Discuss
Topics
At 84, the fire still burns!
Singapore's Minister Mentor, Lee Kuan Yew, who was Singapore's founding father, has always been very direct in his comments. This was the man who outsmarted the communists in Singapore (with the innocent help of Malaya then and the willing help of the British) and who later outwitted the British and outpaced Malaysia in all spheres.
Singapore practices meritocracy and Malaysia affirmative action. The former attracted all the best brains and the latter chased out all the brains. The Singapore cabinet consists of dedicated and intelligent technocrats whereas Malaysia has one the most unwieldy cabinet. Not only that, brain wise it was below par.
With that kind of composition, one that is very brainy, naturally Singapore, with no natural resources could outstrip Malaysia in every aspect of development. Malaysia, on the other hand, was too much preoccupied with its Malayness and the illusory 'ketuanan Melayu' and was also more interested in iconic development rather than real social and economic development.
Whenever Kuan Yew utters anything that deemed to be a slight on Malaysia, voices were raised admonishing him. Malaysia would never dare to face reality. That Singapore had shown that it could survive was a slap on those who believed that Singapore would fold up once it left Malaysia. Therefore it was natural that these doomsayers would try to rationalise their utterances to be in their favour to combat on whatever Kuan Yew commented.
Singapore achieved its development status without any fanfare. But here in Malaysia, a development that was deceptive was proclaimed as having achieved development status. It was trumpeted as an achievement that befits first world status. This was self delusion. Malaysians are led to believe into a make believe world, a dream world. The leaders who themselves tend to believe in their own fabricated world did not realise the people were not taken in by this kind of illusion.
Lee Kuan Yew believed in calling a spade a spade. I was there in Singapore when the People's Action Party won the elections in 1959. He was forthright in his briefing to party members as to what was expected of them and what Singapore would face in the future. Ideologically, I did not agree with him. We in the University of Malaya Socialist Club had a different interpretation of socialist reconstruction. But he was a pragmatist and wanted to bring development and welfare to the Singaporeans. Well! He succeeded.
Malaysia was so much embroiled in racial politics and due to the fear of losing political power, all actions taken by the main party in power was never targeted towards bringing wealth to all. Wealth was distributed to the chosen few only. They were the cronies and the backers of the party leadership.
Seeing the efficiency and the progress achieved by Singapore caused the Malaysian leadership to suffer from an inferiority complex. That Malaysia should suffer from this complex was of its own making.
In a recent interview, Kuan Yew said that Malaysia could have done better if only it treated its minority Chinese and Indian population fairly. He added that Singapore was a standing indictment to what Malaysia could have done differently. He just hit the nail right there on the head.
Malaysia recently celebrated its 50th year of independence with a bagful of uncertainties. The racial divide has become more acute. The number of Malay graduates unemployed is on the increase. And this aspect can be very explosive. But sad to see that no positive actions have been taken to address these social ills.
Various excuses were given by Malaysian leaders why Singapore had far outstripped Malaysia in all aspects of social and economic advancement. Singapore was small, they rationalised and therefore easy to manage. Singapore was not a state but merely an island.
There was one other aspect that Malaysia practises and that is to politicise all aspects of life. All government organs and machinery were 'UMNO-ised'. This was to ensure that the party will remain in power. Thus there was this misconception by the instruments of government as to what national interest is and what UMNO vested interest is.
UMNO vested interest only benefited a few and not the whole nation. But due to the UMNO-isation of the various instruments of government, the country under the present administration had equated UMNO vested interest as being that of national interest. Thus development became an avenue of making money and not for the benefit of the people. The fight against corruption took a back seat. Transparency was put on hold. And the instruments of government took it to be of national interest to cater to the vested interest of UMNO. Enforcement of various enactments and laws was selective. Thus a 'palace' in Kelang could exist without proper procedure.
Singapore did not politicise its instruments of government. If ever pollicisation took place, it is guided by national interest. To be efficient and to be the best in the region was of paramount importance. Thus all the elements like corruption, lackadaisical attitude towards work and other black elements, which would retard such an aim, were eliminated. Singapore naturally had placed the right priority in it's pursueit to achieve what is best for its people. This is the major difference between these two independent countries.
Malaysia in its various attempts to cover up its failures embarked on several diversions. It wanted its citizens to be proud that the country had the tallest twin -tower in the world, although the structure was designed and built by foreigners. It achieved in sending a man into space at an exorbitant price. These are what the Malays of old would say "menang sorak" (hollow victories).
It should be realised that administering a country can be likened to managing a corporate entity. If the management is efficient and dedicated and know what they are doing, the company will prosper. The reverse will be if the management is poor and bad. The company will go bust.
There are five countries around this region. There is Malaysia, and then Indonesia. To the east there is the Philippines and then there is that small enclave called the Sultanate of Brunei. All these four countries have abundance of natural resources but none can lay claim to have used all these resources to benefit the people. Poverty was rampant and independence had not brought in any significant benefits to the people.
But tiny Singapore without any resources at all managed to bring development to its citizens. It had one of the best public transport system in the world and it is a very clean city state.
It is impossible to compare what Singapore has achieved to what all these four countries had so far achieved. It was actually poor management and nothing more. Everything is done for the vested interest of the few.
Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines and the Sultanate of Brunei need good management teams. They would not be able to do this on their own steam. I would advise that they call on Kuan Yew to show them what good governance is.
- ali allah ditta said...
-
KTemoc,
Your analysis of May 13th riots do make some sense. However,one thing I learned from this tragedy was killing & mudering leads us no where. I blamed both parties.
My pregnant sister was killed during the May 13th 1969 tragedy when they slit open her stomach at KL Rex. I was at Jalan Melaka when I saw hooligans running wild with parang & spears,how I managed to escape is a miracle.
But I learnt to live with it and never bear any grudges against anyone,or against their race,because I too understand their feelings, for they too lost many of their loved ones then.
I think lets close this chapter of May 13th 69,and lets look ahead for some meaningfull life for our children,grandchildren & their children years to come in this country called Malaysia.
The Real Cause of the May 13 Riots
"The NEP was launched to remedy the socio-economic inequality that led to the May 13, 1969 racial riots."
Well, that's patently incorrect!
While socio-economic inequality regretably did exist, what had led to the May 13 racial riot was not that. It was true that the Malays grew disenchanted with then Prime Minister Tengku Abdul Rahman's Perikatan (Alliance) party, resulting in massive losses for his coalition.
The true reason leading to the riots was the ruling Perikatan party, or to be more specific, its dominant component, UMNO, losing so many seats that it was on the verge of surrendering Selangor to the DAP, and very nearly losing Perak to the PPP of the Seenivasegam brothers.
That was what caused the riots!
The Selangor UMNO could not cope with the thought of losing Malaysia's premier state (at that time) to the Chinese-Indian parties. When the Selangor State election results became more obvious, there was already discussion of how to accommodate a non-Muslim Menteri Besar (MB or Chief Minister) in Selangor, because one of the principal roles of a MB is to advise the Sultan of the State on religious affairs. Those issues would undoubtedly have infuriated some Malays.
The Perikatan had already lost Penang to the new rising star, the (then) mightyGerakan Party. But, unlike Selangor, Penang had always been a Chinese-majority state, so its loss was not so sensitive to Malay pride. Also, judging by the (1969) voting trend, UMNO perceived that by the next election, it would probably lose Perak as well.
The UMNO members' anger was further aggravated by some thoughtless jeering by the DAP-Gerakan party victors in Selangor as they conducted their jubilant victory motorcade around Kuala Lumpur (though the leaders of the Gerakan Party made a public apology the following day). That anger at the unthinkable loss of Malaysia's premier State to a Chinese-dominated party and the jibes and jeerings by an insensitive DAP were what lit the racial fire, and not the socio-economic inequality.
After-note: since then, recent facts revealed by Prof Khoo indicate that it was not the DAP but the Gerakan Party which did the provocative jeering
The racial-political tension in Selangor then was like, to use a cliché, sitting on a powder keg of explosives in tinder dry conditions while attempting to light a cigarette. Two days after the final results were determined, the riots started in Kampong Baru, Kuala Lumpur, right in front of the MB's official residence after incorrect (or fabricated) rumours that Chinese gangs in Setapak had attacked Malays.
Apart from UMNO losing support from its Malay constituencies, how did the opposition do so well?
In the 1969 election, the opposition parties comprising DAP, Gerakan, PPP, and PAS (yes, PAS) developed a joint double-prong strategy where (1) they avoided running against each other in order to prevent vote splitting, and (2) campaigned for each other, asking their supporters to vote for anyone other than the Perikatan. Many Malays had voted for the Gerakan because (at that time) it was truly a multi-ethnic party.
Digressing for a while, compare that opposition unified election strategy and discipline in adhering to the plan with the 2004 opposition debacle, where an overconfident PAS wanted to go it alone while a wishy washy PKR wasn't sure where to put its best foot forward. To make matters worse, the Chinese-Indian component of PKR tussled with the DAP for Chinese seats.
I believe the DAP was actually sincere in wanting a coalition with PAS and PKR because Lim Kit Siang was (still is) obsessed with denying the Barisan Nasional its two-third majority, and that could only be achieved if the opposition parties are united. But with a runaway PAS that was frightening the shit out of its supporters, an annoying Chinese section of PKR trying to wrestle traditional DAP seats away, and remembering its painful lesson in 1999, it wisely (for that election) decided to stick to its usual standalone strategy which of course had a limitation in terms of winning seats.
Anyway, this posting is to set the facts correct about the real cause of the May 13 racial riots in 1969. Even the National Security Commission in its official report on the riots did not attribute the cause to the socio-economic disparity, but to 'the Malayan Communist Party and illegal Chinese gangs'. We need to bear in mind this was a Government report so we shouldn't expect it to say some losers were bloody unsporting.
It resulted in a
I suppose one could argue through a tenuous chain of cause and effect that at the root of it, the socio-economic disparity led to Perikatan's loss of Malay support, which led to UMNO's massive losses of Federal and State seats (even Dr Mahathir lost his Kubang Pasu seat to PAS), which led to fear and anger among UMNO members, which coupled by insensitive provocations by the DAP members, led to the outbreak of the riots.
But that would be stretching it. Let's keep our eye on the fact that it was the pending loss of Malaysia's premier state of Selangor that triggered the fear, hatred and consequential rioting. In other words the cause was UMNO's inability to tolerate an erosion of its dominant political position. Addressing the socio-economic disparity through the NEP was merely to avoid further loss of its political powers.
Labels: may 13
posted by KTemoc at 9:59 AM
15 Comments:
My brother Dato V.
1) allegations of corruption involving Lingam and several judges, including former CJ Eusoff Chin, former AG Mohtar Abdullah, former IGP Rahim Noor, and judges Mohtar Sidin, Low Hop Bing, and K.L Rekraj.
2) a dinner hosted by Lingam at his home for some judges and their wives and children
3) gifts and cheques allegedly for some judges
4) the former IGP's phone bills
5) claims of huge transfers of money to accounts in London following a tip-off of an ACA raid
6) alleged visits to the former Chief Justice's home
He said he will be writing to the Police to ask about the status of investigation, if any, into the reports. He will also submit copies of the reports to the Bar Council and the Acting Chief of Justice.
Ahh... someone's been reading KTemoc's & Rocky's blogs I see... 
And here's some shameless self-promotion...
Hi Walski,
good to see you in here too. the postings are from a cousin of mine in the UK using emails to send these around, so i thought i may as well do my two bits worth and get him in here too. So far no show.
Malaysians of all races must be too naive not to realise that the nation has two sets of laws: one for the ruling party, particularly Umno and the other for those who are against it. When Umno Youth chief and other leaders commented that the Hindraf demonstration leads to religious and racial sentiments and that gangsters were involved, little did they realise that Umno Youth is no different.
For the benefit of those "Melayu mudah lupa (Malays with short memory)", several hundred Umno Youth members had gathered outside the Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall (SCAH) on Aug 18, 2000 as a protest against the Malaysian Chinese Election Appeals Committee's (Suqiu) 17-point demand - some of which Umno claims to threaten Malay rights.
Malaysians of non-Umno breed will not forget how the Umno Youth deputy Abdul Aziz Sheikh Fadzir, who led the demonstration, climbed and stood on the SCAH fence, hurling threats against the Chinese. It was reported that this group even threatened to burn down the hall. Yes, the police were present, but not a single shot of tear gas was fired at the demonstrators who were shouting racially-sensitive words. Neither were arrests made, perhaps because the demonstrators were Umno Youth.
In the first place, did Umno Youth obtain a police permit for that particular demonstration? If they didn't, then how different is it with the Bersih and Hindraf rallies? At least in those demonstrations, they didn't threatened to burn any building or soak the Malay keris with Chinese blood. If anything can be concluded, it is that the police use two different sets of laws for people with two different political ideologies.
I know this is not supposed to be funny in any way, but I couldn't help but laugh when I first saw it earlier today, at the part where the guy starts to... nevermind... watch it yourself - it's around time marker 2:31 or so.
This YouTube vid shows key members of Bersih (polls reform movement) getting hauled up by the Police, in the compound of the Parliament yesterday. They were delivering a memo to Parliament, trying to stop a bill that would effectively extend the tenure of the current Election Commission chairman until well after the next elections. I blogged about the memo yesterday.
