Uncategorized
The Political Opening Up—Is it for Real?
For the first time in the political history of Singapore, the PAP Government is not only unambiguously stating that the political process is ripe for change and evolution, but is actually backing up the statement with a flurry of measures.
Of these, the one that has generated most interest and discussion is the lifting of restrictions on political dissent in cyberspace, probably because of its happy spillover effects in the real world, such as the permitting of demonstrations at the Speakers’ Corner, and the release of hitherto banned political movies. There may be yet more loosening up, based on feedback invited from the public, that the Government-appointed Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (Aims) is currently receiving.
Does it appear that suddenly a government that had been sternly intolerant and dismissive of all dissenting voices, both in blogs, podcasts, vodcasts, etc., and in mainstream media, has done an about-turn?
While these measures in no way match the spectacular changes that have taken place in the non-political domains of business, industry, education and the arts, they clearly signal the PAP Government’s acknowledgment, at long last, that the political process of freeing up democratic liberties for the people is essential to the overall progress of the nation.
Such a unique development, as close to a political renaissance as is possible in Singapore, should have elicited no less a response than jubilation from the people. But so far oddly there is none. So far there is no enthusiastic welcoming of the winds of change, no eager looking forward to a new political future. Instead, the reactions, both online and off, range from the deep cynicism of ‘too little, too late’, through the polite tentativeness of ‘wait and see’, to the cautious optimism of ‘a step in the right direction.’
Why is this so?
It is important to understand the reason for these reservations, because it goes right to the heart of the special complexities and problems that have marked the government-people relationship from the start. And the reason is this: All the changes being currently witnessed, far from being the result of a new mindset and vision of the government in response to the needs of the people, are no more than a necessary, and hence forced and reluctant, response to outside forces that it has no control over.
The most powerful force is of course the Internet, a new unstoppable world phenomenon that all governments have no choice but to adapt to. If the PAP government has been successfully curbing criticism in the traditional media, it simply has no power over critics taking advantage of the anarchic, free-for-all of the alternative media. For the first time in its experience, it would seem that the powerful PAP government stands nonplussed before an adversary. As the maxim goes, if you can’t beat them, join them. Better still, appease them, then learn to beat them at their own game.
Adding urgency to the need to engage the Internet are two reminders of its awesome power: firstly, the recent shocking example, just across the Causeway, of what can happen when its impact upon a general election is underestimated by the ruling party; and secondly, its potential impact on Singapore’s own general election due in two or three years’ time, a long enough period for the mischievous cyberspace minority to influence the majority in the real world, possibly leading to the worst imaginable outcome—a freak election.
Hence, the current slew of liberalizing measures is perceived by the people as no more than a defensive strategy of the PAP to continue to stay in power. As such, it smacks of self-interest and thus is far removed from the inspirational, galvanizing power of visionary decisions.
Behind the people’s cautious responses is a stark truth that shies from being publicly articulated at a time of such conciliatory gestures by the leaders. This is the prevailing belief that the special PAP mindset will under no circumstances allow any change in the PAP model of governance that has served the party so well over four decades. In a world of shifting needs and expectations, the model remains intact, because of its proven effectiveness. It is based on the assumption that an incorruptible, efficient, hard-working, no-nonsense government can deliver on its promise to bring material prosperity to the people only if it is free from the messiness and disorder that inevitably come with political liberalization, as seen in so many democracies in the region. The government sees the unfailing re-election of the PAP over four decades as proof that the assumption need never be questioned.
Hence, whatever measures that are being or will be implemented, are at best only concessionary, not substantive, only conditional, not permanent. They are marked by a careful selectivity to give the overall impression that things have changed for the better, while at the same time, signalling that the model is not to be undermined in any way. It is a shrewd balancing act, both to reassure the people and to warn off the critics.
Hence, it is still the old policy of control and containment, still the old dance of three-steps-forward-and-two-steps-back. Consequently, despite the claims of an opening up, the government will continue to keep a vigilant eye on bloggers, producers of political videos, demonstrators at the Speakers’ Corner, etc. to make sure that they do not go beyond the famously unyielding out-of-bounds markers that have long governed the scope, content and tone of criticism. It will not hesitate to remind these dissenting voices that freedom must be exercised responsibly, by which it means staying within these markers.
The promised evolution for the political process is precisely this tightly managed, step by step, incrementalist approach that is decided, monitored, guided and shaped all the way by the government in a continuing demonstration of an unchanging and unchangeable top-down PAP approach.
This is an unusual and, for political commentators like myself, an exciting time. My prognosis has been none too optimistic. It is an example of those rare occasions when the prognosticator wants to be proved wrong. Hence, there is no relinquishing this fervent hope: that the Government will seize the current unique opportunity to enlarge its response to the new challenge of the Internet by going beyond mere tactics to defining strategy, that is, moving on from the various piecemeal measures of appeasement, concession, sidestepping, gap-filling, pre-emption, etc. to a systematic, purposeful and sustained approach for total and lasting transformation of the political landscape. Such a leap calls for a profound leadership change of mind, heart and will, without which the true maturing of Singapore society will not be possible.
September 21st, 2008 at 5:43 am
“All the changes being currently witnessed, far from being the result of a new mindset and vision of the government in response to the needs of the people, are no more than a necessary, and hence forced and reluctant, response to outside forces that it has no control over.”
i think you’re overly cynical and pessimistic.
singaporeans (like yourself) are so used to complaining and government bashing that the political opening up took them by surprise. rather than admit that they are not prepared to take advantage of the opening up, singaporeans would rather continue in their govt bashing and complaining and dismiss the govt’s move as an ungenuine step in opening up.
rather than taking advantage of the new freedoms online, at hong lim park, and in the film arena, the paucity of bottom-up activity only demonstrates the lack of a civil society spirit in singaporeans, and a fundamental failure to take their own responsibility for their own society.
I am no fan of the PAP. But seriously, stop complaining about the govt already.
September 21st, 2008 at 5:54 am
“Government will seize the current unique opportunity to enlarge its response to the new challenge of the Internet by going beyond mere tactics to defining strategy, that is, moving on from the various piecemeal measures of appeasement, concession, sidestepping, gap-filling, pre-emption, etc. to a systematic, purposeful and sustained approach for total and lasting transformation of the political landscape.”
seriously, much as i appreciate your accomplishments as an author, i cannot help but find this a rather dumb statement within the context of your argument.
why are you placing the burden on the government to change their actions and their minds?
i find it paradoxical that you fault the new opening up as “no more than a necessary, and hence forced and reluctant, response to outside forces that it has no control over.” … and then proceed to expect that the govt will somehow magically engage in a “profound leadership change of mind, heart and will, without which the true maturing of Singapore society will not be possible.”
if the government really only is a passive responder to outside forces, then the maturing of Singapore society must happen BEFORE the government leadership change its mind, heart and will.
like i said, take responsibility for your own society. Singaporeans must grow up, mature, and FORCE THE GOVT TO BEHAVE.
STOP BLAMING THE GOVT.
September 21st, 2008 at 8:12 am
In my personal view, I believe that any change in PAP mindset will and can only occur after SM Lee exits the scene permanently. The past and current leadership gives too much deference to him to oppose him in any way. My observations is that whenever there are any major debate in Parliament, and even if some PAP MP’s spoke along the lines that oppose the official party views, SM Lee will always be the last one to give his comment. Once his comments had been made, all dissenting voices will immediately die down.
September 21st, 2008 at 10:45 am
I honestly believe all these current measures taken by our Govt are only paying lip service to what rigitfully should have belong to us in the first place. Rights, freedom of expression, investment transparency, independent judiciary, etc. Nothing more and nothing less, that’s it.
Knowing how paranoid our PAP leaders can be, how open can they become. Next we will have to answer to our demands to know first hand about our reserves and CPC funds invested by Temasek especially the losses. Come to think of it, how can such knowledge of how massive losses (or porfits?) be vested only in such a few individuals. As it is, they still cannot explain why it’s shrouded in such secrecy that it is limited to the Lee Family. Is it because they cannot afford to have their skeletons exposed to the public, if there are any?
As a true blue Singaporean, the PAP government just cannot deny my right to know all these and yet they have been doing this all these years. Does anyone, for a second believe our PAP goverment will ever change for the better ?
Just look at Taiwan’s Chen Shui Bian and you be just amazed what else do you think that any elected goverment is not capable of doing!!!
September 21st, 2008 at 2:19 pm
The PAP is definitely much smarter than Malaysia’s BN.
Instead of arresting bloggers under the ISA, they plant moles in cyberspace to have a voice there. This was admitted openly by PAP MP Baey Yam Keng in an interview with Straits Times last year that the PAP is sending activists to cyberspace to rebut its critics.
By securing control of a major political blog, the PAP can influence perceptions on the internet. Of course, this blog must be seen as “independent” or it will lose all credibility like its pathetic p65 blog.
For more information on how the PAP manage to spread its influence in blogosphere, please read the article below:
http://wayangparty.wordpress.com/2008/09/14/the-perfect-pap-guide-to-dealing-with-troublesome-bloggers/
September 21st, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Why am I cynical and pessimistic ? Let’s look at some of their political activities: a) Conflict of interest with key appointments in GIC/Temasek. Where is the accountability ?
b) Conflict of interest with PAP MPs holding important appointments in companies that provide essential services to the public. example PTC. One PAP MP is noted to hold 17 official posts. Effective representation ?
c) President of Singapore is a liability to the people if the ruling party cannot entrust him to oversee the country’s reserves. Was he elected in the first place ?
d) Introducing laws that stifle citizens’ political participation. Cycling event organized by WP is banned, assembly of 5 or more people can be illegal, designated location for protests at Hong Lim Park to reduce effectiveness, existing ISA that can be abused. Recall any familiar names involved ? Isn’t it a conflict of interest when the cycling/charity event held by PCF was approved and Ho Peng Kee is a council member of PCF ?
e) Do the majority of the public perceive there is fairplay in our elections system ? Isn’t it a conflict of interest with elections department under PMO ?
f) Lack of independence in the judiciary according to the IBA report. Where is the positive response from this government to such a damaging report ? The implication is mind boggling !
This government cannot control cyberspace and circumstances have forced them to open up, BUT only a little. 3 steps forward and 2 1/2 steps back is more appropriate.
This government has to work a lot harder to regain my trust! I have done my part but will the 66.6% do their part to make this government behave ?
September 22nd, 2008 at 4:27 am
In rebuttal to INSPIR3D’s response, repeating twice that “Singaporeans must grow up, mature, and FORCE THE GOVT TO BEHAVE. STOP BLAMING THE GOVERNMENT.”
Is that not the reason for M/s Catherine Lim’s commentary about the awesome power of the Internet, a force that the PAP has to reconcile with, as the inevitable will happen. More and more netizens will turn to the internet for alternatives views and not be taken in by the propaganda dished out by the local MSMs whom we all know are government-controlled. He goes on to say, “the maturing of Singapore society must happen BEFORE the government leadership change its mind, heart and will.” Does he really believe that citizens as he earlier said ‘grow up, mature” in an environment where everything is more or less PAP-controlled? Look anywhere in Singapore and you will find how pervasive these organisations have intruded into every aspect of your life. Is not reading M/s Lim’s commentaries and those from other blogs succeeding in their own way to enlighten locals and give alternative views to what we already know from our MSMs? Where else can we turn to if not the internet? Should we be like stray dogs that gratefully accept the little meat thrown to us as an afterthought? Should we not demand more as our given right?
As she mentoned, across the causeway, the fundamental rights of the people have been taken away unjustly. An absolute abuse of ISA, used against political adversaries and common people and not for the purpose ISA was intended for. How do we know what is happening if we only read our local news? If such things can happen there, it can happen in Singapore as we too have the ISA. Perhaps INSPIR3D can expand on how we can “grow up, mature and take responsibility for our own society.” Wise words that may be, but are they of any good to any one, or just a mere phrase with no substance?
September 22nd, 2008 at 8:57 am
I find the concept about the government offering to loosen up all the controls on internet amusing. How can you control something that you have no control?
With political films, you only need it to be uploaded into YouTube. Who cares what the government thinks is allowed or not? Who cares if they give their agreement?
Sure, they can block YouTube. Would they? There are many others.
September 22nd, 2008 at 10:56 am
I subscribe to the view that this ‘lightening up’ is nothing more then throwing scraps to the citizenry to nibble upon. They will not change their model of governance, if at all, at least until after the grand old man is gone. There is alot to change in this country and the affiliations and conflicts of interests that exist in so many facets of our lives are indeed scary. To untangle this mess will take alot but has to be done if we are mature as an engaged society and take back our responsibility from the politicians instead of allowing them to continually talk down to us like children. So much so that many have a child’s mentality when it comes to the governance of the country and thier lives.
September 22nd, 2008 at 12:13 pm
I dont think these changes are brought abt by sheer necessity, CL may have misread the whole relationship between aims and govt and what is written in the MSM (as I understand, she “never reads blogs,” as she herself once said bc it “overwhelms” her)
I think if you take a look at this thread someone past to me, the issues as to why our govt may be going online may be far more complicated than the simplistic and childish account provided by CL.
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2008/09/consider/#comment-22147
September 22nd, 2008 at 1:10 pm
“Such a unique development, as close to a political renaissance as is possible in Singapore, should have elicited no less a response than jubilation from the people. But so far oddly there is none. So far there is no enthusiastic welcoming of the winds of change, no eager looking forward to a new political future. Instead, the reactions, both online and off, range from the deep cynicism of ‘too little, too late’, through the polite tentativeness of ‘wait and see’, to the cautious optimism of ‘a step in the right direction.’”
To be honest with you. I dont believe there is “cynicism.” The real problem may be there is no neutral platform to discuss this issues.
There is definitely alot of discussion on the merits and demerits of freeing up our net, if one really takes the trouble to seek them out, but ALL of it seems to be occuring in small pockets in isolated islands.
My feel is aims should have created a platform neutral “public square.”
As it is they have not been able to elicit the desired public discourse as they are perceived to be too close to the govt.
My humble opinion.
September 22nd, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Hi
Thanks white rabbit @ 12:13 for the link. I am have mixed feelings abt the brotherhud entering the picture. They will make everything all right, but this is also a clear sign, they consider this a very significant move. You need to understand these ppl dont move or even talk to someone if they see no point to it.
The only problem is they can be quite abrasive to the point of being a pain.
If they can shed their give me everything or your life attitude. I think they stand a very good chance of bringing balance to our blogosphere.
In this respect. I don’t believe it is only our gahmen that comes across as sanctimonious and righteous. I believe in some cases bloggers can also assume a surreal level of delusional unreality, to do very much the same. When they demand for the sky and moon.
But I think, anyone who has never dealt with them before will be very shock. They are not so very different from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSV9S2Ol3bc
This people. It is best to give them a wide bearth. The wider the better.
Remember what the Emperor said of them, “Is there a problem? usually there is a problem when one of you makes a visit..”
September 22nd, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Dear Ms Lim,
I often wanted to read your works. But, I find that the format of your page is quite difficult to read as I have to scroll down so often as each line has between only 3 and 5 words…. May I request that you format in a normal A4 size as our eyes, over the decades, have been used to such format…
Thank u.
September 22nd, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Inspir3d:
I think the onus is on the government to convince the people that it is serious about opening up this time, because they failed every single previous time.
And again the government failed in its promise to open up – just last friday, (cut and paste from http://www.sgpolitics.ne)
So how can one reasonably expect Singaporeans to react with anything by cynicism when the government talks about opening up on one hand, but acts consistently to the contary at the same time?
September 22nd, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Sorry, can the blog owner delete the previous entry.
Inspir3d:
I think the onus is on the government to convince the people that it is serious about opening up this time, because they failed every single previous time.
And again the government failed in its promise to open up – just last friday, (cut and paste from http://www.sgpolitics.ne)“…Mr Thamilselvan Karuppaya, a real estate agent, had intended to hold a demonstration at Speaker’s Corner last Friday to talk about the use of Tamil on public signs. Changi Airport had earlier dropped the use of Tamil on its public signs, replacing it with Japanese instead, in an apparent bid to appeal to Japanese visitors who make up an increasingly larger share of the tourist pie.
National Parks Board (NParks) referred the matter to the police when it received Mr Thamilselvan Karuppaya application to hold the demonstration. The police informed Mr Thamilselvan to apply for a Public Entertainment License last Tuesday, but rejected his application at the last minute. Mr Thamilselvan cancelled the event accordingly, but he said, “We are not going to keep quiet on this topic.†(ST, “Police turn down estate agent’s application to speak on Tamil language issuesâ€, 19 Sept)
As expected, the police dished out the usual excuse on the need to maintain racial and religious harmony. A police spokesman said in a statement that “the topic of his speech is a sensitive one impinging on raceâ€, and that “Singapore is a multi-ethnic society and maintaining community harmony is a key imperative that we must not take for granted ”
So how can one reasonably expect Singaporeans to react with anything by cynicism when the government talks about opening up on one hand, but acts consistently to the contary at the same time?
September 23rd, 2008 at 1:34 am
My 2 cents worth is that the Son wants it (the loosening up) but the Old Man is still against it. As long as the Old Man is still around, the Son is overshadowed and his action therefore appear as inco-ordinated and ambivalent. Pity. He doesnt get to be his real self.
September 23rd, 2008 at 2:05 am
whiteRaven:
They are all in the same boat…..only difference is that the older Man is smarter then the younger Man.
September 23rd, 2008 at 9:58 am
if holding a cycling event in a park is prohibited on the ground that it is a security and safety threat, what opening up are we talking about?
September 23rd, 2008 at 11:58 am
[...] don’t need no regulation – Catherine Lim: The Political Opening Up—Is it for Real? – To Fix a Mocking Peasant: [...]
September 23rd, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Dear Catherine,
I wish you were a bit more literate about the internet and information highway or IT. What the younger Lee was proposing is just a hairstring of the truth of political opening up.
The internet and IT domain is so huge that you can get any information at tetra-nano seconds or even faster. So there’s no need for him to open up the use of the internet or cyberspace as its domain is beyond containment and control. The same goes with political films online.
The opening of Speakers’ Corner is just a joke. Where in the world do you have to have a Speakers’ Corner to voice your whatever?
What is more important now is to ensure and provide every opportunity for every school kid and adult to have access to and acquire knowledge of and competence in the use of the computer and IT. I do not know what percentage of school kids and adults in SIN is literate and competent in the world of computers and IT.
When this phenomenon happens in SIN, you’ll find the minds of SIN-ans liberated. That was what happened to my son when I exposed him to the computer and IT at a very young age of 6. Today, he knows so much more on any topic or any subject than most of us, just one generation ahead of him. I wonder why on earth he owns three Blackberry’s and half a dozen laptops and desktops leaving the retired old man two not so young versions of laptops and two older versions of clumsy desktops?
Anyway, your commentary is a good beginning to stimulate the dullness of mind and stir the acquiescence of SIN-ans that has long been fed, controlled and indoctrinated by a patriarchal PAP ideology for too long and too far.
September 24th, 2008 at 12:07 am
Things need to get worse before it gets better. Unfortunately, because of the lack of transparency and tight reign on/possibly manipulation of information by trustees of the state, it is difficult for SINners to fathom the extend of social and economic damages inflicted by patriarchy rule. .
All appears well from the outside.The result of an over regulated society Isuppose. You really can’t tell how good the book is from its cover anyway.
We need an opened book. An open seal.
September 24th, 2008 at 1:16 am
It seems as real as Mollymeek described in her latest Blog ‘Disbelieving’.
patriot
September 25th, 2008 at 2:03 am
Ms Lim said at the Botanic Gardens that she felt happy to stay in Singapore. Who has turned this country into one that she feels happy to live in? Even if the PAP builds a house of gold for every Singaporean,we will complain that the colour of gold is inappropriate for a dwelling. Be contented.
September 25th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Yah hor why we all get to live in a beautiful city and somemore hor today it was report that Singapore is one of the future top 10 cities hor, yet so many people complain and complain hor.
All should just shut up and be contented that you have your job and 3 meals to eat. Should not be allowed to think or voice your opinion. We are just latter days slaves mah. The elite they take all the cream and the peasants just make sure they keep working as the income gap widens. Nevermind so many elderly must pick up cans and cardboard to stay alive.
All these nevermind one. Must be content. They deserve one. Now remember shut up and only sing praises. Your opinion does not matter so keep it to yourself. Be content…see so easy one…
September 25th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Mr TPK,
Who built up Singapore? The older generation of Singaporeans and the older generation of political leaders of which only Mr LKY remains. None of current ministers/MP should take credit for the toil of the generations before.
A house of gold? A Swiss standard of living was promised and never delivered, and now Singaporeans are asked to work beyond retirement, and to the 90s to survive – which other developed nation require their citizens work till they die if they are poor? For this we should be eternally grateful to our government?
September 25th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
We may achieve a certain quality of living in which you may call it ” gold standard” but, it has to be achieved by the leadership of the people, not led by the leadership of Caesar.
In this new advent, the powers are balanced. There will be stability, peace and shared rewards.
What the people want( or should be given) is a sense of ownership in their collective home. Ownership can never be achieved in a strongman domain.
September 26th, 2008 at 10:00 am
Regardless who the strong man is and in which particular domain – religious or otherwise, the objective has always been to rule over the weak, keep them subjugated and decide on their portion.
Who would want to wash feet, eat the same bread and drink from the same cup? Certainly not those who eat the forbidden fruit – religious or otherwise.
September 28th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Be contend lah. Look around the world.
Leman Bros, Fannie Mae, AIG, etc. What’s next? Weaker economies round the world are being swallowed up by the misdeeds of other people..
Oh, in Malaysia Hindraf are put behind bars. Terrorism goes to the front door of opposition MP. Or in India where bombings are happening in the cities and the caste system being played out in societies.
Be happy lah . This tiny, resourceless red dot is again giving out money to its people come 1st Oct.
Please compare lah. Against any country where Asians are having a really good and cushy time.
September 28th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Surprise! Surprise! Not bad right? Catherine makes herself a livelihood here and chooses to make Singapore her home.
September 29th, 2008 at 8:41 am
An honest man, true to God & self, one Malay intellectual (Syed Imran, former Press Secretary, PMO, Malaysia) with a strong desire for a peaceful & successful nation, penned this candid & open article for his countrymen’s revelation just last month (the original in Malay is found in his blog, Kuda Ranggi).
BETWEEN IMMIGRANTS & SQUATTERS (Antara Pendatang dan Penumpang)
At first, I was reluctant to comment on the hoo-hah that resulted from the statements made by the UMNO division head of Bukit Bendera, Penang named Ahmad bin Ismail. Whether what he said about Malaysian of Chinese descent is true or false is not the question, because the issue is already spreading and the situation flaring up.
Unless the issue is addressed carefully, conscientiously and wisely, it can be exploited by those who wish to see this nation crumble, as well as by foreign powers. In this era of the borderless world and instantaneous international coverage via electronic media, whatever happens within a nation cannot be hidden or denied.
The main issue that was brought up by Ahmad Ismail involves the question of ‘squatting’; that is, that Malaysians of Chinese descent are squatters in this nation. He later clarified that this refers to the pre-Merdeka (pre-Malayan Independence) era. Nevertheless, the sensitivities of Chinese Malaysians were offended.
I do not know Ahmad Ismail personally, but I am quite close to Allahyarham, his brother Abdul Rahim Ismail, owner of the Rahim Construction Company which was once quite renown as the best Bumiputra-owned construction firm in Penang. I do not know what has happened with the company since Abdul Rahim passed away.
Personally, I (Syed Imran) disagree with what Ahmad Ismail claims for several reasons.
To me, almost 90 percent of Malaysians, especially those in the Peninsular, are immigrants and all of us are actually squatting on God’s land. We are not permanent owners, but merely squatting.
As an example, I myself am descended from immigrants who squatted on this blessed land. My grandparents on my father’s side immigrated from Mecca (in Saudi Arabia) and Brunei, whereas my maternal grandparents came from Hadhramut in Yemen. We are immigrants and squatters just like almost all of this nation’s citizens, especially those in Penang.
As for Ahmad Ismail, he too comes from an immigrant family and is squatting in this nation. Ahmad Ismail cannot deny the fact that his grandparents are immigrants from India who came in search of a better, more comfortable life in this blessed land.
Prime Minister Abdullah bin Ahmad is also included in the same category. His maternal grandfather was an immigrant from the Guangdong province in China. To cut a long story short, Pak Lah’s grandfather and Allahyarhamah Kailan’s father known as Hassan Salleh or Hah Su Chiang was an immigrant. He immigrated to Malaya from Guangdong (Kwangtung) in the mid 19th-century and settled in Bayan Lepas as a rubber planter, paddy farmer and later a diamond trader.
Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak also comes from an immigrant family, that is from Sulawesi in Indonesia, or to be simply he is a Bugis. Meanwhile, Hishamuddin Hussein cannot deny from his Turkish bloodline.
The grandparents of former PM Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad are also immigrants from Kerala, India while Almarhum Tunku Abul Rahman’s mother originated from Siam (Thailand).
Even the Malay Sultanate of Malacca was founded by an immigrant from Sumatra (in Indonesia) named Parameswara, a prince or noble of the Hindu religion.
In the history of the Malay sultanates, we find that some were founded by immigrants from Bugis and others by immigrants from Hadhramut (in Yemen) and Minangkabau (in Indonesia).
Almost all Malays here originated from outside Malaya, but are recognized as being of ‘Malay ethnicity’ by the Federal Constitution. We are ‘Malays according to Constitutional definition’, that is of the religion of Islam, practising Malay customs and speaking the Malay language. Unfortunately, the Malay language was killed by the Malay people themselves (UMNO) when it was renamed ‘Bahasa Malaysia’ (Malaysian language).
Thus Arabs like Syed Hamid Albar and myself, Acehnese like Sanusi Junid, Indians like Kader Sheikh Fadzir and Nor Mohamed Yakcop, Bugis like Najib, Minangkabau like Rais Yatim, Javanese like Mohamad Rahmat and others who originate from Madura (Indonesia), Boyan (Bawean in Indonesia), Siam, Burma, Yunnan (China) and the southern Phillipines are recognized as ‘Malay’ with little hassle.
They are accepted as Malay people regardless of whether they speak Malay in the home or not, for example the Arab-speaking Arab, the Javanese-speaking Javanese, the Minangkabau-speaking Minangkabau and the Tamil-speaking Mamak (Indian Muslim).
The aforementioned languages are not Malay languages, and if judged from the viewpoint of the Federal Constitution, their speakers cannot be accepted or recognized as part of the Malay race. Nevertheless, due to political factors and concerns, they are all accepted as Malays and Bumiputras.
Therefore, it is unfair to point fingers at the Chinese who are immigrants just the same as Arabs, Indians, Acehnese, Minangkabau, Batak, Mandailing, Javanese, Madurese and Bugis are squatters in this country. We cannot deny that a large number of the ancestors of the Chinese immigrated to this country during the time of the Malay Sultanate of Malacca and the Malay sultanates of Kedah, Terengganu and Kelantan when Francis Light conned the Sultan of Kedah into giving him Penang Island in 1786.
We are immigrants who live squatting in this country. The groups which truly can be recognized as indigenous or ‘bumiputra’ are those we know as Negrito, Jakun, Semang, Jahut, Orang Laut, Orang Darat, Senoi and the other Orang Asli groups who still live in these lands.
We must not forget the contributions and sacrifices of all races and sub-races in developing Malaysia, be it in economy, society, security and most important of all, alliance and unity. We all pay taxes and do so without regard to race or descent, whether immigrant or squatter.
We are all Malaysians.
September 29th, 2008 at 8:46 am
Wah, surprise, surprise, MIW supporters come in here in disguise to tell people to be contented. Aiyah why mix the line between speaking up and being contented.
Does it mean that being contented we cannot criticize the gahmen? Gahmen perfect meh? So many mistakes and if dun keep them on their toes they will make even more.
Its so silly that they keep coming in and bring up all these non-related items to shut people up.
Later hor, they will say that you think you can do better meh — if not then stop complaining.
Alamak, people who say that is even more silly. We vote gahmen in for what. They must work what. Their million $$ for what? Our PM is better paid than President of US, UK and France add together you know of not? Cannot complain huh? Its my right to expect much better.
You dun want to comment then you shut up. If my comment is stupid then you say its stupid and correct me not tell me to be contented and stop commenting. Some MIW supporters are simply silly.
October 1st, 2008 at 1:07 pm
I’d like to add a few more comments to my earlier mention of the infinite use and access to the internet and IT and the immense and unbeatable power of the computer and its programs/softwares.
First, the AIMs that was established to regulate the use and control of the internet and cyberspace will not only bring about backlash to SIN’s rapid development in all fields of its endeavours but detrimental to a globalized economy, tele/communications, education, knowledge-based sciences, etc. In fact, the AIMs will find itself powerless in imposing restrictions let alone stifle criticisms and dissent in cyberspace.
Second, I believe most SIN-ans today are pretty sophisticated in handling, manipulating, creating, disseminating, finger-tipping and hacking the cyberspace machine. Even the Pentagon isn’t immune to all these amazing and mind-boggling/blasting phenomena.
The AIMs should seriously be looking into making SIN the global hub of cyberspace technology and robotics. The senile, obsolete, schizophrenic Old Man should not be threatening to pursue lies of his opponents in cyberspace and stand in the way of SIN going forward and capitalizing on man’s greatest technological inventions in the history of mankind.
October 21st, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Hi Ms Lim, what do you think about the senior citizen’s protest at HongLim after almost 40years of protest drought in Singapore. After they got their life-saving wiped out (maybe)…
Is that a joke? 1) Senior citizen who spoiled this gov with power, our very first generation is now protesting (not if their $$ was not affected) 2) And gov “gave” us this chance to protest openly in a restricted corner…. or else the lighting god, would that ever happens if the gov did not gave us that privilege? 3) What’s that going to mean for future generation?
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:59 am
Ms Catherine Lim, you keep repeating that the PAP Government–meaning: its officers and officials–is incorruptible and uncorrupted. Do you really read our history objectively, honestly and accurately? Why, I am prepared to meet you in person to provide you with a good knowledge of the CORRUPT and ILLEGAL practices of the authorities and their agents in such detail that there is no opportunity for “plausible deniability”!
November 8th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Just count ourselves lucky, we who reside in Singapore. We should bow our heads three times, thanking your ancestors for bringing us here. Surely we are much better off here today than our kinds back in Tamil Naidu (India), Guangdong (China) or Indonesia.
Frankly, we cannot find a better government in the PAP (expensive though) that has looked after our interests & well-being, be they Chinese, Malays & Indians, since our independence in 1965. We all have eyes to compare and judge as a grateful people.
And unless you’re among the majority Muslim Malays in Malaysia you can only hope to open shops or do business i.e. if you have the capital. And even that you’ll have to face a lot of obstacles eg bribes. What if you don’t have? Eke out a meager livelihood or migrate to Singapore or Australia.
Finally, and if there is a better place elsewhere than Singapore, surely nobody is stopping any dissidents from migrating. The Indians from India, Chinese from China and people from elsewhere will come and fill up your places. Even, our Singaporean Malays can tell the difference. The pro-Muslim Malay Affirmative Action Policy (NEP) that discriminates against the minority races in Malaysia is certainly no great pull for them.
November 23rd, 2008 at 1:10 am
Banerd Soh, good utterance, we need more pople like you.
December 27th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Basically, to each his own, the PAP will never do anything that will alleviates its chances at elections.
Opening up? It all depends on your imaginations. As long as you dont hurt their chances, I think complaints and whines are ok.
How is Singapore different from China or Vietnam? Everything here is tightly regulated, from the economy to politics?
Yes – we dont have much blunt corruptions like in third world countries but people in power given themselves such a huge pay rises, their families and friends are rewarded with critical roles in society.
What about their family businesses that have some what also benefitted?
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:41 am
And what about MPs and sidekicks being given the opportunity to hold many directorships and chairmanships and getting paid for each of them on top of their own jobs and the MP alllowances?
And what about “secret” transactions that are not or cannot be revealed to the public? Without data and without transparency, who will know what the hell is going on behind closed doors, under the table, in the toilets and at dark corners?
Can we simply agree that there is no corruption?
February 9th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Cry my beloved Malay soul Abd Sulaiman Feb 6, 09 10:51am
When Alan Paton wrote ‘Cry The Beloved Country’ he was lamenting over the inhumanity of man over man, of how the whites can devise, construct and implement race- and colour-based social and economic injustices over the blacks in apartheid-era South Africa.
The whole world had condemned this practice; we were among the loudest screaming against it.
South Africa has moved on since then, and today it is one shining example of an emancipated, open and progressive country, enjoying a respectable place in the community of nations. It has thrown apartheid into the bins of its history.
malaysia people rakyatHere in Malaysia, yes we condemn apartheid, and quite rightly so. But in the same breath we were and are still its major proponent our version of apartheid.
We do not call it apartheid; of course not. We call it instead ‘Ketuanan Melayu’ under the guise of ‘championing Malay rights,’ and implementing it under the New Economic Policy. It’s smart, right? In none of them does the word ‘apartheid’ appear!
Yes, we are smart. We do not blatantly call it apartheid, we merely perfected the process of social separation. First of all we ensure the great majority of civil servants, the police, and the military are manned by Malays (the target benefactors). We give them good salaries, good perks and assured employment. We then devise rules and regulations, and even laws, to ensure the NEP’s easy implementation.
We then brainwash our Malay brethren with the notion ‘untuk agama bangsa dan negara’ that there is a higher ideal beyond performing a duty with professionalism and dedication, and that is doing things in the name of religion and race.
We devise rules and regulations, and even laws, to ensure the NEP’s easy implementation.
Then we design and implement social and economic policies like channeling lucrative government contracts, separate education streams, housing rebates, banking and financial support, in favour of, you guessed it, the Malays.
It does not stop there. We devise measures to prevent the people from raising too much objections to all these by introducing or continuing legislation and religiously implementing them.
The Sedition Act for example stops people from talking too much about language and religion. The Official Secrets Act prevents people from gaining access to government files.
Students and lecturers are not allowed to discuss and make public any subject that would appear to be critical to government (yes, government, not political) policies and philosophies.
All publications must, first of all, get operating licences. Newspapers must not only get a licence before publishing but it must be renewed every year.
Sacrifices conveniently forgotten
gmi anti isa candle light vigil protest kamunting 070608The king of all of the suppressive and oppressive laws is the Internal Security Act, when a citizen can be put under detention without the benefit of any charge!
All said and done, we sacrifice the rule of law in favour of rule by private individuals. To show that we are really smart, we pooh pooh the loyalty and patriotism of the non-Malay segment of the population.
We call them pendatang or immigrants bearing the stigma that they are social discard from their original country, similar to rogues, rascals, refugees, mercenaries and scoundrels. We just ignore their proven talent and ability in wealth creation and economic productivity, as well as to their demonstrated loyalty and patriotism.
Many of such pendatangs have made the ultimate sacrifices as military personnel defending its security, during the Emergency, the Confrontation period with Indonesia and as policemen while policing the social environment.
They have contributed and are continuing to, in sport and the arts. Their record as loyal and patriotic Malaysians is quite impeccable. But we do not really care.
The perplexing thing is that despite these attributes and positive records of the non-Malays, we are still going about championing and implement apartheid principles. In this new year, perhaps we can do with a little reflection: why are we doing all this?
We do this apparently to recover our lost soul. We perceive that we have been victims of colonisation when the Portuguese, Dutch and British colonisers all but butchered the Malay entity, psychology and culture. In the process we perceive that we have lost our Malay identity.
With independence, we thought we could recapture the lost glory of Malay suzerainty by
becoming masters of all facets of a nation, especially its commerce, and economy. We found out that the Chinese community had beaten us to it.
We felt the Chinese had capitalised on our weakness and captured the economic initiatives (and wealth) as well as the social characteristics of the country. We lost ‘face’.
Now we want to regain the mertabat or dignity and pride of the Malay race!
Yes, we feel that we have to recover our soul and it is here that we are reminded of Paton’s book title, but in this case suitably paraphrased to — cry my beloved Malay soul.
Our Malay soul needs to cry for doing the right thing for the wrong reason or the wrong thing for the right reason; even for the wrong thing for the wrong reason, but not for the right thing for the right reason.
To start with colonisation is really not an excuse for our psychological malaise and ineptitude.
Colonisation has been a feature of human history and felt all over the world. There are very few countries that have not been colonised in the world.
It is thus a neutral concept in human social and economic development. It is certainly not an impediment to social or economic progress as we are wont to portray it. We should dump this notion that we hold dear into the bin of history.
Rethinking our way of thinking
Just look at the records. The Koreans were once colonised by the Japanese, but today Korea is an industrial power house. Singapore was once colonised by the British and was indeed a part of us, and today we see this tiny country being a solid financial, trading and industrial entity.
Most pointedly of all, the US was once a British colony and today it is the mightiest nation in the world. Our second grouse – that the Chinese have cornered the economic sector of the country also needs re-looking into, on two counts.
First, the Chinese did not become successful based on any conscious and concerted economic programme to economically marginalise us.
We did this self-inflicted wound ourselves. As proof, we have to note that most of the Chinese came to our shores with only their feet, hands, guts and brains and perhaps a bundle of clothes, nothing more.
They become successful for their hard work, both physically and mentally and for the sacrifices they were prepared to make and had undertaken. They were successful for having the mental fortitude to seek opportunities, grab those that come along and worked extra hard to realise the potentials of these opportunities.
Secondly, we have been given a chance to be equal with them, both under numerous ‘special privileges’ enshrined in the Constitution, as well as under its NEP implementation programme.
malaysia parliament parlimenThe special privileges have always been in the constitution while the latter began in 1970. In short, we have been given the chance – the opportunity – many times over, to better our Malay polity.
Whereas the Chinese had to struggle just to find and identify the opportunities, in our case they were handed to us on a silver platter!
Thus far we have failed to capitalise adequately on them. It rather shameful we missing out on these chances specially created for us in the first place.
Either way the root cause of our weaknesses and the strength of the Chinese lies in two words – positive thinking. Our thinking is mired with so many dos and don’ts, so many musts and musn’ts, so many cans and cannots, may and may nots, plenty enough to created and internalise doubts and fears in our minds.
So much so that we have doubt over what we can and what we can’t do, what is allowed and what is not. We spend a lifetime looking for these highly complex cans and cannots, musts and must nots, that we have hardly any mental energy left to develop and self-confidence to get on and face the realities of life.
Let’s refer to this case as the ‘can’t don’t and won’t syndrome’. The Chinese by the way are not encumbered by such syndromes.
What appears to have happened is that this syndrome has affected our mental ability to conceptualise. We see things on the straight and narrow. We accept wisdoms handed down to us by our elders as the gospel truth.
Blinded by sentiment
We do not see that things can be seen and interpreted in many alternative ways. We feel we have the monopoly on truth; we therefore think that we are right all the time and other people are wrong all the time. Witness the way we see religion for example.
We think that we as Muslims are right and other people who profess other religions are wrong, all the time.
We need to cry for thinking that we can and have doctored the way the people think and do things. We have been intimidating the people with what they can read or write or think and do.
We seem to be saying “you can think anything, do anything, write anything so long as it does not criticise or condemn the government”.
Soul-searching and resuscitating is not or should not be about pointing accusing fingers at some bogeys. That would be a most negative thing to do. It would be better for us to be open-minded and be able to identify our own strengths and weaknesses.
We improve upon our strengths and dump our weaknesses. Mainly we must be able to develop the awareness that we have both the strengths and weaknesses in the first place.
To illustrate, the NEP has proved many time over as a failed strategy for our socio-economic advancement. Let us be aware of this in the first place and move on seeking other ways with better chance of success.
How about secularising the Malay mind? It might make for a good start for we can see many of the don’ts, can’ts, musn’ts dissipating into the wind.
In the meantime, here we are in the early days of a new year. We should begin by realising that whatever ‘smart’ moves we had undertaken all this while have not really been that smart after all.
The joke is on us. Everybody says so — the liberated Malays, the non-Malays, our neighbours and the rest of the international community. Only those of us basking in our closed mind and benefiting from the profits of the status quo say it’s alright.
Happy New Year all the same and here’s hoping this year we can get a good perspective as to what propagating a good mertabat really means. It’s long overdue.
In the meantime, cry my beloved Malay soul.
May 7th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
“This is an unusual and, for political commentators like myself, an exciting time. My prognosis has been none too optimistic.”
I dont want to say too much here. I think you are very biased against our govt, because that is the same line you have been playing since time immemorial.
If what you said is true, then why did the Brotherhood press say the govt response in this episode was 9 out of 10? Their leader even said, the response in this case was “measured, intelligent and effective to ensure both parties were able to play on without the whistle being blown every two seconds…this created not only a very interesting flow of events, but it added considerably to facilitating the unabated flow of information.”
Now you are saying the opposite Catherine. And you have given no other reason except maybe the weight of your ire and vindictiveness.
Nevermind, I am going to write a letter of complain to the brotherhood press and they will take you to the dumps.
Personally, I felt the govt did a great job, but since you seem to only like to criticize our govt for no reason other than because you have an axe to grind, I will leave it as that.