I had posted a comment on one of The Online Citizen (TOC)’s Facebook links regarding a New Paper article by veteran journalist, Sylvia Toh Paik Choo, and perhaps my words struck a chord with many of TOC’s readers. I did not expect such strong support for what I had to say and perhaps, it was the most Likes I’ve earned from fellow netizens. So I decided to re-post this on my blog for the benefit of all Singaporeans whom I hope can now better frame their heritage in the proper context. I would like to point my readers to this article (Google Translated from Malay to English), this article and this video, for a better perspective of how I draw my arguments. As a continuing student of local history, I’m amazed how much information we Singaporeans don’t really know about Singapore. So I hope, I’ve contributed somewhat to a more enlightened Singapore society.

A People's History of Malaya. A book written by members of Federation of United Kingdom & Eire Malaysian & Singaporean Student Organizations

Sylvia. You forget that when you migrated to Singapore from Penang 60 years ago, we weren’t yet another country. I’m sorry but Singapore was still considered a part of Malaya. Penang was still a Straits Settlement and so was Singapore. The governor, my dear, was still the same white man.

So your argument that you were an immigrant is complete moot. None of us were immigrants. If you were born in Malaya before 1965, anywhere in Malaya, you were local born.

I remember another young man born in Penang and migrated to Singapore. His name is legendary in these parts. Have you heard of P. Ramlee who became Malaya’s silver screen hero in the 50s? I’m sure you know that P. Ramlee made a living in Singapore. Did you forget that Singapore was the center of Malaya’s movie making industry? Front and center, Singapore was the poster boy of a new, independent Malaya.

So when August 9, 1965 came, did we all suddenly become immigrants? Sylvia my dear, we were always local born. It’s our bloody text books that sold us this idea that Singaporeans were made up of immigrants.

Now, I have no problem with foreigners. But please don’t make me a foreigner in my own country. I’m a 3rd generation Singaporean. But my grandparents who called this place home came from Johor and Java. They never saw this place as a foreign land. Indonesia didn’t even exist before 1945. There was freedom of movement. Malayans from Johor joined Malayans in Singapore. And fellow friends from across the Malay archipelago in Riau, Sumatra and Java joined us too. Did they see Singapore as another country and therefore considered themselves immigrant? No. We lived in colonial times. There was no such thing as borders.

Immigrant nation? Nope. Not Singapore. Not even Chinese and Indians born anywhere in Malaya. That includes you Sylvia.

What is worse? YOG, or the retardation of a viable democracy?

I had intended to write only a fair review of the games, but I realise, you cannot just comment strictly on the sporting events in the Youth Olympic Games itself. It would be a shame if wrongs cannot be put right, especially to people whose only crime was to speak honestly. What good is the YOG, if the Olympian values the games tried to instill in the world’s future, our young, if its present leaders, our government, does not live up to their words?

When these first Youth Olympic Games was awarded to Singapore, I was honestly pleased, but at the same time worried. This is an event that will be watched by millions across the world, and the tiny red dot will be placed under the microscope. It is an uncomfortable position for Singapore to be in. You can’t hide your flaws under a microscope and Singapore has a tendency for covering them up.

So where will the happy campers along East Coast be? Will the poor be adequately helped? We go out of our way, bursting the budget to over S$387 million from an initial S$105 million, just a couple of months before the games for whom? Yes, we sweep the poor under the rug so that a few yachtsmen, triatheletes and canoeists can have a pleasant 12 days without the sore-eyes of a tent and a family of four by the beach. S$387 million. And how much did the government spend on helping these few happy campers?

I’m not sure we’ll see the last of homeless Singaporeans as the income gap widens and the stagnating incomes of Singaporeans below the poverty line perpetuates. But with all the wealth that this country has attained, I wonder why the same ministry that is supposedly responsible on the welfare of its community places so little resources on lifting its poor out of the cycle, and allocating an obscene amount of cash for the comforts of sportsmen who are here for a mere 12 days. This ministry has misplaced its priorities. May I remind its ministers that the name of the ministry is called Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports; the word “Community” comes first and yet I wonder has this government placed the interests of its people first?

I hope our poor are adequately helped while the games were convened. I understand that there are now HDB homes for rent to house the poor. A bit too late in action I feel, but is it enough? The poor will remain poor so long as our policies don’t change and our government refuses to spend more resources on them. Our guests for those 12 days however will return to their respective territories, having good memories of Singapore: a good S$387 million worth. Our taxpayers S$387 million.

Despite this, Singapore had a good games and our Young Olympians did the country proud. We have not seen a large sporting event of this magnitude since the SEA Games in 1993 and the Asian Youth Games in 2009, and I’d be untruthful if Singaporeans are not a supportive bunch of people. But for every people that supports the games, there will always be detractors. You cannot escape critics and they will always have something to say about the way the games were organised. It is of course glaring when stadias are half-empty and caterers provide crap food to its volunteers on top of fines to vehicles that refuse to give way on the YOG lanes and the obsessive need for the government to control everything by ensuring students actually go to these games so that the venues are filled up and force hardworking teachers to re-schedule everything particularly during a PSLE period and the O-levels and A-levels just around the corner. And these are all valid complaints.

The government hears them. But are they listening? No. It seems that they prefer to silence critics.

I read in the papers today that a netizen and a “I hate YOG” Facebook group member, Abdul Malik was arrested by the police for remarks in relation to the PAP and its ministers.

What did Mr Abdul Malik do wrong? The government accused him of inciting violence because of his remarks to a criticism on the “I hate YOG” Facebook page. Mr Malik said: “IT’S FINALLY OFFICIAL!!! THE MASSIVE FLOODS, MAS SELAMAT’S ESCAPE, WASTE OF $387 MILLION AND YOU CAN’T EVEN ENSURE PROPER STANDARDS FOR THE FOOD SERVED TO OUR VOLUNTEERS??? THIS IS THE TIME FOR US TO BURN VIVIEN BALAKRISHNAN AND THE PAP!!!!! RALLY TOGETHER AND VOTE THEM OUT!!!”

But in our mainstream press, it appears he only said the words: “It’s time to burn Dr Vivian Balakrishnan and the PAP!” and most of the rest of his comment was not even printed in the news article.

I cannot even begin to describe my shock and disappointment at the desperation of this government to save its face. The question is, did Mr Malik actually intend to cause bodily harm to Dr Vivian, and torch the PAP building in Bedok? Was the phrase meant literally? Was Mr Malik participating in cyber-bullying? Is Dr Vivian a victim of this bullying? Or is Mr Malik a victim of a gross injustice to civil liberties?

Apparently, Dr Vivian didn’t even have any fears for his life. He didn’t even lodge the report against Mr Malik. Clearly, he had better things to do. Who did? It was the police themselves. It was the Investigating Officer that lodged the report against Mr Malik. I didn’t know the police could lodge a report against someone without the need for the aggrieved party to register his claim.

A month ago, Mr Abdillah Zamzuri, a good friend of mine, was questioned by the police for his informative entry on the clearly overboard way a police officer had cuffed a press photographer, Mr Shafie Goh of the Singapore Chinese daily, Lianhe Wanbao for taking photos of the Bukit Timah floods. He provided his valuable police knowledge, being an NSMan Police Officer. There was nothing wrong with Abdillah’s entry. He did not incite violence. What he did was describe the standard practice of police officers in the line of duty in handling matters of public safety, which the police officer in question did not seem to comply to and suggested that this police officer should be disciplinary dealt with. His blog was a mere speck in the blogosphere. It’s not famous. It’s a humble blog where he accounts his life and experiences. Yet, the police force decided to clamp down on him, and while Abdillah is not yet formally charged, this incident has caused him unnecessary stress and worry because his only crime was speaking the truth. In other parts of the world, he would be lauded as a whistle blower and ensure the police force is held accountable for the actions of its officers. The charge against him? “Prejudice to the conduct of good order or discipline”.

How is it does a police officer who clearly went overboard by handcuffing a civilian when there was no offence committed becomes an exemplary act of good order and discipline? But highlighting what the proper discipline and good order a police officer should do in matters concerning public safety become “prejudicial”? If anything, Abdillah’s blog post exposes the misuse of police powers and even if Abdillah did not write this piece, any person with common sense can see that the photo-journalist was man-handled and the police officer should have been taken to task. However, disciplining the police officer who had wrongfully handcuffed Shafie Goh was not a priority. Instead, Abdillah’s sense of civic-mindedness was rewarded with a charge against him.

This government has a false sense of efficiency about itself. When I listened to Mr Ng Ser Miang’s speech at the closing ceremony, I was sad. Not that the games were over, but for all the money spent on these games, it was apparently only for glory. “We (pauses) have done it! We (pauses) have delivered! We (pauses) have hosted the first Youth Olympic Games”. Mr Ng, I don’t care. Moscow could have hosted it as well. It was a 50:50 chance, and I’d still be proud of the 12 days of human spirit and olympian values cultured into the world’s future. But that’s not the point of hosting the games it seems. There’s no greater good. Just someone’s desire to do something great. Was it a service to Singapore? Honestly, not as large a service people like Abdillah does for the common Singaporean.

I ask of you Singaporeans to think deeply if this is what we want for our children’s future. A nation without the security of civil liberties, to protect honest Singaporeans from registering their opinions. A nation where the police can lodge a report against you so freely. A nation where the police actually spends more time nabbing bloggers for their opinions rather than real threats like cyber criminals in phishing and email scams.

What’s the point of having us Singaporeans understand the meanings of our flag (the theme for 2010′s National Day Parade), one of which is “Democracy”, when it seems that our democracy is retarded? Or is the flag, like our pledge, merely an aspiration? You mean, the flag means nothing? We don’t actually have to live up to the ideals of this nation?

I honestly hope this is not the case. Singapore, I have a lot of hope for you. I hope you change your ways.

It’s been more than a month since Dr Mahathir Muhammad made this blazing comment that drew strong responses from the Malay community here. But I’ve ignored it because it wasn’t worth commenting until now. You see, Tun may no longer be Prime Minister, and he’s not even an MP, but he’s still an UMNO member, and in his own words “I’m a politician, through and through”. So what he said was simply for political mileage and to drive home the point to vote UMNO.

Why was it picked up by the media and regurgitated across the causeway? Because his comments critiqued Singapore.

Anyone who criticizes a country that he is not a citizen of, especially if he’s a politician will definitely raise furore. Take for example MM Lee’s blazing generalised comment over Taiwanese and Hong Kongers. I’m certain the Chinese over there would take offense at being called such things.

But what I’d like to comment on is Singapore’s Berita Harian’s editor, Guntor Sadali’s speech at the Anugerah Jauhari BH 2010 (Malay Achiever of the Year Award) (PDF file) and perhaps some corrections to point out to Dr M (hey, I’ve got to be fair no?).

It was well written. It gave me a feel good aftertaste. It was rhetorical. And that’s just it.

This award, what it means, what it represents, is rhetorical. It’s to tell our Malays in Singapore that it’s ok that we don’t need to secure political power to safeguard our interests. We just need knowledge, here and there, and that would mean we’re powerful, and here’s someone who did just that.

I don’t disagree with Mr Guntor on many of his points. But I don’t think being a minority has anything to do with being different in our mindsets and outlook. Take for example the 2 Koreas or China/Taiwan. They are of the same race, but their mindset and outlook is clearly quite different. So our difference in attitudes has nothing to do with the numbers within our population.

Singaporean Malays are different out of culture. We have always been that way since pre-separation times. Many of our former residents travelled down here to make a living because Singapore was the most vibrant out of all the 14 Malaysian states. We were, in the words of the first Malaysian Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, the New York of Malaysia and KL was its Washington DC. And clearly, New Yorkers are very different from their DC cousins. As it stands today, Johor Malays are in fact very different from Kelantan Malays and you can make the same observations as you travel state-by-state. Malays are not the same, whether in Singapore, Johor, KL or Sabah.

But what exactly is this Singaporean Malay attitude? Are we independent? Are we competitive? Are we self-reliant? Are we meritocratic?

To suggest any of these things does not define the entire Malay population in Singapore. In fact, these traits are common in every ethnicity you can find here. It doesn’t make us Malays in Singapore more competitive than the average Malay-Malaysian simply because Singapore has a kiasu culture. Neither does it make Chinese-Singaporeans more self-reliant simply because the government does its majority race no favours.

We are who we are because we were forced out of a Federation of Malaysia, and became a sovereign nation without the consent of its people. We had to survive. Tunku probably thought that it would make Lee Kuan Yew so unpopular that it would cause the PAP’s downfall because how can Singapore, the pride of Malaysia, with its vibrancy, the Movie capital of South-East Asia, the trading centre of the Peninsula, the beacon of non-censorship at the time (Malay intellectuals flocked to Singapore because we did not practise censorship as with the other UMNO-ruled states), and a pride of the University of Malaya with its outstanding Medical College be separate from its motherland? To Singapore Malaysians, now Singaporeans, it must have been unthinkable. It probably still was for some time. But we got used to sovereignty as Singapore nation, rather than a Malaysian one, and eventually, not only did we survive, we prospered, and so did our Malaysian brethren. So to suggest Malaysia wasn’t competitive would be a fallacy. We’re bitter rivals.

The premise of Dr Mahathir’s comments was one based on political influence. We were formerly part of Malaysia, and Malays here in Singapore (like anywhere else in Malaysia) had significant political advantage simply for being Malay. His whole point on warning Malaysian Malays that PAS and PKR is causing the Malay electorate to lose its political advantage as an ethnic ruling elite, would throw the Malays in Malaysia into a state of zero power, just like Singapore Malays.

If he left it at that, well, isn’t it true? Malays in Singapore have no political advantage. Meritocracy did not give us enough influence not just to safeguard our communal interests, but also to maintain and prosper them.

But the honourable Tun had to say “kowtow to the Chinese”. I can understand how Singapore Malays are angry at this. In fact, we are upset at only this part of his statement, because it’s a sweeping generalisation. Just like how MM Lee’s generalisation on Taiwanese and Hong Kongers drew much flak.

But what’s wrong with this statement, and what is right with it?

Firstly, Malay Singaporeans are equal citizens to Chinese Singaporeans. We’re equal in terms of citizenship, and therefore, this equality makes us Malays inherit equal rights to Chinese Singaporeans. Malays and Chinese here have the same rights. So no, we don’t kowtow to the Chinese at all simply for being citizens of our cili padi nation.

Secondly, meritocracy gave us Malays a chance to compete for the best education, the best jobs, the best everything. So if we have Malays who excel, they excelled because they truly deserved it. Not because my government gave me preferential treatment. That’s not an achievement worth bragging.

So what’s right with Dr M’s statement?

We’re a minority. In a democracy, especially one without representative parliament like ours, we don’t carry equal influence to protect, preserve and further our communal interests. Malays are by definition of our own constitution, the rightful indigenous people of Singapore. Article 152(2) and (3) specifically bestows the Government of Singapore, the responsibility to protect, preserve and further the Malay people’s language, culture and religion and to ensure the well-being and education of its people.

However, this is what I’d call political baggage. Our constitution was derived from the Constitution of Malaysia. In fact, if you compare the 2 country’s constitution, you would find that they are almost similar to each other. If our ethos are about merit without regards to race, language or religion, then why keep this clause? It is, perhaps an appeasement tactic to pacify the Malays that the Government will not ignore the interests of the Malays despite no longer being of political influence. And Lee Kuan Yew himself ensured that with the creation of Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura through the Administration of Muslim Law Act, to take care of the religious affairs of the Malays, the only religion in Singapore to have this privilege to have a government vehicle.

But you must understand, in exchange for these privileges, what must the Malays of Singapore give in return to the PAP? Obviously, like everyone else who votes for the incumbent, it’s silent compliance, and therefore, kowtow. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out where Singapore Malays, in terms of language, in terms of the extent of its freedom to practise their religion, and in terms of how much the state is willing to further the progress its traditional culture is hampered.

Is this definitive of Singapore Malays? Dr Mahathir, with all respect (I do really respect you sir), you are mistaken. It is definitive of all Singaporeans who decides to reap the benefits of PAP rule. I am sure that if a Malay Malaysian votes for you, they will kowtow to you too. Just because you fight for Malay rights, does not mean you are not the Masters of the Malays themselves. In fact, UMNO, the party of royalists, have shown to preserve titah tuanku more than it preserves the interests of Malays themselves. Of course, only you sir, being the first commoner PM, have had the audacity to try to reduce the political influence of the royalty during your term in office. But how else can you explain this trend of Malay Malaysians choosing to vote the opposition?

But I agree. We should not be like Singapore Malays. We have problems like a below-average pass rate at every level of examinations (heck, we can’t even be average!), broken and low-income families, Malays in prison, Malays in financial desperation, Malays without homes, and so many other social problems that seem to creep up every year under this often, uncaring, meritocratic rule. And who comes to save the day? Sir, we do. Just like you, Malays help themselves. Unlike you, we don’t have the resources. When Singapore Malays do have success, are we the best? Hardly. That’s why awards like Anugerah Jauhari is a feel good award. It’s to help us be less angry. It’s a corrective policy the same way NEP is a corrective policy, so the irony in Guntor’s speech is how the premise of this award seems very much the intent of creating the illusion of a successful Malay community. But not to take away the shine and glimmer of this year’s winner, Mr Shafie Samsudin definitely deserved this award in my book. For Mr Shafie, he deserves every bit of this award. For the Malay community as a whole however, just because we share in his success, doesn’t mean we had anything to do with it.

The Malays here may have equal rights. But we as a people (as with you over there), never started on an equal platform in the first place after centuries and centuries of regressive colonial rule. So I can understand the intent of your corrective economic policies. What I don’t understand is why are you obsessed about the quantity of wealth afforded to the Malays, when you should be more focused on the quality of Malays regardless of their income. I’m certain, a poor Malay is not a lesser Malay than a wealthier one.

What’s the point of a wealthy Malay? For what? To prevent Malays from being unhappy that another race gets wealthier at the expense of Malay land? Sir, the Chinese in Singapore don’t own a lot of land either. It is not Chinese land to begin with. It’s indigenous Malay land. But they get rich anyway. If wealth or the lack of it makes a Malay unhappy, it is not the Chinese we should be angry at. It’s us for not taking advantage of being given such preferential treatment. Despite the Chinese Malaysians having limited access to government contracts, they’re still richer than Malay Malaysians. So who are we, Singapore Malays angry at? Definitely not the Chinese.

Melayu. Who are you?

Bongkok atau Bebas?
Radikal atau Alim?
Riau atau Baku?
Mundur atau Maju?

Yang aku tahu, Melayu bukan satu.

Kau Melayu. Aku Melayu. Tapi samakah kita?

Kau pukul satu. Aku pukul dua.
Tak bertemu-temu. Kerana janji Melayu.

Aku Melayu sini. Kau Melayu sana.
Kau belajar di Singapura, tapi tetap jiwa Alor Setar.

Kau Melayu miskin. Aku Melayu fakir.
Melayu kaya? Oh. Dia anak pemerintah saja.

Aku Melayu terdidik. Kau Melayu terlanjur.
Kalaulah sama, Melayu apakah kita?

Melayu ini atau Melayu itu?

Melayu. What are you doing?

Thanks Zee Avi for accompanying me through the night/morning.