When I coined this term back in November 2008, it was a term I used to define this movement which I co-founded with other Malay New Media professionals and practitioners as well as to initiate a culture of improvement within the Malay community.

I was present about 9 years ago when the “Melayu Baru” debate came up. As a teenager, sitting in the old MUIS building’s board room, listening to the older youth (then about 30+ years old) discussing definitions and semantics to the Melayu Baru debate. It was afterall the year 2000. A new Millenium. An “Alaf Baru”.

A lot of politicising was happening. There was the Collective Leadership issue between AMP and the government, the Tudung issue of Fateha.com and Madrasah issue of the respective Madrasahs and their stakeholders.

9 years has passed and exactly what have the Malays achieved? For all the politicking, debates and constant chatter about these and many other issues especially post-9/11 Singapore, all we had to show for, was the incidental PSLE top scorer in a certain 12 year old from a blue-collar, lower class, Malay family.

Her success was not the result of some concerted effort by the Malay community. It was her own success. No one intervened to help her achieve it.

If anything, the Malay community needed a revitalisation which would help them renew their efforts towards this Muslim community of excellence that is prescribed across all the relevant Muslim bodies.

I wanted the Malay community to upgrade itself, yet retain its Malay-ness. I wanted the Malay people to have a more technological definition, yet still remain true to what is a Malay, self-defined, on your own terms.

Thus, I coined the term Melayu 2.0, a combination of the word Melayu, and Web 2.0. On its own, Web 2.0 is a definition of what the web is today, an amalgamation of social technologies and networks. It is from this web-derived vocabulary that the term Melayu 2.0 should be understood.

When we first came onto the scene on Facebook, much of the criticism of the term Melayu 2.0, came from the Malaysians. As this was a Singaporean effort, we responded that we’re not out to redefine orang Melayu such that the essence of the Malays are lost. There were questions on what’s the need for another identity? Melayu je lah. Kan senang.

My response is simple. If you want to identify yourself as simply Melayu. Then that’s your own prerogative. No one is forcing you to be a Melayu 2.0 if you even understand what that means. Melayu is still a race. Melayu 2.0 is not a race. It’s a Web 2.0 movement consisting of Malays who upgrade themselves to better their society.

If you cannot appreciate the intent of this movement, then you should look in the mirror to see if you have indeed justified the meaning of being a Malay? The word Melayu, defined by Javanese vocabulary, means to run as fast and far as possible. The entire Malay culture was seafaring. Malays expanded throughout the globe all the way to the ends of South Africa from the first anthropological evidence of Malays in Hainan Island. We’re a race that defines globalisation without eroding its culture. The Chinese have lost much of their culture through modernisation. But Malays everywhere, whether they are in Taiwan, Cham, Papua, Manila, Sandakan, Cape Town, Kuala Lumpur and Geylang have rode on the waves of globalisation and have not lost the essence of their Malay-ness. We keep our heritage proudly.

But as Singaporean Malays, where are we now? As a community, have we truly, really progressed in the past 10 years since the Melayu Baru debate first arose?

Have we built a confident informal Malay leadership in the absence of a Collective leadership? Have we managed to build trust and greater confidence with other races, so much so that they better appreciate and understand our differences and religiosity? Yet, most pressing, have we improved educationally? economically? spiritually or religiously enlightened?

The reality is that we’re nowhere near these things.

Thus Melayu 2.0 defined itself 3 areas of focus, in Education, Economics and Enlightenment (to be read as both spiritual and religious).

To create a pleasant environment for people participating in the discussion, we prescribed the OB markers of the debate. We believe in Free Speech. But hate speech is not free speech. We also believe that discussions need to be productive, and people need to come away with a sense of fulfillment. So we want to avoid potentially divisive chatter which more often than not revolves around religion.

I personally laid down the rules of engagement. Islam is not up for debate. I did not say you cannot talk about Islam. You can! You can make points with religion as a reference. What you cannot do is debate religion based on political schisms. We recognise that there are Malays of other Mazhabs like the Shia. And instead of excluding them from the discourse, we’d rather include them. They’re still Muslims all the same. So what I do not wish inside the discussions are questions over someone’s religiosity, or someone’s particular flavour of Islam. This is not respectful and not productive, and I cannot allow this in the discourse. The few Shia Malay/Muslims have taken the initative to write Shia-centric postings, so that Sunnis are better informed about their Shia brothers. It is this culture of respect and tolerance that make us Singaporean Malay/Muslims so much more different than the warring Arab tribes as we can see in the Middle-east.

Next, we’re an independent movement. We’re not created by the government. We don’t work for the government. The government works for us and we ensure that the government works with us with mutual interests in mind. We’re part of civil society engaged with the government over policies that affect the Malay community. We’re an informal leadership, allowing others within the Melayu 2.0 community to take up an issue so long as it is with our blessings and approval.

Do we discuss politics? Yes. We’re a non-political movement. That means we’re not a political party. That does not mean we’re apolitical. We’ve defined the focus areas which we want to see an improvement, and these are social issues at its core. So what we want in discussions are not political discussions that are rants of displeasure. We don’t want to have discussions that light the flame of discontentment. What we want are discussions that are productive and arrive at solutions which in turn could become policies the government may implement. This is a community with many different political affiliations. I am not a PAP member. I criticise quite openly, the affairs of this government. But politics is a divisive matter. And what we want is to put aside political ideologies and focus on getting things done for the greater good of the community. The Malays need to stand united as one people in order to improve. Not bicker over politics.

Our channels with the government are clear. We work on respectful, mutual interest basis. We do not believe in locking horns with the government. We give direct criticisms to the proper channels. But we do so respectfully. The fact that we are re-invited for more dialogue is a step in the right direction. The government is listening. The people are speaking up. Isn’t this way so much more better than the aggressive, combative methods used by different community movements of the past?

When we discussed the name Melayu 2.0, we recognised the limiting definitions that affect our mode of administration. So we arrived first by public vote and then by internal vote to choose the name Generasi ME as the official name of the movement, and Melayu 2.0 as the concept of the establishment of this movement. This allowed us to purchase a domain name gen-me.org which would not be possible with Melayu 2.0. Because melayu2.0.org is simply technically impossible.

We then prescribed ME as self-defining. We established that ME means MElayu, Millenium, ME (a collective success of self). You can intepret ME however you like to suit your tastes. We’re not going to push the meaning down your throats. You define your own idea of success. It is about yourself and your success.

It is hoped, through this informal, lightly-managed movement, the Malays will take the initiative on their own to carve a future that defines who they are in this new Knowledge-Based, highly globalised economy. We only established the parameters of this success. You, the Malays, are the ones responsible to realise it. You fail in 10 years time. That’s your own fault. You succeed, that’s your own success. I’m not responsible for your success. You are. You don’t owe me anything. I don’t owe you anything. But in order to achieve this success which you crave for, we need to work collectively.

So enough of this debate on semantics. You can argue all you want but you know as much as I do that it is not helpful. If you want progress, we need to move away from debating about these semantics, and more about finding solutions to pressing problems like the education of the Malays, the economic standing of the Malays, and the spiritual or religious enlightenment of the Malays.