Being a member of Overseas Chinese Diaspora, I treasure how important to preserve one’s identity and one’s mother tongue in a minority environment. I thus have great empathy for Sir David. (David Tang Wing-cheung’s Cantonese is a rich and subtle language that must be preserved”, August 23)
Let me be clear, I am not in favor of suppressing Cantonese but I do take the stance to promote the use of Mandarin for the Chinese anywhere anytime.
I want to discuss about the spread of Mandarin usage outside the Mainland China by relating my family experience in the South East Asia. My parents received Chinese education in Mandarin at about the turn of 1960s, they still converse to each other in Mandarin, never mind that they are both Fukienise (Fujianese in Pinyin) by descent.
As a young child growing up in repressive environment in the 1980s, my generation was constantly reminded to speak more Mandarin and less vernacular when we went to school. This was true for Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei, the three former British colony in South east Asia.
Even the Indonesian Chinese who migrated to Hong Kong, most of whom left Indonesia between 1950s-1960s, Mandarin is still proudly spoken among them perhaps with an accent Sir David would perhaps regard as insufficiently good.
These show how readily the South East Asian Chinese accept Mandarin as their own common language. A big credit to all the pioneers and successive generation of Chinese educationist who have the foresight to install Mandarin as the unifying spoken language for the Chinese Diaspora. It was done without any political pressure from Beijing at all and with the consensus of all the major tribes of Chinese.The major resistance to Mandarin are perhaps among the Cantonese peoples. I am increasingly affirmed of my view that there is a sort of Cantonese-centrism in pocket where the Cantonese descent forms the majority. It is also very ironic that many prominent Cantonese would rather speak English than Mandarin.
I know this may be controversial. My own experience has been that the Cantonese speaking peoples tend to impose their own as the "lingua franca". This is true from Vancouver to Kuala Lumpur, not to mention Hong Kong.Cantonese speaking peoples instinctively regard Cantonese as more sophisticated than Mandarin or other vernacular which may be true. The often cited evidence is that the Tang Dynasty's poem is best read out in Cantonese than in Mandarin. The Cantonization phenomena in Kuala Lumpur, I believe, is largely attributed to the rise of Hong Kong pop music and TVB popular dramas from the late 1970s. The reasons are rooted in the perceived Cantonese superiority and the popularity of its pop culture.
Many of the Chinese who lived in Hong Kong today are not originally Cantonese. According to the local Fukien (Fujian in Pinyin) organization, there is more than a million Fujianese in Hong Kong. If we add up the more frequently encountered waves of immigrants or refugees from Chiu-chow (Chaozhou in Pinyin), Shanghainese and Hakka (many of whom are actually native in the New Territory), the non-Cantonese number is definitely very substantial in Hong Kong.However, their second generation are all converted into Cantonese speaking. This in large part is due to the British colonial policy in teaching the Chinese in Cantonese. There is only one school that teaches Mandarin uninterrupted from the 1950s until today. Such is the miserable state of Mandarin in Hong Kong.Upon the handover, the former Chief Executive, Mr. C.W Tung advocated and implemented the mother tongue language policy which was right but he got it wrong in that the mother tongue was presumed to be Cantonese. Mr Tung hails from Zhejiang.That's ironic and unfortunate for Hong Kong.
There were indeed many great scholars such as Professor Qian Mu (钱穆) who came to Hong Kong and set up the predecessor of what is now the Chinese University during those difficult years in 1950s . Yet Mandarin didn't stay as the mainstream.What I find most amusing is that even the latest arrivals from the Mainland are rushing to be Cantonized, at least in their name. When applying for their identity card, they happily swap their name from Pinyin to Cantonese spelling. Abandoning Pinyin spelling supposedly make them Hong Kongers. Maybe they are not aware that the local Hong Konger are adopting English names such as David as their own.Of course the social political backdrop between Hong Kong and Overseas Chinese Diaspora are very different. Retaining Cantonese in post-handover is seen as keeping the "2 systems" in the "one country". Prior to the handover, the local Hong Kongers with memory of constant turmoil and persecution in the Mainland from the Great Leap Forward to the Cultural Revolution and Tiananmen Incident, have their own reservation of anything Mainland and these surely include Mandarin that is seen as imposed top-down.
What is the state of Mandarin today?
Only after the handover that the children are beginning to learn Mandarin; and only after the SARs that the shopkeepers are beginning to speak Mandarin of an acceptable standard to the Mainland visitors.
I think it is either very clannish or very colonial for Sir David to claim that Hong Kong would fare better politically if we continue to use a language which the northerners did not understand. The word "northerner" is very segregationist last heard in the era of American Confederacy but I could find myself amused with the word as yet another Sir David's demonstration of caricature with great sense of humor.
The promotion of Mandarin in Hong Kong at least in the school as the main medium of instruction whilst teaching Chinese doesn’t deprive the cultural value of Cantonese. Cantonese as a vernacular like the Taiwanese will always be around, alive and kicking.
Showing posts with label Malaysia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Malaysia. Show all posts
Monday, August 23, 2010
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Still debating about Malaysia's social contract
We blogged about social contract back in Oct 2008 - The 27 Millions Peoples's Question. It is still being discussed back in Malaysia. See Azmi Sharom's article below.
What is truly disappointing is that we still have a Malay Supremacist NGO Perkasa still advocating for a quasi-apartheid system even though South Africa has since progressed to post-apartheid reconciliation. By the way, Mahathir is the patron to this group.
Then, we have a DPM who regards himself first as a Malay and then a Malaysian. This is especially disappointing because the question first posed by Kit Siang to the DPM is a political question and not a DNA question.
What happens next was his boss came to his defence to say that there is nothing wrong. This is most ironic coming straight out from the top two executives in the 1 Malaysia Cabinet.
If 1 Malaysia as propounded by Najib is really the vision statement of his administration, the question then is how could one puts his tribe above his nation; how could one who is under oath to uphold the Malaysia's Federal Constitution consider himself not a Malaysian in the first place.
Of course, His Honorable was giving the answer to satisfy his constituents. So his answer was politically correct in so far as his Malay ultra constituent is concerned.
I am reminded that the leopard does not change his spots.
By Azmi Sharom (The Star)
AH ... the social contract — a theory propounded by the philosopher Hobbes where the citizens of a country agrees to give power to a government in exchange for the guarantee of their own civil liberties and rights.
It is a term meant to dictate a type of governance where the needs of a powerful authority are balanced by the protection of citizens from abuse of that power. In this Hobbesian philosophy we find a weapon against tyranny.
But this is not so in Malaysia. The term “social contract” has been hijacked by those who choose to invent their own meaning of the expression. When “social contract” is used on these shores, it means that Malay political power must always hold sway and a state of perpetual pro-Malay economic policies must remain in place and everyone else must keep quiet as their forefathers had agreed to it.
The founders of this country did not have such racialist aspirations when we obtained our independence in 1957. The provisions in the Constitution which provides for the “special position” of the Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak (note there is no such thing as “Malay rights” in our Constitution), were meant as a stop gap measure but not a permanent crutch.
Tun Dr Ismail likened it to a golf handicap where you give the weaker party a boost until he reaches a point where he can play on equal terms. Indeed the time limit initially set was for the affirmative action to last 20 years.
But hey, don’t take my word for it. Allow me to regale you with some quotes that can be found in the Report of the Federation of Malaya Constitutional Commission “… in an independent Malaya all nationals should be accorded equal rights, privileges and opportunities and there must not be discrimination on grounds of race and creed …”
And the people who said this were not the British and their pompous hats. It was the Alliance which in case you have forgotten who they were, consisted of the Malayan In-dian Congress, the Malayan Chinese Association and the United Malay National Organisation. That’s right our great leaders of Umno hoped and dreamt of a Malaya based on equality. And you can see this aspiration reflected in the Constitution. Article 8 guarantees equality except in situations specifically provided for in the Constitution. In other words, if an affirmative action is not specifically allowed for in the Constitution, it is unlawful.
And there are other provisions as well; like Article 136 which states that all government servants must not be discriminated against based on race and creed. So our non-Malay public servants have a Constitutional protection against poor treatment for example in promotions. I don’t see all these “warriors for the social contract” waving placards demanding impartial treatment to all civil servants. Of course not, it would not do to defend the non-Malays, will it?
By the way, it is not only the politicians who wanted a country where there is racial equality, the rulers, our Sultans themselves said that they “... look forward to a time not too remote when it will become possible to eliminate communalism as a force in the political and economic life of the country”.
But in case you think I am making this up, it’s in the report mentioned above on page 71. Check it out yourself.
So the next time some ex-premier, or multi-millionaire Malay, or racist rhetoric politician, go on and on about the “social contract”, please be informed that this kind of self- serving bigoted behaviour was not part of the dream that is independent Malaya. Our founders did not have such base ideals they wanted better, and so should we.
What is truly disappointing is that we still have a Malay Supremacist NGO Perkasa still advocating for a quasi-apartheid system even though South Africa has since progressed to post-apartheid reconciliation. By the way, Mahathir is the patron to this group.
Then, we have a DPM who regards himself first as a Malay and then a Malaysian. This is especially disappointing because the question first posed by Kit Siang to the DPM is a political question and not a DNA question.
What happens next was his boss came to his defence to say that there is nothing wrong. This is most ironic coming straight out from the top two executives in the 1 Malaysia Cabinet.
If 1 Malaysia as propounded by Najib is really the vision statement of his administration, the question then is how could one puts his tribe above his nation; how could one who is under oath to uphold the Malaysia's Federal Constitution consider himself not a Malaysian in the first place.
Of course, His Honorable was giving the answer to satisfy his constituents. So his answer was politically correct in so far as his Malay ultra constituent is concerned.
I am reminded that the leopard does not change his spots.
By Azmi Sharom (The Star)
AH ... the social contract — a theory propounded by the philosopher Hobbes where the citizens of a country agrees to give power to a government in exchange for the guarantee of their own civil liberties and rights.
It is a term meant to dictate a type of governance where the needs of a powerful authority are balanced by the protection of citizens from abuse of that power. In this Hobbesian philosophy we find a weapon against tyranny.
But this is not so in Malaysia. The term “social contract” has been hijacked by those who choose to invent their own meaning of the expression. When “social contract” is used on these shores, it means that Malay political power must always hold sway and a state of perpetual pro-Malay economic policies must remain in place and everyone else must keep quiet as their forefathers had agreed to it.
The founders of this country did not have such racialist aspirations when we obtained our independence in 1957. The provisions in the Constitution which provides for the “special position” of the Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak (note there is no such thing as “Malay rights” in our Constitution), were meant as a stop gap measure but not a permanent crutch.
Tun Dr Ismail likened it to a golf handicap where you give the weaker party a boost until he reaches a point where he can play on equal terms. Indeed the time limit initially set was for the affirmative action to last 20 years.
But hey, don’t take my word for it. Allow me to regale you with some quotes that can be found in the Report of the Federation of Malaya Constitutional Commission “… in an independent Malaya all nationals should be accorded equal rights, privileges and opportunities and there must not be discrimination on grounds of race and creed …”
And the people who said this were not the British and their pompous hats. It was the Alliance which in case you have forgotten who they were, consisted of the Malayan In-dian Congress, the Malayan Chinese Association and the United Malay National Organisation. That’s right our great leaders of Umno hoped and dreamt of a Malaya based on equality. And you can see this aspiration reflected in the Constitution. Article 8 guarantees equality except in situations specifically provided for in the Constitution. In other words, if an affirmative action is not specifically allowed for in the Constitution, it is unlawful.
And there are other provisions as well; like Article 136 which states that all government servants must not be discriminated against based on race and creed. So our non-Malay public servants have a Constitutional protection against poor treatment for example in promotions. I don’t see all these “warriors for the social contract” waving placards demanding impartial treatment to all civil servants. Of course not, it would not do to defend the non-Malays, will it?
By the way, it is not only the politicians who wanted a country where there is racial equality, the rulers, our Sultans themselves said that they “... look forward to a time not too remote when it will become possible to eliminate communalism as a force in the political and economic life of the country”.
But in case you think I am making this up, it’s in the report mentioned above on page 71. Check it out yourself.
So the next time some ex-premier, or multi-millionaire Malay, or racist rhetoric politician, go on and on about the “social contract”, please be informed that this kind of self- serving bigoted behaviour was not part of the dream that is independent Malaya. Our founders did not have such base ideals they wanted better, and so should we.
Secular Value in MCA Politics
I had an entry back in Oct 28, 2008 arguing that public ethic and competency are more important criteria for public office. I was writing in the context of Dr Chua Soi Lek then when he won the deputy president contest.
Since then, MCA was entangled in one of the worst politic crisis since its founding until it culminated in Soi Lek winning the 3 ways Presidential contest featuring two other, what are now, ex-party President, Ong Ka Ting and Ong Tee Keat.
It is apt to give a quick summary of event unfolding in what commentator called the Romance of Three Kingdom episode of MCA crisis.
It started with Ong Tee Keat maneuvering the dismissal of Soi Lek from his position last August with the support of his ally, Liow Tiong Lai , then the VP and now the DP, and Wee Ka Siong, the Youth Wing leader. Soi Lek countered with a party member petitioning for a special party assembly which he successfully got himself reinstated by Oct.
Tee Keat in turn found himself losing the motion of no confidence vote with a small margin. His ally, Liow and his ally turned against Tee Keat and wanted him to resign in line with his pledge earlier that he would resign in the event of losing the no confidence motion. Ong felt he was betrayed and refused to resign and insisted on collective responsibility.
Liow and his ally then started a campaign calling for another special assembly to resolve the crisis.
In the meantime, Tee keat successfully outmaneuvered Liow by pulling up a Greater Unity Plan with Soi Lek’s support to maintain the status quo. The unity Plan proved short-lived. Soi Lek and his ally tendered resignation from Central committee in early March this year to compel the March 28 special assembly to reelect the new party office holders.
Out of nowhere, Ong Ka Ting, another ex-president, this time allied with Liow, reemerged from political retirement and contested in the same ticket with Liow for the top two positions.
The result was Soi Lek won with 39% of votes, Ka Ting, the self-acclaimed party savior, 36% and Tee Keat, the incumbent with 25% . However, Liow beat Soi Lek’s ally in the deputy contest with less than 3% margin. In the 4 VPs contest, each of the Kingdoms has won at least a seat.
I think MCA will now take a breather after this long saga. MCA, as a political force, has lost its relevance since the 308 General Election and I sincerely hope that MCA is a spent force. For a better Malaysia, any communal base party has no place at all.
What I really want to comment about is that at least in so far as MCA is concerned, public ethic and competency matters more than private indiscretion. I am not here to advocate private indiscretion. Neither am I saying that public figure with private indiscretion is not controversial. If it would please the moralist, my message can be construed as the lesser of two evils. Even with concession, I am still rejected by the moral absolutist.
My view is that as long as the public figure repented and forgiven by democratic mandate, his or her return to public office shouldn’t be causing disproportionate alarm. After all, private indiscretion doesn’t encroached upon the public domain like corruption or abuse of power. Of course, peoples tend to be more emotional with private indiscretion than rationale about what is required of a public office holder, namely, public/political ethic and competency.
I am happy with Soi Lek’s victory not because I am in favor of him.
Rather I am happy that the MCA Chinese demonstrated the secular value as opposed to the puritanical values or holier-than-thou values in choosing public offices.
Since then, MCA was entangled in one of the worst politic crisis since its founding until it culminated in Soi Lek winning the 3 ways Presidential contest featuring two other, what are now, ex-party President, Ong Ka Ting and Ong Tee Keat.
It is apt to give a quick summary of event unfolding in what commentator called the Romance of Three Kingdom episode of MCA crisis.
It started with Ong Tee Keat maneuvering the dismissal of Soi Lek from his position last August with the support of his ally, Liow Tiong Lai , then the VP and now the DP, and Wee Ka Siong, the Youth Wing leader. Soi Lek countered with a party member petitioning for a special party assembly which he successfully got himself reinstated by Oct.
Tee Keat in turn found himself losing the motion of no confidence vote with a small margin. His ally, Liow and his ally turned against Tee Keat and wanted him to resign in line with his pledge earlier that he would resign in the event of losing the no confidence motion. Ong felt he was betrayed and refused to resign and insisted on collective responsibility.
Liow and his ally then started a campaign calling for another special assembly to resolve the crisis.
In the meantime, Tee keat successfully outmaneuvered Liow by pulling up a Greater Unity Plan with Soi Lek’s support to maintain the status quo. The unity Plan proved short-lived. Soi Lek and his ally tendered resignation from Central committee in early March this year to compel the March 28 special assembly to reelect the new party office holders.
Out of nowhere, Ong Ka Ting, another ex-president, this time allied with Liow, reemerged from political retirement and contested in the same ticket with Liow for the top two positions.
The result was Soi Lek won with 39% of votes, Ka Ting, the self-acclaimed party savior, 36% and Tee Keat, the incumbent with 25% . However, Liow beat Soi Lek’s ally in the deputy contest with less than 3% margin. In the 4 VPs contest, each of the Kingdoms has won at least a seat.
I think MCA will now take a breather after this long saga. MCA, as a political force, has lost its relevance since the 308 General Election and I sincerely hope that MCA is a spent force. For a better Malaysia, any communal base party has no place at all.
What I really want to comment about is that at least in so far as MCA is concerned, public ethic and competency matters more than private indiscretion. I am not here to advocate private indiscretion. Neither am I saying that public figure with private indiscretion is not controversial. If it would please the moralist, my message can be construed as the lesser of two evils. Even with concession, I am still rejected by the moral absolutist.
My view is that as long as the public figure repented and forgiven by democratic mandate, his or her return to public office shouldn’t be causing disproportionate alarm. After all, private indiscretion doesn’t encroached upon the public domain like corruption or abuse of power. Of course, peoples tend to be more emotional with private indiscretion than rationale about what is required of a public office holder, namely, public/political ethic and competency.
I am happy with Soi Lek’s victory not because I am in favor of him.
Rather I am happy that the MCA Chinese demonstrated the secular value as opposed to the puritanical values or holier-than-thou values in choosing public offices.
Friday, January 15, 2010
LKY's 1965 Speech - Vindicated
TRANSCRIPT OF A SPEECH MADE BY THE PRIME MINISTER, MR. LEE KUAN YEW, AT THE SREE NARAYANA MISSION IN SEMBAWANG ON 12TH SEPTEMBER, 1965.
Mr. Chairman, friends,I want to say how delighted I am this morning to be able to join you in presenting these scholarships to 10 students, $100/- each, and not only to Indian students. The money probably came all from Indians because they are members of your Mission but the scholarships are also being given to Malays and to Chinese too.
It is these little gestures which make for harmony and understanding. I remember reading not so long ago about some special scholarships they were going to name after one of their leaders in Malaya, and they were going to get everybody to contribute, but the scholarships were only for one group. It makes life a rather difficult and trying business. But that is now no longer our business: we cannot interfere. We mind our own affairs.But I say, neverthless, as Dr. Ismail has said in Canberra -- and he is an honest man who said that one day these two territories will come back again, but under very different circumstances and different conditions. And he was an honest man to say that if Singapore remained in Malaysia, there would be language and race riots in 1967. He said that -- I did not say that. He said that and it was reported in Canberra. I got the newspapers sent back to me. Because Singapore was setting the example in tolerance, multi-lingualism, multi-racialism; a multi-regligious, multi-cultural society. And there are some people whose grasp of history is somewhat limited and they are the people who shout these slogans: " One race, one language, one religion" It worries me. I think they ought to see the optician and put on their glasses. Then they will know there are many races, racial groups, but one nationality. I think they ought to see the ear specialist because obviously, theirears are not hearing properly. Or, they will know that we speak many languages. And they will know that today Sunday, Christians go to church: Friday, Malays go to their mosques: Indians have Thaipusam, Deepavali and their ceremonial occasions; so with Buddhists, so with Seventh Day Adventists, on a Saturday. And what is wrong about that?We will set the example. This country belongs to all of us. We made this country from nothing, from mud-flats. It is man, human skill, human effort which made this possible. You came, you worked -- for yourselves, yes. But in the process, your forefathers and my forefathers who came here: we built this civilization.
It is one of the few cities in Asia where you can get anything you want. You pick up the telephone: it works; and it not only works internally. You can pick up the telephone and speak to Delhi, London, Tokyo, Canberra ---anywhere you want. Do you think you can do that just by shouting slogans? You can get the best in any of the hotels in meal. European food? You can get the best in any one of the hotels in town. Chinese food? What kind do you like? There is Cantonese, Hokkien and Teochew. Indian food? There are South Indian, North Indian: anything you like. Malay food? You like Sumatran food, nasi padang? Where else in the world can you get this?
And I say, we will progress. I was sad not because Singapore was going to suffer: No. I was sad because by this separation, we could not help millions of our own people, our own countrymen in Malaya, in Sabah and Sarawak to progress with us. That was why I was sad. We could not help them any more.
They have now got to help themselves. They have got to throw up their own leaders and they have got to take a stand. We cannot interfere. Here in Singapore, in ten years, Geyland Serai will be another and better Queens town all the shacks will be demolished. I say that for Singapore because I do not think Singapore is boasting when it says it can do it. It will do it. But do you think in ten years, the kampongs in Malaya will have Queens towns? I do not think so.
If you want that, then you must have the thrust, the ideas, the dynamism, the push, the tolerance of each other. That is why I was sad for them who are our people. Not just Chinese and Chinese, Indians and Indians. They are many Malays here.
Half of our police force comes from Malaya. Their familes are left behind there. They will be quartered; they will live in modern civilised conditions. Their families will come down here and they will want to stay with them, and we will have to say "No" because there is a limit to what we can absorb. We have only got 214 square miles. It is a cruel thing to do this. But it has to be done, some people wanted it this way. We could have helped them emerge, but it was not be to be.
But I say to you : Here we make the model multi-racial society. This is not a country that belongs to any single community: it belongs to all of us. You helped built it; your fathers, your grandfathers helped build this, There was no naval base here, and it is not the British who built it. It was your labour, your father's labour which built that.. My (great) grandfather come here and built. Yes, he came here looking for his fortune, but he stayed -- my grandfather was born here.
Over 100 years ago, this was a mud-flat, swamp. Today, this a modern city. Ten years from now, this will be a metropolis. Never fear.Some people think that just because we are a small place, they can put the screws on us. It is not so easy. We are a small place in size, and geography. But in the quality of the men, the administration, the organisation, the mettle in a people, the fibre therefore, don't try. That is why we got booted out. If they could have just squeezed us like an orange and squeezed the juice out, I think the juice would have been squeezed out of us, and all the goodness would have been sucked away. But it was a bit harder, wasn't it? It was more like the durian.You try and squeeze it, your hand gets hurt. And so they say, "Right, throw out the durain." But inside the durian is a very useful ingredient, high protein. And we will progress.
40 percent more than 40 percent of the purchasing power of the whole of Malaysia is in Singapore. We may be 20% of the population of Malaysia, but purchasing power, the capacity to buy goods like microphone, clocks, drinks, fans, lights, television, transistors: the money is here because here they work. And if people do not want that 40% -- 44% market -- well, that is their business. We want to open the market with them, buy if they do not want it we will make our own soap ... We are buying soap from Petaling Jaya: Lux. You know, it isalways advertised on TV: Lever Brothers. It is no harm, we buy the soap: It is good for them; it is good for us. We can make motor-cars together for the whole of Malaysia. And never forget, if it came to the point then Lever brothers may have to set up a soap factory here, because after all, nearly half the sales are in Singapore.
You ask the Straits Times: what percentage of their newspaper is sold in Singapore? True, we are only two-million. But we have the highest literacy rate in the whole of Asia. Nearly half of Straits Times, if not more, is sold here. Here, everybody buys a copy. There, may be one kampong buys one copy and everybody looks at it. It is true. We are talking now in terms of hard cash; the hard facts of life. And if people wants to be hard to us, then we have got to survive. And we can keep this market to ourselves. But this is all shortsighted. Let us throw our eyes over the horizon into the future. What does our Dr. Ismail say: This will come back again. But under very different circumstances and ifferent conditions.
You know and I know that anybody who says, "Go back to Malaysia on the same circumstances". Will be called a lunatic; isn't it? We were patient; we were tolerant. We put with it hoping that they would see the light. But we had to be firm. We could not give in. So, as a result we are out.
History is a long process of attrition. It will go on. And one day, it will come back together. You see, this is not like a map and you can take a pair of scissors and cut off Singapore and then take it and paste it in the South Pacific and forget about it. It is not possible. This is part of the mainland of the continent of Asia. And that Causeway .... You know, the Japanese blew it up; it was still rebuilt. It is part of history; and you are part of history. You are part of this place as much as I am; as much as Inche Othman Wok, my colleague, is; and I say that is the way it will be in the end.
Finally, may I congratulate you for having made progress since I last visited your mission in 1963, and especially commend you for having made a symbolic gesture in giving scholarships not just to Indians. But Indians who contributed to the Narayana Mission took this money and gave it to Malay and Chinese students as well. In that way, we must prosper.
And I guarantee you this: there will be a Constitution which we will get re-drawn in which minority rights .... You know, it is very easy in Singapore for people to stand up and if you talk, "One race, one language, one religion," there will be a lot trouble, you know. We do not want that sort of thing. That is stupidity. So we are going to get the Chief Justice of India, Australia, New Zealand and a few others together with our own Chief Justice and a few of our eminent lawyers to draft "entrenched" clauses .... You know, "entrenched": nogovernment can just cancel the clauses. Entrenched, and enforcible.
If anybody thinks he is being discriminated against either for a flat or a scholarship or a job or for social welfare relief because of race, or language or religion, he can go to the court, take out a writ; and if he proves that it was because of discrimination on the ground of race, language, religion, culture, then the court will have to enforce the Constitution and ensure minority rights.
We are an equal society. You are equal to me; I am equal to you. Nobody is more equal than others. In some places, they say, "we are all equal." But what they mean is they are more equal, you see -- which makes life very difficult. But here, when we say "equal", we really mean it. We do not have to do it in Singapore. But we are thinking in terms of 100, 200 years, 1,000 years. You must help them emerge. And there is only one way: education and economist thrust.
And with those words, I wish you all peace, prosperity in Singapore.Thank you
Mr. Chairman, friends,I want to say how delighted I am this morning to be able to join you in presenting these scholarships to 10 students, $100/- each, and not only to Indian students. The money probably came all from Indians because they are members of your Mission but the scholarships are also being given to Malays and to Chinese too.
It is these little gestures which make for harmony and understanding. I remember reading not so long ago about some special scholarships they were going to name after one of their leaders in Malaya, and they were going to get everybody to contribute, but the scholarships were only for one group. It makes life a rather difficult and trying business. But that is now no longer our business: we cannot interfere. We mind our own affairs.But I say, neverthless, as Dr. Ismail has said in Canberra -- and he is an honest man who said that one day these two territories will come back again, but under very different circumstances and different conditions. And he was an honest man to say that if Singapore remained in Malaysia, there would be language and race riots in 1967. He said that -- I did not say that. He said that and it was reported in Canberra. I got the newspapers sent back to me. Because Singapore was setting the example in tolerance, multi-lingualism, multi-racialism; a multi-regligious, multi-cultural society. And there are some people whose grasp of history is somewhat limited and they are the people who shout these slogans: " One race, one language, one religion" It worries me. I think they ought to see the optician and put on their glasses. Then they will know there are many races, racial groups, but one nationality. I think they ought to see the ear specialist because obviously, theirears are not hearing properly. Or, they will know that we speak many languages. And they will know that today Sunday, Christians go to church: Friday, Malays go to their mosques: Indians have Thaipusam, Deepavali and their ceremonial occasions; so with Buddhists, so with Seventh Day Adventists, on a Saturday. And what is wrong about that?We will set the example. This country belongs to all of us. We made this country from nothing, from mud-flats. It is man, human skill, human effort which made this possible. You came, you worked -- for yourselves, yes. But in the process, your forefathers and my forefathers who came here: we built this civilization.
It is one of the few cities in Asia where you can get anything you want. You pick up the telephone: it works; and it not only works internally. You can pick up the telephone and speak to Delhi, London, Tokyo, Canberra ---anywhere you want. Do you think you can do that just by shouting slogans? You can get the best in any of the hotels in meal. European food? You can get the best in any one of the hotels in town. Chinese food? What kind do you like? There is Cantonese, Hokkien and Teochew. Indian food? There are South Indian, North Indian: anything you like. Malay food? You like Sumatran food, nasi padang? Where else in the world can you get this?
And I say, we will progress. I was sad not because Singapore was going to suffer: No. I was sad because by this separation, we could not help millions of our own people, our own countrymen in Malaya, in Sabah and Sarawak to progress with us. That was why I was sad. We could not help them any more.
They have now got to help themselves. They have got to throw up their own leaders and they have got to take a stand. We cannot interfere. Here in Singapore, in ten years, Geyland Serai will be another and better Queens town all the shacks will be demolished. I say that for Singapore because I do not think Singapore is boasting when it says it can do it. It will do it. But do you think in ten years, the kampongs in Malaya will have Queens towns? I do not think so.
If you want that, then you must have the thrust, the ideas, the dynamism, the push, the tolerance of each other. That is why I was sad for them who are our people. Not just Chinese and Chinese, Indians and Indians. They are many Malays here.
Half of our police force comes from Malaya. Their familes are left behind there. They will be quartered; they will live in modern civilised conditions. Their families will come down here and they will want to stay with them, and we will have to say "No" because there is a limit to what we can absorb. We have only got 214 square miles. It is a cruel thing to do this. But it has to be done, some people wanted it this way. We could have helped them emerge, but it was not be to be.
But I say to you : Here we make the model multi-racial society. This is not a country that belongs to any single community: it belongs to all of us. You helped built it; your fathers, your grandfathers helped build this, There was no naval base here, and it is not the British who built it. It was your labour, your father's labour which built that.. My (great) grandfather come here and built. Yes, he came here looking for his fortune, but he stayed -- my grandfather was born here.
Over 100 years ago, this was a mud-flat, swamp. Today, this a modern city. Ten years from now, this will be a metropolis. Never fear.Some people think that just because we are a small place, they can put the screws on us. It is not so easy. We are a small place in size, and geography. But in the quality of the men, the administration, the organisation, the mettle in a people, the fibre therefore, don't try. That is why we got booted out. If they could have just squeezed us like an orange and squeezed the juice out, I think the juice would have been squeezed out of us, and all the goodness would have been sucked away. But it was a bit harder, wasn't it? It was more like the durian.You try and squeeze it, your hand gets hurt. And so they say, "Right, throw out the durain." But inside the durian is a very useful ingredient, high protein. And we will progress.
40 percent more than 40 percent of the purchasing power of the whole of Malaysia is in Singapore. We may be 20% of the population of Malaysia, but purchasing power, the capacity to buy goods like microphone, clocks, drinks, fans, lights, television, transistors: the money is here because here they work. And if people do not want that 40% -- 44% market -- well, that is their business. We want to open the market with them, buy if they do not want it we will make our own soap ... We are buying soap from Petaling Jaya: Lux. You know, it isalways advertised on TV: Lever Brothers. It is no harm, we buy the soap: It is good for them; it is good for us. We can make motor-cars together for the whole of Malaysia. And never forget, if it came to the point then Lever brothers may have to set up a soap factory here, because after all, nearly half the sales are in Singapore.
You ask the Straits Times: what percentage of their newspaper is sold in Singapore? True, we are only two-million. But we have the highest literacy rate in the whole of Asia. Nearly half of Straits Times, if not more, is sold here. Here, everybody buys a copy. There, may be one kampong buys one copy and everybody looks at it. It is true. We are talking now in terms of hard cash; the hard facts of life. And if people wants to be hard to us, then we have got to survive. And we can keep this market to ourselves. But this is all shortsighted. Let us throw our eyes over the horizon into the future. What does our Dr. Ismail say: This will come back again. But under very different circumstances and ifferent conditions.
You know and I know that anybody who says, "Go back to Malaysia on the same circumstances". Will be called a lunatic; isn't it? We were patient; we were tolerant. We put with it hoping that they would see the light. But we had to be firm. We could not give in. So, as a result we are out.
History is a long process of attrition. It will go on. And one day, it will come back together. You see, this is not like a map and you can take a pair of scissors and cut off Singapore and then take it and paste it in the South Pacific and forget about it. It is not possible. This is part of the mainland of the continent of Asia. And that Causeway .... You know, the Japanese blew it up; it was still rebuilt. It is part of history; and you are part of history. You are part of this place as much as I am; as much as Inche Othman Wok, my colleague, is; and I say that is the way it will be in the end.
Finally, may I congratulate you for having made progress since I last visited your mission in 1963, and especially commend you for having made a symbolic gesture in giving scholarships not just to Indians. But Indians who contributed to the Narayana Mission took this money and gave it to Malay and Chinese students as well. In that way, we must prosper.
And I guarantee you this: there will be a Constitution which we will get re-drawn in which minority rights .... You know, it is very easy in Singapore for people to stand up and if you talk, "One race, one language, one religion," there will be a lot trouble, you know. We do not want that sort of thing. That is stupidity. So we are going to get the Chief Justice of India, Australia, New Zealand and a few others together with our own Chief Justice and a few of our eminent lawyers to draft "entrenched" clauses .... You know, "entrenched": nogovernment can just cancel the clauses. Entrenched, and enforcible.
If anybody thinks he is being discriminated against either for a flat or a scholarship or a job or for social welfare relief because of race, or language or religion, he can go to the court, take out a writ; and if he proves that it was because of discrimination on the ground of race, language, religion, culture, then the court will have to enforce the Constitution and ensure minority rights.
We are an equal society. You are equal to me; I am equal to you. Nobody is more equal than others. In some places, they say, "we are all equal." But what they mean is they are more equal, you see -- which makes life very difficult. But here, when we say "equal", we really mean it. We do not have to do it in Singapore. But we are thinking in terms of 100, 200 years, 1,000 years. You must help them emerge. And there is only one way: education and economist thrust.
And with those words, I wish you all peace, prosperity in Singapore.Thank you
Friday, December 11, 2009
Shrinking Chinese of Malaysia
The post on the shrinking Chinese population in Malaysia is an important - albeit sad - reflection of reality. Behind the numbers are stories and scenes that are at once familar and sad each time we encounter them in Malaysia.
The supreme irony, of course, is that even as we discuss this, both of us are in that same mirror; ethnically Chinese sons of Malaysia and Brunei who were educated overseas and are now residing elsewhere.
Almost none of the children among my father-in-law's circle of friends still live in their home town of Seremban. They are all now in Singapore, the UK, Australia, Hong Kong or at least in Kuala Lumpur or Peneng.
Go to a shopping mall during Chinese New Year and most of the cars came with number plates from out of state, from the children who came back for New Year.
One hear of solid middle class Chinese professionals; people who spent their lifetime as bank managers, accountants, dentists etc. whose sum of their entire life's work was a simple house and the rest were sunk into their children's overseas education.
Of the kids who were educated aboard, those who are lucky and able stay and make a living abroad. The rest take up entry level jobs back in a different kind of Malaysia where they probably have no hope of doing as well as the previous generation.
The biggest surprise from the write up - and something which I believe should not be overlooked - is that in real terms the Chinese population is Malaysia is growing and, in fact, has doubled since 1970. It is only dinimished in percentage terms with all the socio-political impact that brings. Nonetheless, 6.5m+ is not a small number. Which is why the structural weaknesses of the psychology of the Chinese community in Malaysia may be a more important determinant of the vibrancy of the Chinese community and culture in Malaysia.
But while the older generations are surrounded by their friends of a certain age whom they have known since childhood. Many of the younger generation probably lost touch with their childhood friends and will eventually never have as many close friends.
Spend a few days back at the hometown, the older generations will show off the relationships they treasure and depend on: relatives, old friends, the auntie-from-across-the-street. Spend a few days with people of our generation: its feeling of security depended on money with 9-to-9 days, extensive travel for work, branded goods, fancy cars/gadgets at home, children with the maid and constant complaint of tiredness.
I think something was lost in the process. I think that's what the academic referred to as "placelessness". Its something emotional and really important. I love it, for example, just reading and commenting on this blog about Brunei and its recent history because I get to see photographs and write-ups about events, buildings and places in my hometown at the period I grew up with. Its hard to over-indulge in the pleasures of the recalling even the smallest things that form the emotional bonds.
The supreme irony, of course, is that even as we discuss this, both of us are in that same mirror; ethnically Chinese sons of Malaysia and Brunei who were educated overseas and are now residing elsewhere.
Almost none of the children among my father-in-law's circle of friends still live in their home town of Seremban. They are all now in Singapore, the UK, Australia, Hong Kong or at least in Kuala Lumpur or Peneng.
Go to a shopping mall during Chinese New Year and most of the cars came with number plates from out of state, from the children who came back for New Year.
One hear of solid middle class Chinese professionals; people who spent their lifetime as bank managers, accountants, dentists etc. whose sum of their entire life's work was a simple house and the rest were sunk into their children's overseas education.
Of the kids who were educated aboard, those who are lucky and able stay and make a living abroad. The rest take up entry level jobs back in a different kind of Malaysia where they probably have no hope of doing as well as the previous generation.
The biggest surprise from the write up - and something which I believe should not be overlooked - is that in real terms the Chinese population is Malaysia is growing and, in fact, has doubled since 1970. It is only dinimished in percentage terms with all the socio-political impact that brings. Nonetheless, 6.5m+ is not a small number. Which is why the structural weaknesses of the psychology of the Chinese community in Malaysia may be a more important determinant of the vibrancy of the Chinese community and culture in Malaysia.
In the smaller towns of Malaysia, the elderly re-live their childhood in retirement; surrounded by their childhood friends and relatives but often without children or grandchildren around them.
But while the older generations are surrounded by their friends of a certain age whom they have known since childhood. Many of the younger generation probably lost touch with their childhood friends and will eventually never have as many close friends.
Spend a few days back at the hometown, the older generations will show off the relationships they treasure and depend on: relatives, old friends, the auntie-from-across-the-street. Spend a few days with people of our generation: its feeling of security depended on money with 9-to-9 days, extensive travel for work, branded goods, fancy cars/gadgets at home, children with the maid and constant complaint of tiredness.
I think something was lost in the process. I think that's what the academic referred to as "placelessness". Its something emotional and really important. I love it, for example, just reading and commenting on this blog about Brunei and its recent history because I get to see photographs and write-ups about events, buildings and places in my hometown at the period I grew up with. Its hard to over-indulge in the pleasures of the recalling even the smallest things that form the emotional bonds.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Shrinking Chinese Malaysian
This is a piece of story similar to what I have been telling and it is becoming truer with each passing day.
written by Helen Ang
No greater love hath man and moms than they lay down their life savings for their children to study overseas and emigrate.
Between March 2008 and August 2009, some 50,000 students sailed from our shores, Deputy Foreign Minister A. Kohilan Pillay told Parliament last week. The Star speculates that many will not return. Star editor Wong Sai Wan wrote: “… some even admitted that they had already applied for their PR visas”.
They are among 304,358 persons registered with Malaysia’s representative offices abroad over the past 18 months. A review of statistics will help us to interpret this unique Made-in-Malaysia export of roughly 17,000 units of human capital on average a month.
Among the ethnic groups in Malaysia, the Chinese are the largest outflow and also experiencing the biggest change in demography.
Proportion of Chinese in Malaysia total population
Year
Percent
1957 45.0 +
1970 35.6
1980 32.1
1991 26.9
2000 24.5
2010 22.6 *
2035 18.6 **
+ Decimal point is approximate
* Projection by Department of Statistics
** Projection in The Population of Malaysia (ISEAS)
In the 80s decade, the Chinese had a negative net migration rate of -10.6 percent. “Between 1980 and 1991, the [Chinese] migration deficit was estimated at 391,801 persons as against a national increase of 777,339 persons,” statistician Tey Nai Peng found in his study.
Chinese annual growth rate also showed a consistent drop, recording only 53 percent between 1990 and 2000 during a period when the national population grew 123 percent.
Tey said in his paper ‘Causes and consequences of demographic change in the Chinese community in Malaysia’ that “the fertility of the Chinese declined from 4.6 children to 2.5 children between 1970 and 1997”. Comparatively, total fertility rate for Malays in 1987 remained a high 4.51.
Changes in the states
It is no longer true that Penang is a Chinese majority state. In 2010, Malays in Penang are projected to be 670,128 persons – outnumbering Chinese at 658,661. Between 1991 and 2000, Penang had an average annual growth rate of 1.8 percent but Penang Chinese only 0.7 percent.
Perak has significant numbers of Chinese but still, Chinese registered a negative growth of -1.0 percent in 1991-2000 whereas the average annual rate of Perak population growth was a positive 0.4 percent.
The Department of Statistics records that in the 1990s, Chinese fell in number in Kelantan, Terengganu and Perlis too. In Malacca, Negri Sembilan and Pahang, Chinese were practically stagnant.
In Sabah, Chinese were 23 percent of the population in 1960 but shrunk to 10.1 percent in 2000. “In contrast, recent immigrants and refugees, with a population of 614,824 persons in 2000, form close to a quarter of the total population, or more than twice the size of the long-settled Chinese community,” writes Danny Wong Tze-Ken in his paper ‘The Chinese population in Sabah’.
The situation in Sabah is largely a result of ‘Project M’ giving Indonesians and Muslim Filipinos Malaysian ICs. Overall, the abnormality of a shrinking Chinese population ratio can be traced to government policies that actively discriminate against this community.
Small families, ageing parents
By year 2000, Chinese were mainly concentrated in Kuala Lumpur and Selangor. The Klang Valley accounted for 38 percent of all Chinese in the Peninsula. Nine out of 10 Chinese today are found in urban areas, concentrated in the major cities.
In the dozen years between 1980 and 1991 when the Malaysian population increase nationally was 4,634,500 persons, Chinese increase was only 530,400 persons. Or looking at it another way (as indicated in table below), the Chinese are merely doubling in absolute numbers when the population will have quadrupled.
Numbers of Chinese in Malaysia
Year
Chinese (million)
Total population
(million)
1970 3.6 10.5
1980 4.4 13.7
1991 4.9 18.4
2000 5.7 23.3
2010 6.5 28.9 *
2035 7.7 41.1 **
* Projection by Department of Statistics
** Projection in The Population of Malaysia (ISEAS)
It is conspicuous that among the younger age cohorts, Chinese are an even smaller proportion of the national average. On the other hand, among the elderly [60 years and above], Chinese constitute 5.4 percent of the population, as against the national average of 5 percent.
Among the ethnic groups in Malaysia, Chinese have the highest proportion of the elderly. “It is found that most of the ‘clients’ in nursing homes are the Chinese,” observes researcher Philip Poi Jun Hua in his essay 'Ageing among the Chinese in Malaysia: Some trends and issues'.
This situation affecting the Chinese community, with parents either in nursing homes or ‘home alone’ in Malaysia whilst the children are abroad, has ironically come about due to education as a main contributory factor.
“The Chinese community places great emphasis on education but the escalation in the cost of acquiring an education might have compelled young couples to limit their family size,” surmises Tey.
Because educated Chinese women are in the workforce as well as limiting themselves to only one or two children, Chinese couples have more money to spend on each child’s education.
This is in a way a lose-lose scenario because the couple would then tend to over-protect the single offspring – do recall China’s one-child policy outcome of producing Little Emperors – and the well-educated child is more likely to emigrate.
Self-interest vs community concerns
“All my friends plan to leave Malaysia,” a private student in the offshore campus of a premier Australian university in KL declared to me just a couple of months ago.
These youths have cogently articulated why they intend to vote with their feet. Aside from the various reasons we’re all familiar with, I’d like to introduce here the theory of ‘placelessness’ which Lee Boon Thong links to the Chinese condition.
In his paper ‘Placelessness: A study of residential neighbourhood quality among Chinese communities in Malaysia’, Lee observes that Chinese in cities have subordinated neighbourliness and personal ties to the pursuit of personal advancement.
The move to new urban and suburban residential neighbourhoods – where availability of Chinese food and access to shopping malls are often major considerations – is accompanied by other shifts, among them the increasing “technopolistic grip” [orientation towards digital entertainment] and losing some of their traditions [e.g. ancestral worship], especially if they convert to Christianity or Islam.
These shifts have the effect of loosening bonds to an old hometown – witness Chin Peng’s strong attachment for Sitiawan as a contrary example – because the young generation has become city born and bred.
Lee describes the new society resulting from intense urbanization as one breeding individuals who are more self-centred, more covetous, less considerate and kiasu to boot. “Self-interest overrides almost everything else that concerns the welfare of the community.”
He also says that if the trend persists of residents in emerging neighbourhoods failing to develop ties that bind and a sufficient sense of commonness in community life, then “urban Chinese are at risk in producing a pseudo-progressive society that appears to be outwardly prosperous through its middle-class façade but in effect lacking social coherence and a sense of shared ‘placeness’ for the neighbourhood”.
Commonality as militating factor
Further aggravating this estrangement is a social milieu that is changed, parallel to the pronounced changes in demography. It is projected that while the annual growth of Bumiputera in the next decade (2011-2021) will be 1.98 percent, the corresponding growth of Chinese will be 0.73 percent.
Saw Swee Hock in his 2007 ISEAS paper ‘The Population of Malaysia’ projects that by year 2035, Malaysia will have a population of 41 million, 72.1 percent of them Bumiputera. By then Islam would have stamped a thorough dominance on the physical and moral landscape of the country.
Concomitant to this development is the fact that in the mainstream of all spheres of life and particularly official domains, the predominant speech community will be Malay.
This fait accompli of demography dictates that the minorities have to be adept in the Malay/national language for any meaningful integration to occur. Otherwise, to borrow a turn of phrase from Lee, they will be living in “proximity without propinquity” or in other words, have trouble relating to the majority.
It is thus necessary that next generation Chinese be effectively multilingual and able to ‘code switch’, i.e. use different varieties of language in different social settings. If Chinese are unable create a connectedness especially across ethnic lines, this shortcoming would just be adding another factor to the myriad push factors driving young Chinese away.
The statistics tell a very sobering story. In another short 25 years, Chinese will only be a mere 18.6 percent of the population. They will soon fall below the sustainable threshold for propagating their culture, and their diminishing numbers will only increase the pressure for assimilation – something Chinese are reluctant to do.
Let us recall Lee’s description how “[i]n a sense, ‘placeness’ may be defined in terms of ‘belonging to a residential neighbourhood that demands a reciprocity of identity in terms of behavioural or interactive response. The lack of such may be termed as ‘placelessness’.”
Neighbourhoods today are increasingly Malay, and one of the largest is Shah Alam where the authorities have disallowed the building of a Catholic church, tried to restrict the sale of beer, made it very difficult to own a dog, and residents protested against a proposed Hindu temple.
To extrapolate Lee’s allusion of ‘placeness’ to a wider national context, we can infer that having a poor facility in Bahasa Melayu would only compound the Chinese placelessness in a country that has purpose-built for one race such a locality as Shah Alam, and one that will in future be dotted with more mini Shah Alams.
written by Helen Ang
No greater love hath man and moms than they lay down their life savings for their children to study overseas and emigrate.
Between March 2008 and August 2009, some 50,000 students sailed from our shores, Deputy Foreign Minister A. Kohilan Pillay told Parliament last week. The Star speculates that many will not return. Star editor Wong Sai Wan wrote: “… some even admitted that they had already applied for their PR visas”.
They are among 304,358 persons registered with Malaysia’s representative offices abroad over the past 18 months. A review of statistics will help us to interpret this unique Made-in-Malaysia export of roughly 17,000 units of human capital on average a month.
Among the ethnic groups in Malaysia, the Chinese are the largest outflow and also experiencing the biggest change in demography.
Proportion of Chinese in Malaysia total population
Year
Percent
1957 45.0 +
1970 35.6
1980 32.1
1991 26.9
2000 24.5
2010 22.6 *
2035 18.6 **
+ Decimal point is approximate
* Projection by Department of Statistics
** Projection in The Population of Malaysia (ISEAS)
In the 80s decade, the Chinese had a negative net migration rate of -10.6 percent. “Between 1980 and 1991, the [Chinese] migration deficit was estimated at 391,801 persons as against a national increase of 777,339 persons,” statistician Tey Nai Peng found in his study.
Chinese annual growth rate also showed a consistent drop, recording only 53 percent between 1990 and 2000 during a period when the national population grew 123 percent.
Tey said in his paper ‘Causes and consequences of demographic change in the Chinese community in Malaysia’ that “the fertility of the Chinese declined from 4.6 children to 2.5 children between 1970 and 1997”. Comparatively, total fertility rate for Malays in 1987 remained a high 4.51.
Changes in the states
It is no longer true that Penang is a Chinese majority state. In 2010, Malays in Penang are projected to be 670,128 persons – outnumbering Chinese at 658,661. Between 1991 and 2000, Penang had an average annual growth rate of 1.8 percent but Penang Chinese only 0.7 percent.
Perak has significant numbers of Chinese but still, Chinese registered a negative growth of -1.0 percent in 1991-2000 whereas the average annual rate of Perak population growth was a positive 0.4 percent.
The Department of Statistics records that in the 1990s, Chinese fell in number in Kelantan, Terengganu and Perlis too. In Malacca, Negri Sembilan and Pahang, Chinese were practically stagnant.
In Sabah, Chinese were 23 percent of the population in 1960 but shrunk to 10.1 percent in 2000. “In contrast, recent immigrants and refugees, with a population of 614,824 persons in 2000, form close to a quarter of the total population, or more than twice the size of the long-settled Chinese community,” writes Danny Wong Tze-Ken in his paper ‘The Chinese population in Sabah’.
The situation in Sabah is largely a result of ‘Project M’ giving Indonesians and Muslim Filipinos Malaysian ICs. Overall, the abnormality of a shrinking Chinese population ratio can be traced to government policies that actively discriminate against this community.
Small families, ageing parents
By year 2000, Chinese were mainly concentrated in Kuala Lumpur and Selangor. The Klang Valley accounted for 38 percent of all Chinese in the Peninsula. Nine out of 10 Chinese today are found in urban areas, concentrated in the major cities.
In the dozen years between 1980 and 1991 when the Malaysian population increase nationally was 4,634,500 persons, Chinese increase was only 530,400 persons. Or looking at it another way (as indicated in table below), the Chinese are merely doubling in absolute numbers when the population will have quadrupled.
Numbers of Chinese in Malaysia
Year
Chinese (million)
Total population
(million)
1970 3.6 10.5
1980 4.4 13.7
1991 4.9 18.4
2000 5.7 23.3
2010 6.5 28.9 *
2035 7.7 41.1 **
* Projection by Department of Statistics
** Projection in The Population of Malaysia (ISEAS)
It is conspicuous that among the younger age cohorts, Chinese are an even smaller proportion of the national average. On the other hand, among the elderly [60 years and above], Chinese constitute 5.4 percent of the population, as against the national average of 5 percent.
Among the ethnic groups in Malaysia, Chinese have the highest proportion of the elderly. “It is found that most of the ‘clients’ in nursing homes are the Chinese,” observes researcher Philip Poi Jun Hua in his essay 'Ageing among the Chinese in Malaysia: Some trends and issues'.
This situation affecting the Chinese community, with parents either in nursing homes or ‘home alone’ in Malaysia whilst the children are abroad, has ironically come about due to education as a main contributory factor.
“The Chinese community places great emphasis on education but the escalation in the cost of acquiring an education might have compelled young couples to limit their family size,” surmises Tey.
Because educated Chinese women are in the workforce as well as limiting themselves to only one or two children, Chinese couples have more money to spend on each child’s education.
This is in a way a lose-lose scenario because the couple would then tend to over-protect the single offspring – do recall China’s one-child policy outcome of producing Little Emperors – and the well-educated child is more likely to emigrate.
Self-interest vs community concerns
“All my friends plan to leave Malaysia,” a private student in the offshore campus of a premier Australian university in KL declared to me just a couple of months ago.
These youths have cogently articulated why they intend to vote with their feet. Aside from the various reasons we’re all familiar with, I’d like to introduce here the theory of ‘placelessness’ which Lee Boon Thong links to the Chinese condition.
In his paper ‘Placelessness: A study of residential neighbourhood quality among Chinese communities in Malaysia’, Lee observes that Chinese in cities have subordinated neighbourliness and personal ties to the pursuit of personal advancement.
The move to new urban and suburban residential neighbourhoods – where availability of Chinese food and access to shopping malls are often major considerations – is accompanied by other shifts, among them the increasing “technopolistic grip” [orientation towards digital entertainment] and losing some of their traditions [e.g. ancestral worship], especially if they convert to Christianity or Islam.
These shifts have the effect of loosening bonds to an old hometown – witness Chin Peng’s strong attachment for Sitiawan as a contrary example – because the young generation has become city born and bred.
Lee describes the new society resulting from intense urbanization as one breeding individuals who are more self-centred, more covetous, less considerate and kiasu to boot. “Self-interest overrides almost everything else that concerns the welfare of the community.”
He also says that if the trend persists of residents in emerging neighbourhoods failing to develop ties that bind and a sufficient sense of commonness in community life, then “urban Chinese are at risk in producing a pseudo-progressive society that appears to be outwardly prosperous through its middle-class façade but in effect lacking social coherence and a sense of shared ‘placeness’ for the neighbourhood”.
Commonality as militating factor
Further aggravating this estrangement is a social milieu that is changed, parallel to the pronounced changes in demography. It is projected that while the annual growth of Bumiputera in the next decade (2011-2021) will be 1.98 percent, the corresponding growth of Chinese will be 0.73 percent.
Saw Swee Hock in his 2007 ISEAS paper ‘The Population of Malaysia’ projects that by year 2035, Malaysia will have a population of 41 million, 72.1 percent of them Bumiputera. By then Islam would have stamped a thorough dominance on the physical and moral landscape of the country.
Concomitant to this development is the fact that in the mainstream of all spheres of life and particularly official domains, the predominant speech community will be Malay.
This fait accompli of demography dictates that the minorities have to be adept in the Malay/national language for any meaningful integration to occur. Otherwise, to borrow a turn of phrase from Lee, they will be living in “proximity without propinquity” or in other words, have trouble relating to the majority.
It is thus necessary that next generation Chinese be effectively multilingual and able to ‘code switch’, i.e. use different varieties of language in different social settings. If Chinese are unable create a connectedness especially across ethnic lines, this shortcoming would just be adding another factor to the myriad push factors driving young Chinese away.
The statistics tell a very sobering story. In another short 25 years, Chinese will only be a mere 18.6 percent of the population. They will soon fall below the sustainable threshold for propagating their culture, and their diminishing numbers will only increase the pressure for assimilation – something Chinese are reluctant to do.
Let us recall Lee’s description how “[i]n a sense, ‘placeness’ may be defined in terms of ‘belonging to a residential neighbourhood that demands a reciprocity of identity in terms of behavioural or interactive response. The lack of such may be termed as ‘placelessness’.”
Neighbourhoods today are increasingly Malay, and one of the largest is Shah Alam where the authorities have disallowed the building of a Catholic church, tried to restrict the sale of beer, made it very difficult to own a dog, and residents protested against a proposed Hindu temple.
To extrapolate Lee’s allusion of ‘placeness’ to a wider national context, we can infer that having a poor facility in Bahasa Melayu would only compound the Chinese placelessness in a country that has purpose-built for one race such a locality as Shah Alam, and one that will in future be dotted with more mini Shah Alams.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Great Malaysian Nomination
Very difficult exercise.
I am trying to think hard if there is anyone who is inspiring and near flawless.
Most likely, it is a simple person, anonymous, who is kind hearted.
She maybe just a "kampong machik" or a "new village ah chim" who just want to raise a big and happy family; He maybe one who tend to the surao and educate the kampong kids or he maybe a shopkeeper who gave a small donation to the impoverished school so that the school kids have the chair or the school has a zink roof.
He maybe one who joined the MPAJA but was never recognised as a hero for fighting the Japanese. Instead he was subsequently gunned down during the emergency being member of the insurgency.
She maybe one who fought for a just society but detained without trial under the ISA.
History is written by the victors. Memory of the others is fading fast and forgotten. Since these name are forgotten, my nominee for the Great Malaysian go to the anonymous.
I am trying to think hard if there is anyone who is inspiring and near flawless.
Most likely, it is a simple person, anonymous, who is kind hearted.
She maybe just a "kampong machik" or a "new village ah chim" who just want to raise a big and happy family; He maybe one who tend to the surao and educate the kampong kids or he maybe a shopkeeper who gave a small donation to the impoverished school so that the school kids have the chair or the school has a zink roof.
He maybe one who joined the MPAJA but was never recognised as a hero for fighting the Japanese. Instead he was subsequently gunned down during the emergency being member of the insurgency.
She maybe one who fought for a just society but detained without trial under the ISA.
History is written by the victors. Memory of the others is fading fast and forgotten. Since these name are forgotten, my nominee for the Great Malaysian go to the anonymous.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Great Malaysians In History
Any interest to start a list of great Malaysians in history, as defined by persons (of all races) having outstanding contributions to humanity (wherever in the world)?
A Gentler and Kinder China
I read about Dr Wu maybe 10-15 years ago and had since had his name forgotten. This is rather embarrassing until you rekindled my faded memory.
1910 was a time Chinese wherever they were had no idea of citizenship. If they are born Chinese, they are Chinese nationals.
The call for service to the motherland who was so often besieged by war and conflict, poverty and disease then, was as patriotic as idealistic. Many forsaken their comfort, wealth to help their fellow countrymen even if they are so distant in the far north of China to a man who was born in the South Sea.
It is men and women like Dr Wu, who helped made China what it is today. In the words of Premier Wen who uttered the following words whilst paying respect to Mao Anqing, the eldest son of Mao Zedong who was killed in the Korea war: 中国现在强大了人民幸福了 (China is now strong and the peoples are happy).
These words sound too premature and not truly reflecting the reality. I am hoping one day that, like what Dr Wu’s great granddaughter has hoped, a stronger China can be a gentler China, a richer China can also be a kinder China. Only this China that blend hard- and soft power (钢柔并重) will be truly respected.
CCP administration should start looking at De (德) and Li (礼). This topic will warrant a long write up.
1910 was a time Chinese wherever they were had no idea of citizenship. If they are born Chinese, they are Chinese nationals.
The call for service to the motherland who was so often besieged by war and conflict, poverty and disease then, was as patriotic as idealistic. Many forsaken their comfort, wealth to help their fellow countrymen even if they are so distant in the far north of China to a man who was born in the South Sea.
It is men and women like Dr Wu, who helped made China what it is today. In the words of Premier Wen who uttered the following words whilst paying respect to Mao Anqing, the eldest son of Mao Zedong who was killed in the Korea war: 中国现在强大了人民幸福了 (China is now strong and the peoples are happy).
These words sound too premature and not truly reflecting the reality. I am hoping one day that, like what Dr Wu’s great granddaughter has hoped, a stronger China can be a gentler China, a richer China can also be a kinder China. Only this China that blend hard- and soft power (钢柔并重) will be truly respected.
CCP administration should start looking at De (德) and Li (礼). This topic will warrant a long write up.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Justice for Teoh Beng Hock
Justice must be done and be seen to be done. Malaysia deserves no less.
There are time and place for righteous outrage, this is one of them. Tyranny does not happen simply because of tyrants, it happen when citizens turns a blind-eye to injustice, feel too embarassed to stand-up for one's brethren or cynically dismiss "politics" as somebody else's business. Tyranny feeds on neglect and indifference. Now is not to time to keep feeding it.
Nothing happenned overnight, these are the consequences to decades of corruption that has been feeding on public indifference and "not wanting to cause trouble". Notice the warnings not to "politicise" his death, as if his political affiliations made him less Malaysian and less worthy of protection and justice. I reject that. Politics is a civic duty of each and every citizen and justice is a dignity that fellow human beings safeguard for one another. Malaysians must stand up for the kind of nation they deserve otherwise it is no one's fault but their own.
The Malaysian-in-the-streets have been putting up with corruption, abuse of power, injustice, unfairness, lies and intimidation. ALL of us are Teoh Beng Hock because if things does not change anyone can be Teoh Beng Hock.
I am reminded of Dr. Martin Luther King who once said that "the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice. It bends towards justice, but here is the thing: it does not bend on its own. It bends because each of us in our own ways put our hand on that arc and we bend it in the direction of justice...."
I welcome suggestions of legal and practical ways how we can all put our hands together to bend that arc to justice.
My condolences to his family, friends and compatriots.
There are time and place for righteous outrage, this is one of them. Tyranny does not happen simply because of tyrants, it happen when citizens turns a blind-eye to injustice, feel too embarassed to stand-up for one's brethren or cynically dismiss "politics" as somebody else's business. Tyranny feeds on neglect and indifference. Now is not to time to keep feeding it.
Nothing happenned overnight, these are the consequences to decades of corruption that has been feeding on public indifference and "not wanting to cause trouble". Notice the warnings not to "politicise" his death, as if his political affiliations made him less Malaysian and less worthy of protection and justice. I reject that. Politics is a civic duty of each and every citizen and justice is a dignity that fellow human beings safeguard for one another. Malaysians must stand up for the kind of nation they deserve otherwise it is no one's fault but their own.
The Malaysian-in-the-streets have been putting up with corruption, abuse of power, injustice, unfairness, lies and intimidation. ALL of us are Teoh Beng Hock because if things does not change anyone can be Teoh Beng Hock.
I am reminded of Dr. Martin Luther King who once said that "the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice. It bends towards justice, but here is the thing: it does not bend on its own. It bends because each of us in our own ways put our hand on that arc and we bend it in the direction of justice...."
I welcome suggestions of legal and practical ways how we can all put our hands together to bend that arc to justice.
My condolences to his family, friends and compatriots.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Martyr Teoh Beng Hock
If one is found plunge to death following 10 hours of questioning by Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission on the rooftop of a building right next to the Commission's office with fragment of the Commission's window found near the body, please tell me what is the reasonable inference?
I mourn the tragic death of a 30 years old man, Martyr Teoh Beng Hock and extend my condolence to his fiancee and his family members.
Teoh's death shall not be in vain. Justice for Teoh and justice for Malaysia!
I mourn the tragic death of a 30 years old man, Martyr Teoh Beng Hock and extend my condolence to his fiancee and his family members.
Teoh's death shall not be in vain. Justice for Teoh and justice for Malaysia!
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Lee Kuan Yew in Malaysia
[Apologies for being lazy with my postings in the past few weeks. No excuses. But suddenlly I was provided some interesting food for thoughts. It was none other than MM Lee Kuan Yew's 8 day visit through West Malaysia between 8 June and 15 June. I find the whole thing extremely interesting.]
Firstly, as The Star newspaper admitted, this was no trip down memory lane as initially branded. No, Lee Kuan Yew does not do such things. In fact, it was a highly astute and in-depth fact-finding mission to learn about the Malaysian political landscape post 8 March 2008.
As usual, Singapore is shrewedly looking and planning ahead. Singapore is also extremely lucky in having Lee Kuan Yew, for he has few equal when come to experience, knowledge and track record in making astute assessment of people and the political situation. His is a gut-feel for Malaysia that few outsiders have and plus he has the historical perspective. On the other hand, in making the trip, he is also acknowledging that many of the players in the opposition are not yet well-understood - even to the most seasoned observers. At 85, Lee Kuan Yew no longer travel too much so having him on a 8 day trek through Malaysia is a significant move. No stranger to controversy across the causeway, his trip would not be risk free. And yet, Malaysia is so important to Singapore that the prospect of dealing with a change in the Malaysian government could not be left to chance or to anyone less than the master himself. I deeply admire this practical far-sightedness on the part of the Singaporeans.
It was no coincidence that his trip took him through KL (Selangor), Perak, Peneng, Kelantan and Pahang, i.e. almost all the states under opposition. It was no coincidence that he wanted to learn more about the realities, personalities and directions of the PRM leaderships, especially those in the state governments. Those states are real life laboratories of how the opposition will operate if given the chance to seize power nationally. After all, it is not enough just flying in to meet with Dato' Seri Anwar. He understood that in dealing with a coalition, he needed to know all the different forces and personalities so as to understand how the different permutations might play out. By all accounts, he arrived extremely well-briefed (as befitting a top lawyer) about the issues and personalities but he really wanted to size them up first hand. It would be interesting to hear what he says after his visit.
Quite interestingly, his fact finding was not limited to the opposition because BN itself is undergoing a lot of changes with the ups-and-downs of MCA, MIC and Gerakan and the East Malaysian parties becoming more influential. Below the usual cast of characters at the top are many who are jostling for position. It would be negligence to focus on knowing the opposition camp when the ruling camp itself is in a flux.
In this context, it is intriuging that he made a point to meet seperately with Najib's wife. I find that a fascinating decision - both for Singapore to request and for Najib to agree to such an overt meeting - because it certainly gave credence to the suspicion that she is the power behind the throne. It is more telling that Lee Kuan Yew openly explained the reason for the meeting is that Najib and his wife work (govern?) as a team. I wonder what Najib's adviser feel about the publicity.
Quite unusually, his visit was not greeted by the usual grandstanding and chest-beating by UMNO Youths or other anti-Singapore sentiments - although for many Malaysians cynicism remains a common reaction to Singapore. What more a visit that is an undisguised attempt at understanding Malaysian internal politics. This shows the growing maturity of Malaysia-Singapore relations. But more importantly, this shows the pragmatism of all parties in Malaysia that everyone - in power or out of it - that Singapore could be a useful friend and ally in whatever they aim to achieve. Even his old nemesis in DAP and non-bed-fellows like PAS were wiling to be open to him. After all, when one is in government even if its Peneng State or Kelantan State, one has to deliver to the people. And being friends with Singapore has its benefits.
Firstly, as The Star newspaper admitted, this was no trip down memory lane as initially branded. No, Lee Kuan Yew does not do such things. In fact, it was a highly astute and in-depth fact-finding mission to learn about the Malaysian political landscape post 8 March 2008.
As usual, Singapore is shrewedly looking and planning ahead. Singapore is also extremely lucky in having Lee Kuan Yew, for he has few equal when come to experience, knowledge and track record in making astute assessment of people and the political situation. His is a gut-feel for Malaysia that few outsiders have and plus he has the historical perspective. On the other hand, in making the trip, he is also acknowledging that many of the players in the opposition are not yet well-understood - even to the most seasoned observers. At 85, Lee Kuan Yew no longer travel too much so having him on a 8 day trek through Malaysia is a significant move. No stranger to controversy across the causeway, his trip would not be risk free. And yet, Malaysia is so important to Singapore that the prospect of dealing with a change in the Malaysian government could not be left to chance or to anyone less than the master himself. I deeply admire this practical far-sightedness on the part of the Singaporeans.
It was no coincidence that his trip took him through KL (Selangor), Perak, Peneng, Kelantan and Pahang, i.e. almost all the states under opposition. It was no coincidence that he wanted to learn more about the realities, personalities and directions of the PRM leaderships, especially those in the state governments. Those states are real life laboratories of how the opposition will operate if given the chance to seize power nationally. After all, it is not enough just flying in to meet with Dato' Seri Anwar. He understood that in dealing with a coalition, he needed to know all the different forces and personalities so as to understand how the different permutations might play out. By all accounts, he arrived extremely well-briefed (as befitting a top lawyer) about the issues and personalities but he really wanted to size them up first hand. It would be interesting to hear what he says after his visit.
Quite interestingly, his fact finding was not limited to the opposition because BN itself is undergoing a lot of changes with the ups-and-downs of MCA, MIC and Gerakan and the East Malaysian parties becoming more influential. Below the usual cast of characters at the top are many who are jostling for position. It would be negligence to focus on knowing the opposition camp when the ruling camp itself is in a flux.
In this context, it is intriuging that he made a point to meet seperately with Najib's wife. I find that a fascinating decision - both for Singapore to request and for Najib to agree to such an overt meeting - because it certainly gave credence to the suspicion that she is the power behind the throne. It is more telling that Lee Kuan Yew openly explained the reason for the meeting is that Najib and his wife work (govern?) as a team. I wonder what Najib's adviser feel about the publicity.
Quite unusually, his visit was not greeted by the usual grandstanding and chest-beating by UMNO Youths or other anti-Singapore sentiments - although for many Malaysians cynicism remains a common reaction to Singapore. What more a visit that is an undisguised attempt at understanding Malaysian internal politics. This shows the growing maturity of Malaysia-Singapore relations. But more importantly, this shows the pragmatism of all parties in Malaysia that everyone - in power or out of it - that Singapore could be a useful friend and ally in whatever they aim to achieve. Even his old nemesis in DAP and non-bed-fellows like PAS were wiling to be open to him. After all, when one is in government even if its Peneng State or Kelantan State, one has to deliver to the people. And being friends with Singapore has its benefits.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Mandarin and Cantonization
Talking about the spread of Mandarin usage in the SEA, I must relate a small story from my parents. Despite the fact that they received merely primary education at about the turn of 1960s, they converse to each other in Mandarin, never mind that they are both Fujianese.
Even until 80s when we went to school, we are reminded to speak more Mandarin and less vernacular. I believe this is true for Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei, the three former British colony. Even for Indonesian Chinese whom I met in HK, most of whom left Indonesia between 1950s-1960s, Mandarin is still proudly spoken among them.
These show how readily the SEA Chinese accept Mandarin as their own common language. A big credit to all the pioneers and successive generation of chinese educationist who have the foresight to install mandarin as the unifying spoken language for the disapora.
To this, you and I are indebted to.
The major resistance to Mandarin are perhaps among the Cantonese speaking peoples. I am increasingly affirmed of my view that there is a sort of Cantonese Cultural Imperialism. I know this is a big word and controversial. My own experience has been that the Cantonese speaking peoples tend to impose their own as the "lingua franca". This is true in KL and it is true in HK.
The phenomena in KL, I believe, is attributed to the rise of HK pop music and TVB popular dramas from the late 1970s.
It is my observation, maybe controversial, that the Cantonese speaking peoples instinctively regard Cantonese as more sophisticated than Mandarin which maybe true. The often cited evidence is that the Tang's poem is best read out in Cantonese than in Mandarin.
This observation is based on my 19 years (to be exact) experience living in the Cantonese speaking environment both here in HK and KL.
Let's me talk about my observation of HK, my adopted home. Many of the Chinese who lived in HK today are not originally Cantonese. According to the local Fujian organization, there is more than a million or so Fujianese in HK. Personally, I encounter many Chaozhou, Shanghainese and Hakka in my 9 years living in HK. By the way, there are substantial Hakka native in the New Territory.
So, the non-Cantonese number is definitely not small in HK.
However, the second generation are all converted into Cantonese speaking. This in large part is due to the British colonial policy in teaching the local cantonese. There is only one school that teaches Mandarin from the 1950s. Such is the miserable record and state of Mandarin in HK.
Upon the handover, the former Chief Executive advocated and implemented the mother tongue language policy which is right but got it wrong in that the mother toungue is Cantonese. CW Tung hails from Zhejiang.
That's ironic if it is viewed against what was happening in the SEA as KH brilliantly pointed out in the earlier post.
Surely, there must have been waves of "May 4th Chinese" (allow me to use this term for convenience) and nationalist Chinese (many famous scholars including my favorite historian Qian Mu 钱穆 who headed to HK during those difficult years. Yet Mandarin didn't stay as the mainstream.
What I find most amusing is that even the latest arrivals from the mainland after the handover are rushing to be Cantonized. When applying for their ID, they happily swap the pinyin to cantonese spelling for their name. Abandoning pinyin spelling supposedly make them Hong Kongers - this was what I overheard when I was applying for my son's ID. Maybe they are not aware that the local Hong Konger are adopting English names as their own.
Just last Sunday, an elderly couples spoke to me in Cantonese advising me that I should teach my sons "our language".
Of course the social political backdrop between HK and SEA are very different. Retaining Cantonese in post-handover is seen as keeping the "2 systems" in the "one country". Prior to the handover, the local Hong Kongers with memory of constant turmoil and persecution in the mainland from the Great Leap Forward to the Cultural Revolution and Tiananmen Incident, have their own reservation of anything Mainland and these surely include Mandarin that is seen as imposed top-down.
Only after the handover that the kids are beginning to learn Mandarin. My own observation is that the kids in the primary have better command in Mandarin than the older groups. And only after the SARs that the shopkeepers are beginning to speak Mandarin to the mainland visitors.
Let's wish Mandarin is really putong (universal) to all Chinese everywhere. This will realize one of the original intent of the May 4th pioneers. I hope I am not imputing this.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
ASEAN's Generation Gap - Stuck With Our Parent's Leaders?
Just a short post reflecting on a web-chat I had with my good friend Nasri about the developments in Thailand. I was reflecting that although I liked him PM Abhisit's political life is - sadly - numbered because historically in Thailand when protests turn violent, that crosses the line that makes the status quo unteneble. My thesis is that either the palace will step in, or there would be a deal for the opposition to step in, or the Prime Minister would be removed in a face-saving deal that preserves the interests of the powers-that-be. My friend's view is that would be a shame because his colleagues in the foreign ministry who have dealt with Abhisit up-close found him "damn impressive...and he was a breath of fresh air for ASEAN". I was struck by that second point.
The leaders of ASEAN are increasingly disconnected with the demography of ASEAN nations. In 2000, the median age in ASEAN was 23.9 years old, meaning 50% of the population was below the age of 23.9. This ranges from a little less than 18 years in Cambodia and East Timor to Singapore which at median age of 34.5 had the "oldest" population. The rest of the original ASEAN 6: Malaysia is 23.3, Brunei is 25.7, Indonesia 24.6, Thailand 27.5, Vietnam 23.1 and the Philippines 20.9.
On the otherhand, in terms of age (and probably in world view and outlook) ASEAN leaders are invariably one - or even two - generations removed from the majority of their population. Thailand's Abhisit is by far the youngest at 44. The Sultan of Brunei is 63. Singapore's PM Lee Hsien Loong is 57. Malaysia's new PM Najib is 55. Indonesia's President Yodhuyono is 59. President Gloria M.Arroyo is 62.
In terms of the gap between median age (2000 figures) and the age of the leaders of the original ASEAN 6, the lowest is Thailand at 16.5 years and the highest is Philippines at 41 years. The rest from lowest to highest: Singapore about 22.5, Malaysia is about 32, Indonesia is around 34 and Brunei around 37.
Using the rule of thumb of 25 years for every "generation", ASEAN leaders are therefore approximately 1.5 generations older than their people as a whole. Perhaps this is not a topic to apply any logic, but I would consider any gap beyond one-generation older than the median age to risk a fundamental disconnect with the rest of the population; both in life-experience, priorities but more fundamentally in their respective risk-horizons.
Granted that it would make sense for people in national leadership to have sufficient experience and gravitas to leaven even the best minds and talents; and granted that Asian societies have a reverence for seniority; and granted that it takes years in any system to reach the top - be it in government, business or in society as a whole; but to be more than a whole generation older than the average age of the entire population could not be a very healthy sign for any society. What more for societies that managed to compress (and are still compressing) perhaps a century of change into one or two generations.
One could correctly argue that changes are only superficial. Beneath the glitter on the surfact, the people themselves have not changed as much: that age-old conflicts, dramas and demons still unresolved and would therefore need to be managed by those who knows them best. These people may not know much about the internet or finance but they "know" nationalism, racial politics and exercise of power.
Nonetheless, I would still conclude that those skills while useful are backward looking and do not move society forward. Their people will be looking - nay, they will demand leadership and new ideas both of themselves as well as to define their common purpose. And more and more, those in their 20s and 30s will not simply inherit their parent's leaders. Within the next 10 years, I see this realignment between generations (and also between the old power elites and the new power structures) to be a relentless and continuing challenge for every ASEAN country.
Ironically, Abhitsit not withstanding his age happens to be with the old power structures. His predictament unfortunately is due not to his age, politics or policies - its simply one of timing. His Democratic Party is well-respected but often a pawn at the mercy of other more powerful political forces/personalities in Thailand in need for a "legitimate" face. This time is probably no different.
My personal dealings with Abhisit was limited to little more than showing him the bathroom. In 2003, I helped organize a small conference in Kuala Lumpur where Abhisit was invited to speak. And because he was on a flying visit from Bangkok to speak at the conference, I asked Firdaus one of the helpers at the conference to personally see to his journey from KLIA to the Mandarin Oriental and back to the airport. He spoke - not to memorably - and as he was leaving for the airport, Firdaus asked if he minded taking the LRT and the KLIA express to the airport because it had been raining cats and dogs and when that happens the KL traffic became unmoving. Being a polite and unaffected politician, he quickly agreed. And then he asked me to show him where the bathroom was and so I did. Not to be outdone by this anecdote, Nasri says he had a similar bathroom directing experience - his with the former Japanese PM Mori.
The leaders of ASEAN are increasingly disconnected with the demography of ASEAN nations. In 2000, the median age in ASEAN was 23.9 years old, meaning 50% of the population was below the age of 23.9. This ranges from a little less than 18 years in Cambodia and East Timor to Singapore which at median age of 34.5 had the "oldest" population. The rest of the original ASEAN 6: Malaysia is 23.3, Brunei is 25.7, Indonesia 24.6, Thailand 27.5, Vietnam 23.1 and the Philippines 20.9.
On the otherhand, in terms of age (and probably in world view and outlook) ASEAN leaders are invariably one - or even two - generations removed from the majority of their population. Thailand's Abhisit is by far the youngest at 44. The Sultan of Brunei is 63. Singapore's PM Lee Hsien Loong is 57. Malaysia's new PM Najib is 55. Indonesia's President Yodhuyono is 59. President Gloria M.Arroyo is 62.
In terms of the gap between median age (2000 figures) and the age of the leaders of the original ASEAN 6, the lowest is Thailand at 16.5 years and the highest is Philippines at 41 years. The rest from lowest to highest: Singapore about 22.5, Malaysia is about 32, Indonesia is around 34 and Brunei around 37.
Using the rule of thumb of 25 years for every "generation", ASEAN leaders are therefore approximately 1.5 generations older than their people as a whole. Perhaps this is not a topic to apply any logic, but I would consider any gap beyond one-generation older than the median age to risk a fundamental disconnect with the rest of the population; both in life-experience, priorities but more fundamentally in their respective risk-horizons.
Granted that it would make sense for people in national leadership to have sufficient experience and gravitas to leaven even the best minds and talents; and granted that Asian societies have a reverence for seniority; and granted that it takes years in any system to reach the top - be it in government, business or in society as a whole; but to be more than a whole generation older than the average age of the entire population could not be a very healthy sign for any society. What more for societies that managed to compress (and are still compressing) perhaps a century of change into one or two generations.
One could correctly argue that changes are only superficial. Beneath the glitter on the surfact, the people themselves have not changed as much: that age-old conflicts, dramas and demons still unresolved and would therefore need to be managed by those who knows them best. These people may not know much about the internet or finance but they "know" nationalism, racial politics and exercise of power.
Nonetheless, I would still conclude that those skills while useful are backward looking and do not move society forward. Their people will be looking - nay, they will demand leadership and new ideas both of themselves as well as to define their common purpose. And more and more, those in their 20s and 30s will not simply inherit their parent's leaders. Within the next 10 years, I see this realignment between generations (and also between the old power elites and the new power structures) to be a relentless and continuing challenge for every ASEAN country.
Ironically, Abhitsit not withstanding his age happens to be with the old power structures. His predictament unfortunately is due not to his age, politics or policies - its simply one of timing. His Democratic Party is well-respected but often a pawn at the mercy of other more powerful political forces/personalities in Thailand in need for a "legitimate" face. This time is probably no different.
My personal dealings with Abhisit was limited to little more than showing him the bathroom. In 2003, I helped organize a small conference in Kuala Lumpur where Abhisit was invited to speak. And because he was on a flying visit from Bangkok to speak at the conference, I asked Firdaus one of the helpers at the conference to personally see to his journey from KLIA to the Mandarin Oriental and back to the airport. He spoke - not to memorably - and as he was leaving for the airport, Firdaus asked if he minded taking the LRT and the KLIA express to the airport because it had been raining cats and dogs and when that happens the KL traffic became unmoving. Being a polite and unaffected politician, he quickly agreed. And then he asked me to show him where the bathroom was and so I did. Not to be outdone by this anecdote, Nasri says he had a similar bathroom directing experience - his with the former Japanese PM Mori.
Monday, December 8, 2008
A Chance Encounter with Jeff Ooi
I had a chance encounter with the first blogger cum Member of Malaysian Parliament, Jeff Ooi at the HKIA last Wednesday.
Jeff was unfortunate in that his flight had to be re-routed via Singapore, thank to the blockage of Bangkok airport by the royalist PAD. ( I was actually rather surprized over the weekend reading the Economist's article that is highly critical of the Thai monarchy - won't be surprise if the Economist run into trouble in Thailand.)
It was not difficult to recognise him as I have been following his blog for some times. The meeting took place at a book shop as we were browsing through books whilst waiting for our respective boarding call.
Without adhering to the Malaysia's protocol, I went up to greet him by addressing him as Jeff and not the YB. This would have been quite unthinkable with the BN politicians.
Easy going, relaxed, friendly and highly approachable, Jeff and I spoke very candidly for a couple of minutes touching on several issues including the Penang's DAP governance and the long outstanding Pakatan Rakyat's shadow cabinet line-up. I must say I was rather surprize with his candidness.
Jeff was travelling in the region to network, sourcing ideas and capitals to be brought back to Penang. He is currently the Chief-of Staffs to Lim Guan Eng, the Chief Minister of Penang State.
No question, the DAP state government, without experience of state administration prior to GE 308, is very anxious of the financial meltdown. After all, Penang's economy is mostly industrial and export oriented.
As such, the challenge to the DAP is particularly enormous however with such fine men in Jeff, my very limited experience with DAP has reinforced my favorable impression of DAP. After all, DAP has been very consistent throughout preaching competency, accountability and transparency. I would have prefered the word meritocracy to competency. Obviously competency is politically more correct in a country that confuses special position as special right.
Just a side note, in my 9 years out of the country, I had the privilege being invited to two dinners held in honor of the visiting Malaysian Prime Ministers. Dr M, as I recall, had the stateman stature for Malaysia whether or not you agree with him. At that time, he was at the height of his political career having won a huge mandate in the general election and was beyond challenge in UMNO.
Pak Lah, on the other hand, came across not as articulate and sophisticated as Dr M. He left a strong impression of more of a people's man. Another word, more grassroot. In many ways, his undoing has done more to the country than his doing. I said this without demeaning him. Many peoples I spoke to are more hopeful for Malaysia than ever. That's his greatest legacy.
One good fortune being abroad is that as long as you are socially active among your countrymen in overseas, you get these rare opportunities to be invited for official dinner, paid for either by the corporate sector eager to please the Malaysian dignitary or the Malaysian tax payers.
Jeff was unfortunate in that his flight had to be re-routed via Singapore, thank to the blockage of Bangkok airport by the royalist PAD. ( I was actually rather surprized over the weekend reading the Economist's article that is highly critical of the Thai monarchy - won't be surprise if the Economist run into trouble in Thailand.)
It was not difficult to recognise him as I have been following his blog for some times. The meeting took place at a book shop as we were browsing through books whilst waiting for our respective boarding call.
Without adhering to the Malaysia's protocol, I went up to greet him by addressing him as Jeff and not the YB. This would have been quite unthinkable with the BN politicians.
Easy going, relaxed, friendly and highly approachable, Jeff and I spoke very candidly for a couple of minutes touching on several issues including the Penang's DAP governance and the long outstanding Pakatan Rakyat's shadow cabinet line-up. I must say I was rather surprize with his candidness.
Jeff was travelling in the region to network, sourcing ideas and capitals to be brought back to Penang. He is currently the Chief-of Staffs to Lim Guan Eng, the Chief Minister of Penang State.
No question, the DAP state government, without experience of state administration prior to GE 308, is very anxious of the financial meltdown. After all, Penang's economy is mostly industrial and export oriented.
As such, the challenge to the DAP is particularly enormous however with such fine men in Jeff, my very limited experience with DAP has reinforced my favorable impression of DAP. After all, DAP has been very consistent throughout preaching competency, accountability and transparency. I would have prefered the word meritocracy to competency. Obviously competency is politically more correct in a country that confuses special position as special right.
Just a side note, in my 9 years out of the country, I had the privilege being invited to two dinners held in honor of the visiting Malaysian Prime Ministers. Dr M, as I recall, had the stateman stature for Malaysia whether or not you agree with him. At that time, he was at the height of his political career having won a huge mandate in the general election and was beyond challenge in UMNO.
Pak Lah, on the other hand, came across not as articulate and sophisticated as Dr M. He left a strong impression of more of a people's man. Another word, more grassroot. In many ways, his undoing has done more to the country than his doing. I said this without demeaning him. Many peoples I spoke to are more hopeful for Malaysia than ever. That's his greatest legacy.
One good fortune being abroad is that as long as you are socially active among your countrymen in overseas, you get these rare opportunities to be invited for official dinner, paid for either by the corporate sector eager to please the Malaysian dignitary or the Malaysian tax payers.
Friday, October 24, 2008
The 27 Million Peoples' Question
Malaysians, from the King to the Umnoputras, from lawyers to rakyat (peoples), are now talking about the social contract.
There is no reference to the social contract in the Constutition of the Malaysia Federation. Not even any mention in the preamble. Sorry, there is no preamble in the Constitution.
What is a social contract?
According to the political scientist, it is an unwritten consensus at the time of the nation founding. It is thus a piece of virtual agreement exists only in the mind of those believing that it exists.
In Malaysia's context, it means different things to different peoples. It really depend whether you talk to Ali, Bala or Chan.
Some say it is an agreement between Tunku, Tan Cheng Lock and Sambathan seeking independence against the colonialism and Communism (where are the Sarawakian and Sabahan represented?). Too bad, all the three distinguished Malaysians are no longer with us today to answer the 27 millions peoples' question.
Some say it is a social contract wherein the Malays conceding to Chinese and Indian the Malayan citizenship in exchange of their concession for Malay Ketuanan aka Malay Supremacy.
Some say it is the Malay rulers constitutional position as a protector of Malay and Islam (with some also noted the legitimate right of other communties).
Some says it doesn't exist. They pointed out that the first reference to the social contract was in 1980s by the UMNO politicians. It took well over 20 years for any Malaysian to remember that there was a social contract in the first place.
Some says it should not be questioned and reviewed.
Some say it should be taugh in school while some opposes.
Yet no one can give a definite definition of what the social contract is.
The question of "apa itu" (what it is?) should be judiciously preceded by the question of "mananya" (where is it?)
In the absense of compelling evidence, whether written or oral, by the founding fathers, including the often overlooked the 1956 Constitutional Conference in London and the five members Reid Commission charged with the drafting of the Malayan Constitution, no one should be allowed to construct and impute the existence of such a solemn consensus on national formation.
The difference between an afterthought and an aforethought is that the former is an excuse and the latter is a justification.
Thinking Malaysian, please take note!
There is no reference to the social contract in the Constutition of the Malaysia Federation. Not even any mention in the preamble. Sorry, there is no preamble in the Constitution.
What is a social contract?
According to the political scientist, it is an unwritten consensus at the time of the nation founding. It is thus a piece of virtual agreement exists only in the mind of those believing that it exists.
In Malaysia's context, it means different things to different peoples. It really depend whether you talk to Ali, Bala or Chan.
Some say it is an agreement between Tunku, Tan Cheng Lock and Sambathan seeking independence against the colonialism and Communism (where are the Sarawakian and Sabahan represented?). Too bad, all the three distinguished Malaysians are no longer with us today to answer the 27 millions peoples' question.
Some say it is a social contract wherein the Malays conceding to Chinese and Indian the Malayan citizenship in exchange of their concession for Malay Ketuanan aka Malay Supremacy.
Some say it is the Malay rulers constitutional position as a protector of Malay and Islam (with some also noted the legitimate right of other communties).
Some says it doesn't exist. They pointed out that the first reference to the social contract was in 1980s by the UMNO politicians. It took well over 20 years for any Malaysian to remember that there was a social contract in the first place.
Some says it should not be questioned and reviewed.
Some say it should be taugh in school while some opposes.
Yet no one can give a definite definition of what the social contract is.
The question of "apa itu" (what it is?) should be judiciously preceded by the question of "mananya" (where is it?)
In the absense of compelling evidence, whether written or oral, by the founding fathers, including the often overlooked the 1956 Constitutional Conference in London and the five members Reid Commission charged with the drafting of the Malayan Constitution, no one should be allowed to construct and impute the existence of such a solemn consensus on national formation.
The difference between an afterthought and an aforethought is that the former is an excuse and the latter is a justification.
Thinking Malaysian, please take note!
Cabinet to Cabinet; Bed to Bed
The Chinese Malaysian politics is now arguing over whether it is ethical to appoint Dr Chua Soi Lek as a minister.
Dr. Chua was caught having sex with a woman but not his wife by a hidden camera earlier this year. Within days, he held a press conference and courageously admitted to his indiscretion and resigned from his ministerial position and went into political wilderness.
Last week, he fought back to political limelight after beating the establishment candidate for deputy Presidential office of the MCA ( the Malaysian Chinese Association), the second largest political party in the BN (the National Front), the ruling coalliation government.
As a matter of political convention, the MCA is allocated with four full ministerial positions and the MCA deputy President can legitimately, by virtue of the second most senior position in the party, ask for one of the four slots.
The debate launched by the Dr. Chua's opponent (the so-called Camp A including the sitting party President Ong Tee Keat and the losing Deputy Presidential candidate, Ong Ka Chuan, brother to former President Ong Ka Ting), has argued that someone with moral indiscretion is not fit to be elected, earlier, to the party office and now, made a minister.
The debate is coded in the classic Confucianist language, 才德, competence and ethics.
Failing to thwart Dr. Chua election to the party post, the opponent seeks to thwart Dr Chua appointment to the cabinet. Paradoxically, the anti-Dr. Chua protagonist do not renounce those who set up the hidden camera recording and who distributed them which are both despicable and illegal.
Dr. Chua was caught having sex with a woman but not his wife by a hidden camera earlier this year. Within days, he held a press conference and courageously admitted to his indiscretion and resigned from his ministerial position and went into political wilderness.
Last week, he fought back to political limelight after beating the establishment candidate for deputy Presidential office of the MCA ( the Malaysian Chinese Association), the second largest political party in the BN (the National Front), the ruling coalliation government.
As a matter of political convention, the MCA is allocated with four full ministerial positions and the MCA deputy President can legitimately, by virtue of the second most senior position in the party, ask for one of the four slots.
The debate launched by the Dr. Chua's opponent (the so-called Camp A including the sitting party President Ong Tee Keat and the losing Deputy Presidential candidate, Ong Ka Chuan, brother to former President Ong Ka Ting), has argued that someone with moral indiscretion is not fit to be elected, earlier, to the party office and now, made a minister.
The debate is coded in the classic Confucianist language, 才德, competence and ethics.
Failing to thwart Dr. Chua election to the party post, the opponent seeks to thwart Dr Chua appointment to the cabinet. Paradoxically, the anti-Dr. Chua protagonist do not renounce those who set up the hidden camera recording and who distributed them which are both despicable and illegal.
The tenet of their argument is basically that Dr. Chua's appointment, by reason of his extra-marital affair (or rather the fact that it was recorded on video), will lower the estimation of the MCA and the Chinese in the eye of the coalliation partner and the Malaysian public with a large Muslim majority .
It is poignant to recall 德才兼备 (possessing both ethics and competency) as a qualification to be a public officer in the Confucianism. Dr. Chua is portyared as wanting of ethics.
Set against this background, the question is whether there is a difference between 公德 public ethics (in this sense we may well call it the political ethics) and 私德 private morality.
All the attack on Dr.Chua is his hotel room exploit and not his competence and also his public/political ethic.
Based on the party election result, Dr. Chua's violation of private morality, the much ballyhood issue during the campaign, has not stopped him from his political comeback. The delegates have largely absolved him of his private moral indiscretion.
This in large part is a recognition that Dr. Chua has maintained a better image and widely perceived as a responsible politician taking the step to resign following the hidden camera recording. His resignation is commendable as he returns the mandate to the people to see if he will be forgiven and re-accepted.
First, he secured his spouse and his family's forgiveness.
Then, his son stood in for him, contested and won the March 8 parliamentaty election in a seat he previously held amidst what is now known as heavy nation-wide electoral losses to the MCA. This is as good as he won by proxy.
Finally, he won the tough party election last week. These three separate and related events vindicated and redeemed him personally and politically.
The result can be analysed as the MCA grassroot valuing competency and also public/political ethics as greater qualification to the party/public office. This result is also in line with the secular and meritocratic values of Chinese Malaysian.
The holier-than-thou altitude or peeping (or secretly recording) Tom behavior are not supported and I find these relieving and reassuring as a sign of political maturity in favor of competency and public/political ethis over private moral misbehaviour.
At all time, competency and public/political ethics should be held as more important requirement of holding a public office. Cronism, nepotism, corruption, abuse of power, dishonesty and racism in the Malaysia context are greater impediment to good governance.
Dr. Chua has won the party mandate to be appointed to, and the Prime Minister should exercise his prerogative to made him, a full minister.
Let me end by sharing a rarely known historical fact. One of my favorite but controversial historical figure, 曹操 Cao Cao, of the Romance of Three Kingdom's fame or notoriety, placed competency and public ethic above private morality in the selection of officers. No wonder he incurs the wrath of generation of Confucianist disciples and is portrayed in the negative light. By statictis, the peoples and the territory under the Cao's administration was superior in not just in output, living standard but also in culture and literacy. His succesors eventually united the divided China then.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Cherish our liberty and the rule of law
The Thailand Prime Minister's office compound has been occupied by anti-government protesters for weeks and yet the PM has chosen restraint rather than taking action against the trespasser.
Ironically, the Malaysian government, facing with increasingly critical online commentaries, has resorted to arrest a prominent "cyber transgressor" - an online political blogger - under a draconian security law that allows for indefinitely detention.
The Umno-led Malaysian government, with all law enforcement agencies under its control and a record of oppresive encorcement, clearly favors the strong arm approach to thwart the opposition.
Whereas the Samak/Thaksin Thai government, with a likely partisan Royal House and a watchful military, all that could be meted out by the administration is a softie restraint.
In my view, Malaysia needs a full jab of human right and Thailand needs a strong dose of the rule of law.
Seeing our neighbors situation, we ought to be thankful and hence watchful of our liberty and the rule of law in Hong Kong
Ironically, the Malaysian government, facing with increasingly critical online commentaries, has resorted to arrest a prominent "cyber transgressor" - an online political blogger - under a draconian security law that allows for indefinitely detention.
The Umno-led Malaysian government, with all law enforcement agencies under its control and a record of oppresive encorcement, clearly favors the strong arm approach to thwart the opposition.
Whereas the Samak/Thaksin Thai government, with a likely partisan Royal House and a watchful military, all that could be meted out by the administration is a softie restraint.
In my view, Malaysia needs a full jab of human right and Thailand needs a strong dose of the rule of law.
Seeing our neighbors situation, we ought to be thankful and hence watchful of our liberty and the rule of law in Hong Kong
Malaysia's Oppresive Law used against Political Blogger
Malaysian Government led by the UMNO party invokes the infamous draconian law - the Internal Security Act - to detain a sensational political blogger - Raja Petra Kamaruddin.
The law allows for potentially indefinite detention without trial at the discretion of the Home Minister's order.
Raja Petra Kamaruddin, better known as RPK, posted many articles in his web-blog Malaysia Today to expose (or allege depending on one's view) sensational wrongdoing and corruption often involved the government ministers and senior officers.
The latest exposure or allegation involves the conspiracy to charge Anwar Ibrahim, the Opposition Leader of sodomy (an offence in Malaysia) and the sensational murder of a Mongolian beauty with C4 - an explosive chemical - both by a very senior minister and his family.
RPK's critic often accuse him for sensationist journalism without adequate care for accuracy. Despite the frequent attempts to disrupt, sabotage, and a recently lifted blocking of, his news portal by the government, RPK has a large online following.
His defiance against the authority both on line and off line has earned him wide support and respect among Malaysians and Malaysia observes.
It is most likely that RPK is arrested under the ISA for allegedly insulting Islam and the Prophet Mohammad. The Home Minister has reportedly issued such a comment last week.
RPK's arrest under ISA is therefore widely anticipated.
Most believes, however, that this is used as a pretext and the real reason is that he has irked the power-that-be to the extent that the UMNO-led government feels threatened of his constant criticism, if unchecked, will lead to the fall of the ruling party.
National security legislation is understandable. The issue is how it is being used. The problem with this legislation is how it is open to misuse and abuse by the ruling power against political dissidents and opponents.
The law is most oppressive in the sense that it deprieves the detainee of their most sacrosant personal liberty without the right to a fair hearing and the right to defend himself against the charge.
This legislation in its current form is a slap on human right and an insult to due process.
If the UMNO-led government insists on the use of this oppressive law, the Malaysian peoples' option is to bring down this government and abolist this oppressive law.
The law allows for potentially indefinite detention without trial at the discretion of the Home Minister's order.
Raja Petra Kamaruddin, better known as RPK, posted many articles in his web-blog Malaysia Today to expose (or allege depending on one's view) sensational wrongdoing and corruption often involved the government ministers and senior officers.
The latest exposure or allegation involves the conspiracy to charge Anwar Ibrahim, the Opposition Leader of sodomy (an offence in Malaysia) and the sensational murder of a Mongolian beauty with C4 - an explosive chemical - both by a very senior minister and his family.
RPK's critic often accuse him for sensationist journalism without adequate care for accuracy. Despite the frequent attempts to disrupt, sabotage, and a recently lifted blocking of, his news portal by the government, RPK has a large online following.
His defiance against the authority both on line and off line has earned him wide support and respect among Malaysians and Malaysia observes.
It is most likely that RPK is arrested under the ISA for allegedly insulting Islam and the Prophet Mohammad. The Home Minister has reportedly issued such a comment last week.
RPK's arrest under ISA is therefore widely anticipated.
Most believes, however, that this is used as a pretext and the real reason is that he has irked the power-that-be to the extent that the UMNO-led government feels threatened of his constant criticism, if unchecked, will lead to the fall of the ruling party.
National security legislation is understandable. The issue is how it is being used. The problem with this legislation is how it is open to misuse and abuse by the ruling power against political dissidents and opponents.
The law is most oppressive in the sense that it deprieves the detainee of their most sacrosant personal liberty without the right to a fair hearing and the right to defend himself against the charge.
This legislation in its current form is a slap on human right and an insult to due process.
If the UMNO-led government insists on the use of this oppressive law, the Malaysian peoples' option is to bring down this government and abolist this oppressive law.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Brunei and Malaysia
In the last few weeks, I was with the family on vacation first in Brunei and later in Malaysia. And one of the things that made the strongest impressions on me - albeit from a purely personal and anecdotal perspective - was the state of relations between the races.
In Malaysia, the state of racial relations are in a flux. The signs are mixed in the aftermath of the March 8 elections. On the plus side, electoral gains were made by the ostensibly multi-racial opposition coalition running on a largely non-racial message. I was there when the by-elections in Pematang Pauh took place and Datuk Seri Anwar ran a multi-racial campaign in a Malay majority constituency - and emerged victorious with increased majority.
On the otherhand, both the ruling and the opposition could not avoid the fact that all Malaysian political parties are stuck with a certain de facto racial identity, regardless of what the party constitution says. Within UNMO, hardliners and extremists keen to make a name for themselves are exploiting the political vacuum with impunity. When I was in Malaysia numerous such controversies were swirling around the national media. Outraged reactions from other races only serve to polorize the political environment. Having spent 2 years in a decidedly cosmopolitan (and astonishingly non-racial) environment that is NYC - and fresh from a few weeks in Brunei - I was struck how even casual conversations amongst family and friends often contain an uncomfortable number of sweeping statements about this and that race.
My observations while I was in Brunei though gave me pause for a different - and more hopeful and encouraging - reason. I'd be first to admit that it would not be possible or fair to compare the two countries; but what gave me pause was the scenes from Brunei's Chinese school when I picked up my daughters .
You see, my daughters spend the past 2 summers in Brunei and my mother arranged for them to attend the classes for the 10 weeks or so at the local Chinese school. It often amuses me how few people in Malaysia know that not only there are 8 Chinese schools in Brunei (3 of them up to middle school level), the Chung Hwa Middle School BSB with almost 4000 students from K to Pre-University level is the largest and one of the most respected schools in the country. The school is well-funded by the local Chinese community (as evident by a spanking new 5 storey complex) and progressive in its approach to education. Gone are the old fashioned 'Chinese-educated' mentality - and helped by an influx of talented teachers from mainland China - and the emphasis is now on a fully rounded education from music to wushu. Both my parents went to Chung Hwa, and so did my sister and I (up to Primary 6) and eventually so do both my daughters and all my sisters kids. Inevitably, there were the occasional politically-inspired challenges and I remember many as told to me by my late-father who was on the school board for more than 20 years; but overall I believe the state of Chinese education in Brunei has never been stronger.
All of that was very gratifying, but what gave me pause was the heartening racial diversity that I witnessed in that school. Malay parents and children no longer the oddities but they are now present in large numbers. In the steps waiting for the dismissal bell are ladies in tudong, guys military uniform, guys in haji caps, Philippinos, Indians and quite a few caucasian kids (I spotted one arriving in a British embassy car). Back in 2003, the principle told me the ratio of non-Chinese was 11% overall and 25% at kindergarten level ("we are slowly becoming an international school" she added). Today the numbers are probably even higher. I also sense that the idea of attending Ching Hwa is now mainstream, judging from the number of well-educated Malay elites I know who are sending their kids to Chung Hwa.
Back in the classrooms, the kids were yakking, studying, teasing and playing to one another in mix of Chinese and English. In them I see an easy and comfortable mingling that will continue as they grow older. As I see them, I realised that as my generation of Chinese grew up being comfortable with Malay friends and relations; now there is a growing generation of Malays who will be growing up being comfortable with Chinese. It is not only a matter of speaking and understanding the language, but I also see doors wide open into each other's cultures and worldview. In the same way that we are plugged into the global (and Western) language and culture, I see many of these youngsters being simulteneously plugged into their own culture, the global culture and the Chinese dimension.
I hope I was seeing the future and if so, I think I like what I am seeing.
In Malaysia, the state of racial relations are in a flux. The signs are mixed in the aftermath of the March 8 elections. On the plus side, electoral gains were made by the ostensibly multi-racial opposition coalition running on a largely non-racial message. I was there when the by-elections in Pematang Pauh took place and Datuk Seri Anwar ran a multi-racial campaign in a Malay majority constituency - and emerged victorious with increased majority.
On the otherhand, both the ruling and the opposition could not avoid the fact that all Malaysian political parties are stuck with a certain de facto racial identity, regardless of what the party constitution says. Within UNMO, hardliners and extremists keen to make a name for themselves are exploiting the political vacuum with impunity. When I was in Malaysia numerous such controversies were swirling around the national media. Outraged reactions from other races only serve to polorize the political environment. Having spent 2 years in a decidedly cosmopolitan (and astonishingly non-racial) environment that is NYC - and fresh from a few weeks in Brunei - I was struck how even casual conversations amongst family and friends often contain an uncomfortable number of sweeping statements about this and that race.
My observations while I was in Brunei though gave me pause for a different - and more hopeful and encouraging - reason. I'd be first to admit that it would not be possible or fair to compare the two countries; but what gave me pause was the scenes from Brunei's Chinese school when I picked up my daughters .
You see, my daughters spend the past 2 summers in Brunei and my mother arranged for them to attend the classes for the 10 weeks or so at the local Chinese school. It often amuses me how few people in Malaysia know that not only there are 8 Chinese schools in Brunei (3 of them up to middle school level), the Chung Hwa Middle School BSB with almost 4000 students from K to Pre-University level is the largest and one of the most respected schools in the country. The school is well-funded by the local Chinese community (as evident by a spanking new 5 storey complex) and progressive in its approach to education. Gone are the old fashioned 'Chinese-educated' mentality - and helped by an influx of talented teachers from mainland China - and the emphasis is now on a fully rounded education from music to wushu. Both my parents went to Chung Hwa, and so did my sister and I (up to Primary 6) and eventually so do both my daughters and all my sisters kids. Inevitably, there were the occasional politically-inspired challenges and I remember many as told to me by my late-father who was on the school board for more than 20 years; but overall I believe the state of Chinese education in Brunei has never been stronger.
All of that was very gratifying, but what gave me pause was the heartening racial diversity that I witnessed in that school. Malay parents and children no longer the oddities but they are now present in large numbers. In the steps waiting for the dismissal bell are ladies in tudong, guys military uniform, guys in haji caps, Philippinos, Indians and quite a few caucasian kids (I spotted one arriving in a British embassy car). Back in 2003, the principle told me the ratio of non-Chinese was 11% overall and 25% at kindergarten level ("we are slowly becoming an international school" she added). Today the numbers are probably even higher. I also sense that the idea of attending Ching Hwa is now mainstream, judging from the number of well-educated Malay elites I know who are sending their kids to Chung Hwa.
Back in the classrooms, the kids were yakking, studying, teasing and playing to one another in mix of Chinese and English. In them I see an easy and comfortable mingling that will continue as they grow older. As I see them, I realised that as my generation of Chinese grew up being comfortable with Malay friends and relations; now there is a growing generation of Malays who will be growing up being comfortable with Chinese. It is not only a matter of speaking and understanding the language, but I also see doors wide open into each other's cultures and worldview. In the same way that we are plugged into the global (and Western) language and culture, I see many of these youngsters being simulteneously plugged into their own culture, the global culture and the Chinese dimension.
I hope I was seeing the future and if so, I think I like what I am seeing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)