Singapore Government Press Release
SPEECH BY PRIME MINISTER GOH CHOK TONG AT THE SECOND NATIONAL CONVENTION OF SINGAPORE MALAY/MUSLIM PROFESSIONALS ON SUNDAY, 5 NOVEMBER 2000, AT 2.15 PM AT THE SINGAPORE EXPO CONFERENCE HALL
Ten years ago, at your first convention, I challenged you to establish a MENDAKI Swasta. You formed AMP, the Association of Muslim Professionals.
As promised, the Government supported AMP and helped it financially. We refurbished an old school at Jalan Tembusu and made it available to AMP as headquarters for a token rental of $12 a year. In addition, the Government has contributed over $9 million to date towards AMP’s R & D programme and other activities to uplift the Malay community. It has also given AMP a share of the Muslim community’s monthly contribution to the Mosque Building and MENDAKI Fund.
I have not audited AMP’s performance. My general impression is that it has done good work in several areas.
I am concerned, however, that after 10 years, AMP has begun to show an ambition beyond what the Government supported it to do: ie to uplift the Malay community through educational, social and workers training programmes. AMP is now straying into the political arena, which as a non-political community organisation, it should not do. AMP should also remember that it has claimed the status of an institution of public character for social and charity work. Donations to AMP are hence tax-exempt.
AMP is now in the forefront of organising a collective Malay leadership to be elected by Malays only. The purported purpose is to "balance and complement" the Malay MP leadership. But no matter how you package it, you are seeking to replace the Malay MP political leadership's influence.
This is clearly a political challenge to the Malay MPs, who are part of the PAP Government's multi-racial political leadership. The Malay MPs are elected by Singaporeans of all races. But being Malay and Muslim, they have a deeper feel of the needs and aspirations of Malay/Muslim Singaporeans. They are therefore able to advise the Government of these needs and aspirations, and together, we discuss the practical way to meet them in the context of a multi-racial society.
The Malay MPs have expressed their views on AMP's collective leadership proposal. I too have grave reservations over it. The Malay community does not have such an abundance of outstanding leaders that it can afford to have two competing leaderships. Even if it has, it is not wise to split the Malay community.
I speak candidly and directly because I fear AMP may lead the Malay community backwards in time by your collective leadership proposal.
A collective Malay leadership elected by Malays to serve Malay interests only is a challenge to one of the key pillars upon which we have built Singapore - the principle of multi-racial leadership.
Moreover, AMP is also questioning the system of meritocracy, claiming that it has marginalized the Malay community.
Meritocracy is another cornerstone of the PAP Government. It has enabled Singaporeans of all races, religions and family backgrounds to achieve a remarkable standard of living in the short span of thirty-five years. The claim that the Malay community is marginalized is also without basis. The tremendous progress the community has made in every field since 1965 belies your claim.
Let me ask the Convention participants whether they know what is the real goal of the AMP leaders. Do the AMP leaders themselves know what the end game will be if they pursue their idea of a collective Malay leadership and press for concessions along racial and religious lines?
If you have Malay leaders elected by Malays only and they apply political pressure to extract benefits from the Government for their community, then you must expect some Chinese and Indian leaders to emerge to do likewise for their communities. If the AMP promotes actions which are perceived to set the Muslim community further apart from other Singaporeans, the Christians, Buddhists, Taoists, Hindus and Singaporeans of other religions will push for more separate space for themselves too.
The end result must be politics on the basis of race and religion. It will lead to the emergence of political parties organised along ethnic and religious lines. This is the antithesis of what the Malay MPs and I stand for: a multi-racial, multi-religious Singapore in which we advance the interests of each community as Singaporeans. That is why every MP in Singapore is elected by a multi-racial electorate, and why we have GRCs.
Singapore is a young country of only 35 years. It is not yet a nation.
A nation comprises people with a shared past and who pull together in the same direction because they see the same future for themselves and their children. While Singaporeans of different ethnic and religious backgrounds are living together harmoniously today, I do not think their interests have as yet converged to the extent that we can confidently say that we are a nation.
The old Yugoslavia was a country but not a nation. Marshal Tito held the country together from 1945 to 1980. 11 years after he died, Yugoslavs fought one another to become Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, and others.
Sri Lanka is a country but not a nation. The Tamils are fighting for a separate homeland from the Singhalese.
The Singapore Government’s approach in building a nation is based on integration, not assimilation. Because it is integration, I am not sure if we can ever really become a nation in the sense that all the interests of the different ethnic groups converge. But we must at least try to build a successful multi-racial, multi-religious society of Singaporeans.
Assimilation is a politically futile and disastrous exercise. No minority community would want its tradition, culture, religion and language lost through assimilation by the majority community.
The various races in Singapore are like pieces of mosaic of different colours. We integrate them by bonding the pieces of mosaic together. The integrated pattern forms Singapore, but each piece of mosaic retains its separate colour.
My preferred imagery in building a multi-racial Singapore, however, is not mosaic pieces, but four overlapping circles. Each circle represents one community. The area where the circles overlap is the common area where we live, play and work together and where we feel truly Singaporean with minimal consciousness of our ethnicity. The areas outside this common area are where each community retains its own characteristics and traditions. In these separate areas, we are Malay Singaporeans, Indian Singaporeans, Chinese Singaporeans, Eurasian and other Singaporeans.
This framework of multi-racialism allows for diversity and growth for the different races and religions. We must continually expand the common area and concentrate on enhancing and expanding interaction between our different communities. But what AMP is proposing will emphasise Malay separateness and reduce our common space.
We must never reduce the common space. If we do, the country will break up into separate, unlinked circles.
This pragmatic arrangement of seeking integration through overlapping circles has underwritten the racial and religious harmony that Singaporeans enjoy today.
The Malay MPs share this philosophy of building a multi-racial Singapore.
They have worked to advance the interests of the Malay community within this philosophy. And they have done so successfully.
The Malay MPs formed MENDAKI in 1981 to improve the educational performance and advance the interests of the lower-income Malay Singaporeans, 9 years before AMP held its first convention.
The big modern, multi-purpose mosques would not have been built without them. So too the improvements in AMLA.
They, together with other community leaders, held the KBE Convention last year to prepare the Malay community for the New Economy. Since then, they have followed up on the implementation of the outcomes of the Convention, regularly reviewing progress and providing an important link between the government agencies and the Malay organisations.
The Malay MPs have brainstormed the next initiatives to uplift the Malay community, and have submitted a paper to me. I am studying these initiatives.
Their key initiative seeks to enhance the educational achievements of the Malay community and to develop talent within the community. They believe that progress in these two areas will lead to real and sustained success and reinforce the steadily growing sense of pride and confidence within the community. I agree with this approach and direction.
The Malay MPs see the big picture. They see the four circles, the overlap area and the separate areas outside this, as a total picture. When they advance the interests of the Malay community, they do so within this multi-racial framework. They know that the interests of the Malay community are best advanced if they have the support of the other communities.
The Malay MPs and I do not subscribe to the view that the Malay community is marginalised, or at the fringe of society, as AMP claims. The Malay MPs believe that the Singapore Malays today are becoming increasingly more confident, creative and knowledgeable. They are well on the road to being able to compete globally.
In 1990, only 12.5% of Malays went to universities and polytechnics. In 1999, it was 28%. In less than 10 years, the proportion of the Malay population going to polytechnic and university has more than doubled! International maths and science studies show that our Malay students perform far better than the average pupils in other countries, including the US, UK and Canada. Today, 94% of Malays own their own homes. Many Malay professionals are working in MNCs.
The Malay community has also progressed in non-material ways. It is more articulate and confident. This has come about because of our meritocratic system, not in spite of it. If the Malay community's achievements had been through affirmative action with quotas and concessions, it would not be as strong and confident as it is today.
I accept that there is an income and educational gap between the Malay and other communities in Singapore. But I question the utility in focussing on the gap. Development is a dynamic process. As the Malay community makes progress, so do the other communities.
But if you focus instead on maximizing your own potential, you will automatically narrow the gap in some areas.
Leaders must give hope to their followers. You do the Malay community a great disservice if you get it to believe that it is weak, discriminated against and marginalised. It is not. Instead, it has good reason to be proud of its tremendous progress. But if you keep on repeating that the Malay community is marginialised when it is not true, you develop a crutch mentality.
The Malay MPs have been working with other Malay organisations to uplift the Malay community. They want to involve them in their vision to build a confident, creative and knowledgeable Malay community. They have always believed in and promoted collective leadership, be they through MENDAKI, Kemas (Congress for Economic Development, 1985), or other self-help efforts like TAA (or Hari Raya Charity Fund) and MUIS Vision Programmes.
I believe the Malay community can do more if there is greater cooperation among the various Malay organisations. This will reduce duplication of effort, and channel precious resources and attention into the most pressing areas. A co-ordinated leadership is better than the AMP’s proposal of a collective leadership independent of the Malay MP leadership.
I suggest this framework of a co-ordinated leadership for your consideration. It is built on the current framework of leadership in the Malay community.
At the apex is the Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs. He is assisted by the Malay MPs. They are supported by two key pillars.
MUIS is the first pillar. It looks after the religious needs of the community. It should be strengthened. The proposal to set up an Islamic Consultative Forum outside MUIS is another divisive idea. There must only be one authority in charge of Islamic Affairs, and that is MUIS.
MENDAKI, the Malay community's principal self-help organisation, is the second pillar. MENDAKI too, should be strengthened with better staff and more volunteers.
Many major Malay/Muslim organisations including Jamiyah, Pergas, Perdaus, Muhammadiyah, Pertapis, 4PM, Taman Ba'caan, KGMS, PPIS, Majlis Pusat, LBKM and DPPMS are institutional members of MENDAKI. If AMP is genuinely interested in collective leadership, why not be an institutional member of MENDAKI? The Minister for Community Development and Sports welcomes this. If AMP takes up my invitation, it will facilitate greater coordination in the efforts of the various Malay organisations to uplift the community, and minimise wastage of resources.
Let me end by advising you against trying to move the Malay community backwards in time by your collective leadership proposal. The Government has always and will continue to deal directly with leaders of all sectors of the Malay society. AMP’s idea of a collective leadership will isolate the Malay community and weaken the foundation of our multi-racial society.
I suggest you concentrate on strengthening the Malay MP leadership rather than on undermining it. The Malay MPs have to be self-renewed. If you have good people who can become MPs, let me have their names. When we look for Malay MPs, we scour the whole community. We do not limit our search to PAP members or supporters only. It is a nation-wide search. The Malay community should build on the present leadership framework, which has worked successfully, to impove Malay performance and help its integration into Singapore's multi-racial society. This will advance the position of Malays in Singapore. The Malay MP leadership is part of the multi-racial national leadership, and will advance the interests of the Malay community as a member of the wider community of Singapore citizens. MUIS and MENDAKI, with the help of all Malay organisations, including AMP, will ensure that the interests of the Malay community are advanced, and the lower-income Malays given a helping hand.
This way, the Malay community organisations will be able to win the understanding and support of the Government and many non-Malay organisations. To attempt to undermine this established framework by promoting a rival organisation that claims to be a collective Malay leadership, promoted and organised by AMP, will end in confrontation. It will damage what has been achieved in our 35-year history, during which we successfully evolved and developed our form of multi-racial meritocracy for the benefit of all communities.
My message today is not only for this audience here at the Convention or the Malay community. It is for all Singaporeans of all races and religions. This is why I have asked that my speech and the subsequent dialogue be open to the media. If any ethnic community or religious group presses for more space for itself, and it is perceived to be out of line with the nation's principles of meritocracy and multi-racialism, it will provoke a backlash from the other communities. They will lose the trust and confidence of the other communities. And leaders will rise to lead the other communities to press for their own community's interests. This will mean each community going its separate way. Is this what you want?
Remember, I can make concessions to one group only if I can carry the political middle ground. This is the majority of Singaporeans of all races.
I am now ready for the dialogue.
-----------