Rilek1Corner

Tag: national identity

  • Oxford Study In Malaysia: For Malays, Being Malaysian Equals Being Malay

    Oxford Study In Malaysia: For Malays, Being Malaysian Equals Being Malay

    KUALA LUMPUR, May 5 — National identity and what it means to be Malaysian hold different meanings to Malays and non-Malays, according to a research paper sponsored by the CIMB Foundation.

    The study by Oxford University found that while respondents from the three major ethnic groups (Malay, Chinese, Indian) identified more strongly with their ethnic identities rather than a national one, Malay respondents believed that there was little difference between “being Malaysian” and being Malay.

    It added that integration efforts by the government, such the 1Malaysia concept, may not be successful in its intention as different ethnic communities had varying ideas as to what being Malaysian was.

    “Speaking in terms of being Malaysian to a Malay audience may not promote integration, and could potentially hinder it. More research is necessary to replicate and further investigate the relationships between these variables,” it added.

    By associating the Malaysian identity with being “Malay”, the researchers said that this could in the long run create “negative consequences”, as non-Malays may then view their contributions to the national identity as being disregarded.

    The study added that by assuming the Malaysian identity as being Malay, there was also a risk of it being perceived as an exercise in assimilation rather than integration.

     

    In its recommendation, the study said that the government should rethink its 1Malaysia policy.

     

    Source: www.themalaymailonline.com

  • Inderjit Singh: Singapore’s National Identity Issues Need To Be Addressed

    Inderjit Singh: Singapore’s National Identity Issues Need To Be Addressed

    Former Member of Parliament Inderjit Singh does not mince his words when talking about several issues the government needs to look into in order to show that it is in touch with the people on the ground.

    In an interview with Inconvenient Questions (IQ), he shared his thoughts on what on what makes a Parliament that has better checks and balances, and how the government can avoid falling into the elitism trap.

    He also said that his wish for Singapore society was a stronger national identity. In relation to that, Singh, who has previously pointed out the issues around integration in the Indian community, noted that integration remains an important issue that needs to be addressed in Singapore.

    “Today, we have a situation where integration is not happening as well as we want to. People don’t identify together as Singaporean as much as we want to,” he told IQ.

    He stressed that it is crucial that Singapore focuses on developing a national identity. “In times of difficulty, this commonness is what will help us pull through a difficult period.”

    Watch the full interview below:

     

    Source: https://sg.news.yahoo.com

  • Chan Heng Chee Is Wrong – CMIO Categorisation Is Only PAP’s Tool To Subjugate And Discriminate Against The Minorities

    Chan Heng Chee Is Wrong – CMIO Categorisation Is Only PAP’s Tool To Subjugate And Discriminate Against The Minorities

    Rilek1Corner,

    As a Malay, I am insulted by the comments of the Ambassador-at-large Prof. Chan Heng Chee in http://rilek1corner.com/2015/10/05/singapore-ambassador-at-large-scrapping-cmio…. She want to defend the outdated CMIO categorisation that is her problem but what right does she have to say that scrapping it would cause so-called “unease” among minorities. She is Chinese. Not minority. Why she speaking like she macam faham?

    Worse still, she say “The majority community doesn’t feel uncomfortable. It’s (with) the minority community (where) you have to keep emphasising it’s equal language, religion, culture (and) race”. She is trying to say what? Minority races are petty? Minority races always comparing themselves with the majority? That minority races always imagining inequalities and discrimination? Then the majority race very good not racist at all?

    I want to say she is very wrong. She is from majority and she is elite. She doesn’t represent us. She ambassador she got talk to people on the ground in Singapore? Who make her expert on minority issue? She ambassador so what? Don’t mean everything she say is correct.

    I tell you, don’t be blinded by what she say. This is only wayang for them. Like she say, the CMIO categorisation is a “signal” to the minority that “every race has the same standing” and that “their place in society has not been threatened”.

    A signal. She knows reality is not like that. A signal because the categories are the PAP’s idea of what makes up the different communities, not what the communities really are. The categorisation is a construct that makes people fall within neat categories, that, most of the time, don’t fit them well. What is a Malay? Who is Malay? The rich cultural heritage of people that come together from different parts of the nusantara are lost because of this categorisation. Bawean, Bugis, Java, Johor, Aceh – so convenient all become Malay.

    This easy categorisation benefits the PAP government, not us the people. Who knows in the future Filipinos also come under the categorisation because they can easily say that Filipinos and Malays share almost the same language and physical appearance. Even now Singaporean Chinese also cannot tell the difference until they hear the accent when we talk.

    It is not ony a problem culturally. There are many legal effect on people too.

    Just because you are categorised as Malay, you have lower chance of owning a HDB flat in a neighbourhood you desire. HDB ethnic quota also a problem when you want to sell your house. You go serve NS and chances are that you will be posted to Civil Defence instead of Commando. Why in Civil Defence no ethnic quota? Why the PAP government can be fine with the over-representation of Malays in CD?

    Maybe you have not realise before but you should know now that the CMIO categorisation is a very convenient tool to discriminate against our community. To keep us economically backward, so that the majority elites can prosper.

    The ambassador talk so much about the supra-ethnic identity but if the PAP government is really serious about forging a national identity after SG50, they should do away with the race categorisation.  We will not lose our ethnic identities. Actually the opposite effect is we will explore our ethnic identities and be more in touch with it. There will be a more equal playing field. Our race will not be a factor when we decide to buy a house or when called up to serve NS. Only then will a true Singaporean identity emerge.

    Danial

    Reader Contribution

  • Walid J. Abdullah: The Contextual Proud Singaporean

    Walid J. Abdullah: The Contextual Proud Singaporean

    *this post is partially inspired by people linking an act of human kindness which should be celebrated when Singaporeans lifted a lorry to save a man trapped underneath, to the sg50 spirit, whatever that means (so if the incident happened next year, Singaporeans would not lift the lorry????)*

    Whenever someone asks whether I am proud to be Singaporean, my response would be ‘what do you mean by that?’ More often than not, they would be stumped, as if it was inconceivable that someone did not know what being ‘Singaporean’ means. Then they would ask ‘I mean, would you die for this country?’ And again i would go, what do you mean by that?

    If you mean dying for this country in a war where we were unjustly invaded, i hope and i pray that I would have the temerity to participate. If you mean dying in a war that is fought at the whims and fancies of politicians to serve their own political agendas, then i do not wish to participate and die such a meaningless death.

    Being ‘proud to be Singaporean’, really has no innate meaning. For me, there are many things that Singapore and Singaporeans have done that i am proud of, and there are many others that i am not proud of.

    I am proud that we are extremely efficient in most cases. I am proud of the cleanliness levels in our streets. I am proud that we have not experienced racial and religious riots since independence. I am proud of our universities’ performance in any global ranking. I am proud of the fact that I am able to practise my faith relatively freely.

    I am not proud that over the past decade, there has not been any discernible improvement in our transportation system. I am not proud of the fact that many Singaporeans feel superior to other human beings – especially our Southeast Asian neighbours – because of our supposed material achievements. I am not proud that racial and religious discrimination still exists on so many levels in everyday life. I am not proud that many Singaporeans do not bother to read beyond official narratives. I am not proud of contraints imposed on some personal liberties in the name of ‘public order’.

    If someone wants to proclaim ‘I am proud to be Singaporean, no matter what happens!’, that is really his/her choice that no one should take issue with. What i do take issue with is the attitude of some Singaporeans, who in their quest for national pride, think of people from
    other nations as less intelligent, as less civilized, and even worse, as lesser human beings.

    So am i proud to be Singaporean? It depends on what you mean….

     

    Source: Walid J. Abdullah

  • Jae Andrew Lim: Sexual Identity Matters In National Belonging

    Jae Andrew Lim: Sexual Identity Matters In National Belonging

    I thank the writer for a crucial insight noted in her letter “Continue to promote family, but recognise others” (May 18): That the eradication of laws must not be conflated with progress.

    Changes in law should, theoretically speaking at least, be in response to particular contextual contingencies and concerns of a nation rather than progress. Yet, it is precisely this contingent, changing notion of progress that the writer fails to consider.

    The assertion that a nation is progressive only if it protects the natural heterosexual family is built on the assumption that this family form is universally valid.

    Arguably, the valuation of the heterosexual nuclear family was set in Singapore’s post-colonial days, when the nation required industry, economic growth and a constant workforce to progress to the First World.

    This developmental and economy-centric notion of progress has shifted in recent times to accommodate more subjective concerns such as happiness, belonging and identity.

    As we continue to extol the natural family, it is perhaps unfortunate that the current situation does not reflect the writer’s injunction that we “recognise the existence of other family structures”.

    Section 377A, too, represents another facet of non-recognition of homosexuals.

    These two concepts matter not only in self-identity and personhood but speak also to feelings of national belonging.

    Sociology professors Jeffrey Weeks and Diane Richardson have encapsulated this millenial phenomenon in the concept of sexual citizenship, where sexual subjectivities are coming to matter in national belonging.

    To move us forward, I echo the writer’s call that Singapore’s future depends on the promotion of wholesome family values — values regardless of sexuality that uphold love, compassion and children’s wholesome growth both in and outside the family.

    Arriving at this stage requires inclusive dialogue governed by logic, empathy and a desire to negotiate assumptions of sexuality and family, and not purely in terms of progress, but also feelings of belonging, which are just as crucial.

     

    *Article written by Jae Andrew Lim was published in Voices, Today, on 23 May 2015

    Source: www.todayonline.com

deneme bonusu