Talk:Anti-Malay sentiment

This article was nominated for deletion on 7 November 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Malaysia Mid‑importance

	Malaysia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Malaysia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Malaysia and Malaysia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MalaysiaWikipedia:WikiProject MalaysiaTemplate:WikiProject MalaysiaMalaysia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Southeast Asia Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Southeast Asia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Southeast AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Southeast AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Southeast AsiaSoutheast Asia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discrimination Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

NPOV

A lot of what the article says, seems to be from a personal opinion. Most of the information in the sub sections would also appear to be in some sort of "essay format". Daily Rubbings 14:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"Since then, the status of Malays in Singapore has become no better than their counterparts in Malaysia ..." No reference, no basis. Who the heck wrote this? Sweeping statement. PS: Yeah, looks like a high school essay format. Eterna2 07:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also in the Malaysia section please refer to the May 13 incident, this section is incorrect.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.94.115.234 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia policy states that any material that is not reliably sourced can be removed. On the other hand, material that is reliably sourced must be proven to be incorrect - we can't just say 'trust me, it's wrong'. --Merbabu 05:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a Malaysian (with half Singaporean blood) who knows Malaysia's "education procedures", I have to remove the silly and unresonable statement:-

Since then, the status of Malays in Singapore has become no better than their counterparts in Malaysia, where ethnic Malays are given special privileges to improve their lives by getting scholarships to further their studies in university so that they can contribute a lot to the Malaysian economy. <hidden text>Thus, this has demonstrated the Singaporean Malays' inability to contribute much to the Singaporean economy, being the bottom rung of the Singaporean society, and on the average, having poorer education than the Chinese, Indian and other ethnic communities <hidden text>

The Malaysia's scholarsip part is under "Singapore", which is so "silly" written and untrue - please prove it with fact! The hidden part also is so controversially written. This article is like reading "opposition party's bulletin", full with provocation without basis!! - Jay 20:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the user who wanted put "Singaporean economy" but mistakenly typed up "Malaysian economy". Is it true that the Malays cannot receive scholarship in Singapore unless they change their racial identity (say to being an "Arab")? --203.15.122.35 07:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not true. Singapore gives scholarships based on merit, unlike Malaysia where scholarships are given based on race and religion. InfernoXV 10:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look which retard wrote"It all started when the Chinese demonstrators, who were supporters of the winning Democratic Action Party and Gerakan in the elections, headed through the Malay district of Kampung Baru, jeering at the inhabitants." This is a downright lie! The offical explanation is that the communist party started the riot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.167.198 (talk) 12:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jugdment versus prejudice

At the moment, the lead section seems to suggest that any judgment (even if such judgment is unrelated to the fact that a person is a Malay) against the Malay is anti-Malay racism. Not all judgments made against any Malay is necessarily an anti-Malay sentiment. I believe prejudice is a better word because prejudice means judgment before the fact. It qualifies what judgment could be considered as racism. __earth ^(Talk) 13:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the wide sources of information tell that, local government funded universities have quota which high percentages of enrolment are given to the Malays regardless of academic performance and other criteria. There are government funded schools and universities that openly state only open to Malays or Bumiputera, namely Mara (ITM), etc. The government scholarships offered through JPA benefits majorly only Malays, these are tacit facts among Malaysians. There is extra discount on housing price (7% for instance) for Malays. Only Malays can purchase lands from other races but no longer possible in the reverse way. One can hardly see any employees from other races except Malays in the government linked organizations like Car plant Proton, Telekom Malaysia, Malaysian Airline, Petronas, including government agencies (National Bank, KTM, POS, Police force, Army forces likewise etc...) and ministry administration which is highly inaccessible to non-Malays. Government projects are openly stated only granted to Malays owned companies. Any company must allocate 30~40% share to Bumiputera if wanting to be listed in the KLSE. All resources and benefits by Government to the nationals are invariably offered in the form of quota which prioritize Malays in a weirdly high proportion. The point here is in view of these, whether anti-Malays racism exists in Malaysia, based on a single incident, makes it a misleading to be included in this page, or rather more dominantly there is anti-Chinese/Indian prejudice which is noticed to be prevalent in the country. Proofs seem to be easily available in the society and news, a recent news in 2008, Indian, being the smallest race among the three, faces the increasing pressure today, has just launched mass demonstration on unjust government suppression on religious matters and other rights. According to the annual statistics, Malays has always achieved relatively lower in education and economy performance, this urges more the Malays-dominated government holds tighter the political power and to channel all resources for the Malays, ironically that did not achieve satisfied improvement over the years, yet it improves the growing tension and dissatisfaction sentiment between Malays and other races. Race related issue becomes a major public issue in the daily life of Malaysians. This dissatisfaction sentiment was manifested clearly through the landsliding shift of voters' support toward the opposition parties in the last election. There are groups of modern Malays brought up an opinion if the heavy government assistance to Malays really helps the Malays, but the conservative power in the Malays party UMNO seems not to approve the concern. Another concern voiced up is that the assistance is necessary to Malays in order to avoid society turns barbaric becoming another Indonesia, but there is suggestion to amend the law of 'unequal" prejudice to promote a healthier society and One Malaysian vision. Results yet to be known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.10.120.174 (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal

Merbabu, why did you remove the edition to the S'pore section? __earth ^(Talk) 10:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my two edit summaries. The onus is on you to show how this is relevant, important, and actually even racist. --Merbabu 11:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

allegation of discrimination, as stated by BJ Habibie, former president of Indonesia. It's cited. __earth ^(Talk) 11:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A former (and poorly respected) president of another country makes yet another of his famous ill-thought accusations/comments, and we need to report it on wikipedia? It's not racism, simply and accusation, and a fairly insignificant one. How is it important? It's just an accusation. Find some real info to mention - or delete the article. The whole article is weak. --Merbabu 11:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is an accusation yes but remember, Wikipedia threshold of inclusion is verifiability, not truth, as stated in Wikipedia:Verifiability. Whatever our opinion of Lee Kuan Yew and BJ Habibie is irrelevant. Anyway, it created a huge furor in Singapore then. __earth ^(Talk) 11:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, in your opinion the threshold for wikipedia is if a President of a country said it and we can verify it? Are you kidding? Find something decent to put in the article - you are right, opinions of those those two are irrelevant. --Merbabu 11:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said our opinion of them (about poorly respected, etc), not their opinion. __earth ^(Talk) 12:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know - and I'm saying their opinions are irrelevant. You have not established how their opinions are relevant. Do you suggest we put into wikipedia their opinions on any topic, even if there opinions don't reflect reality? --Merbabu 12:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have established the relevancy. But if you are unconvinced, I've added more citation from the FEER and the IHT on the issue of loyalty and discrimination. __earth ^(Talk) 12:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no relevance. The opinion of a former leader does not make it relevant. It should thus be removed. --Merbabu 12:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, you say it's irrelevant, I say it's relevant. I've noticed this discussion has turned into a yes-no-yes-no format. Maybe a presence of a neutral third party detached from the Singaporean society could help to decide on it. __earth ^(Talk) 12:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that can be explained by me interpreting a higher threshold of relevancy than you do. --Merbabu 12:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You guess is not good enough. But I say it again, regardless, I found other reputable publication that does not refer to the two leaders that mentioned the same thing about loyalty. __earth ^(Talk) 12:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please find something important to report for an encyclopaedia. Not trivia. And please be civil. Don't make it into your "yes-no-yes-no format" --Merbabu 13:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete my comment. [1] I've reinstated the comment you removed. __earth ^(Talk) 13:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bug. If you don't want it to happen, then don't modify your comments 2 minutes later. But stick to the issue please. --Merbabu 13:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or a second time three mins later --Merbabu 13:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amusing. __earth ^(Talk) 13:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one that blank somebody else's comment here. But seriously, if you want to blank the whole article, might as well list it for WP:AFD. __earth ^(Talk) 13:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The blanking (on this talk page) was unintentional on my behalf, and probably a bug - but it could only happen because you added to your post (twice) after you made it. Please assume at least a little good faith. Why are you still talking about it? If you still have a problem with my blanking, report me to an administrator or make and WP:RFC - in the meantime drop it here (i suggest you delete the whole blanking charge). --Merbabu 13:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lets discuss rather than edit warring with hostile remarks

Earth and Sghan,

Could you please calm down and start to think rationally. I for one, hate to see “this article” existed in the first place, not to mention seeing people start to fight over it. I have to agree that information is meant to be shared but if the information (this article) can spark racial issues, it is better to be gone for the best of everyone. Chinese and Malay have gone through hard way to co-exist and to be frank, I am happy with how we have changed so far. We have begun to know how take care of each other’s feelings, unlike our older generations. Yes, we have more to improve but this is not the way to improve. This article has proven making it worst.

Throughout my adult life, I thought we have been more civilized than our older generations – you all know what I mean. I am a liberal man and I mingle around all races. I am a Malay-Malaysian, but my grandparents are from Singapore; my grand mother is a Chinese. I understand how both races feel when come to racial issues. So, can we just stop all this?

PS- I deleted the scholarship issue because it is now not an issue anymore (It was ONCE an issue). The government of Malaysia has changed not only University’s entry quota but the scholarship granting as well – It goes by merit, no longer races. Look at University Malaya for example; you can see that Chinese and Malay students are almost equal. I can give many more examples, but I think this is more than enough. Cheers, guys. - Jay 08:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jay, I haven't made any hostile remark to Sghan. And further, please don't see this through racial len. I'm only interested in recording though I admit, this is a controversial topic. As you may see, through my contribution list, I've helped in writing articles that describe discrimination the Malaysia government has done against the those not from the Malay ethnicity. I have no ill feeling against others and again I stress, I'm only interested in recording. Lastly, if something happened in the past, it shouldn't be removed but instead, framed in past tense. There is no Wikipedia policy that calls for a removal of something because it happened in the past. __earth ^(Talk) 08:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore's founder is Sir Stamford Raffles?

How can Singapore's founder be Sir Stamford Raffles? It clearly had been a fishing village and it had already been known as Singapura (Malay for Singapore) centuries before the British colonised Singapore. Parameswara gave the name Singapore and he should be acknowledged as the founder. The founder is a Malay, not British - the invaders and colonisers. --203.15.122.35 08:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calling him the 'so-called' founder (as you did) is not the way to solve that problem. Please find another way to say it.--Merbabu 08:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually Stamford Raffles is just a British colonial officer, but many articles including Singapore official site addresses him as a founder, refer Visit Singapore and many more. To me, he has never been a founder but Parameswara. Heh.. if he is the founder, I think I have failed my history exam! - Jay 08:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry my mistake, I got mixed up - it was Sang Nila Utama: according to the Malay Annals he is supposed to be the founder of Singapore (i.e. after replacing the name Temasek with Singapore or Singapura, as it is well-known in Malay). However, historians around the world considers Sir Stamford Raffles its founder because he found modern Singapore - where the influx of immigrants from China and India living side by side with local Malays form the modern society of Singapore. --203.15.122.35 01:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Had Raffles not founded Singapore, Singapore would most probably continue to be some lay back island with orang lauts fishing there. Raffles has always been regarded as the founded or Singapore. Bring your Malay Sentiment away from here and start editing with a username instead of hiding behind.Sghan 14:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, Singapore deserved to be independent, and it had proved to have developed into a more prosperous nation by the locals. If Stamford Raffles found Singapore, then why had there already been a fishing village with a temenggong (local Malay governor) in Singapore? It would be saying that the British had found Shanghai and Hong Kong but there were already local villagers with their own local government systems/administrators. --203.206.130.133 (talk) 08:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Convenient as it might be for some (and perhaps some in the Singapore government) to imply that a place occupied by "orang lauts" (sic) can be "founded" by someone "civilized", the reality is that most of the world's historians now DO NOT accept such imperialist definitions, in fact they find them outdated and offensive. We no longer say, for instance, the New Zealand was "discovered" by Abel Tasman or Captain Cook or whoever since it was occupied by Maori well before these Europeans were born. This is even more the case when the very name of the place - Singapore (Singapura) precedes the said European by many centuries. Of course, Raffles should be acknowledged for his role in establishing the modern city of Singapore, and I have changed the entry to reflect this, deleting the unfounded and unsupported claim that "historians around the world considers Sir Stamford Raffles its founder" The proof that Singapore existed long before Raffles is that the man himself negotiated with the Sultan of Johor to allow him to build a port there.

True. Just like Malaysia. Had the British not come, Malacca and Penang would be a separate country from the Federated Malay States and Non-Federated Malay States. And Sabah and Sarawak would be unheard off, maybe invaded by the Phillipines and Indonesia.219.95.150.152 13:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Useful Source on Anti-Malay Racism

This site might be useful: www.asianracism.blogspot.com it's called "Asian Racism" and whilst it is a blog and does contain personal commentary, it also contains numerous articles from main-stream media outlets throughout the world as well as peer-reviewed journal articles. It has some stuff on anti-malay racism in Singapore, might be worth a look to gather source material etc 211.30.161.222 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out of pure curiosity, have you EVER been to Singapore ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.155.111 (talk) 11:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lived there for 12 years, still have friends and family there. I think the blog just puts the ugly side of Singapore out there for all to see, racism being a big part of that countries make up - that said, no country is perfect - see all the articles on Malaysia on the same site? 210.23.146.66 (talk) 01:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I worked in Singapore for few years. For a European guy like me the racism displayed by Chinese towards others, especially the Malays was shocking. There is certainly something wrong. Maybe technologically Singapore is advanced, but socially it lagged far behind developed countries. Very similar to China by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.16.38 (talk) 07:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia section; Perhaps it's own article?

Should there be a seperate article covering Racism in Malaysia generally, considering that there's actually a considerable Pro-Malay racist sentiment within the country's political, legal and economic structures? This article obviously exists to cover the issue of Anti-Malay racism across several countries. Maybe the Malaysian section of this article should be merged with other articles pertaining to Racism in Malaysia (eg against ethnic Chinese or Indian Malaysians) to more comprehensively cover the issue as far as that country is concerned? Xlh (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is proper evidence I don't think this section should even exist.

I am deleting this part as it is inaccurate and seeks to distort facts.

First of all Malays are not indigenous ethnic group in Malaysia. They are the majority ethnic group however. The use of the word dominant group is debatable again, as it carries different connotations, does it mean economic dominance? power dominance? or other definitions?

Most Malays today are descendants of Austronesian groups of that land. People think because Malay Culture came from Indonesia that Malay People came from Indonesia aswell. This is a fallacy. The Srivijiyan Empire absorbed the Melayu Kingdom and spreaded it's culture and language through rule. The Austronesian groups that were already there, became assimilated with the Empire over time. Some of course didn't and remained as Orang Asli. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.224.180 (talk) 11:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is a well established fact that there is a May 13 incident. But what transpired within the events remains debatable. Even the the sources for this section are not properly cited, they are directly reproduced from the article on May 13 Incident without being cross referenced for acuracy.

As for the statement "It was caused mainly by Chinese who have been used to being insulted by the malays and took it as an opportunity to insult back." it is a fallacy of citing the Times (from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,901058-1,00.html) article out of context. In actual fact the article claims that ethnic minorities such as the Chinese and the Indians are targeted by mobs for attacks and the Chinese merchants and truckowners only retaliated by raising prices and denying trucking service to the Malays. Hence it is a fallacy to say that it was mainly caused by the Chinese, as they were the main victims as stated in the article.

The most preposterous thing about this section is to imply that there is anti-malay racism in the May 13 Incident. The Chinese and the Indians never wanted to discriminate the Malays prior to the conflict, they just wanted equal rights for all Malaysians. If anything, based on the times article the authorities appears to be turning a blind eye when the mobs are attacking the other ethnic groups. To say that the Malays are victims on descrimination in May 13 is just totally absurd when in actual fact the other ethnic groups are victimized by the Malays.Nimlith31 (talk) 08:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malay section

Is not encyclopediac and is unreferenced - although I have reverted a blanking of the section - it is also using unencyclopediac tone and style as well - it needs clean up to not be legitimately removed Satu Suro 11:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning this article up

This article's a mess. There are multiple uncited pieces of unsourced opinion riddled through it. As per the controversy tag and Wikipedia policy regarding uncited material being subject to removal, I'm going to go through this article and remove any and all conjectural or uncited material. If anyone objects to this, please discuss with me on my Talk page, or here - again bearing in mind, I'm simply upholding Wikipedia policy and doing so in good faith... please remember that before you flame me :P :) Xlh (talk) 04:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done... some stuff which was unsupported by any citation at all was removed from the all three sections, Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore. Removed several unverifiable and unreliable citations, checked others for legitimacy (Plenty of them are indeed legitimate), and had to re-write some text in the Malaysia section so which was not supported by the associated citation. If anyone has an issue with these reversions, please discuss with me so that we can get a better result for this article. Xlh (talk) 05:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting from "Racism in Malaysia"

I don't think redirecting "Racism in Malaysia" to this "Anti-Malay sentiment" is correct. Since this article mostly say about Anti-malay regime in places outside Malaysia like Thailand and Singapore. They are supposed to be separated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.77.156.194 (talk) 13:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it how Malays are being discriminated in this article under the "Malaysia section"? The statements made under the "Malaysia" section do not make clear indications about Malays being discriminated, rather it mentions a lot of about ethnic minorities, such as the ethnic Indians, being discriminated against. It is not relevant to "anti-Malay sentiment". Should we remove this section from this article then? --175.137.58.231 (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you're coming from, but that was all that was left after the aforementioned cleanup. If the cleanup wasn't enough to restore the state of the article, then as per some of the other opinions above, it's probably the case where it needs to be removed. Xlh (talk) 05:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malay people in Malaysia are still getting discriminated, even though they're the majority. The evidence is that the Malay people are discriminated in the job market where chinese employer barring non-chinese applicants by putting speaking Mandarin as a requirement in job advertisements. Also, the chinese-owned companies still prefers to hire their own kind, even if the malay people are more qualified. 3skandar (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion page about the editing of the article, not about the topic itself. You're free to edit in your claims, provided you back it up with citations from proper sources and follow with Wikipedia's guidelines (including on neutrality). Fazley01 (talk) 18:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Anti-Malay sentiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The need to edit the lead section, and Indonesia subsection

The claim that anti-Malay sentiment is "notable" in Singapore and Malaysia need to be cited from a reliable article or book that argues that it is in general. Highlighted incidents of recent attacks towards Malays that are mentioned in the section below are, in my opinion, quite sparse to be considered "notable". Unlike other subsections, which were written by the same editor, the Indonesia subsection does not have citations.

Doesn't help that the editor that added the subsections highlighting incidents in each country (User:3skandar), replied on a 10-year old topic in the talk page with a "Chinese are discriminating against Malays in the workplace" opinion without citation, which does not strike well for NPOV. The article needs to be checked thoroughly again. This article has potential to include deeper yet factual writing on the development of anti-Malay sentiment, without resorting to baseless (and bigoted) claims. Fazley01 (talk) 19:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]