Letter to Singapore PM

Tuesday, 23 March 2010 10:36 |   

Dear Prime Minister,

May you and family be in the best of health and blessings. If there is a way, can you ask local papers or media channels to stop from reporting or discussing the remarks made by MM Lee about Malaysian Chinese?

I say this coz comments published in Singapore (supporting MM’scomments) are made from a skewed angle and do not take into account the historical reasons. The comments so far are made by Chinese Singaporeans who do not really understand the issues. They also seem to suggest that similar problems do not exist in Singapore when, in fact, Singapore Malays in their own motherland, Singapore, are treated more dismally that Malaysian Chinese in the land of Malay Bumis.

Indeed, if this issue is to continue, then it is only fair to show that Chinese leaders in Singapore are doing greater injustice to Singapore Malays than Malay Malaysian leaders to Malaysian Chinese.

The Malaysian Chinese are not bumis in Malaysia yet they get nearly every thing:

a) Right to have Chinese vernacular education from preschool to university.

b) Right to retain their Chinese names [The Chinese in Indonesia and Thailand get nothing of that sort. Worse, they have to have Thai or Indonesian names]

c) Right to display Chinese names in Chinese characters in huge public adverts in buildings and public places

d) In development projects, they reap early profits as all projects require infrastructures and these materials are controlled by Malaysian Chinese

e) Voting strength by constituencies also show so many Chinese advantage.

It is good for us not to say that Malaysian Chinese are “marginalized”. If they want to talk about marginalization or injustices, it is better that they talk about Singapore Malays who, in their own motherland, are marginalized and subject to so many injustices:

1. Malay language has lost its stature in the State and industry

2. Chinese language has now become a universal precondition in employment

3. Malays are “cordoned off” in National Service. Many key security sites are out-of-bounds to Malays [Even Malay Ministers and MP’s are not allowed to enter such areas]

4. The Civil Defence takes in high proportion of Malays consideringthelower stature of CD and the higher death and injury risk in CD services

5. No Malays are holding key positions in government and statutory boards.

6. Malay MP’s are given sinecures. In fact Malays are deemed fit only to be Ministers in Sewerage, Drainage, Refuse, Welfare and Drugs matters

7. Promotions and postings in government and statutory boards also show the Singapore Chinese’ disdain towards Singapore Malays

8. Recent retrenchments also reflected that Singapore Malays “should go first”

9. Proportion of Singapore Malays who remained unemployed is high, notwithstanding good educational and vocational qualifications

10. Vast in-take of Chinese from China, Hong Kong and Taiwan into Singapore but strict control of Malays from Malaysia and Indonesia.

I hope your office would do something to stop this, or rectify the matter by giving the issue its proper balance.

I cc this note to BH Singapore and Malaysia.

I do not cc to Straits Times as they do not publish letters of this kind.

I cc to TODAY coz two strong letters were published in today’s TODAY edition.

Regards

Mansor Haji Sukaimi

Former Member of Parliament (1976-1984)

* This article is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The blog owner does not endorse the view unless specified. To share the above article, please click the followings:

 

 

Seeds of racism: A look at national identity from child developmental perspective

Contributors

WRITTEN BY CT WONG

A Malay boy – in his middle or late childhood years – was captured on video attempting to stomp on the gory cow head during the protest against a Hindu temple by Muslims in Shah Alam. The boy displayed a simultaneous attraction and repulsion to the act, and viewers were left with an indelible image of how he tried to step on it but nonetheless quickly withdrew his leg. One wonders what kind of attitude towards other races and religions the boy will adhere to when he grows up. We may be able to find some clues in general if we start from the question of how a child develops his identity from young. Children do not have historical baggage like adults. However, this does not mean that they are neutral or passive observers of events happening around them. In fact, studies have shown that in-group favouritism, i.e. positive feelings about the national group to which a person belongs, is common among children and adolescents. Individuals also hold stereotypes about their own and other national groups. Our federal constitution marks us out as different from one another. We are categorized as Malays and non-Malays, or the in-groups and the out-groups. This has far-reaching polarising consequences on the psyche and character of Malaysian citizens. Studies by Henri Tajfel, a British social psychologist, have shown that mere categorisation itself is a potential source of racial prejudice and discrimination. Hence, it is important to explore the meaning of identities so that we can avoid any possible blind spots of the early framers of the constitution. Group membership Racists are not born but made. One of the starting points in understanding in-group affiliation and bigotry is from child development as young people develop a subjective sense of national identity gradually. For this sense of national identity, children first need an awareness that there are groups or categories of people like Malaysians, Singaporeans, English or French, etc. These different peoples are seen as groups instead of singular individuals. In early childhood, children do not have this idea of grouping nor do they comprehend that they themselves are a member of a particular group. But once they are of an age to realise that they belong to a certain group, then just like adults, they attribute different levels of importance to their membership. Children often regard birth of place as a very important criterion to judge group membership. Other criteria commonly used include parentage or ancestry, ethnicity, religion, use of language, cultural practices, loyalty to traditions, national institutions, etc. In the Malaysian context, these criteria may be utilised deliberately for a political purpose, e.g. social markers in the segregation or exclusion of certain ethnic groups. National emblems such as the various institutions, symbols, historical figures and traditions which represent or symbolise the national group or nation form an important part of the subjective sense of national identity. Children may or may not identify strongly with these emblems. For example, a national museum that aims to portray mainly the legacy of only a certain ethnic group would alienate the other groups. In children, the symbols can evoke feelings of national shame or national pride or just sheer indifference. The sense of national identity is context-dependent and not static. It is closely related to everyday behaviour like the language(s) the child learns to speak, the way of life adopted by his family, contents of TV programmes and newspapers, contents of school curriculum etc. All these pervade our everyday life and yet, unless certain events prompt our thinking, we hardly analyse what impacts on the formation of identity. It is thus important to step away from the racial perspective that has dominated so much of debates and reflections on our race relations, and look at national identity from the social sciences models. Cognitive-developmental theory Expert viewpoints can help to shed light on this issue. The two main theoretical approaches to the development of national identity during childhood and adolescence rooted in different psychological traditions are the cognitive-developmental theory of Piaget, and the social identity theory from Tajfel. Piaget, a Swiss psychologist, links the development of national identity to children’s general cognitive development. He starts from the stage where children engage in reasoning at the concrete level up to the abstract level (e.g. from thinking in terms of cities up to national group membership). These thought processes happen irrespective of ethnic background. Using the concept of children’s development in cognitive abilities in general, Frances Aboud, a Canadian professor of psychology argued that the cognitive change leads to the reduction of in-group favouritism between 6-12 years old. Her studies showed that children’s in-group favouritism peaks at around the age of 6, attributing positive characteristics mainly to their own groups and negative ones to the out-groups. However, the polarising tendency decreases between 6 and 12 as children attribute more negative characteristics to their own group and positive ones to the out-groups. The children are able to use multiple classifications and to judge the deeper similarities between superficially different groups as well as to distinguish differences within their own group. The implication of this finding is that children develop bias and stereotypes as young as around six years of age. However, because of their capacity for abstract thinking, these biases do not remain fixed and unchangeable. Social identity theory Tajfel and John Turner’s social identity theory proposes that when a child identifies with the national group, in-group favouritism occurs. The child derives positive self-esteem or self-worth by being a member of that particular group. However, the in-group and out-group comparison could give rise to a sense of superiority and not mere comparison of differences – this is where racial differences turn into racism. Tajfel also argued that mere categorisation itself could lead to prejudice. Drew Nesdale, an Australian Professor of psychology, has linked the concept of child development to social identity theory. He argues that there are four phases in the development of national and ethnic identities: 1) Undifferentiated phase – prior to age between 2 and 3, racial and national cues are not yet important to young children, 2) Group awareness phase – beginning at 3 years of age, ethnic and national awareness starts to emerge. Self-identification as a member of the in-group occurs, 3) In-group favouritism phase – beginning at about 4 years, self-identification leads to in-group favouritism and, 4) Out-group prejudice – starting at about 7 years of age, there is a shift of focus to out-groups. Prejudice and negativity towards out-groups starts to emerge. According to Nesdale, whether children enter Phase 4 depends on their level of identification with the in-group, the extent to which other members of their social group hold negative or prejudiced attitudes, and whether the group feels threatened. This is where the parents, teachers and other significant influences in the children’s life condition them into holding prejudices against other racial or national groups. I-am-M’sian tag inadequate  Though the above theories are able to explain certain phenomenon, so far there is no empirically adequate theory to explain all the different aspects of development of national identities. There are many different factors involved in a child’s development like the geographical location (city or rural areas), language use (primacy of mother tongue) and ethnicity factors in equal education and employment opportunities, etc. Moreover, the media, school, family, social environment and the children themselves all mutually interact with each other in a web of relationships. Of all these factors, ethnicity as a social marker evokes much strong feelings towards or against national identification. Hence, national identity is not just a name-tag or badge which we wear that says “I am a Malaysian”. It is a complex and dynamic psychological structure involving a system of core beliefs about the national group, and associated emotions and feelings. Mere categorisation in racial entities has sowed the seeds of prejudice which leads to the pervasive racial discrimination. The insights from the above studies of child development are mainly from the West. If we really want to address the urgent issues of racial prejudice and to develop anti-racist education, then we need to do own exploration and investigation. Without reforming all the racialist approach at governmental policy and implementation level, merely changing the name tag or labelling to ‘1 Malaysia’ is tackling the issue at the wrong end.

* This article is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The blog owner does not endorse the view unless specified. To share the above article, please click the followings:

 

 

MPM Uji Dasar Umno Dan Pas

A Kadir Jasin

ADALAH memalukan apabila muncul suara-suara sumbang daripada segelintir orang Umno yang mendakwa kononnya Majlis Perundingan NGO Melayu (MPM) adalah “outfit” Umno.

Inilah cara kera sumbang yang mahu tumpang sekaki apabila buah di pokoknya mula kehabisan atau tidak sesedap buah di pokok orang lain.

Kera sumbang Umno ini sepatutnya bertanya mengapa begitu banyak NGO Melayu dan pemikir Melayu berdiri di belakang Ibrahim Ali bagi menubuhkan MPM jika bukan kerana kecewa dengan sikap Umno dan parti-parti politik Melayu/Islam.

Seperti kita maklum, pada 27 Feb. lalu, sebanyak 76 NGO Melayu bergabung bagi menubuhkan MPM) dalam usaha mempertahankan dan melindungi hak-hak Melayu serta agama Islam.

Ini adalah perkembangan yang sihat kerana buat sekian lama suara orang Melayu/Islam terlalu dipolitikkan oleh Umno dan Pas sehingga mula hilang taring dan keberanian, khasnya selepas Pas bergabung dengan DAP dan PKR dalam Pakatan Rakyat.

Kemunculan suara alternatif Melayu yang bebas politik seperti MPM boleh menghidupkan kembali kepelbagaian suara orang Melayu/Islam dan menjadi pemangkin kepada penyemarakan semula dialog agama dan bangsa serta mengingatkan Umno dan Pas mengenai peranan mereka.

Secara kebetulan, penubuhan MPM berlaku seminggu selepas Presiden Umno merangkap Perdana Menteri, Mohd Najib Abdul Razak, dilaporkan oleh media massa sebagai menggesa Umno melakukan perubahan cara bertindak (paradigm shift) supaya mendapat sokongan orang Melayu dan bukan Melayu.

Bernama melaporkan yang Perdana Menteri menggesa Umno mengambil berat kebajikan orang lain “agar mereka menghormati parti kita”dan jika Umno dihormati, akan wujudlah integrasi dan perpaduan.

Malaysian Insider pula memetik beliau sebagai berkata, ini boleh dilakukan dengan menyelesaikan masalah semua rakyat Malaysia tanpa mengira kaum.

Beliau dilaporkan berkata demikian ketika merasmikan Konvensyen Wanita Umno di Pusat Dagangan Dunia Putera di ibu negara pada hari Sabtu, 20 Feb.

“Mengapakah mereka tidak melihat kepada Umno untuk menyelesaikan masalah mereka? Mengapa mereka pergi kepada pembangkang?” tanya Mohd Najib.

Perdana Menteri berkata, kejayaan Malaysia bergantung kepada kestabilan politik dan kepemimpinan orang Melayu, selaras dengan konsep 1Malaysia.

“Kita mesti menjaga kaum-kaum lain agar mereka hormat kepada kita,” katanya.

Tidak ada salah atau celanya saranan Perdana Menteri itu. Malah orang Melayu sepatutnya berasa lebih lega dengan “jaminan” beliau bahawa kepemimpinan Melayu adalah selaras dengan konsep 1Malaysia.

Cuma kita harus bertanya apakah masih tidak cukup apa telah Umno lakukan untuk orang bukan Melayu selama ini dan adakah sudah cukup apa yang dilakukannya untuk orang Melayu sendiri?

1. Bukankah selama ini Umno membela nasib semua kaum di Malaysia secara langsung dan tidak langsung sebagai parti induk Perikatan/Barisan Nasional?

2. Bukankah Umno yang membawa masuk kaum pendatang Cina dan India ke dalam proses perundingan kemerdekaan lebih 50 tahun lalu yang sekali gus menjadikan mereka warganegara?

3. Bukankah kata putus Umno atau lebih tepat kata putus Perdana Menteri Umno menentukan dasar negara yang merangkumi semua kaum?

4. Apakah matlamat Dasar Ekonomi Baru yang dipelopori oleh Allahyarham Tun Abdul Razak Hussein kalau bukan untuk menghapuskan kemiskinan tanpa mengira kaum?

5. Diputar-lajukan ke hadapan ke tahun 2010. Bukanlah Perdana Menteri dari parti Umno yang menliberalisasikan syarat pelaburan yang tidak lagi mewajibkan penyertaan modal Bumiputera dalam 27 bidang industri perkhidmatan?

6. Bukankah Umno juga berperanan membolehkan orang bukan Melayu menjadi senang dan kaya raya di negara ini lebih daripada orang Melayu sendiri?

7. Bukankah Perdana Menteri dari parti Umno yang menguar-uarkan dasar meritokrasi dan membuka pintu institusi pengajian tinggi awam (IPTA) kepada calon bukan Melayu sehingga melepasi nisbah kaum?

8. Bukankah dasar kerajaan pimpinan Umno yang membenarkan penubuhan institusi pengajian tinggi swasta (IPTS) di mana bilangan pelajar Melayu sangat kecil?

9. Atau Perdana Menteri bermaksud mengatakan yang pembesar dan penggiat Umno perlu terbabit terus membantu masyarakat bukan Melayu seperti memberi derma dan bantuan, menguruskan mayat, menjadi bentara di majlis kenduri kahwin dan mencari gadis Cina atau India yang lari dari rumah?

10. Bukankah tanpa Mohd Najib membuat saranan itu pun, sudah cukup ramai orang Melayu yang berasa Umno lebih menjaga hati dan kepentingan orang bukan Melayu daripada hati dan kepentingan orang Melayu?

11. Atau tidakkah pembabitan terus ala Michael Chong oleh Umno dalam hal ehwal masyarakat bukan Melayu akan mengurangkan dan mengganggu-gugat peranan parti-parti BN yang mewakili kaum-kaum bukan Melayu seperti MCA, MIC, Gerakan dan parti-parti suku kaum di Sarawak dan Sabah?

12. Benar kata Mohd Najib yang Umno perlu berubah. Tetapi bolehkah Umno berubah apabila Ketua Bahagian hanya peduli kedudukan sendiri dan bukan kepentingan ahli dan orang Melayu?

13. Bagaimanakah Umno boleh diterima oleh orang bukan Melayu sedangkan orang Melayu sendiri muak dengan pembesarnya yang terbabit dengan politik wang, mabuk kuasa dan mementingkan tembolok sendiri?

14. Atau pembesar Umno hanya mahu mendengar puji-pujian, sanjungan dan sambutan besar-besaran dengan dipagari pegawai tinggi kerajaan, pegawai khas, pengawal keselamatan dan kaki ampu?

15. Dan bukankah kerajaan pimpinan Umno yang membatalkan pengajaran Sains dan Matematik dalam bahasa Inggeris kerana ditentang oleh beberapa pihak termasuk Dong Jiao Zong?

16. Jadi apa lagi yang tidak Umno lakukan untuk semua bangsa di Malaysia melainkan menukar namanya kepada United Malaysian National Organisation?; dan

18. Pas pula sudah menjadi kacau-bilau dalam matlamatnya memperjuangkan Islam kerana terlalu bertolak-ansur dengan DAP dan PKR seperti yang terjadi dengan isu kalimah Allah baru-baru ini.

Akhir kalam, buat peringatan kepada orang Melayu, saya petik pesanan Presiden pengasas Umno, Allahyarham Datuk Onn Jaafar, yang berbunyi:

“Kita hendaklah menggesek biola dengan kuat akan lagu gesekan kita, jangan sampai lain orang menggesek (dan) kita hanya menari sahaja menurut lagu gesekannya.” -- (Daripada buku Amanat Presiden Umno 1946-2009 terbitan Berita Publishing.)

* This article is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The blog owner does not endorse the view unless specified. To share the above article, please click the followings:

 

 

Gerakan calls on Perkasa not to play race card

(The Edge) - A Barisan Nasional component party has urged Malay nationalist group Perkasa not to use the race card in commenting on the government's proposed new economic model (NEM) which is being drawn up.

In a statement today, Gerakan vice-president Datuk Mah Siew Keong said racial statements ran against the prime minister's 1Malaysia spirit and would not bode well for the country.

He was responding to Perkasa's economic bureau director Dr Zubir Harun, who reportedly said Perkasa was worried that the NEM would have a "Chinese agenda".

"What is he (Zubir) trying to prove? Both Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak and Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin have stated that the NEM would benefit all Malaysians.

"Non-governmental organisations and politicians should not send the wrong signal to the world that the government was looking after the interests of only one community. The government should look after every race and ensure every race is competitive. This is in line with the 1Malaysia spirit," Mah said.

Mah, who is also Gerakan's head of economic development bureau, added that Zubir's remarks were especially "worrying" as the economy was recovering.

Zubir was reported as saying on Monday that the Chinese viewed the next general election as the "best opportunity" to gain power in the country. The comments came after the first meeting of the newly formed Malay Consultative Council (Majlis Perundingan Melayu), which demanded that the NEM protect the rights of Malays and bumiputeras.

* This article is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The blog owner does not endorse the view unless specified. To share the above article, please click the followings: