We should not become like Singapore Malays

0Hazrul Azhar Jamari • 29th Jul 2010 • My Notes, Life, My Notes, My Notes, Others • dr mahathir, guntor sadali, Malays, Singapore

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.