You pathetic bastard. What is wrong with you? You can’t accecp criticism and differential opinions? Endowed cvild of your facist PAP masters ? It’s becUse of people like YOU alot of young and vibrant sinvaporeans choose to uproot themselves in canada, australia, states or anywhere else. Bloody idiot.

The Malays usually did it without the support of the government and media but yet they still manage to come out on top INTERNATIONALLY.. after which, the government and the media started to recognized them..

It call talent! (it not something that you learn in school)

Imagine if there’s support from the government….
most malays will live a ‘larger than life’ life in SIngapore…….
and the majority of Singaporean dont want that, do they?
They will blame…. ‘bumiputra privileges’

actually you get multiculturalism too in US and even though multiculturalism is kinda official policy in Australia and Canada, some of the policies can be rather melting pot kind.

the notion, that if you are less of yourself and i be less of myself then we both can live in harmony, is a failed one. likewise the notion that if we all give up who we are and try to uniformize our diversity, we can live as one people, is another failed notion. all this have failed not just in Singapore but in every instance across the world.

diversity is something that cannot be erased and attempts to do so using superficial means such as clothes, language, etc just dont quite work. instead diversity should be embraced and what is required is to seek unity.

hence in the case of someone putting up chinese signboard in geylang, let them do it. that does give the place some character to that space and also creates his/her identify for that space. however what is required is to get the shopkeeper to include non-mandarin speaking singaporeans within that space. there are many ways the shopkeeper can do this.. for instance another signboard in english, or signs on the door in english etc etc. menus in english. shopkeepers being able to speak in english. i have seen this in so many ethnic towns around the western countries. its only a problem if the shopkeeper insist on only keeping a chinese signboard and do nothing else to delibrately exclude non-mandarin speaking singaporeans. that creates then an essentialist scenario where one group will say “hey i am essentially this… you are essentially that”……. here divisions are created out of diversity. in the earlier situation unity is created out of diversity. unlike conservative belief, its not diversity that causes divisions. its divisions that causes divisions because you can find divisions amongst the same group also.

despite the british divide and rule, singapore till the 1960s was a multicultural space. each ethnic group had a space but wasnt too large for themselves to exclude themselves from others. instead one had to get out of whatever area to go into another area for work or transactions. so actually there wasnt a need to create “non-enclave” policy in HDB. that was pure phobia and paranoia.

each ethnic group till the 1960s was visible also. that gave them identity and confidence. they didnt end up in a perpetual self-campaign to find their identity which has been the case since 1960s.

each community also was able to contribute using the strengths and support of the community. the tiny iranians, Namazies, built the capitol and played a key role in introducing CPF during british time. the armenians e.g. Sarkies built so many buildings which include if i am not wrong the raffles hotel. the chettiars who people typically think were only money lenders actually was instrumental in developing part of central business district and river valley road. the chinese community was using the support and strengths of their ethnic groups. the hakkas contributed in their own ways collectively, the hokkiens, the cantonese and so on. tamil muslim chulias more stereotypically known as mamaks and known to be only running sundry shops were also developing book trade, pharmaceutical and a few other industries. the sikhs and sindhis were very useful in bringing up textile and import/export trading businesses in singapore. the hadrami arabs from yemen were key to business and some infrastructure development from early 19th century till world war I. the tiny parsi community build social buildings such as mistri building in SGH and contributed to legal reforms up till 1960s.

since the 1960s, development has been largely a state thingy as communities were uniformized. in short communities became a facade not a strength or support from which they could draw on to contribute successfully to nation building.

given the new wave of immigration over last 10 years where immigrants are more than a 1million now, i will like to see their contribution beyond just their labour input in their job. their real strength in coming together within their communities and giving to the nation what it doesnt have yet.

Rhetorics of the past have no place in a country like Singapore.

To me, I must say that ISA has got to be intact and must not lead to it’s abolishment.

I think many young Singaporeans would want to share as to what I say and think.

Yes I read what MM Lee said. While I respect MM Lee for what he (and his team) had done for Singapore, I do not always agree with what he says including this recent comment. I have more faith that there will be people who will look beyond skin colour when it comes to helping in times of need, though I agree with Social Psychologists that people will naturally choose their kin (e.g family) first to save in times of need.

That said, I think it is quite clear that MM alone does not make the Singapore Government and that not all the leaders would agree with what he said.

I have disagreed with his comments on the Malays before in 2005, in a letter I wrote to the Straits Times Forum Page:
***********
[I READ with interest the report, 'Multiracial efforts 'not completely successful' (ST, July 2), where Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew gave a frank assessment of Singapore's efforts in multiracialism at a dialogue with international university heads.

He said that while Singapore's effort fared better than those of many other societies, it has not been completely successful. He drew attention to the Malay community when he said:

'It's not been completely successful because the rate of intermingling and acceptance is faster among certain groups than others. The Malay community now is centred on a mosque more than the other social centres we have built. That's the end result, we live with that.'

The article did not give any supporting statistics. There was no mention of any group apart from the Malays.
To a lay person like me, Mr Lee's remarks imply several things:

- Non-Malay communities are more open towards intermingling and are more accepting of others;

- Malay Singaporeans generally prefer going to the mosque
over other social institutions;

- Because of going to the mosque, Malays are not as open or accepting, therefore affecting the Government's multiracialism efforts.

I wonder if there is any empirical evidence to support Mr Lee's remarks. In the absence of statistics, allow me to comment based on my perceptions and observations.

Muslims go to the mosque to pray, and attend religious classes or sermons. How is this cause for worry? I do not see how going to the mosque would make us less accepting and open towards intermingling, unless we secluded ourselves and refused any contact with outsiders. As a young Malay Singaporean, I do not see how mosque-going Malays are different from my devout Christian friends who devote their weekends to church activities or the Buddhists and Hindus who perform prayers at big temples regularly.

I know of mosque activists who are also involved in grassroots activities. There are Malay youths who go to the mosque, but eat, play or volunteer with their non-Malay friends. And then there are Malays who do not go to the mosque, but still socialise with other Singaporeans.

At the end of the day, we are all Singaporeans and we live and interact with one another, not necessarily through government set-ups that aim to promote intermingling, but in the course of our daily lives.

From past reports, we know that minority participation in community clubs and other grassroots organisations remains low. But must the participation rate in such government set-ups be the main yardstick to measure the success of multiracialism in Singapore? How about Singaporeans who mingle in shopping centres, gymnasiums, cooking classes, etc - do these not count too?

It remains to be seen whether Malays are shying away from participating in grassroots organisations because they wish to stay separate from other communities, or because the activities in general do not appeal to them.

Intermingling is also not always a straightforward matter. There is a constant need for adjustment, for all parties involved to accommodate each other, while respecting differences.

Perhaps there is a need for a nationwide study on Singaporeans who join 'exclusive' social institutions like places of worship and those who frequent 'inclusive' institutions such as grassroots organisations, social clubs and classes. This will give us a better understanding of the state of multiracialism.
- Khartini Khalid]

January 4, 2010 by admin
Filed under Opinion

Temasek Review

By Hurr Riyahi

In the transcript released by CNA about the interview Lee Kuan Yew had with National Geographic, he said:

“Well, we make them say the national pledge and sing the national anthem but suppose we have a famine, will your Malay neighbour give you the last few grains of rice or will she share it with her family or fellow Muslim or vice versa?”.

It is these kinds of rhetorical questions and the respective rhetorical replies that has up till today, for the last fifty years, kept the Malays an isolated community and inspired some of the most intolerant policies such as refusing to give equal opportunities in ministries and military.

Absolute Lack of Logic In Question

What is so unbelievable is that a Cambridge trained lawyer, a statesman for 50 years, someone who has read so much, met so many intellectuals all the time will ask a question such as this which is bankrupt of logic.

Firstly do any two individuals behave in the identical manner that one can generalise for a whole community?

Secondly are they governed by social or religious laws which will prohibit them from giving their last grains to their non-Muslim neighbours?

Basically you can never be able to logically argue Malays will not share their last grains of rice with their non-Muslim neighbours. There is no set of logical arguments that can support such a claim.

One can instead ask the question will Chinese share their last grains of rice with their non-Chinese neighbours?

That may be a more important question because given the HDB racial quotas, the non-Chinese will depend on their Chinese neighbours for the rice than the other way round. But then again one cannot logically argue Chinese will not share their last grains of rice with non-Chinese neighbours for the similar arguments above.

Rhetoric invalidated by evidence

Lee Kuan Yew is one who always demands that someone must talk with evidence, though he himself did not provide any evidence to support his rhetorical question. That is because evidence clearly show that Malays have always in the last 180 years of coexistence with Chinese in Singapore have protected their Chinese neighbours during each crisis moment.

If one is to read through the various postings on the net to this, they will see the truth ( i will use some here to illustrate). During the depression years when there were some segments of population facing severe food scarcity, Malays had helped their Chinese neighbours.

During World War II, Malay Regiment defended the Chinese population who were being systematically killed by the Japanese. They could have joined the Japanese and plotted to drive the Chinese out of Singapore to China or kill them in greater numbers. They fancied no such ideas. Instead they defended Singapore Chinese with their own lives.

It is extremely disgraceful that a leader such as Lee Kuan Yew who lived through that era and who saw the sacrifice of Malays for Chinese come out to pass such remarks.

If one is to go around and survey the Malay community today, they will find that there are many “Malays” who are as old as more than 90 years old who are ethnically and biologically Chinese. When they were infants or children, they were given up by their Chinese biological parents out of desperation for adoption and Malay families adopted them. The Malay families then could have refused or dumped those Chinese children then, especially when they themselves faced difficult times. However they did not.

During the race riots of 1960s, the Malays defended their Chinese neighbours and vice versa. The racial attacks were instead targetted against those from outside their kampongs. This is well documented. Lee Kuan Yew will not be able to find a single piece of evidence in Singapore 180 years history where Malays betrayed or turned against their Chinese neighbours during a crisis.

Collective Stigmatisation

To single out Malays and pass such rhetorical remarks is collective stigmatisation. Some segments of Singapore masses who still revere Lee Kuan Yew will inevitably be influenced to believe it is true, especially since many Singaporeans are not critical and independent thinkers.

Much of the suspicion towards Malays in this country by Chinese is largely because of the baseless and rhetorical rmemarks passed by politicians which have collectively stigmatised the Malays with such malicious language. Such a practice only isolates the Malay community from the larger Singaporean community and creates unnecessary long term risks to the country.

Unparallelled Rhetoric

After 180 years of living together, if the political leaders of this country cannot understand the Malays beyond their imaginations, nightmares, stereotypes and self-constructed fears, then it just shows how backward our political leaders are.

As one blogger commented, there has been no historical prescedent where a Hindu leader in India questioned whether the Indian Muslims will share their last grains of rice with Hindu neighbours. Nor has any Thai leader asked that about their Malays. Nor has any Buddhist leader in Sri Lanka asked that about their Sinhalese, Tamil or Malay Muslims. Nor has any Christian leader asked that about their Muslims in Africa or Palestine or any other part of the world. This kind of unimaginable rhetoric can only surface in Singapore. No wonder you also see some of the unparralleled double standards applied to Malays such as within the military or ministries.

What Damage Do This Kind of Rhetoric Do

This is not the first time Lee Kuan Yew has fired such rhetorical questions and remarks. Once in order to defend his policy of not giving Malays and Muslims equal opportunity in the military and ministeries, he argued that he will think twice about putting Malays in important positions in military and ministeries as they will hesitate to act against their Malaysian and Indonesian relatives in a wartime.

In my eariler article, I categorically showed Malaysian Chinese and China Chinese migrating to Singapore pose more risk to national security if they are in military and ministeries. It is interesting that Singapore is willing to bear those real risks but chicken out in areas of fictatious risks.

As mentioned earlier this kind of rhetoric only add on to the suspicion and mistrust that many Chinese have towards Malays in Singapore. A friend of mine who was in an important ministry department shared that he does not foresee any change in the policy within the military because many Chinese actually support Malays from not being given equal opportunity in the military.. Some naive apologists will point out that there is a Malay general now but how many Malays who ought to be generals or colonels or majors have been denied their opportunity.

As a blogger wrote in a comment that during the JI fiasco one of the JI members was telling his Chinese neighbour who was going abroad to study that he/she must not worry and that he will take care of his/her parents.

It is ironical becuase his JI was plotting to instigate a war between Singapore Chinese and Malaysian Malays. This sounds so similar to the earlier case in race riots during 1970s where violence was between those who were not neighbours. You do not see a meltdown of relations between those who are integrated. It happens only between one group which is isolated from another group. So by isolating the Malays further by passing such kind of rhetoric as what Lee Kuan Yew did, the risks to social meltdown is only emancipated. It is so ironical that PAP constantly talks about how social integration is critical and any social meltdown will destroy Singapore and yet they do things which aggravate the risks.

If the current isolation of Malay community from the larger Singapore community does not improve within the next ten years, one can expect a very serious social meltdown thereafter. One can easily make this assessment if they only study the situations in Africa, Bosnia etc where there were serious social conflicts. That is the kind of grave risk that Singapore is facing though there is an attitude of denial amongs those who know it and an attitude of ignorance amongst others who should know it.

(a) Is talent (also aesthetics) an objective or subjective quality?

This question underpins whether the result of popular vote reflects merit. Personally I believe there are both elements of subjectivity and objectivity, which probably isn’t a very useful answer to determine “which side is right or wrong”.

(b) Is our society capable of reconciling differences?

Are people willing to accept that they don’t always get what they want? Are people willing to accept an aggregated result that differs from their choice? Now, what if the demographics of the votes can be revealed. So what if it turns out that there’s no trace of racism? Do we really have to go this far. Are people willing to face the reality? So what if it turns out that the winner did garner supporters from a racial group disproportionally? Do people then want to interpret the statistics through their tainted lens because they don’t get what they want?

You wrote: “JB: I have informed the police about your post. They will TRACK DOWN YOUR IP ADDRESS soon. Trust me, you’re going to jail. You’re really asking for it.”

- Is it not the responsibility of the publishers of websites to censor offensive comments? Otherwise our police will be very busy with all the internet quarrels. Won’t it make more sense that publishers or owners of websites who allow offensive or racist comments be targeted?

- Shouldn’t the police have rights to such private data only if public security is threatened (like tracking terrorists)? BTW who owns this site? There should be a statement warning posters that this site is not privately owned and all data is owned by the government.

http://intelligentsingaporean.wordpress.com/2005/02/12/the-confessions/

I even have the entire millenium series, so when you speak about idolizing, it is really horses for courses. I dont think it is possible to say that singapore idol attracts that much attention, there is after all 24 hours in a day.