Category: Agama

  • Contradictions On The Slippery Slope Towards The Reserved Elected Presidency

    Contradictions On The Slippery Slope Towards The Reserved Elected Presidency

    This is a summary of my thoughts that I shared at a Discussion Session with undergraduates from the University Scholars Program at Cinnamon College, NUS on 3 Apr 2017.

    I was asked to broadly comment on the following issues:

    1. Given the varying responses to the Reserved Presidency, how this will affect the unity of the Malay community.
    2. How this will affect the standing of the Malay community in Singapore’s political landscape.

    The announcement of the next Presidential Elections in Singapore being reserved for a Malay candidate has evoked mixed reactions from the Malay community in Singapore.

    There are 3 broad reactions to the notion of a Malay Reserved President.

    1. Disinterest. This is not so much driven by apathy, but a sense of resignation that the limited role of the Presidential will not have much impact on the Community, or that the outcome is a foregone conclusion (with the Government-supported candidate winning).  It did not help that Mdm Halimah Yacob has been referred to as “Madam President” in Parliament by Minister Chan Chun Sing (albeit by mistake).
    2. Agreement. The reactions from this group within the community stem from a belief that it is important for the Community to have a reference point as a beacon of hope for the community, and to also project the President as a symbol of multiculturalism in Singapore.  There are those who express an underlying defeatism – that the Community will not get a chance to have a Malay candidate through meritocratic process. An IPS survey to the effect that Singaporeans will vote along ethnic lines is thrown in to support this view. There are also those from the Community who exhibit opportunism – an attitude of “it’s there, so just grab the opportunity, and don’t be apologetic.”
    3. Disagreement. I belong to this group.

    What are the Objections?

    The Malay Community has never asked for a reserved Malay president in recent times. This was never raised as an issue by any Malay-Muslim Organization (MMO), any Malay Member of Parliament or any thought leader within the community.

    In fact, the announcement of a presidential race for Malays came as a complete surprise to most within the community.

    This announcement came as the Community grapples with are more fundamental problems that need fixing – gaps in educational attainment (relative to other communities in Singapore), lower socio-economic standing, over-representation in crimes/drugs, discrimination.

    A prevailing sentiment was that if there was indeed a commitment to uplift the Malay community, why not fix the various gaps and issues within the Community?  The Community would want to product a Malay presidential candidate can make the qualifying criteria and be elected in a national elections on his or her own footing.

    There is also strong perception that genesis for the Reserved Presidency was to exclude a certain Chinese candidate from qualifying.  Hence, the perception was that the Reserved Presidency was not borne out of a desire to promote the interests of the MMC. Consequently, those who hold that perception felt upset that the Malay community is used an instrument in this game.

    The Government has always said that meritocracy is sacrosanct. That was what defined Singapore and made us different. This mantra was oftentimes cited as a differentiating factor for Singapore in the wake of Singapore’s eviction from Malaysia. This call was made consistently, even long after Singapore’s independence.

    Interestingly and perhaps ironically, Madam Halimah Yacob herself, during her speech during a National Day Rally in 2012 mentioned the significance of meritocracy in Malay (obviously addressed to the Malay community):

    “Kita perlu beri sepenuh perhatian dan jangan jemu jemu bekerja keras demi kebaikan semua.

    Tuan-tuan dan Puan-puan, Saya yakin dibawah sistem meritokrasi, dan bermodalkan usaha gigih kita, masyarakat Melayu/Islam mampu mendaki tangga kejayaan yang jauh lebih tinggi.”

    English translation: “We have to give full attention and cannot shun hard work for the collective good.”

    “Ladies and Gentlemen, I am confident that under our system of meritocracy, and based on our hard work, the Malay/Muslim community can ascend the steps of success”

    In trying to address this anomaly, an argument had been made is that the principles of meritocracy is not sacrificed as a Malay candidate will need to meet the stringent qualifying criteria for President.

    However, meritocracy is not just about setting minimum qualifying standards for a candidate.  It is about picking the best person for the job.

    This was the argument made by the Establishment in the past against any ethnic-based affirmative action programs.

    But yet, we make exceptions to meritocracy where it appears to be expedient to do so.

    This gives rise to a slippery slope – where do you stop disapplying meritocracy?  Apart from the reserved Presidency, the Group Representation Constituency, which guarantees minority representation, is another instance of meritocracy being disapplied (though the evidence seems to point towards more minority representation in parliament before the GRC were introduced, but that is another matter).

    So where do you stop in disapplying meritocracy?

    • Should we have a reserved Prime Minister?
    • A reserved Deputy Prime Minister?
    • Reserved Ministers in “heavyweight” ministries (such as Finance, Defence, Trade and Industry, Foreign Affairs) ?
    • Reserved Permanent Secretaries?

    The argument – that the elected Presidency embodies the multicultural aspect of Singapore – must similarly apply to other roles above.

    It can be argued that it is important to have multicultural representation on senior policymaking roles, no?

    Lest I be misunderstood, I am not advocating reserved positions or ethnic-based affirmative action programs for these position.

    But by having a Malay reserved President, have we set a wrong precedent for Singapore?

    Another argument against the Reserved Presidency is the belief that contrary to the IPS survey, Singaporean voters will not be blinded by ethnic affiliations in voting.  Consider the fact that the GRC led by Tharman Shanmugaratnam had garnered the highest percentage of votes at the last General Elections.  Muralidharan Pillai, a first-time candidate, had defeated Dr Chee Soon Juan at the Bukit Batok By-Elections.  There is thus evidence that Singaporeans look beyond ethnic affiliations.

    There is yet another disconnect.  On the one hand, statements have been made to the effect that Singapore is not ready for a minority Prime Minister (even if polls done by research company Blackbox Research show that DPM Tharman, a minority, is seen as the most credible candidate for Prime Ministership).

    And so, in the context of the Prime Minister’s position, the assertion is that minorities are not ready to assume leadership of Singapore as a country.

    However, a diametrically-opposed position is taken for the Presidency – in that it is now important for Singapore to have a minority as the President.

    Why the contradictory stance?

    Crutch Mentality.  The other fear is that having a reserved presidency perpetuates the perception that the MMC will not succeed unless there is affirmative action.

    Will a Malay Reserved President therefore have the legitimacy and respect?

    Already, there is already resentment amongst quarters of the non-Malay Singaporean community.

    Also, if Singapore wants to be truly inclusive, why not reserve the Presidency for women? Or for people coming from lower socio-economic backgrounds?  True inclusivity must move beyond ethnicity.

     

    Source: https://nizamosaurus.wordpress.com

  • Osman Sulaiman: If Cannot Solve, Then PAP Malay MPs Should Not Hinder Progress On Hijab Issue

    Osman Sulaiman: If Cannot Solve, Then PAP Malay MPs Should Not Hinder Progress On Hijab Issue

    The gov would of course like to generalize anyone who brings up the tudung issue as trying to ‘sow discord’ or raising ‘divisive’ matters.

    In fact, anyone who brought the matter up will be painted as a hardliner, extremist and radical etc.

    It’s a red herring. It wants the people to overlook its appalling discriminatory practices against certain segment of the community.

    Masagos should slam his own gov for continuing to divide and discriminate the citizen. Not shoot down those who try to bring positive changes to the nation.

    If he, Masagos can’t help to solve the long standing issue, the best he could do is not to hinder.

     

    Source: Khan Osman Sulaiman

  • Ismail Kassim: Tudung Issue Is Also A Matter Of Human Rights

    Ismail Kassim: Tudung Issue Is Also A Matter Of Human Rights

    Yes, why not? Tudung is not a religious issue. When those who put on are barred from certain occupations it becomes a human right issue; the right of all to equal treatment before the law and the right of employment in all sectors without any discrimination.

    It is not just what issues are raised, but also the manner in which they are brought up. What is equally important is also how should Government should react when such issues are raised.

    Faisal brought it up with admirable restraint, but the reaction from the Minister was, to say the least, inconsistent with the spirit and norms of democracy. It bordered on arrogance and bullying.

    Like the Minister, you too picked on Faisal, the safest target, the most vulnerable.

    I am sure whatever he did in Parliament had the blessings of the Workers Party and its leaders.

    Why not blame the WP also for not distributing the work load in a way more consistent with the norms of our multiracial society.

     

    Source: Ismail Kassim

  • Calvin Cheng: Bringing Up Tudung Issue In Parliament Is Divisive Because We Do Not Practice Communal Politics

    Calvin Cheng: Bringing Up Tudung Issue In Parliament Is Divisive Because We Do Not Practice Communal Politics

    Some people have been arguing that Parliament should be the right place to bring up the tudung issue.

    I would like to remind readers about the political history of Singapore: unfortunately, this would also entail a comparison to the Federation of Malaysia, from where we were ejected in 1965.

    Malaysia’s political system consists of political parties that purport to represent a certain race, who then come together to form an alliance. The ruling coalition, the BN, consists of UMNO which represents the Malays, the MCA which represents the Chinese, and the MIC which represents the Indians. There are also smaller political political parties in the ruling coalition, but most of them purport to represent a race, or a religion. The opposition coalition is also broadly the same, but with the exit of PAS, the alliance is broken.

    Malaysia thus practices communal politics.

    Singapore is precisely the opposite.

    The PAP is a multi-racial, multi-religious political party that represents the diverse interests of all Singaporeans. Our major opposition political parties are also the same. The GRC system is set up to ensure minority representation, but all MPs were elected by a diverse electorate.

    We thus do not have Malay MPs championing Malay causes, Chinese MPs championing Chinese causes and so on. Unlike the Malaysian Parliament, our Parliament is not structured this way. Bringing up narrow communal causes in Parliament is thus divisive precisely because our political system, and our Parliament, was designed to ensure that we do not practice communal politics. We elected our MPs to represent us, regardless of our race or religion, not because of it.

    Workers Party MP Faisal Manap was elected by the multi-racial electorate of Aljunied GRC. He was not elected only by the Malays or Muslims. He represents people of all races and all religions in Aljunied GRC.

    He should remember that.

     

    Source: Calvin Cheng

  • Malaysia Foreign Ministry Notes Apology, Why Zed Zaidi Still Barking?

    Malaysia Foreign Ministry Notes Apology, Why Zed Zaidi Still Barking?

    The common perception is that people from you can trust people from your own race and religion more than you can trust others of different background. Seems like Zed Zaidi is on a one-man mission to dispel this notion. He is really trying his darndest to make life difficult for Singaporean Malay artistes in Malaysia, to limit their working opportunities there. Bangsa, bahasa, budaya, agama dan karya taruk tepi….

    I think what everyone wants to know, Malaysians and Singaporeans alike, is, what’s wrong with him????

    He doesn’t accept the apology. So what? Zed Zaidi thinks he is more powerful and influential than he actually is. Najip Ali and other Singaporean artistes can continue to earn a living because they have the talent and the dedication.

    Even Malaysia Foreign Ministry also noted the apology already and stated its wish that something like that do not re-occur, to preserve the good ties between the two countries?

    Zed Zaidi thinks he is more important that the foreign ministry?

    Empty vessels make the most noise.

     

    Seniman Seniwati

    Reader Contribution

deneme bonusu