Tag: ethnic quota

  • Almakhazin: Did MUIS really want to praise LKY during khutbah Jumaat?

    Almakhazin: Did MUIS really want to praise LKY during khutbah Jumaat?

    Last year, after Lee Kuan Yew’s death on 23rd March, a lot of Muslims in Singapura were shocked and disgusted by MUIS.

    Prior to his death, we saw how mass grieving was “encouraged” by the government and the media.

    Muslims spoke of making doa for him and referred to him as their father or grandpa.

    When he died, some Muslims prayed that he would be placed with the solihin.

    Muslim organisations fell over themselves singing his praises and declaring their sadness.

    And MUIS, as the authority for the Muslim community, led the way. They used the khutbah Jumaat to praise Lee Kuan Yew:

    “Saudara-saudara sidang Jumaah yang dirahmati Allah,

    Pemergian Perdana Menteri Pertama, mendiang Encik Lee Kuan Yew, telah menyentuh setiap rakyat Singapura, termasuk kita para anggota masyarakat Islam. Amat besar sekali kesan yang beliau tinggalkan kepada kehidupan berbilang agama dan bangsa negara ini. Di peringkat antarabangsa, beliau telah memimpin sebuah pemerintah yang membangunkan Singapura menjadi negara maju yang dikagumi dan dicemburui dunia. Ini tercapai, antaranya melalui kesungguhan beliau memastikan keharmonian hubungan antara kaum, kemajuan ekonomi dan kecemerlangan pendidikan.

    Marilah kita merenung dan mengambil iktibar daripada kehidupannya. Beliau telah pergi meninggalkan warisannya.”

    A lot of Muslims felt that for MUIS to use the masjid, the mimbar to praise someone who has discriminated and oppressed Muslims for decades was not only in poor taste, but an abuse of their management powers.

    Especially when they do not show such love and admiration when our ulama passed away.

    But after the khutbah, some information came to light.

    According to sources inside MUIS, the khutbah praising Lee Kuan Yew was not part of their plan.

    Instead, they were told to say it. And we believe that this situation will happen happen again whether this year or in the coming years.

    From the information we received, MUIS was told to do three things for Kuan Yew during solat Jumaat:

    1. A minute silence during khutbah to honour his death

    2. Make a congregational doa for Lee Kuan Yew

    3. Praise him during the khutbah.

    MUIS tried to reject the demands but was not able to. They needed to show their loyalty to the government.

    But the first two demands were too much. They compromised and agreed to praise him during khutbah Jumaat.

    These are the information that were relayed to us and we welcome MUIS clarifying it.

    If these information are true, then it shows that while there are a lot of systemic problems in MUIS, the abuse of the mimbar, of the masjid to praise Lee Kuan Yew may not be due to them.

    They were powerless to reject the demand.

    But that they are powerless is also the very problem we need to resolve.

    They are powerless because MUIS staff, their leaders, are government servants.

    They are compelled to support government policies and demands, even when it goes against Islam.

    Whether it is the denial of hijab, the destruction of masjid, the taking of wakaf land or the use of khutbah to praise a politician, MUIS is unable to stand up against the government.

    Because they have to listen and follow government demands, they not only affect their organisation…

    But also how we practice our religion.

     

    Source: Almakhazin SG

  • Almakhazin: Removing Malay Political Strength – The Ethnic Quota Policy

    Almakhazin: Removing Malay Political Strength – The Ethnic Quota Policy

    One of the ways the PAP has removed the political strength of the Malay community is through the implementation of the ethnic quota policy.

    This policy was supposedly enacted to stop the development of ethnic “enclaves” in Singapura.

    According to PAP Minister Masagos Zulkifli, the ethnic quota policy is one of the successes of the PAP.

    However, he admitted that the quota has caused difficulties to some but justified it by saying it helps promote racial harmony. He further claimed that harmony in Singapura is not natural.

    His justification that the ethnic quota policy was created to help develop racial harmony is mistaken at best. An analysis of the policy reveal that its main purpose is to weaken the Malay community’s political power.

    Even though quotas were set for the different races, this policy was directed at the Malay community. As discussed by Chih Hoong Sin,

    “Attention must be given to the general political discourse in Singapore. The identification of Bedok new town as a `Malay enclave’ has to be set in the context of the wider political discourse surrounding the `Malay problem’. While the Chinese and the Indians are certainly over represented in certain new towns (The Straits Times, 19 February 1989), it has been the Malays who have borne a disproportionate amount of government and media attention.”

    Chih quoted former PAP Minister Dhanabalan’s comments about Bedok New Town to illustrate how the PAP’s focus was actually on the Malays and not the other races. Dhanabalan had in 1989, referred to a “Malay problem” in Bedok. He stated “that if present trends continue, the Malay population in Bedok will reach 30% in 1991 and 40% in 10 years”.

    But why is 30% or 40% a problem? We do not refer to any constituency with 40% Chinese as indicative of a “Chinese problem”.

    But for the PAP, a constituency with 30% Malays makes it a problem.

    Malays do not support PAP

    Contrary to popular claim, Chih argued that the Malays do not support the PAP. In fact, Lee Kuan Yew admitted that most Malays do not support his party.

    Chih quoted Kuan Yew as saying, “If we were less skillful, (a Malay opposition party) would have emerged…I know we did not win more than fifty percent of the Malay votes; we never did…”

    PAP support in constituencies with large Malay population tend to be much lower than the national average.

    The PAP has seen how the Malays have continuously rejected them. In fact, from the 1960s onwards where they almost lost several constituencies( if not for internal problems in SMNO) until the 90s where they almost lost Eunos GRC (currently Aljunied), they know the Malays do not support them.

    As Chih argued, “Malay disenchantment with the ruling party has been well-publicized, and the PAP has certainly blamed its narrow wins in certain constituencies in recent elections on the Malay vote…

    The call for dispersal has certainly been interpreted as an attempt to undercut the perceived growth and consolidation of Malay anti-PAP votes in existing Malay ‘enclaves’, and to prevent the emergence of new centres of Malay resistance.”

    Kuan Yew’s Press Secretary, James Fu admitted “in a letter to the Straits Times Forum page…: `Today with resettlement, every constituency is racially integrated. PKMS can no longer win anywhere in Singapore’ (The Straits Times, 4 March 1988).

    The policy was ultimately designed to disperse the Malays so that they will never have the numbers to be politically significant.

    Because as Chih noted, “The PAP quickly realized that as long as Malay strongholds persist, their electoral victory in such seats can never be assumed.”

    Sin, C. H. (2003). The politics of ethnic integration in Singapore: Malay ‘regrouping’as an ideological construct. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27(3), 527-544.

     

    Source: Almakhazin SG