Tag: Racism

  • Stamford Raffles And John Crawfurd Believed That Malays Were Inferior To The British

    Stamford Raffles And John Crawfurd Believed That Malays Were Inferior To The British

    For the Malays who love their colonialists..

    What did Raffles and John Crawfurd (the Second Resident of Singapura) think of the Malays?

    Raffles:
    “He held that Malays were a rude, uncivilised and degraded race, much in decline from a high point of civilisation that they had once attained.

    No development in thought and science was thus expected of them except for the most rudimentary aspects of knowledge. He found them to be generally indolent.

    Although he later acknowledged them as being advanced in civilisation, albeit at varying degrees, and of varied characteristics, he maintained the view that Malays were no match to the British at that time,but were to be compared only with “some of the borderers in North Britain, not many centuries ago.”

    John Crawfurd:

    The second Resident of Singapura was a little kinder. He referred to the Malays as imbeciles, ignorant and not deserving of notice.

    “Crawfurd thus contended that ‘the traditions of the Malays themselves are altogether undeserving of notice’, given that, on their level of civilisation:

    Their imbecility of reason and their ignorance as to matters of fact are equally beyond the comprehension of any one accustomed only to European society.

    And we still look up to the colonialists?

    References:
    Aljunied, Syed Muhd Khairudin, Syed Muhd Khairudin Aljunied, and Barbara Watson Andaya. Rethinking Raffles: A Study of Stamford Raffles’ Discourse on Religions Amongst Malays. Marshall Cavendish International, 2005.

    Crawfurd, J. 1814. History and languages of the Indian islands. Edinburgh Review 23(45): 151–89.
    quoted in:

    Müller, Martin. Manufacturing Malayness: British debates on the Malay nation, civilisation, race and language in the early nineteenth century. Indonesia and the Malay World, 2014, Vol.42(123), p.170-196

     

    Source: Almakhazin SG

  • Sangeetha Thanapal: Understand Georgraphy And History – Malays Always Indigenous To Singapore

    Sangeetha Thanapal: Understand Georgraphy And History – Malays Always Indigenous To Singapore

    In my work on racism and racial dynamics in Singapore, I have spent some time resolutely attacking what I believe to be harmful stereotypes of Malay people, and pointing out the myriad ways they are discriminated against in their own land. Racist Chinese people generally dislike it when I do this, and they often reply by stating that if Malay people do not like it here, they can move, (or go back to), Malaysia. Many Chinese Singaporeans tend to behave as if they have right and ownership over this land, and subsequently that they are entitled to decide who gets to live in it.

    This is all very odd to me, because it is almost as if these people never went through a single history class at Lower Secondary level.

    So let us begin with a simple but vital assertion: This land does belong to Malay people. Malay people have been living in Singapore and the area for thousands of years. In the third century, Chinese records refer to us at Pu Luo Chung, which is a transliteration from the Malay Pulau Ujong, meaning ‘island at the end’. The names given to this area are Malay, but apparently the people who speak this language are not considered indigenous to it? Who exactly are your indigenous people, if that term doesn’t include Malay people?

    There is a reason why it is Malay lore and myth in which references to the land happens. It is because they have been here long enough to produce literature about it. When you focus on the gap between our knowledge of the land and theirs, especially traditional knowledge, you start to see their relationship to the land. There is no way they are not indigenous to this land.

    Land, language, memory & history. These are all linked, and the rest of have do not possess this connection to the land. Somebody was living here before the British came, and it sure was not Chinese people.

    Denying this is ahistorical, and it constitutes an erasure of people’s histories. Denying their existence and that history is a colonial act in itself, and every colonial act is violent. It is not only an act of erasure but one of displacement as well.

    Singapore was not terra nullius, meaning it was not ‘nobody’s land’. Singapore belonged to the Johor Riau Sultanate, which means by definition it is Malay land.

    Indigeneity is not always defined by geography, but by people as well. What we think of as Malay includes indigenous people, Bugis, Minangkabau, etc. The idea of Malay does not just mean people from Malaya, but the people of the Nusantara. This entire archipelago is the Malay world. As Singapore existed within this world, it is undoubtedly Malay land.

    The Singapore government’s mistreatment of Malay people includes a focus on Malay people as diasporic, which states that Malay people came here from elsewhere, and this is an act of historical erasure. They didn’t come here, they were already here. The Singapore you think of now was never a country before, it was part of Malay land and the Malay world.

    If you cannot accept or understand this, that means you cannot understand geography and history. Why do people have so much difficulty accepting facts? Non-Malay minorities are also here on stolen land, and we need to accept and understand this. Even the rest of us, including Indians, don’t have a claim on this land. We can never truly find solidarity if we insist on acting as if Indian people and Malay people have the same claim to Singapore.

    This does not erase our contributions or our generations that have grown up here, or our own attachment to the land. But it simply not equivalent to Malay people’s claim over it. No one is asking for reparations and no one is asking you to leave their land. So why do so many people find it difficult to accept facts and the truth?

    In Singapore, Malay people are targeted for legal and cultural extinction. The percentage of Malay people in Singapore is decreasing, despite the maintenance of total fertility rate for the community. Population policies seek to bring in Indian and PRC migrants, but not Malay. They are slowly being phased out as immigration policies are making Malay people extinct in their own land. This is Malay land, and they have become second class citizens on their own land. That is simply unacceptable.

    So, who gains from the denial of Malay indigineity to Singapore? Who gains from erasure of this past? What do they gain? At what point can we admit that this “debate” over how long Malay people have been here and where their ancestors came from is just a rhetorical exercise aimed specifically to cast aspersions on indigenous birthright?

    I have my theories but I’m going to leave this here for people to think about.

    In our anti-racism work in Singapore, aboriginality must be foundational. As minorities, we need to examine our own complicity in the ongoing project of colonisation, whether it be White or Chinese in nature. During the time I have been engaged in doing this work, I have come to believe that anti-racism for the Malay community has to begin with assertions of indigeneity and ownership of land. Regardless of where you are and where you come from, you have a responsibility to know the names of the territories you are on and the people who have called those places home.

    Update: My dear friend @POZboySG pointed out what he felt was the lack of attention to Orang Asli people in this piece. He is completely correct. I did not address it because I felt I knew very little about it and that means I am not the right person to do so. I cannot speak about Orang Asli forced assimilation into mainstream Malaysian culture as I am simply not qualified. I did talk about indigenous people AND Malay people as being indigenous to the land, because that is how I see it. For the purposes of talking specifically about Singapore, I feel speaking of Malay people as indigenous to the land is the best political way to approach it, especially when faced with Chinese hegemonic claims. This is of course my opinion, and up for debate.

    Source: https://medium.com

  • Forcing Racial Rotation For Presidency Is Racist And Anti-Meritocracy

    Forcing Racial Rotation For Presidency Is Racist And Anti-Meritocracy

    I welcome the proposal by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong to tighten the criteria for the Elected Presidency (“Key changes to refresh political system”; Jan 28).

    But I believe it is superfluous to force a rotation among the races for the Elected Presidency. Such a policy also assumes inherent racism, as it presupposes that the Chinese majority in Singapore would not elect a minority candidate to the Elected Presidency even if he or she were the best candidate in an election. It assumes that minorities in Singapore are so incapable that they require such affirmative action in order to be elected. It is saddening that after more than 50 years of nation-building, such attitudes could persist in our society.

    Such a system will also shut out highly qualified persons simply because they are of the wrong race. Enforcing minority representation for the Elected Presidency flies in the face of Singapore’s policy of meritocracy, as it will no longer be about choosing from among the best and most qualified candidates because of the rigidity of such a system.

    Moreover, the pool of qualified persons from minority races is naturally smaller, due to their smaller numbers. This may increase the likelihood of walkovers and reduce the strength of the Elected President’s mandate, in an era when Singaporeans are used to exercising their right to vote in elections. The competitiveness of the election is reduced.

    On Thursday, Member of Parliament Rahayu Mahzam, who is Malay, said in Parliament that “we would like to see representation from our community, but we want Malays to be chosen because he or she is the best, and not because of his or her race”. As we move beyond our first five decades of nation-building, we should refrain from enacting policies based on the crutch mentality that minorities will always need a helping hand because of their race.

     

    This view by Dennis Chai Hoi Yim, was published in Voices, Today, on 30 Jan 2015.

    Source: www.todayonline.com

  • Zulfikar Shariff: Malays’ Non-Confrontational Attribute Prevents Them From Raising Discrimination Issues More Frequently

    Zulfikar Shariff: Malays’ Non-Confrontational Attribute Prevents Them From Raising Discrimination Issues More Frequently

    When we raise issues of discrimination in Singapura, one common response from non-Malays (usually Chinese) is that…

    “It cannot be true. Why have I not heard of this before? I know some Malays and they did not tell me this.”

    There are several obvious reasons.

    1. You may know them but you do not really get to know them. They do not share with you.

    2. You are actually not interested to know. You just want to defend the system.

    3. You do not understand the culture and interaction style of the Malays.

    The Malay culture seeks to avoid conflict. They do not like confrontation.

    If saying something may make someone else uncomfortable they will rather keep quiet.

    Some accuse Malays of “Tidak apa” attitude. This attitude is actually born out of their desire for peaceful relations.

    Two of the main characteristics of Malay interaction are musyawarah and muafakat, usually translated as consultation and consensus building respectively.(Haacke, 2003, p. 4).

    However, while these words are translated into English, what they mean have not been fully understood.

    They mean much more than their translations.

    They miss the subtleties of musyawarah and muafakat as social and political traditions.

    Muafakat, which is a desired outcome of musyawarah, exists in the Malay social interaction as part of budi(Chong, 2012, p. 34). Budi in turn, is a key concept of Malay culture, and forms “part of the ethnic “self-image” of the Malay “bangsa, nation, race’”(Goddard, 2000, p. 87).

    Wan Norhasniah Wan Husin(cited in Chong, 2012, pp. 10-11) identify budi as a social norm that encompasses the Malay world from the Peninsula to Sulawesi, Borneo and the Malay groups in the Philippines.

    It refers to the Malay mode of social interaction that emphasizes harmony, good treatment of others, kindness and peaceful relations(Chong, 2012, p. 10; Goddard, 2000, p. 87).

    According to Dahlan, ‘‘budi is composed of virtuous qualities such as hemah tinggi (generosity), hormat (respect), ikhlas (sincerity), mulia (righteous), timbang rasa (considerate), jaga hati (caring), budi bicara (discretion)…’’

    He further notes that ‘‘the budi thinking man is never direct and forthright in his ways: his ways are subtle…to be blunt, direct and forthright especially if the end result is negative…is considered rude and out of tune in the Malay polite system…

    Hence a budi thinking man is by nature polite and conflict-avoiding’’(cited in Paramasivam, 2007, p. 95) .

    Muafakat can then be understood as the outcome of a social tradition that forms the Malay self-image which emphasizes virtue, subtlety, discretion, harmony and peaceful relations. It is not simply consensus building. Decision making has to lead to contentment and peaceful acceptance of every party involved.

    Muafakat, musyawarah and budi are part of the Malay identity. It is so strongly held that it is one of the most defining attributes.

    And the Malays expect a similar response. They expect those they interact with to similarly show these characteristics they hold as important.

    And when they stop showing these characteristics, it is a sign that for them, the relationship may be over.

    And do not expect anymore muafakat or budi from them.

    References:

    Acharya, A. (2003). Democratisation and the prospects for participatory regionalism in Southeast Asia. Third World Quarterly, 24(2), 375-390.

    Chong, J. W. (2012). ” Mine, Yours or Ours?”: The Indonesia-Malaysia Disputes over Shared Cultural Heritage. Sojourn: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia, 27(1), 1-53.

    Goddard, C. (2000). ” Cultural Scripts” and Communicative Style in Malay (” Bahasa Melayu”). Anthropological linguistics, 81-106.

    Haacke, J. (2003). ASEAN’s diplomatic and security culture : origins, development and prospects. Richmond: Routledge.

    Paramasivam, S. (2007). Managing disagreement while managing not to disagree: Polite disagreement in negotiation discourse. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 36(2), 91-116.

     

    Source: Zulfikar Shariff

  • Young Chinese Boy Makes Racist Remarks, Refuse To Sit Beside Malay Man In Theatre, Parents Never Do Anthing Because He’s Just A Child

    Young Chinese Boy Makes Racist Remarks, Refuse To Sit Beside Malay Man In Theatre, Parents Never Do Anthing Because He’s Just A Child

    Dear Chinese man, and his family,

    I am that guy that was in the cinema theater before you. I wanted to watch Star Wars: The Force Awakens, but hated crowds, so I decided to watch later.
    I am that guy who your son (who could not have been more than 10) didn’t want to sit beside, because he said: “I don’t want to sit beside Malay people”.
    I am that guy who was shaking in so much anger that he could not enjoy the first ten minutes of the movie because there was a part of him that just wanted to go over and pour his drink over the boy.

    You don’t get to tell me that “He’s just a kid”.
    A kid should be thinking of the action figures he should get after the movie, and not caring who sits beside him.

    You don’t get to tell me to “Let it go”.
    You have never experienced racism in Singapore, at least not as much as the minorities do.
    Like I told to your face, if you sat down somewhere and someone says “I don’t want to sit beside Chinese people”, how would you feel?

    I also said that he’s lucky he’s still young, because I would punch his face in if he was older.

    Also, my wife is Chinese. The majority of my friends are Chinese.
    If any of them were there with me, they would have probably told you off worse than I ever could.

    As a parent, you should teach your child to respect others.
    You bring them to watch Star Wars: The Force Awakens, where the lead actor is not a White Caucasian male, but rather, a British man, born to Nigerian parents.

    Star Wars, where the story is about beings of different races getting together to defeat an evil dictatorship.

    And yet I was treated like a pariah, by a child. Speaks volumes about your character.

    I chose to sit somewhere else not to pander to his (and by extension, your) racism, I chose to sit somewhere else because I am the better man.

    I am that man who will come to your aid if sometime in the future you get beaten up black and blue because you decided to be racist, and the victims have less self control than me.

    I will be that person who will call the Police, and the Paramedics (of which many are Malay, and Indian) to help you.
    I will be that person who will stay by your side until help arrives.

    I will do so because I was taught to not judge a person by how he looks, how he smells, or how he talks.

    I was also taught to be the better man, in the hopes that one day, we can all be colour blind, and not judge each other based on race.

    Dear Chinese man, and his family,

    I am human first, Malay second. Maybe you should teach your family that too.

    God Bless,
    That Malay Guy.

    Edit # 1: So some people (2, actually) have pointed out to me that “pariah” is actually an offensive word. I have no intention of being offensive, and the word “pariah” is actually from the English language, meaning outcast. That is where the context of the word is. Go do a Google search for the word.

    Edit # 2: Some other people have said that I cannot be the “better man” if I said I would’ve punched his face. I’ll admit that the thought did cross my mind, then I thought to myself, he’s a kid, and I don’t want to ruin the movie experience for everyone else. Let life be the kids teacher. (I’m not a violent person heh)

     

    Source: Sani B Sarip