MySInChew: No solo race, but multiculturalism — by David D. Mathew

No solo race, but multiculturalism — by David D. Mathew

February 10, 2011

Feb 10 — There is a non-profit organisation in Malaysia called the Perdana Leadership Foundation which was set up to be the leading institution for the study of Malaysia’s prime ministers.

Every former prime minister has a page on the foundation website and there is a quotation attributed to the late Hussein Onn on his page which reads as follows: “Our successes have been founded on moderation. In a multiracial country, moderation requires strong disciplines. It demands sacrifices by all communities in the overall interest of the nation. It requires us to seek solutions which are acceptable to all communities rather than to any particular community.”

The nation’s Father of Unity believed in a very important fact — that the nation’s success was dependent upon policies that suited all communities. He subscribed to the fact that the overall interest of the nation was more important than any particular community.

In a speech he delivered as Umno president during the party’s 32nd general assembly on June 26, 1981, Hussein told Umno members that: “We inherited a multi-racial nation. Umno, as the most important party in our multi-racial nation, has to give attention to the problems of all citizens. This fact has always been acknowledged by Umno and it is with this understanding that Umno has been fair towards all races. In fighting for the welfare of the Bumiputera race, we do not ignore the interests of the other races. What we seek is the opportunity to progress with the other races.”

Due to poor health, Hussein passed away on May 29, 1990 at the age of 68.

One wonders whether the Father of Unity was listening from above when his successor Mahathir Mohamad delivered a speech at the Tun Hussein Onn Memorial on February 1, 2011.

In his speech, Mahathir said that “this country belongs to the Malay race.”

He told his audience at the talk on “The Malay race and the future” that “we must be sincere and accept that the country is Tanah Melayu.”

Mahathir went on to say that the former Philippine President Aquino was Chinese but she identified herself as Filipino and Thaksin Shinawatra is Chinese but he speaks the Thai language and lives the Thai culture.

According to Mahathir, things are different in Malaysia because “we still introduce ourselves according to race” and “this is why the question of race will continue to haunt us.”

Apart from conveniently ignoring the fact that a Chinese had no problem becoming president and prime minister of the Philippines and Thailand respectively, Mahathir’s comments were an insult to the memory of Hussein Onn. To add salt to the wound, his comments were made at the Tun Hussein Onn Memorial.

Do we really introduce ourselves according to race?

Maybe up there in Mahathir land people go about introducing themselves by saying with a smile “Hello Mahathir, my name is Mammooty and I’m Indian Malaysian, originally from Kerala. How are you?”
I don’t know. Maybe that’s because Mammooty carelessly assumes that Mahathir is from Kerala.

But down here where the rest of us live, race does not form part of a casual introduction.

In fact, it does not even form part of a formal introduction. No one says “We now invite Nazri to say a few words. He is Malay. A round of applause please.”

When Malaysians are overseas, they introduce themselves as Malaysians. Not Indians or Chinese.
The question of race is, however. present in other places.

Think scholarships, there is race in the mix. Think government contracts, there is race as a factor.
Fancy a discount on a new apartment? What race are you?

The majority of political parties in this country exist to further the interests of the particular races.

This is why the question of race continues to haunt us. It would not be the case if, for example, one thinks about scholarships and the only thing in the mix is the question of need.

It would not be the case if, for example, retired politicians stick to charitable causes and quit reminding a particular race that they are different from the others.

While Hussein spoke about “progressing with other races”, Mahathir speaks about the Malays needing crutches and having to be fearful of other races.

One spoke in 1981, and the other speaks in 2011.

One was a visionary, and the other a living relic.

The facts today are these.

Lee Chong Wei is the world’s number one badminton player. Tony Fernandes is the 2010 Forbes Asia’s Businessman of the Year and Zeti Akhtar Aziz is among the world’s top seven best central bankers for 2010. They have one thing in common. They are all Malaysians.

And they are a testament to the fact that the secret of our various successes lies in our multiculturalism. — mysinchew.com

Malaysian Digest: Open Letter to Chua Soi Lek.... By Kee Thuan Chye

Open Letter to Chua Soi Lek

by Kee Thuan Chye

You are a highly educated person and one with the ability to think. As such, you are probably aware that the welfare of this nation rests on more than just the MCA winning its share of seats at the next general election and remaining in the coalition that holds the power to decide the fate of Malaysia.  You are probably aware that the way forward for Malaysia is renouncing the way of the Barisan Nasional, led by Umno, falling back on an outdated decades-old formula. And that if you and the MCA continue to collude with the other parties in BN to retain power, you are subscribing to practices that could lead the nation to racial rifts and economic ruin. Would you not agree with me that at this point in our history, as we stand at this crucial crossroads deciding which is the best path to take, national politics should no longer be race-based? If you do agree, what then is the rationale for the MCA to continue to exist as an ethnocentric party? What is the rationale for you and your party members to stick with Umno which avowedly fights for the Malays and the MIC which avowedly fights for the Indians? How long more do you see this ethnocentric equation taking hold of the lives of Malaysians, causing strife from time to time when disputes arise over who should get what and how much? We’ve had 53 years of that; isn’t it enough? Which is more important for you and your MCA colleagues: To stay on in BN in order to reap the rewards of being in government positions, or to do something that will ensure the honor and integrity of your party and of yourselves? I cannot tell you what that thing is which you could do to gain rectitude. You have to find it yourself. But as you search for an answer, perhaps you would like to reflect on how strong the MCA’s position really is within the BN coalition for the party to achieve its aims. Are you, for instance, contributing to inter-racial understanding and harmony? How could that be when you have to speak up against any threat to the position of the Chinese? How could that be when Umno must speak up against any perceived threat against the Malays? It’s a game full of contradictions, isn’t it? You can’t have one and the other, can you? In fact, your attempts over the past several months to speak up for the Chinese – indeed, for the country as a whole – clearly illustrate this. Last August, after the Malaysian Chinese Economic Congress, when you called on the Government to gradually remove the 30 per cent Bumiputra equity in all sectors of the economy, you were immediately jumped upon by Umno deputy president Muhyiddin Yassin. He even warned you about May 13. A few days later, in your interview with a Malay-language newspaper, you had to soften what you had said, clearly showing your vulnerability. Even Umno vice-president Hishammuddin Hussein told you to “stick to the struggles of BN”. What are they? Do you know? You were even a target of criticism at the Umno general assembly last October. A delegate slammed you for saying that the social contract should not be discussed openly. Then at the BN convention last month, you called for a ban on the use of the term “Ketuanan Melayu”, and you told Umno it should not approve government policies during its supreme council meetings. But straight away, Hishammuddin said you had upset many BN leaders, including those in the MCA. This boggles the mind. What you said was absolutely right – how could Umno take it upon itself to decide on government policies when it is only one of the component parties of BN? Does the MCA have no say? So how could MCA leaders be upset by what you said? Have they become Umnofied themselves? Have they become slaves of their masters? Or, as former Perak menteri besar Nizar Jamaluddin said, “running dogs”? If so, what dignity is left in them? And in you, if you continue to serve the MCA within the BN fold? Isn’t it obvious, too, that what you say doesn’t count for “doodley-squat”, as the American novelist Kurt Vonnegut would call it? To be brutally honest, what good is your speaking up when you are still within the same cabal and your partners not only disagree with you, they don’t respect what you say? As you have probably been informed, people outside don’t give much credence to your speaking up, anyway. They think it’s just a sandiwara act to merely give the impression that you are standing up for what is right. But it’s just an act. I admit that going by the issues you have been bringing up recently, you are highlighting the fact that things are not being done right, and that your political partners should be held accountable. I might even hazard that you are at least concerned. What I fail to see, though, is your commitment. For instance, at the MCA general assembly last October, Umno president Najib Razak told your party right within your own premises to be less communal and less demanding. Did you have an answer to that? Did you tell him in return to ensure that Umno would be less communal too? Did you tell him that the MCA was not being more demanding, that it was merely asking for what is guaranteed all Malaysians? You see, I believe you know what is right for the country, but you are not willing to go all the way to ensuring that what is right prevails. If you were, you would not continue with the current regime. You would press for reform. Surely, you would not disagree with me if I said the judiciary needs to be independent, that it needs to regain the trust of the people? The same with the police, the mainstream media and the civil service? Surely, you would not disagree with me if I said our education system needs to be totally revamped to institute quality and regard for merit? Surely, you would not disagree with me if I said that the way we award government projects needs to be transparent to eliminate cronyism? Or is that too tough a call after your appointment as Penang Port Commission chairman, a move that raised many eyebrows? Above all, surely you would not disagree with me if I said we need a government that is clean; tells the truth; follows the rule of law; uses public funds for the people’s sake rather than for its own; and upholds the country’s institutions rather than abuses them for its own advantage? Do we have such a government today? If we did, you would not have said what you said last Dec 5 – when you called for each BN component party to have an equal voice and to share power “genuinely”; when you said BN had to change to be inclusive, multi-racial and to put the people first. I know how to read between the lines, Soi Lek, and what you said that time said a lot about the coalition your party is part of. Do you think it is capable of responding to your calls for change? Right now, looking just at the Cabinet line-up, we can see what a far cry it is from the days of Tunku Abdul Rahman. Will we ever see an inclusive government that has non-Malay ministers for the portfolios of Finance, Trade and Industry, or Defence? That no longer looks at skin color but at ability, integrity and character? I think you might better serve the people by taking the first step that leads away from race-based politics. If you choose to do that, you will be blazing a trail. And that could bring honor not only to you but your party as well. Unless, of course, you’re a politician first and a public servant last. Then all I’ve been saying here is worth doodley-squat. Sincerely, Chye

malaysiakini: Malott painted only half the picture of racism... by Umar Mukhtar

Malott painted only half the picture of racism

Umar Mukhtar
Feb 10, 11
4:58pm

John Mallot has waded into the debate on Malaysian race relations with half an analysis when obviously a fuller one would have been of greater service to the discourse. Granted, his piece was intended more than anything else to be a critique of Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak's handling of the current situation in the country.

However, in doing so, he has highlighted only the non-Malay responses to what is described as Malay racism. This is very misleading and the reason for my saying that he had written only half an analysis of the situation.

A more robust and honest assessment of race relations in Malaysia would take into account the fact that what appears to be Malay racism is in itself a response to non-Malay racism against Malays.

Yes, two wrongs do not make a right. But as the saying goes, “It takes both hands to clap”. That is to say, Mallot's article runs the risk of completely absolving non-Malays from any responsibility in the racial predicament that the country is in. That is nothing less than avoiding reality and counter-productive to any effort to improve race relations in Malaysia. Malays have their grievances, too, against the Chinese. The fact that they seldom get aired does not make those grievances any less legitimate or valid.

Education for the very young is one obvious area where racist attitudes can be nipped in the bud. The importance for racial integration to begin at a young age is recognised, so much so that in the 1960s and 70s, the US supreme court sanctioned the forced busing of students in order to break down the racial segregation between white and African-American schools. That was in America.

In Malaysia, a different approach towards early education was adopted. In concession to the non-Malays, especially the Chinese, vernacular education was retained as part of the national school system. The liberalism was well-intentioned and in line with the spirit of Malaysia's constitution whereby minority communities are given the right to use and develop their own languages.

In practice, and perhaps this was unforeseen by Malaysia's founding fathers, the national-vernacular dichotomy in the school system has resulted in precisely the kind of early-age racial segregation that the busing laws, upheld by the U.S. supreme court justices, sought to eradicate in America. While desegregation of schools may or may not result in greater racial integration, segregation virtually guarantees that there will be no racial integration.

The racial polarisation that we see so shamelessly capitalised on by politicians in Malaysia today is partly, if not wholly, attributable to that segregation in the school system. When you see not a few non-Malays unashamedly, even proudly, declaring that they cannot properly speak Malay, the national language, you can bet your life that these are the ones who graduated from the vernacular schools. This is forty-four years after Malay was declared the national language.

The Chinese community jealously guard the existence of the vernacular schools, implicitly reinforcing the message of their racial and cultural separateness and exclusivity, but yet insist that they should not be looked at as the 'other' by Malays. For many Malays, including this writer, that smacks of having your cake and eating it, too.

Often the excuse given by the Chinese for insisting that their children go to vernacular schools and for more such schools to be built is the poor quality of national schools. Surely the solution is not to build more racially-segregated schools but to join hands with Malays and Indians in insisting and ensuring that the quality of national schools be improved for the benefit of children of all ethnicities. Perhaps that is considered such an outlandishly 'out-of-the-racial box' thinking that I have never heard any Chinese make that call.

Any sincere and honest effort to improve race relations has to take cognizance of the fact that racism exists in and racial discrimination is practised, to one extend or another, by all the races in Malaysia.

However, my own honest observation is that the Chinese never want to admit or acknowledge their own racism against Malays or other races.

Official and overt discriminatory policies can easily be criticised as institutionalised racism but covert racial discriminations by their very nature are harder to pinpoint. That does not mean they don't exist or any less invidious than the former.

When a “Mandarin speakers only” requirement is stated in job advertisements, even for jobs which do not conceivably require much language skills, that surely is equivalent to saying “Chinese only”. But you will be hard put to find any Chinese who would admit that the practice is racially discriminatory.

When Malaysia's most famous blogger, Raja Petra Kamaruddin, related some years ago in his blog how Chinese businesses ganged up to ensure the failure of his motorcycle dealership, none of his Chinese readers cared to acknowledge that he was the victim of racism. His was probably just the tip of the iceberg of similar cases.

And it's always with a mixture of amusement and sadness when I read the many comments on the Internet from non-Malays complaining about the racial policies of the Malaysian government which scarcely conceal their own racism towards Malays in general.

If Mr Mallot doubts the truth of what I am saying, he should read the comments that followed the publication of his recent article in Malaysian news portals.

To many Malays, given the refusal of non-Malays to even acknowledge their own racism, the prospect of a rollback in whatever few affirmative action policies left on the plate appears to be concessions which are unlikely to be matched in a similar spirit by the Chinese in the spheres that they predominate, namely the commercial and economic.

If Najib can be accused of pandering to militant Malay groups, Chinese political leaders in the government and opposition, too, can be accused of pandering to their racial constituency.

In my lifetime, I have yet to hear of any Chinese leader asking that the Chinese to join in and contribute towards the betterment of national schools.

I have yet to hear of one calling for Chinese businesses to assist or at least not to gang up against their fellow non-Chinese businesses or to not practice discrimination in their employment policies.

Mallot failed to take into account one side of the equation in his brief exposition of the race relations situation in Malaysia. Hopefully, I have managed to redress that and allow a better understanding of why things are the way they are in Malaysia.

It would have been more gracious of Mallot if he had used his relationship with Malaysians during his tenure as a diplomat to impart his country's experience and firm action with regard to vigilance against the emergence of the evil that is racism, than to make things worse by dogmatically adopting the attitude that sympathising with the minority makes one righteous.

-----------ooooo00000ooooo-------------
Comments:

justice seeker Yes Mr Rick Teo, I totally agree with your comments. Now the govt is slowly "TALIBANISING" our national schools. Hence it is natural for the non muslims to sent their children to vernacular schools.

Anon_65b our education system has gone to the dogs..don't believe me??...check this out:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c846qznCcEU...this dude is the state director of the education dept....telling isn't??

TwoPartySystem Umar, it is not true that job advertisement with ""mandarin language " requirement are reserved only for Chinese. There are many Chinese who are english educated and do not write or speak mandarin as well.

Broken Foot If the national schools are of a decent quality, I am certain all other races will send their children there. It is a known fact that the schools have deteriorated so badly that even the Malays are complaining. This, again is a product of the government politicising the education system. The Malays have been complaining about flip flop policies and the government is not listening and you expect they will listen to the non-malays. Its all about mind control and you don't even realise that. This is to pepetuate their grip of the Malay mind and to keep them in power. Education is about expanding the mind but that will cause them to loose control of the Malays as it is happening now. I say bring back English education.

Broken Foot You're correct. Two wrongs does not make a right. When the Chinese are prejudiced against the Malays in business as you have mention, does that gives UMNO, the party in power prejudiced against all other races in the country in all other spheres. Instead the should find ways to tackle that behaviour. Follow the American model in enacting laws that will deny one race being prejudiced against another. A good example is equal employment opportunity act, anti monopolies act and anti trust act etc.etc. The fact of the matter is that UMNO is not interested in a level playing field for anybody except themselves, and that include other Malays. They are the goverment of the day. They forget that they are suppose to protect the interest of all races.

rick teo I forgot to mention that up to 60,000 of malays are now registered in vernacular schools in Malaysia.In some schools many chinese and malay schools could not enrolled in the school of their choice because it was so popular that the schools were full to the brim. Infact some schools even gave preference for malay students over chinese students. If the chinese are racists would they have opened their doors to such a huge influx of malay students to their schools? This alone refutes what the writer said that the chinese opt to study in chinese schools in order to be racially segregated.

rick teo During my time, vernacular schools were so unpopular among the chinese that most voluntarily closed for lack of srudents. Most chinese and indians were all in favour of National schools. The medium of instruction was english and bahasa was one of the main language. Many of us chinese grew without learning a word of mandarin. We proudly wanted to master english because it was the language of commerce and science. To have a bright future we knew we had to master english and not chinese or Bahasa malaysia. Then why the exodus of chinese to vernacular schools? It was not the learning of Bahasa or the desire to be racially segregated as espoused by the writer but because of the gradual introduction of religious practice which was absent before. In addition all the teachers were replaced with only one race and many of them were religious bigots. I suggest the writer examine what I have said and see if it is true. I rest my case.

rick teo For someone who can write so fluently and I surmised an educated gentleman, I feel sad that the writer can twist and distort racial discrimination in this country. I dont know the age of the writer but I was educated in the National school during our Bapa Malayisa era., Tuanku Abdul Rahman, our first P.M I have witnessed the degradation of our education system through five P.M. I enjoyed my time in the National school then but what I saw in the slow islamisation of the National schools made me decide to send my children to vernacular school not because I ddnt want my children to mix with malay or indian boys or learn Bahasa Malaysia but but because I was shocked at the disrespect I saw happening in National schools towards other race and religion. They recite doa during class and assembly and whenevr they feel necessary and expect the non malays to accept them. That didnt happened during my time in National school. Whatever religion we prayed, it was always done at home,not in school

Anonymous_3f15 who make our education system so fragmented? ask Dr M..

DontPlayGod What Umar Mokhtar failed to point out, or he failed to realize is that racism and discrimination by the Malays against the non-Malays is official policy and institutionalized. Just look at the federal, state, and GLC's scholarships handed out for the last 40 years. Just look at the Pengarah's, deputy pengarah's of Government departments, the ministers, the mayors of K.L. from day one, etc. Just look at the billion ringgit projects...... etc. etc. The examples are too glaring. Yes, there is also racism against the Malays by the Chinese, but this is on a societal level, just like there is racism in every level of society in all communities all over the world. But it is only here in Malaysia in the whole wide world where racism is official and institutionalized. Over to you, Umar.

Guest Dear Umar Muhktar, I think you are missing the point. What John Mallot suggested was that the Government lacked the political will to mitigate racial tension by quoting specific examples. On the other hand, your letter implies a 'tit-for-tat' approach and launch a broadside against one particular community. If I may add, perhaps your letter was a shallow attempt to justify without any real 'conviction' as forum participant Equal had put it.

Pemerhati All forms of racism by all ethnic groups need to be highlighted (as Umar has done) and condemned. Only then can Malaysia change and improve for the better. Raja Petra Kamarudin, who was the victim of Chinese private sector racism, sees the big picture and highlights the serious defects in the present BN Government (e.g. the massive corruption and the apartheid like and Nazis style supremacist policies) and the urgent need for change to a different leadership which would lead to the establishment of a two party system of Government. Once a change in Government (say to PR) takes place there would be an immediate savings of tens of billion ringgit due to the elimination of blatant corruption by BN and a reduction or elimination of capital flight which in 2008 amounted to a few billion ringgit per week. The new leadership should then look at the other crucial problems and find ways of creating an excellent school system with which all ethnic groups would be happy as in Singapore.

2 hours ago · Report

ksn If we have national schools like S'pore where mother tongue is taught(Ido not know it is compulsory) without fail, then there is no problem. That will be a good start towards checking racism. Who is going to garantee that requirement and need? The Chinese have no faith in the UMNO govt unless it is in the Constitution. Even constitution like Article 153 is abused! Going one step beyond, what about other areas like employment in the civil service, business opportunities, scholarships, places in the Us, meritocracy, poverty eradication, skills training etc. Every aspect of our life is racially biased against non-Malays. That is racism, briefly, in Malaysia. So getting rid of vernacular schools is not going to help at all. Other garantees must be in place, monitored and enforced without discrimination by race. See what happened under NEP? It does not look good. Even UMNO, assuming it has the back bone and foresight to overcome racism, the ultras will not permit it.

Blogsmith Encik Umar, tahukah dalam sekolah kebangsaan, ada cikgu Melayu yang diskriminasi terhadap orang bukan Melayu. Lagi, ada oleh kerana dasar NEP ada ramai cikgu cikgu yang tidak cekap mengajar Bahasa Inggeris, Mathematics dan Sains. Kami yang ada pengaruhan yang bagitu nipis boleh mengubah keadaan itu kah? Itu alasan kami tidak hantar anak anak kami ke sekolah kebangsaan. Encik Umar. Walaupun mungkin ada overt discrimination (harap tidak luas) tapi itu bukan dari orang bukan Melayu sahaja. Tanpa NEP dan lain lain, pun ada diskriminasi orang Melayu terhadap orang bukan Melayu. Itu malang kejadian seluruh dunia. itu boleh jadi sebab kenapa harus ada diskriminasi RASMI terhadap orang bukan Melayu kah? Supaya hampir tak ada peluang orang bukan Melayu menjadi kakitangan kerajaan dan lain lain.

Not convinced I think the best way out of this is to pass a Race Relations Act or an Equal Opportunity Act. It will make discrimination based on race, gender and sexuality illegal. A number of individuals and groups have mooted this intiative, the latest being Chinese education group Dong Zong. See http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/140751 But I guess Malaysia, for obvious reason, is not ready for it. So the blame game, from both sides, will continue.

SusahKes What you say has bearing in real-life situations in Malaysia. The sad truth is man's heart will always accomodate some form of discrimination - whether it's race, gender, disability. Some things are hard to legislate. Having said that, the creation of equal opportunities in areas mentioned above, is not above the government of the day. Eg, the gov'n can make it mandatory that jobs do not stipulate racial preference. I agree, it's not easy to put rules & determine a man's value system, but with some rules & enforcement, we can probably eliminate 50% of race based actions. Nevertheless, we must not disregard the main issue, & that is UMNO/BN USE race as a means to simply stay in power & get rich - not cos they care for the Malay race per se. Consider that the income gap in this country is widest among the Malays. That itself tells you of the failure of UMNO. If there are those who practice sublime racism, then UMNO ought to have taken the bull by the horn, instead of perpetuating it.

NuckinFuts Our education system and sekolah kebangsaan system have gone to the dogs. Malaysian education policies are not founded and backed by statistics. Education policies change at the Menteri's whim. Changes are put in place but they were not announced or debated in cabinet but during Perhimpunan UMNO. With the education ministry making flip flop decisions year in year out that are like Russion roulette with our children's future, do not blame parents for finding other better places to educate their children. When you know that your drinking water is contaminated and stale would you keep forcing it on your children and family?

Equal A very shallow attempt to cover up a stink with a piece of tissue paper.

Blogsmith Encik Umar, Saya Bangsa Malaysia walaupun kerajaan kami anggap saya orang Cina. Apakah logik ini, tak fasir cakap Bahasa Malaysia atau Bahasa Melayu bermakna tak setia atau racist? Hantar anak ke sekolah Vernacular dan bukan sekolah kebangsaan bermakna tak setia atau racist? Sejak tahun 70 puluhan yang lepas, kami pun sedar bahawa negara Cina akan menjadi negara penting dan dengan penduduk penduduk yang bagitu ramai akan menjadi pasaran yang bagitu besar. Itu sebab kami hantar anak anak kami ke vernacular school oleh dengan pengenalan bahasa Mandarin mereka akan ada peluang kerja yang lebih luas. Itu bukan racist. Lagi, lama dahulu, saya hantar anak saya ke sekolah nasional. Apa berlaku. Di sana, cikgu dia sebulum mula kelas akan berdoa secara Islam. Orang beragama Islam memang takut anaknya dipengaruhi oleh agama lain dan akan bantah kalu Cikgu Kristian bermula kelas dengan berdoa secara Kristian. Sama juga kami yang beragama lain. Itu racist kah?

FMT Exclusive: Golf to politics: Teeing off with Haris Ibrahim

Golf to politics: Teeing off with Haris

Stephanie Sta Maria | freeMalaysiaToday, February 9, 2011

Haris Ibrahim talks about the rise of people power, how Ayah Pin ended his law career and his retirement plans.

EXCLUSIVE

If this interview was done more than a decade ago, Haris Ibrahim reminisced, it would have taken place at the luxurious coffee house in the Kuala Lumpur Golf and Country Club.

But the once fanatical golfer, who played 54 holes on a single day, saw his love for the game diminish because of a gardener.

Like every golfer, Haris had yearned for that elusive hole in one but the garderner’s plight on a sweltering afternoon had left a gaping hole in his heart.

FMT recently caught up with the former lawyer at a humble tea stall, and when the owner emptied a bucket of dirty water behind him, Haris lifted his glass of teh-tarik as if in silent salutation of the irony between his plush past and modest present.

And the 52-year-old president of the fledgling political outfit, Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement (MCLM), recalled the life-altering lesson which he had learnt from the gardener.

“I was driving past the golf course and I saw a gardener fashioning a crude cardboard shelter for herself in the shrubs… I threw my clubs away that day,” he said.

An unnecessarily dramatic act? Not when it is held up in the light of Haris’ life. Then it becomes almost mundane.

Haris is driven by a fierce intolerance of injustice. It is a trait that has continued to steer his life path which began in the courtroom.

For a while he basked in the reputation of being a legal gun for hire. Then the millennium arrived and brought with it the case of Ariffin Mohamad or Ayah Pin of Sky Kingdom fame.

Little did Haris know that the self-styled prohpet would herald an end to his legal career.

“On Nov 19, 2000 I headed up to Kelantan to see if I could offer help to the four apostates,” he recalled. “There was mayhem in the Syariah Court when they renounced Islam and I witnessed the worst case of injustice that day.”

“Four unrepresented individuals were treated with great hostility and imprisoned because the court refused to recognise their constitutional right under Article 11. After the sentencing, I went to their village and promised to help,” he said.

Miscarriage of justice
In his idealistic eyes, the situation was simple – a miscarriage of justice had occurred but this would be set right once the law took its course. That was to be his first of many bitter jolts.

After the umpteenth jolt, Haris finally concluded that the judiciary was no longer serving the people. And in one fell swoop his childhood dream disintegrated.

“I grew up listening to uncles who were lawyers,” he said. “They fired my imagination and inspired me to practise law. But the institutions that are intended to serve the people are now bowing to political masters.”

Haris joined forces with human rights lawyer, Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, to launch “Article 11 The Coalition” in January 2006. They were shut down after a mere six months. A friend suggested blogging instead.

Having no idea what a blog was, Haris turned to Google, and found to his bewilderment, hundreds of links to teenage diaries. He immediately dismissed the idea. His crash course in blogging came in January 2007 when he was asked to defend journalist, Ahiruddin Attan, and Jelutong MP, Jeff Ooi.

“They were being sued over their blogs and I couldn’t comprehend how that was possible,” he laughed.
“Then I visited their blogs and was blown away by the content.”

“I launched my blog, The People’s Parliament, in April that year and one thing after another led me to where I am today. But if you had told me 15 years ago that I’d be here, I would have said you were mad.”

And where he is today is right in the heart of political activism.

Last October, he took another firm step forward to become the president of MCLM (Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement). The movement is chaired by another blogger, Raja Petra Kamaruddin.

MCLM’s mission is straightforward. It aims to field 30 candidates for the next general election under a non-BN party or as an independent. The 30 are an eclectic splash of familiar and unknown faces bound together by a singular promise to serve the people.

Blank cheque
To date four candidates have been announced – Malik Imtiaz, lawyer Sreekanth Pillai, former AWAM president Haslindah Yacob and dentist Dr Nedunchelian Vengu.

“But we are not the third force,” Haris insisted. “That term belongs to the citizens who need to be more involved in the political process. Just casting a vote every five years is literally giving a blank cheque to politicians.”

His first step in fueling people power was seeking viable candidates among the average Malaysians.

The criteria was stringent but clear. The candidates had to be financially secure, involved in social work and open about their choice of lifestyle.

Of the three, the candidates’ venality takes top priority following the PKR defections that scorched the heels of the 2008 tsunami.

“What we are addressing is the risk of being bought over,” Haris asserted. “We’re confident of our candidates’ integrity but circumstances can force a person into difficult positions.”

“So we’ll be conducting financial checks every six months and if we find anything remotely amiss, we will immediately drop that candidate even if it’s the eve of polling day.”

In another twist to political tradition, MCLM will deploy its candidates in selected constituencies by early March rather than at the eleventh hour as is the practice of both BN and Pakatan.

“Forcing citizens to vote for someone they barely know is a great disservice to them (the voters),” he said. “We want to raise the standards in Parliament and we can only do that when citizens know what standards they are voting for.”

While constituency selection is still ongoing, Haris disclosed that they are eyeing Johor, Negeri Sembilan, Kedah, Perak and the rural pockets of Selangor. And despite receiving five resumes from Sarawak, he is determined to stay within Peninsula Malaysia.

“We have limited human resources,” he explained. “And I think that people in East Malaysia have long felt that the Peninsula tends to dominate and impose itself on them. So we will extend a hand in friendship, offer our resources to them and leave them to manage their own election initiatives.”

Mad hatters running the show
Meanwhile Haris is keeping himself pleasantly busy with table talks between the 900-member strong movement and non-BN parties.

It has won support from Pakatan, although supportive, is wary of a possible grassroots revolt if any of its MPs decide to step aside for an MCLM candidate. But it has promised to tackle the problem alongside MCLM should it arise.

Over on the BN side, several curious Umno members have held quiet conversations with Haris in a move to understand exactly what he is attempting to pull off.

“They’re wary because they’re not sure where this is going,” Haris grinned. “And they also want to know where our funding is coming from and how much we have to determine how far we can go. But what makes them really nervous is that two mad-hatters are running the show!”

Wariness is not the only response that MCLM has invoked. Its detractors have also accused it of playing the spoiler during the next election, a criticism that Haris has tossed out the window.

With a touch of exasperation he outlined a what-if scenario where constituents prefer the MCLM candidate and request that Pakatan reveal its candidate for them to make an assessment. True to its practice, Pakatan announces Mr. X only on nomination day.

“Now between our candidate who has been working the ground for seven months and this new candidate, who is the spoiler?” Haris asked. “To suggest that an independent initiative is the spoiler underlines the notion that the processes belong to the political parties and that we are the intruders.”

“At the end of the day the spoiler is the one who really shouldn’t have been there because he didn’t have a chance or had a lesser chance between the two. We are in here to take BN out but we’re also saying let the best man stand. And if our man is better then be honest about it.”

And then the inevitable question – is he among the 30 candidates? Haris shakes his head. Negative. His reasoning is simple. As a candidate, his focus would be solely on one constituency. As a non-candidate, he would be able to concentrate on all 30 constituencies and its candidates.

“The candidates are strong activists but politically new and will need a lot of guidance,” he pointed out. “I’m of better service this way.” Then he paused and considered a thought before adding.

“But if I was running, I’d take on (Health Minister) Liow Tiong Lai in Bentong. I had a disagreement with him some years back and told him that if I ever had the chance, I would take him on.”

Prosecuting Mahathir
For many traversing the political landscape the road ahead can be an endless stretch, but Haris assured that he has an end in sight. This end however hinges on two prerequisites.

“I want to see a reform government in place and a serious move to prosecute former premier Dr. Mahathir Mohamed in order to reinstate the national wealth that he has hijacked,” he asserted.

“Then I will retire to sell fish in Karak or end up as a tutor on Malaysian citizenship,” he continued with a big smile. “And hope I never have to return to chastise any of the MPs we have put in Parliament. But I will continue to play the role of watchdog. That’s a pledge I’ve made to the rakyat.”

Haris wasn’t joking about the fish. He recently returned to Kuala Lumpur from Karak after selling his Bentong farm on which he lived for six years in blissful solitude.

And while he has accepted the inevitable publicity boost that MCLM has brought him, he has refused to be the sole voice of the real third force.

“We all have this over-glorified perception of ourselves,” he said. “If you want to free the people you have to break this notion of icons. You can look to me for leadership as long as you understand that you’re also a leader. I’m no one’s guru.”

Which probably explains why he doesn’t have a Wikipedia entry. Haris is greatly amused by this. It’s good, he approved, let’s keep it that way.

If he did have an entry though, how would it describe him? Without missing a beat, he quipped. “An overweight sperm passing through this earth waiting to return to mother ship.”

TMI: The price of Malaysia’s racism — by John R. Malott

The price of Malaysia’s racism — John R. Malott

TMI: February 08, 2011

FEB 8 — Malaysia’s national tourism agency promotes the country as “a bubbling, bustling melting pot of races and religions where Malays, Indians, Chinese and many other ethnic groups live together in peace and harmony.” Prime Minister Najib Razak echoed this view when he announced his government’s theme, 1 Malaysia. “What makes Malaysia unique,” Najib said, “is the diversity of our peoples. 1 Malaysia’s goal is to preserve and enhance this unity in diversity, which has always been our strength and remains our best hope for the future.”

If Najib is serious about achieving that goal, a long look in the mirror might be in order first. Despite the government’s new catchphrase, racial and religious tensions are higher today than when Najib took office in 2009. Indeed, they are worse than at any time since 1969, when at least 200 people died in racial clashes between the majority Malay and minority Chinese communities. The recent deterioration is due to the troubling fact that the country’s leadership is tolerating, and in some cases provoking, ethnic factionalism through words and actions.

For instance, when the Catholic archbishop of Kuala Lumpur invited the prime minister for a Christmas Day open house last December, Hardev Kaur, an aide to Najib, said Christian crosses would have to be removed. There could be no carols or prayers, so as not to offend the prime minister, who is Muslim. Hardev Kaur later insisted that she “had made it clear that it was a request and not an instruction,” as if any Malaysian could say no to a request from the Prime Minister’s Office.

Similar examples of insensitivity abound. In September 2009, Minister of Home Affairs Hishammuddin Hussein met with protesters who had carried the decapitated head of a cow, a sacred animal in Hinduism, to a Hindu temple. Hishammuddin then held a press conference defending their actions. Two months later, Defence Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi told Parliament that one reason Malaysia’s armed forces are overwhelmingly Malay is that other ethnic groups have a “low spirit of patriotism.” Under public pressure, he later apologised.

The leading Malay-language newspaper, Utusan Melayu, prints what opposition leader Lim Kit Siang calls a daily staple of falsehoods that stoke racial hatred. Utusan, which is owned by Najib’s political party, has claimed that the opposition would make Malaysia a colony of China and abolish the Malay monarchy. It regularly attacks Chinese Malaysian politicians, and even suggested that one of them, parliamentarian Teresa Kok, should be killed.

This steady erosion of tolerance is more than a political challenge. It’s an economic problem as well.
Once one of the developing world’s stars, Malaysia’s economy has underperformed for the past decade. To meet its much-vaunted goal of becoming a developed nation by 2020, Malaysia needs to grow by 8 per cent per year during this decade. That level of growth will require major private investment from both domestic and foreign sources, upgraded human skills, and significant economic reform. Worsening racial and religious tensions stand in the way.

Almost 500,000 Malaysians left the country between 2007 and 2009, more than doubling the number of Malaysian professionals who live overseas. It appears that most were skilled ethnic Chinese and Indian Malaysians, tired of being treated as second-class citizens in their own country and denied the opportunity to compete on a level-playing field, whether in education, business, or government. Many of these emigrants, as well as the many Malaysian students who study overseas and never return (again, most of whom are ethnic Chinese and Indian), have the business, engineering and scientific skills that Malaysia needs for its future. They also have the cultural and linguistic savvy to enhance Malaysia’s economic ties with Asia’s two biggest growing markets, China and India.

Of course, one could argue that discrimination isn’t new for these Chinese and Indians. Malaysia’s affirmative action policies for its Malay majority — which give them preference in everything from stock allocation to housing discounts — have been in place for decades. So what is driving the ethnic minorities away now?

First, these minorities increasingly feel that they have lost a voice in their own government. The Chinese and Indian political parties in the ruling coalition are supposed to protect the interests of their communities, but over the past few years, they have been neutered. They stand largely silent in the face of the growing racial insults hurled by their Malay political partners. Today over 90 per cent of the civil service, police, military, university lecturers, and overseas diplomatic staff are Malay. Even Talent Corp, the government agency created in 2010 that is supposed to encourage overseas Malaysians to return home, is headed by a Malay, with an all-Malay board of trustees.

Second, economic reform and adjustments to the government’s affirmative action policies are on hold. Although Najib held out the hope of change a year ago with his New Economic Model, which promised an “inclusive” affirmative action policy that would be, in Najib’s words, “market friendly, merit-based, transparent and needs-based,” he has failed to follow through. This is because of opposition from right-wing militant Malay groups such as Perkasa, which believe that a move towards meritocracy and transparency threatens what they call “Malay rights.”

But stalling reform will mean a further loss in competitiveness and slower growth. It also means that the cronyism and no-bid contracts that favour the well-connected will continue. All this sends a discouraging signal to many young Malaysians that no matter how hard they study or work, they will have a hard time getting ahead.

Najib may not actually believe much of the rhetoric emanating from his party and his government’s officers, but he tolerates it because he needs to shore up his Malay base. It’s politically convenient at a time when his party faces its most serious opposition challenge in recent memory — and especially when the opposition is challenging the government on ethnic policy and its economic consequences.

One young opposition leader, parliamentarian Nurul Izzah Anwar, the daughter of former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, has proposed a national debate on what she called the alternative visions of Malaysia’s future — whether it should be a Malay nation or a Malaysian nation. For that, she earned the wrath of Perkasa; the government suggested her remark was “seditious.”

Malaysia’s government might find it politically expedient to stir the racial and religious pot, but its opportunism comes with an economic price tag. Its citizens will continue to vote with their feet and take their money and talents with them. And foreign investors, concerned about racial instability and the absence of meaningful economic reform, will continue to look elsewhere to do business. — The Wall Street Journal

* John R. Malott was the US Ambassador to Malaysia, 1995-1998.

TMI: Cameron: Multiculturalism has failed in Britain

Cameron: Multiculturalism has failed in Britain

February 05, 2011

LONDON, Feb 5 — State multiculturalism has failed and left young Muslims vulnerable to radicalisation, Prime Minister David Cameron will say today, arguing for a more active policy to heal divisions and promote Western values.

Cameron, in a speech to a security conference in Munich, will argue that Britain and other European nations need to “wake up to what is happening in our countries” as well as tackling terrorism through military operations overseas.

“It is time to turn the page on the failed policies of the past,” he will say, according to extracts from his speech released by his office.

“So first, instead of ignoring this extremist ideology, we — as governments and societies — have got to confront it, in all its forms.”

His comments echo those made by German leader Angela Merkel last year and reflect a push by European governments to better integrate immigrants, given persistent domestic tensions between different cultures.

Conservative leader Cameron will also deny that cuts to defence spending as part of efforts to tackle a record budget deficit mean that Britain was retreating from an “activist” global role.

“That is the complete reversal of the truth,” he will say. “Yes, we are dealing with the deficit, but we are also making sure our defences are strong.”

Aides say his comments on multiculturalism and radicalisation give a direction of travel for future policy, and it remains unclear how the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition intend to turn his vision into a reality.

Critics point out that Western foreign policy in the Middle East and beyond, not just a clash of cultures at home, has played a big part in stirring up anti-Western sentiment.

“Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and the mainstream,” Cameron will say.

“We have failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong ... All this leaves some young Muslims feeling rootless.”

Some members of Cameron’s centre-right Conservative party, activists in right-wing movements and some voters believe that Britain has become a safe haven for people with anti-Western political views.

Others argue this tolerant approach is the lifeblood of any open and thriving democracy, fearing a crackdown on civil liberties would undermine the kind of society the government was seeking to establish.

Cameron said it was time to replace Britain’s “passive tolerance” with an “active, muscular liberalism” to send a message that life in Britain revolves around certain key values such as freedom of speech, equal rights and the rule of law.

“A passively tolerant society ... stands neutral between different values,” he will say. “A genuinely liberal country does much more. It believes in certain values and actively promotes them.” — Reuters

A Villa in the Jungle? (The Egyptian Days of Rage)... by Uri Avnery

A Villa in the Jungle? (The Egyptian Days of Rage)

Uri Avnery

February 5, 2011

WE ARE in the middle of a geological event. An earthquake of epoch-making dimensions is changing the landscape of our region. Mountains turn into valleys, islands emerge from the sea, volcanoes cover the land with lava.

People are afraid of change. When it happens, they tend to deny, ignore, pretend that nothing really important is happening.

Israelis are no exception. While in neighboring Egypt earth-shattering events were taking place, Israel was absorbed with a scandal in the army high command. The Minister of Defense abhors the incumbent Chief of Staff and makes no secret of it. The presumptive new chief was exposed as a liar and his appointment canceled. These were the headlines.

But what is happening now in Egypt will change our lives.

AS USUAL, nobody foresaw it. The much-feted Mossad was taken by surprise, as was the CIA and all the other celebrated services of this kind.

Yet there should have been no surprise at all - except about the incredible force of the eruption. In the last few years, we have mentioned many times in this column that all over the Arab world, multitudes of young people are growing up with a profound contempt for their leaders, and that sooner or later this will lead to an uprising. These were not prophesies, but rather a sober analysis of probabilities.

The turmoil in Egypt was caused by economic factors: the rising cost of living, the poverty, the unemployment, the hopelessness of the educated young. But let there be no mistake: the underlying causes are far more profound. They can be summed up in one word: Palestine.

In Arab culture, nothing is more important than honor. People can suffer deprivation, but they will not stand humiliation.

Yet what every young Arab from Morocco to Oman saw daily was his leaders humiliating themselves, forsaking their Palestinian brothers in order to gain favor and money from America, collaborating with the Israeli occupation, cringing before the new colonizers. This was deeply humiliating for young people brought up on the achievements of Arab culture in times gone by and the glories of the early Caliphs.

Nowhere was this loss of honor more obvious than in Egypt, which openly collaborated with the Israeli leadership in imposing the shameful blockade on the Gaza Strip, condemning 1.5 million Arabs to malnutrition and worse. It was never just an Israeli blockade, but an Israeli-Egyptian one, lubricated by 1.5 billion US dollars every year.

I have reflected many times – out loud – how I would feel if I were a 15 year-old boy in Alexandria, Amman or Aleppo, seeing my leaders behave like abject slaves of the Americans and the Israelis, while oppressing and despoiling their own subjects. At that age, I myself joined a terrorist organization. Why would an Arab boy be different?

A dictator may be tolerated when he reflects national dignity. But a dictator who expresses national shame is a tree without roots – any strong wind can blow him over.   

For me, the only question was where in the Arab world it would start. Egypt – like Tunisia – was low on my list. Yet here it is – the great Arab revolution taking place in Egypt.

 

THIS IS a wonder in itself. If Tunisia was a small wonder, this is a huge one.

I love the Egyptian people. True, one cannot really like 88 million individuals, but one can certainly like one people more than another. In this respect, one is allowed generalize.

The Egyptians you meet in the streets, in the homes of the intellectual elite and in the alleys of the poorest of the poor, are an incredibly patient lot. They are endowed with an irrepressible sense of humor. They are also immensely proud of the country and its 8000 years of history.

For an Israeli, used to his aggressive compatriots, the almost complete lack of aggressiveness of the Egyptians is astonishing. I vividly remember one particular scene: I was in a taxi in Cairo when it collided with another. Both drivers leapt out and started to curse each other in blood-curling terms. And then quite suddenly, both of them stopped shouting and burst into laughter.

A Westerner coming to Egypt either loves it or hates it. The moment you set your foot on Egyptian soil, time loses its tyranny. Everything becomes less urgent, everything is muddled, yet in a miraculous way things sort themselves out. Patience seems boundless. This may mislead a dictator. Because patience can end suddenly.

It’s like a faulty dam on a river. The water rises behind the dam, imperceptibly slowly and silently – but if it reaches a critical level, the dam will burst, sweeping everything before it.

MY OWN first meeting with Egypt was intoxicating. After Anwar Sadat’s unprecedented visit to Jerusalem, I rushed to Cairo. I had no visa. I shall never forget the moment I presented my Israeli passport to the stout official at the airport. He leafed through it, becoming more and more bewildered – and then he raised his head with a wide smile and said “marhaba”, welcome. At the time we were the only three Israelis in the huge city, and we were feted like kings, almost expecting at any moment to be lifted onto people’s shoulders. Peace was in the air, and the masses of Egypt loved it.

It took no more than a few months for this to change profoundly. Sadat hoped – sincerely, I believe – that he was also bringing deliverance to the Palestinians. Under intense pressure from Menachem Begin and Jimmy Carter, he agreed to a vague wording. Soon enough he learned that Begin did not dream of fulfilling this obligation. For Begin, the peace agreement with Egypt was a separate peace to enable him to intensify the war against the Palestinians.

The Egyptians – starting with the cultural elite and filtering down to the masses – never forgave this. They felt deceived. There may not be much love for the Palestinians – but betraying a poor relative is shameful in Arab tradition. Seeing Hosni Mubarak collaborating with this betrayal led many Egyptians to despise him. This contempt lies beneath everything that happened this week. Consciously or unconsciously, the millions who are shouting “Mubarak Go Away” echo this contempt.

IN EVERY revolution there is the “Yeltsin Moment”. The columns of tanks are sent into the capital to reinstate the dictatorship. At the critical moment, the masses confront the soldiers. If the soldiers refuse to shoot, the game is over. Yeltsin climbed on the tank, ElBaradei addressed the masses in al Tahrir Square. That is the moment a prudent dictator flees abroad, as did the Shah and now the Tunisian boss.

Then there is the “Berlin Moment”, when a regime crumbles and nobody in power knows what to do, and only the anonymous masses seem to know exactly what they want: they wanted the Wall to fall.

And there is the “Ceausescu moment”. The dictator stands on the balcony addressing the crowd, when suddenly from below a chorus of “Down With The Tyrant!” swells up. For a moment, the dictator is speechless, moving his lips noiselessly, then he disappears. This, in a way, happened to Mubarak, making a ridiculous speech and trying in vain to stem the tide.

IF MUBARAK is cut off from reality, Binyamin Netanyahu is no less. He and his colleagues seem unable to grasp the fateful meaning of these events for Israel.

When Egypt moves, the Arab world follows. Whatever transpires in the immediate future in Egypt – democracy or an army dictatorship - It is only a matter of (a short) time before the dictators fall all over the Arab world, and the masses will shape a new reality, without the generals.

Everything the Israeli leadership has done in the last 44 years of occupation or 63 years of its existence is becoming obsolete. We are facing a new reality. We can ignore it – insisting that we are “a villa in the jungle”, as Ehud Barak famously put it – or find our proper place in the new reality.

Peace with the Palestinians is no longer a luxury. It is an absolute necessity. Peace now,  peace quickly. Peace with the Palestinians, and then peace with the democratic masses all over the Arab world, peace with the reasonable Islamic forces (like Hamas and the Muslim Brothers, who are quite different from al Qaeda), peace with the leaders who are about to emerge in Egypt and everywhere.  

My hope for more Rabbit Year babies — Lee Hsien Loong

My hope for more Rabbit Year babies — Lee Hsien Loong

TMI: February 03, 2011

FEB 3 — Singapore’s economy roared in the Year of the Tiger. We pulled ourselves out of recession, and delivered an exceptional economic performance. Workers are enjoying better bonuses, and all over the island the mood is vibrant and joyous during this festive period.

The momentum is carrying into the Year of the Rabbit. Our prospects are good, boosted by robust growth in Asia and strong investment flows into Singapore. But we need to watch for risks that remain in the global economy, especially in the United States and Europe.

As our economy has picked up, property prices have risen significantly, especially over the past year. This partly reflects optimism and confidence in our economy, on the part of both Singaporeans and foreign investors. But it is also due to global monetary conditions: Interest rates are very low and liquidity abundant, so global funds are chasing higher-yielding assets in Asia. That is why other Asian cities like Hong Kong and Shanghai are also struggling to control property booms.

The government has acted to curb speculation and cool the property market. We will do more to stabilise the market if and when this becomes necessary. We will keep housing affordable to Singaporeans, especially public housing. At the same time, in a prospering economy home owners should see their properties appreciating in value over the long term.

Other external factors are pushing up consumer prices across Asia, including in Singapore. World oil prices have risen recently, leading to higher electricity, petrol and diesel prices. Floods and bad weather in several countries have disrupted crops, causing shortages and raising food prices. Locally, Certificate of Entitlement prices have gone up, because fewer COEs are available for auction, while with rising incomes more people want to buy cars. For these reasons, we expect somewhat higher inflation over the next few months, but we hope prices will stabilise later in the year.

The government will strive to mitigate the impact of rising prices. The strong Singapore dollar has lowered the cost of imported goods in Singapore dollar terms. And after a good year last year, the government has more scope to implement schemes to help Singaporeans cope with rising costs, especially lower-income households.

Singapore is small and open to the world. Each time external conditions change, it affects us. But we have learnt to take this in our stride. We know that we have to stay open, in order to seize opportunities and prosper. The price we pay is that we must keep changing and reinventing ourselves. This we have done successfully. Over the last few years, we have transformed our cityscape, with a spectacular skyline at Marina Bay, new and beautiful housing estates, and park connectors and waters all over the island.

Our society is changing too. Young people today have different attitudes and aspirations from earlier generations. And our population has been augmented with a good number of new immigrants.

Some Singaporeans are concerned about the rapid changes in our society, and feel a sense of dislocation and unfamiliarity. We will manage the pace of change, so that we keep our bearings, sense of place, and sense of belonging. But we cannot stay static. Singapore has to keep up with the world, or else we will stagnate and decline.

Even as we change, we must hold fast to certain constants: the core values which help Singapore to succeed; the heritage and cultures which make us Asian and Singaporean; and the national cohesion and spirit which enable us to surmount crises together. This means we have to preserve a Singaporean core in our society. We need immigrants to reinforce our ranks, but we must maintain a clear majority of local-born Singaporeans who set the tone of our society, and uphold our core values and ethos. We are managing the inflow of foreigners who want to live and work here. Many want to become permanent residents and new citizens, but we will only select those who can add value to Singapore.

We also need Singaporeans to produce enough babies to replace ourselves, and that has proved extremely challenging. Last year, our Total Fertility Rate fell to 1.16, an all-time low. It was even lower for the Chinese — only 1.02, but the decline was for all races. It could have been because of the Year of the Tiger, or perhaps the economic uncertainties the year before, in 2009. Whatever the reasons, I hope more couples will start or add to their families in the Year of the Rabbit. Chinese New Year is the time for families to come together in celebration, and more babies can only mean more joy in the years to come.

We must also keep our mother tongues alive, for language is a key vehicle for transmitting values and culture. Our bilingual education policy has helped to make us a global city and yet kept us an Asian society. We regularly update and improve the teaching of mother tongue languages in our schools, to keep it current and effective. Hence the recent measures announced by the Ministry of Education, which will help a new generation to use their mother tongue languages freely in a changing language environment.

The community has to play an active role keeping our culture and heritage vibrant. I am encouraged that organisations like the Singapore Federation of Chinese Clan Associations (SFCCA) and Business China are working to promote the use of the Chinese language, preserve traditional culture and develop an appreciation and love for our heritage. I am also glad that we are celebrating Chinese New Year in refreshing and fun ways, for example by making the “River Hongbao” show more interesting and spectacular. The government encourages and supports these efforts, as well as similar initiatives of the Malay and Indian communities.

Our culture has to be a living asset. We hold on to it not by keeping it frozen, but by re-inventing it for each new generation, preserving its essence while adapting its forms to changing times and circumstances. This is how we can keep the essence of what makes us Singaporean, and keep Singapore thriving.

Singaporeans can look forward to a bright future together. The rise of Asia will generate buzz and vitality in our economic and cultural landscapes. We are well placed to be part of the region’s development, to become a shining city at the heart of a booming Asia.

I wish all Singaporeans a very happy Year of the Rabbit. — Today

* Lee Hsien Loong is the Prime Minister of Singapore.

malaysiakini: Dislodging Article 153 will tear society apart.... Prof. Shad Saleem Faruqi

Dislodging Article 153 will tear society apart

Shad Saleem Faruqi
Feb 2, 11
5:01pm

I am shocked and sad at the S Pathmawathy's report about my paper at the Tenaganita/Bar Council seminar on Jan 29. Parts of the report, especially the first four paragraphs, are distorted and contained mischievous and materially false statements.

The first four paragraphs of the report deliberately falsify and fabricate the thesis I sought to present.

The first paragraph that “A constitutional expert has outlined how he thought the special position of the Malays had subtly evolved into ethnic hegemony” is very far from what I said. I never used the words “ethnic hegemony”.

I used the word “ketuanan” to describe the recent interpretation of Article 153. You are entitled to interpret “ketuanan Melayu” as “ethnic hegemony”, but you should not attribute this wrong interpretation to me. The only time I used the word hegemony was to describe the hegemony of the West over the rest of the world.

In the second paragraph, you lied blatantly when you said that Emeritus Professor Shad Saleem Faruqi “eloquently described the atrocities against equality in the constitution.” I never used the words “atrocities against equality”.

In fact, my seminar paper had a portion about 'The Malaysian Constitution's Promise of Equality'. In this portion, I had pointed out how Article 8(1), 8(2), 8(3), 8(4), 136, 12(1), 12(2), electoral laws, posts in the federal service (except for the position of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong) are ethnicity free.

I also pointed out that the constitution guarantees cultural freedoms, business opportunities, membership of professions and citizenship irrespective of race or religion. Yet you falsely accused me of talking of “atrocities” against the ideal of equality.

My presentation had tried to point out both sides of the story - how the constitution honours equality and how it permits exceptions.

I had also taken great pains to point out that “no constitution ideal is as worthy and yet as unattainable as the ideal of equality before the law”. Throughout the world, massive exceptions including some systemic, structural departures from the ideal of equality abound. What the law says and what the reality on the ground is wide apart. I had pointed to the system of justice in the USA where 70 percent of the inmates in prison are non-whites.

What rankles me most is that you fabricated the statement that “such provisions (the affirmative action provisions) are no longer relevant”. In fact, I had cautioned against revolutionary changes and had recommended evolutionary developments. I had pointed out that any attempt to dislodge Article 153 would tear society apart.

My paper which was shown on powerpoint was entitled 'Race, religion and equal protection under the law'. Your heading to the article 'When special position evolved into ketuanan' created the impression that this was the heading of my speech, which it was not.

You correctly pointed out that I recommended the setting up of an Equal Opportunities Commission but you adroitly omitted the word “subject to Article 153".

You also did not emphasise that I had insisted that both public and private sectors must be subjected to the Article 8 requirement of equality by an Equal Opportunities Commission or tribunal. I had emphasised that discrimination in the private sector contributes to discrimination in the public sector and vice versa.

Your story paints me as someone who has no respect for the constitution. In fact, I believe that the constitution was a remarkable piece of compromise, compassion and tolerance. It dealt with the existentialist reality of Malay backwardness and took a path of compromise and pragmatism. Some of its provisions, while not in line with traditional constitutional theory, were a very moderate and pragmatic response to the realities of Malaysian society.

The gist of my presentation was that in 1957, there was an ethnic bargain and that if non-Malays seek to renegotiate the social contract on Malay special position, then many Malays may ask “if privileges must go, what then happens to the citizenship of the non-Malays.”

I had said that only one part of the social bargain cannot be jettisoned. To reopen the 1957 compromises is a game both sides can play.

You were correct in reporting my belief that Article 153 was left in the hands of politicians and mostly benefitted the rich elite. That is why I had suggested that Article 153 implementation needs to be scrutinised, any over zealousness needs to be checked, and the real provisions of Article 153 need to be studied and adhered to.

I request you to please print this reply and to please be more careful in not putting your own beliefs (to which you have a right to) in the mouth of others.

Professor Emeritus Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi
Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM)

Editor's note: We regret the misinterpretation of certain portions of Shad's speech, but this was not due to deliberate falsification or fabrication on the part of the journalist.