The word “controlled” that K Das used is simply inappropriate to me. Let say, if Pakatan Rakyat take over Federal Government next round, and introduce changes in policy in this regard, the security forces will still be largely populated by the Malays simply because they are the majority race here. But, new policies will definitely attract more non-Malay Malaysians to join these forces. At the end of the days, the manner of executing their responsibilities is what matter here, not race.
As to the historical facts touched by K Das, I think the best is to leave it behind as history. We cannot live in history, am I right here?
Assuming PAP does not enact Land Acquisition Act and most Malay live in Kampong.
Sooner or later, our world class infrastructure will be built in front of their doorstep and most will be superrich. There is no need of Mendaki whatsoever.
Well, this unjust Act affects not only Malay but many poor in Singapore. We can conclude that it is PAP take our wealth, then force the clutch (assistance) to us. The Act can only be justified for national development purpose and its profit must benefit Singaporean.
Whats going on now is PAP plunder our land, then resell HDB back us at a price we cannot stomach. And worse, there is no differentiation in open HDB market between local and foreigner and that does no exclude foreigner that took up our citizenship recently.
Hey 167 K Das,
How can you called yourself
“a neutral peranakan Singaporean”. LOL. Once u engaged in such debate, you are tainted…
150) 17-yr-old
/////// I might be an ignorant 17-year-old, but I don’t think I’ll be proud ever, after hearing horror stories of discrimination against malays in the workplace. /////////
You will be less ignorant and even wiser if you examine the source of your horror stories :
Because there are alway many sides to the stories, for example, the victims’ side, the perceived victims’ side.
I know a lady cleaner who is a model worker, really passionately cleaning the block like it is her home.
I know a building maintenance technician is at the other extreme end of the spectrum, who truly believes he is paid to do nothing all day, and find all way to evade work.
Dear K Das,
I understand how you might have arrived at your impression. I often look back at the past and find myself struck at how much Singapore was, in many ways, the modern and intellectual centre of the Malay world–in areas such as cinema, literature, publishing, even as an embarkation for Muslims in the region who wish to take a ship to Mecca for their pilgrimage.
But this does not mean that ‘Singapore belonged to the Malays’. It makes my hair stand each time I hear another Malaysian ethno-nationalist make a statement like that–ie, this is the land of the Malays. If they really want to extend that kind of rhetoric, why not try re-conquering Southern Thailand, or even the Riau islands? Why attempt to bully the non-Malays there by relegating their status to that of ‘newcomers’ and ‘guests’?
As for your point about that the Tunku might have done to Lee Kuan Yew, well, the Tunku never really wanted Singapore to be part of the Federation in the first place. It was LKY who had to convince him, by raising the possibility that Singapore might develop into a communist holdout, a ‘Cuba in Malaysia’s backyard’. Joining the Federation would thus provide a solution to ‘containing’ Singapore’s leftward slide. In many ways, Singapore would benefit more from a merger with Malaysia (including access to raw material-rich hinterland and a domestic market) than vice-versa.
I do think that after the British had colonised Singapore, thus extracting it from both the Riau and Johorean spheres of influence, there was no turning back. It would have been different if the states in Malaysia were all governed in the same way–but as you’d know, there were the Federated Malay states, the Unfederated Malay states, the Straits Settlement, all with their own systems of administrative rule.
Also, the formation of the Malayan Union in 1946 did not include Singapore, so this gives as a clue as to how ‘separate’ Singapore had been from the rest of the Peninsula. The Tunku might have been seen to have ‘blundered’ for allowing Singapore’s independence, but one could say the same about LKY–his dream of a ‘Malaysian Malaysia’ was dashed, and he could not position himself as the champion of Chinese rights in Malaysia.
To true Malaysian:
Yes, it’s been a great pleasure having these discussions with you. I don’t find many non-Malay Singaporeans actually who are really interested in issues of what constitutes Malay identity, so it’s been refreshing. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if our paths were to cross, in real life, one day. : )
Alfian,
I won’t be surprised, either. You are the enlightened one, cheers.
Mind you, I am good in written and spoken Malay, and I am proud of this.
Terima kasih. Saya dapat banyak manafaat daripada kamu. Semoga kamu sentias sihat walafiat, kawan baru saya, Alfian.
Seriously, non-Malay Singaporean should learn Malay language. It helps to create cosy relationsip, and trust that I was talking about.
Cik “A true Malaysia”,
Jangan susa hati. Aku orang Malaysia juga pada tahun 1963 to 1965. Sakarang aku sudah pencen. Saya bersekolah Tiong Hua. Tetapi, Saya berbahasa English dan bahasa kebangsaan.
Sedikit sedikit, lama lama, jadi bukit.
Cik jy,
Saya bukan susah hati, tetapi rindukan budaya Melayu yang peramah, murah hati dan tidak keterlaluan dalam kehidupan seharian yang semakin puput atas sebab-sebab yang tertentu. Saya rasa sangat gembira dapat kawan-kawan Melayu Singapura baru seperti kamu dan Alfian menerusi blog ini.
Harap-harap anda dapat menikmati kehidupan pencen yang sempurna dan bahagia.
For the benefit of the all, I translated my above comment into English,
Mr. ly,
I am not sad here but miss dearly the Malay culture which is of friendly, kind hearted and not extreme in their daily live, which is fast diminishing due to certain factors. I am very happy to make new friends like you and Alfian over here in this blog.
Sincerely hope to see you enjoying your pension live with content and happiness.
Dear 178 “A True Malaysian”,
Well, do not be too disheartened.
I always remind my friends… what is happening in Malaysia is not a racial or religious issue. It is PEOPLE IN POWER ARE USING RACIAL AND RELIGIOUS ISSUES FOR THEIR OWN SELFISH END.
Whilst I am a born Singaporean, my wife was born in Pahang 62 years ago. In the course of work, I do have many colleagues who were ethnicially Malay.
In the course of my work, I did not take notice of the racial origins of my colleague. Our main concerns were; how to get the job done. Those who did well were rewared and those who did not; would not be as well compensated.
Coming back to Malaysia, like me cite May 13 like some UMNO politicians. I was in campus when the riot broke out and I have since followed the development very closely.
Which were the states where the riots were at its worst? Penang and KL/Selangor. Why? These were the two sates where BN suffered the most severe set back like the recent elections.
During May 13, which were the most peaceful states? Johor, Pahang, Kelantan, Kedah were the most peaceful despite the fact that Islam and Malay were strongest. These were the most obvious indication that race and religion had nothing to do with May 13.
Penang and KL suffered the most because BN’s power were severely threatened and they, led by Dato Harun (perhaps with the consent of Tun Razak) resorted to the most extreme measures to safeguard their political interest… and the rest is history….
So my friend, Malays and Islam are basically good… continue to make friends and interact with Malays and Muslims.. work with good people to make Malaysia truly Asia… Selamat Malam…
By the way, my wife and I will be spending our Hari Raya in Kluang next week…
JY
Dear JY,
Selamat Hari Raya in advance to you, your wife and family. Drive carefully while in Johor.
“I always remind my friends… what is happening in Malaysia is not a racial or religious issue. It is PEOPLE IN POWER ARE USING RACIAL AND RELIGIOUS ISSUES FOR THEIR OWN SELFISH END.” …..How true your statement, I couldn’t agree with you more.
“In the course of my work, I did not take notice of the racial origins of my colleague. Our main concerns were; how to get the job done. Those who did well were rewared and those who did not; would not be as well compensated.” ……. How nice if this is applicable to Malaysia. I am not saying this does not happens in Malaysia, but rare.
“So my friend, Malays and Islam are basically good… continue to make friends and interact with Malays and Muslims.” …… yes, this is what I say all the while and there are many values that non-Malays can learn from the Malays.
Well, Jy, keep up with your good spirits and keep on contribute your thoughts in virtual world. If you can, allocate more of your time in Malaysian blogs, we need your inputs to make Malaysia “Truly Asia”. I sincerely believe both of our countries and work and complement each other in all areas.
You can start with this blog http://hsudarren.wordpress.com/ . We are all colour blind here.
Singapore is the role-model country for ASEAN (and world) too for its meritocracy concept, but I am not 100% proud to be a Singaporean Malay until;
1) Malays are no longer forbidden by to be housed in large group in any HDB flats.
2) Malay schoolgirl allowed to wear tudung to school
3) Mosques allowed to use loudspeakers
4) Malays can join the RSN
Enuf said!
alfian
I love u babe!
I’m a Malay Singaporean and I will defend my own homeland when needed. Thank You!
Definition of Malay in Singapore is different from Malaysia
An Arab is considered as Other Races on his or her Clinic card, HDB , Army etc
Indian Muslims are Indians not Malay
Chinese Muslim as Chinese not Malay
Malays are Malays of Malaysia, Orang Laut Singapura, Malays of Singapore , Javanese, Bugis, Madurese, Sundanese, Bajau and even Filipinos
A Filipina neighbour who got a PR recently is Malay on her PR IC, like Indonesians they can opt for to Put philipino or indonesian or bugis , javanese etc
The Non Muslims minorities in "Malay" statistics are Batak Christians and some Filipinos who opted to put Malay. Filipinos are of a Malay race, They were supposed to name their country Malaysia but Tengku grabbed it first
Malays in Singapore are better educated etc but they still Malays, have a great relationship with Malays in malaysia and Indonesians and have great relationships with Chinese and Indians and other races, they are proud to be Malay.
Their only rights are Education ( Free ) but most rich Malays opted to Pay, Voluntarily
Facts .