Berita Harian (Singapore): The Singaporean Malay... by Guntor Sadali

Berita Harian (Singapore):  The Singaporean Malay... by Guntor Sadali

Speech by Berita Harian editor Guntor Sadali, at the Berita Harian Achiever of the Year Awards ceremony on July 28, 2010 

Date: 30 July 2010                        

It is a fact known to all that Malays in Singapore is a minority. However this minority is quite different from other minorities in the world.  Similarly, to some, Singapore is just a red dot in this vast Asian region.  But it is no ordinary red dot.

It is a grave mistake to equate size with ability, just as it is wrong to assume that being small and in the minority is to be weak and insignificant.

The recent World Cup proved this. While Spain may be the world champion, it was minnow Switzerland that became the only country in the tournament that was able to defeat Spain.

Forty-five years have passed since Singapore left Malaysia, yet every now and then we still hear non-complimentary comments from across the Causeway about the Malay community here.  

The latest came from former Malaysian Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who casually reminded Malaysian Malays not to become like Singaporean Malays. He did not make it clear what he actually meant, but the comment was made in the context of the possibility of Malaysian Malays losing their power in Malaysia. Again he did not specify what type of power, but it could safely be interpreted as political power.

Now, what could have happened to the Malays here in the last four decades? What could have driven Dr Mahathir to voice his concern and to caution the Malaysian Malays? I wonder.  The Malay community in Singapore, of course, know what has become of us here.

First and foremost, we have become a completely different community from what we were 45 years ago. We have developed our own identity and philosophy of life that are distinct from our relatives across the Causeway. We may wear the same clothes, eat the same food, speak the same language and practise the same culture. However, the similarities end there.

We are now a society that uphold the philosophy of wanting to stand on our own feet, or what is known in Malay as ‘berdikari’ or ‘berdiri atas kaki sendiri’. We do not believe in being spoon-fed or being too dependent on government help. In other words, we do not have a crutch mentality.  We firmly believe that a community with such a crutch mentality will soon become a “two M” community - the first ‘M’ stands for ‘manja’ (spoilt), and the second for ‘malas’ (lazy).

We definitely do not want to be labeled as a pampered and lazy community.  That is why our Malay community here constantly work hard to raise funds to build our own mosques, madrasahs and other buildings in expensive and land-scarce Singapore. Over the years we have raised millions of dollars to become proud owners of these buildings. Through our own efforts and with the help of other organizations, we have also helped the needy not only financially, but also in equipping them with new skills so that they can earn their living.

For Dr Mahathir, however, all that we have done and achieved so far are not good enough. He takes a negative view of our changed attitudes and different mindset, and has therefore cautioned Malaysian Malays not to be like us. What about power? For Malays in Singapore, power is not about wielding the keris.

For us, knowledge is power. In fact we believe that knowledge is THE real power. The constant emphasis by the community on the importance of education and acquiring knowledge has led to the formation of institutions such as Mendaki, Association of Muslim Professionals (AMP), the Prophet Mohamad Birthday Memorial Scholarship Board (LBKM) and many others. 

These self-help organizations not only provide financial help to needy students, but also strive to nurture our students to their full potential. At the same time, these organisations help to tackle various social ills faced by the community. Again, we do these all on our own.

Malay children here attend the same schools as other Singaporeans with a shared aim - to obtain a holistic education and, of course, achieve good examination results. Yes, it is tough. Like all other children, our Malay students have no choice but to work hard. It is a reality of life in Singapore that we have come to accept - that there is certainly no short cut to success.

We do not believe in getting any special treatment, because it would only reduce the value of our achievements and lower our dignity. The meritocratic system that we practise here is, without doubt, a tough system but it helps us to push ourselves and prevent us from becoming ‘manja’ and ‘malas’.

Still, Dr Mahathir and some Malay leaders across the Causeway do not like the way we do things here and have therefore warned Malaysian Malays not to be like us. On our part, there is certainly no turning back.

Meritocracy has proven to be a good and fair system. It pushes us to work hard and makes us proud of our achievements. We can see how it has benefitted us by looking at the growing number of doctors, lawyers, magistrates, engineers, corporate leaders and other professionals among us.

It is the successes and achievements of some of these people that Berita Harian wants to highlight and celebrate when we launched this Achiever Award 12 years ago. Tonight, we have another role model to present to our community.

So, the question is: Shouldn’t our friends and relatives across the Causeway be like us - Malays in Singapore? It is definitely not for us to suggest or decide. And we too have no intention of asking our own community if we would like to be like them either, because we have already chosen our very own path for the future.

We, the Malays in Singapore, should be proud of our achievements, because we have attained them through hard work. It is true that what we have achieved so far may not be the best, and that we are still lagging behind the other races. There are large pockets in our community facing various social problems.

We have achieved so much, and yet there is still a long way to go. But we should not despair. We can do a lot more on our own if the community stay united and cohesive. In critical issues, we should speak with one voice. We need to help and strengthen each other while at the same time reach out to the other communities in multi-racial, multi-religious Singapore.

A successful and prosperous Singapore can only mean a successful and prosperous Malay community. 

malaysiakini: Self-interest in Kuan Yew's 'anguish' over M'sia... by Joe Fernandez

Self-interest in Kuan Yew's 'anguish' over M'sia

Joe Fernandez
malaysiakini, Sep 15, 2010
3:44pm

 

COMMENT Singapore Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, 87 tomorrow, is predictable on Malaysia - which coincidentally emerged on Sept 16 - in his interview on Sept 1 with the New York Times/International Herald Tribune (NYT/IHT). 

Malaysia is the main item in his 'regrets' category as he looks back on his long life.

He's still "teary-eyed" - although his crocodile tears, as referred to by Tunku Abdul Rahman - should have dried up a long time ago as he sees a nation, which he "fought so hard to bring together", unraveling before his very eyes across the causeway.

This is a common observation among many non-Malays, if not Malays, in the country and Singapore: "Malaysia is really a beautiful country. God made it that way. But just look at what's happening to it?"

Lee (left) will probably have several more years of "anguish" - if that's the right word - over Malaysia, his faculties still intact, if the Gods that he denies permit him continued good health. 

After that anything goes. It will really be tragic if Lee has to spend his last days like his wife, bed-ridden and unable to speak since a stroke two years back. This must be doing Lee in as well, although he puts up a brave front.

The major difference between Singapore and Malaysia, under the ruling elite, remains the same today as it was in 1965 when the city state was booted out of the new federation after two years.

There's no denying the fact that the ruling elite are squatting on all Malaysians under the guise of standing up for Malay and bumiputera rights. It was Lee himself who thundered just before the expulsion of Singapore from Malaysia: "If they (the Malay elite in Kuala Lumpur) think that they can squat on us and get away with it, they are sadly mistaken."

Fifty-odd years later, squatting is also the main complaint of Hindraf Makkal Sakthi - the ad hoc apolitical movement which initially began as a reaction against the conversion of Everest hero M Moorthy ostensibly to Islam - which marshaled nearly 100,000 people to take to the streets in late 2007 to send shivers down the spine of the ruling elite.

Lee clearly did not describe Malaysia as a failed state, as Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin claims, or even close to it. Khairy's over-reaction is probably a case of "siapa makan cili, dia yang rasa pedasnya" (whoever eats chilli, will feel its burn).

What Lee is saying is that Malaysia has not done well, obviously compared with Singapore, and could have done better. He's also saying that Singapore could have done even better had Malaysia done better, whether the city state is within or outside the country.

Why Malaysia has not done as well as it should have is not exactly the best kept secret in the world.

There's a ruling elite in Malaysia, the same elite that Lee thundered at in 1965, that has managed to hoodwink a large portion of the rural vote bank to back its long stay in power in cahoots with the non-Malay elite. Between them, they have done in the rest of the nation.

The story behind the story

It would be pointless belabouring the various issues which Lee has raised in pointing out the dilemma that Malaysia faces today. He has mentioned the Indians, Chinese, the Chinese language, Tamil, English, Bahasa Malaysia, the education system, and the effort to turn Malaysia into a solely Malay-run country with only Malays occupying all key posts, among others.

We need to get behind Lee's rhetoric, true as it is. He was mindful of Singapore's commercial interests in not telling the story behind the story.

For starters, the entire structure of the ruling BN leaves a lot to be desired. The BN concept circumscribes the democratic process by tacitly endorsing elite "power-sharing" and denying the grassroots meaningful participation in elections, and by extension, nation-building. In reality, the non-Malays in BN are elected by Malay votes, having long been discredited by their own communities.

Umno, the ruling party, has a hidden self-serving agenda behind euphemisms like power-sharing, the BN spirit, and consensus-and-compromise.

They have hijacked Article 153 of the federal constitution from the King and indulged in gross deviations and distortions of the New Economic Policy (1970-1990) to serve a handful in the ruling elite and their fat cats in tow.

Behind the BN facade, the ruling elite has been making hay the last 50-odd years while the sun shone, stealing the people's sweat from the public treasury through government projects that they award themselves through nominees.

This has seen government procurements and projects costing the taxpayer twice, three times and even up to ten times what it should actually cost. The fact that the national debt burden has been estimated to be as high as 70 percent of the gross domestic product should therefore come as no surprise.

To camouflage the entire scam, every issue in Malaysia is twisted and turned into a racial issue to scare the Malays into circling the wagons and gathering under one political platform i.e. Umno. So, the party hopes to remain in power in perpetuity under this colonial-style divide-and-rule tactics even if it means that the rest of the country has to go to the dogs.
 

Umno toning down on its racist rhetoric since 2008 has seen the entry of Perkasa, led by Pasir Mas MP Ibrahim Ali and endorsed by former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad, to take up the slack.

If Mahathir feels that the Malays still need defending after 53 years of independence, the question that arises is whether he has been tending to their needs during his long innings in power or his own.

Malaysia, Lee would probably agree, needs to get away from the BN and the sooner the better. Of course, Lee himself is exactly in no position to preach here as his People's Action Party (PAP) has also been in power since independence.

The PAP's long stay in power aside, Lee would no doubt point to the fact that unlike BN, it is not race-based and cannot be accused of squatting on the Singaporeans in the manner that Umno has done in Malaysia.

Among the poorest states

Also perhaps preying on Lee's conscience is the fact that Sabah and Sarawak are among the poorest states in Malaysia today, as virtual colonies of Malaya, despite vast land reserves and oil and gas resources.

Sabah only agreed to Malaysia after the late Donald Stephens was persuaded by Lee. Malaya needed Sabah and Sarawak to balance the bigger number of Chinese with the entry of Singapore into the federation. 

True, Lee had no way of knowing that his island was going to be kicked out soon from the federation.

Had Sabah stayed out of the federation, Sarawak would have stayed out too like Brunei at the 11th hour and there would have been no Malaysia. Singapore would have in fact done well by itself, just as it has done since 1965.

There was no need for Lee to push for merger with Malaya but he did. His fear of a communist takeover of the island was much greater than other considerations including the welfare of the people in Sabah and Sarawak. 

But Lee wanted the breathing spell that Malaysia gave him, albeit for two years, to enable him to consolidate the PAP's iron grip on the city state.

JOE FERNANDEZ is Malaysiakini's Sabah pointman who feels compelled to put pen to paper when something doesn't quite jell with his weltanschauung (worldview). He readily admits that there's a demon in him at times, urging him on.

TMI: Race relations better if Singapore not ‘turfed out’, says LKY

Race relations better if Singapore not ‘turfed out’, says LKY

By Clara Chooi

TMI, September 13, 2010

 

KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 13 — A near half century has passed, but Singapore’s founding father Lee Kuan Yew still strongly believes that Malaysians would be enjoying his city-state’s brand of nationalism and multi-racialism today, if both nations had not been split in 1965.
In an interview with the New York Times, the 86-year-old Minister Mentor reflectively expressed that the first regret he had of his colourful career was having been “turfed out” of Malaysia.

The published interview did not feature his remarks on Malaysia. They were contained in a transcript of the interview published on the official website of Singapore’s prime minister’s office.

In his conversation with the New York Times, Lee claimed that if Malaysia’s founding father Tunku Abdul Rahman had decided to keep both nations together 45 years ago, much of what Singapore had achieved today in terms of equality among the races would be likewise be achieved in Malaysia.

“I think if the Tunku had kept us together, what we did in Singapore, had Malaysia accepted a multiracial base for their society, much of what we’ve achieved in Singapore would be achieved in Malaysia,” he said, according to the transcript of the interview, conducted on September 1.

Lee, Singapore’s longest serving prime minister, claimed that if Singapore had not seceded from the then-Federation of Malaya, Malaysia would today have improved inter-racial relations and an improved holistic situation.

“Now we have a very polarised Malaysia — Malays, Chinese and Indians in separate schools, living separate lives and not really getting on with one another. You read them. That’s bad for us as close neighbours,” he said.

He pressed on with his belief that all ethnic communities should free themselves from the shackles of racial segregation in order to promote fairness and equality among the races.

Lee says Malaysia was now very polarised, with Malays, Chinese and Indians in separate schools, living separate lives and not really getting on with each other.

 

This, he said, was his one greatest satisfaction in helming Singapore.
“We made quite sure whatever your race, language or religion, you are an equal citizen and we’ll drum that into the people and I think our Chinese understand and today we have an integrated society.

“We will not as a majority squeeze the minority because once we’re by ourselves, the Chinese become the majority,” he said.

Lee took a dig at the Malaysian scenario, pointing out that the Singaporean Malays were English-educated and were no longer like the Malaysian Malays.

“You can see there are some still wearing headscarves but (are) very modern looking,” he said.
Lee noted that using racial politics was the “easy way”, claiming that if he had used this method in Singapore to gain the majority vote, its society would eventually be destroyed.

“Because if you play it that way, if you have dissension, if you chose the easy way to Muslim votes and switch to racial politics, this society is finished.

“The easiest way to get majority vote is — vote for me, we’re Chinese, they’re Indians, they’re Malays.
“Our society will be ripped apart. If you do not have a cohesive society, you cannot make progress,” he said.

He explained that while he was satisfied with race relations in Singapore, it still remained his regret that this could not have been done on a larger scale together with Malaysia.

As such, Lee expressed fear that the next generation of Singaporeans would take his achievements for granted and allow them to eventually phase out.

“The regret is there’s such a narrow base to build this enormous edifice so I’ve got to tell the next generation, please do not take for granted what’s been built.

“If you forget that this is a small island which we are built upon, and reach a 100-storey high tower block and may go up to 150 (storeys) if you are wise.

“But if you believe that it’s permanent, it will come tumbling down and you will never get a second chance,” he predicted.

Lee also cautioned the youth of today that racial harmony was not something that could be placed on “auto-pilot”, reminding them that the social network connecting the different racial communities was a fragile web that could easily be destroyed.

“I believe they (the youth) have come to believe that this (racial harmony) is a natural state of affairs, and they can take liberties with it. I know this is never so.

“We (Singapore government) have crafted a set of very intricate rules — no housing blocks shall have more than a percentage of so many Chinese, Indians, Malays. All are thoroughly mixed.

“Your neighbours are Indians, Malays, you go to the same shopping malls, the same schools, same playing fields, you go up and down the same lifts — we cannot allow segregation,” he said.

Lee, known to be a strong-willed and strict leader during his tenure, insisted that such rules could not afford to be loosened as it could easily become issues if they were challenged.

“We’ve got here, we’ve become cohesive, keep it that way. We’ve not used Chinese as a majority language because it will split the population.

“If you want to keep your Malay, or your Chinese, or your Tamil, Urdu or whatever, do that as a second language, not equal to your first language. It is up to you, how high a standard you want to achieve,” he said.

Lee acknowledged that he had been a tough leader in his time but insisted that the job had to be done for the greater good of the nation.

“Malaysia took the different line; Malaysians saw it as a Malay country, all others are lodgers, ‘orang tumpangan’, and they the Bumiputeras, sons of the soil, run the show.

“So the Sultans, the Chief Justice and judges, generals, police commissioner, the whole hierarchy is Malay,” he said.

Lee added that in Malaysia, since the Malay language was used as the teaching medium in schools, the Chinese and Indians had to find their own independent schools to teach their respective languages.
This, he claimed, did not help them find jobs.

“It’s a most unhappy situation,” he said.

Prof. Prasenjit Duara: Asia’s best bet for the future

Asia’s best bet for the future

SINGAPORE, Jan 19 — China and India have their fair share of peasants. So why is it that rural revolutions galvanised the dragon but not the elephant?

Indian-born historian Prasenjit Duara pondered that deeply as he grew up in the 1950s. That led to his fascination with China’s history as well as the idea of nation-states and national identity.

A graduate of India’s elite Doon School and of Harvard University, the career of the historian of China has spanned the universities of Stanford, Princeton, George Mason, Chicago, Tokyo — and now the National University of Singapore, where he is the Raffles Professor of Humanities as well as director of research in the humanities and social sciences.

Professor Duara, 59, hails from Assam, India. The married father of one reads and speaks Chinese and Japanese, beside English, Hindi and his mother tongue Assamese.

A prolific writer, his best-known book is Culture, Power And The State, which has won two top peer accolades.

Over coffee and oatmeal cookies in his office recently, Prof Duara told me where Asia’s best bets for the future lay:

What forces have most shaped the Asia we know today?
Maritime trade, which was important for the spread of ideas and changes in a way that I don’t think the world had seen. For example, the spread of Buddhism all over Asia through such trade was comparable to the spread of Christianity elsewhere, but it was not accompanied by warfare.

How has this set Asia apart?
If you look at the Abrahamic religions — Judaism, Christianity and Islam — they are organised like proto-nations. It’s all one under God, right? So you have a state, a church and believers (who) identify themselves as believers versus non-believers. But belief is not so central in the non-Abrahamic traditions...There isn’t a strong Us versus Other kind of identity.

So it’s not surprising that when the West began to move very aggressively into the realm of Asian trade from the 17th century, they began with a lot of violence. One of the first things you see when you go to the islands off Goa in India are these big Shiva statues in caves (that) have all been beheaded. I don’t want to romanticise Asia, (but) violence for the sake of faith did not become the mainstream in Asia.

But weren’t, say, the Indochinese kings always at war?
Well, you had semi-theocratic states and they certainly went after each other, but more for political gains. Theirs was not a crusade. They were not motivated or reinforced by the motive to convert (others) or defend their faith.

Why then can’t we speak of an integrated Asia?
That’s a very good question. One reason is that Asia itself — let’s get it straight — is a name of the Greeks for a certain part of what we today call Asia...It became a term for ourselves only in the early 20th century when various Chinese, Japanese and Indian thinkers — Zhang Taiyuan, Okakura Tenshin and Rabindranath Tagore, among them — tried to create a counter-image of Asia. One can say that the theme of Asian values (today) is a continuation of the Tagorean imagery of Asia as having some essential unity.

So there’s really little to unite Asia?
Asia is in fact a believable region not because of some ancient imagined unity but because of the actual, multiple links that exist. What’s even more important are the dangers of not integrating. We have a lot of common problems, (such as) climate change. To address these, we really have to change our attitude towards nationalism...The very idea of a modern history is designed very much to strengthen the belief that the nation is the natural carrier of people in time.

But how can that be?
Yes, how can that be? People couldn’t have known they were going to end up as modern nations, right? But (nationalism) became the instrument of pedagogy... and in some East Asian states, it’s worked very strongly so people feel very invested in their nation and find it very difficult to sacrifice or give up anything other than for the nation.

But surely it’s now a case of ‘every man for himself’?
That has very much to do with the neo-liberal economic policies which developed in the post-Cold War era. Even in the Cold War, the people’s rhetoric was at least ‘for the greater good of democracy’ or ‘for the greater good of socialism’. Now, it’s for the greater good of my consumption!

Isn’t that the root of today’s evils?
Exactly. So for me, one way (is for Asia) to try and think of a greater goal, (which) cannot be (about) pitting Asia against its global competitors, because that would be back to the old game.

So what should the new game be?
Something that...brings out the most altruistic in us. We need a massive new education programme that teaches us to be civic citizens of the region and the world. (In this), Singapore has...managed to do certain things quite well.

Such as?
Such as multi-culturalism. You have this very diverse population that could be at each other’s throats - and were, at one point - but have managed to live with each other. And with...every other generation, you get more and more mixed...It may seem a little corny to people coming from the West, but it works.

But it may not work forever.
Yes...these things are also very changeable...It’s one thing to say you must have two people (from different races) living in the same housing project, but it’s another to have their children understand in school why it is important to encounter other cultures.

Speaking of change, Asia seems to be having too many demands on it to change.
Yes, Asia’s having everything thrown in at the same time but I don’t see that as a huge problem. Asians are very much younger in the process of nation-building and so are (simultaneously doing that) and region-building. It’s one thing to have different links across time and another thing to have an evolving system of integration, which we don’t. I think economically and culturally, there will be more connections. But (not) politically and militarily and we shouldn’t try to make those.
What we should try (to do) is go with what we have and develop fora for negotiation. — The Straits Times