More immigration but divided on integration

oxford mushroom SG

"Four out of five youngsters believe people should be able to live in any country they choose, a BBC global survey of 15 to 17-year-olds suggests.
Two-thirds also say that they would emigrate to secure a better future, and one in seven said they would risk their life to reach another country.

The results come from a survey of 3,000 teenagers in 10 cities as part of the BBC's Generation Next series.....

But the sample was split about whether those who wanted to move to a new country should keep apart to maintain their own beliefs and culture - with 38% saying they should and 49% calling for immigrants to integrate and adopt the culture of their new country.

In New York, 61% thought immigrants should integrate, with only 11% saying they should keep apart. In Delhi, the figures were just 11% for integration and 81% for keeping apart....."

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/6205378.stm)

shinta SG

how come nobody asked me?

Sad Sad Sad

laurence82 SG

Its not a local survey

Laughing

shinta SG

why they no come sg and ask me?

Sad Sad Sad

ditzy SG

You're just another cockroach like the rest of us, now shuddup and stop using your office's internet connection. Laughing

boy in blues SG

Discriminatory laws against Indonesian ethnic minorities are laws, directives, or constitutions enacted by the government of Indonesia.
Examples
PP 10/1959, which forced Chinese Indonesian to close their businesses by 1 January 1960 and relocate in urban areas.
Presidium Directive 127/U/Kep/12/1966 that explicitly requires Chinese Indonesian to adopt Indonesian-sounding names.
Cabinet Presidium Instruction No. 37/U/IN/6/1967, which prohibits further residency or work permits to new Chinese immigrants, their wives, or children; freezing any capital raised by "foreigners" in Indonesia; closure of "foreign" schools except for diplomatic corps and their families; the number of Indonesian students must be the majority and in proportion to "foreigners" in any state schools; and that implementation of the "Chinese issue" will henceforth be the responsibility of the minister for political affairs.
Presidential Instruction No. 14/1967 (Inpres No. 14/1967) on Chinese Religion, Beliefs, and Traditions, which effectively ban any Chinese literatures and cultures in Indonesia, including the prohibition of Chinese characters. Although Chinese names are not explicitly mentioned, "newly naturalized" Indonesian Chinese were strongly advised to do so. (Annulled by former president Abdurrahman Wahid in Keppres No. 6/2000; annulment supported by former president Megawati Soekarnoputri in Keppres No 19/2002 by declaring Chinese New Year as national holiday)
Resolution of the Provisional People's Consultative Assembly no. 32, 1966 (TAP MPRS No. 32/1966) expressly bans the use of Chinese characters in public.
Presidium Directive No. 240/1967 (Inpres No. 240/1967) which mandates assimilation of "foreigners" and support the previous directive of 127/U/Kep/12/1966 for Indonesian Chinese to adopt Indonesian-sounding names.
Home Affairs Ministry No. 455.2-360/1988 on Regulation of Temples, which effectively and severely restrict building or repairing Chinese temples.
Circular of the Director General for Press and Graphics Guidance in the Ministry of Information No.02/SE/Ditjen-PPGK/1988, which further restrict the usage of Chinese language and/or characters.
Instruction of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. X01/1977 on Implementing Instructions for Population Registration and the confidential instructions No.3.462/1.755.6 of the Jakarta government January 28, 1980 both authorize special codes in national identification cards to indicate ethnic Chinese origin. The code was "A01" prefix.
Cabinet Presidium Circular SE-06/Pres-Kab/6/1967 on Changing the Term China and Chinese, requires the usage of the term "Cina" (which is considered a derogatory term by many Chinese Indonesians) instead of "Tionghoa" (as ethnic Chinese refer to themselves).

boy in blues SG

As for malaysia, Article 10 (4) of the Constitution permits Parliament to make it illegal to question, among others, Article 153 of the Constitution. Under the Sedition Act, questioning Article 153 is indeed illegal even for Members of Parliament, who usually have the freedom to discuss anything without fear of external censure. The government can also arbitrarily detain anyone it desires theoretically for sixty days, but in reality for an undetermined length of time, under the Internal Security Act (ISA). In 1987 under Operation Lalang (literally "weeding operation"), several leaders of the DAP, including Lim Kit Siang and Karpal Singh, were held under the ISA. It is widely believed this was due to their calling for the NEP and other Malay privileges to be reviewed. Others have questioned the constitutionality of the NEP.

In 2005, the issue of the Constitution and its provisions were also brought up by several politicians within the government itself. Lim Keng Yaik of the Gerakan party, which by now had joined Barisan Nasional, the ruling coalition, asked for a re-examination of the social contract so that a Bangsa Malaysia (literally Malay for a Malaysian race or Malaysian nation) could be achieved. The social contract is a term used to describe the Constitution's provisions with regard to the different races' privileges those who defend it and Article 153 often define the social contract as providing the Indians and Chinese with citizenship in exchange for the Malays' special rights or ketuanan Melayu.

Lim was severely criticised by many Malay politicians, including Khairy Jamaluddin, the Prime Minister's son-in-law and Deputy Chairman of the UMNO Youth wing, and Ahmad Shabery Cheek, a prominent Malay Member of Parliament from the state of Terengganu. The Malay press, most of which is owned by UMNO, also ran articles condemning the questioning of the social contract. [45] Lim was adamant, asking in an interview "How do you expect non-Malays to pour their hearts and souls into the country, and to one day die for it if you keep harping on this? Flag-waving and singing the 'Negaraku' (the national anthem) are rituals, while true love for the nation lies in the heart."

A year earlier, Abdullah had given a speech where he mentioned the most "significant aspect" of the social contract as "the agreement by the indigenous peoples to grant citizenship to the immigrant Chinese and Indians". Although Abdullah went on to state that the character of the nation changed to "one that Chinese and Indian citizens could also call their own," [46] the speech went largely unremarked.

In the end, Lim stated that the Malay press had blown his comments out of proportion and misquoted him. The issue ended with UMNO Youth chief Hishamuddin Hussein warning people not to "bring up the issue again as it has been agreed upon, appreciated, understood and endorsed by the Constitution."

It should be noted that the social contract is not always used with regard to the provisions regarding rights and privileges of the different races; in the 2004 general election, the DAP ran on a platform of defending the social contract in the context of an Islamic theocracy, which they alleged was forbidden by the Constitution, but was endorsed by Mahathir, Lim Keng Yaik and by PAS, the second-largest Malay-based political party in the country.