The true meaning of Bumiputra

Updating new posting on Infernal Ramblings.

The author, John Lee, have a large number of articles on Malaysian politics which I find quite insightful. In particular, I liked The Death of Malaysia.

In that article, the author detailed his disappointment with both the BN government, as well as the opposition in Malaysia. In a way, I feel that his criticisms on the opposition could very well be translated verbatim upon the opposition here in Singapore.

Anyway my earlier post turned out to be a mistake - it was sent out instead as an email to John, who used it to write an article titled : "Will There Ever Be A Chinese Prime Minister?"


My comments in that thread :


I mailed John Lee as AC, mistaking the ‘mail the author’ option as message posting.

My original words was meant for Kufar - specifically on his views that he will be embraced as a full Bumiputra without any discrimination whatsoever simply because he fully embraced Islam.

I think the Kufar is mistaken and misguided in this assumption. The political elite is clearly reserved for both Malay and Muslim. Muslim without the Malay won't quite cut it.

Yup, forgot about Tan Siew Sin. But let us recap some facts about him - he came from a very influential background - he was the only son of MCA founder Tan Cheng Lock, and he subsequently became the president of MCA as well. Possible reasons on why he was holding such an important position could be due to his political clout with the Chinese, the infancy of the NEP/Bumputra policy which was newly started then, and that wealth in Malaysia then was mostly controlled by the Chinese.

So yes, Tan Siew Sin was exceptional, and possibly the exception. Unless I was gravely mistaken, he did not convert to Islam.

The point I was making was that capable Chinese or Indians are systematically discriminated against in the government, and prevented from holding real and significant power because they were first and foremost not Malay, and not quite because they were not Muslims.

Ask not what your country can do for you: Ask what you can do for your country...

Reply to Edward in YPAP blog:

The question becomes whether we want the best people to do the job. It is not a question of leaders being materialistic but more one of whether we should pay them their dues.

I want great leaders too.

But I think that a person who do not want the job; a person who needs the political selection process circumvented to roll him/her in on a red carpet; a person who would reject the opportunity to serve his nation because a million dollar salary represent a pay cut he/she can't accept - such people DO NOT represent the best.

We need intelligent, gifted people. We need passionate inspired people who have a genuine wish to contribute. We need people who value what they are doing for the country.

What’s the use of the smartest if their hearts are not in what they are doing?

The comparison with other countries is irrelevant. Do we want a situation where only the aristocracy and landed gentry are willing to step forward? Or worse still, the opportunists who are unable to make it in the real commercial world? Just recently, a cabinet secretary in the US asked to be allowed to step down because he could no longer afford to do national service. I personally would not want Singapore to be in such a situation.

The comparison with other countries is most relevant. Are the government of NZ, Netherlands and Switzerland all aristocracy and landed gentry? Are they opportunists?

The fact is, they are paid on par with political leaders of first world countries - which are a tiny fraction of what our leaders are paid. They produce excellent result - and they score as high or higher on incorruptibility. And they are far from living in abject poverty.

Instead of looking to the cheque book as the source of all solution - should we not study people who have managed to do well and ask the question of how did they manage to do it?

Also, Singaporeans males do NS, and I have seen countless cases of people who suffer financial loss to grub in the jungle to serve the nation. Here we pay our Ministers 1.2m and can they find the balls to come out and say that they need to step down because they cannot afford to do National service? PLEASE let whoever who say this go, because I can’t accept someone like that as my leader as well.

One fallacy here is firstly the assumption that one driven by passion is necessarily. going to do a better job than one driven by money. The other fallacy is that just because one is driven by passion, we would necessarily take advantage of him and not pay him his dues.

It is also easy to belittle the sacrifice that comes with holding public office being perpetually under public scrutiny.

One fallacy here is to assume that money is the primary and only reason why the PAP is having problems in recruiting talented people. Are there other reasons - like the way politics are run in Singapore; the inflexibility of the political process?

The part about public scrutiny is a joke - our media is one of the most muzzled and compliant amongst developed nations. When is the last time you see/hear of our leaders being hounded by the paparazzi?

Please rebute our comments points by points if you have the guts like Phillip Yeo.

Yea, please rebute my comments point by point too. Thank you very much.

Please give us prove of how much each minister will get if they are now in private sector. So far, we only have the word of the PM that our Ministers are worth double of what they are getting now.

I am unconvinced.

Everyone I spoke to is unconvinced too.

Perhaps the critics of the ministerial pay raise will be silenced once and for all if the government can come out with convincing prove that the Ministers are able to command such a high price if any of them "step down since they cannot afford to do national service"

A Tactical Retreat, or a Quitter?

More postings in the YPAP blog in response to Elaina Chong's response, which also seemed to be her closing remarks after a firestorm of criticism following her article.

One wonders if it will be the last we shall see of her.

AC :

Thanks for the welcome, Elaina.

I do get the attributes that you are trying to link to our Ministers. The problem is that the level of self-sacrifice, compassion and altruism of Mother Theresa is worlds apart when compared to our ministers. To suggest a basis of similarity between the two is ... absurdity bordering on insult for those who honor the memory of the late Mother Theresa.

The bit about bankers being axed is all about 2 things. Risk and Responsibility.

Big winners in the private sector are often playing around big risk. When one does well one gets very well rewarded - and on the flip side when things go wrong you sometimes lose the meal ticket. To tie Ministerial remuneration to top winners while discarding the risk factors that those winners face is unbalanced, unrealistic and unacceptable – I am flabbergasted by the very thought.

CEOs take credit for successes and they also bear responsibility when their company does badly. Whether it's an apology or a resignation, I expect our leaders to come out clear when mistakes are made or when oversights occur. “It’s a honest mistake” just does not cut it. There is far too much obsession to preserve a facade of perfection where our leaders cannot be seen to be flawed or making mistakes.

Top private sector wages are accompanied by exposure to risk, and the adoption of responsibility over developments under one's stewardship. Are our ministers demanding for the best of two worlds?

The lawyer who feels the pain of our Ministers

A lawyer tries to put his version of the spin on the matter of ministerial pay raise via his writing - the green eyed monster.

I felt that the article was very undiplomatic - basically it’s suggesting that a significant number of the critics are jealous of the Ministers pay and are opposing the raise simply because of their jealousy.

The author believes that lawyers deserve their high pay because of 2 main factor - they really studied hard through a long, labourous process; and their work requires them to be very careful and extremely meticulous.

I think that his views are quite misplaced. Most professionals are trained over significant time - some require constant retraining even; all professionals need to be very careful and meticulous when going about their job if they want to do survive and prosper in their respective industries.

The lawyer's pay is by and large a result of demand and supply - there is demand, and limited supply. Part of the problem is that some years back our government predicted wrongly that there will be a glut of lawyers - the opposite happened, there were no enough lawyers. The supply problem is further worsened by the relatively specialized nature of the job - one cannot simply import Chinese or Indian lawyers because they are not versed with local law. My friends told me too that the pay of Singaporean lawyers lag behind many nations including China even, and that the steady leak of lawyers overseas as a result is compounding the supple issue.

This shortage is the reason why lawyers get higher pay when compared to other professions.

In the comments section of this thread, Joel Leong said...

Just my little observation/opinion.

1. Staff look forward to pay increment and market adjustment.

2. Bosses frown on staff 's pay rise. But will oblige if staff can perform well.

3. Taxpayers unhappy with Ministers' pay rise. Taxpayers still willing to vote for the Ministers if the country is doing well.

So at the end of day, if one can perform he should be duly rewarded.

anonymous craven said...

Joel Leong :

Firstly, who acts as the 'bosss' of the government? According to our constitution, the people of Singapore is supposed to be the 'boss', and surely the people's inputs should factor in when it comes to judging the performance, as well as the quantum of pay adjustments.

Following your example it will be akin to the staff deciding unilaterally that they have done a great job, and rewarding themselves with pay raises. Does it make any sense at all?

Second. Pay raises in the private sector are calibrated with whichever sector/discipline one finds themsevles in. There is no job out there where one can pay hop to to be tied to whichever sector that is doing best at that time : such a pay system is completely out of this world - its almost like a guaranteed pay raise, for so long as the top earners out there are being paid more for their efforts, you get to partake in their gains as your pay is tied relative with theirs.

Following your example it will be similar to the staff telling their boss that for that year they want their pay to be tied to banker pay as the market is doing very well this year. Can you imagine the response of the boss to such a demand?

Mahathir - Zero or Hero?

Been reading a Malaysian blog - their politics interest me - it have been a long standing view of mine that despite being a minority, despite being marginalised by consitution, the Malaysian Chinese plays a more active and pivotal role in Malaysian politics than the typical Singaporean - Chinese or not.

Here's an interesting article there commenting that there is no reason to treat Mahathir as a hero, simply because he is attacking the government now he have left it.

A poster named Kufar posted some rather fundamentalist opinions - that chap is advocating that all Malaysians should convert or ship out of Malaysia; and he seems to believe that he will be treated like a full Bumiputra simply because he embraces Islam. So I went in and added my 5 cents worth on his misguided belief.


'It is not just Islam that opens doors in Malaysia. It is about race. It is about political background. It is about patronage and it is about connections.

As the dominant race is Malay, and most Malays are Muslims - Islam gets tagged in as well - as a convenient means to reach out to the masses; and a convenient means to package and sell one's politics.

There will never be a Chinese Defence Minister in Malaysia regardless of whether a conversion to Islam have occured; and there will never be a Chinese Foreign Minister, Finance Minister, Deputy Prime Minister or Prime Minister.

And yes, Kufar will be discriminated against for being Chinese no matter how much of Islam he embraces, no matter how he forsake his roots.'

What does Bill Gates, George Soros, Mother Theresa and a PAP minister have in common?

Just posted a reply on the YPAP blog. Keeping a copy here for archive

"A platoon with the acumen of Bill Gates, risk appetite of George Soros and the heart of Mother Theresa, I would think. And the compensation? Priceless."

I find the comparison to Mother Theresa offensive. She was revered for giving unreservedly to the society while asking nothing in return for herself - to mention her name in the same breath as an article trying to justify that 1 million is still not enough for some... is simply ghastly.

The business acumen/risk appetite bits are simply ironic given the track record of massive investment disasters. The key point to note is not that investments are without risk. The crux of the matter is that top bankers get axed when they make massive losses - we have yet to see or hear of a single high ranking official take responsibility when things go horribly wrong. (i.e. it's a honest mistake etc)

MULTI-MILLION-CHURCH.COM

Just posted a comment at :
http://wecangetthemforyouwholesale.blogspot.com
/2005/05/to-marketplace-my-minions.html

The author wrote of his visit to the City Harvest Church, where he was overwhelmed by the sound and fury while being somewhat less than impressed about the substance and the soul of the Church.

A particularly memorable bit from the article was the part where the author recounts

"...this example Rev. Kong Hee gives, this businessman wants to build a super stadium dedicated to God in the middle of urban Jakarta. He owns a field with tons of coal underneath but the price of coal is so low it's not worthwhile to mine it and make money.

So how? (This is where Rev. Kong Hee sounds really excited) God answers this guy's prayers. Hundreds of miners in China die in multiple mining accidents forcing all the mines in the country to close. The price of coal goes up, giving the guy a profit margin to mine his coal! Hallejulah!"

His comments section soon received several visits from supporters of the church, who then criticised him for a variety of failings...


My earlier comment on the article :

I thought that this was a pretty well written article. It sums up what the critics of CHC feel is amiss in the manner which Pastor Kong is running his show, and it does so in a witty manner - perhaps not so funny to the CHC hardcores, but I would guess that others might be more amused.

Simply put, Rev Kong seems to be putting too much emphasis on growing the material aspect of the church. This materialism is felt from the moment you enter to church; to the manner they solicit money.

CHC is extravagant - there is no doubt about it. And while the contributors were willing, there remains stories of how the peer pressure within the CHC works when one does not tithe regularly, or when one does not contribution much in their fundraising.

I personally knew of parents who lamented about their children not giving them and their family what they give monthly to the church. I feel that something is very wrong when money for the family, money for the parents who raised you, is put on a lower priority than contributions to fuel the extravagant visions of a CEO-Pastor.

I feel that CHC have degenerated from a house of God, to become a corporation driven endlessly to expand and make more profits. I feel that they prey excessively upon the youthful and impressionable. I feel that CHC and Pastor Kong are in dire need for a dose of humility, and I pray that he gets back to the ground before he leads his enthralled congregation astray.
AC | 03.06.07 - 10:29 pm | #


My second comment on the criticisms directed at the author:

I think that it is way more insensitive to refer to the deaths of hundreds of miners as a God-given miracle to help increase the price of coal, as compared to the remark you mentioned.

The barb of the remark was directed at the allegation that Christ was very well connected - not just popular amongst the townsfolk but well-linked to businesses and political leaders (according to Pastor Kong's Market Theory). Yet He was crucified soon after - something thats quite contradictory.

The pastor reaches out to far more people than the typical teacher : thousands, tens of thousands in fact. He should pay even more care to the words he used - his words and his influence on his congregation have a far wider impact on religious harmony in Singapore than any single teacher out there.
AC | 03.07.07 - 9:47 pm | #