Jeff Ooi publishes a thorough analysis on Lee Kuan Yew’s racism written by an Australian academic here.
It gives a great insight on why Singapore turned up the way it did – to a great extent.
My Singaporean journalist / author friend, Romen Bose enlightened me on the many aspects of racism in Singapore.
Interesting article. But amidst all that Lee Kuan Yew-bashing, let’s not lose sight of some things in regards to his ‘alleged’ racism:
1. PAP is a multiracial party, UNLIKE UMNO/MCA/MIC. ‘Nuff said.
2. LKY was actually a ‘banana Chinese’ (English educated, non-Mandarin speaking, not unlike me
) for a long time, before he even learnt Mandarin in his 20’s/30’s. Its quite ironic labelling him a ‘Sino Supremist’ when he initially knew almost nothing about his culture, and when he single-handedly dismantled the whole Chinese-educated camp in Singapore, from vernacular schools, to the national language, right down to Nanyang Uni.
3. Its a cultural reality that the majority in a society will get their way more often than the minority. Since Singapore is predominantly made up of Chinese, what exactly is so wrong about emphasising the ‘Sino’ nature of the country a bit more than the other minorities? Malaysia is practically ‘Muslimnised’ and ‘Malaynised’ by the majority Malays now, and I as a minority isn’t too bothered with that, provided it doesn’t completely wipe out the cultures of the other races altogether.
4. I also fail to see what exactly is the ‘overt racism’ that was practiced by LKY under the guise of ‘meritocracy’ in regards to education as was implied by the author in that piece. The Malay S’poreans there, consisting only of about 13% of the population, cannot seriously expect the govt to built them their own Malay-based uni, now can they? The Chinese M’sians consisted of about 35% of the population right after Independence, but they didn’t get a Chinese-based university until the recent UTAR was approved! And after those early years, all present S’porean students now have an equal opportunity to get into the local unis, with all of them receiving the same English-medium education. So where exactly does racism rear its ugly head here?
But I agree that most of his pseudo-scientific views of eugynics is just plain kooky
After all, he was no scientist.
December 20th, 2005 at 8:31 amI think LKY’s racialist views are insidious and covert and have already leached into Singaporean society at large – in that while not vocally expressed, these sentiments are latent and burst out unexpectedly, in ways that would be unthinkable here in M’sia. For instance, nicknaming a female Malay colleague “tudung” simply because of the way she dresses. I may be reading too much into this, but that is the first impression that I got – that it is pervasive and yet under the radar.
Many Singaporean Chinese may well have bought the myth that they themselves are not racist simply because their government has told them it is not, over and over again. That is the danger, for failure to recognise one’s own prejudices mean that one will probably not check it. That, in many ways, is an untold Singapore Story that desperately needs to come out in the open.
The part that I find disturbing about S’pore racialism is the way the numbers game keeps getting played up. Based on my rough estimate from press reports, there are about as many recent China immigrants as Malays in Singapore. Immigration is something that the govt. can control. The fact that there are so many China immigrants suggests a strong “Chinese first” bias as far as social engineering policy is concerned, much the same way that Australia used to have a White Australia policy.
Now, on the flip side, I feel that it is to the credit of the S’pore govt. that they have supported special measures to aid the so-called disadvantaged minorities. I have no evidence to show that it is mere window dressing or that it is a real, substantial effort, but one has to admit some admiration that in spite of (or perhaps because of) a patronising prejudicial attitude, S’pore has some form of limited affirmative action, and have proudly proclaimed the positive results in public.
I cannot help but feel that whenever any person takes the soapbox to proclaim Singapore a racist chinese state, he/she usually downplays or dismisses the efforts and achievements of Mendaki and the improved socio-economic status of the Singaporean Malay community. Again, as I say, this “achievement” itself needs to be assessed critically, and for the moment, I have not done so myself. The article makes no direct reference to it either, but the end section suggests some thoughts about it.
December 20th, 2005 at 11:26 amPAP a multi-racial party ? don’t think so ! It is just like DAP, PPP, Gerakan, Keadilan or even PAS all claimed to be multi-racial but in actuality they are just masquerading as one ! At less UMNO, MCA, MIC … have the guts to be what they really are ! DAP is a Chinese party, Gerakan is a CHinese party, PPP is an Indian party, Keadilan and PAS are both “parti Melayu” … just because their by-laws say that they are multi-racial doesn’t neccesarily made them one ! Juat look at what they fight for ..who they championed and who they KEY players are ! … NOt Nuff said dear cyrix !!!
December 20th, 2005 at 12:34 pmRacism in Singapore? I believe it, because I’ve been in and out of that country for over two decades. It’s both institutionalized and it can be observed in the people. But despite all of this, the best thing about Singapore is it’s efforts to practice a system based on meritocracy. For all its feudal attitudes toward other races, it has made efforts to climb above these entrenched prejudices.
There is a saying among some quarters in Singapore how the majority there is rather xenophobic. This conclusion is drawn from observations about their immigration policies and their policies on army/navy/ airforce staffing, among others. If we look beyond that, however, racial profiling in Singapore is more of a petty social problem rather than a full blown national problem in other countries.
And the situation in the HDB heartlands, while bad some 20 years ago, is getting better and better, with larger parts of the population becoming more and more cosmopolitan in their outlook – don’t take my word for it, just observe Singapore’s strident language campaigns and such as an indicator.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:15 pmsam: Alright then, dear sam, an elaboration …
Are there any party rules preventing a particular race from joining PAP/DAP/Gerakan/Keadilan/PPP?
No
Next, are there any party rules preventing a particular race from joining UMNO/MCA/MIC?
Yes
Are you gonna dispute this?
If not, then you must agree that UMNO/MCA/MIC are parties that discriminate based on race. Thus, are they not merely the equivalents of the UK’s BNP, or Australia’s One Nation Party, or Jean-Marie Le Pen’s far-right National Front in France?
You quote: “PAP a multi-racial party ? don’t think so ! It is just like DAP, PPP, Gerakan, Keadilan or even PAS all claimed to be multi-racial but in actuality they are just masquerading as one !”
Ummnn… how exactly are they masquerading as one? Like what I’ve just said, anybody’s free to join them. For example, I can just walk up to Keadilan and join up, even though I’m a non-Malay. Ditto with those other parties.
And futhermore, why should they bother to ‘masquerade’ as a multiracial party in the first place if they’re not? Why not just openly declare themselves to be communal parties? Precisely because the people who founded or joined those parties are multicultural in outlook and reject the established race-based parties.
You quote: “At less UMNO, MCA, MIC … have the guts to be what they really are !”
Ahhhh… and that is supposed to be a good thing? To be an openly racist party? I was under the impression that all Malaysians should strive for a ‘Bangsa Malaysia’, and to me, inclusive multiracial parties are steps in the right direction towards that aim.
You quote: “Juat look at what they fight for ..who they championed and who they KEY players are !”
Firstly, read more alternative sources of news before you form an opinion of them in this regard. For example, DAP has consistantly been exposing abuses of powers and such, irregardless of race. Did you know in the recent Squatgate incident, they also took up the cases of 2 Middle Eastern businessmen who were also mistreated by the M’sian police force? The mainstream newspapers conveniently did not report that. What about the time when they revealed the losses incurred by Bank Negara? That affects all Malaysians of all races, does it not?
And as for the leaders in those parties, what exactly is your idea of an ideal multiracial party then? Since for some reasons or other, there happens to be more members of a particular race than there are of another, it is only natural that the probability that the leader chosen is from that particular race. For example, if you think that Gerakan is too ‘Chinese-orientated’, nothing’s stopping you (assuming you’re a non-Chinese) and your other non-Chinese friends from joining it. Gradually, Gerakan would have no choice but to readjust its views when the composition of it’s Supreme Council (party policy-making body) becomes more racially representative to that of Malaysia.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:17 pmjust to add .. UMNO do allowed others to join .. DJ dave .. that singer is an Umno member .. so is a John Ghani .. a Kadazan and a Christian who is also a member but that does not made UMNO multi-racial .. UMNO or MCA or MIC for that matter will not allowed other races to join simply because they wouldn’t be UMNO or MCA or MIC anymore. BUT they do something else which the DAP, PAS, Keadilan have failed completely … which is they have been able to work together as a team … and UMNO may have been the bigger player of them all but if you have two of more dominance players then BN will not really work will it ? ..sort like a multi-racial parties but not really one ! still they are working together …. DAP may championed other races here and there but the bottom line is they will always championed Chinese causes first ..the masses will always identified the DAP as a Chinese party especially with what is happening now …They may put one or two non-Chinese here and there during the election just to made things looked multi-racial but that is just a cover-up. And lately the DAP have been going around fighting the fight of others nationalities .. why is that ? And I have yet a see a Malay MP from DAP just to show its multi-racialism … the last was the Late Ahmad Nor …
BUT i have this in mind .. in malaysia we will never see a true multi-racial party .. just like you asked ..what is a multi-racial-party ? like it or not one ehtnic group will dominate …
December 20th, 2005 at 2:56 pmDJ dave.. he’s popular.. that makes UMNO more attractive.. John Ghani.. a Kadazan.. if UMNO didn’t allow him to join, UMNO will be history in sabah (a place where UMNO leaders can gain money, big projects, big money, but sabahans end up with nothing).. that’s why sarawakians give UMNO a big NO.. and i’m glad about that..
i do agree with u that we’ll never see a true multi-racial party in malaysia.. prejudice is not easy to erase.. hopefully we’ll stop saying we’re “bersatu padu antara kaum”.. we’re no different than the americans..
December 20th, 2005 at 8:23 pmFirstly, to say that the PAP is a multiracial party simply because it consists of multiple races is utterly naive and myopic. Being a multiracial party entails looking after the rights of all races, that all are represented and are given equal opportunity in education, employment and general socio-economic status in the country. If you only see that di seberang tambak and nothing else, well, you only see what the government wants you to see.
How can the politicians be multiracial, while at the same time nationalistic and loyal to the party itself? It has become a recurring nightmare seeing Singaporean Malay PAP politicians grappling with the Malay problems, national causes and party loyalties all at once. In public, such leaders pay lip service to the government’s continued emphasis on our socio-economic problems (when drug abuse went down, dysfunctional families because a new issue), but there is little being done by the government to actually help the Malay community (hence the over reliance on Malay self help groups).
On another point of contention, should a multiracial party instead, consisting of politicians of various races, have them looking after all races, instead of each Malay/Chinese/Indian politician looking after their own particular race (and in this I mean concerning matters pertaining to their race)? In Singapore, what I see is the suppression of such differences (emphasis on the equality rhetoric and basis of meritocracy) while at the same time celebrating such differences as “Uniquely Singapore”. If you have read Dr Lili Zubaidah Rahim’s book called the Singapore Dilemma, you would realise that the emphasis on meritocracy gives credence to the Malay culture deficit thesis in Singapore and serves to perpetuate the Malay socio-economic stagnation (meaning we are relatively less developed as compared to the chinese simply because our culture defines it).
The fact of the matter is PAP is multiracial simply because the PAP government decides it to be so. With the advent of gerrymandered constituencies called GRCs (Group Representative Constituencies), one in five of the candidates must be from a minority group, therefore ensuring that no matter what, a Malay/Indian politician will be in office. Don’t get me wrong. This is a good thing, insofar as it ensures continued minority presence in the government. But does it mean we are truly multiracial? I beg to differ.
December 20th, 2005 at 10:31 pmsam and Libertas: Do you guys realise then that what you’re basically saying is that Singaporeans shouldn’t even bother to ‘try’ and forge a multiracial party to achieve a ‘Singaporean Singapore’? That’s akin to saying since I’m bad at football, I shouldn’t even attempt it. To me, that is just a very negative and pessimistic attitute in handling the multiraciality of Singapore.
What is the alternative that you’re proposing Singapore should take then? Emulate M’sia’s divisive, discriminatory and potentially dangerous race-based party system where each party only strives for their own races respectively while attacking the others?
Quoted from Libertas: “Being a multiracial party entails looking after the rights of all races, that all are represented and are given equal opportunity in education, employment and general socio-economic status in the country. ”
Again, for a casual observer like me, apart from the S’porean Army, I can’t really see any other discriminatory acts against the minorities there. Aren’t all S’poreans given equal schooling opportunities, uni entrance chances, public sector employments, and doesn’t everyone gain from S’pore’s economic performances?
The rationale given to the discrimination in the army is debatable, I agree. That could and should change. But apart from that, I’m hard-pressed to find any other obvious race discrimination cases there.
Quoted from Libertas: “In Singapore, what I see is the suppression of such differences (emphasis on the equality rhetoric and basis of meritocracy) while at the same time celebrating such differences as “Uniquely Singaporeâ€. If you have read Dr Lili Zubaidah Rahim’s book called the Singapore Dilemma, you would realise that the emphasis on meritocracy gives credence to the Malay culture deficit thesis in Singapore and serves to perpetuate the Malay socio-economic stagnation (meaning we are relatively less developed as compared to the chinese simply because our culture defines it).”
Firstly, have you read ‘The Malay Dilemma’, written by our very own Dr Mahathir? Since I’m not a Malay, I can’t comment on this.
But what I can comment on is this: Whatever those books may expouse about race and culture, they are just theories and nothing more.
But what remains a fact is this: S’pore STILL practices meritocracy in its public institutions, something which M’sia sorely lacks. I still cannot see (and the article doesn’t say) how exactly, as the article seemed to insinuate, does S’pore hide its racial discrimination under the guise of ‘meritocracy’? I would be interested if someone could enlighten me on this point.
December 21st, 2005 at 6:49 amI am not condoning “M’sia’s divisive, discriminatory and potentially dangerous race-based party system where each party only strives for their own races respectively while attacking the others”. Neither am I saying that “Singaporeans shouldn’t even bother to ‘try’ and forge a multiracial party to achieve a ‘Singaporean Singapore’”.
Being a Singaporean Malay myself, I will most definitely agree that being a minority in Singapore has been good since the basis of meritocracy ensures opportunities for all. But if you have read Dr Lily’s book, you will realise that meritocracy ignores the structural socio-economic issues surrounding the relatively slow development of the Malay community, justifying it as a result of our own deficiencies. In theory, meritocracy is a panacea because it provides opportunities for all, but the question is whether equal opportunity is given to all. In reality, this is not so. As I rise up the education system, I see less and less Malay and Indian students in the top schools. Meritocracy ensures only the best suceed. What if most of those who don’t are Malays and Indians?
I have read Dr Mahathir’s book The Malay Dilemma. Even in his book you will realise that the Malays were never at an equal footing with the Chinese (since colonial times). While Dr Mahathir had tried to rectify that through the Bumiputera policies, it had only exacerbated the problem, creating the so-called Malay Crutch Mentality, not being able to take initiative and live independently without government’s aid. In Singapore however, meritocracy is mooted but has the Malay community progressed significantly when compared to the Chinese community? Following Dr Lily Zubaidah’s arguments, this is not so. Does this enlighten you on whether racial discrimination exist through meritocracy?
On the point on the SAF, though all Malays are now allowed to enlist, several restrictions still do exist for Malays specifically. Loyalty issues? Islamic brotherhood? Malay stereotypical stupidity? I can only guess why we are excluded from certain vocations.
What we see in Singapore is a significant gap between the haves and the have nots, and most of the time, racial groupings are sadly over-represented in some categories. Racial discrimination may not be overt, and in Singapore’s case, highly subtle and almost undetectable. You must understand however that I am not saying that the government is racist, but trying to cover everything under the sweet veneer of racial harmony insults our intelligence. And the sad thing is that most Singaporean Malays are willing to accept their lower economic status, having the prevailing mindset that we will never be able succeed since we are Malays.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:13 pm[...] Nik Nazmi posted an article by an Australian academic here arguing that Lee Kuan Yew (LKY), the founder of modern Singapore was actually a  [...]
December 24th, 2005 at 8:27 pmLibertas:
Quote: “But if you have read Dr Lily’s book, you will realise that meritocracy ignores the structural socio-economic issues surrounding the relatively slow development of the Malay community, justifying it as a result of our own deficiencies. In theory, meritocracy is a panacea because it provides opportunities for all, but the question is whether equal opportunity is given to all. In reality, this is not so.”
I thought S’pore do acknowledge that the Malays there are historically disadvantaged socio-economically. That’s the reason for the their implementation of programs such as ‘Medaki’, no? But these programs are only meant to even out the playing field for the disadvantaged first to second generation of Malay-Singaporeans after S’pore’s Independence. I would think that by the second generation of Malay-S’poreans, their socio-economic conditions would be on par to that of the average Chinese-S’poreans. That’s what happened to my family anyway: My dad’s father was a noodle hawker. Then my dad did quite well in school, and he became a teacher. By then, I would say that my father has achieved parity with those other middle-class Chinese families, if only education-wise, and not wealth-wise. Now its my turn, and I will probably go into the accountancy or banking sector after I graduate from uni. Again, an accountant’s earnings aren’t as spectacular as that of a lawyer’s or a doctor’s. But again, my future socio-economic status would be slightly higher to that of my dad’s, and I think as an accountant, I would no longer qualify to be categorised under the ‘Socio-Economically Disadvantaged’ category anymore. So there’s been an upward social mobility in my family through the generations. And this is without any affirmative action programs to help us, mind you. So I would think that after a certain amount of time, the issue of being disadvantaged socio-economically should ceased to be used by the S’porean-Malays there as well.
Quote: “As I rise up the education system, I see less and less Malay and Indian students in the top schools. Meritocracy ensures only the best suceed. What if most of those who don’t are Malays and Indians?”
It would be ideal if everyone was created equal. Alas, I am not as bright as some of my friends who are medical students now. So, everyone’s intelligence level is different. The same goes for the students in S’pore. Like I’ve said before, meritocracy is based on cold, hard facts and figures. The situation you’ve described above could simply mean that there’s a higher proportion of Chinese-S’poreans scoring straight A’s in their O-Levels/A-Levels than there are Indian and Malay-Singaporeans. That’s just a fact, what else can be said about it? If there are more Chinese in those top schools than there are Indians and Malays, then so be it. Personally, I’ve also known many of my Chinese friends in Malaysia (myself excluded
) who do seem to outscore the rest of their classmates. This phenomenon isn’t just confined to the Chinese. There has also been a disaproportionately high representation of Jewish-Americans in the top law/medical/science schools there, under their meritocracy system there.
What’s the cause of this phenomenon then? Higher socio-economic conditions of the Chinese in comparison to the other races? That’s not entirely true. The beauty of meritocracy is that even if that Chinese bugger’s dad had all the money in the world, he still wouldn’t be admitted into NUS’s Medical School if his A-Levels result’s are lower than that of the other, and possibly poorer, applicants, irregardless of race.
Could it be really then be a culture thing then, like what Dr Mahathir argued in his book? It could be. Is it then those Jewish or Asian kid’s fault for this culture thing? Of course not. So what then is the problem here?
Quote: “In Singapore however, meritocracy is mooted but has the Malay community progressed significantly when compared to the Chinese community? Following Dr Lily Zubaidah’s arguments, this is not so. Does this enlighten you on whether racial discrimination exist through meritocracy?”
Actually, no. Like I’ve said above, if the Malays there have achieved parity with the Chinese-S’poreans in terms of educational access (ie: same schooling opportunity, library access, etc) and essential equipments needed for schooling (ie: able to afford textbooks, stationaries, transport to school, etc), then meritocracy cannot be faulted anymore. Community progress would then depend on academic achievements, business acumen, luck, etc, things that can’t be influenced by LKY or the S’porean govt anymore. So where does racial discrimination pop up in all of this?
Quote: “On the point on the SAF, though all Malays are now allowed to enlist, several restrictions still do exist for Malays specifically. Loyalty issues? Islamic brotherhood? Malay stereotypical stupidity? I can only guess why we are excluded from certain vocations.”
I’ve already replied to this point previously, and also in my blog now. Like I’ve said, I’m not condoning S’pore’s position on this, but I was just giving you your govt’s arguments on this. If I was ordered by M’sia to bomb S’pore where my uncle lives, would I be able to do so? A very hard question to answer…
Quote: “And the sad thing is that most Singaporean Malays are willing to accept their lower economic status, having the prevailing mindset that we will never be able succeed since we are Malays.”
And who’s forcing them to do that? Nobody’s preventing them from achiving anything they want in S’pore (apart from being historically disadvantaged economically, which should have, by now, been rectified by programs such as ‘Mendaki’ and such).
December 26th, 2005 at 2:05 pmCompare and contrast: loyalty issues
Hon Sui Sen and Goh Keng Swee to name a few surely must have family and kin members in Malaysia. But the PAP state does not extend their family ties across the straights into a racial category issue…. and still allow them to be the top echelons of the PAP-Govt apparatchik.
But I heard that Singapore Malays cannot be pilot because the PAP state fears these Malays cannot be counted upon in certain situations. Oh yes… in 1986 Lee Kuan Yew questioned the loyalties of the Malays…
Well, so much for LKY = PAP’s brand of meritocracy.
December 27th, 2005 at 5:07 am[...] What Lee Kuan Yew did and said during the eight day ‘walkabout’ could actually worsen relationship between the two countries. The Chinese Chauvisnism that Lee demonstrated in this visit to a Malay hinterland is unacceptable. In fact, a current Political Secretary to a Pakatan Rakyat Menteri Besar and now PKR YB once blogged on Lee Kuan Yew’s racism. [...]
June 18th, 2009 at 2:03 am[...] chauvinism and anti-Malay/Islam agenda. At one point of time, even now a DAP coalition partner PKR YB said something about PAP’s(DAP’s parent) racism. When DAP had the brief control of Perak, via puppet MB Nizar Jamaluddin for 11 months, they [...]
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:28 am