Talk:Anti-Malay sentiment

message: 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)
thread_title:  Jugdment versus prejudice 

message: Merbabu, why did you remove the edition to the S'pore section? __earth (Talk) 10:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: allegation of discrimination, as stated by BJ Habibie, former president of Indonesia. It's cited. __earth (Talk) 11:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I said our opinion of them (about poorly respected, etc), not their opinion. __earth (Talk) 12:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I guess that can be explained by me interpreting a higher threshold of relevancy than you do. --Merbabu 12:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Please don't delete my comment.  I've reinstated the comment you removed. __earth (Talk) 13:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: Or a second time three mins later --Merbabu 13:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Amusing. __earth (Talk) 13:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Removal

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Lets discuss rather than edit warring with hostile remarks 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Singapore's founder is Sir Stamford Raffles?

message: 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)
thread_title: Useful Source on Anti-Malay Racism

message: 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)
thread_title: Malaysia section; Perhaps it's own article?

message: 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 SatuSuro 11:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Malay section

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Cleaning this article up

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Redirecting from "Racism in Malaysia" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926003749/http://www.iran-daily.com/1383/2125/pdf/i9.pdf to http://www.iran-daily.com/1383/2125/pdf/i9.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070703083041/http://econtent.elibraryhub.com/SHC/NLBHB/SS/SingaporeStory/Spore_River.pdf to http://econtent.elibraryhub.com/SHC/NLBHB/SS/SingaporeStory/Spore_River.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070813214751/http://www.isim.nl/files/Review_18/Review_18-42.pdf to http://www.isim.nl/files/Review_18/Review_18-42.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The need to edit the lead section, and Indonesia subsection