I had a good evening with my younger brother and his girlfriend talking about issues. He’s now studying the kind of stuff I did when I was in college, so our conversations and discussions have gone to another level. He posed an interesting question: has there been any nation state which, to promote nationalism, played down the racial differences of its country? The question was a leading question for several reasons: nationalism wasn’t active as an ideology before the French Revolution, and it really only picked up speed in post-Industrial, 20th century Europe. Race and ethnicity, also, are relatively new sociological concepts which only gained purchased in the early 1900s.
He obviously meant Singapore, and examples akin to Singapore. I didn’t answer the question but asked him why he asked it anyway. He’d studied post-independence India and the formation of Pakistan and Bangladesh, so I wondered if religious diversity was a factor in his question. He surprised me by telling me a story of how a memorial to a Malay regiment in Singapore was being re-focused as a memorial to fallen soldiers in Singapore during WWII without reference to the ethnicity of that military regiment.
Being a person born in Malaysia and studying in Singapore, I thought the answer was should have been obvious to him. Living on the causeway, as people used to call us, should give some valuable insights on how different things are run between two countries.
“Obviously the Malay population in Singapore are not happy,” he said.
“Do they have reasons for such unhappiness? I think they do, of course. What do you think?” I said.
“Hence my question: for the greater good, it is important to identify successes and achievements with the efforts of the collective,” he said, “but to do so takes away some bit of history and heritage from Malays who fought and died in the defense of the country.”
“Which is more important, therefore: the collective good of the nation or the attribution of such a success to a particular race? That’s a rhetorical question isn’t it, and the logical consequence of saying ‘yes’ to the former means saying ‘yes’ to any endeavour predicated on the collective good,” I said.
“And just who determines what is the greater good?”
“Lee Kuan Yew, of course,” I said, laughing. We laughed for a bit.
“Let’s be clear, let’s start from the beginning,” he said.
“Yes, let’s first start with the way Malaysia and Singapore deal with racial diversity,” I said, smiling.
“Why?” he asked. I was a bit disappointed.
“Why not? You live in Malaysia and you study in Singapore. You don’t see the differences?”
“Of course I do,” he said.
“Then what is the character of nationalism in Malaysia? It is defined by the aspirations of one particular ethnic group, caught up in the fervour of a post-colonial Malaysia. Education is in the language of one particular ethnic group, the constitution is centered around one particular ethnic group, etc. A look at national schools in Malaysia is one good example. Why do other ethnic groups insist on having vernacular schools? Is it for fear of losing their cultural heritage? Obviously, right? Why can’t this culture and heritage be integrated in the way national schools are run, like they are in Singapore?”
“And what is the character of Singapore’s nationalism?” he asked.
“What do you think? You did a bit of history, right?”
“Singapore’s brand nationalism is purposely race-neutral. That’s the difference, isn’t it?” he said.
“I think so. Is there any particular emphasis on one race or another in textbooks there?” I asked. I couldn’t quite recall.
“No,” he said.
“But isn’t the reality different? Is Singapore a very Chinese country? I could get in trouble for saying so, but what do you think the perception is?” I asked.
“That Singapore is very Chinese, and that the Malay population are underdogs. At least, that’s what I think the Malays feel in Singapore. And therefore to white wash the history of a war memorial is to add salt to the wound: it’s like taking something away from people who already see themselves as having very little. Isn’t that bad?” he said.
“What’s the alternative? Isn’t the alternative the Malaysian alternative?” I said, leaning closer to him.
“That’s not an alternative. Racial differences are distinct in Malaysia, officially. There are supposed to be none in Singapore, that’s the difference. Officially, the government of Singapore is race-neutral, and most probably also in practice, except where reality intrudes, like in areas of defense,” he said.
“Yah, who knows? Maybe that’s still a problem because the defense of Singapore is still run by old coots who suffered through WWII and the Konfrontasi,” I said.
“Then we have a situation where racial differences are open for everyone to see, and a situation in Singapore which blankets everything racial under wraps,” he said.
“I definitely think so. So how? Which is better?” I said. I didn’t know the answer to that question, so I was hoping he’d give me some idea.
“All races sacrifice their identities for a common goal? That’s just to ignore clear and distinct differences between ethnic groups. That’s not a solution. That’s like purposely turning a blind eye to differences,” he said, frowning.
“Well, it’s been 50 years almost. If you can find better solutions than the two we currently have, I’d like to hear it,” I said, laughing.
Comments (19)
Strange. I just wrote about the Chinese-ness of Singapore too:
http://textfiend.net/zerohero/index.php/2007/02/04/its-spring-time/
Quite a number of beautiful photos you’ve taken :)
So what do you think? Is there a concerted effort to be specifically race-neutral in government policies in promoting nationalism in Singapore?
[off topic]= watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCkYfYa8ePI
me: heh heh.. now *that’s* bloody hilarious! you should watch part two of that clip!
met and spoke to a former schoolmate of mine, chinese malaysian who studied in singapore (obviously) and who is now married to a singaporean indian, and living in germany, and went to china to visit her relatives there. haha complicated? she was talking about how she felt like second class citizens in china. to say that singapore is very chinese is also not very correct, because singapore chinese is not recognised as chinese by the mainland chinese. we are all immigrants, whether we are malays chinese or indians in singapore. theres no bumiputera status like the malays enjoy in msia. system of meritocracy prevails in most ministries, except the sensitive ones, you know which. in china, you kill 10 people to build a road, in india, you quarrel with 10 people before you decide to build a road. in malaysia, you don’t build a road until the river dries up and the sampan breaks. so, i dont know whether an indian, chinese, malay government is better. i dont know what im talking about, so pointless. byebye.
Not really which government is better lah, but I was wondering just how effective our solutions have been in trying put forward a national character when dealing with so many disparate races in our country.
I think Singapore is more race conscious than race neutral. the govt is definitely not colour blind - it is very conscious (and also makes sure that the constituents) are aware of the fact that it’s not a homogeneous society.
its only natural that human beings form their in-groups and out-groups in a competitive world. and ethnicity is usually the lowest common denominator.
:B is right, we are all immigrants (chinese i mean). On one hand, we don’t wish to be born in China. On the other hand, we don’t really have a place where we can truly call home…. I mean truly call home. Of cos, some are saying HK is the place to be a Chinese, but then again, HK is just too over populated and the economy is going to face a big struggle.
As for us Malaysian Chinese (see… we can never call us malaysian without adding chinese)… we can only hope for the best.
It seems many Malaysian are lost about identities, not just Chinese. Because of “globalisation”. Racial problem (identities) just small extension of the problem.
Think twice before endorsing of “Englishing way of Singapore”. You must learn why Lee Kwan Yew suddenly take a huge step to promote various culture identities on top of English.
This issues is well discuss in mandarin speaking world. It RARELY discuss in English because “globalisation” is mainly American/British, English speaking cultures. It is people that “stuck in the middle”, those who endorse the English cultures fully and lost their own identities. Please take note that this is not about promoting racial chauvinism; but know you own culture, find a focal value to take challenge of globalisation.
I just wrote it inside my blog : Globalisation is about knowing own culture
I don’t mean Chinese in particular, if what you mean is a question of identities. Yes, there’s a larger question of that common watch-word, ‘globablisation’, but the question is and will always be for the majority of the population in Malaysia how best to negotiate race relations. I’m sure there aren’t only two solutions to the problem, although history and circumstance has shown that two approaches have been adopted - one in Malaysia, one in Singapore.
I’m not prizing one method over the other; I’m saying both are flawed but I can’t think of any alternatives to the problem.
Also, while you say it is not a question of racial chauvinism, to suggest that those who endorse English as having lost their cultural roots implies a disapproval on your part.
Well, fair enough.
I’d like to suggest, though, that culture isn’t merely a matter of having recourse to the past. Culture is fluid and changes ALL the time, to say nothing of syncretism (intermixing of cultures). Your post also quotes Bertrand Russell, who proposes a dichotomy (either a culture gives way or maintains its stance) is a false dichotomy - the reality is far from the character of his either/or.
What is Chinese culture in Malaysia? For that matter, what is Malay or Indian culture in Malaysia? Do you believe it exists in a pure, idealized form? To demand that we “go back” to cultural roots surely implies that there is an idealized form of the culture, when the truth remains that Chinese, Indian and Malay culture as it exists in Malaysia has been diluted and intermixed amongst each other. You make that point in your blog post yourself, if only tangentially.
(You don’t have to go far to see this so very clearly. Look at the ads promoting tourism in Singapore AND Malaysia - both as countries that house a wide variety of cultures. Next, observe how each culture is presented.)
So what, in the end, does ‘going back to one’s roots’ entail? I think it means that one immerses himself/herself in the beliefs and world-view that, in whatever idealized form, is different than the character which, over the years, naturally obtains in Malaysia. It keeps you separate from our Malay and Indian brethren in Malaysia. It keeps you distinct. Just as it does keep the Chinese distinct from the Malays and Indians in Singapore.
Is this separation healthy? Those who say yes, I guess, support the institution of vernacular schools. Those who say ‘no’ are routinely silenced by the fact that national schools in Malaysia reflect, in the main, the culture and character of one particular ethnic group. If the fear is to “English-ify” ethnic groups, heck, let’s all learn Arabic and do away with vernacular schools - I don’t mind as long as it is via a medium which no particular ethnic group in Malaysia can claim special preference.
And just who determines what is the greater good?â€
“Lee Kuan Yew, of course,†I said, laughing. We laughed for a bit.
hahahahahahhahahahhahahahahaha
i agree la….national identity and chuck the divide-and-conquer policies of the Brits..
i’ve studied in spore. there may be limitations to their system at higher levels but it’s mostly meritocratic. if a malay student makes the grades etc, he will get the place in the prestigious school, uni, job, scholarship etc.
there lies the greatest diff.
no need to elaborate la…:D
freelunch2020 > “if a malay student makes the grades etc, he will get the place in the prestigious school, uni, job, scholarship etc.”. — kekeke, agree. no need to elaborate la. :D
!
Please tell me what is so GREAT about the achievement of unity” which require a process to distort human values, traditional virtues and destruction of identifies stand point?
Tell me that it is fine to mangle with a “national school” system that have a POOR focal on education, lesson to understand the environment we stay (tell me how often the school teach you about YOUR own surrounding?). So what kind of “unity” you expect to achieve under a such system?
It is no different than the Orang Asli affair ministry that use “modernisation” to destroy a “barbarian living” orang asli traditional live.
amateur couples sex videos long tapes
The people in such cases, said so - Avos will be alive, maybe pomrem.
ass pics
Emilylooked up, rubbingher thighs together as petite naked girls he says without questioning.
little girls nudist At work of a proper search, up to your thighs, so very hard you dont.
brutal dildo
lesbian bukkake