Sorry Minister Mentor, but you got it all wrong

Sorry Minister Mentor, but you got it all wrong


Paddy Bowie wrote in NST columns :

ONE often encounters foreigners who, on the strength of having been here six months or six years, think they know all there is to know about Malaysia.

Even after half a century I would not so presume, being constantly reminded that it is still possible to be taken totally by surprise. As happened recently.

The source was our nearest neighbour, who should have known better. I thought verbal histrionics were the prerogative of this side of the Causeway, especially of late. But Lee Kuan Yew’s latest broadside, extraordinary and preposterous as it was, took most of us by surprise. To say that I was floored is an understatement.

How could anyone say our Chinese are "marginalised" and "compliant"? Coming from such an outright authoritarian state, it was almost impertinent. They seem capable of the most staggering obedience.

The answer is not far to seek and goes directly to the Minister Mentor, He Who Must Be Obeyed (with apologies to John Mortimer). Lee is perceived to have inherited the Mantle of Heaven, which in the Confucian ethic inspires the utmost allegiance, for which read compliance. Newcomers on first acquaintance with that well-ordered, disciplined city state are apt to exclaim, "But it’s just the West with palm trees". This it is decidedly not. It is a Confucian Chinese society with its own special brand of kiasu, to boot.

Kiasu is what Lee seemed to be exercising in his unprovoked remarks. And as for being marginalised, Singapore’s minority race is arguably the most qualified for this.

But not the Malaysian Chinese. Has Lee not heard of Francis Yeoh (about to send in a bullet train to his island and other daring ventures)? You just can’t keep them down, our commercial warrior class.

After all, if they hadn’t ventured, their ancestors would not have left China in the first place. And successful they are now, the backbone of our economy.

Robert Kuok, Lim Goh Tong, Quek Leng Chan, Teh Hong Piow can testify. The roll call is endless of all those who have responded with the work ethic and the success ethic to the business opportunity Malaysia gave them, and now have overtaken most of the rest of us.

As for the Chinese being "compliant", we may be forgiven for thinking this was some kind of joke. I can hardly say I have noticed this in my own irrepressible colleagues and friends. Is Lee unaware of Lim Kit Siang? Latterly, we may cite Mathias Chang, hardly quiescent, or Tian Chua in Keadilan. The Opposition in Parliament is led by DAP and very vocal they are, too. One is reminded of the well-worn joke about a fishing contest either side of the Johor Strait. The Malaysian caught all the fish, the Singaporean none. The explanation — on this side the fish are allowed to open their mouths.

If being "marginalised" produces a Vincent Tan, I have probably not understood it. In any of those fashionable rankings of our richest citizens there is hardly a non-Chinese among them. We need to contrast this with Singapore where the most glaring phenomenon is what has happened to their local private sector.

Now the latter is dominated by MNCs (once 70 per cent of the corporate sector) now joined by GLCs. It would appear that it is their entrepreneurs who have been marginalised, to the point of extinction, except for a few hardy family businesses in construction and finance.

And the non-compliant also tend to disappear. Where are Francis Seow and J.B. Jeyaratnam? The late Devan Nair, the late James Puthucheary, the late Sandra Woodhull were disgraced for non-conformity — two went to jail, then were dispatched across the Causeway where they were allowed to be independent and became prominent members of the community.

The Chinese this side are taken care of in another way — their educational privileges. We kept the Mandarin schools, the only country in the region to do so. Singapore did not. Besides the linguistic advantage for our Chinese, it allows them to preserve their traditions and pride of race.

Nor can one even begin to consider that the Malaysian Chinese are politically marginalised. On our side they are recognised by a very Malaysian form of proportional representation in government that has yielded six Chinese ministers in Cabinet, 13 Chinese deputy ministers and five parliamentary secretaries. Singapore is lucky to have one Malay in the Cabinet.

Here there is a sizeable contingent of Chinese in Parliament on both the government and the Opposition benches. Altogether they are accorded a place in the political scheme of things commensurate with their share of the population and their interests are well catered for.

This is thanks to our unique political coalition formula. The Malays, despite having the strategic vote and a clear majority, choose to share power in an inclusive system, accommodating Chinese parties like the MCA or Gerakan, and their political brothers in Sabah and Sarawak. One state is controlled by them — Penang — with a Chinese chief minister.

But where Lee got it most seriously wrong relates to the comparative social and economic standing of the different communities. Our "marginalised" Chinese have exceeded the 40 per cent of the corporate wealth allocated to them by the NEP (the lion’s share, I may point out), while the Malays have yet to reach 20 per cent, let alone the targeted 30 per cent. There is an embarrassing income disparity — the average income of the Chinese being 1.64 times that of the Malays.

But back to Lee and what possessed him. Was it a fit of pique or was there a hidden agenda in bracketing us with Indonesia? The Chinese there are different.

They are disguised Chinese to begin with, having had to assimilate. Only three per cent of the population, they are irrepressible economically, with 70 per cent of the corporate wealth, a cause for resentment, and periodically they are set upon for it.

Is there a fear factor here? Does Singapore see itself as in a precarious position — this tiny Chinese enclave squeezed between two larger Malay neighbours?

It ought rather to align itself with Malaysia as an oasis of mature democracy, economic development and stability in a region currently in turmoil.

And in all this we claim for Malaysia a unique status as a role model. Its competitive edge is its diversity, a microcosm of the future globalised world.

Instead of marginalising any one race it aims for an interracial synthesis that respects the culture and integrity of each community and strives towards the ultimate of that diversity — a Bangsa Malaysia.

But what will the world believe? In a situation where true identity is based on reality and image on perception — perception drives. Lee carries the legend. This writer feels like David tilting at Goliath but dare not hope for the biblical outcome.


Another comment appeared the same day by Kalimullah Hassan :

On a subsequent night, at another buka puasa, someone asked why Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew had haughtily commented about the Chinese in Indonesia and Malaysia.

Lee, who ruled Singapore with an iron fist when he was Prime Minister of the island republic for more than two decades, has maintained his influence by remaining in the Cabinet first as senior minister and now, in the uniquely Singapore-created position of Minister Mentor.

Lee claimed that the Chinese in Malaysia are marginalised and compliant and that Malaysia and Indonesia wanted Singapore to "be like their Chinese — compliant".

We should not be surprised that Lee made that statement. It is not alien for him to get on the high moral ground and make derogatory comments on the affairs of other countries.

There were many theories on why Lee would have wanted to make such profoundly inaccurate observation about Malaysia, especially when relations between Singapore and both Malaysia and Indonesia had taken on a better turn in the last few years.

"Wag the dog" — that was the common consensus at our table of Chinese, Indians and Malays.

Here was Singapore being criticised for reneging on a promise to allow non-governmental organisation protesters at the World Bank and International Monetary Fund meetings in Singapore and foreign officials wondering aloud whether it would be in the greater interests of freedom not to have such high-level conferences in the island republic in future.

In Thailand, a coup was fermenting against Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra which centred around the sale of his telecommunictions company to Singapore’s Temasek which is run by Lee’s daughter- in-law, Ho Ching.

The unbridled Thai Press has been at it for months, questioning Temasek’s purchase, and alleging and alluding all kinds of opaqueness in the deal. Temasek has, of course, denied the charges.

So what better way to divert the attention of fellow Singaporeans and seek the sympathy of the international audience by reverting to the age- old and tested formula of the "big brothers" from Indonesia and Malaysia trying to bully "poor, little Singapore"?

Only, this time, Malaysia reacted in proper and civil fashion — seeking an explanation from Lee on what certainly was an ill-thought, inconsiderate and provocative statement.

Had Malaysia reacted in any other way, it would have only lent credence to Lee’s assertions of a "bullying big brother".

Lee may not have changed but Malaysia has changed a lot from the days when he was engaged in building up his island state in a period of great recrimination between both countries.

Today, both countries’ leaders often speak about the need to leave past emotional baggage behind and work towards a new era of friendship and co-operation as two sovereign nations should. But, it appears, Lee’s baggage is still in tow.

The facts, Lee, are different. Yes, there are continued grumblings about the abuses in the New Economic Policy’s aims of restructuring society but not one Malaysian who has studied the country’s history and grew up in pre-May 13 Malaysia will dispute that it is the Tun Abdul Razak-initiated NEP which provided the stability and peace for Malaysia to become what it is today.

Take the top 20 richest Malaysians and more than half are Chinese. There are also Bumiputeras and Indians on that list now, a sure sign that no one is targeted for marginalisation.

Malaysia has Tamil- and Chinese-language schools. How many does Singapore have for its own multi- racial population?

The Malaysian Cabinet is made up of all the country’s races. How well are the minorities reflected in the Singapore government?

Sure, Malaysia is not perfect. There are many weaknesses. But we could also use statistics in Singapore and portray a picture of prejudice and marginalistion.

Talk about compliant people. Lim Kit Siang is not compliant; Karpal Singh is not compliant; Datuk Nik Aziz Nik Mat and Hadi Awang are not compliant; many NGOs are not compliant; the MCA is often not compliant as is the Chinese-based Gerakan; and most of all, many politicians in Umno are not compliant, leading to fractious battles every few years or so.

But they get their say and today, in the changing Malaysia, they have never had as much freedom to be "not compliant" as they have now.

Now let’s look at Chee Soon Juan and J.B. Jeyaratnam or a host of others who were not compliant in Singapore.

We should all read To Catch a Tartar by Francis Seow and James Minchin’s No Man Is An Island. Malaysia doesn’t look so bad, does it?

Maybe my Australian dinner companion was right. It is just a game. Like some Malaysian politicians think it’s a game to make unfounded allegations and tell lies to achieve their objectives.

But as we grow up, the legion of the unfooled is also expanding. And the legion of the unfooled in Singapore, too, has substantially outgrown the Cold War mentality of aging politicians.

It’s the festive season. Ramadan, Aidil Fitri, Deepavali and then Christmas and Chinese New Year around the corner. ’Tis the season of forgiveness and friendship, Lee. Seek and ye shall find.

Syed Hamid Albar :


IT IS up to Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi to decide whether to reveal the contents of the letter sent by Singapore's Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, said Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar.

The letter is private correspondence between the two men, he was quoted as saying by Berita Minggu yesterday.

Datuk Seri Syed Hamid was referring to the letter sent by Mr Lee on Friday, in response to a letter from the Malaysian Premier.

He also noted that Datuk Seri Abdullah's letter had not been made public.

The latter wrote to MM Lee last week following an outcry over his comments about the Chinese minorities in Indonesia and Malaysia.

Mr Lee made the comments at a dialogue on good governance in Singapore on Sept 15.

He said the attitude of Indonesia and Malaysia, which 'systematically marginalised' their ethnic Chinese minorities, shaped the way they treated ties with the Republic.

He added that the two countries 'want Singapore, to put it simply, to be like their Chinese - compliant'.

Mr Lee's letter is with the Singapore High Commission in Kuala Lumpur, and is expected to be delivered to the Malaysian Foreign Ministry today.

Following normal diplomatic procedures, it will be forwarded to the Prime Minister through the ministry.

Over the past week, leaders in Malaysia have spoken out against the comments.

Meanwhile, the Barisan Nasional Youth wing is considering whether to meet its PAP counterpart to discuss the issue.

The wing's deputy chairman Liow Tiong Lai, who is also head of the Malaysian Chinese Association Youth movement, said this would be discussed at its next meeting.

No date has been set.

The media debate, which has raged on for days, continued yesterday with several commentaries in the English and Malay press.

In the New Sunday Times, Datuk Kalimullah Hassan, a confidant of the Prime Minister, suggested that Mr Lee's comments could be aimed at diverting the attention of Singaporeans from domestic issues.

Datuk Kalimullah, who is also editorial adviser to the NST, said this could be because Temasek Holdings is currently under scrutiny for the controversial purchase of the telecommunications company belonging to Thailand's ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

He also said that Mr Lee was still towing the emotional baggage that leaders of both countries have tried to leave behind.

In the same newspaper, political analyst Paddy Bowie wrote that the Chinese were far from compliant or marginalised, and cited their economic achievements and vocal participation in politics.

In The Sunday Star, its top editor Wong Chun Wai wrote that economic challenges were now from outside the country and not among the different races.

'It is no longer about which race should get what slice of the pie but making sure that Malaysians would still get the pie,' he said.

**********

Singapore's war on the press continues

Now the island's state's autocrats have made selling a news magazine a crime


Less than a month after Singapore shot itself in the foot with a crackdown on the press in the run up to meetings of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund on its soil, the government seems to have reloaded with lightning speed.

On Thursday, the government announced that not only had it banned the Far Eastern Economic Review for statements made in an interview with opposition leader Chee Soon Juan, it warned its own citizens that they would be committing a criminal offense if they imported or reproduced the magazine for distribution.

In a stern press release, Singapore’s Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts announced that the revocation followed the failure by the Review to remove the offending piece from its website or to post a S$200,000 bond or appoint an agent for service of court papers in Singapore. The Far Eastern Economic Review has no staff or assets in Singapore, which would make it problematic for the Singapore government to secure damages, an almost certain eventuality since no Singapore government official has ever lost a defamation suit against opposition figures or newspapers in the Singapore courts.

“It is a privilege and not a right for foreign newspapers to circulate in Singapore,” the ministry noted in its press release. “If any foreign newspaper fails to comply with the law, including the NPPA, they cannot expect to enjoy this privilege.”

The Review, now a monthly journal of commentary and opinion, is being sued by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, the country’s founder, and his son, Lee Hsien Loong, the current prime minister, for unspecified damages in connection with the interview, which among other things contained stinging observations about Singapore and the Lees. Almost immediately after the article ran in the magazine’s July-August issue, the government slapped controls not only on the Review, which circulates about 3,000 copies there, but on four more foreign media companies publishing there -- the others being the International Herald Tribune, the Financial Times, Newsweek and Time Magazine.

The Review said in a statement: “We regret that this action infringes on the fundamental rights of our Singaporean subscribers and further restricts the already narrow scope of free expression in Singapore.”

The magazine added that it would publish a more complete response to the government’s actions in its next issue, which appears on newsstands next Friday. Editor Hugo Restall was unavailable for comment.

The Review said it would post all legal correspondence, filings and the original offending piece for free on the magazine's website, www.feer.com, on Oct. 6.

Singapore earned widespread rebukes not only from free speech and press advocates but from the World Bank and the IMF themselves last month by refusing to allow any protests at the meeting of 16,000 delegates, thus reneging on a pledge to the international financial organizations. Instead it exiled protesters to Batam, an Indonesian island across the Strait of Malacca from the city state. World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz called the government “authoritarian” and said that “a lot of damage has been done, and it’s self-inflicted.”

Ultimately, faced with pressure from the two organizations, the government had to back down in its effort to bar 27 representatives of foreign nongovernmental organizations from the conference. It let in 22 of them although protests were muted at best in a heavily guarded city that pressed 10,000 law enforcement officials into service to guard the well-being of the delegates.
The IMF and World Bank “could hardly have made a worse choice of country in which to hold an international conference," pointed out the group Reporters Without Borders. "Press freedom should be one of the key elements of an open and dynamic economy."
In connection with the Review case, the Committee to Protect Journalists charged earlier that Singapore’s political leadership, “which bristles at any criticism, has resorted to the courts on numerous occasions to silence political opponents, often bankrupting them through damages and legal fees.

“Singapore’s senior leaders are once again using the civil courts to silence the media and stifle criticism,” said Joel Simon, CPJ’s executive director. “This legal fig leaf fools no one. The Prime Minister should drop this suit immediately.”

That is doubtful. In early September, news reports indicated that the Lee family might seek to use the courts in Hong Kong, which has a reciprocal treaty with Singapore, to enforce any judgment it might obtain against the Review.


Malaysia Abdullah Ahmad Badawi MM Lee Singapore Freedom of press Mahathir