>The Pappy govt goes out in full swing, defensively trying to undo the damaging report from the UN that Singapore’s policies are racially discriminatory.
Reply to UN expert
A UNITED Nations racism expert’s call for policy fixes to allow for freer discussion of sensitive issues like race and to provide more extensive help for some in the Malay community drew a quick response from the Government yesterday.
Special Rapporteur Githu Muigai, speaking after an eight-day mission here, said Singapore had performed well in combating racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia, but ‘blind spots’ remain that could undermine the preservation of racial harmony.
Broadly put, these involved policies and programmes such as the Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs), the ‘race’ category on identification documents and ethnic quotas in public housing which he said reinforced, not reduced, ethnic categorisation.
They also included the status of the Malay community here, in particular, what he saw as their relative under-performance in school and the lack of high-ranking Malay members of the army and judiciary.
Mr Muigai also felt that Singapore society was mature and the time was ripe for the review of laws which may constrain free public debate on sensitive issues, such as race and religion.
Saying that he found a ‘very vibrant intellectual culture’ here, he was of the view that restrictions such as those in the Penal Code and Sedition Act were not as useful today as they were 45 years ago when Singapore experienced violent racial tensions.
It is not that the above points have recently been discovered. Everyone (deniers included) knows that there is race discrimination in Singapore. It is just that the acknowledgers don’t speak up, while the deniers just pretend it isn’t there.
In fact, race discrimination is institutionalized in Singapore. It is part and parcel of Singapore’s policy to discriminate. It is part and parcel of Singapore’s policy to favour one race over others. Here are some of my past posts pertaining to such institutionalized discrimination.
On CDAC, Mendaki, Sinda and the highly racially divisive funds – If I told you Singapore has racist policies, would you believe me?
On HDB Race Quota – Racial Quota for HDB is for PAP to stay in power – and it is racially discriminatory
On the mindset of our leaders unable to accept a non-Chinese PM – Not ready for non-Chinese PM? Who is PM to speak on our behalf?
I mentioned the racist SAP education and racist “race” category on our ICs over here – More crap from Old Man Lee – what integration talking he?
On CDAC, Mendaki, Sinda again – Singapore’s Racist Policy to continue
HDB Race Quota again – Racist HDB Quota Policy begins to show its Effect
Below is a link to the full report from the UN Expert.
UN expert’s comments draw swift Govt reply
Below is the full response from the Singapore government.
RESPONSE BY FOREIGN MINISTRY
Click here if the above link expires
Here are the excerpts (and my comments).
POSITION OF THE MALAYS
WE ARE surprised that Mr Muigai had so quickly concluded that in the field of education, ‘special measures within clearly defined timelines’ may be necessary to help address the historical inequalities faced by the Malay community.
As Mr Muigai himself has acknowledged, statistics show that ‘great progress has been made in the last decades’ in terms of the Malay community’s performance in education and many other areas.
These statistics are publicly available.
The approach that Mr Muigai appears to be advocating – popularly known as ‘affirmative action’ – is one that has been tried by many countries without notable success. During our discussions with him, we found that Mr Muigai is well aware of failures of affirmative action and indeed shared with us an example of such a failure in another country.
During his meeting with Muis (the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore), Mr Muigai directly asked the president of Muis, Haji Mohd Alami Musa, whether he thought the Malay community wanted the Government to create special provisions to help the Malay community.
Haji Alami categorically told Mr Muigai that the Malays disapproved of any affirmative action policy because the Malay community had a deep sense of pride in its own ability to achieve steady progress under the national system of meritocracy.
Somehow the above sounds a little hollow. MUIS is part of the government. The President dares contradict what his boss says?
RESTRICTIONS ON DISCUSSION OF SENSITIVE ISSUES
IN THE course of his press conference this afternoon Mr Muigai referred to restrictions in our laws such as the Penal Code and the Sedition Act and expressed the opinion that they may not be as useful today as 45 years ago. He called for greater openness in the public discussion of sensitive issues.
Here we must emphatically disagree with Mr Muigai.
Race, language and religion will always be sensitive issues in Singapore. This does not mean that they cannot be discussed, but a balance must always be struck between free expression and preservation of racial and religious harmony.
This balance is only for the Singapore Government to determine because only the Singapore Government bears the responsibility should things go wrong.
The UN bears no such responsibility and we see no reason to take risks for the sake of an abstract principle. We believe most Singaporeans agree with the Government’s approach.
On this point, I have to add that freedom of speech is a two-edged sword. While many secularists and atheists hope to see more freedom of expression (like criticising religion), they forget that freedom of expression also means that these religionists would be given the freedom to go round in public preaching their religion – including telling others that gays and infidels would burn in hell.
How’s that for consistency?
PRESIDENTIAL COUNCIL FOR MINORITY RIGHTS
MR MUIGAI was of the opinion that there was a potential conflict between the role of the Chief Justice as head of an independent judiciary and as chairman of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights (PCMR).
Mr Muigai has not fully understood the Constitutional role of the PCMR. As the Chief Justice (Chan Sek Keong) himself told Mr Muigai, if there was any conflict of interest in a case, the Chief Justice would recuse himself.
Our judiciary is well respected internationally and the PCMR has worked well to preserve racial harmony in Singapore.
Again, like the MUIS case, the above sounds hollow. Would the Chief Justice, a civil servant dare to go against his own government?
CATEGORISATION BY ETHNICITYMR MUIGAI has suggested that categorising individuals by ethnicity, for example on our National Registration Identity Cards and through our Group Representation Constituency system, may reinforce and perpetuate prejudices and negative stereotypes.
However, during our discussions Mr Muigai acknowledged that there was no single correct approach to this issue and that there were good reasons not to pretend that ethnic differences did not exist.
What a non-answer by our government!
So what is our government doing to reduce the racial profiling that perpetuates race discrimination, such that it sees fit not to remove “race” from our ICs?
ACCEDING TO INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS
MR MUIGAI has also recommended that we accede to certain international human rights conventions.
We have told Mr Muigai that we are in the process of studying some of these conventions and do not rule out acceding to them.
But we do not value form for its own sake and will accede to these conventions if there is substantive value in doing so and we are prepared to implement all their provisions.
THERE are also factual errors in Mr Muigai’s press release that need immediate correction.
I would say that the above is akin to a thief telling a shoplifter that stealing is wrong. Just like our govt is wishy-washy about this whole Human Rights stuff, so is the UN.
So exactly what is Human Rights? Are the issues not slanted towards Western societal thinking? Like rape in marriage, young bride marriages, child labour, freedom of expression (as long it is not anti-war or about the holocaust) etc?
What about societies that practise child marriages and who need children to work because if they don’t, the family will starve? Are not Human Rights groups slanting their views from one perspective only?
EDUCATION FOR MALAY STUDENTS
MR MUIGAI had noted that ‘the Government had until a decade ago supported free education programmes for Malay students’. This implies that the Government has reduced the amount of money devoted to Malay education. This is not true.
What has changed is that the money that used to be allocated to middle-class Malays who no longer need subsidies for education is now given to Mendaki for distribution to the most needy Malays. The total amount of money dedicated to Malay education has not changed.
NON-TAMIL-SPEAKING INDIAN MUSLIMS
MR MUIGAI claimed that non-Tamil-speaking Indian Muslims may find it difficult to identify with (community self-help groups) Mendaki or Sinda. This is not true and in fact they have been making full use of programmes in both community groups. No Indian Muslim in need of help is denied help.
If “race” is removed from our ICs, the above two issues won’t exist, would it? Self-solving problem, no?
SPECIAL ASSISTANCE PLAN (SAP) SCHOOLSMR MUIGAI claimed that Special Assistance Plan (SAP) schools were established in order to nurture the best talents that will form the next generation of leaders in the various fields.
This is a misunderstanding of the role that SAP schools play in Singapore.
Then-Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in his speech at the 300th anniversary of the birth of the Khalsa Sikh Vesakhi celebrations in 1999 had explained fully the role of SAP schools. The speech is still relevant and Mr Muigai was given a copy of the speech today.’
Again a non-answer! So what is the reason for SAP schools? Isn’t it racially discriminatory?
My Final Comment -
Race discrimination is nothing new in Singapore. It goes all the way back during the colonial times. The Brits pigeon-holed us into race categories – Chinese, Malays, Indians. Since then, Singapore has carried that baggage.
Today, we know that our policies favour one particular race group. It cuts across all departments of the govt. Be it in education, defence, immigration, HDB and even the very racially segregative funds (CDAC, Mendaki, Sinda).
Must it take an outsider (a UN agency) to tell us that we have policies that discriminate us racially?
What a slap in the face.
We the citizens of Singapore
Pledge ourselves as one united people
Regardless of race, language or religion….
What an irony.
