by Amirul Zulhilmi bin Zulkifli (Coretan 2019/20: Kita Edition)
Picture 1: 'Malay Opium-Smokers' from "Illustrated Travels: a record of discovery, geography, and adventure", 1880.
The “Malay Problem”
According to Tania Li, the “Malay problem” can be defined as Malay backwardness caused by adherence to Malay cultural values which leads them to adopt negative values and attitudes, therefore inhibiting their economic and social progress.
Such a reductionist, cultural diagnosis is often cited by the elites as the primary reason why Malays remain at the bottom of the socio-economic strata in realms such as education. This perception originated from the British colonial elites and has persisted till today. I seek to explore how the term “Malay problem” came to be constructed and preserved over the years. In addition, I will also demonstrate how the ruling elites used such construction to legitimize their policies and therefore, be able to pursue their wider economic interests.
Background
The term “Malay problem” can be traced back to the colonial era. During the colonial era, the British colonial rulers sought to employ labourers in rubber plantations and mines to extract natural resources such as tin and rubber for their colonial economy. Work conditions in the rubber plantations and tin mines were harsh and the pay was absurdly low. Unsurprisingly, many Malays refused to work in such occupations but instead, chose to work outside the colonial capitalist economy such as being employed as drivers in their villages. The British viewed the refusal as evidence that Malays were indolent and thus imported Chinese and Indian coolies into Malaya to work in such fields. However, the refusal of most Malays to work in colonial industries should not be interpreted that Malays are lazy. Rather, it should be viewed contextually whereby such a choice was justified due to the poor working conditions and pay.
From Perception to Ideology
Such a negative perception of Malays began to take on a more cultural lens after Malaya gained independence from the British. This can be derived from statements and writings of educational and political elites who conveniently blamed the social and economic backwardness of Malays on the adherence of Malay cultural values. Local intelligentsia and political elites such as Mahathir Muhammad wrote books such as “Malay dilemma” which conveniently claimed that Malays were backwards due to their deficient cultural values which consequently made them lazy, fatalistic and easily contented. In other words, Malays were at the bottom of the socio-economic hierarchy solely because of their “deficient” cultural values. Such cultural diagnosis is blind to structural impediments and historical factors which prevented Malay progress. Local elites may have uncritically accepted the concoction and argument from their past colonial masters due to their social distance from the Malay masses. They tend to come from privileged families, removed from the everyday life experience of Malay masses. Such is the case of Malaya whereby the Malay aristocracy insisted that their children should not mix with others in places such as schools. Thus, they may not understand why Malays practice and react in a certain way and hence unable to accurately diagnose the lingering issues faced by them; allowing their bias and perception to cloud their judgement.
The perception that Malay cultural values are deficient soon evolved into an ideology. This is seen in the works of Tania Li who explored how the ideology of Malay cultural deficiency came to be accepted and advocated by Malay elites. She argued that “cultural explanations of Malay backwardness are incorporated as an element of cultural knowledge shaping public and private discourse and the practices of daily life…. legitimizing domination”. This meant that the perception Malays are indolent due to their cultural deficiency came to be internalized, accepted and promoted by the elites across an indefinite time frame. The elites constantly reemphasize that Malay cultural values were somehow deficient and thus should not be followed. This illustrates how the process of British perception of Malay indolence evolved into an ideology that Malays are culturally deficient, hence the de facto explanation for Malay backwardness.
The ideological influence of Malay cultural deficiency
It is important to note how influential such an ideology is towards diagnosing the ills of the Malays. This is important as it affects how solutions are formulated to solve problems. A clear example is the educational attainment of Malays. Historically, Malays did not do well in their studies due to a multitude of reasons such as lack of family support as they were required to work the paddy fields and lack of educational facilities that catered to the specific needs of the Malay community. During the colonial era, the British did not invest much in the education of Malays. Even when they did, they only provided rudimentary primary school education for the Malays. The British claimed there was no need to provide more educational resources as otherwise, it would disrupt the cultural practices of Malays. In reality, they were not keen to spend resources and invest in higher educational facilities as they wanted the Malays to continue to be employed as farmers and plantation workers so that they contribute to the colonial capitalist economy. The only exception was for the sons of local ruling elites. The British co-sponsored the construction of Malay College Kuala Kangsar which provided higher education and the possibility of further overseas studies for them. However, the school was reserved solely for sons of Malay elites and thus prohibited Malay masses from enrolling into the school. This explains why the Malay masses remained poorly uneducated, mainly due to a lack of educational opportunities for them.
After the independence of Malaya from colonial rule, Singapore was separated from Malaysia and gained independence in 1965. This meant that suddenly overnight, Malays had to grapple with the fact they were now an ethnic minority in Singapore. Compounding this was the findings of the Malay population released during a seminar in 1971 which showed Malays were not participating in the national development of Singapore due to their low educational qualification. This led to a panic in the Malay community as it was statistically proven that the gap between Malays and other ethnic groups was much wider than what had been perceived. Though there was urgent recognition that something needs to be done to improve the educational status of Malays, the antidote was often unproblematically explored from a cultural lens. This was seen in various statements made by Malay elites such as Sha`ri Tadin, a Malay PAP political MP who exhorted that Malays lagged behind others because their archaic cultural values were not suitable in rapidly modernizing Singapore. It is important to remember that such a simplistic argument is false as cultural values do not exist in a vacuum but rather, constantly evolve with changes in society. The failure of Malay political elites such as Sha`ri Tadin to recognise that Malay backwardness in the educational field originated from historical impediments such as discriminatory practices of the British illustrates how deeply entrenched ideological influence has on the minds of people.
The bizarre acceptance of the deficient Malay cultural values argument by Malay elites could be explained by the policies of the Singapore state. When Singapore separated from Malaysia, it adopted a “Singaporean Singapore” approach whereby all citizens would enjoy the same privileges regardless of their ethnicity. Policies such as multiracialism and meritocracy were adopted in contrast to ethnic policies of Malaysia which favoured the Malays. Meritocracy gave the impression that since everyone had equal opportunities, everyone could climb the social ladder. This was given credence by state-controlled media outlets who aired rags to riches stories to reinforce such beliefs. Those who succeeded became role models of the Malay community, their values and hard work to be emulated by the rest if they wanted to succeed. Such prestige naturally flattered the Malay elites and reinforced that they were different from the Malay masses and therefore receptive of arguments regarding Malay cultural deficiency. This false sense of superiority made them ever eager to criticize the Malay masses for practising archaic Malay cultural values. This is seen in Malay elites including intelligentsias such as Kassim Yang Razali who had no qualms criticizing Malay masses for practising deficient cultural values which were deemed “fatalistic, easily contented, passive resignation…. adherence to pre-Islamic cultural values” (Zubaidah 1988). Such statements whether aired through the media or academic discourses gave legitimacy that Malay cultural values were indeed deficient and thus the de facto reason why Malays continue to lag behind their peers. Hence, the policy of meritocracy conditioned Malay elites to propagate and reproduce the ideology that Malay backwardness in areas such as education was simply due to their adherence of deficient cultural values and not the fault of policies or structures.
The ideology of deficient Malay culture coupled with policies such as multiracialism and meritocracy was eagerly utilized by the government to not only stifle any discussion about Malay marginalization but also delegitimize any view that the cause of Malay backwardness fundamentally laid within institutional factors and structural inequalities of Singapore. Institutional factors such as the administration of educational policies tended to both explicitly and implicitly disadvantage Malays. While there is a recognition that Malays lag behind their peers in the realm of education, the government has been less supportive in playing a direct role in uplifting the educational position of Malays. In the past, Malay students used to receive free education so that they would be able to attend school and motivate them to attain higher educational qualification. However, the government has since abolished such subsidy and instead delegated the responsibility to ethnic self-help groups such as Mendaki wherein the government would co-subsidize the cost together with the Malay community. However, the implicit discriminatory policies have a more profound effect than such explicit policies. This is seen in the eugenics and elitist undertones that shaped the educational landscape from the 1970s. Educational policies such as streaming and the Gifted Education Program (GEP) was implemented to modernize the Singapore education system and feed market demand. Such policies were justified by the government as it reasoned that to extract the best potential from each student in lieu of their different academic capabilities, they should not undergo the same academic rigour and hence be placed into different academic streams. While there is a recognition that some students are inherently academically weaker than others, more resources are spent on stronger students instead of weaker students! This severely handicapped Malays because weaker students tend to come from poorer families. Since Malays are overwhelmingly represented in the bottom strata of society, it meant fewer resources were spent on Malays even though it was recognised that Malays lag badly behind their peers in the realm of education. It is no wonder why Malays are least successful vis-à-vis other ethnic groups in areas such as education. It is not their fault as such severe structural impediments serve to locate Malays at the bottom of the social hierarchy.
Yet, such insidious discriminatory policies are not picked up by the Malay elites and organisations. Instead, they continue to reproduce the ideology that Malays are backwards due to their deficient cultural values. This is seen in statements made over the years by prominent Malay elites that “Malay minds was not an inquiring one” (Ahmat 1977), “Malays...never really urbanized in a psychological sense” (Bedlington 1974), “neglect education and unwillingness to change” (Zoohri 1990) and recently in 2012, “Malays must rescind their traditional and cultural habits” (Mutalib 2012). Compounding this was ethnic self-help groups such as Mendaki who closely monitor the yearly performance of Malay students. Even though Malay students have made significant progress in the realm of education, they are told by Mendaki that the Malay community are “still a long way from our target…must intensify our efforts to achieve greater results” (Suriani 2010). The insistence of Mendaki and other Malay elites that Malays are not on par with other ethnic groups despite their substantial academic progress is due to the identification of new standards. Malay elites and organisations construct new fields to prove that Malays are still lagging behind. This is seen where despite increasing enrolment of Malays in higher educational institutes, they were criticized for lagging behind others in subjects such as Mathematics and Science. The invention of new standards meant that the ideology of Malay cultural deficiency is allowed to perpetuate and reproduce despite the reality that Malays have vastly progressed in the academic sphere in comparison to their past.
The Malay cultural deficient argument is eagerly seized upon by non-Malay ruling elites as the de facto evidence for Malay backwardness. Through the policy of multiracialism and meritocracy, the government argues that since everyone has equal opportunities to climb the social ladder and that there is no ethnic favouritism nor advantage towards any ethnic groups, the failure of the Malay community to uplift themselves lies solely in the cultural deficiency of Malays. With this, the government adopts and perpetuates the ideology and absolves itself from any responsibility of abysmal Malay social and economic performance. Yet it is important to highlight that such an argument is flawed. The government has invested heavily in Special Assistance Schools (SAP) which seek to inculcate Chinese values and some require the comprehension of mandarin to enrol in such schools. Such language requirement systematically discriminates against Malays as they are excluded from the opportunity to enrol in such schools which tend to be elite, prestigious schools and have much more resources. The SAP schools is a blatant example of how Malays are systematically discriminated while Chinese students privileged, therefore disproving the government`s notion of equal opportunities. Thus, Malays must withstand not only explicit disadvantages but also systematic discriminations from the government in domains such as education.
Conclusion
It should not surprise us that Malays continue to lag behind their peers in education due to the various impediments. These impediments include historical factors such as British exclusion of Malay masses from educational opportunities, structural inequalities such as socio-economic class and ethnicity, and institutional factors such as streaming and SAP schools which insidiously serve to discriminate against Malay students. Yet, such policies and structural inequalities are allowed to flourish due to the unquestioning acceptance of ideology by elites that Malays are backwards because of their deficient cultural values. Despite such discriminations, Malay students have improved tremendously and continue to achieve further success in the field of education. Yet there is scant recognition of their achievements in the media. Even if there were, it is implied that Malays still lag behind other ethnic groups. This is problematic as for Malays to achieve success in realms such as education, they must expound much more effort and sacrifices than others due to both explicit and implicit discrimination. This proves the argument that Malays are lazy and easily contented because of their deficient cultural values is simply, not true.
The use and reproduction of such ideology by the non-Malay ruling elites may be linked to its pragmatic nature and economic obsession. The sole natural resource of Singapore is its people and the State may have concluded that it is only right for them to invest more in those they perceive as academically-superior as they would later contribute more value towards Singapore’s economic success due to their higher educational qualification. Yet, it is important for us to be conscious that ideologies are social constructs and the notion of Malay backwardness is caused by deficient cultural values is vehemently false. Only through such consciousness and realisation would we be able to move away from diagnosing problems through a cultural lens and therefore uncover the cause of Malay backwardness which is found in various structural factors and policies. Otherwise, no matter how far Malays progress in fields such as education, they would continue to be deemed as “not good enough” and still lagging behind other ethnic groups. Thus, the ideology of Malay cultural deficiency needs to be urgently unpacked and proven false.
Amirul Zulhilmi bin Zulkifli is a Year 3 NUS student majoring in Malay Studies.
References
The Hikayat Abdullah. The Autobiography of Abdullah bin Abdul Kadir. 1969, Chapter 14
Ahmat, Sharom. 1977. "Malay Participation in the national development of Singapore."
Alatas, Syed Hussein. 1977. "Introduction."
Alatas, Syed Hussein. 1977. The image of indolence and the corresponding reality, Chapter 5.
Alatas, Syed Hussein, 1977. The Malay Concept of industry and indolence, Chapter 9
Bedlington, Stanley. 1974. The Singapore Malay Community: The Politics of State Integration.
Huat, Chua Beng. 1998. Racial-Singaporeans; absence after the hyphen.
Li, Tania. 1989. Malays in National Economic and Education System, Chapter 7.
Li, Tania. 1989. Malays in Singapore, Culture, Economy and Ideology, Chapter 11
Mutalib, Hussin. 2012. Singapore Malays; Being Ethnic Minority and Muslim in a Global City-State.
Suriani. 2010. "Problematic Singaporean Malays: Sustaining a Portrayal.
Zoohri, Wan Hussin. 1990. The Singapore Malays. The Dilemma of Development. Singapore: Singapore Malay Teachers’ Union.
Zubaidah, Lily. 1998. Perceptions of Malay Marginality, Chapter 4.
Zubaidah, Lily. 1998. Understanding the Malay educational marginality, Chapter 9.
Comments