The Marginality of the Malays in Singapore: Analysis from political perspective

Introduction
The federation of Malaya attained its independence during the period of emergency while
Singapore was granted internal autonomy in 1955. Four years of stability process in politics
resulted Singapore full internal self-government under the PAP government. History changed
again on 16 september 1963 when the formation of Malaysia was formally promulgated
which involved Singapore as part of the federation of Malaysia. When Malaysia came into
being, both leader, de facto and de jure Tunku Abdul Rahman and Lee Kuan Yew appeared to
be deeply commited to the concept of Malaysia, which they had created. 1 Unfortunately, this
merging did not last long when Singapore was expelled from Malaysia by Tunku in 1965,
effect of divergent point of view from this two leaders regarding the mould that should be
choose for the concept of Malaysias state building. 2 From this significant date, the journey of
the ship calls Singapore at the stormy ocean just began with various races of crew in it. Just
like Malaysia, Singapore also shared a unique and diverse entity especially in term of races
which comprised of three main players, Malay, Chinese and indian. Different with Malaysia,
The numerical superiority in Singapore is came from the ethnic of Chinese which stick with
position 75 % at that time and till today.3
When it comes to a multiracial country like Singapore and Malaysia, the biggest challenge is
to inculcate the same sense of belonging and nationalism for each races which must come
with a clean governance without any communal bias. The relationship between the majorityminority races in Singapore after independence clear shows some tension on it. The close
relationship between singapores malay with malaysias malay has created one same notion
which is, the malays must have right to adopt the malay culture, use malay language, think
like malay and be a muslim no matter wherever they are. 4 These shortcomings of the
Malays are deeply embedded in the society that they had created a polemic towards the
1 M.F.Nancy, The Separation of Singapore from Malaysia, New York: Cornell University
Southeast Asia, 1969, hlm. 1.

2 Chin kin wah, The Defence of Malaysia and Singapore: The transformation of a security
system 1957-1971, Australia: Cambridge University Press, 1983, hlm. 104.

3 Lily Zubaidah Rahim, Dilema Singapura, Kuala Lumpur: Institut Terjemahan Negara
Malaysia, 2004,hlm, 87.

governing party in Singapore. This kind of malay inferiority-ideology also has served an
enigma to the other racial groups in living with the Malays. This become a big and delicate
problem for Singapores government in choosing the right and appropriate way to build a
nation for Singapore.
In order to achieve the status as a successful country in term of its state-building process, the
government of Singapore, which is PAP, chose civic national identity as its main medium.
The idea that national identity can be successfully promoted is based on the assumption that
popular nationalism is always the result of elite promotion of nationalist tenets. The national
values selected to form the bedrock of national identity were deliberately pragmatic rather
than associated with any cultural tradition. This medium more unlikely related to a universal
and pragmatic values that relating to modernity, development and economic success. From
the political aspect, concept of meritocracy in policy making is a must which is not leaning to
any specific race. However, this steps chosen by Singapores government seems forced the
Singaporean Malay to fight for their pinned-down position among the other racial groups in
the country. Over the years, after the effect had taken place, the seriousness of the leadership
to promote the total wellbeing in all race betterment had failed when the Malays in
Singapore are still the group which has the lowest merit among the society. 5 These failure
obviously can be seen through some part of the policies that is too bias for the Malays
including in term of the politics. PAPs leadership in their governance looks more tends
toward ethnic nationalisme compare to civic national identity as the medium for statebuilding which is totally unsuitable for a multhiethnic state. This just will lead for the
discrimination and marginality happens to the minority ethnic and at this case, is the Malays.
The Malay Dilemma: Political Aspect
One important element which is an essential indicator to see the successful of a nation-state
building for a multhiethnic state is through the run of its political system. The concept of
democracy and meritocracy should be enforced without dissociate it in their political system
without leaning to any certain race which can create biasness. This including in its electoral
process, transparency in governance, citizen participation in politics, culture of democracy
4 Lau Teik Soon, Malaysia and Singapore: Problems and Prospects, Singapore:
Singapore Institute of International Affairs, 1992, hlm. 221.
5 Lau Teik Soon, Malaysia and Singapore: Problems and Prospects, Singapore:
Singapore Institute of International Affairs, 1992, hlm. 227.

and practises in civil liberties. However this requirement not being fulfilled by PAPs
governance and can be seen first, at the system of political party there. The definition of
democracy in term of political party not sprout well there, where PAP become the sole
political party in Singapore without any tough competition. PAP is a political party that the
foundation and majority of its member is come from one race, the Chinese, which would
affect the result in policy making. For the time being, the Singapore political situations are
rather well under control by the leadership of PAPs single majority party government.6
The marginality fate of the Malays in politics can be seen clearly in terms of the
number of representatives in the Singapores parliament. For records, in 1960 the total
percentage of Malay MPs was only 20% which is equivalent to 10 people out of 50 in total.
In 1968 and 1974, as recorded, the total percentage of Malay MPs was 16% and 13%
repectively. These statistics continue to commute up in 1991 where the percentage just only
9.8 percent. A number that is too little to bring the fate of the Malay voice in the parliament.
This statistic keep declining in every term thereafter.7 This is believed due to the PAPs policy
that seen leaning to the Chinese and bias to the Malay race. It is also due to the level of
dependency on the Malay race in determining the outcome of elections thats decreasing as a
result of the introduction of a few dirty strategies such as Gerry Mandering and system of
ethnic quotas.
The Malays plight in politics continue when the PAPs policy seems restrain the Malay MPs
from become a minister. Even if there are some, the number is so little and seems to be
controlled so its not will exceed more than two Malay minister in each term. 8 For records,
not even a single Malay MP has being put at the important portfolio in cabinet like minister
of defense, education or finance. All them stays at the same circle like minister of sports,
social welfare and environment, kind of portfolios that wouldnt help much to elevate the
status of malays in Singapore. These things were explained once by Singapores former
6 Pang Cheng Lian, Singapores People Action Party, Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University
Press, 1971, hlm 1

7 Lily Zubaidah Rahim, Dilema Singapura, Kuala Lumpur: Institut Terjemahan Negara
Malaysia, 2004,hlm, 108.

8 Lily Zubaidah Rahim, Singapore in the Malay World: Building and Breaching Regional
Bridges, New York: Routledge, 2009, hlm 38.

Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong and he said that the favouritism based on race does not exist
in the recruitment and placement of minister, everything is pegged to the merit system.
However, at the same time, he himself issued an opinion that it is quite impossible for any
Malay in Singapore will hold high government portfolios such as president, prime minister
and deputy ministers. Even for important portfolio in cabinet is really tough for them. This
clearly shows that the Singapore government not lift the concept of meritocracy in their
governance and it controverts from the true definition of the nation state.
As the dynamism of political condition of a country that be normally subjected to
changes, especially for good check and balance, the inferiority of malay community will
rather be taken as a threat to political stability for PAP when the situation of majority in
election sided to the malays. For that reason, few dirty strategies taking off like the control of
the countrys electoral process and constituency structure. The task to acquire guarantee
Chinese votes in elections has also been made easier by the gerrymandering of electoral
boundaries to maximize the number of chineses votes and minimize the votes from Malays,
which always related to the opposition party. For some areas in Singapore like Pasir Panjang,
Geylang Serai and Kaki Bukit, are heavily in malays population so it can give threat to PAP.
In order to reduce the risk and secure that seat for PAP, the gerrymandering process took
place.
Besides, the race biasness in PAPs governance can be seen further at some policies that they
build like the Urban Resettlement Programmes (URP) and the system of ethnic quota in
residential. Both policies, end for diluting the electoral clout of the malay community in
Singapore. URP is a programme that aim to dismantling the settlements of Malay community
in Singapore to some new areas that being dominated by Chinese community. If seen at a
glance, it is a very nice strategy in stimulating the interaction between both malay and
Chinese in Singapore, but in reality, it is a subtle tactics from PAP to avoid domination of the
Malays in some areas in Singapore like Geylang Serai, Kampong Kembangan and Southern
Island. PAP wants malays always become a minority in all areas in Singapore to ensure that
there will be no unity in them to fight the government. All these areas, before the URP being
enforced, always give some stiff competition to the PAP during national elections through
malay-based parties such as PKMS, so this URP is functions to eroded all the electoral base
of malay based parties and its seems meet the target as it has prevented them from winning a

single seat since its 1963 losses to the PAP.9 The purpose behind mission was acknowledged
by James Fu, the prime ministers press Secretary, when he said, with this resettlement, every
constituency is racially integrated. PKMS can no longer win anywhere in Singapore.
Even after the URP, PAP never stop to discriminate the malays. Another dirty tactic come
from PAP to oppress the malays in 1989. This time by the implementation of residential
quotas based on ethnic.10 This policy is to ensured that the malays did not constitute more
than 20 percent of the total population in any constituency and 22 percent of the total
population in any public housing block and for the Chinese people, their percentage in any
constituencies are very high which is at 80 percent and 86 per cent for the housing block. 11
This policy is as a reaction on the scenario at that time where the malays began to dominate
again some new areas in Singapore. This scenario is believed due to the post-1980 economic
boom that benefit most Chinese people. Malays become a dominant in some areas in
Singapore after they buying the public housing flats as the Chinese were upgrading their life
to the newly established housing estates. This threat is real for PAP especially after the party
was nearly killed in several areas in Singapore like Bedok and Eunos during 1988s
election.12 This quota system is implemented by setting a target for new home buyers. For
example, if the percentage of the malays in a housing block is more than 20 per cent, then any
transaction about the sale of the house in that area after that, must not involve the Malays as
the purchaser. If gerrymandering tactics and resettlement program seems more subtle way for
PAP to discriminate the malays, but with the implementation of ethnic quotas, it is absolutely
an obvious strategy to reduce the Malay population which means in other word, to keep the
malays status as a minority in Singapore.
In order to remained the Chinese numerically and electorally dominant community in all
constitucies in Singapore, another policy being establish in the early 1980s that called
9 Lily Zubaidah Rahim,2004, Dilema Singapura, Kuala Lumpur: Institut Terjemahan
Negara Malaysia. hlm 92

10 Michael Hill dan Lian Kwen Fee, The Politics of Nation Buliding and citizenship
in Singapore, London: Routledge, 1995, hlm 126
11 Christopher Tremewan, The Political Economy of Social Control in Singapore, London:
Macmillan, 1994, hlm 66

12 Lily Zubaidah Rahim,2004, Dilema Singapura, Kuala Lumpur: Institut

Terjemahan Negara Malaysia. hlm 92

Committee Attracting Talent to Singapore(CATS). CATS being constructed with the concerns
of the birth-rate trend at that time that is very low for the Chinese, but not for the malays.
Prime Minister of Singapore at that time, Lee Kuan Yew worried that this problem will affect
the composition of the communities in Singapore, mainly the 75% domination of the
Chinese. Through CATS, it aims to detect talents and skilled workers who were ethnic
Chinese outside of Singapore, especially in Hong kong, Macau, Korea and China and will be
naturalized as Chinese residents of Singapore. However, the same policy not being apply to
the malays and with that fact, CATS is just another agenda from PAP to maintain the
domination of the Chinese and its contradicts with the ideal concept of the multiracialism.

Conclusion
In a multiracial country like Singapore, the intergroup conflict in terms of
majority-minority relations is something that is unavoidable. However, to claim that this
conflict cannot be tackle is something incongruous and that kind of view may trap the malays
and Chinese in Singapore in exaggerated and rigidly stereotyped perceptions of each other
and lock us in a battle of group blame and bias that is difficult to escape. In order to get rid
that sceptical and before its exacerbating the relation and the fate of the malays in Singapore,
government or at this case, the PAP must play its role, but all facts not show that way. When
PAP seems tend to use ethnic nationalisme compare to civic national identity as the medium
for the state-building, then the discrimination and marginality happens to the malays. The
marginality of the malays in Singapore obviously can be seen in PAPs governance and its
policy where the main end behind that is to keep the malays status as low as it can be, until
theres no any significant threat come from this race.
This marginality happened believed due to the distrust to the Malays loyalties toward
Singapore and the Chinese, precisely. Even Lee Kuan yew in his premiership has said that the
Malays has not succeeded yet in proving that they can interact and compromise with the
Chinese in Singapore. They more likely closer to the malays in Malaysia compared to the
Chinese in Singapore.13 However, to use this reason behind all the marginality and the
discrimination toward the malays is something that make no sense and ridiculous as the
13 Gillian Koh and Ooui Giok Ling, singapore: A Home, A Nation? Dalam
Southeast Asian Affair, Singapore: ISEAS, 2002, hlm 260-261.

malays in Singapore already proved their loyalty on many occasion throughout the
Singapores history significantly on 9 August 1965.

References

M.F.Nancy, 1969, The Separation of Singapore from Malaysia, New York: Cornell University
Southeast Asia.

Chin kin wah, 1983, The Defence of Malaysia and Singapore: The transformation of a
security system 1957-1971, Australia: Cambridge University Press.

Lily Zubaidah Rahim, 2004, Dilema Singapura, Kuala Lumpur: Institut Terjemahan Negara
Malaysia.

Lau Teik Soon, 1992, Malaysia and Singapore: Problems and Prospects, Singapore:
Singapore Institute of International Affairs.
Pang Cheng Lian, 1971, Singapores People Action Party, Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University
Press.

Lily Zubaidah Rahim, 2009, Singapore in the Malay World: Building and Breaching
Regional Bridges, New York: Routledge.

Michael Hill dan Lian Kwen Fee, 1995, The Politics of Nation Buliding and citizenship in
Singapore, London: Routledge

Christopher Tremewan, 1994, The Political Economy of Social Control in Singapore,

London: Macmillan