Rilek1Corner

Tag: Zulfikar Shariff

  • 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

  • Zulfikar Shariff: PAP Perpetuating Racism In Singapore

    Zulfikar Shariff: PAP Perpetuating Racism In Singapore

    Inevitably, the discussion about PAP’s racist policies bring in those who defend these policies.

    But what I noticed is that the divide is not between the different races.

    These policies that discriminated against the Malays were not implemented by Chinese or Indians or Eurasians or any other race or nationality in Singapura.

    It was created and implemented by the PAP.

    Those who came to defend and seek to perpetuate this racism….appears to be mainly if not solely..

    PAP members or supporters.

    The Malays, Indians, Chinese, Jews, Armenians etc do not really have much of an issue with each other.

    The racists who defend these policies do so because it implicates their party.

    We can see how the different nations in Singapura, when left to their own, will support each other.

    As can be seen during the Tradegy Natra (Maria Hertogh) in 1950, Chinese in Singapura, supported the Malays.

    And they persuaded the British to help the Malay community.

    According to Assoc Prof Khairudin:

    “The largest Chinese daily newspaper, the Nanyang Siang Pao, urged the British to ‘think thrice’ before making a legal decision in the upcoming appeal trial. The move to restore Maria Hertogh to her foster mother and husband would be of no great loss to Britain’s diplomatic ally; the Dutch.

    On the other hand, the Malays were an important and integral part of the British Empire. The British should therefore ensure the repatriation of Maria Hertogh back to Singapore to avoid the violation of the religious rights of the Muslims, which could potentially lead to further bloodshed and violence.

    The Kuomintang newspaper, Sin Chew Jit Poh, called upon the British, the Dutch and the Muslims to allow Maria Hertogh to decide for herself whether she wished to reside in the Netherlands or Malaya.

    The paper stressed that Dutch diplomatic relations with other Muslim countries, such as Indonesia and Pakistan, would most certainly be jeopardized if custody of Maria Hertogh were to be awarded to her natural parents.

    Another observer who identified himself as a ‘Straits Chinese’ expressed his regrets that the ‘very good name of the Singapore Malays and Muslims, who are regarded as a most law-abiding community in the colony has been besmirched (Straits Times, 17 December 1950).”

    If any such events are ever to happen again, I have no doubt the ordinary Chinese, Indian, Eurasian etc in Singapura will once again defend the Malays.

    And I have no doubt…the PAP Internet Brigade will lead the charge against the Malays.

    Reference:

    Aljunied, Khairudin. Heng, “Beyond the Rhetoric of Communalism:
    Violence and the Process of Reconciliation in 1950s Singapore” Derek Thiam Soon, and Syed Muhd Khairudin Aljunied, eds. Reframing Singapore: Memory, Identity, Trans-regionalism. Vol. 6. Amsterdam University Press, 2009. p. 73

     

    Source: Zulfikar Shariff

  • Zulfikar Shariff: Don’t Dilute Role Of Malays In Building Singapore

    Zulfikar Shariff: Don’t Dilute Role Of Malays In Building Singapore

    Growing up, I read and heard about Lim Boh Seng, Tan Kah Kee, Tan Tock Seng, Elizabeth Choy.

    And I wondered, apart from Lt Adnan and a few other rarely mentioned names, where are the Melayu, Indian, Eurasian personalities?

    Surely Singapura was not built solely on the back of Chinese migrants.

    It was later that I realised how Singapura’s history is Sinicised.

    And why we need to make sure we magnify the history of the other communities. Insha Allah in this post, I will briefly discuss a little bit of the colonial history of the Indians in Singapura.

    There were more than 100 Indians who arrived with Raffles in 1819, including Sepoys, clerks and the famous trader Naraina Pillai.

    Naraina Pillai was a trader and philanthropist who gave out substantial amounts of his wealth to build temples and other social causes.

    By 1873, there were about 12,000 Indians resident in Singapura. They were mainly labourers, financiers, traders, administrative workers and shopkeepers.

    But the British also brought a substantial number of Indian convicts. When the British left Bencoolen in 1825, they brought 600 Indian convicts with them. By 1860, there were 2,275 convicts residing in Singapura.

    However, British residents were not happy with the arrangement and by 1873, the remaining convicts were sent to the Andamans islands.

    Skilled Indian convict labourers contributed substantially to the city’s development.

    As Governor of the Straits Settlements, Colonel Blundell noted

    “The whole of the existing roads throughout the Islands… every bridge in both town and country, all the existing canals, sea wall, jetties, piers, etc., have been constructed by convict labour. But not only is the community indebted for these essential works to the mere manual labour of convicts, but by the introduction among them of a system of skilled labour, Singapore is indebted for works which could not otherwise have been sanctioned from the State funds.”

    The next time we walk pass St Andrew’s cathedral or the Istana….take note…

    They were built by Indian convict labourers.

    Reference:
    Sandhu, Kernial Singh. “Some Aspects of Indian Settlement in Singapore, 1819–1969.” Journal of Southeast Asian History 10.02 (1969): 193-201.

    Picture: Construction of the Government House (Istana)

     

    Source: Zulfikar Shariff

  • Zulfikar Shariff: What Is A Melayu?

    Zulfikar Shariff: What Is A Melayu?

    What is a Melayu? A common mistake is to view Malayness by ancestry.

    I have discussed this issue several times. A Melayu is not based on genetics. It is a nation.

    This nation is defined by language, culture and Islam.

    In his book “Kerajaan”, Anthony Milner provided some characteristics of the Melayu. He argued that unlike some other nations, the Malays never belonged to a single empire.

    The Malays did not “consider themselves members of a race which owed its origins to a single ancestor or homeland.” But as Raffles noted, the Melayu nation is “one people, speaking one language, though spread over so wide a space, and preserving their character and customs.”

    For Milner, even though the Malays did not belong to one race or empire, there is unity to the nation “that permits us to talk of a ‘Malay world’”.

    Zainal Abidin Ahmad (also known as Za’ba), in 1917, stated that, any person “may be considered to be of the one Malay bloodline in the Malay World as long as they originate from the Indo-Malay archipelago, profess Islam as their religion, and adopt the Malay language, worldview, temperament, and customs” (Chong).

    Milner provided similar assessments. He provided 3 conditions for Malayness: Malay culture, language and Islam.

    Insha Allah in the next post, I will elaborate on the three conditions that Milner wrote about.

    But we can here understand the concept of “masuk Melayu”.

    The Malays is a welcoming and hospitable nation. They welcome others into their society. The Chinese traders, Indian merchants, Arab businessmen. They are all accepted into our society and accorded respect and welcome as is known of the Malays.

    And if they are Muslims, speak the Malay language and follow our customs, they are accepted as a Malay.

    Very few, if any, society has such openness and acceptance.

    References:
    Chong, Jinn Winn. “” Mine, Yours or Ours?”: The Indonesia-Malaysia Disputes over Shared Cultural Heritage.” Sojourn: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia 27.1 (2012): 1-53.

    Milner, Anthony Crothers. Kerajaan: Malay political culture on the eve of colonial rule. No. 40. University of Arizona Press, 1982.

     

    Source: Zulfikar Shariff

  • Zulfikar Shariff: Singapore Malays Are “House Owners’, Not Minority

    Zulfikar Shariff: Singapore Malays Are “House Owners’, Not Minority

    About 15 years ago, I was invited by Allahyarham Ebrahim Marican for a meeting at his office in Golden Landmark.

    He was a brilliant man. Already 67 years old then, he was still active in various community causes. He was a leader of the Indian Muslim community in Singapore and was on MUIS council in the 80s.

    He was also a PAP cadre and shared with me quite a bit of information about the PAP.

    He invited me to speak with him after reading some of my posts in cyberummah. We would meet every few weeks to discuss various issues.

    In one of our conversations, we discussed the supposed minority status of the Malays in Singapore.

    He argued that Malays should not see themselves as a minority community.

    According to Allahyarham Ebrahim, “If I have a house and some people come to stay in my house, no matter how many of them there are, it is still my house.

    Even if there are only 4 people in my family and 30 other people come to stay, it is still my house. I cannot be classified as a minority. I am the house owner.”

    Malays are not a minority community in Singapore. They are the house owners.

    There is a majority community (Chinese), Indigenous community (Malays) and minority communities.

    We need to stop seeing Malays as minority. No matter how many come to stay, the Malays are still the house owners.

     

    Source: Zulfikar Shariff