No race-based politics in Singapore?

[Goh Meng Seng]

During the launch of NSP Malay Bureau last Saturday, a Malay reporter asked me whether NSP is moving towards "race based politics" with the launch of this Malay Bureau.

My instantaneous response is, "Aren't we living in a political system full of race based politics and policies already?"

Coincidentally, MM Lee was reported talking to foreign correspondent about how Singapore will fall into "race based politics" if we to allow more political liberalization.

Let me get this clear here, Singapore under PAP's rule, has already been engaging race based politics all this while! From the HDB racial quota rule, GRC system to setting up of Merdeki, Sinda, CDAC, all these are race-based politics. Although PAP's Rajaratnam has written the National Pledge on "regardless of race, language or religion", but that is all "Highfalutin ideals" in PAP's eyes!

And the truth is, the ideal of cultivating a "Singapore Singaporean" has been subtly put off because of the recognition of the racial fundamentals of various ethnic groups in Singapore. That is why PAP starts putting up the HDB racial quota rule, set up racially based Merdeki, Sinda and CDAC... etc.

GRC is set up precisely because in PAP's eyes, "minority candidates" (I do not like to use the word minority at all) could not win a single ward seat because of the assumption that the Chinese would be biased and vote according to racial lines. This is in spite of the fact that BOTH PAP's and Opposition's Malays, Indians and candidates of other races have won elections for decades!

These changes are initiated basically because PAP realized that it has somewhat lost some support of the Malay and Indian communities back in the 1980s electoral contests. It wasn't a problem for the 1960s or the 1970s. But when Mr. JB Jeyaratnam started to break PAP's total monopoly of power in 1982 by-elections, PAP started to play the race cards. The high concentration of “minority votes” was considered as one of the prime reason why opposition parties in the 1980s were able to score well. Thus the HDB racial quota rule sets in. GRC was set up. Eventually, racially based organizations like Merdaki, Sinda and CDAC were set up as well.

Thus, I cannot understand how opposition parties could be insinuated as the ones who will go into "race based politics" when PAP has already covered all these racial aspects!

The truth is, any politicians or political parties will not survive politically if one is to concentrate on a single racial issue! This is basically because by being singular racially based, you will lose the support of other races. The ONLY WAY for a political party to win the elections is by winning the TRUST OF ALL RACES!

This is why PAP has gone into multiple race-based system with the set up of Merdaki, Sinda and CDAC. Yes, these are race based, but they are multiple race-based.

Should we be worried about anyone going into race-based politics? Singular race based politics? Apparently not. That would be the most stupid thing for a politician to do. He will not get support from the other races at all! How could he be taken seriously?

I believe most Singaporeans nowadays, regardless of race, language and religion, would not buy that kind of racial rhetoric even from people of their own race. We are an open society with citizens who are exposed to the outside world. We may be concerned about issues that are particularly important to our own racial community but that does not mean that we will go all out to encroach into other races' space.

There are still social or even political problems which are specific to different races. This is something we cannot avoid. This is why any political parties who are serious in the long term political development of Singapore, will have to address it in an open manner. We cannot just pretend differences in race don't exist. But we must always bear in mind that we need to apply fairness and critical considerations in a just and balanced manner to all problems face by different races.

PAP has jealousy guarded itself as the only party that could deal with race based politics in Singapore. Anybody who dares to challenge this position would normally face "demolition" from its leaders. Jufrie and Tang Lian Hong are those special cases for us to examine closely. Incidentally, both of them represented the same opposition party, Workers Party at different point of time. One would wonder how could two "accused" racial (i.e. Malay and Chinese) chauvinists ever serve the same party at all.

Strategically speaking, such deliberate racial divides enhanced by the present the race based political setting, would require any political parties to convince each and every Singaporeans of all different races that they could well represent their interests in parliament, in a balanced way. It is not a simple task to accomplish especially so when PAP has deliberately set the OB markers for all other opposition parties from touching "race based issues" while itself dominates the race based agenda.

As the leader of NSP, I feel the need to address such challenges. Forming the Malay Bureau is my first step towards establishing a party which will be seen as a multi-racial party which will take all views from all races into considerations. NSP must be seen to be the other party which is able to take care of all races in helping them to mitigate or voice out their concerns in parliament in a balanced and responsible way. If I could, I would like to form the Indian Bureau for NSP if I could get critical mass of Indian Singaporeans to join us as well.

The point I want to make here is that, don't be frighten by PAP's scare tactic on "race based politics". As long as a political party is responsible in dealing with all race based issues in a balanced, fair and just manner, there is nothing wrong to be all inclusive in our approach of forming Malay and Indian Bureaus, just like PAP forming Merdaki, Sinda and CDAC.

There might be competing ideas among different races. But I think we should have the wisdom to resolve such differences while working towards our common interests as a Nation.

NSP is definitely not going into a narrow path of singular race based platform. In fact, I asked the reporter one simple question, NSP has always been seen as a "Chinese party" in the past. Won't the formation of the Malay Bureau actually diffuse such racially based perception once and for all? Won't it be seen as more racially balanced if we have Malay Bureau as well as Indian Bureau in NSP? How could we be perceived as "race based" political party when we are in fact moving towards in building a multi-racial political party platform?

If anyone wants to accuse NSP of being race-based party, they should reconsider us as "multi-race based" party.

 

[Green Light]

It’s odd, but it seems that NSP is proud to be seen like the PAP..... for all the WRONG reasons.

NSP recently formed a Malay Bureau on the justification that the PAP already has a similar organisation*. So it says there is nothing WRONG.

But in the same breath, it accuses the PAP of practising race-based politics. GMS can tell us otherwise, but for the time being, we'll assume that NSP considers such politics as WRONG.

Hence by following in the PAP’s footsteps in setting up a race-based bureau, NSP is demonstrating that it has no qualms about deliberately pursuing the same but WRONG type of politics.

Many Singaporeans aspire for a credible Opposition to act as a check-and-balance on government's policies. Would an Opposition that blindly imitates some of the ruling party's “reproachable” practices be able to perform this checking function credibly?

We are aware that over the decades, the Opposition has struggled to increase the number of Opposition MPs in parliament. We also know that with the GE looming near, NSP is desperate to recruit more minority candidates to contest the GRCs.

If NSP is pursuing this type of politics to help ensure all constituencies are contested at the GE, then NSP's motivation is badly misplaced.

To its credit, NSP has over the years raised many bread-and-butter issues that concerns the people and society in general. But to my knowledge, it has NEVER broached concerns that pertain specifically to any particular ethnic group.

The same situation applies for all the other Opposition parties – almost all the issues they raised affect Singaporeans in general. There was no racial specificity. They have not had to resort to what NSP is doing now to attract members of the minority races.

To bring in sufficient numbers to join the party, NSP resorts to forming a distinct ethnic-based body, the Malay Bureau. This is to cater to the community's exclusive ethnic needs.

NSP even now states that it will even give priority to a Malay candidate if it manages to secure an NCMP seats.

The likely consequences of such misplaced political “sweeteners” as follows:

The Malay Bureau will attract minority candidates who are inclined to exclusively pursue issues pertaining to the particular race. If the bureau did not exist, they might not have been induced to join NSP in the first place. Their primary motivation of joining NSP is NOT to serve all Singaporeans. The type of people being attracted is questionable.

By offering to give a Malay candidate priority to an NCMP seat, NSP will attract people who are merely interested in an easy path to parliament. They are not joining the contest to serve the constituencies they contest. The quality of people being attracted is questionable.
Whatever type and quality of people are lured to the party is probably NOT of primary concern to NSP. What it is anxious about is to meet the minimum criteria to contest the GRCs – a minority candidate per GRC team.

Let me conclude by asking: Can a party that blindly copies the ruling party in the name of expediency be credible enough to undertake such a checking function?

Will this party have the moral high-ground to perform this function when it justifies its own actions based on what the ruling party has done before?

Instead of voicing out against what it sees as wrongful practices, NSP goes ahead and copy what the PAP done.

I thought the Opposition is supposed to give us better alternatives.


*note: GMS pointed out that the PAP has a Malay Affairs Bureau or equivalent unit. I am still trying to verify this.


Bryan Ti

 

[Leongsam]

"Chinese" is not a race.
"Indian" is not a race.
"Eurasian" is not a race.
"Malay" is not a race.

They are what is known as "ethnicities". They're classification as "races" is part of the PAP divide and rule strategy.

"Race" is defined as follows.

<table><tbody><tr><td style="background-color: lime; width: 1.5em;"> </td> <td>Caucasoid race</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="background-color: yellow;"> </td> <td>Congoid race</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="background-color: magenta;"> </td> <td>Capoid race</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="background-color: steelblue;"> </td> <td>Mongoloid race</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="background-color: tomato;"> </td> <td>Australoid race</td></tr></tbody></table>

 

[aurvandil]

The Malay community in Singapore has been classified by the UNITED NATIONS as a minority group which is at risk. Among the the various community groups, they have been the most adversely affected by the FT policy.

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,MARP,COUNTRYREP,SGP,469f3acec,0.html#risk

Risk Assessment
The Malays have two of the four factors that increase the chances of future protest: significant political and cultural restrictions and the transitional nature of Singapore's political system. Whether the Chinese-dominated People's Action Party is willing to allow for greater Malay political participation along with helping to further the group’s economic status will likely influence the future course of Malay activism.

Analytic Summary
The Malays are widely dispersed across the small island state of Singapore. Most group members immigrated to the country after 1945, mainly from Indonesia but also from Malaysia. In the north, Singapore is separated from southern Malaysia by a narrow strait of water and in the south it is in close proximity to Indonesia.

Group members speak Malay in contrast to Mandarin Chinese, the language spoken by the majority Chinese who constitute about 77% of Singapore's population (LANG = 1). In addition, the Malays are Sunni Muslims while the Chinese are either Buddhists or Christians (BELIEF = 3). The two communities have different social customs; and although they are from different racial backgrounds there has been substantial intermixture (CUSTOM = 1; RACE = 2). Singapore also has minority Indian and European populations.

In 1819, the British East India Company occupied the island, and by 1867 Singapore became a British colony which was soon to become a major commercial port. Its economic potential attracted Chinese migrants who eventually became the majority population. After the Japanese occupation during the Second World War, Singapore returned to British control. While neighboring Malaysia became independent in 1957, British rule on the island did not end until 1963. In that year, concerns about the potential influence of the Communist Party of Malaya in Singapore likely led it to join the anticommunist federation of Malaysia. The political experiment did not last long. Increasing ethnic tensions between the Malays and the Chinese led Singapore to leave the union just two years later. Along with Bangladesh, Singapore was the only other successful secession during the Cold War.

Political power in Singapore from independence until the end of the 1990s has been dominated by the People's Action Party (PAP), led by Lee Kuan Yew or his chosen political successor. During this time period, sustained, high-level, economic growth made Singapore one of the most prosperous countries in Southeast Asia. Its ability to weather the 1998 Asian financial crisis bodes well for the future.

The Malays face restrictions on the practice of their religion and the celebration of group holidays. They also remain disadvantaged in the economic arena in comparison to Singapore's other ethnic groups (ECDIS03 = 1). Group members are disproportionately represented as urban laborers and low-level service workers and they are the least likely to achieve higher education. Compounding these problems are significant drug usage by community members and their involvement in criminal activity. Public policies to improve Malays’ economic status have achieved some success. In the mid-1990s, it was reported that 38% of Malay families earned $3000 or more monthly in comparison to 23% in 1990. There are few Malays in high-level political or civil service positions and they are underrepresented in the armed forces, although there has been recent improvement in the latter. This political discrimination is the result of social exclusion by the politically and economically dominant Chinese (POLDIS03 = 3).

Group members seek broader political participation along with economic rights such as a greater share of public funds and economic opportunities. The ability to freely practice their religious and cultural beliefs is also a primary concern, including maintaining control over their system of Islamic schools (madrasahs). Government policy has promoted multiculturalism but the politicization of the identities of the Malay, Chinese, Indian, and European communities is not allowed.

Conventional organizations represent group interests. They include the Singapore Malay National Organization, the Association of Muslim Professionals, and the ruling People’s Action Party. The vast majority of Malays support these organizations but their loyalties are divided among these groups which has likely limited their political influence (COHESX9 = 3).

Malay political activism in the form of symbolic protest actions dates back to the early 1980s (PROT80X-98X = 2). In more recent years, protest has been limited to verbal opposition (PROT00-03 = 1). There has been no rebellion against state authorities.

 

[rodent2005]

You write a lot but say nothing; what's wrong with setting up a Malay bureau?

 

[Leongsam]

The Malays face restrictions on the practice of their religion and the celebration of group holidays.

UN studies are almost always a load of bull and this one is no different.

Malays face no restrictions whatsoever in the practice of their religion. In fact, the govt bends over backwards to accommodate the building of mosques in every HDB estate.

They also get TWO public holidays a year. The Hindus only get one and so too do the Buddhists.

 

[aurvandil]

UN studies are almost always a load of bull and this one is no different.

If that is true, then why is Singapore a member of the United Nations? It is one thing if Temasek Review writes a critical piece about Singapore. It is quite another when the United Nations issues such a damaging report. If you explore the link, you will find that they did similar reports on the Kurds, the Roma and other minorities all over the world.

Malays face no restrictions whatsoever in the practice of their religion.

At this point in time, I don't think the religious issue is the one which is foremost on the mind of Malay Singaporeans. Rather it is their worsening socio-economic situation. If you think life is bad a Chinese Singaporean competing against cheap FT, wait till you see what it is like as a Malay Singaporean.

 

[Leongsam]

If that is true, then why is Singapore a member of the United Nations? It is one thing if Temasek Review writes a critical piece about Singapore. It is quite another when the United Nations issues such a damaging report. If you explore the link, you will find that they did similar reports on the Kurds, the Roma and other minorities all over the world.



At this point in time, I don't think the religious issue is the one which is foremost on the mind of Malay Singaporeans. Rather it is their worsening socio-economic situation. If you think life is bad a Chinese Singaporean competing against cheap FT, wait till you see what it is like as a Malay Singaporean.

Let's ignore the UN report for the moment. Tell me, based on your own knowledge of Singapore, what sort of restrictions the Malays face when it comes to their religious beliefs?

 

[aurvandil]

Let's ignore the UN report for the moment. Tell me, based on your own knowledge of Singapore, what sort of restrictions the Malays face when it comes to their religious beliefs?

The following is a url to a paper on the restrictions

http://wwwarc.murdoch.edu.au/wp/wp156.pdf

The most prominent one listed in the paper was the no-tudung policy forced through in 2002.

 

[Leongsam]

The following is a url to a paper on the restrictions

http://wwwarc.murdoch.edu.au/wp/wp156.pdf

The most prominent one listed in the paper was the no-tudung policy forced through in 2002.

The report simply spells out the measures that the Singapore govt has (wisely) taken to prevent religion and politics from ending up as an explosive mix. The writer has tried to put her own spin on the issues. That's what the UN does and that's the reason why it has lost credibility.

The No-tudong policy refers only to muslims enrolled in secular schools while they are in school uniform. Muslims are free to wear the tudong or even the burka.

 

[Maximilian Chua-Heng]

No lah. Buddhism and Hinduism both originated from India. So they are technically "Indian" holidays.

So 2 hols for Chinese, 2 for Malays, 2 for Indians and 2 for the Others. Very fair what!

They also get TWO public holidays a year. The Hindus only get one and so too do the Buddhists.

 

[aurvandil]

The No-tudong policy refers only to muslims enrolled in secular schools while they are in school uniform. Muslims are free to wear the tudong or even the burka.

By implementing the rule, parents were forced to choose between sending their children to secular school or sending them to a madrasah where they could continue to wear the tudong. This was a Hobson's choice as choosing a religious education so that the child could wear the tudong meant that the child would have no meaningful career prospects.

It has been so long that the issue has almost been forgotten. At the time, it was however a very hot issue in the Malay community.

 

[Leongsam]

By implementing the rule, parents were forced to choose between sending their children to secular school or sending them to a madrasah where they could continue to wear the tudong. This was a Hobson's choice as choosing a religious education so that the child could wear the tudong meant that the child would have no meaningful career prospects.

In a secular society, all religions have to make choices as to how far they're willing to go in upholding what they believe in. Islam is no different.

7th day activists believe that Saturday is the Sabbath. However, those who refuse to work on Saturdays when required would soon find themselves out of a job.

Even in places such as Australia and NZ which are considered to be democratic, liberal first world nations, there is a limit as to how far the religious fundamentalists can use their religion to justify their behavior in a society where common law takes precedence.

For example, Jehovah Witnesses who withhold modern medical care from their children are charged with child neglect. "Freedom of religion" isn't a valid defence.

 

[phouse3]

The immigration issue is the biggest issue.

It is us (Singaporeans) vs them (Pro Alien Party + aliens)

So don't let them (Pro Alien Party) pull us (Malay, Chinese and Indian Singaporeans) apart.

Ah Mat, Ah Beng and Ah Neh, please unite.

 

[aurvandil]

In a secular society, all religions have to make choices as to how far they're willing to go in upholding what they believe in. Islam is no different.

You asked me for an example of how Malays have been restricted in the practice of their religion. I gave you one. The paper gave other examples. The statement in the UN report is therefore factually accurate.

 

[Tiu Kwang Yew]

yeah lah, no race politics but all the PMs all chinese only !
not funny ?

No race -politics but heavily investing in China only ? Mudland failed state ?


sam leong is right-----race is a funny word , it is some people who suka suka call different skin colors .....races !

People say politics are for politicians and not for common people but ERP, COE, COV, Tv license, etc, all have something to do with politics right !

 

[Leongsam]

You asked me for an example of how Malays have been restricted in the practice of their religion. I gave you one. The paper gave other examples. The statement in the UN report is therefore factually accurate.

The report claims the Muslims in Singapore are being unfairly treated. This is simply untrue.

The report also states that Singapore is the only country in the world that has legislated a separation of religion and politics. This isn't true either. All secular states have a system whereby common law overrides religious laws.

The report is full of errors. Read it yourself. The author has an axe to grind and if you do a bit of research into who she is, you'll understand why.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

I was told, if one really read into Malay's history, the ancestors of the Malay tribes came from Yunan province, South Western part of China, 1000 years ago. They travelled down from Yunan to Burma, Laos, Thailand and then Malaysia. It is interesting to understand Malay history.

Having said that, I agree that we are all suffering from PAP's FT and population policy of aiming for 6.5million. Our Malay brothers and sisters are most hard hit by such influx, along with our Chinese and Indian brothers and sisters. This is one sole policy that have great impact on all races in Singapore, other than the GST increases.

Let's unite and show PAP what Solidarity can do.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[Glaringly]

yeah lah, no race politics but all the PMs all chinese only !

Yah lor! Don't know who said "Singapore is not ready for an Indian Prime Minister"! No race politics?

 

[Leongsam]

I was told, if one really read into Malay's history, the ancestors of the Malay tribes came from Yunan province, South Western part of China, 1000 years ago. They travelled down from Yunan to Burma, Laos, Thailand and then Malaysia. It is interesting to understand Malay history.

Malays and Chinese are of the same race. They are classified as Mongoloids.