Malay yearning for full equality with the Chinese in Singapore.

By Ismail Kassim

For love of country, talk back if you disagree.

History is replete with examples of great leaders who overstayed and caused harm to their cause in the latter years of their rule. One prime example was Mao Zedong, who held on to power until his death at the age of 83 in 1976. If he had faded into the background a decade or two earlier and spared China from the convulsions of the Cultural Revolution, China might today well be a superpower.

Great men make great mistakes. We must learn from history.

Back to our little island at the tip of the Malayan peninsula, MM Lee demonstrated Aug 09 in Parliament what many Singaporeans had suspected all along, that he was still the man-in-charge, the real commander-in-chief. On that day, Lee suddenly took to the floor and lashed out at NMP Viswa Sadasivan for calling on the PAP government to live up to the ideals of the Singapore Pledge.

For a man who was about to celebrate his 86th birthday then, it was a convincing display of power and grit that achieved its aim of reversing the course of a parliamentary debate and pushing almost everybody back into line.

Actually Viswa was rather cautious and had only gingerly alluded to ‘’apparent contradictions and mixed signals’’ in PAP policies such as the promotion of cultural elitism, SAP schools, different self-help groups, marginalizing the Malays in the military, and the obsession with maintaining Chinese dominance. Such prudence still did not spare him from a verbal bashing by a furious Lee who described his ideas as ‘’highfaluting’’ that needed to be ‘’demolished’’ before they infected others. Viswa had obviously touched a raw nerve. Lee must have felt the threat to the PAP and his vision of Singapore in particular by the course the parliamentary debate was taking.

All along since independence, Lee’s Singapore is premised on two contradictory principles: an outward commitment towards multiracialism and meritocracy to attract talent worldwide and an inward obsession with reinforcing Chinese dominance as a way to ensure Singapore’s survival and prosperity.

According to his thinking, it would be disastrous to allow the proportion of Chinese in the population to fall below the current level of 76%. I am sure Lee will not shrink from taking any steps to make up for any shortfall.

As he sees it, the non-Malay minorities pose no problem. They can be trusted and treated as equal to the Chinese majority in all sectors of public life.

As for the Malays, because of their close kinship ties with neighbors, you need to be prudent and keep them away from the military and sensitive services as much as possible.

This is the root cause of Malay unhappiness. It has given rise to feelings of ambivalence, of being discriminated against and becoming second-class citizens in their own land.

Now that the dust is settling down from the Viswa controversy, it is perhaps timely to consider whether Lee did a service or disservice to Singapore and particularly to the government led by his son, Lee Jr.

Just as many Chinese continue to revere Mao for his contributions, we too must always respect Lee for all the good that he had done in building Singapore to what it is today.

If we love Singapore, however, we must not abdicate our right to disagree, even at the risk of being ‘’rubbished’’ or worse still, getting knuckle-dusted. We must not forget the lesson from history.

The main fall-out from Lee’s harsh reaction is that he has distracted attention from the core issues of ‘’civil liberties and the future of Singapore’’ to the side issue of a minority problem, and in the process, to quote Alfian Sa’at ‘’unfairly scapegoated’’ the Malays.

Six days earlier in his National Day address to his Tanjong Pagar constituents, Lee had also aroused unhappiness when he raised the Malay bogey to persuade Chinese Singaporeans to be more conciliatory towards newcomers from China.

I sent a letter to the ST Editor on the same day seeking clarification and as it never saw daylight, let me make an excerpt to enlighten readers.

After saying that the birth rate by race is 1.91 for Malays, 1.19 for Indians, and 1.14 for Chinese, Lee went on to say: ‘’If we continue this way without the new immigrants and PRs and their children doing National Service, the composition of our SAF will change. So please remember that.’’

In my letter, I asked, what did MM mean by saying – ‘’please remember that’’. Is it to remind Singapore Chinese that the SAF must remain overwhelmingly in their hands and that the restriction on Malay participation must continue?

‘’Actually, as everyone knows, ever since Independence the PAP government has never allowed the SAF to reflect the racial composition of the country. What then is the necessity of making a statement that could arouse communal feelings.’’

I again wrote another letter to the ST Editor after Lee gave a twist to Article 152 of the Constitution in his attempt to demolish the allegedly false and flawed logic behind Viswa’s call to become one people regardless of race, language, and religion. By implying that its presence had made it difficult to achieve true equality among all the communities, many Singaporeans must have wondered as to whose logic was more flawed.

To the Malays, who have long complained that the PAP was only paying lip service to the Constitution, Lee’s latest interpretation was like rubbing salt in their wounds. There can never be a truly level playing field between the majority and minority in any plural society. Like in Singapore, Chinese leaders are also national leaders and to them, Chinese interests and national interests, are practically synonymous.

In recognition of this reality, many countries make some form of adjustment to mitigate the anxieties of their minorities, such as the granting of various degrees of autonomy. In Singapore, it takes the shape of Article 152, which does not confer special rights on Malays, but merely legitimizes the special arrangements for their religion and customs.

Every time Lee talks about the Singapore Malays and National Service, he likes to revive memories of his painful experience during his Malaysia days. Every time he brings it up, many Malays shudder as they feel that he is punishing the entire community for the sins of a handful of Malay ultras. Surely, after 44 years, it is enough.

Now he tells the Singapore Malays not to expect ‘’equal treatment’’ instantly as the Singapore Pledge on equality for all, was only an ‘’aspiration’’ and not an ‘’ideology’’ and therefore would take a long time to realize.

As an example, he cited the United States' experience with White-Black relations. He does not seem to appreciate that, unlike the Blacks, the Malays did not come to Singapore as slaves. They also do not consider themselves migrants.

Lee obviously prefers not to remember how impatient he was when advocating for a Malaysian Malaysia and equality for all races when Singapore was in the Federation.

The Malays only want the full equality that they had enjoyed in the past when Singapore was a British colony. Then all communities enjoyed equal rights and equal access to all sectors of public life.

If not for being unfairly scapegoated twice in a week by Lee, the 44th National Day celebrations would have gone down as a memorable event for many in the community. Some of my friends, including a few normally critical Malays, were practically swooning with patriotic nationalism until Lee single-handedly brought them all crashing back to earth. Except for the gushes of happiness by several Malays in a Sunday Times report, Lee’s two statements infuriated the community and deepened their feelings of being discriminated against. Many have still not forgotten that Lee had caused a similar uproar within the community about a decade ago when he said the government could not put a Malay who is religious-minded in charge of a machine gun unit.

Viswa has earned the respect of many Singaporeans for his maiden address in Parliament. Far from being an over-analysis, as an opposition leader from the Chinese heartland said, it was both courageous and timely. He will also live in the memory of many Malays as the first non-Malay to bring up their plight in the military and security services. Terima kasih.

This is the right time to discuss the future of our island Republic. For one thing, Lee cannot be around forever. A new world order is also emerging from last year’s collapse in the international financial markets. Old ways and old obsessions will have to make way for new realities. As such, Singaporeans should debate openly and civilly about what kind of Singapore they want to see emerging in the next 10 years.

The key issues include how to make the Singapore pledge a living reality. How do you reconcile the Malay yearning for full equality with the Chinese (or rather the PAP) obsession with dominance and security?

How do you satisfy the desires of more Singaporeans, especially the younger generation for a more open government and more civil liberties without undermining national stability?

Let the debate on the post-MM Lee scenario begin now.

Ismail Kassim.

(There above article circa October 2009 - still relevant to the Malays in Singapore and relevant to the Chinese seeking equal footing with the Malays in Malaysia).