Proud to be a Malay Singaporean

Hi, what happened to my comments??

To me, whether the system of Affirmative or Meritocracy is a failed one by gomens of Singapore or Malaysia does not even erode the thinking of being proud - (bangga in Malay) to be Malay for both side of the countries.

What is important is how far have we achieved and there goes our pride to be proud, the moment we achieve the target goal.

Johnny-come-lately-to-the-discussion here:

Guess what? Comparing the kampung to the heartlands, like what others have said before, is like comparing apples to oranges. The city state that Singapore is simply precludes that option.

Secondly, a Malay from KL would probably have had a similar experience. So, your point about not seeing a non-Malay face is not unique to someone from Singapore only.

Thirdly, I am not even sure what the statement "proud to be a Malay Singaporean (or Singaporean Malay)" mean. Lucky - perhaps; pride in what Singapore has achieved and the opportunities it has provided you - okay; blessed - fine; proud - don't know. Because you being proud, in this context, has a thick air of, how shall I put it, superiority about it. Neither classy nor effective ....seriously.

Ok lah Khartini, all the articles here including yours are grrrrreat, everyone who do not see it your way or a certain group's way, including myself are rude and stupid, ok? Happy now?

Joe & J (one & the same? under annonymity)
Khartini and all the other writers here write very intelligent & enlightening pieces, am I considered clever now?

Hope I am allowed to share my thoughts:
Is it WRONG not to be proud of our country or worse ashamed? What if one is ashamed of his/her govt or country for things they have done? Is this not allowed? For me, pride is individual feeling, if I ask a class of 40 students to write what they feel about their country, there is no right or wrong, good or bad answers, its just personal feelings, but if anyone starts to justify their 'made-up' pride not very cleverly, then no marks from me, and problem starts if it is publicised & worse in a cyberspace blog. ~ If my thought is stupid, pls explain.

No one said it is wrong not to be proud of your country. That's your view and although you did not give any specific examples and reasons but mere rhetoric, I am not saying you are stupid to think so. Just like it is also NOT wrong to be proud of your country and it does not mean it is stupid. There is a big difference between having different views and being stupid. (I guess you gotta be smart enough to see the distinction.)

Anyway whatever it is, it is ideas that work, my dear, not slogans. :)

There is a saying my friend once told me, if you kept quiet no one would know you are stupid. Perhaps the same goes for people who make erroneous remarks without thinking.

Really enjoy reading the exchange between EC and Mr Zulkifar Shariff. At least it is sensible and disagrees with Khartini's article in an intelligent way.

Maybe the deeper underlining current is has meritocracy worked over affirmative action?

To all my malay friends out there, blessed holy month of Ramadan to you all!

Not Bodoh, you may not be bodoh, but to post such comment and under a nick, it doesn't speak much of yourself or your intelligence.

Keep your stupid articles coming, in this site and in States Times, it is good for TOC (the writers there can eat you up for breakfast, lunch, dinner & breakfast again) and even better for opposition.

Not Bodoh: Please mind your manners. Just because you can hide behind anonymity does not mean you can flush your manners down the toilet.

Zulfikar Shariff.

I beg to differ. Whether the site is pro- or anti-government is not the issue. The fact is, there are people who confirm Khartini's observation by explicitly agreeing with what she wrote. Whether there are others who disagree does not negate the legitimacy of their opinions. Everyone is entitled to his opinion. Unless no one agrees with Khartini, then she could have clearly missed the mark.

As for the comments at the Malaysian Insider, just because they are anti-government does not make them less credible. Otherwise, we should also apply the same logic to the likes of TOC. I do not believe in judging credibility based on the background of a person/entity.

"Third, it is sad for me that we need to target another country to feel pride in our own."

Maybe I've got it wrong, but my understanding is that someone attacked our country first and Khartini's was a response in defense, not to attack another country just in order to feel proud.

It is up to Khartini to satisfy your curiosity about why she used "Malay Singaporean". To me, it is an irrelevant non-issue unless the topic is about ethnicity and identity in Singapore. But it isn't. It is a comparison of Malays in two countries.

EC,

Just a few things. Malaysian Insider is known as an alternative media channel in Malaysia. As with other similar channels, a large number of its audience are those who disagree with the ruling coalition. You can see a similar feature in the Asia1 forums. To take that as the sample of Malaysians agreeing with that article is flawed.

For example, tere is an article on Tan Sri Isa contesting the Bagan Pinang seat. So far, there are 18 responses to the article. These include:

"Hip hip hooray. Beautiful. Let Tan Sri Isa Samad be the candidate. Good one for PR. "

"This is our problem...always bringing back zombies to rule the real world."

"Is there no other better candidate - how can I vote for this criminal???"

"Rely on aging donkey to pull the cart! Memang malu lah, tak ada standard."

"Let's hope Umno put Isa as candidate. The rakyat will have the chance to send a message to him and Umno to let them know their time is over."

There is no positive message at all from the comments.

We need to be careful when assuming support from single platforms.

Im glad to know that you notice other races at Pagoda street. Still does not make Khartini's anecdote about being in a Malay kampung anymore valid though.

The issue of Malay Singaporean and Singaporean Malay is one of primary identity. There have been discussions about which marker Malays identify with more. Are you first a Malay or a Singaporean? While I disagree with this forced identification, I was curious as to Khartini's view of herself given her article about being a Malay and Singapore-Malaysia.

And EC, I am glad that you agree with my point that we do not need our country to be perfect to be proud of it. Pride should be a given. And we do not have to criticise someone else just to be proud of ourselves.

Agree that "If one is proud only because of these, that pride is but shallow and vain."

So, to be proud of one's race/heritage, one has to be rich, intelligent, an achiever, super-community problem solver?

What else?

We can only be proud of our country when it is perfect? And when it is not, we condemn every single little thing about it...and across the causeway?

If one is proud only because of these, that pride is but shallow and vain.

I must admit I am totally amazed at how one article could generate a level of response that could blow out of proportion without tracing back to how the 2 countries are different. Now, I may not comprehend the concept of affirmative vs meritocracy completely. However, I do know the reasons for such systems being adopted in the respective countries boils down to the simple logic and understanding that of,

1) Size: As a country, Singapore is much smaller than Malaysia, (I presume we all that by now) with an estimated ratio population 1:5. Hence, logic should tell us that whatever is smaller should be easier to manage compared to their bigger counterparts.

and,

2) Natural resources: Singapore's lack of natural resources is substituted with human labour and efforts. Whilst Malaysia has abundance of it such as oil, agriculture, land etc. (Textbook understanding)

Hence, this brings to my next point, which is why the system of merit is inevitable for Singapore as it rewards and encourage the people to be more capable and productive which subsequently leads to driving the country's economy. Yes, we don't have much of a choice people. We have to work hard in order to keep in pace with the system to succeed. We are the resources, we have nothing to fall back on.

On the other hand, Malaysia's abundant resources gives the country the ability to provide to their people. Sounds fair to me. Now, whether "bumi's" privilege is discriminatory, I am not one to argue. As far as I'm concern, discrimination is everywhere, in every country. Whether one chooses to reflect and be open or subtle about it, is totally a different story.

Nevertheless, my compliments to the 2 writers for their strong views and their writing skills. From a Malay to another Malay, politics is a cruel game indeed. Sometimes it's better to do a simple reflection before opening that Pandora's box.

Happy Ramadhan!

She is a proud “Malay Singaporean” but no, even she acknowledges (subconsciously) the extent of socio-economic problems in the Singapore Malay community with her use of the word “too” in “are there not many problems for the Malays in Malaysia too?”

She claims to have “good grades” and goes to university, but no, judging from the quality of her writing and rebuttals, one questions if there really was no affirmative action in Singapore.

She shouts “come on people, give viable alternatives!” (exclamation mark and all), but no, she is obviously not aware that good alternatives have been proposed but shot down by her previous paymasters in as facile a way as her rebuttals.

My dearest Khartini - you cannot assume everyone who engages you in the net is like every student in vocational school you used to teach in real life. You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to promoting vacuous thinking.

Pride is what Khartini has shown when she defended her country against attack from another.

I have read Khartini's article and the comments over at the Malaysian Insider. If her observations about racial segregation in Malaysia were wrong, there would not have been so many Malaysians who agreed with her.

Also, I do see many other races along Pagoda Street. Maybe only the racist who avoided Pagoda Street was not able to see it. In any case, this comparison holds little significance in view of the preceding paragraph.

I hope that regardless of how good or bad we feel about our country, it does not affect our pride in being Singaporean.

Incidentally, some seem to nitpick on her use of "Malay Singaporean" instead of "Singaporean Malay". Even if she is proud of being a Malay instead of say Chinese, what is wrong with it? Recognising that one is of a particular race and being proud of it does not make one racist. We don't have to be colour-blind to accept other races into our community and be united as one.

Khartini

Interesting argument. However, there are several points that I would like to raise.

First is the choice of a Malay kampung as your sample. It is like getting a Malaysian academic to stay in Pagoda St in Singapore and for them to comment that they cannot see any non Chinese for a week.

It does not work. You started from your conclusion.

Second is the either or argument. That either we have Singapore's "almost meritocracy" or Malaysian NEP. And that the ML (Malay leaders? Which are you referring to?) get affirmative action? Just because we do not officially favour one race over another does not make the system meritocratic.

We use eugenics in remarkable ways. How about we really desist from discussing based on ethnicity? Like looking at issues from pregnancy to gambling to alcoholism from a national perspective?

That we keep on discussing based on ethnicity does not work on a country that claims to be almost meritocratic.

There are too many arguments and larger samples that we can make to deduce the existence or lack of real meritocracy in Singapore.

Third, it is sad for me that we need to target another country to feel pride in our own. That the article is about being proud to be a Malay Singaporean (Or Singaporean Malay?) and yet focused on Malaysia's political and ethnic landscape shows that we have little to bind us to the land apart from creating boogie men.

And that boogie man have been called too often.

I hope that regardless of how good or bad another country is or how we feel about policies and politics in Singapore, it does not affect the pride that we feel for our own country.

Zul

Khartini, and for that matter, all the writers on this new P65 blog, you are doing very well so far. This blog finally feels spontaneous and candid. Yes, pro-Singapore.

You are also holding very well against the critics and their name-calling without lowering your standards.

Press on.

When one is desperate, name calling starts.

Alfian: I read some of the comments on theonlinecitizen. As it is here too, many are just not even giving constructive comments (even if they disagree) and have resorted to labelling and name-calling (both ways but more me than you).

We need to "up" the level of engagement in cyberspace. Thanks for doing your part over there in trying to get the readers and commenters to stick to the issues and not just remain at a mud-slinging, name-calling level. As you said we both speak up for ourselves. Others are welcome to agree or disagree.

name calling is good enuff for u :P

:)

Fresh Pond Dweller, are there not many problems for the Malays in Malaysia too? Are they much better off as a whole with the bumiputera policy in place?

Thanks JB but other than more namecalling I think you can do better. Nice try. Next time, maybe! :)

What kind of system then would you all propose? Affirmative action for MLs in Singapore? An alternative system? We can have a mud slinging name calling session all night long but come on people, give viable alternatives!

That Khartini's article has no substance is very simple reason. She uses a superficial experience in Msia to justify the superficial 'multiracialism' of Singapore.

But her idiocy shows up when she promotes a falsehood by equating enforced physical integration with so-called racial harmony. So far, Khartini has not engaged with Alfian's rebuttals regarding Sg's shallow state of affairs. Her best defense is falling back on the status quo (this status quo being riddled with problems), along with the cop-out: "I'm merely expressing my views." Of course she is. Any dumb petulant kid can do that. But perhaps she is incapable of engaging Alfian in the more substantial areas. Her take on philosophical discourse sounded like a case of sour grapes, not to mention it being a childish anti-intellectual stance to boot.

Achieving our desired multiculturalism requires more than self-congratulatory articles at the expense of our neighbour's. It would certainly take more than essentialising our identities into our NRICs and HDB silos. Khartini's blind support for such policies may be superficial. But considering how these self-orientalizing policies also increase the regime's control, her article becomes a repugnant piece of propaganda.

Kartini after being a tourist for a week in a Malaysian kampong claims to explain how the Singapore system is “very distinct” from Malaysia’s.

She admits putting herself up in a “Malay village” but no, she complains after regaining her mind four days later that there is no interracial fun.

She benefited from the warmth of Malay Malaysian host families, but no, according to Kartini, Malay Malaysians are still different from the more human “Malay Singaporeans”.

Malay Malaysians let non-Malay students sleep in their homes, but no, she still thinks Malay Malaysians and other races are not “at peace with one another”.

She chides the unmeritocratic system in Malaysia but no, addressing the object of her ire as “Datuk Seri”, a rank based on patronage, is fine.

She cites the wondrous integration of races in Singapore, but no, she still vehemently describes herself “Malay” first, as adjective to “Singaporean” in her tourism.

Her identity is what she herself calls “a label” but no, she still would like to defend a label.

She thinks Malay Malaysians are not as “phenomenal” as those in Singapore but no, she does not say or is not aware that Malay Singaporeans:
- have twice the primary school and secondary school drop out rate compared to the national average
- are four times less likely to go to universities compared to the national average
- have lower proportion of degree holders than minorities in other countries such as African Americans or Hispanics in the USA
- are made up of over 50% cleaners, laborers, factory workers and clerks
- have twice the divorce rate and four times the single-parent birth rates of the national average
and many others.
She goes to Tufts and is “a proud Malay Singaporean” because she is just not all these.

She calls herself a realist, but she has no clue of actual realities.

Ignorance imbued with arrogance teaches us great lessons – but only to those who want to learn from it.

Have to agree with JB though, Khartini's piece is Fail. Her blain is really not belly cleber. I read already I feel so paiseh for her.

Its sad to see people people slamming our country and what we've gone through to achieve this peace. I agree that not everything is perfect, and there are some out there who few disgruntled, but why allow a few bad cooks to spoil the soup? None the less great article Khartini, like your honest sharings.

JB, Khartini is entitled to her own personal views. We can agree or disagree but to judge that it is not of substance, don't think you or me are in that position. But if you have a serious grudge against Singapore, then everything positive written about Singapore is not of substance.

Nawww. Smart comments for smart arguments only. Other than pointing to how good Singapore is, there's little in your article that's of substance. Try again next time. Good luck :P

LOL if u were aware of ur indoctrination u wldn't be writing that propagandistic drivel.

Or say dumb, cop-out things like "Philosophical debates and arguments can only get us so far. I am a realist."

More thinking and less doing, my girl, and you might just avoid that kind of tragic Singaporean reality borne out of hollow philosophies. If u wanna be a realist, at least be an intelligent one.

Just like Alfian was saying on The Online Citizen - that some (I think he was referring to the media or the establishment) tend to dismiss critics as people being disgruntled and having a grudge against the gov, it's also unfair to dismiss anything that's pro-Singapore as propaganda and BS. People can be closed minded both ways.

It's just my view. If you can't accept it you are free to disagree. Alfian has his views and they differ from mine - fine.

But you haven't said anything substantial at all except just dissing my views. Not very smart, isn't it? Simplistic comments. Fail.

:)

“Singapore sticks to a Third World democracy despite having a developed world mentality while Malaysia has a Third World mentality but a developed world democracy”

Democracy is an orthogonal aspect of the quality of life. More democracy does not necessarily entail better social and economic advancements.

Democracy is about representation. It's a social contract for aggregating individual decisions and reconciling differences. It is neither a vent for revenge nor a legal avenue to have things done one's way.

Hi Khartini,

No I don't think it's fair to say that you were being sycophantic in the writing of that article.

You were expressing your point of view, and that's perfectly valid.

I just took some issues with the validity of the comparisons you'd made. While I accept that Negeri Sembilan villages would form the heartlands, maybe we should take into consideration that we're comparing a rural area with a city like Singapore?

Hypothetically speaking, what if there were still kampungs in Singapore? Would they have been racially segregated as well, considering that people had more autonomy to build their houses and were not subjected to housing quotas? I know from my grandparents that there were Malay kampungs, Chinese kampungs and of course mixed ones as well. Sometimes, in the case of the Indians you mentioned, it's related more to employment than race per se. My guess is that they were 'estate Indians', who worked near the plantation you mentioned.

Also, I know a lot of Malaysia Malays who have not benefited from 'affirmative action', and who are actually working not in the civil service but the private sector. Are we to discount their success by assuming that they did not achieve what they did through meritocratic means?

Sincerely,
Alfian. : )

Well really, I was comparing Malaysia's heartlands (kampungs) to our heartlands (HDB estates). You can't compare KL to SIngapore because in reality KL is where many people work and stay but many go back to the villages where they live. No need for me to explain how this is different from Singapore.

Philosophical debates and arguments can only get us so far. I am a realist. What do you think should have been done differently? Should LKY have gone the M'sian way? What do you think can be done differently now? Are you for the idea of affirmative action in Singapore for Malays? And how would that impact our ties with others and also will that necessarily mean the MLs will make progress? All policies have a price it's a matter of what price you are willing to pay for it.

Thanks for the warning, JB. I will certainly try and be aware of the big (white?) masters/monsters if they are lurking anywhere and trying to brainwash me. But so far so good. :)

Dear Khartini, u're so psycho-ed by your masters to the extent and regurgitating propaganda w/o being aware of it ... hahaha. pathetic.

Oh and as I said at the end - we still have many issues to resolve. So I did not say Singapore MLs are in a perfect state. Far from it. But compared to Malaysian Malays (affirmative action has not done much for them as a whole) I think we are better off because of the values that meritocracy has instilled (or maybe "forced"?) into us. I also talked about the village because KL does not define Malaysia and the villages are the heartlands. And even though there are no physical walls, the physical separation does mean that you would have to go out of your way to even see someone of a different race and that makes for different social dynamics even if at a basic level.

Hi Khartini,

You might be interested to know that I wrote a response to your article.

You can access it here: http://theonlinecitizen.com/20...

Selamat berpuasa!

Sincerely,
Alfian. : )

Thanks Alfian, I read it and also the comments of other Singaporeans. It's interesting to see how many Malaysians on other sites are supporting my points and how many Singaporeans on onlinecitizen are not. Well to each their own. I have said what I feel and think (and by the way it was all me, no LKY or MIW asking me to do so). I suppose even for the ML Singaporeans there are people who think and feel differently on this issue and what I presented was my point of view. :)

Simplistic arguments. Fail.

Thank you for that honest insights Khartini! Am surprised as well by all the positive Malaysian feedback about Singapore where you made your post. I pray that we Singaporeans will continue to be grateful for what we have and yet because of meritocracy, we can constantly seek to improve and not rest on our laurels.