In the aftermath of Lee Kuan Yew’s visit, many Malaysians wrote about the ‘missed opportunity’ that Singapore represents. In a nutshell, our pace of development could have been much faster and more comprehensive. We would have become as ‘rich’ as Singapore.
This type of thinking is what gets Awang Selamat of Utusan Malaysia extremely upset. In fact, this type of view does nothing to disabuse Malay Malaysians that non-Malays are hell-bent on turning Malaysia into Singapore, which is essentially a country given up to commercialism.
Of course, Singapore has to be a money-making emporium. It has no natural resources and has to purchase water from Johor, albeit at a much lower rate than Malacca. But that was part of the pact signed by our forefathers.
It is a ‘political contract’, one of the conditions for Singapore leaving Malaysia. It gave Singapore a fighting chance and now that they have succeeded, some Malaysians want us to review the “contract”.
Political contracts aside, many have conveniently forgotten the fact that Singapore took off from a much higher economic and educational base. It was the headquarters of British Southeast Asia and the British Empire was a commercial empire. When the British military left, its companies stayed behind.
In short, Singapore’s pace of development cannot be compared to Malaysia’s, as though both countries began on the same footing just because our currencies were of the same value. We had more natural resources but also a bigger, poorer and less educated population. Moreover, it was the Tunku’s idea that Kuala Lumpur was to be Malaysia’s Washington DC and Singapore was to be ‘New York’.
Considering our rate of development and ability to distribute wealth in a fashion that has not given rise to ethnic clashes, Malaysia has been quite successful. Our failing has more to do with the failure to create a strong sense of national identity.
This is because demographically we inherited a nation where no one ethnic group dominated. Singapore, on the other hand, has an overwhelming Chinese majority.
Our founding leaders wisely decided that national identity should not be ‘forced’ but should be left to develop naturally. It was assumed that with economic parity, the different ethnic groups would have more in common than not. National unity would then be the evolutionary next step.
In fact, that policy continues to be the basis for ‘1Malaysia’. The prime minister explained that the pursuit of national identity is not assimilation. We can see that assimilation does not work. We see this in southern Thailand and southern Philippines.
But for ‘1Malaysia’ to work, we need equality or at least, the government needs to create a sense that Malaysia is moving towards social justice. The PM said that the concept is different from the DAP’s ‘Malaysian Malaysia’, which is assimilation. The problem with this argument is that he is still stuck in the 1960s as he thinks the opposition is the PAP. Perhaps, Lee’s presence rekindled memories.
DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng said that, although the DAP and the PAP share historical roots, the DAP is not the PAP. The DAP has developed in a trajectory shaped by Malaysian politics. In fact, the PAP has been a staunch ally of the Barisan Nasional (BN) and continues to be openly in favour of BN rule.
The reason is that Malaysia has developed ahead of Singapore politically. Malaysians voted for the opposition and the country did not fall apart. We have reached political maturity. The government of the day does not have a two-thirds majority in Parliament but still functions. Lee came, visited state governments in opposition hands, and has returned home.
Forget blind imitation
The lesson from the Singapore experience is pragmatism. When you don’t have enough water, you have to make sacrifices. Malaysia, blessed with natural resources, can afford to be a bit laid back. But time and tide wait for no man. So, as we face the sunset years of low-cost production and a manufacturing economy, the government is exhorting us to think outside the proverbial box.
Let’s look at Singapore's development strategy for the coming decades. After reaching ‘first world’ status, Singapore has been trying hard to move up a notch to become a global city, attractive not only to capital but also talent. This is what was meant by a larger ‘hinterland’.
Singapore is not bent on Asian domination but aspires to be a global player when the world economy recovers. It can only achieve that if it can attract talent to its shores. In its future, it will be cutting-edge technical knowledge that will allow Singapore's industries to remain relevant; its services sought after. In short, it has to move beyond mere efficiency to maintain its standard of living.
Malaysia has yet to achieve ‘first world’ status. Since the government has not abandoned Vision 2020, we can safely assume that we are still headed in that direction through the diversification of our economic platform.
To attract global capital and be more productive, we need to produce more professionals - but not the kind that have passed exams with a string of As but cannot communicate effectively. No more doctoring of marks just to achieve the bell-shaped curve! If our graduates cannot cut it, Malaysia will be left behind.
As the world becomes more competitive, it does not hurt to be linguistically flexible. All Malaysians should at least be bilingual. That is how small nations survive and thrive. Think of Scandinavia and closer to home, Singapore and Hong Kong.
This does not have to be at the expense of the national language. Instead of bickering over the ‘sanctity’ of Bahasa Melayu, have we taken advantage of the new opportunities to make Malay a truly global language?
In fact, with technological developments like Facebook, Twitter and other Internet-related communication tools, the opportunity to make Malay into a global language has presented itself.
But you need to be bilingual to take advantage of this opportunity - how else can you understand the workings of the Internet?
For Malaysia to succeed, our universities must become centres of global excellence. If they receive RM300 million in research grants, we want to know what sort of research is happening. Are there tangible and commercial links with industry? If not, we are just producing engineers for Singapore and other countries with a more sophisticated economic base?
There is a lot to be done and we need not be scared to emulate our neighbours if they have managed to get some things right. But this must never be blind imitation, it has to be change on our own terms.
First published on 16 June 2009
This type of thinking is what gets Awang Selamat of Utusan Malaysia extremely upset. In fact, this type of view does nothing to disabuse Malay Malaysians that non-Malays are hell-bent on turning Malaysia into Singapore, which is essentially a country given up to commercialism.
Of course, Singapore has to be a money-making emporium. It has no natural resources and has to purchase water from Johor, albeit at a much lower rate than Malacca. But that was part of the pact signed by our forefathers.It is a ‘political contract’, one of the conditions for Singapore leaving Malaysia. It gave Singapore a fighting chance and now that they have succeeded, some Malaysians want us to review the “contract”.
Political contracts aside, many have conveniently forgotten the fact that Singapore took off from a much higher economic and educational base. It was the headquarters of British Southeast Asia and the British Empire was a commercial empire. When the British military left, its companies stayed behind.
In short, Singapore’s pace of development cannot be compared to Malaysia’s, as though both countries began on the same footing just because our currencies were of the same value. We had more natural resources but also a bigger, poorer and less educated population. Moreover, it was the Tunku’s idea that Kuala Lumpur was to be Malaysia’s Washington DC and Singapore was to be ‘New York’.
Considering our rate of development and ability to distribute wealth in a fashion that has not given rise to ethnic clashes, Malaysia has been quite successful. Our failing has more to do with the failure to create a strong sense of national identity.
This is because demographically we inherited a nation where no one ethnic group dominated. Singapore, on the other hand, has an overwhelming Chinese majority.
Our founding leaders wisely decided that national identity should not be ‘forced’ but should be left to develop naturally. It was assumed that with economic parity, the different ethnic groups would have more in common than not. National unity would then be the evolutionary next step.
In fact, that policy continues to be the basis for ‘1Malaysia’. The prime minister explained that the pursuit of national identity is not assimilation. We can see that assimilation does not work. We see this in southern Thailand and southern Philippines.
But for ‘1Malaysia’ to work, we need equality or at least, the government needs to create a sense that Malaysia is moving towards social justice. The PM said that the concept is different from the DAP’s ‘Malaysian Malaysia’, which is assimilation. The problem with this argument is that he is still stuck in the 1960s as he thinks the opposition is the PAP. Perhaps, Lee’s presence rekindled memories.
DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng said that, although the DAP and the PAP share historical roots, the DAP is not the PAP. The DAP has developed in a trajectory shaped by Malaysian politics. In fact, the PAP has been a staunch ally of the Barisan Nasional (BN) and continues to be openly in favour of BN rule.The reason is that Malaysia has developed ahead of Singapore politically. Malaysians voted for the opposition and the country did not fall apart. We have reached political maturity. The government of the day does not have a two-thirds majority in Parliament but still functions. Lee came, visited state governments in opposition hands, and has returned home.
Forget blind imitation
The lesson from the Singapore experience is pragmatism. When you don’t have enough water, you have to make sacrifices. Malaysia, blessed with natural resources, can afford to be a bit laid back. But time and tide wait for no man. So, as we face the sunset years of low-cost production and a manufacturing economy, the government is exhorting us to think outside the proverbial box.
Let’s look at Singapore's development strategy for the coming decades. After reaching ‘first world’ status, Singapore has been trying hard to move up a notch to become a global city, attractive not only to capital but also talent. This is what was meant by a larger ‘hinterland’.
Singapore is not bent on Asian domination but aspires to be a global player when the world economy recovers. It can only achieve that if it can attract talent to its shores. In its future, it will be cutting-edge technical knowledge that will allow Singapore's industries to remain relevant; its services sought after. In short, it has to move beyond mere efficiency to maintain its standard of living.
Malaysia has yet to achieve ‘first world’ status. Since the government has not abandoned Vision 2020, we can safely assume that we are still headed in that direction through the diversification of our economic platform.
To attract global capital and be more productive, we need to produce more professionals - but not the kind that have passed exams with a string of As but cannot communicate effectively. No more doctoring of marks just to achieve the bell-shaped curve! If our graduates cannot cut it, Malaysia will be left behind.As the world becomes more competitive, it does not hurt to be linguistically flexible. All Malaysians should at least be bilingual. That is how small nations survive and thrive. Think of Scandinavia and closer to home, Singapore and Hong Kong.
This does not have to be at the expense of the national language. Instead of bickering over the ‘sanctity’ of Bahasa Melayu, have we taken advantage of the new opportunities to make Malay a truly global language?
In fact, with technological developments like Facebook, Twitter and other Internet-related communication tools, the opportunity to make Malay into a global language has presented itself.But you need to be bilingual to take advantage of this opportunity - how else can you understand the workings of the Internet?
For Malaysia to succeed, our universities must become centres of global excellence. If they receive RM300 million in research grants, we want to know what sort of research is happening. Are there tangible and commercial links with industry? If not, we are just producing engineers for Singapore and other countries with a more sophisticated economic base?
There is a lot to be done and we need not be scared to emulate our neighbours if they have managed to get some things right. But this must never be blind imitation, it has to be change on our own terms.
First published on 16 June 2009
No comments:
Post a Comment