Lee Kuan Yew: The Man and His Ideas

by Han Fook Kwang

  Malay rule

  Mr Speaker, Sir, we all want peace, we all want Malaysia to succeed, and that is why we came into Malaysia, but if we echo “yes” in this pernicious doctrine, “Wherever I am, I am a Malay” – said Dr Mahathir yesterday, “The trouble with us from Singapore is we are not accustomed to Malay rule.” That’s why, the implication being we ought to be, Mr Speaker, Sir. The bigger English language newspaper for some reason or the other left it out, this very important passage, but the smaller English language newspaper very kindly put it out in script for us, so if I may just read this: “On the question of Malay privileges about which Mr Lee made so much play while in Australia and New Zealand, the saviour of Malaysia ignores the facts as they really are. We Malays are very sensitive but this is a total war declared by the PAP and even if it hurts our feelings it is wiser to demonstrate that in this land the privileged Malays, Ibans, Dayaks and Kadazans live in huts while the underprivileged Chinese live in palaces, go about in huge cars and have the best things in life.”

  “The trouble with us from Singapore is we are not accustomed to Malay rule.” —Dr Mahathir Mohamed

  I would have thought that was, if I had just read that without having heard Dr Mahathir say it yesterday, I would have thought it came straight out from Radio Jakarta, Mr Speaker, Sir. That is their line, that all the Chinese have got big houses and big cars. I can show Dr Mahathir any number of Chinese in very miserable hovels in Singapore where there is a housing programme, let alone any other part where they haven’t got a housing programme yet.

  What Dr Mahathir said

  [Quoting Dr Mahathir again] “It is, of course, necessary to emphasise that there are two types of Chinese – those who appreciate the need for all communities to be equally well off, and these are the MCA supporters to be found mainly where Chinese have for generations lived and worked amidst the Malays and other indigenous people, and the insular, selfish and arrogant type of which Mr Lee is a good example. This latter type live in a purely Chinese environment where Malays only exist at syce level. They have been nurtured by the British and made much of because they helped the British economic empire. They have never known Malay rule and couldn’t bear the idea that the people they have so long kept under their heels should now be in a position to rule them.”

  Ominous words, Mr Speaker, Sir.

  [Again quoting Dr Mahathir] “They have in most instances never crossed the Causeway. They are in fact overseas Chinese first – more specifically Chinese of the southern region as their mind sees China as the centre of the world – and Malaysians a very poor second, a status so utterly artificial to them that it finds difficulty in percolating through their criticisms.”

  What does that mean, Mr Speaker, Sir? They were not words uttered in haste, they were scripted, prepared and dutifully read out, and if we are to draw the implications from that, the answer is quite simple: that Malaysia will not be a Malaysian nation. I say, say so, let us know it now, why waste five-ten years’ effort to build this, defend this – for whose benefit, Mr Speaker, Sir?

  According to this sacred document, we are obliged on oath to uphold this for the benefit of all Malaysians and a Malaysian is there defined, but all Malaysians have a duty also defined there under the General and Miscellaneous provisions, to ensure that the development, preservation of jobs, licences and so on in Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak will go to Malays. Quite clearly a distinction between our political equality and our duty as part of that political equality to give special attention to the economic and social uplift of the Malays and the other indigenous peoples in Sabah and Sarawak. We accept that obligation and I was delighted when I discovered that the secretary-general of UMNO agreed in print that I had the right to determine the destiny of Malaysia.

  I say there is ground for believing that the future of Malaysia is fair. Deny that basis, I say we don’t need Sukarno and Confrontation to destroy us.

  While on that basis, I say there is ground for believing that the future of Malaysia is fair. Deny that basis, I say we don’t need Sukarno and Confrontation to destroy us.

  Now, I believe it would be helpful, Mr Speaker, Sir, if I were to spell out not for the benefit of the Prime Minister or the Minister for Home Affairs, because I think they have already sat down and worked these things out in their minds and therefore they speak with greater and wider circumspection. Is it really that simple that you can resolve these problems on the basis of stifling or negating your democratic constitutional opponents?

  This is Utusan Melayu again, Mr Speaker, Sir, and the secretary-general of UMNO urged in the strongest possible terms that action should be taken now. Well, I am a frightened man according to him and therefore I see shadows. I think it would help if I could sort of work out the various logical consequences. Frightened even though I may be, we are still not bereft of our senses. There are two ways in which developments in Malaysia could take place – first, in accordance with the democratic processes set out in the constitution, and second, not in accordance with it, using extra-constitutional capacities and the administration of the Police and the Army.

  We have calculated this before we came into Malaysia and we must accept the consequences, but let me spell out the consequences. First, Mr Speaker, Sir, I go back again to His Majesty’s speech. Said he, “I would like to pay special tribute (not just a tribute – a special tribute)” and to those this special tribute was addressed were besides our own Security Forces and the Police, the British, Australian and New Zealand Armed Forces.

  Now, what does that mean, Mr Speaker, Sir? It means quite simply that if we are without assistance, airlanes between Malaya and Western Malaysia and Eastern Malaysia will be closed. The sea will be closed. We cannot carry troops on the Mutiara to go and fight in Sabah, can we? We know all that. We might be able to buy some, I don’t know, perhaps, but let us be frank and honest to ourselves first, that Malaysia by itself hasn’t got the capacity to be governed by force – it is as simple as that, and therefore that capacity must be borrowed from somewhere – the British, Australians, New Zealanders.

  Well, Sir, I don’t know the Australians and the New Zealanders as well as I know the British for I happened to have lived in that country for several years and therefore I took particular care and interest when I visited them recently to find out whether there was a possibility that such extraordinary aid can be given in order to hold Malaysia down. I will not talk about the governments because they are friendly governments – friendly to all Malaysians, which included me – and I will talk more pertinently of the people in these countries.

  One battalion was sent to South Vietnam recently from Australia in defence of what the Australian Prime Minister called the survival of the democratic world and a very vociferous and articulate opposition disagreed profoundly. They may be right or they may be wrong, but of one thing I am certain – neither Australia nor New Zealand has got the capacity to play the role of the Americans in South Vietnam. Therefore, we ask – have the British got this capacity? Maybe for some time, but for all time? Because that is what it means.

  Once you throw this into the fire and say, be done with it, it means that you do it for all time and history is a long and a relentless process. People born, people destroyed, and more are born and more surge forward. It is part of the story of the human race on this earth. Can it be done – will the British public be parties to that? Well, I am not talking about the British government, Mr Speaker, Sir. I am now talking of the British public when, whatever government it is – Conservative or Labour – it faces the same British public.

  All right, so they want us to secede and leave our friends from Sabah and Sarawak, from Penang and Malacca and all the other parts of Malaysia at their tender mercies. We cannot oblige, Mr Speaker, Sir. We will not, we know the juxtaposition of strength and weakness on both sides. We are fervently of the opinion that if we give and take and accommodate, this can succeed, and there is no other way to make it succeed and we shall be patient, but I will tell Mem
bers on the other side why I think what they are doing is not likely to lead to success for them.

  And if I may, in conclusion, spell out to all Malaysians where we stand, what we want to achieve and how we are going to achieve these things, then they will know what are their problems. Their problem is not that we are against Malay as the national language. We accept it: Kita Terima Bahasa Melayu menjadi Bahasa Kebangsaan. [We accept Malay as the national language.]

  Their problem is not that we are against Malay as the national language. We accept it: Kita Terima Bahasa Melayu menjadi Bahasa Kebangsaan.

  [Lee continues in Malay.]

  But let me remind members in UMNO, and I would like to draw this to the attention of the members in the MCA and their associates. This is a very dangerous thing, leading people to believe that if we just switch in 1967 from talking English in the courts, and in business, to speaking Malay, therefore the imbalance in social and economic development will disappear. It will not disappear. How does our talking Malay here or writing to the ministers of the federal government, both Malays and non-Malays, in Malay, how does that increase the production of the Malay farmers? The price he gets for his products, the facilities he gets from the government, fertilisation, research into better seeds, marketing boards. How does that raise him? In fact our worry is not with Article 153, which gives special reservations to Malays for jobs and licences. I am saying it is inimical to the country. What I am saying is that it has been in force now for 10 years with the imbalance between the rural and the urban areas widening.

  This is a very dangerous thing, leading people to believe that if we just switch in 1967 from talking English in the courts, and in business, to speaking Malay, therefore the imbalance in social and economic development will disappear.

  The Minister for Finance is aware of this. He has the figures. He knows what is the rate of growth between the urban and rural areas. We have got visible evidence of that – that the Malays are drifting from the kampongs into the towns in Kuala Lumpur – shanty towns around the suburbs. And they are coming to Singapore looking for jobs. Malaya last year – on the change of identity card addresses, 10,000 young men came to Singapore looking for jobs. Equivalent to quarter of our birth rate of that generation – 20 to 25. We were having an annual rate of 40,000. One quarter added to our burden. Of that 10,000, more than 3,500 were Malays – more than 3,500 who tumpang with friends looking for jobs. Just solving these problems on the basis of Article 153? You are going to solve these problems on the basis of a Congress Economi Bumiputra? What does it say the Congress is going to do? “Intended to give opportunities to all those who are familiar with the problems connected with participation of the Malays and other indigenous population in the field of commerce and industry.”

  Let us start off with the Chinese and the Indians – the non-Malays first. What percentage are in commerce and industry as bosses or shareholders? 0.2 per cent, 0.3 per cent, that is the total. For one bus company – that is the simplest unit because I think everybody will understand it; it is a simple operation, it has been done very often, so everybody knows. One bus company, let us say there are 20 shareholders and they employ 2,000 workers – mechanics, fitters, ticket collectors, drivers, people who repair the buses, paint them up. Let us assume that out of the 4.5 million Malays and another 0.75 million Ibans, Kadazans and others. We create the 0.3 per cent shareholders, do we solve the problem? How does the Malay in the kampong find his way out into modernised civil society? If you create this 0.3 per cent, how does this create a new and just society? By becoming servants of the 0.3 per cent who will have money to hire them to clean their shoes, open their motorcar doors? We have not done this before because we tried to do it the friendly way. But I am afraid the time has come in which we have to state quite clearly what we think is happening, how we think these problems have to be tackled.

  The urban rate of growth, the Minister of Finance, the Honourable Minister can confirm this. It is at least 2.5 to 3 times the rural rates over the whole population per capita. He has had discussions with my colleague Dr Goh and he knows why Singapore’s per capita income is also higher. How can you lift this up? By trying to compete with Singapore as to who can build a better urban society?

  It is the wrong objective. Surely by setting out to bring about a social uplift, change and progress in your rural areas. We never touched on these matters before, Mr Speaker, Sir, because we thought we would like to help members of UMNO with ideas and so on privately, but it is now necessary, because they will not listen to us privately, to state our position publicly.

  Of course, there are Chinese millionaires in big cars and big houses. Is it the answer to make a few Malay millionaires with big cars and big houses? That is what Alliance means. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sorry to say it, but that is how it works. How does that solve the ground problem? How does telling the Malay bus driver that he should support the party of his Malay director and the Chinese conductor to join another party of his Chinese director – how does that improve the living standards of the Malay bus driver and the Chinese bus conductor who are both workers of the same company? It is just splitting the workers up. We have taken some time before, we have come down to the bone and it cannot go on like this.

  Of course, there are Chinese millionaires in big cars and big houses. Is it the answer to make a few Malay millionaires with big cars and big houses?

  If we delude people into believing that they are poor because there are not Malay rights or because opposition members oppose Malay rights – where are we going to end up? You let people in the kampongs believe that they are poor because we don’t speak Malay, because the government does not write in Malay, so he expects a miracle to take place in 1967. The moment we all start speaking Malay, he is going to have an uplift in the standard of living, and if it doesn’t happen, what happens then? Oh, you say, well they are opposing Malay rights. We are not opposing Malay rights. We honour and support it, but how does Malay rights solve your Malay rakyat’s living standards? So wherever there is a failure of economic, social and educational policies, you come back and say, oh, these wicked Chinese, Indians and others opposing Malay rights. They don’t oppose Malay rights. They have the right as Malaysian citizens to go up to the level of training and education which the more competitive societies, the non-Malay society has produced.

  That is what must be done, isn’t it? Not to feed them with this obscurantist doctrine, that all they’ve got to do is to get Malay rights for a few special Malays and their problem has been resolved. I don’t see how that follows. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, we are posing to the Alliance government now the fundamental challenge. Not Malay national language, which we accept and agree, not Clause 153, which we accept and agree, implement and honour this constitution, but let us go one step further and see how you make a more equal society – by taxing the poor to pay for the defence of the country? Special rights or do you tax those who have in order to uplift the have-nots including many non-Malays, Chinese, Indians, Ceylonese and Pakistanis? There are many such poor people, don’t make any mistake about that. I say, over the months, they will have to come across and meet us on this issue – development in the economy, in the social and educational sectors. Meet us, show to the people that Alliance has got the answers to this problem. If they haven’t, don’t stifle us, give us a chance to put forward an alternative, for we have an alternative which can work and has worked in Singapore and will continue to bear fruit.

  We will wait and see – in 10 years we will breed a generation of Malays with educated minds, not filled with obscurantist stuff, but understanding the techniques of science and modern industrial management, capable, competent and assured: the family background, the diet – health problems, the economic and social problems that prevent a Malay child from taking advantage of the educational opportunities which we offer free from the primary school to university. We will solve them, we will meet them, because in no other way can you hold this multiracial society together if over the yea
rs the urban areas populated largely by people of migrant stock goes up and up and the rural areas remain stagnant.

  Surely this is an unstable and unsafe situation? I would like to remind members of the government that they will find in the PAP and I hope in the members of the Convention – Malaysian Solidarity Convention – a loyal, constructive opposition, an opposition in accordance with this constitution. It is no use threatening us, that they are going to take away our local authority in Singapore and so on. It cannot be done unless you are going to use the guns and, as I have said, you haven’t got enough guns and we are not going to allow them to get rid of the Member for Sarawak Affairs and the Member of Sabah Affairs. They are valuable parts of Malaysia, because you can put one hundred thousand troops in Sabah and Sarawak and they may never be seen or heard of again if the Ibans do not like it.

  Let us be frank. We did this calculation carefully and methodically. There is no other way. It is not credible. You want a whole little Malaya, maybe; a whole Malaysia on that basis, no. The threat is not credible. The Minister for Sarawak Affairs has got a knowing smile. He knows they are headhunting people, Mr Speaker, Sir. Let me inform all these members here, we change this, we will change that, this solemn document says – 161H – you will challenge nothing of that sort without the consent of the state government and first you have to win a democratic election in Singapore, and we hold it quite democratically you know. They say nine days; all right, I promise them next time, a full real long spell on radio and television, the whole works. We never run away from open confrontation as our friends from the Barisan Sosialis can testify. We love it, we relish the prospect of a meeting of minds, a conflict of ideas, not of force. We are gentle people who believe very firmly in ideas.