Nearly 40,000 Indian Nationals "Missing" In Malaysia - An Excerpt

South Indian workers in Kuala Lumpur - Photo by : Oxymanus

January 12, 2010 16:08 PM

Nearly 40,000 Indian Nationals "Missing" In Malaysia - Najib

PUTRAJAYA, Jan 12 (Bernama) -- A total of 39,046 Indian citizens are "missing" in Malaysia after their tourist visas expired and it is a worrying issue for the country, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said.

The prime minister said they had gone missing from the Immigration Department's records, according to an estimate drawn up in June last year.

That was why the department was not keen on visa-on-arrival for Indians as the facility had been abused, especially by those from Chennai, he said.

"These people who came to Malaysia through the visa-on-arrival facility, could be back in India or be among people here...(maybe) working in the Indian restaurants.

"We just don't know where these people are now...probably still in Malaysia for economic reasons," he said in a interview with visiting Indian journalists at his office here Monday.

Najib indicated that he might take up the issue during his three-day official visit to India, beginning Jan 19.

The prime minister said Malaysia had been quite liberal in allowing priests and barbers from India to come and work in the country.

"We would like the Indian people to visit Malaysia as tourists. We have been quiet liberal. We want genuine ones. They are most welcome.

"We are willing to consider reintroducing the visa scheme for people coming from cities like Bangalore, Mumbai and Delhi but not from Chennai. The problem of overstaying is only from Chennai, he said.

Asked whether the government would hold any dialogue with the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf), Najib said many people had realised that the group had "really exaggerated and manipulated the whole situation" of the ethnic Indian minority.

He said that most Indians in the country wanted the government to be sensitive to their needs and the government had been responsive.

"We have attended to a lot of the Indian problems and I don't see that Hindraf has been an important force in Malaysian politics," he said.

Asked on the move by the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) to appoint a special envoy for Jammu and Kashmir, Najib said any follow-up action would be possible only if India and Pakistan were agreeable.

"Malaysia feels that the issue should be settled through peaceful negotiations," he added.

-- BERNAMA

Singapore: When 40,000 Indians Changed Sides

Singapore: When 40,000 Indians Changed Sides
John Bean on John Scrivener's account of a shameful episode in British history


On February 11th 1942 Britain's General Percival in charge of the defence of Singapore surrendered to Japan's General Yamashita. Ninety thousand British, Australian and Indian troops had been defeated by sixty thousand Japanese. It was the most humiliating defeat in the history of the British Army, and from that day onwards it meant that the end of white rule in India and South East Asia was inevitable.

The reasons for this monumental defeat have been much discussed by historians and politicians over the past sixty years. So you may well ask: "Why rake over it again?" I do so by a chance encounter with the ‘memoirs’ of a former soldier in the Cambridgeshire Regiment, Jack Scrivener, who spent nearly four years of hell as a prisoner of war of the Japanese after the fall of Singapore.

I had only read a few pages when I realised why his 100 A4 photocopy pages had not received the blessing of an orthodox publisher. Old Jack Scrivener, still alive at 85, was too politically incorrect. Japanese soldiers were "brutal Jap bastards", and Indian soldiers who, without firing a shot, went over to the enemy were "cowardly ratbags". The work needed some editing, but Scrivener's descriptive powers that gave you a full sense of ‘being there’, plus his sense of humour that still came through in the most distressing periods, made it a fascinating read.

Importantly, his ‘memoirs’ gave some further insights to the reasons for the fall of Singapore and on its outcome. These include the complete lack of preparedness by our generals; the indiscipline (though not cowardice) of many Australian troops; the occasional respect shown by the Japanese to those who fought well and also those prisoners who kept their discipline in captivity; and above all the large number of Indian troops who went over to the enemy.
The background

Just two days after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour, a carrier force also attacked Singapore airfield (December 9th 1941) and destroyed nearly all the RAF planes while they were still on the ground.

Subsequently without any air cover, the Royal Navy battleship Prince of Wales, the battle cruiser Renown and several destroyers were sunk by Japanese aircraft as they tried to intercept the Japanese invasion forces heading towards the Malayan peninsula.

Back in Singapore, the heavy navy guns were still left immovably pointing out to sea. This was the way the Japanese would come, said the British top brass. "Those little men cannot come 500 miles through the Malayan jungle and mangrove swamps," they insisted. But they did, and mainly on bicycles as their means of transport. Furthermore, they had little artillery, although this was augmented for the final assault on the Singapore Causeway by the guns they had captured (many of them being abandoned) from the British and Australians.

General Percival has, with some justification, been made the scapegoat of the Singapore disaster - certainly by the Australians. Yet the man was not a coward, and had won the MC and DSO in the battlefields of France in the First World War. Perhaps that was his main failing: fighting a mobile battle of the Second World War with the trench-bound mentality of the First. With the Japanese preparing to storm the Causeway linking the island to the Malayan mainland, Percival still left his 90,000 troops scattered in penny packets over Singapore's 70 miles of coast-line.
In the battle with our old soldier

With the Japanese shelling Singapore on February 7th, Jack Scrivener writes: "...while running barbed wire near the main road we saw the RAF abandoning Seletar Aerodrome and lorry-loads of personnel on their way to the docks." All the aircraft had been destroyed, it was said. On the next page Jack says: "Early on the 8th of February we heard that Japanese forces had landed on the island and were making progress against the Australians. We had taken over Seletar Aerodrome when the RAF vacated and were ready for an attack. In the hangars were crates of fighter aircraft waiting to be assembled. These we had to destroy."

A further example of the panic and confusion that had beset the British Army comes on the next page. "We were told to go to a depot nearby and try to repair some Bren gun carriers which some idiot had ordered to be destroyed earlier. Working hard through the day, we managed to get half a dozen in decent shape to go into action with."

Following capture and being held initially in Changi Jail, Jack Scrivener reflects on how the soldiers felt they had been let down. "It was with great bitterness in the days to come that we realised that after 2-1/2 years hard training we had been sacrificed by the powers that be. Politicians and Generals knew Singapore could not be held once Malaya had fallen, and yet we were thrown in to increase the number of British troops to keep Australia happy. It was the only campaign in the whole of World War Two where troops had no tanks, no aircraft or naval support the last few weeks of battle."
Lack of discipline - not courage

In case readers think that Scrivener had some prejudice against Australians, there are several places in his story where he praises their individual courage; and he obviously got on well with them in captivity, particularly sharing their ability to seize the main chance of a "little more grub" to supplement their starvation rations. What he says many Australians were guilty of at Singapore was lack of discipline.

Jack Scrivener arrived in the troopship on 29th January 1942. This was his welcome from some Australians: "As hundreds of lads were lining the rails a truck drove along the quayside and stopped opposite the West Point. Out got a couple of Australian soldiers and, looking up at us, one said: "What have you bastards come here for?" We answered: "We've come to help you mate." He replied: "We don't want no bloody help; we're getting out of here as soon as we can."

On the morning of February 15th the 1st Cambridgeshires had been holding out in non-stop fighting for five days - our old hero had even shot down a Japanese aircraft with one of his retrieved Bren guns. Then he got cut off and joined up with some Royal Artillery soldiers who still had two guns going. He was to protect them from the ditch with his Bren gun. He writes:-

‘Shortly after, two Australian soldiers came past in a hurry and, seeing me in the ditch, one said: "What are you doing in there, you silly bastard? The Japs are coming down the road." I said: "That's why I'm here, because they are coming." The Aussie said: "We've had enough of this; we are going down the docks and get on a boat." Leaving me, they disappeared through the smoke and haze. I stayed on, not because I was brave but I was more scared of being branded a deserter than I was of the Japanese.’

The last bit says it all - the discipline of a regular, properly trained soldier when faced with what looks like inevitable defeat.
'Look at your proud masters now'

Among the many pages describing the ill-treatment, savagery and torture inflicted upon the British, Australian and Dutch prisoners by the Japanese, there are two instances where they show a form of respect for those who fought well and those who still showed their British army discipline while in captivity.

According to Jack Scrivener, the Cambridgeshires were the last to stop fighting on the fateful day of February 15th. He writes that as one of their Majors approached the Japanese lines waving a white flag, "a Jap officer came towards him with sword in hand. Stooping in front of him he said in perfect English: ‘Well Major, we had a good fight, but we should have won tomorrow as we were going to run you over with tanks.’" It appears that there was no ill treatment of the British prisoners whilst they were in the hands of their immediate captors.

Later, referring to when he and his mates were working on the infamous Burma Railway (where two out of three prisoners died), our old soldier describes an incident when they decided to show the Japanese how to march properly. Emaciated, dressed in rags, many barefooted, they marched for four miles "like bloody Guardsmen," with the guards having to run to keep up with them. The Japanese Colonel in charge was so impressed that he gave them several tins of meat out of the stores and supplied plimsolls for those with no boots.

However, these instances apart, the main Japanese objective was to show the British and the native population that it was they who were now the masters. As the Cambridgeshires were marched up to Changi Jail: "At one point a Jap officer speaking in English shouted to the crowds at the roadside: ‘Look at your proud masters now,’ and they all burst out laughing and jeering."

At another point he describes the prisoners' need for a toilet break during their rail transit on open wagon trucks up to Thailand. "The Japs made us squat down in between the lines in full view of a lot of people on the opposite platform to do our business. Another chance to humiliate the white masters."

The Japanese victory parade in Singapore has, of course, been well documented. Jack Scrivener was there and describes the humiliation.
Indian treachery

Little mention has been made by UK and Australian historians of the treachery of the Indian soldiers - and treachery it was - of joining the Japanese forces en masse and taking up arms with them. It must be said that this contrasts markedly with Indians' performance in the Desert and in Italy, where they were awarded several VCs. Again, Jack Scrivener was on the spot and recorded the instances he saw. The first instance was just after the first Japanese had crossed over the causeway. He relates:-

‘Just before darkness we came under heavy small arms fire from a wooded area nearby and I expected to see Jap troops appear any moment. Lying in a ditch with the Bren, I thought: "It's going to be lively tonight." An officer came up and shouted: "Stop firing. That's bloody Indian troops who's attacking us." Later I found that some Indian troops had gone over to the Japs.’

Just after he had encountered the two Australians heading for the docks, he had observed: "A short while later, some Indian troops came running down the road wild eyed carrying no arms."

This, of course, was not treachery but desertion. Treachery was described in Scrivener's reflections on the downfall during his first few days in Changi:-

‘Thousands of Indian troops on Singapore never fired a shot, and at the first opportunity went over to the Japs to join a Free India movement under a man named Chandra Bose. The Sikhs, who fought so well in North Africa, joined the Japs and were guards over us at Changi and were cruel bastards in the months to come.’

He also mentions that Indian troops manned the corner machine guns guarding the prisoners herded into Selerang Barracks.

In March 1944, the fittest of those who had survived the building of the infamous Burma Railway were sent back to Singapore to await shipment to Japan - to work in equally horrendous conditions down the mines. Jack Scrivener, the survivor, observed: "One afternoon low-flying bombers (American) passed overhead, and Indian troops who had gone over to the Japs fired Bofors guns at them."

On the same page there is this interesting comment: "Whilst there we made contact with some Ghurkha prisoners who had stayed on the island since surrender. The Japs dare not take them off Singapore, as they would have lost the lot."
Chandra Bose

Subhas Chandra Bose is still treated with great admiration in India today - as I know from my own visits. He is looked upon as the militant founder of independence, holding his place in the pantheon with the pacific leaders, Gandhi and Nehru. Although a militant, twice (1937 and 1939) he was elected President of the Indian National Congress.

At the outbreak of war he escaped from British house arrest after forming his Indian National Army and surfaced in Germany. By 1942, he was heading his Indian Army of 40,000 soldiers from Singapore and other eastern regions of Asia. Much of this army marched through Burma and then occupied Coxtown on the Indian Border, hoping that they would then sweep into India with the Japanese. History, enacted through a revitalised British Army ;and loyal Indian Army units decided otherwise. Chandra Bose was in Singapore when Japan surrendered and he died in a plane crash fleeing to Tokyo.

When one considers the noble conduct of most Indian Army units, particularly Sikhs and Rajputs, in other theatres of the Second World War, there can be only one explanation for the treachery at Singapore. There, the British and Australians did not just lose a battle, they lost face and lost respect - for all the reasons given above. It marked the end of Empire.

Is there racial discrimination in Singapore?

Dr Lily Zubaidah Rahim



Is there racial discrimination in Singapore? A personal opinion by Kelvin Tan
Reading the doctoral thesis of Lily Zubaidah Rahim, The Singapore Dilemma, has made me think about the issue of racial discrimination.. The conspicuous absence of this book from the shelves of Singapore bookstores is yet another sad example of the practice of self-censorship among people running bookstores in Singapore. Our NUS Central Library is even cuter, the book is available only in the Singapore-Malaysia Collection and the 'Closed Stacks'! Imagine, a book that was published in 1998 ending up in the Closed Stacks; what was that common NUS joke again about girls in their first year being like RBR books, girls in their second year being in the Main Shelves, and finally in the Closed Stacks when they are in their third year J? But again, we are talking about NUS, where its bookstore played a mini hide and seek with James Gomez's book on self-censorship, best described here.

There were many important points raised in this book, that perhaps made the distributors uneasy. For example, the public housing scheme that the PAP is so proud of, has the effect of splintering the Malay community into housing estates throughout Singapore. Ethnic residential quotas in HDB blocks were also introduced in 1989, in the pretext of preventing the emergence of ethnic enclaves that might harm racial harmony.

All these measures undertaken ensure that the Malays in Singapore, no matter how dissatisfied, can never gather enough electoral support to push for their agenda. This is the classic 'divide and conquer' strategy. With such a strategy, Malay interests would now be primarily articulated and represented within parameters determined by the PAP government and its Malay MPs (pp. 72-76). It also ensures that the government can afford to continue its minimalist approach to the Malay community without suffering any electoral backlash.

In choosing that title for her thesis, I suspected that Lily is trying to relate her study to the book by the Malaysian Prime Minister, Mahathir, The Malay Dilemma. I believe the important conclusion from the latter book is that the Malays are constrained by their culture, to be less inclined towards competition and more inclined towards a sedate lifestyle. Thus, Mahathir believes he has to practice favourable treatment towards them to protect the native Malays, which he call the 'bumiputras' from being driven out by the other races. Lily regarded this analysis as the 'cultural deficit' model, and she clearly feels that it needed to be reappraised for Singapore (p. 248).

The discussions on racism in Singapore

Discussing the issue of racism in Singapore is particularly sensitive, with signals coming for the PAP that it is one of those 'out of bound' markers of Singapore discourse, a fact that Lily herself acknowledged (p. 8). If you ask a Chinese about the subject, he or she will probably reply that there is no racism in Singapore. It was particularly enlightening for me to hear from Dr Lee Tsao Yuan, sharing in Parliament during her time as an NMP, on the issue of the Singapore Heartbeat. Dr Lee said that she could have stayed in Canada permanently but she chooses to come back to Singapore since it is only in Singapore that she feels treated as an equal.

In all these rhetoric, it is ironic when I have yet to see any Malay proclaiming the same. I was thinking, "what does a Chinese knows about racial discrimination in Singapore?" When Fandi Ahmad announced that he may be emigrating to South Africa with his wife, because he is worried that his son may not be able to cope in Singapore, many Singaporeans, all Chinese I remember, were quick to criticize his decision for being an ingrate. A discussion in the newsgroup, soc.culture.singapore, in 1998, had an Indian sharing about how his Chinese wife and him has decided to emigrate to Australia because his wife, for the first time, realized the racial discrimination in Singapore.

It is insightful that, before they got married, he had warned the wife that there will be such discrimination but his wife did not believed it to be true. After she was the victim of it, facing snide remarks from her fellow Chinese ladies, about having 'contaminated herself', when she fetch her mixed son from school, she decided to leave Singapore. When other netters responded that Australia is also well known for discrimination, the Indian replied quite sternly that, although there are, it is nothing compared to Singapore.

Thus, I have learned to read Singaporeans' proclamations of Singapore, either being a country free of racism unlike other countries, or being a country where you have 'the freedom to walk tall with head held high regardless of the colour of my skin' with a pinch of salt. Whenever I hear or read of such proclamations, I would first check the person's identity. Up till this present moment, my results shows that every such person would be a Chinese Singaporean. It just shows how ignorant we Chinese are about racial discrimination in Singapore.

I would state my own observation that, while it may be true that there are racial discrimination in the US, at least they are aware of it and are still trying to decide the best way to resolve it. Here in Singapore, we are discouraged from even mentioning this issue under the constant threat of having racial riots breaking out the moment we attempt to.

Interestingly, the PAP government, in the period between 1959 to 1964, fought hard to be part of the Malaysian federation with the well-known slogan 'Malaysian Malaysia'. This slogan, I believe, is trying to defuse racial tensions by stating that only Malaysians matter; whether they are Chinese or Malays should not be an issue of contentment. After we were expelled from the Malaysian Federation despite all these efforts, there was never an equivalent promotion of a 'Singaporean Singapore' after that, which to me, is a significant difference that might shed light into the marginality of the Malays in Singapore. In contrast, Singapore has all these social institutions like the SAP schools, the setting up of self-help groups among races such as CDAC and the Medakai, and the focus on Confucianism that seems to reinforce the differences between the races.

My conclusion

Yes, I agree unequivocally that there is racism in Singapore. I first realized this explicitly in 1998 when I participated in my church walkathon. I remember the week before that event, my pastor announced to us that he has warned the MRT staff that there will be a huge crowd of people arriving at Marina Bay MRT station in the morning of the event. I was among the crowd of people who had to move at a snail's pace from the train exit to the booths in order to leave the station. As I was edging towards the ticket booths, I notice many MRT staff, a few with loud-hailers, giving directions on which way we should proceed.

It then suddenly hit me, what a contrast their attitude was towards us, compared to the Indian workers at Bugis MRT station on Sundays! The MRT staff were smiling at us, making conversations and so on and so forth. If you visit Bugis station on Sundays, you will see that many Indians spend their day off in the popular haunt, Serangoon Road. There would be some mobile railings segregating them from the rest of us, and the way the MRT staff shout at them or the expression in their faces, I was surprised to see that they were smiling at us now.

Actually, it is quite obvious why there is a different treatment towards us. The MRT staff identify with us, almost all of us being Chinese. Even among some of my university friends, I heard many racists complains about the smell coming out of the Indians. I guess that walkathon was to me what Damascus was to Paul, my scales were finally removed from my eyes. I begin to take note on other puzzles, such as the numerous Malay staff manning the counter in the NUS Central Library. Lily's thesis is thus an important contribution in my understanding to this subject, and I hope to also make a contribution in this area.




Book Note :

The Singapore Dilemma
The Political and Educational Marginality of the Malay Community
Lily Zubaidah Rahim
Publisher - Oxford University Press Feb 1999(out of print) 322 pages

Lily Zubaidah Rahim is a Senior Lecturer in Government and International Relations. She lectures on Southeast Asian Politics and Islam in the Modern World. The Singapore Dilemma: The Political and Educational Marginality of the Malay Community, (KL: Oxford University Press, 2001) established Lily Zubaidah as a leading researcher on political and social developments in Singapore. The book precipitated a public debate on Singapore’s nation-building paradigm particularly after the prominent coverage it received in the Malaysian and Singaporean newspapers in 2001/2002. The policy significance of The Singapore Dilemma prompted the Malaysian National Institute for Translation to translate it to the Malay language in 2004. Building on the major themes advanced in The Singapore Dilemma, Lily Zubaidah is completing a book on Singapore’s mercurial relations with neighbouring Malaysia and Indonesia. This book will be followed by a global project on gender justice in Islam. Another project funded by an ARC Discovery Grant (2003-2006), successfully culminated into an edited book entitled ‘Paths Not Taken’, published by the National University of Singapore Press in early 2008.

Lily Zubaidah’s international exposure includes extended periods of teaching and research in Malaysia, Singapore and The Netherlands. In 2001, she presented a paper on indigenous minorities in Southeast Asia at the historic UN Conference on Racism and Public Policy in Durban, South Africa. In 2003, she was commissioned by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva, to prepare a report on ethnic minorities in Singapore and Malaysia.

Her multidisciplinary research interests have been published in numerous international journals and book chapters. They include an eclectic range spanning from governance in authoritarian states, democratisation, development, ethnicity, regionalism and political Islam. She is on the Editorial Advisory Board of the referred journal Policy and Society and Co-Convenor of the 2008 Malaysia-Singapore Society Colloquium at the Australian National University.

_________________________________________________

The Singapore Story! Haram!

11 May, 2001
H. Nasution
Surabaya

Melayu Singapura bagaikan menumpang di negara sendiri
Sebagai sampah di-tengah laut, terapung apung tanpa tujuan.

The Malay langauage edition of LKY’s "The Singapore Story" has hit the market. Few Malays will show much interst in the book, as it is written by a man considered by many to be very ant-malay and anti-Islam. In fact a "fatwa" should be decreed that any Malay reading the book should be condidered an "apostate(murtad)".
LKY had softetened his approach towards all things Malays by stating that the Integration process between Malays and other Races are progressing well. On a scale of 1 to10, he claimed that Malays will achieve the scale of 7 or 8 within 20 years. The scale of 10 indicates that Malays are no longer Muslims. They will drink hard liquor at the same table as the Chinese and will be relishing pork meat dishes. Mayhaps LKY’s optimisim is stemmed from the Straits Times article (28/4/2001) "Malay Dancer" fined S$1000/- for showing(bared) her breasts (Buah Payu, the Bertita Harian calls it), at Venom discotheque on 18/11/2000.

What is MUIS or the Shariah Court’s action on this "Buah Payu" issue? Nothing.

All Malays should read instead the book writen by Dr. Lily Zubaidah Rahim "The Singapoe Dilemma- The Political and Educational Marginilty of the Malay Community". An abridged version of the book in Malay and English will be available shortly.

Watch the Harimau Organization website for the annnouncement.

____________________________________________

Indian, Malay job seekers complain
of discrimination in Singapore


Hindustan Times
August 9, 2005
Singapore
Indo-Asian News Services


INDIAN and Malay job seekers have complained of discrimination by employers who ask if they are proficient in Chinese, not if they can do the job, labour chief Lim Boon Heng said in a report on Tuesday, August 9.

Unfair recruitment practices that discriminate against minority race applicants will lead to tension, warned Lim, secretary-general of the National Trades Union Congress.

Some of the job interviewers ask if the Indians and Malays speak Mandarin, Lim said in the report.

"The few who responded that they could were then asked if they could write Chinese," the Straits Times quoted Lim as saying.

He urged employers to wipe out the ignorance that persists despite the high level of racial integration in the city-state. "Businesses thrive here because we have a harmonious society," he said.

Lim made the comments at a National Day observance marking Singapore's 40th birthday.

"If any minority group feels strongly that there is discrimination, there will be tension," he warned.

Singapore's population is predominantly Chinese. It includes 14 per cent who are Malays and six per cent Indians.

______________________________________________

Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Lee Kuan Yew's racial discrimination should be condemned.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I hear Singapore government encourages young infant children from People's Republic of China to attend schools in Singapore. Several thousand, already in Singapore; are given scholarships of $500.00 per month including free schools fees and books. Their mothers, for some strange reason, not their fathers, are permitted to immigrate to Singapore to care for them. These mothers who are usually divorced or single mothers usually find work in Singapore in massage parlors and as sales girls where the clientele is entirely Chinese, since they or these children, speak no English.

These scholarships are given only to Chinese children from the PRC. Not Malay children or Indian children even though Malays and Indians are also Singaporeans!

As the Singapore press is both state owned and controlled, it is impossible to read any independent opinion on this. The government censors suppress any information about this. Lee’s reason for this policy should be obvious. Lee Kuan Yew wants to keep the Singapore population subservient to him. And for subservience, you cannot beat Communist Chinese. No political dissent is allowed in China.

Secondly Lee Kuan Yew has decided, it appears; as if Singapore belongs to him alone; and as if he can do anything with Singapore; that Singapore must become a Chinese country, peopled by Chinese people. And since the Chinese in Singapore are not having enough children, he will import them from China.

In accordance with Lee Kuan Yew’s game plan, these Chinese infants from Hunan and Hubei or wherever else they come from in China, will be taught some English, kept in the dark about democracy and liberty, and give them jobs like automatons in a factory. It is the hope that as they were in China, they will grow up completely submissive and obedient. With a sufficient population like this, Lee Kuan Yew and his descendants will rule forever. If all goes according to plan.

The Malays, the Indians and native Singapore Chinese should condemn this policy. First, it is illegal. It goes against the constitution which demands racial equality. Second, these Chinese children do not further Singapore’s interests. Singapore is becoming an international city. Such a city requires English. Not Mandarin. Third, you need a sophisticated and informed population. One that is well versed with western norms and cultures. With western spontaneity and western daring.

I am a product of western education and therefore not afraid to speak my mind. In Singapore I criticized this government when criticism was needed. And challenged them at 2 general elections. It seemed a natural thing to do. If something is wrong, one stands up to it. I still do the same from here. And I will be a critic for as long as needed. I have no fear. Just as any other Australian, American or Belgian. What Singapore really needs is more Gopalan Nairs. But Lee prefers Francis Seows, Tan Wah Piows and Gopalan Nairs to stay as far away as possible. Life is easier for him that way. For him and his children.

You see there are Gopalan Nairs all over the Western world. In Australia USA Canada. All with Western education, western thinking and western experience. If all these Gopalan Nairs, these Francis Seows, and these Tan Wah Piows these Edgar De Souza’s can return, Singapore will be a very different place.

But Lee Kuan Yew will not allow it. If he did, it will be the end of him. These overseas experienced men and women will be boisterous spontaneous and will not jump, as and when Lee demanded.

When I was in Singapore, I could see it for myself. Those who had lived in Singapore all their lives have an inbuilt fear of authority. This fear is ingrained in them in schools, in the families and among their society. They fear to speak, fear to complain and fear to stand up. A life as if Lee Kuan Yew was their father. Unable to think in unconventional terms.

Such as population, like the imported Chinese children who will go through brainwashing will eventually end up the compliant and submissive Singaporean that Lee wants.

This racial preference for Chinese infant children from China paid for by the Singapore taxpayer, who are also Malays and Indians, is unacceptable. Since Lee Kuan Yew is determined to do anything including illegality, such as blatant racial discrimination, the Malays and Indians should act. I am sure the Singaporean Chinese would also support the Malays and Indians in this. The Singapore Chinese have much more in common with a Singapore Malay or Indian rather than a child from Hunan province in China.

This is not inciting racial hatred. This is seeking the truth. And the truth is, Lee's policy of favoring Chinese over Malays and Indians is illegal. It is not provided for under law.

Do not forget the national language is Malay. It has now included the other languages, but in 1963, the national language was Malay. It should be so, since the Malays were there before anyone else. I am an Indian by ethnicity, not Malay. But I can appreciate the special position of the Malays in Singapore.

Malays must now act. The country that belongs to all of us; Chinese Malays and Indians is being destroyed by Lee with his deliberate policy of artificiality changing the ethnic mix. This cannot be tolerated.

Jufrie Mohd Mahmood was a Workers Party member and opposition politician. He is a Singapore patriot as well as a Malay patriot. He feels the pain in him to see his country being destroyed by Lee with his ethnic restructuring policies of changing the population mix.

Jufrie Mohd Mahmood has to act. Now. He must do it. Inaction is ruination for Singapore. He should speak to his Malay friends in Geylang, to the Indian friends in Serangoon, get help from Malaysia and for the Indians from India; get foreign funding, speak at mosques, Indian and Chinese temples; and get everyone, Indian Chinese and Malay to galvanize, organize, collaborate and stand up to this.

Jufrie Mohd Mahmood should not be afraid of the ISA or anything of the sort. When justice is on your side, men should have no fear. I hope there will be movement forward.

A Singaporean in Northern California. With best wishes. And hope for the future.

Gopalan Nair
39737 Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite A1
Fremont, CA 94538, USA
Tel: 510 657 6107
Fax: 510 657 6914
Email: gopalnair@us-immigrationlaw.com
Posted by Gopalan Nair at 6:24 PM

__________________________________________________

Obama: Police acted "stupidly" arresting black scholar
By Matt Spetalnick, Reuters 21 July 2009

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama said on Wednesday police had acted "stupidly" in arresting a prominent black Harvard University scholar at his own home, weighing in on escalating debate over the treatment of minorities by U.S. law enforcement officers.

Obama, the United States' first black president, acknowledged at a prime-time White House news conference, he did not know all the facts about the arrest last week of Henry Louis Gates at his residence in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

But Obama, reciting details from news reports, left little doubt he felt Gates had been wronged in the incident, which has created a media furor.

Gates, a renowned expert on race whom Obama described as a friend, was detained for alleged disorderly conduct -- a charge that was quickly dropped -- after a confrontation with a white police officer inside his own house.

"I don't know -- not having been there and not seeing all the facts -- what role race played in that, but I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry," Obama said when asked about the case.

"Number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home," he added.

While stressing that his own election last November was a testament to progress in race relations, Obama pointed out there was a "long history" in the United States of blacks and Hispanics being singled out disproportionately by police.

"That's just a fact," he said.

He said Gates' arrest was a reminder that the race issue "still haunts us."

'I'D GET SHOT'

The incident took place last Thursday when a woman called Cambridge police to report that a man was trying to force his way into the house.

Obama joked that if he ever tried to "jimmy the lock" at his current address -- the White House -- "I'd get shot." The digression drew laughter from journalists who until then had peppered him with questions about healthcare and the economy.

Gates, 58, had found his front door jammed after returning from a trip to China, according to his lawyer. But police said Gates exhibited "loud and tumultuous behavior," including accusing police of racism.

A statement on the Cambridge police department's Web site said, "The City of Cambridge, the Cambridge Police Department, and Professor Gates acknowledge that the incident of July 16, 2009 was regrettable and unfortunate."

Gates is director of Harvard's W.E.B. Du Bois Institute for African & African American Research and is one of the most prominent black scholars in the United States.

(Additional reporting by Jason Szep in Boston and JoAnne Allen in Washington; editing by Chris Wilson)