BRYAN CHANG
Second Year NUS Law

Upon my first reading, I, as a proponent of positive discrimination, believed the author failed to distinguish her examples between positive and negative discrimination in what was otherwise an excellent article. However, my initial views have been tempered, or even completely changed by recent developments in Malaysia.

It is the first example stated in the article to which I would like to draw attention. Art. 152 of the Constitution enshrines the special status of the Malay population. In the modern context of Singapore, there is ample reason to adopt policies and laws in favour of a struggling minority. On the two most important fronts, economic and educational, Singaporean Malays have been proportionally under-represented and this issue was highlighted in the 2007 National Day Rally.

However, art. 152 enshrines the special status of Malays only, and not of all minorities. It is a remnant of historical necessity and as mentioned by the author: ‘outdated’. Racial discrimination, whether positive or negative, is bound to create tension and one look across the border would show you a clear failure of racial policies. In Malaysia, positive discrimination has been so firmly entrenched that it has fostered dependence and abuse, and as such failed in its initially virtuous aims. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with positive discriminatory laws. However, the main problem as witnessed in Malaysia is the inability to have open mature discussion of racial issues without the discussion descending into a case of “us against them”. Any mention of the relaxation of Malay privileges has only ended in heated words and inaction.

This article is a clear sign that Singapore is heading forwards, and hopefully a precedent and model for a region still torn by inter-racial strife.