Malays having less social capital than Chinese

Posted on March 10, 2013 by gdy2shoez

From ‘Malays have less social capital:Study’, 10 March 2013, article by Rachel Chang, Sunday Times

Malay Singaporeans have less social capital than their Chinese counterparts, a new National University of Singapore study of nearly 1,000 people has found. This is worrying because social capital – the value found in personal networks – is a significant factor in someone’s ability to move from one class of society to another, said the researchers behind the study, assistant professor of sociology Vincent Chua and assistant professor of social work Irene Ng, yesterday.

They had analysed a 2005 survey of Singaporean residents for racial differences in social capital, and presented the findings at the Association of Muslim Professionals’ annual seminar. They found that Malays were six times less likely than Chinese to have university graduate contacts, and four times less likely to have someone in their network living in private property.

…The study also showed what sort of effect someone’s network can have on job prospects. Some 56 per cent of job-seekers from a minority race managed to get a job in the professional, manager and executives (PME) category if they were referred by a Chinese person. If the referral came from a non-Chinese, that number drops to 26 per cent.

“Minority members clearly benefit when they rely on job contacts from the dominant group,” said Dr Chua.The problem is that such inter-ethnic job help is rare, he said. Of 330 instances, only 18 were inter-ethnic. “More must be done to increase inter-ethnic integration so that resources can be shared between different groups,” he added.

If you didn’t know what this ‘social capital’ was, you would find the conclusion from this study mystifying, considering how tightly-knit the Malay community is, as any void deck wedding would tell you. ‘Value in personal networks’ is too broad a definition, which suggests that one would be better off generally if they had more friends, without specifying what ‘better off’ means. You’d be ‘better off’ at Facebook games if you had more ‘friends’ donating ‘lives’ to you. Narcissists would find ‘value’ in hundreds of people ‘liking’ their posts. I’d also make an excellent bounty hunter if I knew how to get into ‘inner circles’ (i.e have social capital) when my job is to find people and kill them.

In a corporate world that’s obsessed with ‘synergy’, ‘networking’ and ‘team-players’, it has become a given that the more people you associate yourself with the better. You don’t need a business guru or a professor of sociology to tell you that. So I dug a little further to find out in what context it is defined in Dr Chua’s paper (Social Capital and Inequality in Singapore). I thought ‘social capital’, as perceived by our Minister of Education, was a buzzword for the ‘value’ of integration and cooperation across race and creed in society, or to stretch it further, the ‘soul of our nation’. Instead, it is viewed in this paper as a personal resource and tool for success like IQ or having the ‘gift of the gab’. For some, getting this resource means bootlicking your way up rather than learning how to wear a sari if you’re not Indian.

Generally defined, social capital refers to the resources that people have potential access to from being connected to others possessing those resources

This is ‘having friends in high places’ reworded as social theory, which is a far cry from our PM’s definition of social capital:

Our success as a nation is increasingly defined not just in economic terms but also by our social capital. We need to strengthen our values of tolerance, mutual respect and empathy. This goes beyond being civil and considerate to one another. It involves us actively appreciating others’ perspectives, caring for our fellow citizens, conducting a constructive public discourse and accepting the need to make compromises that benefit the majority. These are essential attributes of a mature, gracious society which I believe we all want for Singapore.

This ideal is rather close to how one of the leading pioneers of social capital Robert Putnam calls it: “The value that arises when individuals learn to trust one another, make credible commitments, and engage in cooperative activities, such as giving to charity, joining civic and political groups and bowling together”.

The fairy-tale version distances itself from ‘economic’ factors, unlike Dr Chua’s linking it to ‘job contacts’. In fact, I think the two definitions of social capital contradict one another, one advocating harmonious, unconditional relationships even with those less privileged than yourself, the other calling for ‘strategic networking’ and mutual ‘back-scratching’. It’s obvious which social capital to rely on if you’re a Survivor contestant.  In the cold, self-centred version, I’d have social capital if my ex-boss wants to bring me in to his current company for better pay and prospects. It can also refer to  my ‘potential access’ to a beachside villa inheritance by virtue of being ‘connected’ to an eccentric billionaire grand-uncle. In other words, maximising your social capital means turning your interpersonal relationships into a personal goldmine. Another form of pop psychology related to social capital is ‘social intelligence’, and being no expert in this area, I’m not sure if being ‘socially intelligent’ necessarily assures one of ‘social capital’.  Whatever happened to being, well, just ‘hardworking’?

The indicators of ‘social capital’ used in Chua’s paper include controversial ones like ‘Number of MEN’ among network numbers, ‘Number of wealthy private housing dwellers’, and ‘Number of CHINESE’. He explains his selection of ‘Men’ and ‘Chinese’ as follows:

(Being) ‘male’ is another potentially important resource given the highly patriarchal nature of Asian societies where men are more likely than women to control valuable resources (Lai, 2008)
Chinese ethnicity represents a significant source of symbolic power in Singapore. As the ruling ethnic group, being “Chinese” is a form of social power independent of class

The results suggest that in order to accumulate social capital, you should try to score points with rich Chinese men living on landed property, but even if you have very powerful friends, you won’t benefit from your connections if nobody likes you. If the intention of this is to urge those with less social capital to mix around, as LKY once suggested to Muslims, it offers little assurance that collecting social capital translates to automatic dollar-and-cents rewards. The emphasis on having Chinese referrals as a factor in job attainment undermines other attributes such as job experience, skills or attitude regardless of your ties with people of a certain race. In a time where we’re promoting ‘inclusiveness’, where our women are steadily climbing ranks and we have a worsening addiction to foreign workers, such thinking about ‘dominant Chinese’, ‘patriarchy’ and ‘wealthy private home owners’ seems rather dated. These days, you’re as likely to find rich people in million-dollar HDB flats as having a female Caucasian foreigner for a boss.

The whole concept of social capital contributing to success, in all it scientific rigour, has eliminated the element of ‘dumb luck’. It also bases its theories and assumptions on a very narrow definition of ‘success’; I don’t need the help of university graduates or Chinese men if I want to become a satay tycoon.  It may be generally true that as social animals we thrive on human relationships, yet many happily successful, important people are misanthropes because people merely get in the way of what they excel in. On the flipside, many sociable people with contacts from Angola to the Antarctica end up being horrible bosses, charismatic cult leaders, dictators or serial date-rapists. If you’re an extremely lucky person you could build an empire after winning 1st prize in Toto even if you have the social capital of a mountain goat.

It pays to be well-connected, no doubt, but perhaps not in the predictable, categorical manner that advocates of social capital would like it to be. Nor is viewing people as simply a means to an end the right way to build a humane, compassionate society. Now excuse me while I touch base with my primary school classmate now bigshot trader on Linkedin.

About these ads

Filed under: 2013, Money, Politicians | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

MDA banning Elangovan’s Stoma

Posted on January 9, 2013 by gdy2shoez

From ‘Media Development Authority bans Elangovan’s play Stoma’, 9 Jan 2013, article by Huang Lijie, ST

Singapore playwright Elangovan’s first play after a three-year hiatus will not be staged. The play, Stoma, which tells the story of a Catholic priest defrocked over sex abuse charges, was denied a performance licence yesterday.

It was originally slated to run at The Substation in Armenian Street from Jan 17 to 19. In a letter to Mr Elangovan, artistic director of theatre company Agni Kootthu (Theatre Of Fire), the Media Development Authority said a licence was not issued because the play contains “sexually explicit, blasphemous and offensive references and language which would be denigrating to the Catholic and the wider Christian community“.

This is the third time that a play by Elangovan has been denied licence to be staged here, after Talaq (2000), a play about a Muslim-Indian woman’s experiences of marital violence, and Smegma (2006), which comprises 10 mini plays that explore the control and exploitation of disadvantaged groups of people.

Elangovan’s earlier banned work Smegma sounds like a biography of a punk metal band or a sex-heavy meditation on puberty secretions, but it’s actually drama composed of 10 vignettes, including:

  • Three men in a prison cell making fun of  the Singapore flag
  • Kindergarten children calling their MP a PIG
  • Singaporeans sexual escapades with underaged girls (How prescient, this Elangovan)

But it was the Arts Consultative Panel’s fear that it would ‘create unhappiness and disaffection amongst Muslims’ that pulled the plug on Smegma. Interestingly, Smegma was initially granted a licence under a RA(18) rating, but got banned less than 30 HOURS before it was scheduled to play. 6 years later you would see MDA pulling the same last-minute stunt on a film that allegedly mocks Indians called Sex. Violence. Family Values. This followed a consultation with a similar panel of ‘experts’ AFTER MDA had made the more forthcoming decision of granting M18 instead.

The synopsis for Smegma contains the following line: “When the comfort zone is shattered, ugliness rears its head like SMELLY SMEGMA”, and so it is with MDA coming down hard on Stoma for its priest-sex associations, like a libido-killing, shameful splotch of spermy grime on a male porn stud’s scene-stealing manhood. What is the difference between Stoma and another similarly-themed production Doubt (performed here in 2006) anyway? Does Jesus Christ cameo in it totting a shotgun? Or perhaps it features sexy nuns showing more leg than habit?

The controversial Talaq (Divorce), which earned the playwright and even its lead actress Nargis Banu DEATH threats, was based on true stories of Indian-Muslim women getting battered and raped by their husbands.  The theatre company clashed with the National Arts Council (NAC) for inviting two deeply religious Muslim men from the South Indian Jamiathual Ulama (SIJU) on their panel, one of whom, Haji Marican, reportedly objecting to the play not so much that it depicts Muslim husbands as violent rapists, but that involuntary sex  should NOT be considered rape in the first place:

In Islamic law, a husband cannot rape his wife as long as the marriage continues. He need not ask permission from his wife for sexual relations each time he wants to have it. Even if she is angry or not in the mood, he has the right to it. In any event, a husband can have sex with his wife without her consent and that will not be rape

I’m no scholar on religious matters, but I wonder if these guys were intimidating the NAC into making an unfavourable decision not with choice religious words, but with wooden clubs that could beat off the most rabid sabre-toothed tiger. Elangovan’s wife (S Thenmoli) and president of his theatre group also got arrested for trespassing after holding a private rehearsal of Talaq in 2000. Maybe if I had threatened to nail Stephenie Meyer shut in a coffin and bury her alive, and MDA intervened accordingly, disgruntled boyfriends and husbands in Singapore would have been spared the torture of sitting through 5 soppy, draggy vampire movies which also promulgate bestial-pedophilia love between wolfmen and little girls. And all that got was a PG rating!

If there’s anything that should be banned, it’s this promo rap video below which MDA produced in 2007; for giving the arts-loving public the false impression that they’re cutting-edge and cool. I rather scrape dried smegma off a rapist’s corpse with my fingernails than listen to this. They just don’t stop, y’all.

Postscript: Barely a week after this ban, a sex scandal involving a pastor from an unnamed church and an underaged girl surfaced. Oh the irony. Elangovan’s fiction is eerily close to the inconvenient truth. Looks like the year of the Scandal is stretching past the Chinese New Year.

Filed under: 2000s, 2013, Art, Bureaucrats, Censors, Religion, Sex, Violence | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Esme the guide dog not allowed in Forever 21

Posted on November 30, 2012 by gdy2shoez

From ‘Store says sorry over guide dog incident’, 30 Nov 2012, article by Melissa Lin, ST

A FACEBOOK post from a blind woman with a guide dog who recounted her treatment by staff at a Forever 21 clothing outlet went viral yesterday, prompting the American retailer to apologise. Ms Cassandra Chiu, 33, who contracted Stargardt disease when she was eight and lost her vision over time, was at the fashion chain’s Orchard Exchange outlet yesterday afternoon with her six-year-old daughter Kady, a maid and her labrador Esme.

Ms Chiu, a psychotherapist, is the second Singaporean trained to use a guide dog to help her move around.

…After picking up a pair of white pants, she headed to a changing room to try them on. But she was stopped by a female staff member, who told her that no dogs were allowed in the store, Ms Chiu told The Straits Times. She started explaining that Esme was her guide dog, and not her pet, but the staff member walked away before she could finish speaking. “I ended up talking to thin air,” Ms Chiu said.

…Finally, another staff member intervened to say that guide dogs are allowed in the store. Ms Chiu told her to “ask the staff to stop harassing me” and left the store with her purchase of pants.

…The Singapore management of Forever 21 apologised on the post, and said they would like to meet her to apologise in person. “I don’t think that’s necessary,” Ms Chiu said. “The problem is that we need to have a more inclusive society. If they want to do something, they should put a guide dog decal in their store so there won’t be questions about whether guide dogs are allowed inside.”

The president of the Guide Dogs Association of the Blind, Dr Francis Seow-Choen, said people should be more open to guide dogs and be aware of what they are. “They’re not pets. People can be reassured that the guide dogs we bring in have been certified and trained.” Meanwhile, Forever 21 has released a statement saying it has issued an apology to Ms Chiu on its own Facebook page and that of Esme The Guide Dog.

Forever 21 not seeing eye to eye with Seeing eye dog

Esme the dog has her (?) own Facebook page, and it’s more entertaining than BABIES who status update about lactation time. One post recounts how Esme shocked someone while inside the toilet, something I’m not quite used to myself, though I’d rather have a dog staring at me pee than a little girl accompanied by her father. What’s surprising is that Cassandra is only the SECOND blind Singaporean with a guide dog. There could be many reasons why our government has taken so long to implement dogs to help the blind, but some of the most obvious ones are hardly ever mentioned in the article above.

In 1988, it was reported that guide dogs for the blind were barred by various government agencies, of note the Ministry of Health (hospitals and clinics), SBS (buses) with SUPPORT from the predecessor of MICA and, tellingly, the Muslim Religious Council. One can only conclude that the authorities (and certain cultures) deemed a blind man’s helper as a scary, filthy animal, even though a mutt could do more for 1 blind person in its short years of life than a rich, miserly man ever would. The first ever guide dog owner Kua Cheng Hock had to send his pal Stacey back to Australia because of public disapproval. Dogs would have been an economical alternative to enhancing our amenities with disabled-friendly infrastructure, yet we baulk at the thought for the sake of the beliefs or irrational fears of certain individuals. They have been trained not to lick, bite, bark or shit about unnecessarily, which is more than you say of some human beings. I’m not sure if they’ve been trained not to SALIVATE though.

It wasn’t until 2005, when we only had ONE guide dog (Kendra) in the entire country, that SMRT Transit decided to allow them on public transport provided that they were accompanied by station masters and dressed in a harness, just in case there were people who were ‘afraid of dogs’ or ‘culturally sensitive’. Restaurants, with blessings from NEA, followed suit in the same year. Esme in fact posted pics of herself and owner in IKEA, on a bus, in a church, in NTUC, Food Junction and surprisingly, in a cab. This dog has been to more places than the most pampered Pomeranian puppy in Singapore.

Wimp

Wimp

So what do Muslims do when they’re blind and walking canes are not an option? Get a miniature horse, of course. But probably not feasible in Singapore as the poor creatures are likely to be harrassed by kids (and some adults) wanting to ride them like My Little Ponies. Britain passed a groundbreaking fatwa in 2008 allowing a blind teen to walk into a MOSQUE with his guide dog. We’re unlikely to become THAT inclusive, though such acceptance of a taboo animal on holy ground so that one can pray is something to mull over.

Esme’s owner did well to let Forever 21 off with a Facebook post. In other countries, the blind would lodge complaints for discrimination if Muslim cabbies ever refuse to take them. Our PM Lee himself is a fan of ‘inclusiveness’ as well, and unless something is done to address our attitudes and foster compassion towards the blind and their four-legged companions regardless of our religious inclinations, his speeches and tweets would be, well — wait for it — all bark and no bite.

Filed under: 2012, Pesky animals, Religion, Shopping malls | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Eve Tan calling Malays low educated and lazy

Posted on October 10, 2012 by gdy2shoez

From ‘Disgust over Eve and Ivy cyber rants’, 10 Oct 2012, article by Ian Poh, ST

INTERNET users are calling for action to be taken against two other people who posted controversial comments on Facebook. They said the posts’ authors should be dealt with in a similar way to Ms Amy Cheong, the woman fired on Monday for making racially offensive remarks about the Malay community.

One of the two Facebook users, who called herself Eve Tan, also posted derogatory comments about Malays, branding them “low educated” and “lazy”. They were apparently made last month in response to a question on the Health Promotion Board’s profile page. When others challenged her, she replied: “Get real, just see the truth.”

Another Facebook user calling herself Ivy Lim has also come under scrutiny for comments posted on the site. She had written: “Looks like all th(e) Malays can’t get over it. Poor thing!”

…Mr Nazry shared a screenshot of Ms Tan’s controversial comment and captioned it: “A fine example of complete ignorance portrayed by our very own Singaporeans.

“It truly, truly disappoints me that some of us are no longer sensitive and tolerant to the feelings of other races. Whatever happened to racial harmony/tolerance?”

Close call for those who ‘Liked’ this

Hence ‘$50 void deck weddings’

I do agree that this is a ‘fine example of complete ignorance’, because you’d have to be a complete moron to post such things on Facebook in light of how ‘netizens’ react to touchy race issues these days. In a separate post, Eve Tan gave some dubious statistics about how Malays make up the majority of prisoners and underaged smokers. Facebookers like her aren’t the only Singaporeans caught expressing the ‘hard truth’ about local Malays. There’s another more important and renown personality who knows a thing or two about the Malay psyche, and if he had a Facebook account, I wonder if he would be publicly slammed in the media or summoned by the police for ‘investigations’ as well.

Last year, LKY’s Hard Truths was branded as ‘haram‘, or forbidden to Muslims, by the Malaysian government (You may still get a copy from the nearest bookstore). According to Wikileaks, he called Islam a ‘venomous’ religion. He also urged Muslims should let go of some strict religious observances and be more sociable when eating with others, a statement regretted by both his own son and Minister Yaacob who had to apologise on his behalf. The AMP (Association of Muslim Professionals) criticised him for implying that Malays are lagging behind in terms of educational levels compared to Chinese and Indians. But like Amy Cheong’s comment on Muslim marriages, perhaps we should step back and reflect before grabbing the flaming pitchfork and raze Eve and Ivy’s houses to the ground.

In 2009, a 10 year report on PSLE maths reported a plunge in performance for Malays in that subject from 1999 to 2008, along with poorer results overall compared to Chinese and Indians. Teachers cited the reason for poor math as Malay students seemingly resigning to this as a ‘personal flaw’ by nature, as well as their not being able to afford tuition like the other races. Even with free tuition sponsored by Mendaki, there were ‘indifferent’ parents who did not bother sending their kids for classes. PSLE may not the most reliable marker for the success of an ethnic group, but this does highlight the complex interplay between educational level, family income, a system that has become heavily dependent on tuition and a perceived less-than-enthusiastic attitude towards academic performance.

It’s not so easy to back up ‘facts’ about Malays committing crimes though. The Singapore Prison Service Annual Statistics offers no data on ethnic proportion in jails in 2012, although in 2004, the Chinese still made up the majority of inmates (> 40%) with Malays in second place. What has been reported, though, is that the number of Malay drug abusers arrested has increased by 6.8% compared to drops among Chinese and Indian addicts in the first half of this year (vs the first half of 2011). In 2010, stats were released to Khaw Boon Wan showing that the number of Malay smokers aged 30-39 was DOUBLE that of Chinese or Indians. You can also find data to justify your claim that ‘Malays are too fat’ or have more births out of a wedlock, but I wouldn’t expect to get reliable information on teenage pregnancies, violent crime or PSLE/O Level failures, and perhaps for good reason.

All this talk about ‘lazy Malays’ reinforces the  ‘Relac one corner’ stereotype and racist jokes about chauffeurs named Ahmad, and it is one that is entrenched deep in Singapore-Malayan history. In the 20′s you could write freely about how the Malays are ‘cursed with the lazy spirit’ and have a ‘marvellous ingenuity of avoiding work’.   Malays continued to defend themselves against the ‘cruel epithet’ that is ‘The Lazy Malays’ into the 50′s. They were described as a ‘leisure-loving, lazy people contented with what little success they have’, formed the bulk of ‘grass cutters, drivers, PEONS and clerks’ and were struggling in school because of laziness and ‘lack of willpower’. It even appeared in school humanities textbooks in 1956, where Malays were described as ‘lazy and indolent’. Malayan historian Sir Richard Winstedt was accused of writing an entry in the Encyclopedia Brittanica that they were ‘lazy, dishonest and immoral’. It was later attributed to an anonymous correspondent and another white fellow called Sir Hugh Clifford (of whom Clifford Pier was named after). Half a century later and despite societal advancements, this mindset about certain races or classes remains as narrow as before.

In 2004, a motivational guru from Malaysia delivered a reality check on the state of the Malays, which he believed was ‘rotting’:

The Malays are hardworking, but not as consistently hardworking like other races. They are only hardworking in things they are passionate about. The successful races are hardworking in whatever they do.

Malay-bashing isn’t just limited to Singaporeans. A Malaysian-Hainanese rapper named Wee Meng Chee, or Namewee, ranted against the Cantonese, Singaporeans and ‘Bumi’ Malays in a song called ‘Kawanku’ in 2007, where Malays ‘ tak suka kerja’ (don’t like to work), ‘tiap hari tidur’ (sleep everyday) and would regret if there were no Chinese in Malaysia because of one less holiday (CNY). Namewee is considered a seditious troubemaker to the Malaysian authorities, and if anyone came up with something similar in Singapore, they would spend a few weeks hanging out in a cell with people who have sex with underaged prostitutes, while their racist rap goes viral on Youtube.

Well, we are all hardworking in things we love doing. Perhaps the Malays love doing some stuff more than others, and even if they’re lagging behind in terms of what we traditionally view as academic success or an illustrious career, look no further than our fertility rate by ethnicity to see what the Chinese and Indians are lagging behind the Malays in. What really matters now, an issue of national EMERGENCY, is being hardworking in an activity that is the complete opposite of ‘work’ altogether.

I haven’t watched Avenue Q at MBS, but I wonder if this song is still on the playlist after recent events.

Filed under: 1920s, 1950s, 2011, 2012, Racism, Religion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 16 Comments »

Malay men more romantic than Chinese men

Posted on August 16, 2012 by gdy2shoez

From ‘Do Malay husbands know something that Chinese husbands don’t?’, 15 Aug 2012, ST Forum

(Ivan Goh): THE total fertility rate of Malay Singaporeans last year was 1.64, followed by Indian Singaporeans at 1.09 and Chinese Singaporeans at 1.08 (“Get married, have babies”; Sunday).

Most incentives – maternity leave, maid levies and discounted taxes – are aimed at women, and may be working better for the Malays than for the Chinese. Perhaps the Government should find out why Malay women are more willing to have babies.

Are Malay men more romantic, persuasive and less stressed out by life’s perceived demands than Chinese men? Do Malay couples have a more viable network of caregivers?

I would like to believe that a man with confidence is attractive to women. He can better influence his wife to have more babies, especially if he believes he can adequately provide for the family. How can Chinese Singaporean men attain more confidence? In this modern age, the ability to provide translates into how much a man earns and his job security.

Greater confidence may well encourage Singaporean men to take the plunge earlier, and increase the potential for having babies sooner.

The statistics speak for itself and few have dared to ask why the Chinese are lagging behind our Muslim community, until the writer decided to broach a sensitive topic that has always been muddied by almost-taboo factors such as educational level, genes, status, religion, culture, diet and libido. There are exceptions in both races of course, with Chinese families who produce up to quadruple the national fertility average, and Malay families who stick to one child or none at all, and it’s hard to pinpoint exactly why Malay families are, on average, bigger than Chinese ones without stumbling into some form of stereotyping and risk accusations of racism. By saying that Malay couples have ‘more free time and are less stressed’ is insinuating that they don’t ‘work as hard’. By saying that they’re ‘persuasive’ is suggesting that Malay men are born sex machines. Such arguments are loaded with negative, unhelpful connotations and without a thorough, nationwide sex survey on the habits and appetites of the typical Chinese or Malay spouse, it’s all guesswork for now. I’m pretty doubtful, though, whether the writer’s claim of the Chinese man being less adept in the skills of seduction has anything to do with our miserable TFR. In this age of reproductive technology, you can father a child as long as you can afford it, even without bothering to pleasure your wife at all. There’s also an inherent contradiction in correlating confidence with earning power and hence more babies. Surely if a man spends most of his time making money, he’d have less for the Mrs, or children.  Or he would apply his gleaming confidence and hence sex appeal anywhere else other than at home and put their entire family unit at risk.

It’s also reasonable to ask if Chinese women place more emphasis on their careers hence put off childbearing compared to Malay women, rather than whether Malay men are Lotharios and Casanovas compared to the Pee Wee Herman Chinese. A husband can sweet serenade his wife all night long but will still fail if she’s not in the mood. Maybe it’s not Chinese men who are not ‘confident’ enough, but their women who are too ‘gung-ho’ when it comes to chasing their careers, to the point that sex becomes a 2 minute formality or non-existent and babies are pushed to the bottom of the ‘to-do’ list. Maybe it’s nothing at all to do with how career-minded Chinese couples are, but a case of poor time management. Maybe being a housewife and marrying early is more socially acceptable to a Muslim family than a Chinese one. Maybe people bring more babies into the world because they were born into big fertile families themselves, with the ‘extended family network’ being an incentive for raising a child, along with the passing down of ‘baby-making’ genes, which pretty much condemns the fate of traditionally small Chinese families to a self-limiting vicious cycle.

No one would profess to have the answer and maybe no one wants to know what it is because anything that you hypothesise is bound to be discriminatory in some way or other, but picking on the Chinese male’s personality flaw is probing the bark of a tree without seeing the forest.

Filed under: 2012, Babies, Racism, Religion, Sex, Singaporean men, Singaporean women | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

LKY can’t feel his legs

Posted on November 6, 2011 by gdy2shoez

From ‘The truth about my father’s health’, 6 Nov 2011, article by Lee Wei Ling, Sunday Times

…The following week, when I showed him the positive feedback from two readers on the article (Living a life with no regrets), he paused for a moment, then said: ‘Let the readers know I have sensory peripheral neuropathy.’

In my father’s case, sensory peripheral neuropathy has caused the conduction of sensation from his legs to his spinal cord to be impaired. This makes his walking unsteady, as many Singaporeans have already noticed.

…His day-to-day condition now fluctuates. On some days he is fairly steady and on other days his balance is poor. The problem is limited to the sensory nerves outside his central nervous system. His brain and muscles are working normally. But being deprived of sensation from his legs means he finds it a challenge to balance. Thus his unsteady walk.

…I have no doubt my father will fight his disease for as long as he thinks he can contribute to Singapore. I think with medication and simple precaution, he can continue to be of service to his country and the world. He is that rare person, someone who will look at the facts carefully, and express his opinions regardless of what others might say. He will say and write what is truthful, no matter how politically incorrect he may be viewed by others.

It’s only natural for Lee Wei Ling to shower praise on her ailing father, though it’s more of his indomitable will than ‘political incorrectness’ that accounts for his fight against neuropathy. There’s no doubt LKY is a rare breed, as a man and politician, as well as his tendency to speak his mind and ‘stick to his guns’, but it’s arguable if what comes out of his mouth is ‘truthful’, and whether being ‘politically incorrect’ i.e insensitive, would actually do any good for Singaporeans, or just an elaborate show-and-tell to stir controversy and dramatic conflict. ‘Truthful’ is a tricky term, for what’s truth to the man may be a glaring falsehood to others. A more accurate term would be ‘honest’, but honesty is a underwhelming virtue you could attribute to any lay person, not a ‘rare’ breed who was once voted as a national icon of Singapore. An ‘honest politician’ is an oxymoron in any case, but let’s take Wei Ling’s emotional assessment of her father at face value and review how his ‘truthful’ opinions have affected others and how outsiders with nothing to gain by lauding him rate his character.

March 12 1997: JB and car-jackings

“He (Tang Liang Hong) claimed that his life was under threat. But, of all places, he went to Johor. If there is anywhere where people can do him harm, that is the place.” Mr Lee said it was “notorious for shootings, muggings and car-jackings.”

Such remarks earned LKY a barrage of Malaysian insults from ‘bloody idiot’ to ‘senile’, though the man did apologise ‘unreservedly’. Not much info on theft rates in the 90′s, but since 2001, a syndicate known as Geng Panjang have been stealing cars, some of which were Singaporean owned. In 2004, the Johor police released a report that in that year ALONE, 1381 cars were reported stolen in Johor, of which 33 were Singaporean-owned. The total number increased to 1394 in 2005. LKY may be wrong about the ‘shootings and muggings’, but there’s nothing ‘idiotic’ about the car-jackings.

Feb 15, 1999: William Safire calls LKY a dictator

The determinedly irreplaceable Lee Kuan Yew is the world’s most intelligent, and to some most likable despot.

There is no doubt about LKY’s ability and intelligence, according to Safire Western counterparts such as George Bush, Margaret Thatcher and Henry Kissinger have all sung praises for the man. Hillary Clinton has also remarked that he has a ‘great many admirers’.

Aug 23, 1999: A relentless urge to smite opponents (TIME magazine)

A champion of Asian values, he is most un-Asian in his frank and confrontational style. Lee loves Singapore but has relatively few close Singaporean friends or confidants. He is a man of great intelligence, with no patience for mediocrity; a man of integrity, with an relentless urge to smite opponents; a man who devours foreign news but has little tolerance for a disrespectful press at home.

…But even as he obsessively pruned, trimmed and weeded the Garden City, Lee would never shed his lifelong sense of insecurity, his feeling that it could all be taken away with one uncontrollable spasm of social upheaval or regional chaos.

This piece by correspondent Terry McCartney basically sums up the Western perception of the man as a powerful, insecure, somewhat unforgiving loner.

Sep 30 1999:  Malay soldiers with machine guns

“If, for instance, you put in a Malay officer who’s very religious and who has family ties in Malaysia in charge of a machine-gun unit, that’s a very tricky business.

“We’ve got to know his background. I’m saying these things because they are real, and if I don’t think that, and I think even if today the Prime Minister doesn’t think carefully about this, we could have a tragedy.

“So, these are problems which, as poly students, you’re colour-blind to, but when you face life in reality, it’s a different proposition.”

This isn’t an irrational fear seen in today’s context post 9-11. In 2009, an ‘devout’ American-Muslim army major gunned down 13 army colleagues at Fort Hood. Though we wouldn’t call such remarks prescient,  the threat of ‘self-radicalisation’ remains very real today, though not exclusive to the Islamists.

Sep 22, 2006: Don’t be like that, Kuan Yew!

Mr Lee said: ‘My neighbours both have problems with their Chinese. They are successful, they’re hard-working and therefore they are systematically marginalised, even in education. ‘And they want Singapore, to put it simply, to be like their Chinese, compliant.’

Tun Dr Mahathir retorted yesterday: ‘I look at the houses in KL of the people that are ‘systematically marginalised’. They have bigger houses than mine.’ The former Malaysian leader also told Mr Lee not to feel smug, noting that the Minister Mentor looked wise in his own ‘tiny’ country. He said China did not think much of Mr Lee, who was also ‘marginalised by Chinese in the world’.

‘Don’t be like that, Kuan Yew! You just look after your rice bowl, that is all. The country is tiny, don’t be too proud,’ Tun Dr Mahathir said in response to a written question by a member of the public who attended the function here. Asked at a news conference why he thought Mr Lee had made the comments, Tun Dr Mahathir said: ‘He feels he is strong. He is the proud type. He is not bothered with his neighbours. That is why he deliberately raised something he knew to be sensitive in our country.’

I’m unable to comment on the accuracy of LKY’s observations here, but it’s an interesting flipside to the man’s character (smug, selfish) as noted by long-time combatant and intellectual rival Mahathir, a man who has probably known LKY for as long as his own daughter has. Current PM Najib had something else to add on the same issue, that LKY’s comments were ‘naughty’. Mahathir has also called LKY a ‘little emperor‘ in a ‘tiny Middle Kingdom’, echoing Safire’s sentiments almost a decade earlier.

Jan 26, 2011: A racist militant fighter

Be less strict on Islamic observances and say ‘Okay, I’ll eat with you.’

‘Racist’ and ‘militant‘ were used in the same breath by a Malaysian politician in response to then MM’s views on racial integration. LKY eventually responded with the immortal ‘I stand corrected’ ‘apology’.

So, in the view of outsiders, LKY is a brilliant, despotic, insecure, unapologetic, power-hungry, racist, smug, well-admired, naughty little emperor. But at this stage of his life, we don’t want to hear about his work ethic or attributes as a leader, we want to know if he was a good father, husband or even a worthy friend, a side that has never been revealed publicly. The whole world knows how ‘rare’ he is, but what needs to be told to opponents and admirers alike, other than the fact that he has sensory nerves and a spinal cord, is how ‘ordinary’ he can be.

Filed under: 1990s, 2000s, 2011, Politicians, Racism, Religion, Violence | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments »

Halal stickers in Precious Memories gift shop

Posted on November 5, 2011 by gdy2shoez

From ‘Gift shop in a fix for selling halal stickers’, 5 Nov 2011, article by Jennani Durai, ST

A GIFT shop in Simei is being investigated for selling stickers bearing a logo which indicates that the food or drink is permitted for consumption by Muslims. Because the stickers with the halal logo were not issued by the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (Muis), the statutory body has filed a police report against the shop, called Precious Memories Gifts, in Eastpoint Mall.

The logo depicts the Singapore halal certification mark. Halal is an Arabic word which means lawful or allowable. Any food or drink which falls under this category has been prepared according to Muslim laws. A member of the public alerted Muis to the sale of the stickers, Malay newspaper Berita Harian reported last week.

…Under Section 88A of the Administration of Muslim Law Act, anyone found guilty of abusing the Muis halal certificate and logo could be fined up to $10,000, jailed for up to 12 months or both.

(A similar case of misuse of halal certification was reported in 2007, on an NTUC pork product, which turned out to be an internet hoax and the ‘sticker’ was merely ‘photoshopped’ over)

This is hogwash

Although the press used the rather strongly worded ‘abuse’ of the logo, the actual AMLA reads as such:

(5) Any person who, without the approval of the Majlis —

(a) issues a halal certificate in relation to any product, service or activity; or
(b) uses any specified halal certification mark or any colourable imitation thereof,

shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both.

Which means it’s illegal to sell a halal ‘certificate’, as well as to use a ‘certification mark’ or a reproduced version without prior approval from MUIS. Cracking down on stickers, of course, won’t deter pranksters from doctoring images with ‘colourable imitations’ of the halal certification as what happened in the NTUC halal pork scandal above. But what’s interesting is the heavy fine imposed on such religious mischief or deceit. Breaking a religious taboo aside, I doubt anyone has ever died, or even taken ill, from having their digestive systems accidentally exposed to pork, whether it’s the actual meat itself or when used as intermediaries, e.g. enzymes used to ferment MSG.  Some Muslim cultures even find it perfectly acceptable to have a pig roasted for dinner. Just ask the Turks, who have taken a very liberal intepretation of what the source of this porcine prohibition actually says on ‘transgressing its limit’:

002.173: He has only forbidden to you dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah. But whoever is forced [by necessity], neither desiring [it] nor transgressing [its limit], there is no sin upon him. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

In contrast, the penalty for a first-time drunk driver is a fine of up to $5000 or 6 months imprisonment (with licence revoked), which is exactly HALF the maximum price to pay for tricking a Muslim into consuming ‘vile swine,’ yet the risk of someone getting physically hurt in the first offence is way higher than the latter. Perhaps one may argue it wouldn’t be fair to compare the offences on such terms. Spiritual desecration, after all, is intangible and subjective, with historical and cultural precedents which we as law-abiding multicultural citizens should respect no matter how irrational or unscientific they appear to us. One man’s pork knuckle aroma may be another’s mustard gas. Char siew may be heavenly staple to some but a foul, bloody slab of demonic carcass to others. But let’s look at something related, the Sale of Food Act, which affects EVERYBODY.

49. Any person who is guilty of an offence under this Act for which no penalty is expressly provided shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000 and, in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to both.

The above penalty applies to anyone who sells food ‘unfit for human consumption’, ‘in excess of permitted proportion’, ‘contains a prohibited substance’, or is ‘adulterated’. Which means, you could spend a longer time in jail claiming your product is halal (when it’s not, but generally ‘safe’ for consumption) than a) if it had fecal count higher than the toilet seat in a MRT station loo, b) if it contains indigestible plastics or cancer-causing flavor enhancers, or c) if it gives you obesity  and coronary heart disease (if it claims ‘low-fat’ or ‘low-salt’).  If taken in a strict context of ‘inherent harm’, without considering the spiritually damaging effects of sacrilege (which can be pardoned if it were a genuine mistake to eat something ‘non-halal’ by the way), what then, is the basis of slapping a heavier fine on someone selling a halal sticker than one dishing out food swarming with E. coli?

Filed under: 2000s, 2011, Justice system/Lawsuits, Local food, Religion | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

LKY and the ‘venomous’ religion of Islam

Posted on September 5, 2011 by gdy2shoez

From Wikileaks claim is false:Lee Kuan Yew, 5 Sept 2011, article in Today.

SINGAPORE – Former Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said the claim in a cable released by WikiLeaks, in which he had “characterised Islam as a ‘venomous religion’”, is false. Mr Lee this morning issued a statement following the release by Wikileaks of a cable by the United States Embassy in Singapore, reporting on the visit of then-Senator Hillary Clinton to Singapore in July 2005.

He added that that he looked up Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ filenote of the meeting and “nowhere does it record me describing Islam as ‘venomous’, nor did I say anything which could have given that impression”, said Mr Lee in the statement. In the statement, Mr Lee said that at the meeting, he talked about extremist terrorists like the Jemaah Islamiyah group, and “the jihadist preachers who brainwashed them”.

“They are implacable in wanting to put down all who do not agree with them. So their Islam is a perverted version, which the overwhelming majority of Muslims in Singapore do not subscribe to,” the statement read.

LKY honoured for Lifetime Achievement in 2009, with Hillary Clinton

Well there’s no love lost between Islam and Lee Kuan Yew, but isn’t it the Government’s stand not to respond to unverified information via Wikileaks? LKY was silent on earlier leaks of his jibes at North Korean leader Kim Jung Il and the Myanmese junta, but jumped right into the thick of it when it came to addressing a prickly topic in which he is fully conversant with, yet unfortunate to be implicated this close to the 10th anniversary of 9/11. As much as LKY would deny the contents of the cable, using some Ministry secretary’s meeting minutes as a back up, you can’t deny that ‘venomous’ is somewhat typical of the vocabulary of our former MM and critics have every right to be suspicious. The snakes in the grass have been stirred from their slumber, and slithering fork-tongues from both sides of the Causeway will have a field day tossing anti-Muslim accusations once again if we’re not careful.

LKY always had little praise for Islam as a religion or ideology, wary of Muslims congregating in mosques instead of CCs, raised fears of rebellion during the tudung saga, was quick to call JI members fanatics and was even uncomfortable with their eating habits, but never one to condemn the religion altogether knowing the kind of retaliation he would get not just from his countrymen but from regional leaders as well. Unless, of course, Hillary Clinton made a good drinking partner and tricked him into spilling the beans in a state of stupor during the IOC meetings in 2005.  Though there’s probably no published record of LKY using the harsh word ‘venomous’  in public, a little dip into history reveals that words like  ‘venom’ and ‘poison’ have been associated with LKY in his dealings with his personal nuisances, which does lead one to wonder: If this accusation were indeed true, maybe Clinton didn’t need to tickle much to get some nastiness out of him after all.

In an ironic twist, it was in 1963, just before Singapore’s merger with Malaysia, when then Prime Minister LKY claimed that Tengku Abdul Rahman had told him to ‘ignore the MCA (Malaysian Chinese Association) venom’ (Venom? I said no such thing: Tengku, 21 May 1963, ST).  If this article is to be believed and that we can safely assume that ‘venom’ is not a word a Tengku would readily use, it’s possible that LKY let slip the word as a figure of speech to spice up what the Tengku really meant. 3 years later, this was what LKY said to Malaysian students in Singapore causing a ruckus, threatening to deport them out of the country if they persist in their nonsense (Warning by Lee to students from Malaysia, 22 Nov 1966, ST)

…But we cannot tolerate, and will not tolerate, students who come here and let off their venom, their frustrations, their bitterness against a government that really is not responsible for them

The synonym for venom, ‘poison’, was used in the literal sense when LKY told disgraced president Devan Nair, not too subtly, to go kill himself in a letter written personally, dated 1985.

Although none of the above variations were directed towards any religion or race, it is not too much of a stretch to believe that ‘venomous’ could very well be one of those combustive words nestling right at the tip of LKY’s tongue. But whether he did say it or not, this is not the time to get everyone all fired up before you could say ‘crusade’. It’s been a good 10 years since Islam has been made a poster-child religion capable of stunning insurgency and mass murder, but let’s not forget that any religion pursued to absolute ends, like absolute power, will corrupt, and ‘poison’ the mind, absolutely.

The person I really sympathise with here is Minister Yaacob Ibrahim, probably gearing up again for another round of damage control to clean up after someone’s mess like a caregiver changing a soiled diaper. It’s worth reminding ourselves that LKY has stepped down even if it doesn’t feel that way, and any religion that preaches tolerance and compassion should see to it that devotees be patient, wise and forgiving towards the old man, whatever misgivings he may have with divinities or an afterlife, a place where ghosts of his past would return to haunt him for sure.

Filed under: 1960s, 1980s, 2011, Politicians, Religion, Violence | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Chan Chun Sing:Don’t plant stakes in the ground

Posted on September 4, 2011 by gdy2shoez

From ‘Divide between religious and non-religious a key challenge’, 4 Sept 2011, article by Joanne Chan, Today

Singapore is not “immune” to the growing rift between those who are becoming increasingly religious and those who are the opposite. And more will need to be done to “enlarge and defend the common space” for Singaporeans, said Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports Chan Chun Sing.

Noting that the world is “seeing greater religiosity on one end of the spectrum and non-religiosity on the other end”, Major-General (NS) Chan said that such forces threaten to pull society in opposite directions.

“The fast pace of development will inevitably mean that many will seek to find their anchor in race or religion,” he said.

“However, we hope that as people become more conscious of one’s race and religion, they will not turn inward or become more exclusive towards others of different races or religions.”

And those who do not subscribe to any religion should continue to be open and receptive to those who do, he added.

“We must remember to not plant stakes on the ground to circumscribe other’s actions. But on the other hand, we must constantly work to enlarge and defend the common space that we all enjoy today,” he said.

The use of the word ‘religiosity’ in political rhetoric is relatively recent, and may be viewed by some as a euphemism for ‘fanaticism’, especially pertaining to the rise of Islamic zealotry in the 9/11 era. For the record, both ‘religiosity’ and ‘fanatic’ were used by LKY himself in the same article (Drift to terror, 1 June 2002, Today) in response to the threat of infiltration of the country by terrorist cells like Jemaah Islamiyah (JI)

(SM Lee): My original concern was over the growing separateness of our Muslim community, as Singaporean Muslims tended to centre their social and extra-mural activities in their mosques instead of in multi-racial community clubs.

What came as a shock was that this heightened religiosity facilitated Muslim terror groups linked to Al Qaeda to recruit Singaporean Muslims into their network.

…These (JI members) are religious fanatics.

A little more than a year later, it was up to his son, then DPM Lee Hsien Loong to piggyback on the same buzzword by calling on MUIS to keep an eye on the community (Muis must guide religiosity, says DPM, 25 Nov 2003, Today) in light of ‘increased religiosity’ among Muslims in Singapore and elsewhere, using the tudung saga as an example. Typical of our PM and unlike his paranoid father, Lee Hsien Loong was careful not to tread on F-words like ‘fundamentalism’ and ‘fanatic’, but it’s clear by now which ethnic group would be under the Government’s watchful eye, and ‘religiosity’ would be viewed as a precursor to radical Islam, and hence begins the use of fear-mongering rhetoric to keep one’s multiracial flock from straying off the path of our ‘common spaces’.

The escape of Mas Selamat in 2008 ignited another round of anti-religiosity talk from Lee Hsien Loong when he became PM, losing none of the nervous steam he inherited from the father. Speaking at the ‘closed-door’ ISD 60th Anniversary dinner (Old threats and new, 9 Sept 2008, Today):

(Lee Hsien Loong): The apparent effortlessness of our racial harmony is deceptive. It requires constant tending behind the scenes…especially so at a time when religiosity is growing.

…The most crucial and delicate relationship currently is that between the Muslim and non-Muslim communities.

One would expect a ISD Dinner and Dance to be as enchanting as a night at a funeral wake, but here is our PM giving his private army a pep-talk and a thumbs up for their nabbing of suspect terrorists, and again spreading the warning about rising religiosity like it was a viral plague. At this point, you can’t be any further convinced  that ‘religiosity’ in politico-speak has and always will be linked to Muslims. Not to feel left out, former PM Goh Chok Tong had to enter to fray (SM:Guard against religious enclaves, 3 Aug 2009), fresh from the wake of violent clashes between Uighur Muslims and Han Chinese in Xinjiang:

…Mr Goh pointed out that the Government sees religion as a positive force in society, giving ‘spiritual guidance to help us cope with a fast-changing world’.

However, rising religiosity may lead people, unwittingly, to form religious enclaves, unless a conscious effort is made to continue socialising with people of other faiths, he said.

If such religiosity ‘encroaches on our common secular space, or worse, the practice of other religions, (it) must result in a push-back by others’.

In the same year, DPM Wong Kan Seng also spoke on the above ethnic clashes (Be mindful of racial, religious fault-lines, 2 Aug 2009, ST), though he should have been more ‘mindful’ on domestic matters like keeping his detainees behind bars after Mas Selamat’s escape a year earlier.

We must not let increased religiosity or religious practices among our people create fault lines that will disrupt our social stability, especially when race and religion are closely intertwined in Singapore.

He added that the Government’s key approach towards managing race and religion matters is to build common spaces in schools, communities, workplaces and national service. These common spaces must remain secular, he said.

Why is Major Chan Chun Sing bringing this up all of a sudden? Has the ISD brought any ‘fanatics’ to justice recently? Has a bomb attempt at Yishun MRT been thwarted? Why rev up an old thorny nugget and make everyone fidget uncomfortably in their seats just when President Tony Tan has sworn to ‘unify’ all Singaporeans? What in heaven’s name is ‘non-religiosity’? Do you mean atheists, or people who are religious but don’t overdo it? This statement, a commendable cut-n-paste job from previous speeches (‘stakes’ instead of fault-lines/enclaves), is like announcing how chickens are slaughtered in the middle of a BBQ party. If religiosity has been ‘rising’ for the past 10 years, why haven’t we succumbed to civil war by now? Does the PAP have to drill into our heads about the threats to religious harmony every single time violence erupts in the Muslim World? Why the relative silence on right wing Christian fundamentalism (can I use the word ‘religiosity’?)  in the wake of the brutal Norway attacks then? DPM Teo Chee Hean referred to it as ‘extremism’, which is a far cry from religiosity though synonymous with JI’s activities, but tactfully avoiding any reference, or maybe even pooh-poohing the remote possibility of any zealot gun-totting Christians in our midst.

Maybe Major Chan has been hanging around the Lees a bit too much lately, and taking advantage of the upcoming 10th year anniversary of 9/11 to gently remind Singaporeans who the murderers were on that fateful day, at the same time hopeful that educating us on ‘religiosity’ would resonate happily with our PM, his father and the Emeritus so that they won’t have to unleash another  anti-terrorism package again this year.   With current and former DPMs and PMs speaking out on religious tensions to date, perhaps Chan, barely a year-old politician, is venturing into shoes too big for him to fill too soon. Thank you for your concern, Major, but tell us something we don’t already know.Time to Sing a different tune, dude.

Filed under: 2000s, 2011, Politicians, Religion, Violence | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The last of the non-Chinese Presidents

Posted on September 3, 2011 by gdy2shoez

From ‘After Nathan’ and  ‘Chances of a Malay President dimmer’, 3 Sept 2011, ST Forum

(MR RAJASEGARAN RAMASAMY): ‘Has the country seen the last of a racial minority as head of state with the exit of President S R Nathan on Thursday (‘One last goodbye at the Istana’; yesterday)? The multi-seat group representation constituency (GRC) was introduced to ensure that minorities are represented in Parliament with contesting political parties including non-Chinese Singaporeans in their GRC slates. The clincher to the GRC scheme is the argument that even if a minority candidate is incredibly deserving, he or she would lose against a Chinese-Singaporean rival; hence the reason for making it compulsory to include at least one non-Chinese Singaporean in a GRC slate. The Government should address the problem and perhaps consider a constitutional amendment that will help a non-Chinese candidate in a presidential election. One way is to rotate the presidency among the major races, including Eurasians.’

(Peter Yang): SINCE the government of Mr Goh Chok Tong changed the presidency to an elected post in 1991 and set up a vetting committee on eligibility, no Malay Singaporean has contested the post. Singapore has had only one Malay president – the late Yusof Ishak, our first head of state.

There is also a paucity of Malay Cabinet ministers. The present Cabinet has only one Malay minister – Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts Yaacob Ibrahim.

On the other hand, Indian Singaporeans, whose population is about two-thirds that of Malay Singaporeans, have four Cabinet ministers, with one of them, Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam – who holds the two portfolios of Finance and Manpower – doubling as Deputy Prime Minister.

In fact, Malays, who comprise 13.4 per cent of the population, are like a far smaller community – the Eurasians. Each has had only one president. The current trend suggests that Singapore may not have a Malay president in the near future unless an exceptionally outstanding candidate steps forward.

The question on both writers’ minds but afraid to ask directly is really ‘Why aren’t there more non-Chinese, Malay leaders especially, in the form of ministers or presidents?’. The argument based on minority numbers doesn’t hold since Indians, who make up a lower percentage of the population than Malays, have managed to secure key offices, which leaves other factors which we can only guess and murmur in whispers if we don’t want to be branded as racists. As much as it seems patronising to rotate the EP out of obligation and consideration for our four races, this was exactly the suggestion raised by then SM Lee Kuan Yew during an interview with ST in 1999 (Good to rotate EP among races, 11 Aug 1999, ST)

(Lee Kuan Yew):… It’s very difficult to find suitable  minority candidates. Because the population is so small, when you reach the apex, the number of minority candidates who can fill the job becomes even smaller.

So when you have a good man from the minority race, I think it helps to remind Singaporeans that we are a multiracial society. Although this is elected presidency, had there been a contest against a populist Chinese, we would have gone all out to make sure that he’s elected.

It’d be a very sad day if a populist Chinese candidate were to turn up and Nathan were defeated. I would have gone all out for him. The Prime Minister and the ministers knew that, if there was a contest with a populist Chinese candidate, we have to throw in all our resources to help him get elected.

I think (this idea of rotating the presidency among the races) it will continue. I would be very sad if expediency made future governments just support Chinese candidates. I think that would be a very bad thing… it took several generations for the Americans to vote for a Catholic candidate as President. These are gut feelings, emotional prejudices which are very difficult to wear down.

LKY was probably spot on about the influence of ‘emotional prejudices’ on the choice of our leaders, whether it’s a matter of race, background, dialect group or religion. A Malay, non-’populist’ president elect would certainly garner massive endorsement both from the Malays on the ground and from the Government itself, not so much that he’s more capable than his nearest Chinese competitor, but rather along the lines of ‘Let’s give him a shot since we’ve had 2 Chinese presidents already’. Such thinking undermines the role of presidency as mere ‘window-dressing’, like a shopowner changing the display sample or colour of his mannequin in accordance to the season just to keep things ‘fresh’. After all, it doesn’t take much out of a mannequin to perform its limited duties anyway, since one thing in common between being a dummy in a showcase and a ceremonial task is simply showing up. Race aside, LKY’s understanding of the presidency back in 1999 is also applicable today, shedding light on how the EP can be readily engineered, or should I say ‘nudged’ in the direction that is in the best interests of the people, and the Government of course.

You don’t need a rotating EP to remind Singaporeans that we live in a multi-racial society. We see this on the streets, in the media and during the various festivals.  We have learnt to accept the unspoken speculations about the dearth of minorities in politics, just like accepting the fact that all our Cabinet ministers, and presidents, are male. Putting a non-Chinese president elect up for grabs just for the sake of it is an insult to the minority community, who should understand that having leaders speaking their own language alone is just not sufficient for their mandate, though there may be a handful who would still consider racial solidarity over individual merit any day, worrying behaviour that calls into question optimistic assertions that we have ‘matured’ politically.

An interesting, though I would have to disclaim as frivolous, comparison of the impact of racial voting would be the now defunct Singapore Idol contests, where Malay males have won in three consecutive episodes. The presence of Chinese performers in the final rounds of the competition could have been a ‘freak result’ itself, or simply an outcome of ‘sympathy votes’. The difference though, is that Singapore Idol selection is a visible though dramatic process. Voters get to see what their idols are made of live and it’s somewhat obvious who would make a better performer regardless of race. What you get from president elects are just CVs, fancy talk, finger pointing, excessive blinking and empty promises. You also don’t need to manage a multi-million company (itself a possible factor behind the racial profiling of the candidates) before you join Idol, a strange prerequisite for the EP considering that from LKY’s description of the ideal president above, you basically just need to be a ‘good, quiet, dignified man’ in his eyes. In short, Singapore Idol voting is a fairer, more transparent, dare I say more ‘democratic’ process than choosing an EP if we were to heed LKY and suggestions above that the position should be racially rotated each term.

The voters of Singapore Idol are also likely to be people with some appreciation of the ‘duties’ (singing, dancing) of the winner, while most of us are clueless about custodial powers of the EP. Still, it’s hard to clearly separate rewarding one for his talent or out of racial affinities without conducting an in depth, demographic survey of how viewers chose their Idols, not to mention their Presidents or MPs. If there were another round of PE and we had one representative of each race in the running instead of a Tan orgy, I’ll probably hedge my bets on a Malay male to win because of 1. Support from the Malay community 2. Support from the non-Malay community tired of seeing another Chinese as president 3. Support from the Government keeping tabs on the invisible rotation timetable as an act of ‘comfort blanket’ appeasement.

Filed under: 1990s, 2011, Campaigns/Elections, Politicians, Racism | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Next Page »
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 170 other followers