在馬來新加坡人歷史的最後一部，我們會討論馬來人在獨立新加坡的社會地位。居於華人佔多數、與馬來半島和周邊島嶼切斷連繫的城市，他們終於開始感受到劣勢身份的效應。人類學家塔尼亞．李（Tania Li）認為，新加坡獨立後的最初幾年，一般馬來家庭的收入，其實高於一般華人家庭。許多人擁有良好的工作，擔任公務人員和軍警。獨立之後，這兩類職業召募的馬來人即大幅減少。今日的新加坡，馬來人仍然是經濟上最為劣勢的社群，也還是常常得承擔「懶惰」這種刻板印象。馬來語在新加坡的通用語地位則由英語取代，縱使官方繼續將新加坡定位為多種族國家，到了1990年代，李光耀已開始公開稱新加坡為「華人社會」，彷彿其他族群並不存在。
8. 新加坡憲法
《新加坡共和國憲法》於1965年8月9日生效，同一天，新加坡遭到馬來西亞聯邦除名。它含有源自《馬來西亞憲法》的元素，亦有源自《新加坡邦憲法》（在新加坡加入馬來西亞聯邦之時提出）的元素。這部憲法是具有法律約束力的文件，但也總是有詮釋空間。對馬來新加坡人來說，這部憲法有個段落格外重要：第152條。
「少數族群及馬來人的特殊地位」
1.政府應持續保障新加坡少數種族及宗教族群的利益。
2.政府在行使職權時，應承認馬來人作為新加坡原住民的特殊地位，依此，政府應保護、保障、扶助、培育和增進他們在政治、教育、宗教、經濟、社會和文化上的利益和馬來語。
第152條引發了至今尚未解決的辯論。新加坡在憲法上認定，馬來人是擁有「特殊地位」的「原住」族群，又以多種族平等為國家基本前提，兩者之間該如何調解？學者研究了新加坡政府如何以不同的方式處理第152條。莉莉．祖拜達．拉希姆（Lily Zubaidah Rahim）在《新加坡困境：馬來族群的政治與教育的邊緣性》（The Singapore Dilemma: The Political and Educational Marginality of the Malay Community）一書中寫道，新加坡政府曾採行極簡的、非干預性的做法，一度為馬來人提供免費的高等教育（但如今已經取消）。
另一方面，新加坡政府極為主動地推廣並建立「特選」（SAP）學校，這些學校致力於教導華人的語言、文化及歷史，而且幾乎所有學生皆為華人。與此相較，馬來人受到的待遇就是相對「極簡」的積極平權措施。特選學校原本都是以中文作為教學媒介，而在1980年代之初、英語成為新加坡學校的主要教學語言後，它們便轉型為「特殊學校」，以協助「保存」華人的語言和文化。新加坡亦有以馬來語為教學媒介的學校，然而，縱有第152條，這些學校並沒有獲得與特選學校同等的資源和地位。事實上，所有的馬來語學校皆已關閉。
劇作家及作家奧費安．薩安（Alfian Saat）認為，政府的特定政策和行動不符第152條的精神，包括在2000年將甘榜格南皇宮（Istana Kampung Gelam，原為蘇丹侯賽因後代的居所）充公、兩年後禁止馬來／穆斯林女性學生在公立學校佩戴頭巾，以及並未向伊斯蘭學校提供足夠資金等。這些作為皆無法「培育和增進」馬來社群「在教育、宗教……和文化上的利益」。
9. Mark III 步槍
這把鏽蝕步槍的使用者，是二戰時期馬來兵團的一位士兵。即使鏽蝕又嚴重損壞，它依然沉痛地訴說著馬來人在新加坡戰役之時，為這座島嶼作出的防衛貢獻。馬來兵團死守巴西班讓的英勇事蹟，大多數新加坡人都十分熟悉；當時，安南．本．賽迪（Adnan bin Saidi）少尉和勇猛的馬來士兵人數遠不及日軍，差距高達13比1，但仍然頑強抵抗至最後一刻。
縱使官方認可馬來人在二戰中的英勇和犧牲，現實卻是另一個模樣。新加坡武裝部隊的人力政策依舊極具爭議性：馬來族軍人仍然被排除在特定職務之外，在此同時，不符比例的馬來人也被派至警察和民防單位。前總理李光耀曾公開表示，讓「非常虔誠」而且「在馬來西亞有親戚」的馬來族軍官負責指揮機槍單位，是件「棘手的事」。這類說法讓人不禁質疑：新加坡華人多數族群心中的這種恐懼，是源於自身的圍困心態，認定使用馬來語的、穆斯林佔多數的國家「包圍」了自己，但為何付出代價的卻是一個少數族群？華人就不必面對這樣的質疑，即使許多華人同樣「在馬來西亞有親戚」。
在新加坡，服役是一項「國民」義務，能否被視作好公民，亦與服役有強大的關聯性。因此，這類政策削減了馬來人相較於其他種族群體的「新加坡性」。這支鏽蝕的步槍，象徵著那個已成往事的時期──直到1967年停止召募馬來人之前，馬來人曾是軍隊的重要組成份子。常有人認為，這是在公然侮辱馬來人的新加坡原住民族身分。
10. 全家福沙龍照
前往攝影工作室拍攝全家福照片，在馬來家庭之間十分普遍。這類照片常會裱框並掛上來客能看到的牆面，例如客廳等。它們是主動向外在世界展現理想化的家庭形象，方法包括在照片中呈現特定的地位象徵，例如身穿畢業袍的兒子或女兒（以全家福合照捕捉這個時刻，暗示著對學術成就的重視）。畢業服（一如許多當代的例證）亦暗示家庭的社會流動性；下一代把握了擁有成功職涯的機會，確保家庭能繼續保有良好的社經地位。西式商務服裝亦是馬來家庭拍攝全家福的熱門選擇，因為它含蓄地展現了成功的職涯，更重要的是，它有助體現現代化的、進步的人格特質。這類照片還有另一個值得關注之處：連結「現代性」的西式時尚，與反映深植傳統的馬來服飾之間的明顯區別。
尤索夫．依薩（Yusof Ishak）是新加坡獨立後的首任總統，而在這張全家福合照中，我們見到了擁有一定財富和社會地位的、典型的馬來族都會中產階級。照片中，僅有一位女性穿著「kebaya panjang」──20世紀後段之前，馬來群島各地女性相當喜愛這種寬鬆的長外衣。所有男性皆穿西裝打領帶，但也都戴著「songkok」；這種黑色的天鵝絨帽，源自鄂圖曼的「tarboosh」，相當受都會區馬來人的歡迎。在印尼，這種帽子稱作「peci」，亦具有政治上的象徵意義，蘇卡諾（Sukarno）等民族派人物，都是知名的穿戴者。照片中的其中一位女孩，身穿歐式短衫。這類影像精準捕捉了馬來人的世界主義特質。
不過，總體而言，這也有將女性描繪為傳統延續者的傾向。穿身商務西裝的男性則反映了他們的傳統角色，將公共生活和工作視為「男性」為主的事務。節慶時拍攝的全家福中，通常所有人都會穿上馬來服飾；在這類場合中，數個世代藉由依循共同的文化價值團結在一起。
全家福沙龍照如同一扇窗，讓我們得以一窺馬來家庭如何看待自身。自我呈現涉及有意識的決策，這些決策亦與階級、傳統和社會價值有關。
結語
那些輝煌和掙扎的時刻，標誌著新加坡馬來人的經驗。今日，他們依然得面對社經劣勢、種族歧視等議題。但從展現社會流動性的全家福照片，到鼓吹社會變革的19世紀書籍，我們必定能看出，馬來人同樣渴望能有尊嚴地活著。比較年輕的馬來人，則靠著韌性和天份，成功對抗那些過時的刻板印象。
一口氣捕捉整個族群的歷史絕非易事，然而，本系列文章的目標，是以深入細微之處、饒富意義的方式，介紹新加坡馬來人面臨的複雜議題。更重要的是，希望它能成為某種契機，驅使眾人進一步理解新加坡歷史的多元和多面向。
本文為雙語呈現，以下為英文原文：
History of Malay Singaporeans in 10 Objects Part 3: On the Margins in Independent Singapore
In this final instalment of A History of Malay Singaporeans, we discuss the status of Malays in independent Singaporean society. Living in a Chinese-majority city cut off from the Malay Peninsula and its surrounding islands, they eventually began to feel the effects of their disadvantaged position. Anthropologist Tania Li argued that in the early years after independence, average Malay household income was in fact higher than that of the Chinese. They were well employed as civil servants and members of the uniformed services. Recruitment of Malays into both professions significantly declined thereafter. Today, Malays remain the most economically disadvantaged community in the country, and they remain commonly stereotyped as ‘lazy’. The Malay language’s role as Singapore’s lingua franca was also replaced by English. Despite official rhetoric that continues to characterise Singapore as a multi-racial nation, by the 1990s, Lee Kuan Yew had already begun to openly call Singapore a “Chinese society”, as if its other communities did not exist.
8) The Singapore Constitution
The Constitution of the Republic of Singapore came into force on 9 August 1965, the day Singapore was expelled from the Federation of Malaysia. It is derived from elements of the Constitution of Malaysia as well as the Constitution of the State of Singapore (introduced when Singapore became a member of the Federation). The Constitution is a legally binding document but there is always plenty of room for interpretation. One section of the Constitution is particularly significant to Malay Singaporeans: Article 152.
‘Minorities and special position of Malays'
(1) It shall be the responsibility of the Government constantly to care for the interests of the racial and religious minorities in Singapore.
(2) The Government shall exercise its functions in such manner as to recognise the special position of the Malays, who are the indigenous people of Singapore, and accordingly it shall be the responsibility of the Government to protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote their political, educational, religious, economic, social and cultural interests and the Malay language.’
Article 152 has provoked debates that have not been resolved. How does Singapore reconcile its constitutional recognition of Malays as an ‘indigenous’ community with a ‘special position’, with its national postulate of multiracial equality? Scholars have studied how the Singapore state applies different approaches to engaging with Article 152. Scholar Lily Zubaidah Rahim, in her book The Singapore Dilemma: The Political and Educational Marginality of the Malay Community writes that the Singapore government has applied a minimalist, as opposed to an interventionist approach. The government used to (but no longer) provide free tertiary education for Malays.
Compared to the government’s aggressive promotion and establishment of ‘Special Assistance Plan’ (SAP) schools dedicated to the teaching of the Chinese language, culture and history and where almost all students are Chinese, this is a relatively ‘minimalist’ method of affirmative action. These SAP schools were originally Chinese-medium schools that were converted into ‘special schools’ to help ‘preserve’ Chinese language and culture after English was adopted as the main language of instruction in Singapore schools from the beginning of the 1980s onward. There were also Malay-medium schools but despite Article 152, these schools were not given the same resources and status as SAP schools. In fact, all Malay-medium schools have been shut down.
Playwright and writer, Alfian Saat, argues that specific policies and actions pursued by the government fail to live up to the spirit of Article 152. These include the seizure of the Istana Kampung Gelam, the former residence of descendants of Sultan Hussein in 2000, the ban against the wearing of headscarves by Malay/Muslim female students in public schools two years later as well as the inadequate funding allotted to Islamic schools. None of these live up to “foster[ing] and promot[ing]” the “educational, religious […] and cultural interests” of the Malay community.
9) Mark III Rifle
This corroded rifle was used during the Second World War by a soldier of the Malay Regiment. Although rusty and worn, it is a poignant reminder of Malays’ contributions to the island’s defence during the Battle of Singapore. The heroic last stand of the Malay Regiment at Pasir Panjang is particularly familiar to most Singaporeans, where Lieutenant Adnan and his plucky band of Malay soldiers were outnumbered by the Japanese thirteen to one, yet mounted a formidable resistance. Despite our formal recognition of Malay heroism and military sacrifice in war, the reality paints a different picture. The Singapore Armed Forces’ manpower policies are still deeply controversial: Malay servicemen are still barred from particular vocations, while at the same time, Malays are disproportionately assigned to the police force and civil defence. Former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew once openly said that it is “tricky business” putting a Malay officer who is “very religious” and “has family ties in Malaysia” in charge of a machine gun unit. These notions open up questions about how an ethnic minority group has to pay the price for the majority’s perceptions of danger, arising from the siege mentality of being a Chinese-majority population ‘surrounded’ by Malay-speaking, Muslim-majority countries. No such suspicions are harboured against the Chinese, many of whom have “family ties in Malaysia” as well.
In Singapore, good citizenship is strongly associated with participation in the military, as seen in how membership in it is a ‘national’ duty. Such policies therefore diminish the Malays’ ‘Singaporeanness’ compared to the other ethnic groups. The corroded rifle symbolically reflects a bygone period when Malays used to make up a significant proportion of the armed services, until recruitment of Malays was halted in 1967. This is frequently seen as an affront to their position as the country’s indigenous people.
10) Family Studio Portraits
For rights reasons, we have provided a link to a webpage featuring examples of family studio portraits, rather than reproduce them here:
Family portraits shot in a studio are a common feature of Malay households. Usually found framed on a wall where it will likely be visible to guests, such as in the living room, they are a deliberate exercise in displaying an ideal image of the family to the outside world. This is done through the inclusion of specific status symbols, such as a son or daughter in graduation robes — signalling the importance placed on academic achievement, which occasioned the moment to be captured. Graduation robes – as in some of the examples on the webpage – also signal the family’s social mobility, as the succeeding generation secures its chances for a successful career and guarantees the continuation of the family’s comfortable socio-economic position. Western business attire is also a popular choice amongst Malay families taking studio portraits, as it carries connotations of success in one’s career, and more significantly, helps project a modern, progressive character. The distinction between Western fashion with its ‘modern’ associations and Malay garments which suggest rootedness to tradition is interesting to note when observing these portraits.
In the first portrait appearing on the webpage, all three women wear the headscarf, with the family matriarch donning a full baju kurung (a loose tunic which forms part of the traditional Malay attire). There seems to be a tendency, to portray women as bearers of tradition, whereas the men in their business suits suggests a throwback to traditional roles which dictated entering public life and going to work as predominantly male endeavours. Often, however, as in other examples, the entire family may be clothed in Malay garb, in apparent celebration of the virtues of traditional domesticity. In these cases, it appears as if multiple generations are captured, unified through adherence to a shared set of cultural values.
Family portraits are an interesting window into the way Malay families perceive themselves. The art of self-representation involves conscious decisions, and these cut right across questions of class, tradition and religious adherence.
Conclusion
The Singaporean Malay experience is characterised by moments of triumph and struggle. Confronting issues like socio-economic backwardness, discrimination and erasure, the community finds itself jaded and disempowered. But from family portraits displaying social mobility to a 19th century book urging social change, one finds in the Malays, too, aspirations to exist with dignity.
It is never easy to capture the history of a people in a single sitting. However, this undertaking aims to provide a meaningful introduction to Malays beyond common stereotypes. More importantly, it hopes to inspire greater understanding of how truly diverse and multifaceted Singapore’s history is.
分享圖文請註明出處，未經本站同意不得轉載
瀏覽次數：3287
