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.

On Tuesday, non-Muslim parents of children studying at Boon Lay Garden Primary School protested against a recently formalised ban on non-Halal food items entering the school’s canteen. The school have had this rule since 2002 when all the stalls in the canteen were certified Halal.

When a new canteen contractor was appointed by the school, they had to get the stalls re-certified, and with it, the principal decided to remind the parents not to bring in non-Halal food into the canteen.

Parents of the non-Muslim students who account for 80% of the school population protested the ban, ringing up the school, the education ministry and the media to vent their frustrations. To them, the new rule amounted to discrimination.

Immediately, the ministry intervened and released several press announcements to urge “all schools to provide a mix of halal and non-halal food stalls in their canteens to cater to children of all races”.

When I first read this story, I was amused and disappointed, not with the no-non-halal-food rule, but by the lack of racial and religious understanding of 80% of the students’ parents.

Bringing in non-halal food in halal certified premises bans are not uncommon in multi-racial Singapore. There a lot of halal establishments like Banquet and Food Culture, which prohibits customers from bringing in non-halal food into their dining area. Even though their establishments certify only the stalls. Yet, why didn’t the public protest against these establishments?

Have these establishments committed an act of discrimination?

The establishment, Banquet, the first completely Halal food court seem to suggest otherwise. Quoting from Banquet’s website:

“The opportunity for dining with different races under the same roof provides an excellent platform for social interaction among different races, and cultivation of mutual respect through better understanding of cultural differences in dining habits of different races and religions, values of which are of utmost importance especially so for a multi-racial country like us in Singapore.“

If Boon Lay Garden Primary School had performed an act of discrimination, then the parents of these grieved students are grossly misinformed. The school had obviously attempted to make the canteen a social catalyst, to help students of different races enjoy each other’s company.

When I was still a primary school student, there was only 1 muslim food stall. Our queue was always long, because there were many mouths to feed. So the school decided to open another muslim food stall to reduce the queuing bottleneck as students only had 30 mins for recess. The situation didn’t improve much. The reason was simple. Some non-Muslim students queued at the muslim stall too. Because they had the luxury of choice.

It was no different in secondary school. There was only 1 muslim food stall. And the queue was always darn long. Because there were also non-Muslims queuing up at the muslim food stall who chose not to eat their usual Chinese dishes.

In secondary school, I had a close-knitted class. Chinese, Malays, and Indians sat on the same table at times, enjoying each other’s company and savouring their food. The canteen was a common space. But it was very hard for a muslim to try to build on that space.

I remember one afternoon when my classmates and I were having lunch. Obviously, I bought my lunch from the Muslim food stall. I sat opposite a Chinese friend of mine who was savouring his obviously non-Halal dish. I was curious about his food as I liked to explore cultures different to mine. I asked him curiously, “What’s that?”, pointing to the bits of meat-like portions on his plate as he gobbled down his food with his chopsticks.

“Oh you want some?”, he asked as he simultaneously picked up a piece with his chopsticks and placed it on my yet to be touched plate. I gaped in horror accompanied by gasps from the other Muslims at the table.

He was trying to be nice by offering his share. But his act of kindness became an unfortunate misunderstanding of social space and borders. It wouldn’t have been a problem if my canteen was completely halal.

I could have eaten that morsel of meat (I think), that my friend offered me. But that incident prevented me from ever asking about another person’s alien dish again for fear that it would spoil my plate.

This is why I encourage schools and the ministry to get their food stalls halal-certified. It would not only allow the queues at lunch and recess to be spread out more efficiently, providing students, regardless of race, with enough time to consume their meals, but it would also encourage, rather than discourage social interaction among students of different races and beliefs. Because if we don’t change the system now, we will always have a situation where we will never have the ability to be inclusive.

There should be no rolling of heads at Boon Lay Garden Primary School. The principal did a magnificent job in creating a common space where students could socialise. They also had choice, which allowed them to queue as they please, and gave them time to eat their meals properly, an important thing for a growing child.

But there should be rolling of heads at the Ministry of Education. For suggesting that the principal had made an error when he should be commended for his efforts. If anything, this episode has unearthed Singapore’s weak social fabric that binds us different races together. That we cannot, it seems, to agree on at least having a nice meal at the dining table, where everyone could share their food.

* ST Photo by Shahriya Yahaya

Americans have gone exercising their democratic right to vote on Super Tuesday, to elect the respective presidential candidates in the Republican and Democratic parties. While who becomes the final contenders to unseat George Bush at the White House is still anybody’s guess, elsewhere in the world, the Turkish parliament has voted with a massive majority to relax the ban on Islamic headscarves in universities.

In most Muslim countries, it is considered extremely sacrilegious to ban the headscarf. Go to any Muslim country in the middle-east and you will most likely find women who are dressed fully covered from head to toe. While it is known that women are required to dress modestly in Islam, it should also be said that just like women, men are also equally required to cover themselves up.

However, the parts of the body which are required to be covered by each gender is different. Women are required to cover their entire body, except their hands and face. Whereas men, are required to cover the parts from the navel to the knee.

This dress code if you would like to call it that, is not meant to protect women as it is widely reported. In many middle-east countries, covered women are raped as much as non-covered women are. In fact, a woman wearing a headscarf is more likely to get raped than one without just by the sheer majority of women in these countries who are veiled, which accounts for a lopsided statistic for the protesters of the lifting of the ban. The idea that a woman is more likely to get raped if uncovered is however debunked nonetheless, and the mostly credited reason behind this law is just mere excuse to encourage less willing women to cover up.

The misfortune for Muslim women is how clerics and practising Muslims place too much emphasis on women’s clothing, that men not covering up, is hardly discussed or debated. And in all that unproductive debate, no one ever speaks a word about how covered Muslim men are allowed in universities nonetheless.

The fact is men’s area of cover is so entwined in the norm, that it hardly becomes the topic. Every man wears pants! Thus, it is not regarded a religious symbol. But the veil is the one most recognisable garment in Islam that distinguishes a Muslim and one who is not.

That single piece of cloth, is so powerful, that a non-practising Muslim, or a non-Muslim for that matter, and in the case of Turkey, staunch believers of the Church of Secularism, fears it as if it could wipe out their entire belief system and the country that was built by this clear separation between the divine and that which is not.

For a country which is trying to get themselves recognised by the European Union, what is acceptable in secularism and what is not, is very misunderstood indeed. Let me tell you one thing my Turkish friends. If one day, a young Muslim veiled woman steps on university ground, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk will not crawl out from his grave and end this crime against the state.

To allow a practising Muslim woman access to higher education, will do more for Turkey than it ever will if Turkey intends to be a modern, industrial, European nation. Unlike their Arab brethren, their women get to become educated and help the nation thrive. Whereas in Arabia and Central Asia, their women have little or no access to higher education even if the school was opposite their homes, if they had any in the first place.

The middle east have been criticised for a decline in the quality of education, that it exacerbates the condition of their economy and high unemployment rate. And with 2/3 of Turkish women who don the veil, and who refuse to sacrifice their faith, their democratic ability to choose not to receive higher education in exchange for their freedom to practise their religion, the secularists are the ones to be blamed if Turkey does not accept this lifting of the ban on veils.

For members of the Turkish Constitutional Court, my advice for you if this matter is brought to court by the secularists is this: Would Turkey prosper by upholding an archaic secular value instead of democratising, and reforming this silly ban on a piece of cloth? Change is imminent. And even Europe has to face it one day.